Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Butte County Water Commission Agenda Packet for September 2017
Menchaca, Clarissa! From: BCWater Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 4:09 PM To: BCWater Subject: Water Commission Agenda Packet for September 2017 The following are available on the Butte County Water and Resource Conservation website: Water Commission Agenda Water Commission Packet Correspondence WaterSolutions Newsletter You can access the documents by clicking on the corresponding hyperlink. If you are unable to access the information please feel free to contact me. Thank you, Butte-ounty Water and Resource Conservation Administrative Analyst,Associate 308 Nelson Ave.,Oroville,CA 95965 Office:530.538.4343,Fax:530.538.3807 "COUNTY OF BUTTE E-MAIL DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and any attachment thereto may contain private,confidential,and privileged moteriol for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review,copying,or distribution of this e-moil(or any attachments thereto)by other than the County of Butte or the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are NOT the intended recipient,please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this e-moil and any attachments thereto. WATER AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION 308 Nelson Avenue,Oroville,CA 95965 -s4 Telephone:(530)538-4343 Fax:(530)538-3807 www.buttecouM.net/waterandresource ButLe County bcwaterCc�r�,buttecounty.net Paul Gosselin,Director WATER&RESOURCE CONSERvATION August 28, 2016 TO: Butte County Water Commission FROM: Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation SUBJECT: Meeting Agenda Date: September 6,2017 Time: 1:30 p.m. Place: 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 AGENDA ITEMS 1) Roll call. 2) *Approval of minutes for the August 2, 2017 meeting. (Vice Chair Jones) 3) Public members wishing to address the Commission on items not listed on the agenda. (The Water Commission is prohibited by State law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda. Comments will be limited to five minutes per person) 4) *Presentation and possible recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the California WaterFix and Bay Delta Water Quality Plan. (Paul Gosselin, Water and Resource Conservation) 5) *Presentation on the results of the 2017 Water Quality Trend Monitoring. (Christina Buck, Water and Resource Conservation) 6) Update on activities associated with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. (SGMA). (Water and Resource Conservation staff) a. Update on Groundwater Sustainability Plan development and governance. b. Update regarding the Groundwater Pumpers Advisory Committee (GPAC). 7) Update on the activities of the Northern Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Board (NSV Board) comprised of representatives of the Counties of Butte, I Colusa, Glenn, Tehama, Sutter and Shasta. (Paul Gosselin, Water and Resource Conservation) 8) Reports from Water Commissioners and staff on issues of interest. a. *Report on Water Advisory Committee, Technical Advisory Committee and general groundwater issues. (Christina Buck, Water and Resource Conservation) b. Report on surface water issues. (Paul Gosselin, Water and Resource Conservation) c. Report on water related activities of the Board of Supervisors. (Paul Gosselin, Water and Resource Conservation) d. Other issues. 9) Future meeting dates and locations: October 4, 2017 Board of Supervisors Chambers 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 96965 10) Commissioners wishing to address items not listed on the agenda. (The Water Commission is prohibited by state law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda) 11) *Communications received and referred. (Copies of all communications are available in the Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation, 308 Nelson Avenue, Oroville, California) 12)Adjournment. *Materials attached cc: Water Commission Mailing List Window Posting 2 WATER AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION .9 308 Nelson Avenue,Oroville,CA 95965 z " . r Telephone:(530)538-4343 Fax:(530)538-3807 www.buttecoun!y.net/waterandresource Butte bcwatet@buttecouniy.net Paul Gosselin,Director WAFER 8 RESOURCE C01aRVX C14 August 28, 2016 TO: Butte County Water Commission FROM: Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation SUBJECT: Meeting Agenda Date: September 6,2017 Time: 1:30 p.m. Place: 25 County Center Drive Oroville,CA 95965 AGENDA ITEMS 1) Roll call. 2) *Approval of minutes for the August 2, 2017 meeting. (Vice Chair Jones) 3) Public members wishing to address the Commission on items not listed on the agenda. (The Water Commission is prohibited by State law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda. Comments will be limited to five minutes per person) 4) *Presentation and possible recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the California WaterFix and Bay Delta Water Quality Plan. (Paul Gosselin, Water and Resource Conservation) 5) *Presentation on the results of the 2017 Water Quality Trend Monitoring. (Christina Buck, Water and Resource Conservation) 6) Update on activities associated with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. (SGMA). (Water and Resource Conservation staff) a. Update on Groundwater Sustainability Plan development and governance. b. Update regarding the Groundwater Pumpers Advisory Committee (GPAC). 7) Update on the activities of the Northern Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Board (NSV Board) comprised of representatives of the Counties of Butte, I Colusa, Glenn, Tehama, Sutter and Shasta. (Paul Gosselin, Water and Resource Conservation) 8) Reports from Water Commissioners and staff on issues of interest. a. *Report on Water Advisory Committee, Technical Advisory Committee and general groundwater issues. (Christina Buck, Water and Resource Conservation) b. Report on surface water issues. (Paul Gosselin, Water and Resource Conservation) c. Report on water related activities of the Board of Supervisors. (Paul Gosselin, Water and Resource Conservation) d. Other issues. 9) Future meeting dates and locations: October 4, 2017 Board of Supervisors Chambers 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 96965 10) Commissioners wishing to address items not listed on the agenda. (The Water Commission is prohibited by state law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda) 11) *Communications received and referred. (Copies of all communications are available in the Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation, 308 Nelson Avenue, Oroville, California) 12)Adjournment. *Materials attached cc: Water Commission Mailing List Window Posting 2 Agenda Item #2 MINUTES OF THE BUTTE COUNTY WATER COMMISSION August 2, 2017 Board of Supervisors Chambers 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 1. Roll call. Commissioners present: Chairman Skinner, Commissioners Chance, Grover, Jones, Roethler*, Schohr, Tennis and Washington. Commissioners absent: Commissioner Kimmelshue. 2. Approval of minutes for the June 7, 2017 meeting. Motion by Commissioner Washington, second by Commissioner Jones to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner Schohr abstaining. 3. Public members wishing to address the Commission on items not listed on the agenda. John Scott addressed the commission. 4. Presentation on the Stable Isotope Recharge Investigation. (Christina Buck, Water and Resource Conservation; Jeff Bold, Brown and Caldwell; M. Lee Davisson, ML Davisson &Associates and Andy Kopania, EMKO Environmental, Inc.) (Commissioner Roethler arrived) John Scott addressed the commission. Information only, no action. 5. Update on activities associated with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act(SGMA) a. Update on Groundwater Sustainability Plan development and governance Information only, no action b. Update regarding the Groundwater Pumpers Advisory Committee (GPAC), which is advisory to the Board of Supervisors and staff regarding SGMA *Commission Roethler arrived 21 minutes into the meeting. Information only, no action 6. Update on the activities of the Northern Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Board (NSV Board)comprised of representatives of the Counties of Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Tehama, Sutter and Shasta Information only, no action 7. Reports from Water Commissioners and staff on issues of interest. a. Report on Water Advisory Committee, Technical Advisory Committee and general groundwater issues Information only, no action b. Report on surface water supply issues Information only, no action c. Report on Delta issues Information only, no action d. Report on water related activities of the Board of Supervisors Information only, no action e. Other issues None S. Future meeting dates and locations: September 6, 2017, 1:30 pm Board of Supervisors Chambers 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 9. Commissioners wishing to address items not listed on the agenda None 10. Communications received and referred Information only, no action 11. Adjournment. Agenda Item #4 og, vp$R �. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS aILLCONNELLY doµ; First District *= }* ADMINISTRATION CENTER LARRY WAHL s ,•* A 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE,SUITE 200 -OROVILLE,CALIFORNIA 95965 Second District TELEPHONE:(530)538-7631 iNAUREEN KIRK Third District STEVE LAMBERT Fourth District DOUG TEETER Fifth District September 13,2016 Ms. Felicia Marcus,California WaterFix Co-Hearing Officer Ms. Tam Doduc,California WaterFix Co-Hearing Officer State Water Resources Control Board P.O. Box 100 Sacramento, CA 95812-0100 Subject: California WaterFix Hearing(Part I)Policy Statement Dear Ms. Marcus and Ms. Doduc: The Butte County Board of Supervisors would like to take this opportunity to provide a policy statement for your consideration regarding the California WaterFix. Butte County appears on the List of Interested Persons intending to present a non-evidentiary statement on the Joint Petition (Parts I and II). This statement will document the harm that the California WaterFix will impose on Butte County. The Butte County Board of Supervisors remains opposed to the California WaterFix and respectfully implores the State Water Resources Control Board to reject the petition submitted by the Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to change water rights in support of the California WaterFix. The Butte County Board of Supervisors has engaged in the Bay Delta Conservation Plan(BDCP) and the subsequent California WaterFix processes. Butte County had high expectations that a successful California WaterFix process would achieve co-equal goals in a way that was beneficial to all Californians. Butte County offered constructive recommendations over the course of its development and repeatedly found that the plan did not address the concerns of Butte County. The project proponent actions led to the Butte County Board of Supervisors adopting a Resolution in Opposition to the BDCP in August 2012. Since then the project proponents appear intent to move forward with the California WaterFix and California EcoRestore with little regard to legal requirements or mitigating impacts. Butte County's list of concerns with the BDCP/WaterFix is more than legal technicalities; if ignored the failures would lead to actions that will ultimately damage the region's economy,environment and communities. Therefore,the Butte County Board of Supervisors remains opposed to the California WaterFix. The following statement reflects the comments submitted by Butte County in October 2015 on the California