Dennis Diemer, general manager of East Bay Municipal Utility District, told Amador County supervisors April 24 that EBMUD would not flood an extra stretch of the Mokelumne River without local support. Three days later, supervisors voted to withhold support. Photo by: Roger Phelps

Rising from doormat to dictator in a few short days, Amador County has vetoed a current proposal for a Pardee Dam project that would have flooded an extra two miles of the Mokelumne River canyon.

Unexpectedly, East Bay Municipal Utility District officials April 24 granted Amador County effective veto power over the proposal, which is included in EBMUD's long-term water plan.

John Coleman, vice president of the agency's governing board, told supervisors, "EBMUD has no intention of proceeding independently. It will only be done in partnership with Amador."

County supervisors Tuesday rejected partnering in the project. They even followed a suggestion by Sutter Creek resident Brian Jobson to "get that in writing" - by requesting that EBMUD incorporate the commitment into environmental documentation.

A supervisors' letter to be mailed May 4 to EBMUD states, "We believe construction of additional reservoir storage capacity at Pardee Reservoir is unnecessary. We would oppose enlargement of Pardee Reservoir as currently proposed or construction of any new reservoir with similar negative effects."

When details surfaced two months ago on a long-term water plan for EBMUD including a new, taller Pardee Dam, protests broke out in Amador and Calaveras counties. Some 350 people jammed a pair of meeting halls where EBMUD officials spoke.

But technically, EBMUD did not need to concede a veto power.

During a break in the session April 24, agency director of water and natural resources Alex Coate said, "Theoretically, we could proceed without support, but in California these days, we won't make it. Even with federal funds, it would be impractical (without local support). You'd get sued. In terms of David and Goliath, David's got a lot more power these days."

Supervisors quizzed the Bay Area water officials on the basis for a projected need to flood more of the Mokelumne, on a stretch that has been declared suitable for federal protection from damming under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

EBMUD general manager Dennis Diemer said the basis is data compiled from East Bay cities' general-plan growth projections.

District 1 Supervisor John Plasse said, "The way things are going in California, it's hard to project that high a growth rate."

A prevailing opinion emerging in the county is that EBMUD directors caved in to political anxiety when they voted 6-1 recently to exclude from water-supply alternatives a new agency reservoir to flood Buckhorn Canyon in Alameda County. The canyon is home to wild species listed for federal protection.

"Your own ratepayers rejected a dam to increase storage - in Buckhorn Canyon," District 2 Supervisor Richard Forster said.

Coleman said he was the sole dissenting vote on the water-district board. He said his fellow directors fairly could be said to lack "political backbone" on the Buckhorn alternative.

Pete Bell, vice president of the Foothill Conservancy non-profit, said, "I drove to Oakland for that meeting. Buckhorn was too controversial. Pardee - that's up in the hills. Rather than make the politically difficult decision - 'ration our customers at 15 percent' - they voted to make customers like them, and said, 'People in the hills don't count. They can't vote (in EBMUD board elections).'"

Katherine Evatt, conservancy president, said, "If EBMUD had put the foothills on a citizens' advisory board, this all would have come out two years ago. Their Freeport project (on the Sacramento River) was supposed to take care of dry year needs. EBMUD is an insatiable beast. And, you can't mitigate loss of a river - they're just not making them any more."