Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6-7-13 Northern California Water Association, Quarterly Publicai ~~airman's ~e~ar-E F Spring is a great time of the year in the Sacramento Valley! Irrigating our farms allows "the place we-call home" to become a verdant productive Valley -- unparalleled throughout the world in how our economy and environment meld together. We know the Sacramento Valley is a special place: yet, it's easy to take for granted as we go about our daily lives. NCWA needs your help in telling our story - sharing the experience of your family, community, farm, and outdoor life -stories that si~ound throughout our region: The Sacramento Valley Facebook page, a partnership with the California Rice Commission, is a perfect venue for each of us to tell our stories -both visually and through words. We need your help -please "like".the SacValleyCA page and provide NCWA with photos, interesting links and stories we can share on the page to help portray the,positive attributes of the Sacramento Valley. Keep your phone handy and take pictures during the splendor of this season. I look forward to seeing the mag-iificence pf the vapey from your perspective. More details on '' SacValleyCA are on page 2. Regioncr2 With respect to the ongoing discussion surrounding the Bay-Delta, the NCWA Board of Directors earlier this month re-affu~med our strong Bay-Delta policy, which is available in full here. We know Governor Brown is prioritizing allay-Delta solution as an important part of his agenda. Our Bay-Delta Task Force, led by Tib Belza, is aggressively pursuing our strategy to protect Northern California water rights, as described in the Bay-Delta section. It is critically important we clearly define and then articulate the importance of water in the Sacramento Valley for the benefit of farms, fish, birds, cities, rural communities and recreation. However, it is also important we recognize it is in our interest to help provide water security in the Delta for other parts of the state in a way that assures our water rights and supplies are protected for future generations. The Governor's leader for the Bay-Delta Conservation Flan (BDCP), Jerry Meral, will be speaking with us at our next breakfast forum an June 5, 7:30 am in Marysville. Please join NCWA for Jerry Meral's Bay-Delta update--it should be a robust opportunity to engage and network! Finally, we enjoyed a special opportunity to thank Charlie Hoppin earlier this month at a reception honoring ~~~' Notes him for his dedicated service as Chair of the State Water Resources Control Board. Charlie epitomizes public PCZg~e 34 = 38 service--a true working farmer why entered the rough and tumble political world in Sacramento as a full-time , appointee -chairing California's Water Boards. He brought a valuable perspective to the Water Boards we will ' miss. I hope you will find a way to personally thank Charlie and his family when you see them at their farm, your place, or driving around ''~ ~` '~; the, Valley. ~ ~ e a great spring and summer. ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~' n 1 ha -l .'~(~®t~- ,.... All our bes q ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Bryce Lundberg, air ~- ~~~~r~ ~Vort~ern'Calfornia Wa#er ~ssocai~o~ 455' Cagftol Mcr1I, Sui#e 335 9I& 1~2-8333ph WWW.~,O~'CQ~WC~@~'.U~'Cx . SacTCUr~ento, eA 95814 918 /442-4035 fear ,. ~ ~~~~ ~-~ .loin us on the Sacrcrtnento 3Ta~IeY social mediar,~rc,~eSl NCW~, foge#~Zer with Californicl Rice Commission, has launched cr new iru#iative to connect with IegisIatois, decision rakers; and the general public about the i~ruque place that is the Scscramento jTtriley and t2ie vital role thd# water plays here.-Please connect with these pages, and sl?are them with your ft'iends: Like us on Facebook for conv!®rsattons about Sacrcunento Valley P~P~{ P~ace~, events - and of cowrse, water. http://www.facebook.com/sacvczllevC~, ~v u~ on'I~ritter, amd join as wee interact-with local peopl®, nessss, aad organizcrtions fn the Sacramnento Valley. http s:lltwitter.comisacvalleyca 2 zw.~ -stc secmi~7:~k vl.sgueafi'at d: ~w3t o-...R Srx~~.+n'*~-(a~._ ~~, ~~3~ - ~.' .w~. rxo. _a~.~ Discussions on water these days have occurred behind closed doors. Water experts, law makers and policy advocates have been chatting a lot lately about what should and should not ga into a re-negotiated water bond, or what should and should not be a final product of the Bay Delta Conservation Pian (BDCP). When NCWA has been asked to participate in those meetings, we lay out our priorities like a broken record: water rights and area of origin protections, advancing Sites Reservoir, na upstream impacts from the flow standards in the Delta and scrap any water fee proposals. Trickles of the closed door playbook are coming to light and are being covered by fire press and as far as we can tell, it's shaping up to be some challenging times ahead for those in the water world. Speaking of Fees . ` The Governor issued his revised budget this May, and due to several political obstacles, there was something obviously missing: water fees. Chalk it up to the passage of Prop 26 back in 2010 which required any fee or tax increase to be passed by two-thirds of the Legislature. Water fees are not a part of the proposed budget which is great news for Northern California. You maybe asking yourself the obvious: don't the Democrats have the two-thirds majority in both houses? Why wouldn't they have the votes to pass a tax increase? Well, the Democrats supermajority power is very tenuous. One slip up in the eyes of the public, and they could very well lose a couple of seats to Republicans, which could cause the pendulum to swing to the right. Any tax or fee increase could be seen as a power grab and cause California voters to think twice about electing all of those Dems back in November 2012. Granted, the Legislature has until June to pass a budget, and fees or taxes could very well be a part of that deal, but as of this writing, we don't foresee those fee increases being a part of a final product. An Alternative to the Bay Detta Conservation Plan?? The huh? Yes, you read that correctly. The latest in the public debate here in Sacramento is centered on an alternative concept to the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP} and its relevance on how to fix the Delta and move water south, Before we get to the juicy political wrangling, let's define some terms.. The Portfolio-Based Conceptual Alternative (Portfolio) was gut forth as an option by Natural Resources Defense Council, with a coalition of Southern California and bay-area water and environmental agencies and business organizations as a stand-alone alternative in the BDCP environmental impact report and cast-benefit analysis. The Portfolio calls for ascaled-down conveyance facility and additional, complementary investments in local water supply sources, regional coordination, south of Delta storage, levee improvements, and habitat restoration. Proponents claim the total price tag would be similar to or smaller than estimates for alarge-scale conveyance system that is currently being proposed and pushed by Governor Jerry Brown -- a significant deviation to his publicly stated plan. hz a letter tv Natural Resources Secretary John Laird, 221egislative Democrats indicated they supported an alternative to the BDCP and hope that he considers the portfolio.as. a_alternative to the tunnels he is proposing. The letter is a type of gauntlet thrown that sets the stage for political positioning among those elected officials who signed it. The "voting block" is made up of mostly Northern California Legislators (including Senator Lois Wolk (D-3), Assemblymember Roger Dickinson (D-7}, Assemblymember Mariko Yamada (D-4) and Assemblymember Richard Pan (D-9)), with three from Southern California -namely San Diego. It shows where negotiations will begin as the Legislature and the Governor start discussions on BDCP implementation and the water bond. 3`' rtati~eraCtsimd.WdrA~or~doo I)rMAR~, VAN'~L~Cx .~ BROwrr L~.c ,r ; ~aC}Y~Kfi13k,_h'1':1L ~1Lr~'1`1L!'_VS ~ GC3~11.~RL'R[(A"I"[(~~S By ~4my Brown Secretary Laird responded by reiterating his. commitrnent in satisfying the state mandated coequal goals - of providing a more reliable water' supply for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Delta ecosystem. Laird said state officials will examine 15 alternatives to improve water conveyance and ecosystem health in the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta. Qne of the 15 alternatives will certainly be the Portfolio: "As with all 15 alternatives tha# we are studying in this ElR process, it (the Portfolio alternative) will be evaluated against the co-equal goals, as well as other goals including reliability in the face of an extreme event." Laird stressed that any alternative must adhere to the basis for the coequal goals. He wrote that as a,"direct. result of the dual, co-equal goals given to us by the Legislature, water deliveries (from any future state project) would be determined by biological objectives." Coalition members pushing for the Portfolio alternative include The Bay Institute, the Contra. Costa Gauncil, Defenders of Wildlife, lnvirortmental Enttepreneurs, the Planning and Conservation League and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Separately, seven urban water agencies, including the San Diego County Water Authority, Alameda County Water District, Contra Costa Water District, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Otay Water District, the City of San Diego and file San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, have supported an alternative. Setting the Tone At the recent Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) conference, Senate President Darrell Steinberg spoke on the importance of renegotiaiang a bond and hinted towards leg the BDCP to the water bond moving forward. Steinberg announced that he would like to see constitutional amendments in the water bond pertaining to area of origin protections and operating criteria for Deltaltunnels. Arguably, these comments ruffled a few feathers, but sets the tone for negotiations within the Senate Democratic caucus, which has a supernaajority in their house. Speaking of setting the tone. The Assembly Speaker, John Perez has appointed nine Democratic Assembly Members to a water task force. The aim is to negotiate the inner workings of a water deal. The nine members represent all-areas of California and are set to begin talks after the budget is passed in June. 'They are as follows: ~ Assembly Member Anthony Rendon, Chair of the Water Committee, LA area ~ Assemblymember Toni Atkins, Majority Leader, San Diego and signer of the portfolio letter referenced above. ~ Assembly Member Raul Bocanegra, member of the Water Committee, LA Area Assembly Member Wesley Chesbro, represents Northern California and the coast Assembly Member Susan Talamantes-Eggman, represents Stockton and parts of the Delta, Chair of the Agriculture Committee Assembly Member Mike Gatto, previous member of the Water Committee, LA area ~ Assembly Member Richard Gordon, represents Northern California ~ Assembly Member Kevin Mullin, represents Northern California ~ Assembly Member Henry Perea, represents the Central Valley, Chair of the Moderate Caucus NC'WA Front & Center in BDCP Hearing A joint committee-hearing of the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee and the Select Committee on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta was held: in May titled "The Bay Delta Conservation Plan: Overview ofthe Issues." Experts .from throughout Califonnia were asked to speak, including David Guy. David gave a historical perspective, and focused: his observations on the Sacramento Valley by outlining the beneficial purposes and regional self sufficiency of 1VCWA's region. He advised the committee to think broader. than the Delta tunnels, and to consider the overall operations, which include impacts to salmon and the Pacific Flyway. David stressed the .. And now let us shut the door behind us and continue to work as we protect the most valuable resource for NCWA: your water rights and supplies. _....... ~° Apri126 2fli3 'Temporary' Califolrnia fees live o© B3~ Jim Surrrlers;:~snn~fers!n:,sacbee.cntn Californians have. paid sects ofmillions of dollarsthe past three years in state fees that had been scheduled to die > but never did. The Legislatcire routinely has adapted fees. as temporary' but quiet)}~ extended them as expiration dates neared. Nearly twa of every three. state fees scheduled to end between 2fl10 and 2012 have been kept alive for years to co3ie, according ` to state records. Thirteen of 2l fees received extensions, cumulatively wising mare than $70 million annually far programs ranging from a missing persons database to an effgrt to f ght auto: insurance fraud, Unlike general taxes paid' by nearly all Californians. fees are targeted assessments to people wlio participate or benefit from a state program for the purpose of funding .that service. Perhaps the oddest Capitol trail left by a single fee. involved five bills over`tlce past decade. to raise millions for California courts. What is now a $40 wart fee tacked onto alfi criminal convictions, including traflic'violations, began as a $40 charge in 2t?03. It .later was raised to X30, then to $~0, than expiratipn slates were elirstinated, leaving the charge permanent. Republican Sen. Jim Nielsen, of Gerber, said that Democrats vho dgminate the Leq stature routinely al#aw fees'to go'bn and on and an: particularly nov~~ when the call is out to fund gaverhrnent by every: way that you possibly can." "The taxpayers, the citizens; desen'e that Lhcrc be c~-rtainty," Nielsen said. "lf fees are to encl, -they should rnd." But Sen. Mark Lcno, a San F'rancisC9 Den~acrat ti;'ha chairs i3te Senate Budget Committee, said that placing a,i expiratibn daFe - or "sunset" - on a newly adopted fee does not nzcessat~ly mean that legislators infend the charge to die automatically. "Surtsetting" provides a mechanism €or weeding out netTective programs by creating a deadline for lawmakers to review the impacts of a fee and to keen it alive ifthey dzcide the; public is getting its money's worth, he said. Democratic Assembly'cnan Bob Blurnenfield of 1/as Angeles, chairman of the: Asszmbly Budget Coritmittee, said ~e-state ~s~ould be --= - well served by placznQ sunsets on #a7c deductions and,tax credits, too.