The Legislature appears headed for an imminent decision on the Bay Delta Conservation Plan and a peripheral canal or tunnel to bring water to Southern California and improve the reliability of the state's water supply system.

Whatever the Legislature decides to do with this plan, there are multiple local impacts for the city of Sacramento and the region that are unresolved and need to be addressed.

As a Sacramento City Council member, my first concern is the two potential sites for new water diversion facilities in Yolo County immediately across the river from my district, the Pocket area. Our community has the new Freeport Regional Water Authority diversion facility, which will send water to the East Bay Municipal Utility District in the Bay Area and to Sacramento County, so we've already paid our dues for a reliable state water supply system. Two more diversion facilities, each with a capacity 10 times greater than the Freeport plant and directly across from an established urban community where more than 30,000 residents have built their homes and families, is not equitable. It's a disproportionate impact on one community.

The proposed water diversion facilities would alter the Sacramento River Parkway, which is a treasured natural resource. The city recognized the unique character of this resource when it approved the Sacramento River Parkway Plan, the Sacramento River Greenway Plan and other master planning processes. We just completed updating our general plan and one of the messages from that process was that as we move forward as an urban community, residents have increased appreciation for the rivers as an open space resource.

As the state capital, Sacramento is moving to enhance and embrace its riverfront. Many residents who live in other parts of the city use the parkway for recreational purposes and to enjoy the natural habitat. Not only the industrial-scale water-diversion facilities themselves but the 500-kilovolt power lines stretching from facility to facility would have an irrevocable visual impact on this river shed.

The Bay Delta plan appears to rest on the concept of the beneficiaries of the water paying for the conveyance infrastructure, which makes sense if true. The plan needs five diversion sites and is considering something like 15 potential sites (from Walnut Grove upstream to the Pocket), of which two are across from the Pocket area. If the beneficiaries are paying for the canal or tunnel, logic dictates that the shortest canal or tunnel possible, with diversions as far south as possible, would make the least expensive yet still functionally adequate canal or tunnel.

Some potential sites have the added virtue of remoteness from population. Why pay more to add extra miles to the canal or tunnel for the same water?

Besides the local impacts and the additional cost of a longer canal or tunnel, there are citywide concerns my colleagues on the council share, chief among them the uncertainty of what this plan will do to the future reliability of the city's water supply under the city's existing water rights. The city of Sacramento's water rights date to 1914 and are strong, as you would expect of a city located at the junction of two of California's premier rivers. A shake-up in the statewide water supply regulations, as is contemplated with the Bay Delta plan, must ensure that this water supply is maintained and protected.

Any new costs, direct or indirect, that might result for local water users in this region should be borne by the Bay Delta plan beneficiaries in a manner similar to the conveyance costs. Otherwise, city of Sacramento ratepayers might be left with higher water rates for a project that they don't need and does not benefit them one drop!

The public outreach and participation for the Bay Delta plan was not at the level desired by the citizens of my council district, also represented by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg. I was able to organize one community meeting and invite state representatives to speak to our residents. Perhaps the proponents feel the pressure of some unknown clock ticking. I'm confident I speak for my community when I say that we seek increased public outreach as details of this plan emerge.

As the Legislature takes up this issue in the closing days of the session, please join me in urging the legislators to locate these industrial scale diversion facilities where they affect the least number of people, address these potential serious local impacts and improve the public outreach to our citizens in Northern California.

Robbie Waters is a Sacramento city councilman.