Water Quality Plan for Delta ‘Tainted,’ Lawsuit Claims

While the State Water Resources Control Board was devising a water quality plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, one of its members was secretly transmitting internal documents to water contractors who could be affected by the outcome, environmental groups have charged.

In a lawsuit filed on behalf of 17 organizations, the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund charged that the board not only violated environmental laws in adopting the controversial plan but also allowed it to be “tainted” by the actions of former member Darlene Ruiz.

The suit said that in the fall of 1990, Ruiz slipped secret drafts of the plan to the contractors for “comment and revision,” without the knowledge of environmental groups or other interested parties and in violation of board procedures.

As a result, the plaintiffs said a Sacramento Superior Court should throw out the plan adopted May 1 to establish standards for temperature, salt levels and oxygen in the environmentally sensitive delta and order the board to conduct new hearings.

Although the lawsuit did not name the water contractors who received copies of the plan, Ruiz acknowledged in an interview that she had distributed drafts to a number of groups, including the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

“You’d think they’ve been reading too many spy novels,” she said. “This is a quasi-legislative proceeding. In setting water quality standards you get your information as a decision-maker anyplace you can.”

Ruiz, an appointee of former Gov. George Deukmejian who left the board in December after a seven-year tenure, said drafts of the plan were widely distributed by herself and other board members to get reactions from various people.

“Did (the plaintiffs in the lawsuit) also mention the private meetings we had with environmentalists and agricultural interests on this?” she asked. “I’m curious to hear I have the ability to continue to taint the board’s actions since I left in December. That’s quite some influence.”

Greg Wilkinson, a Riverside attorney who represented state water contractors during the board’s proceedings, said he believed the Sierra Club had “misconstrued” the laws under which the board acted. He said court decisions had determined that adopting a water quality plan was a quasi-legislative action, which meant board members could informally seek comment from a variety of sources.

Steve Volker, the attorney who filed the lawsuit for the Sierra Club late Friday, was unavailable for comment Monday. His office said he would hold a press conference this week.

Establishing water quality standards for the delta is part of a lengthy process undertaken by the State Water Resources Control Board to comply with a 1986 court order. The order requires the board to protect all “beneficial uses” of the delta, including providing for the needs of fish and wildlife, and agricultural, urban and industrial interests.

From the outset, environmentalists have argued that the most important element of that directive is the establishment of flows in the delta--how much water should be kept flowing through the maze of channels and islands to protect the delta ecosystem and maintain water quality. If the outward flow of freshwater becomes too low, seawater backs up into the delta from San Francisco Bay.

For the water contractors, the establishment of flows has been a ticklish issue because any decision to require higher flows would reduce the amount of water that could be shipped south by the State Water Project or the federal Central Valley Project to urban areas and agricultural interests.

In their lawsuit, the environmentalists said the state board had violated federal and state laws by determining that water quality standards would be adopted first, and deciding to put the flow issue off until 1992.

“Notwithstanding its constitutional . . . authority to modify water storage and curtail water exports to enhance flows needed by the flora and fauna of the estuary, the state board gave only perfunctory consideration to the alternative of increasing flows to protect the delta’s . . . beneficial uses,” the lawsuit said.

The suit also charged the board with violating the Endangered Species Act by failing to assess the “potential adverse impacts” of the plan on species the state has listed as endangered.

Fran Vitulli, a spokesman for the board, said attorneys for the panel had reviewed state law before the water quality standards were adopted.

“The board felt justified that because we were preparing a salinity and temperature document, flows fell outside the consideration of this type of a plan,” she said.