°Once signed into law, perhaps in a budget compromise, they become virtually impossible to remove, he said, But Jon Coupal, president ofthc; Ho~s~~ard 7arvis Taxpayers Association, said attaching sunsets to neiv fees tends to b~ niorc ofa political gesture - a "legislative two-step" - than a genuine commitment to re~.iew. "Sometimes legislators Lmo~r° that going far a permanent fez inght out of the box is not politically palatable, so they sa}'; `You know, it's just temporary:' Ancl later,'C1h, new-you're used to paying it, so let's snake it.permanent,"' Coupal said.- S IC.hfOrataWi~rArameltom '. importance of storage as a vital component to the BDCP for a Delta solution. He asked the Committee to ponder on these questions: Are we prepared for the next drought? Are we meeting the BDCP's co-equal goals? Are we advancittg regional self -sufficiency and are the state agencies coordinating? The response ro David's presentation was extremely positive..Many leading members committed to working with NCWA as we move forward with these discussions. :ets, provide safety training to the food industry and .ende~iSincs 2014. On May 20, Gavemor Brown issued an Executive Order to streamline approvals for voluntary water transfers to assist California's agricultural industry. In the order, he provided that: "Agriculture is vital to the health of California's economy, and this order ensures we're doing what's necessary to cope with a very dry Year. The Governor's Executive Order directs the State Water Resources Control Board {SWRCB) and the Department of Water Resources {DWR} to expedite the review and . . processing of voluntary transfers of water and waterxights consistent with current law. Under the order, DWR will coordizsate State Water Project operations to alleviate critical. impacts to San Joaquin VaU.ey agriculture. 6 ~t1rS.Celiiomse W~ ;gym®. ` ; DWR's May 2nd snow survey found the Sierra snowpack at 17 percent of normal State Water Project deliveries this summer will be only 35 percent of requested amounts. The federal Central Valley Project will deliver as little as ?0 percent of requested amounts to some customers." United States. Senator Dianne Feinstein added that "I am grateful that Governor Brown is taking this early, important action to protect California's agricultural industry." "This Executive Order provides economic benefits across many regions of California. Willing sellers of water will benefit, as will those in the areas of greatest need, while retaining protections for fish, wildlife, and other environmental values." The State Board of Food and Agriculture at its May 7 meeting focused on the dry conditions in the state and the need to help agriculture in certain parts of the state. On May i 5, State Board of Food and Agriculture President Craig McNamara sent a letter to Department of Water Resources Director Mark Cowin. "We appreciate the commitment that the Department of Water Resources (DWR) has to working with stakeholders to improve the overall transfer process. However, it is still the opinion of this Board that the current approach to managing water and operating storage/conveyance facilities does not result in the optimal use of water for the state. In the short.term we need a process to expedite water transfers. for the current year that will help aIleviate extremely dry conditions in impacted growing regions. But this is not a solution. We also need to evaluate options now that will be of critical use for future years. We propose that au Interagency Drought Task Force be convened to assist DWR with current transfer implementation and future planning. While this is only our second dry year in this drought cycle, we cannot wait for drought conditions to begin drought planning. To facilitate drought planning, the Board believes that DWR and the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) should coordinate with appropriate federal agencies, water districts and water agencies to improve efficiency in the process to review and approve water transfers in California. In order to meet this goal, UWR and SWRCB should consider addressing all of the following: short-term anal long-term transfers; consolidated .place of use; template ~, agreerttents for transfers; and a permanent ~~ - joint point of diversion for ~e State anal Federal Projects. v ~ We fully understand the challenges these recommendations may pose, but believe your leadership teaan at DWR is uniquely positioned to improve the current water transfer model. Our Board is more than willing to work with you in bringing together the necessary stakeholders to begin discussions and start work on these needed reforms." ~ _ ~~ 5 `~°~ 7 NTw~eL.rnC.~lfioealeW.trArod~od The SWRCB and DWR share responsibilities for the transfer of water in California. The SWRCB reviews and processes water transfer pet%tions, while DWR has the primary functional responsibility for the actual transfer of water. Water transfers in dry years assist those who potentially have excess supplies by allowing them to sell to those who are short of supplies, providing a valuable economic incentive to both the buyer and seller. The NCWA Board of Directors in May reai~rrmed our strong Bay-Delta policy, which can he viewed here. This policy will guide NCWA and our leaders as we embark on a critical period in the Bay-Delta debate. The NCWA Bay-Delta Task Force continues to meet monthly and provide detailed guidance as we aggressively pursue the protection of water rights and supplies for Northern Califort-ia. The Governor has made the Say-Delta a priority and we are actively participating in' every venue, from the Governor's office, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB}, the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), the Delta Stewardship Council, the remand on the biological opinions for the Central VaIley Project {CVP} and the State Water Project {SWP), Congress, and the Legislature. The following provides an overview of these issues and shows NCWA's participativn and strategy in each of these venues. We will continue Eo need your help throughout the Valley to help us show policy makers What's at Stake in the Bay-Delta debate. a$y Tib Belza, Chair Bay Delta Task Force The SWRCB is updating its Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan [WQCP). The update to the WQCP is the first step in its process, typically followed by a water rights proceeding to determine responsibility far meetitxg the objectives in the WQCP. The SWRCB is under pressure from environmental organizations; as well as federal fishery agencies and USEPA, to increase flow related objectives to ensure additional flows in the Delta. The SWRCB has two parallel, but related, processes underway to update its WQCP, ~u~ ~~uquin ~~vei,' On the San Joaquin River ~ n, the swRCs issued a draft Substitute Environmental Document (SED) that contains a narrative San Joaquin Flow Objective that: 1) maintains flow conditions at Vernalis to support and maintain natural production of viable native fish migrating through the. Delta; 2) mimics the natural hydrograph including relative magnitude, duration, timing and special extent of flaws as they would naturally occur; and 3}provides a list of indicators of viability that include abundance, distribution, genetics etc. In the proposal, "unimpaired flow can be used to approximate flows of a more natural pattern, and as a straightforward means to assist in balancing the. competing uses of water." Under the program of implementation, there would be 35%:of.February- 3une unimpairedflow on the Staiiislaus River (New 1Vlelones to`COnfluence.withthe:Lcwer. Sari J~aaquin River {LSJR)), the Tuolumne River (New' Don Pedro to Cgnfluence with LSJR}; and the Merced ~€ver {I;ake McClure, to: Condluence with LSJR): The impacts from this proposal are serious-an increase in .spring flovys; water diversions ate generally decreased in the three triibutaries; anii potential significant impact on agriculture productivity and the economy, particularly in the Tuolumne and Merced watersheds. The 5 WR~B held, a several day workshop in mid-March to receive input on its draft SED. Counsel for the Sacramento Valley provided written comments to the SWRCB on-March l9, which provided: 1) The SWRCB should not allow redirected impacts from the. San Joaquin Valley to the ~acratnento. Valley; 2) the dra&SED is not based on sound science as reflected in the SVJRCB workshops last Fall; 3} a flows-.only approach violates Porter=Cologne; 4) the burden of providing water for fish must be allocated via the water rights priority system; 5) the draft SED'''violates CEQA; and b} sister state agencies must implement the provisions of the draft SED: $' I~elbeaCal~foraLWi~A~a A bipartisan group of Congressional rnembexs on March 21 sent a letter to the Governor expressing concern with the SWRCB policies surrounding the Bay-Delta and rivers tributary to the Delta. This included Congressmen Denham, Garamendi, LaMalfa, Costa, Nunes, McClintock, and Valadao. The letter expressed that "far today, we are compelled to convey our serious concerns with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) efforts to adversely affect cities, towns, farms, wildlife refuges, fisheries and recreation in our regions. Mare specifically, the SWRCB is currently engaged in a process on the San Joaquin River that will redirect water supplies away from San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Merced Counties without any recognizable benefit to Caiiforruia's environment and a clear, significant and unavoidable impact to the economy. A similar process for the Sacramento, Feather, American and Mokelumne Rivers will follow the San Joaquin River." On April 30, 2013 the state agencies responded to the Members of Congress. The letter described the various agencies processes and added that "your letter raises concerns that the SWRCB WQCP process could threaten upstream seniox water right holders. The prograut of implementation in the WQCP will be developed consistent with California law, including state law protecting senior water rights and the needs of areas and watersheds of origin." The SWRCB is now in the process of determining how to proceed with respect to the San Joaquin River. Sacramento River For Phase II involving the Sacramento Valley, the SWRCB held an informational hearing on April 9 to receive the report from Brock Bernstein summarizing the d~ree workshops last fall and to receive input from various parties. NCWA provided its thoughts to the SWRCB in its April S letter to the SWRCB shown in full on the adjacent page. NCWA has developed "A Sustainability Plan for the Sacramento Valley" as an element of the SWRCB Bay- Delta WQCP that we have proposed to the SWRCB as an element of its WQCP update. The SWRCB is exploring additional workshops, including sessions on predation, the low salinity zone in the Delta, and nutrients. The Governor has made his commitment to the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) clear. In his "State of the State" speech earlier this year he provided his charge that: "Central to the life of our state is water and one sixth of that water flows through the San Joaquin Delta. Silicon Valley, the Livermore Valley, farmers on the East side of the San Joaquin Valley between Fresno and Kern County and fanners on the West side between Tracy and I.os Banos.., Cuban Southern. California and Northern - _ - Contra Costa, all are critically dependent on the Delta for water. If because of an earthquake, a hundred year storm or sea level rise, the Delta fails, the disaster would be comparable to Hurricane Katrina or Superstorm Sandy; losses of at least $100 billion and 40,000 jobs, I am going to do whatever I can to make sure that does not happen. My proposed plan is two tunnels 30 miles long and 40 feet wide, designed to improve the ecology of the Delta, with almost 100 square miles of habitat restoration. Yes, that is big but so is the problem. The London Olympics lasted a short while and cost $14 billion, about the same cost as this project. But this project will serve California for hundreds of years." 9 c>w ~'o ndvatme the rcarraiartt; racial tritrlcmverohrm~ntul srtrroirlrrbiltrpufNnrdarrn (lrln by e»hcavtetn~ aml ptrse~irrg the xwr~er ri~hrs su~plips marl rarer yr+c+hty. April 8, 21113 Felicia RtlarC~S, Chair Members o£ the 13naard State Water Reso-mces Contral Board 1001 I Street. Sarram~o, Galifomia 958I4 Re: Infamadotml Item: Currer-t Scotus of Phase 2 of the Comprehensive Update of the Iiay-Delta Water Quality Coartrol. Plan Dear Cltait Marcus and Mcml>ers of the Board: '~ Northern California- Water Associrttion (I~ICWA) and the Sacramento Valley Water Users have any participated in the Criiiiprcl~cnsive iJ}'~ate of the Bay-Delta Water Quality Contr8l Alan {WC}CP) 1'Imse ~ process ayer.tlte t.year and we Have provided testitnany land technical information to help the State War Resoureas Goatbroi Ba~sl (tlie"SVI~RC$") iupdate the ~'QCA_ We have the followit~ comtneius far your ctinsidaatinn:. t. 