WaterFix Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)/Environmental Impact Report(EIR). Butte County and the northern Sacramento Valley region have an interest in the overall health and stewardship of the Delta. The northern Sacramento Valley region is the area of origin for much of the water that flows through the Delta,and the region is a major source for California's overall water supply picture. The surface water resources include the crown jewel of the State Water Project(SWP)located at Lake Droville,as well as a network of creeks and rivers that are tributary to the great Sacramento River which feeds into the Delta. The resources in the region are more than just the water supply for the Delta and the State,they provide the life blood for the local agricultural-based communities, economy and environment. Much of the local water supply comes from various groundwater basins throughout the region that are recharged through these creeks and rivers. The California WaterFix lacks sufficient assurances for areas upstream of the Delta as it relates to regional water sustainability,water right protections,and no negative unmitigated direct or indirect impacts to the water supply,economy,and environment of these areas. The northern Sacramento Valley region is neither a party to,nor a direct beneficiary of,the California WaterFix. However, contrary to state and federal commitments, implementation of the California WaterFix will redirect impacts and impose obligations on communities, water users and the environment in the northern Sacramento Valley. The California WaterFix ignores fundamental state water policies, disregards area of origin water rights,violates the water right priority system and redirects impacts to the northern Sacramento Valley without fully assessing or mitigating those impacts. As proposed,the California WaterFix will cause irreparable harm to Butte County and the northern Sacramento Valley. One of California's fundamental water policies mandates that"each region that depends on water from the Delta watershed shall improve its regional self-reliance for water through investment in water use efficiency, water recycling,advanced water technologies, local and regional water supply projects,and improved regional coordination of local and regional water supply efforts"(Water Code, § 85021). The California WaterFix will jeopardize the regional self-reliance of the northern Sacramento Valley. The health,vitality and sustainability of northern Sacramento Valley depends upon the exercise of water rights and honoring area-of-origin rights. The Legislature expressly recognized that water rights and area-of-origin rights shall not be impaired or diminished as a result of any program or project in the Bay-Delta(Water Code, § 85031). Specifically,the California WaterFix calls for extracting more water from the northern Sacramento Valley. The California WaterFix will deplete and, in some instances, draw down upstream reservoirs to dead pool conditions. The result would create conditions that prevent other water users from obtaining supplies that they are entitled to under contract or water rights. In doing so, the California WaterFix will violate long-standing principles of California water Iaw by causing upstream senior diverters to forego diversions,thereby allowing the continued export of water by junior appropriators.The approach to subvert the area-of-origin statutes is a clear violation of those statutes intended to protect areas of origin,including the protection of northern Sacramento Valley water supplies from injury by export projects. Additionally,the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014(SGMA)emphasizes the principle of regional self-reliance by requiring local agencies enact long-term groundwater sustainability plans. The project proponents fail to recognize the statutory obligations of SGMA. 2 The Supplemental EIR/EIS stated that cumulative impacts from implementation of SGMA by various groundwater sustainability agencies were reviewed and found not be substantive. The conclusion lacked documentation or data. In doing so,the project proponents have failed their legal obligation to consider groundwater sustainability plans when revising or adopting policies, regulations or criteria, or when issuing orders or determinations(Water Code, §10720.9). The State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB)is encouraged to review and comply with the obligations that project proponents and the SWRCB have in regards to SGMA. A more direct impact from the California WaterFix comes from the disclosure that there is an expected increase in groundwater use in the Sacramento Valley to make up for any shortfalls in surface water supply of Central Valley Project (CVP)contractors. The California WaterFix EIR/EIS discusses the potential for the BDCP/WaterFix to result in"minor decreases in water supply availability to CVP water users in the Sacramento Valley . . . ."(See Analysis of Groundwater Conditions in Areas that Use SWP/CVP Water Supplies,EIR/EIS,p. 7-32,lines 30- 40). The estimated decrease in supply is 50,000 acre-feet/year. The section concludes,"[a] 2% increase in groundwater use in the Sacramento Valley to make up for any shortfalls in surface water supply is not anticipated to substantially impact the groundwater resources as long as the additional pumping is not concentrated in a particular area of the valley". No information is provided as to where additional pumping will take place, whether it will interfere with existing water supplies,or whether it will exacerbate existing groundwater overdraft or cause groundwater overdraft in locations where that condition does not presently exist. Despite the acknowledgement that the California WaterFix would affect Sacramento Valley groundwater, analysis of the impact to the region's groundwater was specifically eliminated. In the EIR/EIS, Chapter 7,Groundwater states that for the"purposes of this analysis, the groundwater study area (the area in which impacts may occur) consists of the Delta Region, ... the Upstream of the Delta Region and... ". On page 7-13 the description of the Sacramento Valley points out that portions of the region are showing early signs of declining groundwater elevations. On page 7-37 the EIR/EIS states,"The CVHM domain was reduced by eliminating most of the Sacramento Valley and San Joaquin Valley from the domain when developing CVHM-D. This modification allowed for greater precision in model output in the Delta Region." The decision to eliminate the Sacramento Valley from hydrologic modeling demonstrates the disregard of the region and creates an inconsistency within the EIS/EIR. The sensitivity of groundwater basins in the region necessitates that the California WaterFix fully disclose and assess groundwater impacts upstream of the Delta. Another blatant attempt of the California WaterFix to redirect impacts to northern Sacramento Valley comes from the goal of facilitating groundwater substitution transfer programs. The EIR/EIS Section 5C.10 Potential Sources of Upstream-of-Delta Water Transfers and Potential .impact indicates that the California WaterFix is expecting additional water from upstream of the Delta. The EIR/EIS ignored any environmental consequence ftom groundwater substitution programs and failed to acknowledge that groundwater substitution programs must comply with applicable County ordinances. In Butte County, groundwater substitution transfer programs are governed by the Groundwater Conservation Ordinance(Chapter 33 of the Butte County Code). The California WaterFix must fully disclose,assess and mitigate the impacts of the plans to incorporate north of Delta groundwater basins into the state water project. 3 The California WaterFix should not expect additional water from the northern Sacramento Valley, it must consider that some of the water supplies currently being exported may not be available in the future due to increased demand in the areas in which the water currently being exported originates. California law expressly recognizes the prior right of communities in those areas to water currently being exported,to the extent that water will be needed to adequately supply the beneficial needs of those areas(Water Code, §§ 10505, 10505.5, 11460, 11463 and 11128; also id., §§ 12200-12220). That demand for water and the need to sustain groundwater basins,as required through the implementation of the SGMA,will increase in the Delta and north as population grows. The likelihood that less water will be available for export uses is reasonably foreseeable but not evaluated in the EIR/EIS. Again, the failure of the California WaterFix to follow the principle of regional self-reliance created irreparable flaws. The California WaterFix and the EIR/EIS fail to fully describe the project's socioeconomic impacts. Without explanation,the EIR/EIS limits the analysis of socioeconomic impacts to Delta counties (Sacramento, San Joaquin,Yolo, Solano, and Contra Costa Counties). However,as noted elsewhere in the EIR/EIS,the BDCP/WaterFix impacts a much larger area, for example,the operational changes to Lake Oroville that are acknowledged in the California WaterFix. Appendix 5.0(page 5C 1.1) of the BDCP document states that"No substantial changes in reservoir operations are expected as a result of the BDCP, with the potential exception of Lake Oroville, where the BDCP could shift substantial releases from summer months to spring months under high ou flow scenario to contribute to spring ou flow criteria". Actions through the BDCP/WaterFix would further erode the region's economic,recreation and ecosystem benefit. The socioeconomic impacts analysis is inadequate because it fails to analyze the entire affected environmental setting of the proposed project and alternatives. The BDCP document, Chapter 1 (page 1-21) states, "Because the SWP and CVP water infrastructure is operated as an integrated system, the effects of implementing the BDCP may extend to aquatic systems beyond the Delta, both upstream and downstream, and will implicate water operations parameters as well as species and their habitats located in those areas. As such, the BDCP effects analysis (Chapter 5, Effects Analysis) takes into account these upstream and downstream aquatic effects, both positive and negative, and describes, analyzes, and addresses the overall effects of the BDCP.Areas potentially affaded by the implementation of the BDCP located outside of the Plan Area,have been included in the analysts of_effgas to ensure that all o} the potential a acts within the action area all areas to be affected direct! or indirect!y b the Lederal action and not mere!y the immediate area involved in the action as de tned b Section 7 of the ESA, have been adequately assessed." Although the BDCP makes this statement,the EIS/EIR failed to assess the direct and indirect impacts from the BDCP outside of the Delta. This failure to assess the impacts of the BDCP to the region north of the Delta is inconsistent with State and Federal law. Finally,most, if not all, of the identified funding sources are speculative and are undefined. The state water contractors is among the most uncertain. The California WaterFix claims that state water contractors have committed to providing funds for the construction and operation of new water facilities, as well as for mitigation necessary to address impacts to terrestrial and aquatic impacts associated with construction and operation. The state water project contractors vary in their 4 interest in and benefit from the California WaterFix. For example, Butte County is a state water project contractor that would derive no benefit from the California WaterFix and has gone on record opposing any financial obligation. To date,the state water contractors have yet to reach agreement on the structure of the commitment to fund California WaterFix. In fact,the state water project contractors have yet to begin the negotiations on how the financial commitment for the California WaterFix will be structured. Additionally,the assumptions that other funding sources (e.g., federal government, state bond funds)would provide funding commitments for California WaterFix cannot be substantiated. In closing, the California WaterFix and its related EIR/EIS do not comply with State water law and inadequately assess the environmental and socioeconomic impacts. The actions of the California WaterFix would damage Butte County's economy, environment and communities. For these reasons,the Butte County Board of Supervisors remains opposed to the California WaterFix and respectfully implores the State Water Resources Control Board to reject the petition in support of the California WaterFix. Sincerely, Bill Connelly, Chair Butte County Board of Supervisors Cc: Butte County Board of Supervisors Paul Gosselin, Director, Department of Water and Resource Conservation. 