Editor, Ceres Courier,
Thank you for your previous column, “If all protestors of dams had their way, we’d starve to death” published in your March 5 edition.
The topics about the discovery of the Native American Yokuts pathway just west of Patterson, Patterson’s plans for a future regional nature park within Del Puerto Canyon’s historic Gateway rocks, sustainable farming practices and civic involvement in local government are important issues that I’m glad you didn’t allow to fade away from the public comment period of the Feb. 25 board of supervisors meeting where I spoke before a packed chambers.
But it wasn’t just I who spoke before the supervisors that day. Those who spoke included Elaine Gorman, Mallinali Cali, and Sevy Toscano among others, with many more in the audience showing support for protecting Del Puerto Canyon’s historic Gateway. This can be achieved by allowing Patterson to move forward with their original vision for a world class regional park there.
Milt Trieweiler, a Stanislaus County resident, also spoke during that public comment period and highlighted some very interesting logic. Though the proposed Del Puerto Canyon Reservoir would hold at capacity about 80,000 acre-feet of water, only 60,000 acre-feet can be drawn down from the reservoir in a year due to a 20,000 acre-foot dead space that would sit below the draw level of the reservoir.
At a $1.2 billion price tag for only 60,000 acre-feet of usable aboveground storage, the California taxpayers deserve more bang for their buck, wouldn’t you say?
You see I’m not against farming, as my family has farmed up and down this state including in the Central Valley’s Westside for generations.
I sat on the 2012 Patterson General Plan Advisory Committee and suggested trying to curb sprawl while preserving some of our historic prime ag land by creating a green belt around the city. It was not supported as the rural Patterson farmers/developers are surprisingly not in support of preserving their farmland here.
But I’m also not against irrigation districts or their efforts either as the Patterson Irrigation District’s historic lift irrigation system has been in place for over 100 years and their pre-1910 water rights to the San Joaquin River ensure that aside from rotational fallowing — that our prime A1 ag land will never cease to produce, as long as the farmers don’t allow development.
And I’m not against water storage for it has, and will continue to play, a crucial part of our state’s future, especially subsurface storage and direct aquifer recharge.
But I am for logic.
More of this logic was explained by Trieweiler to the supervisors including the fact that even if we had the available aboveground storage space, we wouldn’t even be able to fill that. So why would we need to dam Del Puerto Canyon for 60,000 acre-feet of water?
As of the writing of this column the San Luis Reservoir, the state’s largest off stream reservoir which is primarily filled by pumping water into it from the Delta Mendota Canal, sits at 1.725 million acre-feet of its 2.041 million acre-foot capacity (average yearly storage is 1.689 million acre-feet). That puts us at 352,000 acre-feet of currently available aboveground storage within the region.
But let’s not stop there.
Recently the Bureau of Reclamation approved the B.F. Sisk Dam Raise and Reservoir Expansion Project at the San Luis Reservoir that would raise the existing dam by 10 feet and provide an additional 130,000 acre-feet of storage bringing us to 482,000 acre-feet of available and approved aboveground water storage in the region.
The Del Puerto Water District (DPWD) and the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority (SJRECWA), who have teamed up to back the proposed Del Puerto Canyon dam and reservoir (Project Partners), both stand to benefit from the additional storage at San Luis and will receive additional water allocations from the reservoir as a result. So why do they need to continue to pursue the costly and less fortuitous Del Puerto project?
But let’s go another step further.
In the early 1990s the sister reservoir to the San Luis Reservoir — the Los Banos Grandes Reservoir — received approvals that would add an additional 1.73 million acre-feet of water to the Central Valley Project. That project has reportedly stalled due to lack of funding, but regardless, approvals are in place there which brings us to 2,212,000 acre-feet of available and approved aboveground water storage directly within the project partners’ districts and planning area, nearly 40 times the amount that Del Puerto could produce yearly.
Why was the Los Banos Grandes Reservoir purposely left out of the scoping data by the Project Partners, or identified as an alternate location to the Del Puerto Canyon project during the EIR process?
There’s no reason to dam every canyon in the state, but if politicians had their way that is exactly what would happen unless people exercise their civic duty to their government, and participate at meetings and at the ballot box.
“We should be doing these all the way down the Valley in the hills. It just checks all the boxes,” District 3 Supervisor Terry Withrow said to the Project Partners during the Feb. 4 Board of Supervisors meeting. “Why would we not want to do this and why would we not want to continue to build these up and down the Valley and solve a bunch of problems?”
If we dammed every canyon in the state, there would be no water left in the rivers and then we’d have a whole new set of problems.
And how about, we fill the available 2.21 million acre-feet of available and approved dam storage in our area before trying to make more?
The Save Del Puerto Canyon group met with Congressman Josh Harder back when he represented our district, and he too suggested building more dams in the hills yet failed to grasp the need to preserve land important to us on the west side.
The west side has been home to the state’s only trash incinerating plant, Covanta Waste to Energy; is the dump location for all of Stanislaus County at Fink Road Landfill in Crows Landing; is where the Bay Area dumps their green waste in Vernalis; and was home to the nation’s largest tire pile located in a canyon above Westley that produced a toxic fire that burned for 27 days in 1999. The last thing that the Patterson community wants is to lose their beloved canyon and have it replaced with a series of dams and a reservoir that would provide no recreational access.
I’m glad you brought up Don Pedro, McClure and New Melones which all have great recreational opportunities, yet when DPWD was asked about recreational opportunities at Del Puerto, they said that they aren’t required to provide it. That definitely unchecks a box right there.
You see Mr. Benziger, Westside communities have experienced environmental and political hardships for generations that have affected our quality of life. So when the city of Patterson decided to expand its boundaries to encompass the historic Gateway of Del Puerto Canyon during the 2012 General Plan Advisory Committee talks, it made sure that this area would be preserved for a future regional nature park that could be enjoyed by all and would honor our unique heritage and history which dates back to the Spanish from the first De Anza overland expedition who first gave Del Puerto Canyon its modern name, to Joaquin Murrieta whose men stashed wild mustangs in Del Puerto, to the modern day apricot farmers.
In your column it is clear to me that you are not aware of our unique history on the west side, or even clear about what Del Puerto Canyon even is for many of us.
Which brings me to another point. As an editor from an underserved county that suffers from lack of community engagement, why do you encourage such divisiveness in your column? While you have the freedom to say what you like, and you might think it would be detrimental to those wanting to become involved, it really is just a revelation that your allegiance lies with the agribusiness oligarchs in charge in this county who think they can do no wrong and shouldn’t be checked or balanced.
As the editor of the daily newspaper of note in Nevada County — The Union — I would never put out an editorial criticizing any group that wanted to be involved or make their voices heard at a meeting, that’s their civic duty and should be encouraged, whatever side of the political spectrum you sit on.
You and your readers can learn more about Del Puerto Canyon and some of the issues there from the short YouTube video: “Guide to the mysterious Del Puerto Canyon, a National Treasure in peril.”
Elias Funez,
Patterson
LETTERS POLICY: Letters will be considered for publication but must be signed and include an address and phone number. Letters should be 250 words or less and be void of libel. Send to The Ceres Courier, 138 S. Center Street, Turlock CA 95380 or emailed to jeffb@cerescourier.com.