't'he SV4-RC8's 2~a2 techtical workshops Significantly advatlced the development of viable Bay-Delta solutions by ettablirtg many parties to present complicated scientifc information in detail and by encouraging questions ofthe witnesses from the SWRCB and discussion between the witnesses and the SWRCB. In these ways, the X612 workshops provided the SWRCB with important information upon which tite Phase ~ pracess ttntst be based. Bven though the parties do not all agree on the significance and reEative importance of the infortnatiott presented to the SWRCB, the parties generally agree thaf it is important fcrr the SWRCB to base arty decision on the best available scientific infortination. 2. The informationprovided to the SWRCB during the 2(112 workshops, as reflected in the lCF re~ti, demonstrates that there are ttaajor scientific disagrcemems among the various parties. For instance, in discussing flaws, the lCF report slates (at page 6}that the stakeholders disagree about: "the priority attached to flow compared to other factors (e.g., habitat degradation; foadweb changes)" and about "whether increases in floN alone, -vith accompanying atfentiart to other habitat requirements; would achieve goals to 35SCapirafMalt.$uili~33S.S,ic!nmcsitu.i;ulil<srttiaJgX74.aagi•'1cict~lvr¢e1)€fi)d3'?~1ii:i3Faw.in~ilct9ll~i-0A'i-0C?45 tvwtr,nGac:aStvatcs,ia~e IQarthls~u: C61!&taas~Wal~rArod~stm m.. tl Felicia il7arcus Apri18, 20'13 Page 2 increase fish populatiat~ and their resilience." 1~l'e believe that tt is crucial tar all of California that these questions be addressed #hrough a systematic and thorough scientific investigation in order to guide future eeasystetn management and restaa'ation, Tn accomplish this goal, we recommend that the SVl'RG13, zvorlung with the Ihha Science Program, ~`onvene the type of exlaert panels recomntanded br the Invited Expert Petrel. the California 1~'ater and Errvironnteniul 1vlodeling l:'orunt acrd Alr. R'aller Bourez during the l~nvembcr 2012 worl;slrop. "1lrose ,xzllaborative ea-pcrt paztels should then be charged with rci'rat;ing lln; ICFr~-pars and d~cigning scisr6itic anal}~scs is t~~t the ~oaa~peting hypotheses. Chrly by this typz~ ofsS:stematic effort can ~i•e niave beyond "combat science" and determine haw best to reasonably proteiK all beneficial woes that arc included ht the W'QGP and to achieve tlra Aeltsrt Reform Act's ooeclual goale of water supply reliability and erasystem restoration. Lve also lsclicre that; to ntake progress nn the Bay-13.:1la ti issues as rapidly as pnssthlc, the SL4'RC~3 alCa must do more than aullrotiae the shove-referenced scientific invealigalion. ~tre ~lie~~c ihai the S\~RC1i should ask stakeholders !o propose, not later theta. June 1, 2!113, `on tl>z ground'` projects that a t~~riety of interests probably could support and that slaleholders arc w filling to begin to irrrplcment as soon as passible. The S1~rRCl_3 should require that proposed projects be n:ady to iinplen>IeaM by June 2U 14. R'~ believe that the SV4'RC13 should assemble these fit-tract; projects into an update try tlse 2UUE5 l3ay-D+:ha [~4'QCl"s progr~un afin>Iplcmentatinn. "l"am SVi'1tCBthen should rase its authority under Wafer Code se~~ion 13247 lo.facilitate the permitting and approval of these projects by other state agencies, 't'he SVrrItCB also should engage with relevant fed,:ral agencies to dev4lap memoranda of und~.~rslanding to ea.°pedite ihasc agencies' consideration and pcrnritlittg oftlte fast-tree!: pr+~jects. hr this waS', the S~~RCI3 and particip~~ling stalceltoldors can hegira to laisve real actions the! will have real benefits for public trust nesour~s while scic:trtific experts arc developing longer-term actions. Vl'e believe that the Si~'RC:)3 should describe, in the update oftire Bay I3eha l~7QGP, the responsibilities of the SWRCB's sister slate agencies in helping to iruplcrnent that plan. 1al'e believe that Water Code set,~tion 13247 gives the S[~'RCB authority', lhrouglr [he ~~'QCP process, to direct other state ag.-ncies En lake certain actions needed to ianplentienl the Bay-13~Ua V!r'QCP, absent c.ontran~ statutory direction. We believe that the updated ~1'QCP should make clear that the SVI'RCR will require other slag agencies tv act in a marurer consistent +witlr ~e V4'QCP, again absent Contrary statutory° direction, by means of agrremcnts, mc:rt~rartda of understanding or other devices. lastly, ~~e believe chat it is impctrlarrt tlra! the 51L~RCB and other state and fed~.rul agctrciLS caardinate and integrate the Phase 2 process with the 13av-lhlta Conservation Plan (BDCP}process. At present,. there are a muhitarde of'opportunities far confusion and co€tfliuw between t!lese processes. We suggest that, given the Itt~e urvestmant of tirtte and public rYSOtirces, the 514'RCB incorporate tlaz offal}:ses that have. been prepared as _. . part of the B17CP in the Phase 2 cf1`ort, and provide clear direction to the public regarding cxaclly how tlr~: S~~'RCF3 inteards to sequence its Phase 2 cilort far relation to the BUCP process. 335 i'sslrW~l hlxll, S1Sf7C 335. SnCl~tneaitn. (7lfiarnil~ 9~.yls.;.?7r. l'dgsktoree S9~ fie 4a'.5_t 33 l~acirrai)c (iJa tai ~7:72.~ttt3S u'iva~rori'9€tit~xaet.~vK }~1 NaRt~aCalttioealelNahthroCi~tlm Felicia Marcus April $, ?U i 3 I've 3 1~'e took 4'or-vard to wori:ing with you and your staff shottkl the SWRCB choose to pwsue fl~is path. We plan to atte~3 the April 9 meeting and will be prepared to discuss this pr:nposal. Sincenel urs, David J. Guy President The Governor, in a recent speech to the Association ofCalifornia Water Agencies (ACWA) reaffirmed his commitment by saying that "we're going to build a big project. The, federal government is moving along with us. We are going to get there with your help." He added that it "will take all of us working together" and "billipns of dollars" to complete the BDCP. On May 22, Senator Feinstein and several Members of Congress urged Governor Brown and Secretary ~eweIl to move forward with BDCP and offered their support. This letter rues intended to counter the growing vocal concerns with the BDCP from Northern California Members ofCongress. and the State legislature {see Capitol Corner). The preliminary draft Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP} and the.corresponding consultant administrative draft EIRIEIS are now available on the BDCP website. The agencies plan to issue the forma[ drafts on October 1, 2013. For Northern California, we are focused on the following elements of the BDCP: 1. Flows and Operations Widt;respect to flows and water rights, the Governor and Secretary of Interior on .Iuly 25, 2012 provided that "State and U.S. govemmenta will make sure implementation of BDCP will not result in adverse effects on the water rights of those in the watershed of the Delta, nor will it impose any obligations on water users upstream of the Delta to supplement flows in and through the Delta." The draft BDCP has two components that rxtay require additional flows in the Delta beyond the requirements contained in the current SWRCB D-1641. This includes: a) Spring X2 outflow. These flows one largely designed for langl~uq; smelt during March through May. The initial proposal Suggests that an average annual SOO,000af of water maybe required at some point in the future, ranging from 70[1,000af in wet years to SO,OOOaf in critically dry Years. b) .Fall X2 outflow. There is serious discussion around an additional fall flow and whether it is supported by good science. The Fall X2 requirement is in the current BiOps. NCWA commented on Fall X2 in our April 25, 2011 Ietter to the U.S. Environmental; Protection Agency (EPA}. In the letter, we referred to studies that question the nature of the relationship between felt X2 and delta smelt abundance and we urged USEPA to work with scientists to better evaluate the relationship, if any, between Delta outflow and delta smelt abundance before proposing any fall X2 measure." 12 '>rca~bw~~ . 2. Yolo Bypass Fishery Enhancement Conservation Measure 2 is intended to "improve' upstream and downstream fish passage, reduce straying and stranding of native fish, increase availability of floodplain fish rearing and spawning habitat, and stimulate the food web in the Yolo Bypass and to investigate the potential for food web export from the Yolo Bypass to the Delta." The Yolo Bypass Fish Enhanc~nent Program {YBFEP) is also part of the BiOps (see below) and is being evaluated under a separate E1S. The RPA's for the 2009 Salmon BiOp called for "increased seasonal floodpiain inundation in the lower Sacramento River Basin" and "improve fish passage throughout the Yolo Bypass." (1.6.1, 1.7} There is a general desire to improve salmon habitat'and survival in Northern California, but there are many concerns about the proposals in the Yolo Bypass. There are several documents that have been prepared to inform the discussion an the YBFEP, including: Yolo County working with the Yolo Foundation, prepared a Yolo Bypass Infrastructure and Drainage Improvement Study; Dudes Unlimited has prepared a report on Birds and the Pacific Flyway; American Rivers has attempted to quantify the ecologicsi benefits of flood protection; and there have been various land use summaries. 3. finance On May 29, the Natural Resources Agency released its chapter on Implementation Costs and Funding Sources. The Agency provided that "the BDCP is a `beneficiary ~ ~ `` pays'.pro~ect. ~t is expected to cost $24.5 billion during its 50-year implementatian ~' 64 ~`~~ ~'' period, with water users expected to pay an estimated 68 percent of the fatal price r~ ~4~ ~. ;... tag for design, construction, operation, mitigation, and adaptive management of a ~ t~~ ,, new water conveyance system. The remaining balance, an estimated $7.9 billion ~* for habitat restoration, pollution control, anti-poaching programs, and other `.,~,~- ~ ~ " rneasut~es to reduce ecological stress, could be funded throu a vane of sources `'`~"~ .4=~ `` =~- a~.,' including state and federal fmancia! participation. An exact financing plan is not `' t, yet developed, but will be under discussion. Although the final federal anal state ;~~ f ; aIlocation of costs and funding sources are yet to be determined, the BDCP assumes that California taxpayers would fund the state's share of the non-conveyance costs primarily through passage of twa general obligation bonds in future years." This chapter `4elso examines the ability of Califarnia water users to pay for the BDCP....the annual cost of financing the BDCP's proposed water conveyance system is "far below the cost thresholds typically used for evaluating ability to pay." The chapter contains a section on "Actions Required Should Band Measures Fail." "More than 14% of BDCP funding is expected to Dome from the 2014 water band and a second bond passed later in the permit terns. Based on past performance, both water bonds are expected to be approved by the voters {Table 8-55}. However, if one or both of the water bonds fail, they can be put on the ballot again 2 years later. If the water bonds do nvt pass in 2014, 201 G, or thereafter, then additional funding sources wil[ need to be found for the BDCP in order to maintain compliance with permit terms, (8,10.5.2.} 4. Governance The Implementation Structure in Chapter 7 describes governance. Ln sum, "khe California Department of Water Resources {DWR}, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), and those state and federal water contractors who receive take authorizations far activities covered under the BDCP, will have ultimate responsibility for compliance with the provisions of the BDCP and the associated regulatory authorizations. The implementation of the BDCP, however, will be organized around a newly created BDCP Implementation Office, which will be managed by a Program Manager and governed by the Authorized Entities through the Authorized Entity Group. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS}, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (collectively referred to as the state and federal fish and 13 Nrrt6raC.LfomtaW~Arodsi The federal fish agencies in early April 3, 2013 provided additional comments on the BDCP that advocate for more aggressive flows during these times. Through the Pen~nit Dversight Group, the state and federal fish and wildlife agencies will be involved in certain specified implementation decisions and will lend technical and.. scientific expertise to the implementation process. The Authorized Entities will work in a coliaboratixe manner with .the fsh and wildlife agencies to implement the BDCP. In addition, a Stakeholder Council will be created and regularly convened to enable public agencies, nongovernment organizations, interested parties,-and the general public.to provide ongoing input into the BDCP implementation process. The Implementation Office will also coordinate with $he Delta Stewardship Council, Delta Science, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy (Delta Conservancy), and Delta Protection Commission to ensure appropriate engagement and collaboration on matters of common interest. This approach to Plan implementation is expected to ensure the timely, efficient, and proper implementation of the commitments contained in the BDCP:" . With respect to the Biological Opinions (BiOps) that govern the operations of the State Water Project and Central Valley Project, U.S. District Court Judge O'Neill on Apri19 extended the deadlines in both the smelt and salmon cases by a year. The federal agencies had requested a three year extension. The Bureau ofReclamation is continuing its "Stakeholder Remand Engagement Process" for the Biological Opinions (BiOps}, now proceeding on a watershed by watershed basis. The BiDps will likely govern operations of the Delta for the decade while the BDCP is being developed. There are several alternatives being considered as part of the Environmental Impact Statement process, some of which include additional flows in the Delta. Various. Sacramento Valley water agencies have submitted comments on the project description and we are actively participating in this process. Glenn-Golusa Irrigation District on May 3 provided initial comments on the. Administrative Draft EIS that there is "an excruciating amount of description with very -little analysis "As such, fiu+ther.connnents will have to wait until there is more analysis in later drafts." NCWA earlier this year submitted a letter to the agencies providing numerous documents for them to consider in this process.. This includes: Dave Vogel's-report on Sacramento River anadromous fish, the scientific analysis by Walter Bourez of MBK Engineers relating Delta Smelt to X2 position, Delta flows and water use in the Sacramento Valley; and comments to [JSEPA: Sacramento Valley water users will continue to provide our scientific information on fisheries to the federal agencies in this process. The Delta Stewardship Council (DSC) on May I6 adopted its Delta Plan, certified the final Programmatic Environmental impact Report (PEIR), and adopted regulations that will implement the policies of the Delta Plan. In its summary, the DSC has indicated drat "the Delta Plan and its regulations create: A single blueprint for state and local agencies' actions to provide a more reliable water supply for California, and protect, restore and enhance the Delta ecosystem; A unified science initiative and improved accountability to achieve the co-equal goals in the Delta; I4 IZcatb.naCW~p,..odnt~oe wildlife agencies) will maintain an ongoing role in Plan implementation, including participation in the Permit Oversight Group, to ensure that such implementation proceeds in a manner consistent with-the BDC 1 P and its associated regulatory authorizations. Ensure that significant state and local agency actions,occurringwho1ly or partly within the Delta. are consistent with the Delta Plan, with the Council as an appellate body to enforce those rules in a fair and timely manner. Through 14 enforceable regulatory policies and 73 non-binding recommendations, the Delta Plan: ~ Improves water supply reliability and reduces reliance on water from the Delta watershed through better water management throughout Califortsia and by investing in improved local and regional supplies and water use efficiency. The Plan also calls for improved Delta conveyance and expansion of groundwater and surface storage. ~ Protects, restores and enhances the Delta ecosystem by protecting six high priority locations in the Delta and Suisun Marsh to recover endangered species, rebuild salmon runs and enhance habitat for wildlife. The Plan also prioritizes actions to reduce pollution,.invasive species and impacts of other ecosystem stressors and seeks to establish a more natural pattern of water flows in the Delta. Protects and enhances the unique cultural, recreational, and agricultural values of the California Delta as an evolving place by protecting rural lands for agriculture and requiring that new residential, commercial or industrial development is located in areas planned for urban use, encouraging recreation and tourism, and by ensuring a mle for Delta voices in significant projects. ~ Improves water quality to protect human health and the environment by making i2 recommendations, including that the State Water Resources Control Board consider special water quality protections for priority habitat restoration areas, complete development of a strategic work plan to protect groundwater resources, and work with other relevant agencies to develop and implement a Delta regional water quality monitoring program. ~ Reduces risks to people, property, and state interests in the Delta by policies prohibiting encroachment an floodways and floodplains, require a minimum level of flood protection for new residential development of five or more parcels, and requiring the Council to develop priorities for investment in Delta flood protection by 2015. integrates governrmental actions in the Delta with best available science through 141egally-binding regulatory policies, with which significant state and local agency, Delta-related actions must be consistent. The DSC will submit the package of proposed rules and a Statement of Reason to the State Office of Administrative Law (OAL} for approval. If the OAL approves the package of proposed regulations and the Statement of Reason, the documents are then submitted to the Secretary of State. Upon approval from that office, the proposed policies in the Delta Plan become enforceable regulations. That action is expected to occur sometime between July 1 and October 1. ~ - --- ~ ~ An effective interagency coordination body to implement the portfolio of actions detailed in the Delta Plan; and On May 24, the Westlands Water District joined the San Luis & Delm-Mendota Water Authority in a legal action filed in the Sacramento Superior Court to require the Delta Stewardship Council to revise the Delta Plan to be consistent with the 2009 Delta Reform Act, which created the Council. In particular, the action asserts that the Delta Plan fails to achieve the co-equal goals of Delta ecosystem restoration and water supply reliability established by the Act. "'lie fundamental problem with the Delta Plan is'that it goes well beyond the statutory authority granted by the Legislature," stated Tom Birmingham, general Manager of the Westlands Water District. "That'extension of authority will impact the ability of the State to manage current water supplies. and develop new infrastructure to secure California's future needs." The lawsuit focuses on the 2009 legislation that requires reduced reliance on the Delta. Westlands asserts that "the Delta Plan undern-ines the coequal goals of water supply reliability by seeking to reduce water conveyed through the Delta for existing needs. lronit~lly, it limits the use of exported water instead of promoting or idet-tifying actions that will meet water needs." f)n May 31, the Delta Stewardship Council issued a statement on the lawsuit saying "The approach advocated byplaintiffs---one purely facilitative and without regulatory effect ]s mconszstent with the Delta Reform Act and resolving-the ongoing crisis in the Delta. It is unfortunate that these two public water agencies would rather waste "time in court than certifythat they are using water efficiency and are incompliance with existing state laws and regulations. While we will strongly defend this lawsuit, the Council is committed to working with all stakeholders to begin implementation of this important and foundational Delta Plan." The PPIC released another report in April called Stress Relief ' Prescriptions for ~ Healthier'Delta Ecosystem. "This report summarizes the results of awide-ranging study examining steps California can take to improve the health of fire Delta ecosystem through science- based, integrated management of the many sources of ecosystem stress. Our key findings: 1. "Reconciliation ecology" offers a realistic approach to managing the Delta's highly altered ecosystem and meeting the co- equal goals. Reconciliation seeks to improve ecosystem processes to support desirable species while acknowledging that humans will continue to rely on the region's land and water resources. '[his approach would restore natural processes wherever possible {particularly favorable flows and habitat) and use infrastructure and technology {such as ha#cheries) to support native species. Because some parts of the Delta are unlikely to support native species, area specialization is essential. Both the Delta Plan and BDGP contain elements of a reconciliation approach. 2. The reconciliation process needs to be guided by science and broadly supported by Californians. We surveyed the scientific community and engaged policymakers and stakeholders to gauge their current views. Scientists favor reconciliation strategies: strong majorities emphasized flow and habitat actions in and upstream of the Delta that would restore more natural processes. Stakeholders and.policymakers generally agree with scientists on high-priority solutions. However, stakeholders were more l~cely tii prioritize,aokous,inoreas unrelated to their own uses of the Delta and shy away from actions that would be costly for theit-. . . 3. A modest but powerful set of changes to existing institutional structures can help achieve better environmental outcomes while "containing costs, which are likely to exceed several hundred million dollars annually: ~ Consistent planning. Comprehensive reviews of the numerous related planning efforts to determine their compatibility with the state's overall Delta Plan. Integrated and accountable management- Proactive use of the new Delta Plan Interagency Implementation Committee to coordinate implementation of work plans, hold agencies accountable, and integrate adaptive management. The Council will also begin to implement the Delta Plan-through an Implementation Committee, chaired by Randy Fiorini and made up of state and federal agencies that are responsible for the actions proposal in the Delta Plan. ~ Common pool science. Creation of a Delta science joint powers authority involving regulators and regulated par#ies that would foster shared understanding, build knowledge, and inform adaptive management efforts." The full PPIC report, and several related reports are available here. By: Todd MaRlcy As we work on the spring edition of the NCWA Coriveyarrce, the irrigation season in the Sacramento Valley is well underway. For the past several weeks, the Sacramento Valley has witnessed a flurry of activity as varied machinery works ground for the application of water. Trees that have been dormant all winter, spring to fife, blooming and providing color to the mosaic that is the Sacramento Valley landscape. The waterfowl, shorebirds and raptors that were present in the sky all winter are now replaced by crop dusters planting this year's rice crop. While all seems normal and routine, it masks a problematic winter that did not bring enough rain, There are plenty of questions on how this will impact the reservoirs this year. And, if we have another dry winter, next year could be even worse. Water managers in the Sacramento Valley are working to respond to the difficult water situation while managing the water resources to meet all needs. This is the time when efficient water management practices are appreciated the most. At NCWA, we continue to work on regional water management efforts to benefit the Sacramento Valley. This month, the Water Management Task Farce an;d managers throughout the region met to discuss groundwater quality monitoring efforts for salts, nitrates and other constituents. Work continues on the development of updated agricultural water management plans in the region as well as compliance with new water measurement regulations. NCWA and our members also continue our work to support the Pacific Flyway with a lobby effort in Washington, DC and discussions on how best to meet refuge water supply needs throughout the state. We also continue work on the Sacramento Valley Fish Screen Program with our efforts to screen the last two high priority diversions on the Sacramento River, which would be a successful conclusion to the program that was two decades in the making. A,t~Far~ ~ielr:ReFor~' On February 30, the California Water Commission approved an updated "Agricultural Aggregated Farm-Gate Delivery Reporting Form" brought before them by the Department of Water Resources (DWR}. This is DWR's second attempt to develop a standardized reporting form fax aggregated farm-gate deliver reporting to comply with require#nents in SB X7 7 (3009) requirements.- The first form was fmalized by DWR and approved by the Office of Administrative Law last year, over the objections of water users who explained that the form would be problematic to fill out and submit annually because it was split between two water years. The first form covers a timeframe of July 1 through June 30, which coincides with the state fiscal year but ends in the middle of the irrigation season. The form more recently approved by the CWC shafts the timeframe being reported to a calendar year (January through December) and would lengthen the time allotted to submit the form from 30 days to several months. 