5 Int. Resolution No. 1.2-096 RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE BAY DELTA CONSERVATION PLAN(BDCP) WHEREAS,the California Natural Resources Agency and the U.S. Department of Interior are the lead agencies in preparing the BDCP in partnership with other interested parties;and; WHEREAS,the BDCP is being developed in compliance with the Federal Endangered Species Act(ESA),the California Endangered Species Act and the California Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act(NCCPA),and; WHEREAS,the BDCP intends to meet the co-equal goals of improving the Delta ecosystem and water supply reliability,and WHEREAS,the Butte County Board of Supervisors has offered the BDCP lead agencies specific actions to ensure a successful BDCP without impacting the northern Sacramento valley: • Establish a Local Issue Group to improve consultation with the northern Sacramento valley; • Formalize an assurance that water rights and area of origin water rights would be protected; • Avoid devastating local and regional economic impacts from the lowering storage in Lake Oroville; • Assess local and regional socioeconomic impacts; WHEREAS,on July 25,2012 the State of California and U.S.Department of Interior announced their preferred option for the BDCP;and WHEREAS,the preferred BDCP option fails to address the concerns of Butte County and the region,and; WHEREAS,the preferred BDCP option may cause Butte County and the region severe economic, societal and environmental harm,and; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Butte County Board of Supervisors OPPOSES the Bay Delta Conservation Plan until such time adequate assurances and protections are provided to Butte County and the region. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Butte County Board of Supervisors this 14th day of August,2012 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Connelly,Wahl,Kirk,Yamaguchi and Chair Lambert NOES:None ABSENT:None NOT VOTING:None Steve La Chair Board of 9upervisors ATTEST: Chief AdmiVtrfOfficerand Clerk fLAZ y ry rs b Agenda Item #5 Water and Resource Conservation Paul Gosselin, Director 308 Nelson Avenue T: 530.538.4343 buttecounty.net/waterresourceconservation Oroville, California 95965 F: 530.538.3807 bcwater@buttecounty.net Butte County =7 RESWR a coNSMATmd INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Butte County Water Commission Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Christina Buck,Water Resources Scientist SUBJECT: 2017 Groundwater Quality Trend Monitoring Update DATE: August 18,2017 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation (DW&RC)conducted its sixteenth year of groundwater quality trend monitoring within the county July 24-27 and August 3,2017.As required by Chapter 33A, the parameters monitored were temperature, pH,and electrical conductivity(EC).These parameters are the basic water quality characteristics needed to evaluate a basin for evidence of saline intrusion.The groundwater quality trend monitoring serves to establish baseline levels for these parameters throughout the county so that any future changes can be identified and further investigation and/or monitoring can subsequently be developed. In 2017, all samples fell within the acceptable range of water quality values set forth by State and Federal agencies and alert stages defined in Chapter 33A. METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS In 2013, DW&RC purchased a Hach HQd portable meter with a pH and conductivity probe. This was the fifth year this meter was used to do the groundwater quality testing. The sites visited in Butte County are on private land and many of the wells are used for agricultural purposes(irrigating orchards, rice,or pasture). However,the two Thermalito wells,Chico Urban Area well,Vina well,and the Llano Seca well provide domestic water supply.The sampling grid spans from north of the Chico Urban Area (Vina sub-inventory unit),west towards the Sacramento River(Llano Seco and M&T sub-inventory units),east towards the foothills (Pentz sub-inventory unit),and south towards Gridley(Biggs-West Gridley sub-inventory unit). Figure 1 shows the approximate locations (township, range, and section)of the water quality wells in relation to wells monitored four times per year for groundwater level in the Basin Management Objectives Program. As in previous years,we are fortunate to have support and permission from local property owners who coordinate timing of sampling and allow access to their wells.We have provided them with the preliminary results from this year's monitoring. Twelve of the thirteen wells in the network were sampled this year. The Western Canal(West)well was inaccessible due to changes to the irrigation system that made it impossible to sample. It is expected that sampling at this location will resume next year. Fallowing standard sampling procedure, a water sample is pulled from a discharge location at or near the well and values for temperature, pH and EC are recorded when the pH reading from the water sample stabilizes.Temperature is a standard parameter measured when assessing water quality, mostly to indicate that water being sampled is representative of aquifer water and not water standing in the well itself. The US Environmental Protection Agency(US EPA)establishes drinking water quality standards using two categories, Primary Standards and Secondary Standards'. Primary Standards are based on health considerations and Secondary Standards are based on taste,odor, color,corrosivity,foaming,and staining properties of water. Secondary water duality thresholds for pH and EC compared to the range of 2017 values are presented in Table 1. Table 1. US EPA Secondary Standards for measured parameters Parameter -....------------- - ---------- �_.....: Secondary Standard or Range of I Secondary WQ Threshold 2017 Values Notes re: Butte County Results pH 6.5 to 8.5 7.0-7.7 :Within range of secondary water quality I ithresholds. Electrical j < 900 NSlcm—drinking water 136-498 Within range of secondary water quality ;Conductivity(EC) <700 NS/cm—ag water ithresholds. Wafer quality data for specific wells is presented in tables and graphs on the following pages. Temperature is an important parameter because it affects chemical reactions that may occur in groundwater. Also, considerable changes in temperature could be an indication of other source waters migrating into the aquifer system such as stream seepage or flow from a different aquifer system. To date,temperature has been relatively consistent in all wells. Chapter 33A states that"the BMO Alert Stage for temperature will be reached when the measurement is more than five(5)degrees outside of the historic range of measurements."The 2017 measurements were all within 1.0°C of the average temperature for each well. The 16 year temperature range for all wells is less than 5°C(Table 3).The lowest temperature reading was in the M&T well(17.2°C)and the high was in the Pentz well (21.6°C). Measurements for pH remained relatively stable compared to previous years(see attached graphs). The highest pH was found in the Llano Seco well (7.7)and the lowest in the Chico Urban Area and Western Canal (East) (7.0). All measurements for pH were well within the secondary water quality thresholds of 6.5-8.5(Table 1,Table 4 and included graphs). Electrical conductivity(EC) measures the ability of a solution to conduct an electrical current due to the presence of ions. Observed readings for electrical conductivity can have a large range, up to 447 µS/cm at a particular well (Western Canal-west),yet 2017 measurements were all well within the secondary water quality thresholds established by State and Federal regulatory agencies (Table 1,Table 6,and included graphs).The highest EC measurement was from the M&T well (498 pS/cm) and the lowest was from the Thermalito well(136µS/cm). CONCLUSIONS This was the sixteenth season the DW&RC collected groundwater quality information. Overall,the results of the water quality sampling indicate no significant changes in groundwater quality with respect to temperature, pH, or electrical conductivity. The greatest change compared to 2016 EC levels occurred in the M&T well. This well has one of the largest ranges of observed EC levels overthe period of record. When sampling this well this year, it was observed that the EC level dropped with subsequent samples even after the pH level had stabilized. It is possible this well takes longer to stabilize than the standard minimum 15 minutes that is allowed to purge the well before a sample is taken. Staff recommends that next year, this well be sampled with EC measurements recorded from start of the pump until EC levels stabilize to establish the minimum run time needed for this well to be monitored consistently. It is possible that the large range in observed EC values in this well is due to varying lengths of time the pump was running from ' htto://www.epa.aov/safewater/consumer/2nd standards.html 2 year to year before a sample was taken. This topic can be further discussed with the TAC at their upcoming meeting in November. Water quality parameters have naturally occurring variability,so yearto year changes are expected and nothing in this year's measurements gives cause for concern or immediate further investigation or analysis. Further investigation would be advisable if values were to fall outside of the acceptable range. The focus of this trend monitoring program is to evaluate the basin for evidence of saline intrusion. No major shifts occurred in the EC measurements in the sampled wells and the basin appears to be free of saline intrusion. This data continues to help establish baseline levels for these parameters across the county so that any future changes in water quality can be evaluated and further investigation and/or monitoring can be developed. Further information on water quality standards for different constituents can be found at www.swrcb.ca.gov or in the Compilation of Water Quality Goals, published by the State Water Resources Control Board. 3 Figure 1.Approximate well locations for water quality wells in relation to wells monitored annually(four times)for water level. BUTTE COUNTY Basin Management Objective ?� Water Quality`1 rend Monitoring Grid 3 a 1 P fl VENA ; CHIC NURBA?N' r_ �� Foo 144 �bURHAMI� �� •� �'"'� � DAYTON YY M+T r' s PENTZ s DURHAM! \ 5 IJ DAYTON - ' A& ANGEL rte ° ° ESQUO �r ° c SLOUGH I EROKE LLACNO SECO WESTERN CANAL Legend ° BMO Groundwater Level Wells Water Quality-Well Name ::T. ERMALITO t • Biggs-West Gridley s' r s [) Cherokee RICHVALE _ �r • Chico Urban Area �_...