HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOS - Reservation about Sites reservoir e-mail 22n2)LSweene Kath
,2!! ,n!IaI2ee2n
From: Gosselin, Paul
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 4:35 PM
Cc: BCWater
Subject: FW- letter re Sites
Attachments: Some reservations about Sites reservoir.docx
Board of Supervisors and Water Commissioners
I was asked to forward this email to you.
Pbu[Gossel"74 Mractor
Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation
308 Nelson Avenue
Orovrill e,CA 9973,
Office: (530)538-3804
Call. (530)574-7443
From- barbhnign@aol.com (mailto:barbhnig�n@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 4:09 PM
To: Gosselin, Paul <PGosselin@buttecounty.net>; maureenkirk@buttecounty.net
Subject: letter re Sites
Paul,
Please send my comments to the Water Commission and to the
Supervisors before the Water Commission meeting
Thank you
Barbara Hennigan
October 1, 2015
To the Butte County Water Commission and Butte County Supervisors,
I have some reservations about Sites Reservoir and questions that do not appear to have been answered.
1) Since California's surface waters are over-allocated by a factor of five, exactly whose water would be
pumped into Sites. The general answer has been that this would be"extra" water during high flood
flows from unallocated/seasonal streams that head "below the rim",that is,the 500 foot contour.
However,whenever high flows resulting from heavy rain events occur,coastal newspapers on the
DWR listserve have stories warning about swimming in the ocean before pollutants washed off the
land have dissipated. These are the same type of rain events that wash off our valley floor, below the
500 foot contour,where agriculture occurs and most of the people reside.
In 50 years of studying the feasibility of Sites reservoir, has no one has ever looked at the pollution
load of the Sacramento River during flood flows?
2) In answering a question about evaporation at the 9/22/15 public meeting held in Chico,Thad Bettner
asserted the natural stream flow into the reservoir"about equaled" the evaporation and that there
were two creeks contributing to this flow. A map on the JPA website states that the "Average Annual
Reservoir Evaporation would be 40,000 acre feet. However,on that same map the "Average Annual
Natural Reservoir Inflow is 15,000 acre feet." [http://www.sitesjpa.net/images/nodos_mapfact.jpgl
Stone Corral Creek near Sites is estimated by the USGS to have 4,130 acre feet annual discharge at
the 500 foot contour line. Sites reservoir is approximately at the 500' contour line. Other creeks, like
Funks Creek to the north are not listed on the USGS atlas perhaps because they originate below the
500 foot contour. [Nagy, Paul and Larragueta, lori L. "Estimated Average Annual Streamflow into the
Central Valley of California, USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas, 1983]
The USGS stream discharge number is only 1/3 the 'average annual natural reservoir inflow' claimed
on the JPA site and less than 1/10` the evaporation. This calculates to a 35,000 ac/ft. shortfall that, if
it actually existed,would be the fifth largest feeder stream on the west side of the Sacramento River.
With whose water will this projected 35,000 ac/ft. shortfall be filled?
3) The geology of the west side of Sacramento Valley is the same geologic formation that leached out
toxic drainage in the San Joaquin Valley. There is a reason small mining communities in the foothills
had names like Chrome and Cinnabar.
In 50 years, has no one studied the geology of the formations that will be holding this water?
4) It does appear that the JPA may be pumping polluted water into a large,very shallow evaporation
pond sitting in a geologic formation that contains salts and toxic heavy metals.
If the Joint Powers Authority/DWR does create Kesterson North,what guarantees other north
state citizens(who are not members of the JPA and who will not benefit from the project)will not
be financially liable for toxic waters? Will other citizens be required to give up water to
compensate the backers of the project if insufficient water is produced?
Barbara Hennigan