1'~ ~Iarl~GWorwvV.e~A ~ More comprehensive and integrated regulation. Regulatory coverage of more stressors, reduced duplication, and expedited environmental permitting {currently a costly obstacle to ecosystem reconciliation). J. ~4 ~- f _., On July 11, 2012 the Office of Administrative Law {OAL) approved the final regulation for agricultural water measurement. In summary, the regulation requires water suppliers serving 25,000 or more irrigable acres to implement a measurement program at each individual delivery point. Measurement can occur at the lateral level if a water supplier does not have legal access to the turnouts or if "An engineer determines that, due to small differentials in water level or large fluctuations in flow rate or velocity that occur during the delivery season at a single farm-gate, accuracy standards of measurement options in §597.3(a) cannot be met by installing a measurement device or devices [emphasis added]." By including "devices" in this definition, it eliminates the option of measuring at the lateral level because of likely challenges that the water supplier could comply if they install multiple devices on each turnout. There is no limit on how many devices a district would need to evaluate to determine if they could comply with the regulation's requirement for turnout level measurement. Far either of the two options (turnout or lateral), the measurement device used must measure volume of water delivered at the fallowing accuracy levels: "1} an existing measurement device shall be certified to be accurate to within ~ 12% by volume. and, 2) A new or replacement measurement device shag be certified to be accurate to within: A} ~ 5% by volume in the laboratory if using a laboratory certification; B) ~ 10% by volume in the field ifusing anon-laboratory certification." The stated numerical accuracy for each measurement option is for the volume delivered. If a device measures a value other than volume, for example, flow rate, velocity or water elevation, the accuracy certification must incorporate the measurements or calculations required to convert the measured value to volume. An agricultural water supplier providing water to 10,000 or mare irrigated acres but less than 25,000 irrigated acres will be subject to this regulation only if sufficient funding is provided specifically for that purpose. According to the regulation, water suppliers were supposed to have implemented water measurement programs by July 31, 2012. But, due to the unrealistic nature of this deadline, it appears that DWR will accept the inclusion of a plan for implementation of the grogram in Agricultural Water Management Plans water suppliers will be submitting this year. According to the Water Code, water suppliers serving more than 25,000 irrigated acres were required to adopt an updated agricultural-water management plan (AWMP) by the end of 2012. Unfortunately, the Department of Water Resources (DWIt) didn't release the final guidebook for developing AWMPs until November 6. So, it was unrealistic to expect water suppliers subject to the requirement to submit AWMPs by the end of the year. The next critical deadline is DWRs report to the legislature summarizing the status of plans adopted in accordance with the new regulations, which is due December 31, 2013. Water suppliers will need to submit their AWMPs to DWR in time to be included in the report. i9 r~~tw. ~iultcual Wai~rMeasurae~aent SB X7'~ provided new guidelines for AWMPs, including a requirement that the puns include an evaluation ofhe effect climate dxange will have on future water supply reliability. Water suppliers serving more than 10,000 irrigable acres and less than 25,1}00 acres are required to develop a.plan only if funding is provided.. But, we have found that the development of an AWMP provides water suppliers with an idea! opportunity to describe how they manage water resources within.their service areas. This helps to dispel uninformed assumptions that. water suppliers do not manage their water or lack plans to improve their efficiency. It is our hope that all water suppliers in the Valley will either update their plan or develop new AWMPs. NCWA has developed a basic AWMP .template for water suppliers. The thought is that this template. allows a water supplier to voluntarily develop an AWMP that fts its needs without having to spend a lot of time and resources on the effort. The plan developed by using the template will help guide water management decisions far the water supplier and would allow them to describe how they mange water in their service area. Agricultial water suppliers who submit water conservation plans to the Bureau of Reclamation can submit those plans to DWR to comply with these requirements. in April, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) convened the Agricultural Stakeholder Committee {ASC) to initiate an effort to evaluate-anal update the current Efficient Water Management Practices (EWMPs}, as authorized by SB X7 7 {2fl09). The legislation stated that DWR "may update the efficient water management practices required pursuant to subdivision (c), in consultation with the Agricultural Water Management Council, the United States Bureau of Reclamation, and the board. All efficient water management practices for agricultural water use pursuant to this chapter shall be adopted or revised by the department only after the department conducts. public hearings to allow participation of the diverse geographical areas and interests of the state '> EWMPs wirers originally defined with the passage of AB 3616 itt 199t3 as "reasonable and economically justifiable programs to improve the delivery,and use ofwater used far agricultural purposes:" 't'he EWMPs are used to guide the development of Agricultt~sal Water Management. Plans. At the meeting;. DWR announced an aggressive schedule.that would culminate with the development of a final report on updateilEWMPs by March3.1, 2014.: DWR expects that the report wili.include: a review of EWMPs and BMPs for agricultural water use; an evaluation,of new methods, technologies; other states' experiences; an assessment of technical feasibility, institutional. and economic barriers, arfd cost of revised EWMPs to achieve more efficient water. use statewide that is consis~nt with'the jiublic interest and rellecfs past investt~nts in water use efficiency; and; language to address ~ ~°-T consist~cy among state and federal regirirements. At the meeting -anal. in subsequent correspondence; NCWA and othe~ASC members are recominending that DWR first evaluate the updated Agricultural Water 1Vlanagement Plans it has beenreceiving-from water suppliers this year to determine how the current EWMPs are being used to guide plan development before engaging in this process to update the practices. The next updated AWMPs will be. due to DWR by `.. December 31, 2015. We do not see the need to complete this process by March 31, 2014. If the process was completed by the end of 2014, it would give water suppliers 12 months to complete their AWMP updates with the revised EWMPs.' The next ASC meeting is scheduled in June. it is expected that DWR will announce its course of action for this process at that meeting. Zfl, tVa~llmGYiodsWa~naoeaon In April, the Department of Water-Resources (DWR) released its Draft Funding Recommendation for the Proposition 50 Agricultural Water Use Efficiency Proposal Solicitation Package (PSP). DWR is recommending that 39 applications be funded for a total award amount of $14.85 million. Recall that the PSP divided the projects into two categories: Section A, or implementation projects and Section B, which includes projects addressing research and development, feasibility studies, pilot or demonstration projects, training, education, outreach and technical assistance for agricultural water use efficiency. In Section A, Sacramento Valley water suppliers did very well, receiving nine of the 12 awards DWR made in this category. The projects that were funded include: ~ Reclamation District 2035 Pump conversion and modernization; improving water system management, energy efficiency and air quality -- $37,600. Natomas Central Mutual Water Company NDC Lift - Tailwater Recirculation Pump Station -- $1,800,000 ~ Western Canal Water District Replacement and Automation of Nelson Elevation Control Structure -- $600,195 ~ Natomas Central Mutual Water Company Sankey Road Cheek Structure Automation Project -- $216,000 ~ Butte Water District Pennington Weir Replacement -- $677,988 ~ Placer County Water Agency Gunite Lining of Earthen Canal to Reduce Unrecoverable Water Loss -- $399,378 ~ Maxwell Irrigation District Flow Measurement Improvement Project -- $178,596 ~ Yolo iCounty Plood Control and Water Conservation District Winters Main Canal Modernization Project: Integrated Precision Water Management -- $1,288,350 ~ Orland Unit Water Users Association Orland Project Northside Distribution System Improvements -- $1,358,245 DWR is expected to release the final grant award list this summer. In April, NCWA joined Audubon California, California Waterfowl Association, Ducks Unlimited, and other representatives from the Central Valley Taint Venture {CVJV} on a trip to Washington, DC to advocate for the CV.iV and-other bird habitat programs. While back in DC, the group met with members of the California Congressional Delegation, Office of Management and Budget, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation. The purpose of the meetings was to support fitll 'funding for the Joint Venture Program as well as the Refuge Water Supply Program, North American Wetlands Consetva#ion Act (NAWCA) and various U.S. Department of Agricultural programs, all of which promote habitat values to support the Pacific Flyway. In addition, the lobby trip was an opportunity to educate legislators and their staff as to the investments that have been made by a diverse group of partners to create the habitat in the Central Valley that is vital to migrating and wintering species of birds. Hopefully this time will pay off later this year when the appropriations bills that would fund these programs are finalized. 21 r~~t-..w.~A The poor water condi#ions this year are making refuge water supply acquisitions especially difficult. Refuge managers are struggling to acquire water supplies for refuges, especially Those in the San Joaquin valley, with limited budgets and.scarce water supplies available for transfer. To date, the Level 4 Refuge water supplies that have been acquired total approximately 35,000 acre-feet: This is considerably below the 65,000 acre-feet that are purchased ig an average year. This year, the Bureau of Reclamation {Bureau) had $7.5 million available to purchase Level ~ Refixge water supplies. The vast majority of this funding ($6.5 million) was spent on a single purchase of much needed water supplies from the Exchange Contractors. in the San Joaquin Valley. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Bureau are also working to transfer some.water supplies through the Delta to-meet needs down south. In total, the Level 4 supplies this.year will`h7cely be around 40,000 acre-feet. In related news, NCWA is participating in an effort led by the Bureau and USFWS to develop along-term approach for the acquisition and delivery of water supplies to Refiiges south of the Delta. To date, there have been a few meetings. But, with the water problems the Refuges are experiencing this year, we expect this effort to pick up during the next several months. ~estormg ~e oxr I~uas:.A ~.iute forAdaiant The Northern"California Water Association ("NCWA"} and water resources managers in the Sacramento Valley, as.part of ongoing efforts to foster regional sustainabiIity with respect to water. resources, have developed significant partnerships with federal and state agencies and conservation partners that have improved migratory corridors and habitat for anadromous fish (salmon and steelhead) within the region; yet, there is still more work ahead to restore the salmon runs. Fish Passage lmprovennents _Over the past several decades there has been tremendous effort to build fish screens. and siphons on major diversions in the Sacramen#o Valley to protect fisheries while. assuring water supply reliability for farms, refuges, cities and Waal communities.. There is an ongoing effort to finalize .fish screens on the few remaining.high.priority diversions in the Sacramento Valley. {see following page) Instream Flows _The Sacramento Valley has instream flow agreements or requirements an every ma}or part of the Sacramento River hydrologic region, which is summarized in "instream 1~ low Requirements in the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region:' These various arrangements will continuously be evaluated over time to assure they provide water supply reliability and benefit fisheries. Spawning Habitat. A gravel recruitment program in key reaches of the river system would help provide spawning habitat for salmon. ~~;: i'~We~tarA,rx;~: Refer WaterSr~ply ~ High Priority Streams. The California legislature in 2009 required the State Water Resources Control Board to develop a prioritized schedule to complete instream flow studies for high priority streams by 201$. (Water Code §$5087.