- .. O Durham Dayton I '. 4�, 8 Esquon 7 • Llano SecoORTH YUBA I • M &T ; BIGGS- • Pentz ,WEST GRIDLEY •ff s `l (9 Pentz-Butte Valley �g; f BUTTE �f Q Thermalita • Thermalito domestic U Vina (� Western Canal(east) • 0 1 2 4 S B Western Canal(west) Miles Updated 2014 4 DATA TABLES AND GRAPfis Table 2.Annual groundwater temperature(°C) Sub-Inventory Unit 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 1 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Biggs-West Gridley 18.5 18.5 18.1 20.5 18.2 18.3 18.7 19.0 19.2 20.1 18.0 18.4 19.0 18.5 18.4 18.6 Cherokee 22.4 21.9 21.2 21.4 21.1 20.7 21.0 20.9 21.9 21.8 21.8 21.3 21.9 21.2 20.8 21.2 Chico Urban Area 18.4 20,1 18.2 18.8 19.5 21.6 18.0 NM 18.4 17.8 13.0 Durham Dayton 18.8 19.9 21.8 20.4 17.4 NM 19.3 NM 18.9 18.0 NM 18.5 19.1 18.1 18.0 18.8 Esquon 19.7 18.9 19,6 20.1 20.7 19.0 19.6 19.0 19.1 20,0 21.4 18.1 20.2 18.9 18.0 19.1 Llano Secoti 20.8 20.6 20.7 20.6 21.7 20.4 23.5 19.9 20.0 19.9 M&T 17.6 18.2 17.8 19.2 18.6 18,0 17,7 18.6 17.8 NM 18.3 17.9 NM 17.1 17.2 17.2 Pentz s, 22.2 21.5 21.3 21.5 23.9 21.9 21.9 21.9 21.5 21.5 21.6 "Peutz-Butte Valley 27.0 26.4 26.7 23.2 ; Thermalito 18.3 17.9 17.1 17.1 18.4 17.7 18.9 17.6 NM NM 17.8 17.3 17.5 17.3 17.4 17.5 Thermalito domastc 19.4 19.4 19.4 NM NM 19.8 NM 19.9 19-8 20.0 Vina 19.6 20.3 19.2 19.2 19.6 18.9 19.6 18.9 18.8 22.8 18.8 20.2 1 21.4 1 19.5 1 19.8 1 19.5 Westem Canal(East) 18.4 18.2 19.9 20.5 18.8 16.6 19.1 19.0 18.8 19.0 NM 18.3 18.9 18.5 19.1 18.6 Western Canal(West) 19.0 18.1 19.8 20.8 18.5 1 20.6 1 21.8 18.5 19.1 20.5 1 20.1 19.1 20.2 18.6 16.8 NM *Pentz-Butte Valley well discontinued in 2006 Table 3.Groundwater temperature average and range over 16 year sampling period(°C) Sub-Inventory Unit Average Range Biggs-West Gridley 18.8 2.5 Cherokee 21.4 1.7 Chico Urian Area 19.0 3.8 Durham Dayton 19.0 4.4 Esquon 19.5 3.4 Llano Seco 20.8 3.6 M &T 17.9 2.1 Pentz 21.9 2.6 *Pentz-Butte Valley 25.8 3.8 Thermalito 17.7 1.8 Thermalito domestic 19.7 0.6 Vina 19.8 4.0 Western Canal (East) 18.9 2.3 Western Canal (West) 19.6 3.7 5 Table 4.Annual groundwater pH Sub-inventory Unit 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Biggs-West Gridley 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.0 7.6 7.6 7.7 7.9 7.9 7.2 7.9 7.9 7.1 7.6 7.6 7.7 Cherokee 7.5 7.5 7.1 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.2 7.6 7.3 7.3 6.9 7.2 7,2 7,1 Chico Urban Area 6.9 6.19 6.9 7.0 7.5 7.3 7.1 NM 6.9 7.0 7.0 Durham Dayton 7.7 7.2 7.6 7.6 7.5 NM 7.5 NM 7.4 7.7 NM 7.5 NM 7.5 7.5 7.3 Esquon 7.3 7.5 7.1 7.4 7.5 7.4 7.2 7.4 7.4 7.6 7.2 7.3 5.9 7.4 7,2 7,3 Llano Seco 11, �' J, 7,9 8.1 8.2 8.1 7,9 8,0 7.0 7.8 7.8 7.7 M&T 7.2 7.5 6.9 7.8 7.9 7.6 7.7 7.6 7.6 NM 7.2 7.9 NM 7.4 7.7 7.6 Pentz 7.6 7.4 7.5 7.4 7.3 7.8 7.5 6.7 7.0 7.4 7,2 'Pentz-Butte Valley 7.1 6.9 7.3 6.2 Thermalito 7.0 6.5 7.1 7.1 7.9 7.4 7.4 7.4 NM NM 8.0 7.7 7.5 7.1 7.1 7.1 Thermalito dGmstic 7.7 7.8 7.7 NM NM 7.8 NM 6.9 7,6 7,6 Vina 7.5 7.6 6.9 6.2 7.7 7.5 7,5 7.4 1 7.6 8.0 1 7.3 1 7,8 7.9 7.1 7.4 7.3 ,Western Canal(East) 7.0 6.6 6.8 6.9 7.3 6.9 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 NM 7.2 6.5 7.1 7.0 7.0 lWestern Canal(West) 7.8 8.1 7.1 6.9 7.9 7.9 7.8 6.6 7.8 7.5 7.7 7.5 7.1 7.5 7.4 NM Table S.Groundwater pH average and range over 16 year sampling period Sub-inventory Unit Average Range Biggs-West Gridley 7.6 0.9 Cherokee 7.3 0.7 Chico Urban Area 7.0 0.7 Durham Dayton 7.5 0.5 Esquon 7.3 1.6 Llano Seco 7.9 1.1 M&T 7.6 1.0 Pentz 7.3 1.1 *Pentz-Butte Valley 6.9 1.1 Thermalito 7.3 1.5 Thermalito domestic 7.6 1.0 Vina 7.4 1.8 Western Canal (East) 7.0 0.8 lWestern Canal (West) 7.5 1.5 6 Table 6. Annual groundwater Electrical Conductivity(VS/cm) Sub inventory Unit 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20182017 Biggs-West Gridley 346 370 323 361 351 382 354 331 343 320 300 291 326 288 296 290 Cherokee 222 232 215 266 242 267 268 243 270 275 245 260 330 255 261 284 Chico Urban Area 280 291 260 249 250 248 217 NM 214 221 254 Durham Dayton 315 348 259 340 322 NM 327 NM 307 315 NM 298 304 322 316 322 Esquon 388 526 470 557 507 480 439 419 427 415 408 512 443 417 499 416 Llano Seco 204 195 196 198 192 184 240 180 182 179 M&T 418 551 678 504 465 451 667 445 592 NM 427 391 NM 362 333 498 Pentz 218 229 227 225 224 204 204 231 210 204 207 *Pentz-Butte Valley 195 186 211 240 Thermalito 132 164 149 150 152 242 205 158 NM NM 292 179 181 136 159 136 Thermalito domestic 374 350 354 NM NM 342 NM 320 324 327 Vina 197 225 180 216 192 224 203 200 199 194 174 188 201 200 186 181 Western Canal(East) 447 344 400 524 492 471 482 488 465 459 NM 447 442 449 444 441 Western Canal(West)i 464 248 1 407 501 309 477 469 462 455 460 630 629 fi95 428 581 NM Table 7.Groundwater EC(µS/cm) average and range over 16 year sampling period Sub-inventory Unit Average Range Biggs-West Gridley 330 94 Cherokee 258 115 Chico Urban Area 248 77 Durham Dayton 315 89 Esquon 458 169 Llano Seco 195 61 M&T 484 345 Pentz 217 27 *Pentz-Butte Valley 208 54 Thermalito 174 160 Thermalito domestic 342 54 Vina 197 51 Western Canal (East) 453 180 Western Canal (West) 481 447 7 Annual Electrical Conductivity (NS/cm) and pH for each water quality sampling well. The red dashed line indicates the preferred maximum level for EC and the black dashed lines bound the acceptable pH range, 6.5-8.5. Therefore, when the red plot of EC values is below the red dashed line (as it always is), then measured EC is within the secondary standard for agricultural water(<700), which is more restrictive than for drinking water(<900). To be within the acceptable pH range, the black line should be within the black dashed lines. Biggs-West Gridley 720 9.0 EC=790-----...........R.................------ pH=8.5 V 620 8.5 520 8.0 3 420 7.5 a 0 u i u 320 7.4 220 PH=5.5 - - - - - — - - - - - - — 6.5 124 - L 6.0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Year -W-EC -+--pH Cherokee 720 n 620 'r--pH=8.5------- ------ --------------- — ------- 8.5 _ _ a 520 8.0 g 420 - ----- -- -— -------- --- - 7.5 c a M320 ', .....,..._.-.-_. .-_._...._._._..._.._.._...._....__....._,.._....... _... 7.0 � 220 -'.._._..__.. __—.._—._—.._—__—.._----_—__—._..,,.._,,,...._........._; 6.5 120 - ----- - - 6.0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2420 Year --*-EC -6 PH Chico Urban Area 720 --- 9.0 PH=8.5 in 620 - - — — — — — — 8.5 s 524 i _ _ 8.0 'n 420 ------ 7.5 �d v 324 --- - 7.0 220 =.P_H=5.� — 6.5 124 6.0 2400 2005 2010 2015 2020 Year M-EC -4--pH 8 Durham Dayton 720 -- 9.0 pH=8.5 620 -__� 8.5 520 8.0 �t; 420 - 7.5 0 ML V 320 — --- 7.0 I 220 Hp -6.5 - - - ----- - 6.5 1206.0 2000 2005 2014 2015 2020 Year ----M-EC -0--pH -------J Esquon - - 720 n 620 _............._... - Y 8.0 520 - - - - -- - -- - - - 7.5 420 7.0 c u 320 pH 6.5---- --- - --- ------ b 6.0 m 220 .;.._........ .............._........._-........_.._....._..._... ..._...._........_.... 5.5 120 -- - - - 5.0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Year -M-.EC --0--pH Llano Seca 720 .........._..._...... ........... ............................._._.._.._............._ 9.0 pH 8.5 n 620 8.5 = I 520 .... ........ .......................................... 8.0 420 *--- --- -------- - ------ - - ------------ - 7.5 =CL V u 320 ' - - ---- - - - - - 7.0 220 .�_..�_.�._............ 6.5 120 4-- -- --- - - - 6.0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Year -SEC -4-pH NOTE:The red dashed line indicates the preferred maximum level for EC and the black dashed lines bound the acceptable pH range,6.5-8.5. Therefore,when the red plot of EC values is below the red dashed line(as it always is),then measured EC is within the secondary standard for agricultural water(<700),which is more restrictive than for drinking water(<900). To be within the acceptable pH range,the black line should be within the black dashed lines. 9 M&T 7209.0 9.0 EC=790------------------------ „^ 620 pH=8.5 8.5 i y 520 — 8.0 I � 420 7.5 0 0 u 320 7.0 224 H=6.5 ,. ----- 6.5 120 6.0 2000 2045 2010 2015 2020 Year --M-EC -4-pH -Y- Pentz 720 9.0 620 - pH`=8.5_. 8.5 520 Pentx Well- 8.0 } 29]03 bButte Valley _ 0 424 well-26 01 7.5 A O 320 —- --- TO W ` 1 220 pHH=66.5 _ ;a_ ML 120 6.0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 3 Year --M--EC -*--pH Thermalit0 720 - - ................_.....__.._..-- - - - ._....._....__.........._......_... - ._................ 9.0 EC=790------------------------ pH=8.5 �n 620 - - - - - - - - - -- - - - 8.5 $20 _. 8,0 420 ....__..._...._........_,..._.,...._. m_ -._.-...._. ......- 7.5 v° - u 320 �.., _..._�..._.-.....__,._.�_....._.....,._...._....... ------------------' 7.0 220 W-6 5 - - - +�. -.__..........:. 6.5 120 -- -- - -- - - .._...._.... 6.0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Year EC -4-•pH NOTE:The red dashed line indicates the preferred maximum level for EC and the black dashed lines bound the acceptable pH range, 6.5-8.5. Therefore,when the red plot of EC values is below the red dashed line(as it always is),then measured EC is within the secondary standard for agricultural water(<700),which is more restrictive than for drinking water( 900). To be within the acceptable pH range,the black line should be within the black dashed lines. 10 Vina 720 .... ................... ............ .... . ..... 9.0 EC=7B0-_______________________ u> 620 -PH=8.5......_-.._..._..._......�...�...�__�_..�. 8.5 x 520 _.._._...............--.......--................._........_........ ......--.......................------------...._-- 8.0 = 420 ----- -- ----- - __ .___._... .._........_ ,........-..................... 7.5 a 0 u B320 ....._..._....._-----...-------- ___. - - 7.0 220 pH=615 _ _ _ _ 6.5 gr 120 - - - -- 6.0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Year -*-EC -4-pH Western Canal (East) 720 EC9.0 =7M------------------ pH=8.5 n 620 ..................�.. s 8.5 520 8.0 7 420 l- 7,5 0 ............................. . u 320 ..._....... ..__................. .......... ..... ........ ........... -----_..------ 7.0 220 pH=6.5 . . . . . . . 6.5 120 - _ - - 6.0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Year SEC 0 pH Western Canal(West) 720 ;......__........._..._..............._..._..,....._.__...................,..... - - 9.0 -------------- PH=8.5 _._. ..................................., en fi20 -------- ...�....�_..�,..�..�.,. ..,... 8.5 520 ._._._,..,.,.. ...._..-...__....__..._,..._._....._._.._.._..............................----....._.....__......---i 8.0 3 s 420 _.._.-.,. -- - -- -.... --- - - ----- r 7.5 = C R U ** - ---- - -- ----- ---NMin20t7 u 320 .- -- 7.0 i 220 -.PH=6.5 _..__.._____.__.._._. 6.5 120 6.0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Year SEC -*--pH NOTE:The red dashed line indicates the preferred maximum level for EC and the black dashed lines bound the acceptable pH range,6.5-8.5. Therefore,when the red plot of EC values is below the red dashed line(as it always is),then measured EC is within the secondary standard for agricultural water(<700),which is more restrictive than for drinking water(<900). To be within the acceptable pH range,the black line should be within the black dashed lines. 11 Agenda Item #8a Groundwater Conditions Summer Update Groundwater Elevation Change-Summer 2016 to Summer 2017 Well Count I I Change ftSIU with Min/Max 115 Average GWL Chane 4 Median GWL Chane 4 97 Average Increase 5 Median Increase 5 Max Increase 16 M&T 18 Average Decrease -1 Median Decrease -0.5 Max Decrease 1 -2.2 Biggs W. Gridle Groundwater Elevation Change-Spring 2017 to Average Summer 2017 Well Count I I Change ft SIU with Min/Max 112 Average GWL Change -9 Median GWL Change -9 7 Average Increase 1 Median Increase 1 Max Increase 2.5 Pentz 105 Average Decrease -10 Median Decrease -10 Max Decrease -27 Vina "DOES include Questionable Measurements (i.e. pumping, nearby pump operating, pumped recently) because they are very common due to summer pumping Legend Ave.Depth to Water Ave July&August 2017 38 VINA 2-5 a:.'6-12 13-16 17-27 28-47 URiAM =?.48-63 oA O' 64-75 Sub-Inventory Units 24 sDur�Halu>> 1 ANG€ .