} To help jumpstart this process, there is an interest in accelearating the implementation of agreements and programs onhigh-priority tributaries to the Sacramento River. ~~ ~ lrr February, NCWA and representatives from Meridian Farms Water Company, Natomas Mutual Water Company and Reclamation District 2035 traveled to Washington, DC to once again lobby for funding to complete their respective fish screen projects. This year, the lobby team met with Members of the California Congressional Delegation, their staff, Appropriations Corrunittee staff, the Office of Management and Budget and Bureau of Reclamation. These projects are the last remaining high priority fish screen projects on the Sacramento River. Over the past two decades, water users and their state and federal partners have implemented a highly successful program to screen all of the priority diversions. In addition, a program to screen smaller diversions in the Sacramento Valley has been operating for more than a decade to implement other screen projects in the region. The Anadromous Fish Screen Frogram was authorized in the Central Valley Project linprovement Act of 1992. The program allows the Bureau of Reclamation to fund up to 50 percent of the total project cost for the fish screens. The remaining funding has been provided by the project proponent and the State of California though the CALFED program or the Ecosystem Restoration Program administered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 23' Na3Lri~C.U~aw.t~A.. '+'~ Salmon Smolt Escapement Plan. Water resources managers, working with various partners, are developing a "Baboon Smolt Escapement Plan" to maximize the escapement.ofnatural and hatchery salmon smolts through the Delta with a coordinated program of water storage releases, frsh releases, additional strategic pulse flows, and the timing of diversions. This will help avoid the primary problem of predation, the main source ofmortality. Participating in the February fish screen lobby trip (from 1-r): Dr. Bi11 Marble,. S`i6 Fedora, Dennis Diemer, Todd lLfanley, Brett Gray, Bob Thomas, :tlndy Dt~'ey ancl.7oe Krovoza. ~nfincr~n t8 ~~'~ ~jntr0l $Opid C3~ij".-. ~,•,- GRIHI ;Of#~ G~~usl~ns ~tlb3 ~~ ~~~a~ ~a~age 2~ rcw,~ ~R ~~ ~~ Weast~ide I~~e~ronal NTater~rr~ntPlau By Chris Lee Earlier this month, the Westside Coordinating Committee announced the release of the Public Review Draft of the Westside 11tWMP which is all available at westsideirwm.coin. Adoption of the Westside IRWMP by the Regional Water Management Group is anticipated to occur in July of 2413. {All draft sections are available for review at the Westside website.) The Westside CC submitted a proposal to DWR for Round 2 of the Proposition 8d Implementation funds for 1RWM Plans. The Westside proposal included 8 projects with a total cost of $15.6 million, with a grant request of $9.07 million. ~11P~ITCc7l1 Rl[~,T'.~?Sm ~d ~~~Ialiar ~~l~l?~P,~7t~~Il By Rob Swartz Progress continues on the American River Basin 1RWMP Update. Use of RWA's web-based 1RWMP interface continues to grow. More thaxi 170 individuals have logged into the site, and there are 135 projects entered to date. RWA held a stakeholder workshop in March 2013 to receive input on draft strategies to implement objectives and ARB IRWMP principles. Draft sections ofthe ARB 1RWMP are being released for comment in mid-May. The ARB lRWMP Update is anticipated to be completed in July 2013. Non~he~ SaQamenta Valleylnted Reg~anal Wat~rMarmentPlan By Vickie Newli~r The Northern Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Board {NSV Beard} reopened the project submittal process to encourage new project proponents to get their projects included in the NSVIRWM Plan and for existing projects to be updated. Project proponents were requested to submit their projects into an on-line submittal -form at whatever stage of development they might be in at this time. Some of the projects are clearly conceptual in nature, but the idea is to get the concept out there for review and discussion. The most recent project submittal round included the submission of 17 new projects for a total of 113 ranked projects and 11 projects included "to be tracked". The new and revised projects were reviewed and ranked by the project review subcommittee for potential inclusion in the NSVIRWM Plan. One consideration made by the subcommittee is a closer review of those projects that attempted to receive points associated with tribal benefits..The subcommittee was assisted in this review by Oscar Serrano, TAC member and Senior Engineer from the Colusa Indian Community Council. Adjustments were made to a few projects to reflect the true intent of the DWR IRWM guidelines with regard to tn'bal benefits. Project proponents continue to be cautioned that this ranking does not determine which projects will be included in a funding application. As individual funding sources arise, projects that meet the criteria for that particular funding opportunity will likely be included in the application to make it more competitive. A key component of the 1RWMP is the integration of different projects to satisfy multiple goals and benefit multiple parties. Therefore, project proponents are encouraged to 2.5 ATarlLeanfbi~aeatpW.trA.~od.~om The revised list of projects will be taken to the NSV Board for consideration at their June 3, 2013 meeting. With the inclusion of the newly submitted projects, at this tince there have been a total of 124 projects submitted into the planning process: At an earlier meeting, the NSV Board determined that projects that were not in con#lict with the Goals-and Objectives approved by the Board in June 2012 should be included in the plan. The overlying goals include: Water Supply Reliability, Flood Protection and Planning, Water Quality Protection and Enhancement, Watershed Protections and Management, Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Sustainability and Public Education and information Dissemination. Underlying objectives to meet these goals are also provided on the.website at www:nsvwate lan.or . With regard #o the development of the NSVIRWM Plan itself, DWR requires the IRWM to address specific issues as outlined in the 2010 Guidelines. These issues have been incorporated into the planning process through individual chapters which wil! be included in the NSVIRWM Plan. Each of these chapters has been presented to the full TAC and the last three chapters will be taken to the Board for their approval in concept at the June 3, 2013 NSV Board meeting. Public comments on the chapters are being accepted until June 7, 2013 for inclusion in the DRAFT plan. AIl comments submitted will be reviewed by a subcommittee ofthe TAC and language changes will be brought back through the full TAC for a recommendation to the NSV Board. Following this process, the DRAFT plan which will be released for another round of public comment in early .fail. The NSVIRWM planning process has been extended through May 2014 in an effort to help coordinate this plarming effort with the Feather River and Mid and Upper Sacramento River Regional Flood Management Planning processes being developed through the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan. The idea is to have flood projects included in the NSVIltWM Plan. For further information please feel free to contact me or visit ~e website. '~ ~~3[D~ ~,T'~~Il~ i~'~tl~J ~~RP~Ol~?I ~.i'c'~>~Z7t' By Scutt Matyac . The Yuba Region has received a commitment letter from the California Department of Water Resources for the Region's full funding request of $603,106 under the 2012 IRWMP Planning Grant Round 2 funding cycle. The funding will be used to pay for legislatively required updates to the existing IRWM Flan and de~ielopment of projects for dse 2014 round of:DWR implementation .funding. As the- lead Agency, Yuba County Water Agency .is working to contract with DWR for the grant funding as the Regiozz begins an aggressive recruitment process to increase participation by members who have not been recently engaged in the process. Next steps are to meet one on one with Region members during May to gather preliminary information an funding needs and to get input on ways to optimize the planning process, all in preparation for an IRWM Flan update kick-offmeeting in late June. 26 Na~lhnaC.ll~atSWatarAwodaton interact with one another to integrate individual concepts into a more comprehensive project which would lie.more viable;in a funding application. Court Issues Fl~ual Ruling 4n Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. By Tess Dunham, Somach Simmons and Dunn On May 21, the Sacramento Superior Court issued its Final Ruling in California Sportsfrshing Protection Alliance vs. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Palley Region on the 2011 approval of the Long-Term Irrigated Lands Regulatory Pmgram {ILRP) and the Shori Term Renewal of the iLRP. In his ruling, Judge Timothy M. Frawley did not maintain his original decision as expressed in his March 28 Tentative Ruling that the Frogrammatic Environmental Impact Report {PEIR} was inadequate. Rather, based on arguments presented by the Regional Board, his fatal ruling finds that the challenges to the EIR are denied. His position did not change with respect to application of the antidegradation and the nonpoint source policies to the Board's Short Term Renewal, and in both of those specific causes of action the Court found that the Regional Board had abused its discx+etion. However, the Court is not requiring that the Short Term Renewal be f, invalidated but that the Regional $oard must show compliance with antidegradation and the nonpoint source policies for the Long-Term ILRP. In late March, the Sacramento Superior Court issued a Tentative Ruling in the case that found the PEIR was deficient on two grounds {alternatives analysis & cumulative impacts analysis}_ The tentative ruling also found that the short term renewal and the Regional Board's adoption thereof did not comply with the antidegradationpoBcy and the State's Nonpoint Source Policy. The tentative ruling then proposed that although the Short Term Renewal was not in compliance with antidegradation, the Court was not going to require the Regional Board to rescind the short term renewal. Rather, the tentative ruling would have directed the Regional Board to leave the Short Term Renewal iat place while it corrected the problems with the PEIR. The Court held a hearing on its tentative ruling on March. 29. Based on the arguments at the hearing, the Court did not affirm (i,e., adopt) its tentative ruling. Rather than adapting the tentative ruling, the Court requested supplemental briefing with respect to CEQA issues in the case. Responses to the Supplemental Briefing questions were submitted on Apri125. Itt this intervening period, the Regional Board has continued to draft and hold workshops on the remaining Waste Discharge Requirement {WDR) Orders. And the existing Short Tenn Renewal, and associated MRPs reznaitt intact at this time, meaning that implementation of the existing program co-ttit~ues. Far the Eastern San Joaquin, whose WDR was adopted by the Regional Board last December, the Regiona! Board has been reviewing deliverables and enrolling new landowners under the schedule in the adopted WDR. Given the Regional Board-has seven WDR Orders to finish, including workshops, the Coalition's Order is likely to be adopted in 2414. _: _ _: ~Ql~ ~aliforlrua. Integra~,ed ~teport impaired Water Bodies} Falls Behind :Schedule The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) staff, in coordination with Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board staff and United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), has been working to assess the data and information submitted by all interested parties on surface water quality conditions as part of the Notice of Soiicitation for the Integrated Report on Surface Water Quality and List of Impaired Waterbodies[Clean Water Act Sections 305(b) and 303(d}) dated August 30, 2010.Over 250 individual data sets, covering aver 20,000 individual waterbody pollutant State Water Board staffcontin~ses to work on the assessment of the data in order to create an accurate and scientifically defensible report. Due to the complex nature of this project, State Water Board staff anticipates that the data assessment work will be completed and available for Regional Board public review by the end of 2013 ar early 2014. Dl S~ aIId ~ lII P~II ~'~Dgt~$~'~II(~` i~COF1II~ ~4 ~ ~~CE ;ul~~.~. The CV-SALTS (Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long Term Sustainability) Basin Flan Amendment process, is entering a critical phase, especially where salinity and nitrates in the surface or groundwater meet water quality objectives. An anti-degradation analysis must take place for discharges to high quality waters. to ensure actions are being taken are protective of the beneficial uses in those waters. The CV-SALTS Executive Committee policy discussions in March focused on defining groundwater basins (management zone) boundaries and policy decisions related to utilizing limited. data to characterize spatial and temporal nitrate and salinity concentrations. At flee April meeting the CV-SALTS Executive Committee reviewed ground water quality data compiled from phase 1 of the Initial Conceptual Mode! with summary presentations of available information for the Initial Analysis Zories and Prototype Areas. Technical work on the Initial Conceptual Model (source, fate and transport of salt and nitrate) is expected to be completed by July 2013. Water quality information for 23 initial analyzes zones has been gathered and is currently being evaluated both spatially and temporally. The project will be conducting evaluations on a finer scale (one square mile] within two distinct area§: 'from the eastside dams thru Modesto to the San Joaquin River; and for the lower Kings ]fiver watershed in the Tulare Lake Basin. Several other technical projects are also underway. Tlie GIS Framework effort has completed layers identifying designated uses and water qualitq objectives for Central Valley water bodies. The work is being done in coordination with asimilar-State Water Board mapping effort and is providing refined data for that project. Linked to the GIS mapping is the first phase of the AGR Zone Mapping project which is identifying broad areas with similar agricultural practices. Information. gathered will be utilized to provide interpretation of protective salinity water quality concentrations to protect agricultural supply. The Strategic Salt Accumulation Land and Transportation Study (SSALTS) which will evaluate viable salt disposal alternatives is characterizing salt accumulation in ten study areas and will be evaluating sustainability of current practices within those areas. A technical report characterizing geohydrology and ground water quality within a portion of the Tulare Lake Bed,floor as part of the evaluation of appropriate application of Municipal and Domestic Water Supply (MUN) Beneficial Use to area ground water is currently under review. A brief summary of all CV-SALTS technical projects has been posted nn the updated CV-SALTS website. To meet the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Recycled Water Policy requirement of having a Basin Plan complete by the end of 2014, the Executive Committee (dischargers, agricultural and other stakeholders) must start the environmental process~and draft basin plan language this summer. Before language can be drafted, unfuiished policy decisions on point of compliance, appropriate application of and level of protection for MUN and Agricultural Supply (AGR} _ _.. 28; ~~w~r combinations and over 150,000 sample paunts, were received from sources including government agencies, municipalities, environmental groups, citizen groups, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System dischargers. beneficial uses, integration of two very different models to measure salinity impacts on crops, conflicting management decisions between salts and nitrates, plus mitigation measures must be negotiated among the dischargers and Regional Water Board staff. The goal is to have Basin Plan language drafted in August with an Environmental 5coping session tentatively scheduled for June. Agricuittu~al D©mina~ed ~at,~ Bodiies Evaluation-Source of Drinking ~Va~er The project evaluating appropriate application and level of protection of MUN in agriculturally dominated receiving waters is continuing close to schedule with the completion of both a full year of water quality monitoring at the sites being evaluated as well as a stakeholder meeting occurring in March 2013. At the meeting, stakeholders confirmed an approach to categorizing agricultural water bodies that is heavily based on the approach approved by the Central. Valley Water Board in 1992. The group also developed alternatives to link potential refined MUN beneficial uses and protective narrative and numeric water quality objectives to the different water body categories (such as constructed agricultural supply channels and agriculturally dominated natural water bodies). The next stakeholder meeting is scheduled for May 28 and will continue discussions on appropriate water quality objectives as well as potential implementation measures. With the first year of water quality monitoring complete, focused monitoring will continue through September 2013. More information on the project can be found here. Central Valley Drinl~ing Wat3er Policy "VVorkgl"oup Finalizes Basin ~ Plain ~ang~.>ta~e In April, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board {Regional Water Boardj held a public hearing for the Basin PIan amendment establishing a Drinking Water Policy for surface waters in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. The proposed Basin Flan amendment includes 1 } a narrative water quality objective far Cyrptosparidium and Giarrrlia to protect the public water system component of the MUN (municipal and domestic drinking water} beneficial use. Extensive technical studies, monitoring results and modeling were conducted as part of developing the Basin Plan amendment. While no current violations of water quality objectives for Cyrptosporidium and Giardia exist, the implementation plan of the Basin Amendment includes numeric triggers that would prompt investigatory action by the Regional Water Board should monitoring detect changes in the ambient surface water conditions. Regional Water Board staffwiil prepanr responses to comments received and final recommendations in a report for Water Board consideration at a public hearing scheduled for the Regional Board's July 25-2b meeting. 9 1+icrtL~sn ta1~a Water ArnCsk+® on.earmarks still in effect, the Senate is opting for ageneric project authorization provision to authorize construction funding for.projects that have received a completed Corps of Engineers Chiefs Report. -The bill also hazes a significant problene, violations of Section 902(b), in which construction on.ongoing projects is halted because costs have exceeded the federal fimding:leyels authorized in law. The legislation has.the support of a wide variety of public and private sector interest groups, but it has also attracted some opp~srtinn.primarily frgm environmental:interest groups concerned about prnvisons of the bill modeled after IvIAP- 21 a recently'passed surface. tratrsportation law, wliieh would streamline the environmental xeview requirements-far water resource projects. The bill's "project acceleration" provisions are accompanied by a "study acceleration" section and other provisions designed to reduce the long time it typically takes for a water resources project to emerge from the Corps of Engineers ~n May ~.5, ~~13, the U.S. Serrate approved 5~ 501, the Water Resources Development Act ~1N,RDA] of 2013. The ~ mote marked the first time.: in six yea#s that the Senate has successfully I apprflwed a water resou~ees authoriYatior4 bill. Ti*G prepaxed a review of the legislation as it pertains to local governments and public agencies. study, planning, design, and construction stages. However, this section is concerning to environmentalists who feel it would allow the Corps to quickly approve projects without consulting other agencies to determine whether a project would harm the environment. The leadership of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the committee with primary jurisdiction over WRDA in the House, has indicated that they are not in a rush to take up the Senate WRDA bill. According to many observers, formal consideration of WA,DA by the House. committee will likely occur no earlier than mid-summer. California members of the committee include Gary Miller (R-31}, Duncan Hunter (It 50), JeffDunham (R-10), Grace Napalitano {D-32), John Garamencli (D-3), and 3artice Hahn (D-44). The House expects to hold additional hearings and "listening sessions" on the bill and it remains dissatisfied with the way the Senate handled the issue of authorizing projects to move from the study phase. to construction. House Committee leaders are also concerned about the way the Senate handled the issue of authorizing projects for construction without naming specific projects-and specific dollar amounts. The Senate bill, according to House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman Bill Shuster, cedes too much authority to the executive branch as to which projects can move to construction, Chairman Shuster has not, however, released an alternative plan for moving projects to construction in light of the current prohibition on earmarks, which applies to authorizing bills as well as appropriations bills. . The White House's statement of administration policy expressed concerns with the bill without expressly saying ifthe president would support or oppose the bill if it landed, unchanged, at his desk. The Office of Management and Budget reported that the bill would expand the Corps' $60 billion construction backlog without adequately limiting new project authorizations based oa economic, environmental or public safety reasons. The bill would also "weaken Congressional involvement and transparency in the By Roger Gwinn 30 t3acl3.~aCwat~A~,® The Department of the Interior in late April sent three rules that could significantly affect the way habitat is protected for threatened and endangered species to the White House Office of Management and Budget {OMB} for review. One of the rules will determine how the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS} decides which lands should be set aside as critical habitat and which lands should be left available for economic development. Another will redefine the threshold for when potential projects to be permitted would be deemed to adversely modify critical habitat, a criteria for such activities to meet in order to be allowed to move forward. We -are unclear as to what the third rule entails at this time. The Department cannot release drafts of the rules to the public because none of them are complete, but it said each rule is designed to improve implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA} and reduce conflicts. The proposed rule to redefine what constitutes "destruction or adverse modification" of critical habitat could reinterpret a part of the ESA that has been controversial for over a decade. The ESA requires the government to protect critical habitat for endangered species and prohibits destruction or adverse modif cation of that habitat, The:big question is how to define "adverse modification," which has been the subject of ambiguity since the ESA was enacted. Currently, the Department defines "destruction or adverse modification" of critical habitat as, "a director indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed species." But the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2004 said that definition would "drastically narrow the scope of protection commanded by Congress under ESA." While environmental groups want the government to expand protections to aid species' recovery by changing the definition to "survival or recovery," others azgue this is an overly broad interpretation. The other pending rule before OMB would "articulate the purpose of critical habitat" and describe when and how it should be designated. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicated on Apri130 that their "post-construction" stonmwater rule will be designed to limit sprawl and encourage construction on already developed property by setting stricter standards for retention of stormwater on newly-tlaveloped "green-fields" sites and less stringent standards on previously developed sites, according to an EPA Office of Water spokesman. The rule will also regulate runoff from roads and expand municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permits to suburbs and other undeveloped areas, even if they do not yet meet the population threshold for MS4 permits, such as in azeas of "urban clusters" identified in the U.S. Census. The spokesman stated that by creating more stringent standards far new development and more relaxed standards for redevelopment inside MS4s, the rule will create incentives for redevelopment an existing sites. Also, according to EPA, as it stands now, the rule will not include mandatory retrofits for existing structures, as suggested previously by EPA, but would focus on redevelopment criteria. The rule appears to only affect MS4 permit#ees and not combined sewer systems, as EPA previously stated. 31 i~t~c,~~.t.w~ authorization of Corps studies and construction projects while expanding Federal obligations without ensuring taxpayer dollars are targeted io achieve the highest overall return for the Nation," according to the statement. Finally, the rule will provide regulated entities with severai'suggested compliance options, including green infrastructure: techniques, to limit runoff, and will allow municipalities that implement green infrastructure on public lands to substitute that program for the stormwater rule's on site retention requirement. The stormwater rule is expected #o set, for the first-time, stormwater retention standards and results from the 2fl08 recommendations ofthe National Academy of Sciences and a 20101egal settlement with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and other environmental-groups. As part of the settlement, EPA agreed to develop a rule under section.402(p) of the Clean Water Act (CWA} to set first-time stormwater discharge. controls for development sites once construction is completed. Under the revised settlement, EFA is ta;have the proposed rule published by June 10; but that target date is unlikely to be met. On April i0, the House appraveil a pair ofbipartisan.measures (H.R.678 and H.R.267}that would ease environmental reviews for.small hydroelectric projects acd grants. the. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC}new authority for preliminary permits. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee promptly took up the House passed bills and on May 8; approved them both. H.R. 6'78, the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs: Act, introduced by r ' Rep. Scott Tipton (R-CO) to exempt hydropower projects of up - ~ to 5-rt~egawatts slated. to be installed nn Bureau of Reclamation _ ~ f ~ r~' land in tunnels, canals, pipelines or other man-made conduits "~ from -most environmental reviews and requirements of the National Environmental Poliiy Act (NEPA). Senators John Barrasso (R-WY}, Jim Risch (R-ID}, Mdse Enzi (R=WY), and = Mike Crapo (R-ID), introduced a companion bill in the Senate (S. 306), which mirrors the House passed version. Basically, _ the legislation would. streamline the regulatory process and reduce administrative costs for the installation of small hydropower development projects within those conduits. The Congressional Budget Office {CBO} has reported that H.R. 678 - has no cost to taxpayers, and returns revenues to the '~ Treasury. The interior Department has identified at least 3~3 ~ °~ Bureau of Reclamation canal sites nationwide that could be developed for hydropower purposes: _. ~ :r' , H.R. 267, the Hydropower improvement Act of 2013, introduced by Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) also passed out of the House in April and its companion Senate bill, S:54S; was also approved by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on-May 8. The bill would promote thegrowth- of mini hydro and in river hydro projects by streamilining FERC permitting process for law-impactproposals. It would also increase the threshold for license exemptions for certain projects to 10 MW from 5 MW, calls on FERC to look at creating a two year licensing process and would require the Energy Department to study the benefits and opportunities far pumped-storage facilities and conduit hydropower. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) said Senate leaders have indicated these bills could be up far a full Senate vote before the congressional recess at the end of May. 32: t~>w EPA may also seek to bring transportation projects under the regulation, though whether the requirements would apply only to new road construction or to other kinds of transportation infrastruchu'e as well is unclear. The president's FI' 2014 budget request was sent to the Congress on Wednesday, April 10, 65 days past the statutory deadline for the budget submittal. House action on its appropriations bill providing funding for the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers for FY 2014 is likely to occur in June, with Senate action likely to occur just after the July 4~` recess. The chairmen of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, Senator Barbara Mikulski, D-MD, and Rep. Hal Rogers, R-KY, have indicated repeatedly that they want to return to so»calied "regular order" where the House and Senate pass the twelve appropriations bills individually rather than together in the form of a continuing resolution or stop-gap funding bill that keeps the government largely operating on automatic pilot.. The challenges to this return to "regular order," however, are significant. Most importantly there is a $91 billion gap between the House and Senate's proposed funding levels for Fiscal Year 2014 spending as reflected in the budget resolutions approved by the two bodies. The 1rIause budget resolution provides $9G7 billion in budget authority while the Senate budget resolution and President Obama's budget request sets spending levels at the pre-sequestration level of $1.45$ trillion. Complicating matters further, the House budget resolutions call for spending $31 billion more on defense than current levels and $50 billion less than is currently being spent on domestic programs. ~3ludget f'ropo~als Reduce ~efcit; Di~rerge on Taxes, ~pent~ing 1.1ea1[h Care E utler+aenxs $pcndirtg € -___ 1 I~EtiSE Other. Revenue ~ Taxps comparison of House, Senate, and President Budget Praposats r M - Y ' w•• ws. • Kcpeats ACA 1'1c~€~aad extfaiett ~ and health [nsursnce ext:liaf}ge# FAatntains ACA #"iedicaid expsnsioo[ t ; ('7;tiint~llint ,4CJ4 Mleilitaid 8itparision ~ixd hnpiemenfatian of insurance ewCh~pgos • SeCS_ . _ Medicare ... 4tchange ~xrcin$ € . and heakh puu~nce cxe~,Ft~e# #~csYiris ~~nt strutttirc,af ~ Cuc#,5~08 trt+lta Mcdicau'e and s~ther hi•:a)th fx 202A, a{3aKinp iied[v[duals $5 for r Meditate Prt~grarns user iiratt cell years Younger ta. choose ~ktvreeh pri+katc. (' Mans and a {ee%#or.~rrise apdon ! ~ ~llt3 ~?TSB~in healthtarc~Spend[n~g- ~ Saves #73D6 by uafng th:;ined ii8 of . h+~ladvti Jvr vast-liyiirlg.adluaTanents ~ ~I'i3Yltte#¢rCr a~~Ftil'1ic~,@t'~$.•.•••••~.` a ~.iiFS~:F11 d~P,!}fi':lildflg-~57 P " p 'I\CStl3Ci'S[CfP}C~~~G~AE~n~b~~l~tJ,~'DVk4'RL}Ck spending wer the next t~ yeanc ~ continue tmlisary dnvrtlcav~m i xeri yearx • Extandt spendir~ zaps unptsse~ by the.,Budget Cas~trol Act through a,n~ • Rom talc ratca fnc.irid'nndu~sis, vrieh a maarirraer>a victual sax rate nF 25°'; ' l,~owers Gorpgraee d7K rite rA?5~ • lesrests S 1446 in spentfang an iittraatrucfure repair, jnb creation and wtx{ier trairiing • Iseve~acs rsrquesiras~eri.uscs and 1nw.3nco[nc farnt~ss • PFOVIdci fcir 597SB in sav;ngs by Closing tax touphotes and teli[ilitt5t~ tax breaks far.fhe wealthiest • Invests S50B in inFrastrnctvre and S E$ in re?anufatteirii~ itu[e~mttgiS to tpou° I°h h • ii4wrscs Rn 'etiura4a7l, ti~ainir~g, aatl t~srarch • ~exer~# sir~i}n„ t+m~ _....__,. ~_.. ~,..r...~ _~._~~...~.~r.~...~ .._.~__ _,._~ • i4aiscs S~t}fi dyer 3ren .years hY ios"tn$ tgx l~oop#~nlrs, prnirtng ~r~ dediiFaons-far tlrr woitchiesi, and requiring housel+oids aarnicsg oYer S}F"1 Lo pay at least 30YS xfFlhcvme #n sixes ~ Provide5,ta~c cred[ts w small bu3inesses and qk inceni~es t~r:research, manufacturing, energy Debt ~ ytedutrs debt to 39.8`a of GCDP by t ACduces det3t as a abort at GOP by Reduces debt as share of G~ by coifing defrcii t)etx 3DZ3 ~ cutting defth in xhe neat yen years to 2.8X n1 GRP sy 201 ~ and 1.,7~ by ~{i23 and _....._ ___._-t.~._. _.~,.~.~._.,,_._.~,__.~_--.~..r,~,..~... .. .. ., :_..__ _______.. ~:.,.. .. Deficit ;. Deficit pr4gau~s ~1.GTin deF~it, ro*luscian ~ ~ Proposes;1:85T in sierrtit Prapcses ~1,~ In detKii reducxion mrcr loco [n balance thi: bod~et.i>~ ten.years ~ reduttiott axer fen years years Sas~rces StRatr ~d@r[ Gommtttet fisrrn' Vpa, 2ti [ 3 Senai~ $~~dect Rezo+:r4w5; Hwr?s B~.Og+rr Cnn3R=rtter• F=szro7 i'rur lL3 t 4 buo~rt Rrsotut~nn While many obstacles remlain to House and Senate approval of individual appropriations bills, there continues to be forward movement. 33 x~aew.F By J. M. Cordd Our firth Future Water Leaders class was held on March 15 at the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge outside Willows, CA. It was a bea0.rtiful [ovation to discuss "Water and the Environment in the Sacraoento Valley." The fast presenters, Tim Johnson and Paul B~it#ner with California Rice Commission, proved quite comical with their stories and banter. However, when getting down to business, they discussed important issues. T'he changing demographics of Californa and the United States, leading to a mare diverse collection of people were discussed. T9~}r also talked about the efforts of rice producers to use less water, leading to a decrease in water usage from 6 acre feet to 4 acre feet per acre m the last 3©years. Furthermore, there is a campaign to raise awareness about not only rice production but the environmental and habitat benefits of rice land - a rebranding of sorts. .~. The second presenter was Dawit Zeleke with T'he Nature Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy started on the East Coast 60 years ago and current has approximately`1;400 employees in California. Dawit discussed his history of working with landowners to implement projects that promote habitat values. He also provided an overview ofthe Nature Conservaincy's work in-the Sacramento Valley. Plefore the a#ternoon presenters, we took a taut of the refuge, The tour'was very: informative and we discussed the refuge's acreage, weed Management strategies;.van~us apes of wildlife; hunting regulations, and ongoing .conservation and habitat management work. On the tour we sa~v rabbits,' different species of ducks, and other birds. The ttdrd presenter was Thad Benner with Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District. Thad focused on salmon runs and habitat. The different salmon runs are spring, winter, fall and late fall. The spring and winter salmon runs are endangered, while the fall and late-fall cans are those primarily ocean fished. He discussed die importance ofthe salmon being able to navigate the rivers to return to their spawning grounds to maintain genetic diversity. Each spawning ground provides a uniqueness that allows the salmon to have slight but important genetic differences. The last presenter of the day was Jane Dolan with the Sacramento River Conservation Area Forum. The forum was established in 1986 by Senate Bill 1086. Jane discussed the Forum's efforts to work with landowners along the river through a Safe Harbor Agreement. Under this agreement, the landowner would create, maintain, and enhance habitat and in exchange, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would not fine or report on.their farming operations. By Greg Van Dyke The final session of the Future Water Leaders Program was held on May 17 in Richvale, California at beautiful Lundberg Family Farms. The event focused on a culmination of prior sessions as well as new and unique discussion provided by hosts, Bryce and Homer Lundberg. Starting with the creative and insightful words of Hozn~er Lundberg, the session began. Focusing on the history and philosophy of Lundberg Family Farms, Homer provided great perspective on the topics of leadership, best business practices, and his unique philosophy about life and success in the agricultural industry. Mr. Lundberg also touched upon- some of the concepts 'g1>~e ~a~er ~ea~less required reading for anyone interested in business and life leadership. Following his uncle, participants were treated to a presentation from NC WA Chairman of the'Board, and Lundberg Family Farms' Bryce Lundberg. Bryce continued the theme of relating the Lundberg's refreshing family philosophy regarding water, agriculture, business, and the North State. Countless questions were asked and much discussion focused around Lundberg's history in the rice industry and specific importance of communication and social media related to telling the "Ag" story to California. Oh, also' many attempts were made to create the newest flavor of Lundberg Family Farms' Rice Cakes! Ida Noey then presented NCWA's conanaunication plan to the participants. Ida's presentation was very cleaz .and concise focusing on how to effectively convey the story of water and Agriculture in California. The presentation stimulated lively discussion regarding the use of social media, blogs, non-traditional, and as well as traditional print material to tell NCWA's story. It was evident among the participants that the communication aspect has GREAT importance to the education of the layperson and also to long-term viability of continued agricultural use of water resources. David Guy concluded the presentations by presenting an overview of the current Bay-Delta dynamic and leading a very involved question and answer period far the participants. David discussed the Governor's ideas, political climate, and the broader topic of water infrastructure and philosophy in California. This format yielded excellent discussion and also served as a nice culminating discussion about the Future Water Leaders Program as a whole. After the presentations everyone was excited to receive a tour of the family's shipping, packaging, and rice cake production facility. Bryce Lundberg led the group and answered countless questions about specific equipment, upcoming product lines, production levels, customers, rice varieties, rice cake flavors, and even fava beans! All of the information was fascinating and the participants were truly engaged during this special opportunity. Bryce was phenomenal and all of the participants thanked the Lundberg Family for. being such gracious and _...__ generous- osts~ 35 N~einC~fnWit~rArnd presented by Whole Foods Founder and author, john Mackey in, "Conscious Capitalism" and recommended the book as Represerrtativ~s Dvug LaMalfa and .; Jahn Garamend; speakers at the May 30 Sacramertty Palley Lcmdawners:4ssociatiorr Annual llTeeting. ~0~3 NGV~A annual Meeting SVhA Annum Meeting 36 bia~L.aCe~are~swa-~Aaaoalwm Honoring Charlie Hoppin 37 n~~ci~.w. 2013 NCWA Annum ~Vie~e#irig (con's) NCWA Chairman Brace Lundberg presents Annual Meeting Speakers l ~m Palmer and Malcolm Margolin with rice cookers Bryce Lundberg presents Ben Carter with a NCWA Board Resolution recognizing Ben's public service on the Central Palley Flood Protection Board YCFC&WCD GM Tim Q'Halloran helps NCWA present Fran Borcalli with the Innovative Water Management Award. (From Le,~J YCWA Board Member John Nicholetti, Glenn Co. Sup. Dwfght Foltz, Cong. Doug LaMalfa, Ret. Cong. Wally Herger, NCWA Chair Bryce Lundberg ~~A Membhip ,;. Thank you for neadiug this edition of the NCWA :Conveyance. If you are nat. cvrreetly a NCWA Member, we encourage you. to join: Below is aform;-for Membership. If you have any questioins, .or world hke to join NGWA, please call Todd Manley. at (9I5~ 442-8333r 38 I3stLmGi~s.W,d~rt Paee 1 1~1CWA Bay-Delta Policy http://w~rv~~~.norcalwater,ar~/bav-delta) Paee 8 )\TCWA Bay-Delta Polley httpllyvww.norealwater.or~/bay-de[ta1 "What's at Stake?" Brochare http:]/w_vvw,norca]water.orQlwp-can#ent/uploads12012/07117781 NCWA_WhatsA#5takeBrochure v,l ai4 F1NAL single Llt.pdf page 17 PPIC Report: "Stress Relief Prescriptio~rs far a ~IealtkierDdta Ecosystrar" k-tlp:llwww. ppic.or~/main/pub [ication.asp?i=1051 Paee 22 "insights into the Problems, Progress aad Potential 5oh~tioes for Sacrameato River Basin Native Anadromons 1<ish Restoration" h#tp:/1w~vw.norcalwater.ortrlefficient-water-mana~err~entlfisheries-enhancements) "iustream Flow Requirements in the Sacramea#o River Hydrologic Region." http_ //www.nc~rcalwater.or~efficieni-water-mana~ementlinstream-flows/ Paae 25 Westside 1RWM Plan h## :/lwww.wes#sideirwm.corn/dra lansections/ RWA's web-based IRWMP interface http:/lirwrr-.rrricwater„rr~m/rwallo~in, play Page 28 CV-SALTS website h :/lcesalini '.or index. h /corn oneztt/finder/search.htrril? - ro'ect+descri lion&Itemid=288 Paae 29 Agricultural Dominated Water Bodies Evaluation-Source of Drinking Wa#er http:/lwww.wa#erboards.ca.~ov/centralvalley/water issueslsalinity/mun beneficial uselindex.shtml Page 30 S. 6©I, the Water Resources Develapmee# Act (WRDA) of 2013 http://www.thefer~ason~roup.coat/sitesfdefaul ~f31esITFG%2.DS.pedal°/a2flRepart%20%20Sena#e%2flWRDA%202013%20-% 20May%2022,%202013.pdf