� DAYTONI SLO GH s, ESQUON 47 CHEROKEE LLANO 45 SEGO 12 �� WESTERN CANAL Average THERWIALITO � s Depth to Water �7 by SubregiortdicitVALE` ky ` Summer 2017se tiL jS$ � Std {�!� T z7 BIGGS WYANOOTTE: .c`z� �-3`^�WE5TnxGR1DLE,Y�.;; �� CREEK 0. U r ¢ BUTTE �n N. 0. 1 .z 4. ., 6 $...: Units: Feet Miles Average Summer 2017 Groundwater Levels. The table shows the Average, Minimum, Median, and Maximum Depth to Water for monitoring wells in each sub-inventory unit measured in July and August 2017. "Count"indicates the number of wells contributing to the calculated statistics. SUB-INVENTORY AVERAGE MIN MEDIAN MAX COUNT UNIT DTW DTW DTW DTW ANGEL SLOUGH 16 15 16 18 2 BIGGS/WEST GRIDLEY 5 -1 5 10 5 BUTTE 11 7 11 14 2 BUTTE SINK 9 0 7 20 8 CHEROKEE 45 17 56 66 8 CHICO URBAN AREA 70 48 54 126 5 DURHAMMAYTON 63 26 67 92 15 ESQUON 47 24 46 74 4 LLANO SECO 12 4 12 21 6 M &T 24 14 23 41 9 PENTZ 75 74 76 76 4 RICHVALE 2 -3 2 4 7 THERMALITO 27 17 26 39 4 VIVA 38 3 35 111 21 WESTERN CANAL 10 2 6 48 15 WYANDOTTE CREEK 54 22 31 134 4 Average GWL Change by Subregion Summer 2016 to 2017 5 CNICO!]RBAN BYO sa�'-���• �, PEN Z ��r`. .M+7 t 3. 2 11)°R M a AN '0 ETON'; SLOUGH ESQUDN 1 � CHEROKEE '.' LLANO SEGO 1 WESTERN CANAL Legend 7HERMALITO GWL Change by SIU ,4 Summer 2016 to 2017 0 RICHYALE 0 1 3 . z 3-4 BIGGS- WYANDOTTE 5-6 0 WEST GRIDLEY CREEK 7 1 BUTTE B-9 0 Sub-Inventory Units BUTTE SINK N o 1 2 4 8 amass Units: Feet A Groundwater Level Change,Summer 2016 to Summer 2017. The table shows the Average, Minimum, Median, and Maximum change in Water Surface Elevation from average July and August measurements in 2016 to 2017 for monitoring wells in each sub-inventory unit. "Count" indicates the number of wells contributing to the calculated statistics. SUB-INVENTORY AVERAGE CHANGE IN MIN MEDIAN MAX COUNT UNIT WSE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE ANGELSLOUGH 2 1 2 3 2 BIGGS/WEST GRIDLEY 0 -2 0 1 5 BUTTE 1 -2 1 4 2 BUTTE SINK 1 -1 1 3 8 CHEROKEE 6 0 7 9 8 CHICO URBAN AREA 7 4 7 9 5 DURHAMMAYTON 8 3 7 14 14 ESQUON 1 -2 1 3 4 LLANO SECO 1 0 1 4 6 M &T 7 1 7 16 9 PENTZ 9 6 10 12 4 RICHVALE 0 0 0 2 7 THERMALITO 4 -1 3 11 4 VINA 6 1 6 11 20 WESTERN CANAL 1 -1 1 6 13 WYANDOTTE CREEK 3 0 3 5 4 D E E N s E �E HEN,�O u>A W Oi P H r Pl r y N q IR Y N N fV 6,+6 ,P ClGO CI T. fV OI N lh A W I�fV C r r O r 7 4 LaN p c �? C y0 0 0 o Q iV p O iV M IV r 77--m d i Esc U N e tl� �+ ci P,NP W ICtl rLP W to Dep cyy)V c)rsG tONDD�tb�r rq I?oID CO II) M ¢ N!� A A A A N N h A N INCi CSO IC O p O p [O N N O O p O p m O J N A m s N Y �nnn I�Aziq In�nAw�n.n N] C r N N M m c0 A M IC IC A I[l O m m N m M IC pp O C,M[�IC N m W IC9 22 m Ci u] O]2 N�+- [+vi.� O 1�A 222 ni zzA nz000arnzzzze �8 C -.- N [,`u_ �➢O a W W W p Ao �Ap 00 po m ov cq mA r O t�I .Y]N . LA m 7 4 N A m m z g R N A IC tD r0 b ID N Y M -moi M tV W - Nlw Q E A N NW O M M W r M W 16 A A M M�,(V�Vy 1q A fp N r p N U O ?n Wy mO wm lO ci Mo coon ���'a Ol", tep A OaPiOM OAI Wo n Ot+i$m$� o w ¢5 v1 eP i'i NN $m C o � m 7 `q E A O Wv N!N1 N O�Omp r N QI m r N o N W m pC ppo O O�p mgp p ip I`O V]CO m C m OIC M 1�P 1D AW ,py n_k�o m m j n EWA 6 19 a 0 G N R r q.... ICN M �-q W Cl O r A!C p A A EO N l0 k'J s Eti 4w d, moo r vivmtiA vvM - NmmM �oNi�y Ac]� o O N ¢ NtBA mn A14�P PPICPP [C 0���WZN N CA E N iC W N N f A 2 IC W.m OI tb��'z�p OMi to Cpi m�QI��r m 9 m�p �f ZA A mA A1�nN NbA P M N r N PM4pAEh A A.COMIC maZ ~�,-W P W SCC- NAptCN r OI E E m� u4innznAm ,°ra Na,s� n�mmm�o fi �= ry-nOm1O�y0men M. o mPP oprppp, N W oor-/vim C Vl O V)V)iq W O7 IIJ M ^-•O- N{�N: SN Vl fq�N N M N_0� ',.��W N O -p e O - - ❑ Oo � a oo `n �� -o��7r - m poo5�o :sz g8w <oopc�Qc�Q SQo ga$o �g5 00000 w$g�4�x3xu, u.u.4¢¢papZS'Z5 � �:�V. �x�...r�. W. 2O0 W Voz wvlw`Www'uC�fww �uw�`Pu�`��uP'1wC�Ce.��lSy&y��iiti �wwwu7Sln:&�Slww`uywLU .Te o o o o o Ne Ogzzzzzz OOO'NOdg`6gzzzzzo ZzzzzOO OO zzzzz ZZz ZZZZZZZ zz 2�Z.�zzzz.2�Z=.ZZ zzzzzzz A W W W W -AAA A A A A A A A - o p: O O O r - W W W W W W W rN'NNN NNN��NNNN N N'NN r O9 I a E ,F 4`2CY O L� i a m m m 31Lf7915tl3 9 0 8 E aE� �mNm. mmPrra NPm �`!ry?m r�r?W,Dm rlorrnM mMmo r o W o u?mm N r O r O r M O m m N r M 1 Q �-p p MMM m N Q N m N r N r r r r N N N ry a U W P M w m m n M W n C E YC r h O r O O Q 0 0 m q r rnp N Q N N Q tV[V r m m o!h y m w w w f�A h p m m vi l!J W t E m O N o m Iq N mM N maNlrN sb NN F? r mr N O� Q�m'+? �'V ti47 p N 'P viN�N�1[i tai 6n ui wi Nm Q m W ��rm'�.� m��� 1�-mm��m �w�'����i0oomoimrn�maom�wm o E N � N N c M' ro OM q N O N oq NM:44gqqq$m. qry Mr44�¢¢'aa¢¢, ddqq¢¢6mmr�°Nm�n�r mr�NWc; ow'?� S g o r. m$r Z$ Z Z Z w o$Z 2 2 2 Z 2 Z Z N NfO a o o m rn rn�,m rn z m rn m b$ Q#m f d t cca N WWIq N m m NN G $SrV ZOOS r r rZZZ Cf QNi�mrA>00� OmZZ Z'ZT WzW Ornr��m mOI Of ZZ N DI�[OS u C 77 a t1n� q m o m mt ��vyyi �ro ma�ias N'wd r r 6 $M$ZSwzq SqYM �9 ;P,. O re rY mro Newd FlF: Zt.Nm merd Plm� Z `,y tlG pYj00 NSl vNOr rM��r nMQ¢ m W C m�P¢¢aaaaaa aaaaQa44Yf Opi(0 mm nN[ONtl�SOn r PN~!mMNv a ,nmmZ222222ZmCitl°'nNmmwwm---m; oov moG4 a2 a m 8 m � Ear€m W vrn Cl mMNq rM W M PN PNM N r m0 m hm Wm 4 mPmr mM 1(1NN mPm mN�mnC:N �y E" �w Ni m Zvi Nimoai aimao mm�mtD¢ ¢a� ¢¢Qaaaa44¢aaaQlpePm rnriN� vi ci omm mmeo Eo Er $m$M Zmmmrgan ZZrZ`�' i om Z2rn222Z22 N oZmm 'off loa`gym n a ' $ (7 E r pNpy ,NOrn py,yMZOrn Crn pqp m N mCi q qq W q a O r a 44 qa `4 ePe��S5 N m r O 1(1 1NN�P NJ Nr�I mn�D r`:pOo tpo�q A mNy Er mSw ZmOSr rrM-- �mm z'z4h7wNP O�ZZ- z X.Zr�1c�i m�mOlm mmm n��mO�POr 7 Er A� rN�q mMNm NN mm W m1A m ! m- in mN F� N�` NOw mm mm4mm�M W �m "rn��ein r M Zm 4¢q4q m uj ¢¢4444 444444 �� ��ui nin lump 666 cdtiMri EN {n moM Zq$Sr oZmrZ �mzz?�zZzZZ�ZZZmrnr re�Z Nm'''mmrrn ry> m �oNmm r-: qq 'i omppp Prn944aqaaogm o 44e )a; 4q44_r �N .qm mm ra h mrnn nm m A.e�OM tlrn nSr rr r O Z0tN9Z�z2Z mm On X1T. XSZ.0 N.m p�N-mZ nOrn Cnin NZ N�r mNwtll E m N�0 mgir w liar E r mp W N W N O n^ n V R q m M m M yy r r Q¢¢a O m O P�n I�Orn ¢J aia a); QQ QQ rNp N m m m fr iV {V O m N m P w p Pp O O S P') Z Z 2' $N o m Z 2 Z Z Z 2 NMN O z r r Z 'may S m O M S 0 Vl r 1 5 xfi -❑ ° -N N m N 13 J; s e} p,1 !!1, f T n Sd z M" ', .Viz. �' s�c Q ooSmNMP o aiii C7 d X X X U d a m'`v'�gS! x U m o o S $o g V o r Wp.NN- i mrrr M M M co aemmrnnmmoryo o$, .r Nrnt7inam9 a oa rv0000{MMv�mro mmoa C wWWl11WWW47WwWWwWUIWwWUJ�w LFW �'i133�axx>sSxx S1t'� wwwwwww`u7`uy`u7wwwww„ M. NNNNNN� NNNN,. UU UU.000U:r, Nor NNNNN 0`c �`u 0000ao000000000j`�g oo yy y�yyyyya e'e'e�000000000 000000 z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z }$$}2 z Z,'Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z W W W M Po rn m rn rn m rn N N N N N N N N m N N U N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N o ., .,M... ....', Y..',.,.,. n c 3LLne.Lsv'3 H33tiO BLUIS 193M m m 3LLOONVAM r 9 O E E N o C E $E m a m m OIyNm O.-mAT PmAr rO. . . . W Mm W NmO)Ac�W� O N M M fV N r N c'i I t� 6 �j N T N P 6 l�!H Q C�H G Q u r w a;r GT E O M�QOO�l�[+ir IG tO IEm mm�A'SN V �I'i TO(V CID ID(O ep f��tl(V � Em U N o N p� ANv'OSOM IN m mr P PO W NIG ISN W N NrlrvP rvarva[bdw N M Num M IN Nf IIi ION N-t!C IN mm V V h �Im f')�O N A 9 ml�4�F7 N a 6 OAi Omi O m tlMi W w 4 4 4 4 N r t7 o G ry � N u V m6mlp ONq M<p mW mtl'mO 'C OIm W W M W W NGO ao OOI c n r� Wm 11 �Nm WSm ����g'aa� �QVZ'nNm m17, i oS� �c°. FE NSI 4 °W N'c d,Ko m.-lery�'P`, w 1�o,as'm W -rymryry`ry oSom Wer',io Mln m5 � � ui 6 nim nl i�` .. 222 $'d'i� ro`�oz S � Nom^ ai;eq ui NN mq retry v W vanA �p1I pM1pepqp �ry�r ippe pWpppo oocoo3,o oq iq n`, c Sp �.�ZZQNN m{mm �YN1�mb V V vNAA W V W 4]ID P V VO d W77. m W p Ery W W W SOI S ���5 m OONmmM V O N O M Nr$fOr M N N�_RA W`�i og '� Ery vmpMp Qv Wci ry�!`I?NaP4m�N��'l�Wm45`i �v�pp ;vim qo �o� arWmq A(ay _Y�$-$ mel. n'No�r�im � 3�E � M1 W N 47., 8 m t c Ea �x goy WM:(ma(yy a,ap-mmN�-,Ym�N�TT paMe[m�rmn amo'� v�mn cpc�pom�gp:c dorymMq;r=A�n i+i py N E r Q�Wn dl W W m Ol m r Ql Oi S O R B Rf�'V V tV g c4i M tO m A N N N N'Oa c3 W N 4S r �rR� mmoyNy�N vvmN W nN W QmM1nemnyImpV�p<ye���i77�a{v�tompmima�aroapmppp'v W aoMr ENP .OdOWWo��m4m��'NNNP'pVNM 3�FdmA�ANNrAmM 1777Vi �3 �d�pp.wPot�o NM W mOl nryappa��aq pvy�pp.�rd�ryy��n{veiymi%i a ync}{�.e-ppW is��jj aary OO S N�NNM VT TO�4V NM��� (�MNO'J�NN[�l Er c N SW;M W Am NO W MNm Aa MCpmN W 00 I11 }y m WNm�yy O�yH; t E e W O' ,O O N 7i c)1p Oi O 1�A A W Ill y y A M1 M t+i m N ,m a y N Pi L� m W w r Z Z Z a N w S t T — 4 m a m g - `o c `� QaO0000O' Q q �c7 ggqyT m g°��, g mfm IIf.IIi g S�n qec y @ t y Z c �uiuw33rs33�3�33u"Wlww�le �li 3333�3333�"£S`.�`�333s3' a� � m� 0 0 0 53 o''a'o'o'o o o:o o o'oO`a p pp o'pa o �� �zz�p$pazzzzzzzzz zz zz7�22zZ22ZZ�Lz22zaIs N N N N N N N N r N N z n z N R R N N N N N R R R R R R R 212 R R R o a u N dz'- gmH� ��pe��RagGG� P G [J p U n t R m p 3unsl -Ssam VNwn ro o N o m =2 `� O N_N❑ Agenda Item #11 COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED AND REFERRED BUTTE COUNTY WATER COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 6,2017 Copies of all communications are available at the Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation 308 Nelson Avenue Oroville, CA 95965 1. *California Water Plan eNews, Wednesday's Update, July 26, 2017 2. *Article from Chico Enterprise Record, July 27, 2017, Enough water agencies have bought in to get Sites Reservoir built even without Prop. 1 funding 3. *California Water Plan eNews, Wednesday's Update, August 2, 2017 4. *Article from Chico Enterprise Record, August 9, 2017, County to file suit to 0 pose `twin tunnels'_proposal 5. *California Water Plan eNews Wednesday's Update August 9, 2017 6. *California Water Plan eNews, Wednesday's Update, August I6, 2017 7. *Editorial from Chico Enterprise Record, August 17, 2017, Water Commission's the wild card in how Proposition I money will be spent 8. *Article from Chico Enterprise Record, August 21, 2017, A uAlliance files suit over twin tunnels 9. *Article from Capital Ag Press, August 21, 2017, Panel to fund multiple water projects under Proposition I 10. *California Water Plan eNews. Wednesda,Update, August 23, 2017 11. *Article from Maven's Notebook, August 23, 2017,ANNOUNCEMENT: Sustainable Groundwater Management Program News for August 23 12. *Correspondence received from NCWA 1 A ® °' ■ Wednesday Update J y 26, 2017 This weekly electronic newsletter is designed to keep you current on California Water Plan news. We welcome comments,suggestions,and any news tips that may be of interest to water planners. Natural Resources Agency California Natural Resources Secretary John Laird announced establishes Climate-Safe the appointment of 14 leaders in state climate science and e infrastructure design to the Climate-Safe Infrastructure Working o Infrastructure Working Group Group. Established by AB 2800(Quirk,Statutes of 2015-16),the working group will unite experts from multiple scientific and state infrastructure disciplines to bolster the inclusion of climate impacts in state design processes. Making the case for a A recent entry on the California WaterBlog discusses the idea of new method of classifying creating a simplified method to classify the state's streams.It looks at nine natural stream classes including snowmelt and groundwater. California's streams The intent is for the classifications to be combined with other information to create environmental flow targets. Video answers one of It's a common question among water users,"If I'm using less water, the most common questions why do my rates increase?"The Alliance for Water Efficiency has put together a video explaining why bills keep getting bigger.It also posed by water users makes the case for conservation being the best way to keep water costs down. Study looks at using A report from the Alliance for Water Efficiency looks remote-control systems to at the viability of water agencies remotely controlling residential irrigation systems to reduce peak summer reduce peak water use water demands.The report has the results of a test done last summer in New Jersey.While the tests did produce water savings,the report suggests more #�Sr;tljl research is needed. a 3t�r Summit agenda looks to The Second Annual Water Data Summit will focus on how big focus on developing a guide water-data integration is supporting water managers in California. Hosted by the California Data Collaborative,the two-day event will for future use of water data be held at Stanford University on Aug.24 and 25.One of the goals of the summit is to develop a guide for future water-data work. Santa Ana,watershed authority The Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority is accepting looking for groups interested appljcatigns from agencies and organizations interested in the Community Water Internship Program.The internships are for tll,,hit Braship p1'Cgl'ttm students attending a California State University or community college..The interns.will.assist with.water education projects in: drsad. ritageid communities in the Santa.Aha I�ivef 1Natersfied . ; Forest Servte<webstte offers The U 5 Forest Setvlce has Paunched a new website `t 011 ptib, Oftretr attp> � torits groUnduvater oragram It Includes a sectron � `' r x s F �r 5 � With Informafion on un grodv`, reereatlon sites . CORRESPONDENCE hCico .tom # /), Enough water agencies have bought in to get Sites Reservoir built even without Prop. 1 funding By:Steve Schoonover,July 27,2017 Maxwell>>The deadline is Aug.14 to apply for water storage fund- There are also several small streams that flow into the reservoir area, ing from the Proposition 1 bond measure voters approved in 2014, and ironically,this year one of them flooded the authority's office in and while the folks working to build Sites Reservoir will be applying, Maxwell with 3 feet of water.Watson said that wouldn't have hap- they don't need the money. pened if the dam had been built. Enough water agencies have agreed to invest in the reservoir near Wow it would work Maxwell that it can be built without taxpayer funds,according to The Sites Project Authority is what's called a joint powers agreement Sites Project Authority General Manager Jim Watson. including Glenn and Colusa counties and 10 Sacramento Valley water Twenty-eight agencies have signed on to support the construction in agencies.They will be the owners and operators of the lake,accord- exchange for a share of the water that would be delivered from the ing to Watson. lake,according to the authority's website.Watson said the funds The others are similar to the contractors who buy water from the committed would pay the$4.7 billion cost of building the reservoir. State Water Project.Although they can advise the authority,they So the Sites authority's application to the California Water Commis- don't have a say in the day-to-day decisions and operations of the sion will be a little different than most:Rather than a plea for funding lake. needed to make a storage project possible,the authority will be The level of their investment determines how much water they offering the state a chance to invest in a project that's likely to be would get from the 500,000 acre-feet of water expected to be deliv- built one way or another. ered from Sites every year. With funding identified,the biggest hurdle left is governmental ap- For example,the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California praval. is in for 50,000 acre-feet annually.The Cortina Water District in The project Colusa County is looking for just 300 acre-feet a year. Sites would be a 1.8 million acre-foot reservoir located in a valley Sacramento Valley water interests have signed up for 146,411 acre- about eight miles west of Maxwell.That's roughly half the size of feet of the yield,with another 258,000 acre-feet wanted by south-of- Lake Oroville and twice the size of Folsom Lake. delta interests and others. There would also be a couple of small forebays.Three recreation A full list of participants is available at https://www.sitesproject.org/ areas are part of the plan as well. participants/. The main reservoir would be off-stream,meaning the water to fill it What the state could get wouldn't come by damming a river.Instead water would pumped in All told,the water agencies are seeking more than 404,000 acre-feet from the Sacramento River during times of high flows and saved for of Sites'annual yield. But Watson said,"We've already told them use in the dry times. they aren't going to get all they want." Its water source would be the Sacramento River drainage down- Instead,the state will be given the first right to buy as much as half stream from Shasta Dam.There's roughly 10,000 square miles of the water from the lake with Proposition 1 funding,if it so desires. watershed there that is undammed,except for Stony Creek,Clear Creek,a few small PG&E and farm diversions,and the Paradise Irriga- Proposition 1 includes$2.7 billion to add water storage in the state. tion District's dams on Little Butte Creek. No more than half the cost of any project can be funded. The streams that flow uncontrolled into the river in that area include The bond money also can't be used to build water storage for agri- Butte Creek,Stony Creek Chico Creek,Pine Creek,Deer Creek,Mill cultural,residential or commercial use.That has to be paid for by the Creek,Battle Creek,Cottonwood Creek,Elder Creek,Thomes Creek, users. and a number of others. Instead,Proposition 1 money must be spent to store water for This year,those streams and releases from Shasta Lake would have "public benefits,"with environmental needs the most clearly defined allowed the lake to be filled in a single year.Even in the peak of the of those benefits. drought,Watson said,the creeks put enough water into the river "We strongly believe that Proposition 1 creates water for the re- that each year"a couple of hundred-thousand acre-feet"could have source agencies,"Watson said."Right now the state does not have been taken out for Sites. water to provide for the environment." The water would get to the lake via a new roughly 16-mile canal con- Should Proposition 1 money be allocated pay half the cost of Sites, netting to the river between Princeton and Colusa,and through the Tehama-Colusa and Glenn-Colusa canals.The existing canals pass that would make 250,000 acre-feet available for the environment within ahalf--dozen miles of the planned reservoir. every year,with the state able to use it as it wishes.If ZO percent of the project were funded,there'd be 100,000 acre-feet for the state to use for the environment. The leftover water would go to the urban and irrigation water agen- cies that have invested in Sites. Proposition 1 also requires any spending produce"measurable im- provement"to the delta ecosystem.Sites is well-placed to provide more flow in the delta at times when it is needed. Releases from Sites could also be coordinated with Lake Shasta to allow more cool water to be saved in that deeper reservoir,to meet the needs of winter-run salmon that spawn in the river near Redding. What's next The Sites Project Authority expects to have its application for Propo- sition 1 funding to the California Water Commission by Aug.14. It will be accompanied,as required by the proposition,with a draft state.environmental impact report/federal environmental impact statement. A public comment period on the EIR/EIS will then be opened.A cou- ple of public meetings on the environmental documents are planned, Sept.26 in Maxwell and Sept.28 in Sacramento. Once a final document is prepared,work will begin on obtaining the necessary environmental permits to build the project,which can take 31/2 to 4 years,according to Watson. The environmental approval Is the only loose end,but the impacts of an off-stream reservoir are far less than one damming a river. There's also engineering and design work to do,as well as obtaining the land for the lake,canals and other facilities. Best-case scenario would see construction starting in 2022,and be- ing completed by 2029. As for the Proposition 1 funding,the California Water Commission has until the end of 2021 to allocate the funds. Reach City Editor Steve Schoonover at 896-7750. M To 0/0 a I This weekly electronic newsletter is designed to keep you current on California Water Plan news. We welcome comments,suggestions,and any news tips that may be of interest to water planners. Looking at water system The process of consolidating water systems to provide safe drinking r ' ' water will be discussed during a workshop on Aug. 17,in Sacramento. consolidation to improve the The S#ate_Water Resources Control Board and the California Public quality of drinking water Utilities Commission are hosting the workshop.System consolidation ° may improve water quality in disadvantaged communities where individual systems lack resources for improvements. Seminar will explore the As part of its effort to promote stormwater management,the Strategy to Optimize Resource benefits of using floating Management of Stormwater JS'TORMS will host �� " Mana 9 1...._L.........—�....� STORM WATER'STHAT[GY,;; [nt li00a,A h31�!Eil App S>.'. islands to treat stormwater a seminar on Friday,Aug. 11, in Sacramento. The information will include details about floating :;; islands that can be used to treat stormwater and improve wafer quality in receiving waters.A webcast will be available. Climate change and flood The American Water Resources Association will be hosting a risks in the Central Valley to webinar to look at flood risks in the Central Valley brought on by climate change.The webinar will be Wednesday,Aug. 16.There will be discussed during webinar also be information on flood management policy recommendations included in the draft 2017 Central Valley Flood Protec;ion_Elan. DWR posts last months DWR has posted last month's webinar on hydrologic warning webinar,slides on systems.David C.Curtis of WEST Consultants, Inc.presented an introduction to implementing the systems.The slides from the hydrologic warning systems presentation have also been posted. Water-budget framework DWR is developing a water-budget framework to support the plans t0 be discussed at implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The project will be discussed during a webinar on Wednesday, webinar later this month Aug.23.The first phase of the project will focus on the Tulare take Hydrologic Region.Phase 2 will test the water-budget framework for the Central Coast Hydrologic Region. 'traditional ecological The Southwest Tribal Climate Change Network and knowledge to be shared during the Calr�fqrnia t.andscape Conservation Cooperative are teaming up on a roundtable webinar to discuss environmental roundtable traditional ecological knowledge(TEK).TEK is environmental knowledge developed by Native Americans over many centuries.The webinar will include satellite meeting locations in Arizona and Callfomra:li.%m' l be"he'ld Monday,Aug 21; Net rodeo explains the The lOelta s#ewardshrl3Counral has put together a ne vt en explarhrng how the inters ercy I"cologl I Ptrr>atm(IIP)meets the .11�itElGlall� " I�t 1R`ei�Ul ed} e� overai needs of the Delta The Iii rs rade up of rune Stale and �l � s�:�h-�3De����ed�r��agei�cres{�athave�yanot3�respo�,;i� i es3ir; e�Clelfa ,In#t�e `�o� ebj ,�&I,eBC�=�IeTi�1 i,soli �..1 ;E•'a'e.o• 1 ed 8:��; CORRESPONDENCE ChicoER.Com # County to file suit to oppose `twin tunnels' proposal Steve Schoonover,August 9,2017 Oroville>>Butte County plans to file a lawsuit over the plan to bury a delta counties—Sacramento,San Joaquin,Yolo,Solano and Contra Cos- pair of tunnels under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to move Sacra- to—though the impacts would be far more widespread. mento River water south. "In closing,"the September letter reads,"the California WaterFix and its County supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday to file the suit against related EIR/EIS do not comply with State water law and inadequately the Department of Water Resources over the so-called"California Wa- assess the environmental and socioeconomic impacts.The actions of the terFix,"the largest part of which is the"twin tunnels"proposal. California WaterFix would damage Butte County's economy,environ- The California WaterFix is technically a Habitat Conservation Plan and ment and communities.For these reasons,the Butte County Board of Natural Community Conservation Plan,with the stated goal of protecting Supervisors remains opposed to the California WaterFix and respectfully more than 50 species of fish,wildlife and plants over 50 years. implores the State Water Resources Control Board to reject the petition in support of the California WaterFix. However,it includes the two 45-foot-diameter tunnels to divert water THE CURRENT SITUATION from the Sacramento River,upstream from the delta,to the State Water Project and Central Valley Project aqueducts that start on the south DWR certified the California WaterFix EIR on July 21 without addressing edge of the delta. Butte County's concerns. East tunnel could move 9,000 cubic feet per second.The flow Wednes- "Unfortunately,the administration has ignored every suggestion offered day in the Sacramento River past Sacramento was about 20,000 cfs. by Butte County and intends to move forward with the California Water- Fix and California EcoRestore with little regard to legal requirements or The project is estimated to cost$15 billion,which is supposed to be mitigating impacts,"according to a county press release Wednesday. funded by bonds paid for by those who would benefit.There's currently some uncertainty about financing though. Hence,the lawsuit. THE COUNTY'S POSITION The county has until Aug.21 to file the suit,according to County Counsel The suit will be based on a Sept.13,2016,letter the county sent to DWR Bruce Alpert.Numerous counties,agencies and environmental groups pointing out objections to draft environmental documents that had been will be filing,he said."It's going to be a huge litigation." prepared to that point. He expected to have the county's suit filed in Sacramento Superior Court In the letter the county pointed out that while the Sacramento Valley by late next week. was not a beneficiary of the California WaterFix,its implementation "This is not a zero-sure game with the same amount of water,"he said. would"redirect impacts and impose obligations on communities,water He pointed out the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California users and the environment in the northern Sacramento Valley." has already spent$175 million to buy three islands on the delta tunnels The county also argued those impacts were not analyzed in the draft route."The only reason to do that is that they expect to get more wa- Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement.(An EIR ter." is a state requirement;an EIS is its federal equivalent.) "They've already ruined the San Joaquin Valley,"Alpert continued."We Specifically,the EIR/EIS said Sacramento Valley water users would lose have to make sure they don't to the same devastation to the Sacramen- about 50,000 acre-feet of water a year that would have to be replaced to Valley." with groundwater pumping.There is no indication where the pumping ANOTHER SUIT would happen,and no analysis of the effects on valley groundwater ba- The county may also be filing a second suit over another legal action sins. DWR took July 21 that Alpert said appears to be an attempt to broaden That part of the study also didn't take local groundwater ordinances into the pool of people who would pay for the project beyond just those who consideration,and ignored the state's Sustainable Groundwater Man- sign on for its benefits. agement Act that emphasizes regional self-reliance in groundwater use, the county's fetter pointed out. A number of potential beneficiaries—particularly farm irrigation dis- tricts—have been balking about sharing the cost in light of the limited The report also said operating the tunnels would change operations amount of additional water they might receive. at Lake Oroville,shifting"substantial releases from summer months to "It's one of those things when until it's studied correctly and people un- spring months under high outflow scenario."Yet there's no analysis of derstand what new water there is,they're taking a lot of chances for the impact of that on the region's economics,recreation and ecosystem. very little water,"Alpert said. The county's letter points out that the study area was defined as being The action DWR filed in Sacramento Superior Court could make all the the delta and the watersheds that drain into it.Then,the draft EIR/EIS State Water Project Contractors responsible for paying off the bonds to eliminated the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys from a hydrologic build the tunnels,he suggested. study in to achieve"greater precision in model output in the Delta Re- gion." Butte County is one of the contractors. "The decision to eliminate the Sacramento Valley from hydrologic mod- Alpert said he would be asking the supervisors at a future closed session eling demonstrates the disregard of the region and creates an incon- to formally oppose that effort as well. sistency within the EIS/EIR,"the county's letter read. Reach City Editor Steve Schoonover at 896-7750. The analysis of socioeconomic impacts or the project was also limited to ANMI =a aA Afone y 3 91, "-1017 u JPoWe PY 1`` O / G This weekly electronic newsletter is designed to keep you current on California Water Plan news. We welcome comments,suggestions,and any news tips that may be of interest to water planners. Update 2018 advisory An advisory committee meeting for California Water Plan Update 2018 has been scheduled committee meeting for this month.The policy advisory committee set for this month will meet Wednesday,Aug.23,in Sacramento. s e RSVPs are requested.The meeting will be rs5 webcast.Registration is required to receive the - . � webcast information. State climatologist to Water Year 2017 will go down as one of the wettest in California offer perspective on the history.Look back at the significance of this water year during a webcas by State Climatologist Michael Anderson on Aug. 15.He historic Water Year 2017 will examine the events that led to a historic string of storms,plus talk about the responses that helped mitigate the damages. Workshop to look A workshop on the connection between the Sustainable at stream depletion Groundwater Management Act(SGMA)and stream depletion will be held Tuesday,Aug.29,in Sacramento.The event is being presented through the lens of SGMA by DWR and the Groundwater Resources Association.The aha includes a look at models for evaluating stream depletion,and potential solutions to be used by groundwater sustainability agencies. Delta ecosystem restoration A presentation on the Delta on agenda for next California will be part of the next e iifor is Water Commission • d Water Commission meetingeieeettinn .Commissioners will get a briefing on emerging strategies for restoration of the Delta ecosystem.State agency representatives will discuss how the Water Storage Investment Program can support Delta improvements.The meeting will be Wednesday,Aug. 16,in Sausalito. New version of General An updated version of the Genera!Plan Guidelines has been released by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research.This Plan Guidelines posted, is the first comprehensive update to the guidelines since 2003.It first,update since 2003 includes a chapter on climate change. $20 million in climate Caltrans has announced it is providing$20 million.in climate change adaptation grants adaptation grants over a three-year period.The link to final draft of the adaptation,planning grants guidelines is available on the offered b''Ctfltrans CalTrans;aMoij=§Uggt: Comments lacing aaepted 011 public commertts are being accepted on,the regujrements for a new IlnCt[?Oral illrete)1tS for Gal+fornEa wafer data platFarm lnsfructcons far subinttimg comments are En Appersdcc D The platform well help advance the Opemantl neYlf ll4ater ata platformra�scarent Water bola Act which reg6[res'DWE antl partner � �x������� ���` �,� ����������' "a�e'ncies to develop a statewide watet'datapE�fform tha#netvvorEcs ��' e IN. Ovate d to PAPA or at4onxfro tt `clatab' ses�17et IlsFa 4 ! 's• b� c t �f `r �•" f�,;.a .' tip,Y i ��7e '',`_. 2 - _ te M 2017 day wa Wet*108 Up This weekly electronic newsletter is designed to keep you current on California Water Plan news. We welcome comments,suggestions,and any news tips that may be of interest to water planners. Agenda posted for next The agenda has been posted for next ' week's meeting of the California Water Ilan week's Update 20i$ Update 2018 Policy Advisory Committee. _ . f + advisory committee meeting Presentations throughout the day will cover ` - `✓ " ''' Update 2018 draft chapters plus panel discussions on watershed sustainability pilot projects and concepts to advance regional engagement:The meeting will be Wednesday,Aug.23,in Sacramento. Central Valley flood The Central Valley Flood Protection Board has posted the adoption- package a for the Central Valley Flood Protectian_Phin 2017 Ueda#�. plan update set for The package includes the resolution for adoption.The board will adoption later this month consider the adoption package during itsem etina on Friday,Aug.25, at Sacramento City Hall. Groundwater sustainability DWR is accepting comments on two guidance documents for guidance documents Sustainable groundwater management.They deal with stakeholder engagement and tribal governments.They are designed to help with available for public comment the development of groundwater sustainability plans.Comments are due by Monday,Aug.28. Student internships available The Santa Ana Watershed_Project Authority is accepting applications for DAC water projects in the for its water internship program.Applicants must attend a California State University or a local community college.Students will assist Santa Ana [fiver Watershed with water projects in disadvantaged communities(DACs)within the Santa Ana River Watershed. Water board accepting The State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB)is accepting ublic comments for surface water augmentation regulations.The comments on surface water comment period ends at noon on Sept.12.A public hearing on the augmentation regulations regulations is set for Thursday,Sept.7,in Sacramento. Survey finds California A survey conducted by DWR and the SWRCB found California reused 714,000 acre-feet of municipal recycled water during 2015. recycled water use jumps That is a 6.3 percent increase over the last survey in 2009.Survey more than 6.percent details are available`on the DWR website. P11 iro_, sats bean accepted The Delta-Conservancy,is.accepting cone l g p for$9. million in protsosalsfor its Ecasysterri Restor°aop and 1�jlater tai ality Gran(Prograir� The grants will be Delta restoration grants awarded to protection and restoration pra}eots F7 4 Y benff_ng.;the Delta and Suistirt Nlarshs As y a. a rt much as$9 mtlfion will be avVaiv d"" r o t # sr r Ot720Y11 rate fEFCionCe OSa u�Thttrs a h ' lv?,`� € �' } orx. r= ��t"w r�� '�aa..'•: �-u�'yi '�� 5.,��1 .f � �1 ChicoEHCOM CORRESPONDENCE I # r7 Editorial: Water Commission's the wild card in how Proposi- tion 1 money will be spent August 17,2017 Now that there's a list of projects vying for the$2.7 billion in Propo- The other projects largely increase storage for existing water users. sition 1 dedicated to water storage,you'd think the chances of the They're all south of the delta,which is the wrong side to be heipfuI to proposed Sites Reservoir in Colusa County getting some of that cash it. would be clearer.Not so. Their only public benefit is indirect:They might allow a reduction in There are few surprises in the list of projects seeking the money. the amount of north state water that has to be diverted to south of Most are proposals that have been around for years,have been stud- the delta,theoretically freeing up that water for the delta's needs. ied endlessly,and haven't gotten built due to a lack of funding. Sites,by comparison,is in the right spot to provide water to help the The uncertainty is because the decision will be made by the Califor- delta when it's needed.It's also in the right spot to allow more cold nia Water Commission,a panel obscure enough that only the most water to be saved in Shasta Lake to help endangered and threatened serious of water wonks even knew it existed before it was given$2.7 fish populations in the Sacramento!fiver. billion to spend. But we don't know what the commission wants.It may favor some- The members are appointed by the governor,and there's no confir- thing like Semitropic's proposal because it's groundwater banking. mation process so there's no accountability.It can do whatever it That's all the rage with one faction of the water world that dislikes wants. dams no matter what.If enough members of the commission come There's no track record based on previous decisions that give any from that faction,then a bit of Tulare Lake may be resurrected,as indication how it might go,although very few boards have a track weird as that proposal is. record when it comes to spending$2.7 billion.it's not something Don't expect an answer anytime soon.The commission has until the that happens every day. end of 2021 to allocate the money,and if past history is a guide, All we know is it has taken almost three years to get to the point they'll use that whole time. where the commission was even able to accept applications,which indicates it is either very careful or doesn't have a clue what it Is do- ing. Looking at the list,we see advantages for Sites.It's the only one that has"new"water:the untapped tributaries of the Sacramento River downstream from Shasta Dam.There's a lot of watershed there,and no way to collect the runoff. Most of the others enlarge existing dams,or in the case of Temper- ance f=lat,adds a second dam on the San Joaquin River above existing Millerton Lake. There is one odd proposal,from the Semitropic Water District in the southern San Joaquin Valley,that would re-create a small portion of Tulare Lake.The lake used to be the largest freshwater lake by sur- face area in the western United States.But the rivers flowing out of the Sierra that fed it were all dammed and diverted to irrigate the east side of the valley,and the lake dried up. Semitropic wants to make a new smaller lake that would recharge into the underground aquifers where it stores water. Problem is it would fill the lake by diverting the Kings River,and the people who use Kings River water say they don't have enough to spare. The"public benefit"aspect is another advantage for Sites.The bond money can't pay for storing water for residential,commercial or agri- cultural use,just for uses that benefit the public as a whole. Environ- mental uses are the most dearly defined public benefit.The money also has to result in"measurable"improvements in the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta. fife CORRESPONDENCE ,co .Com # AquAlliance files suit over twin tunnels Staff Reports,August 21,2017 Chico>>Local water advocacy organization AquAlliance and a coali- Additional CEQA allegations brought forth by AquAlliance include tion have filed a lawsuit in state court against the Department of that the EIR: Water Resources over the proposed twin tunnels. The issue is over the Environmental Impact Report's inadequate dis- .Failed to disclose significant past,present,and future groundwater closure,avoidance of impacts,analysis,and mitigation for the pro- and streamflow depletion. posed twin tunnels,according to a press release from AquAlliance. The over 50,000-page EIR was certified by DWR on July 21. -Failed to disclose the lead agencies'conjunctive use and water "Californians aren't doomed to repeat past destructive practices that transfer plans,programs,projects,and funding. have emptied the Owens Valley and caused the literal collapse of the -Vastly understated the extent of groundwater depletion in the San San Joaquin Valley,"said AquAlliance's Executive Director Barbara Joaquin Valley. Viamis In the release."We are smart enough now to know that the .Failed to adequately disclose the existing geology that is the foun- twin tunnels would destroy California's largest river's watershed and dation of the Sacramento River's hydrology and the Sacramento Val- valley,which is essential for the health of the entire state." ley's groundwater basins. Some of the most significant CEQA allegations produced by AquAlli- .Failed to use verifiable and reproducible scientific methods for ante in the lawsuit to stop the WaterFix project include that the EIR: groundwater analysis with the Central Valley hydrologic Model. -Failed to identify the source water that is intended to make up for flows diverted through the twin tunnels. •Failed to assess the seismic risks to the twin tunnels,deferring it to the design and construction phases of the project,but did explicitly •Failed to disclose the over appropriation of water rights In the Sac- admit that no substantial efforts toward accurate identification of ramento River Watershed. seismic risks yet exist within the plan's scope. Failed to disclose the existing conditions of Sacramento Valley -Failed to provide realistic mitigation plans for the very-real risk that groundwater. liquefaction could destroy the project once it is built(or even dam- -Failed to disclose and analyze the direct and indirect groundwater age components of the system during construction). impacts to the Sacramento Valley that would result from expanded -Failed to adequately analyze the potential for subsidence effects north-to south,cross-Delta water transfers. during both the construction and operation of the project. Also of interest to Sacramento Valley and foothill residents Is that •Relied on a deficient model to analyze the effects of the project DW R's documents do acknowledge that the tunnels project adds"... and its alternatives. additional capacity to move transfer water from areas upstream of the Delta to export service areas and provides a longer transfer win- dow,"and that"groundwater substitution transfers could approach as much as 400,000 acre-feet in any given year.." Vlamis explained that,"Transfers are dangerous to areas-of-origin as they facilitate expanded demand,which usually becomes long-term, cause impacts to local economies,and affect neighboring farms and residences when groundwater is included in a transfer." The complaint was filed by AquAlliance,California Sportfishing Pro- tection Alliance,California Water Impact Network,Center for Biologi- cal Diversity,Center for Food Safety,Friends of the River,Friends of Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge,Planning and Conservation League,Restore the Delta,Save Our Sandhill Cranes,and Sierra Club California. The complaint states that the project approval violates the California Environmental Quality Act,Delta Reform Act,California's"Fully Pro- tected Speclee statutes,and the California Public Trust Doctrine. An EIR is required to consider reasonable alternatives to a project, but among many failings in the report,DWR ignored a range of alter- natives that would increase freshwater flows and reduce water sys- tem reliance on Delta water and its watershed through recycling, conservation,and water use efficiency.Despite demands for a new environmental review document,DWR certified the flawed EIR and approved the project on July 21,the release said. CORRESPONDENCE Capital Press # Q Panel to fund multiple water projects under Proposition 1 By:Tim Hearden,August 21,2017 SACRAMENTO—Now that applications are in,members of a state $12 million). panel want to give portions of$2.7 billion in available water bond In addition,five projects that would involve the conjunctive use of funds to as many projects as possible,a spokesman said. surface and ground water are seeking funding.They are the Willow The California Water Commission received 12 applications by the Springs Water Bank in Southern California($305.8 million),the Chino Aug. 14 deadline for funding for storage projects under Proposition Basin project($480 million),the San Joaquin River and Tributaries 1,the$7.5 billion water bond passed by voters in 2014. project($22 million),the Tulare Lake Storage and Floodwater project That's fewer than the commission had expected earlier this year, ($452.2 million)and the South Sacramento County Agriculture and having received 44 separate"concept papers"from groups consider- Habitat Lands program($304 million). ing seeking funds for everything from large reservoirs to local The Kern Fan Groundwater Storage Project is asking for$85.7 mil- groundwater recharge projects. lion. "Originally we thought we might get upwards of 20 to 25," panel The commission expects to hold multiple public meetings in early spokesman Chris Orrock said."But as the process continued on and 2018 as it determines each project's level of public benefits and gives we got more toward the end of the application period,we saw that it a final "project score,"according to a news release. For schedules only 12 organizations had started the process.So two or three weeks and the status of reviews,visit www.cwc.ca.gov. ago we understood that this was going to be about the number we'd get." Some commissioners have expressed a desire for"funding as many projects as we can,"Orrock said,adding that the number will be de- termined when the panel gets through a technical review next spring. The commission expects to make final determinations in June 2018. "It's not a beauty pageant,"Orrock said."We're going to be looking at the public benefits that projects say they provide and ensure that the public benefits are tangible and able to be realized.Then we're going to look at what the public benefits ratio is to the overall pro- ject." Overall,the commission received nearly$6.8 billion in requests for projects that would cost a combined$13.1 billion.The largest re- quest was for$1.66 billion for Sites Reservoir west of Maxwell,Calif., a planned$5.2 billion project to create as much as 1.8 million acre- feet of offstream surface water storage. The Sites Project Authority and U.S.Bureau of Reclamation are tak- ing comments through Nov.13 on environmental documents for the proposed reservoir,and two public meetings are scheduled to pro- vide more information. The meetings will be held from 6 to 8 p.m.Sept.26 at the Sites Pro- ject Authority, 122 Old Highway 99 West,Maxwell;and 1 to 3 p.m. Sept.28 in Room 306 at the Sacramento Convention Center, 1400 J St. Another frequently discussed project,the planned Temperance Flat Reservoir near Fresno,is seeking$1.3 billion toward a projected $2.66 billion overall cost.Temperance Flat would create 1.26 million acre-feet of new storage above Millerton Lake. Other proposed surface storage projects seeking funds include the Los Vaqueros Reservoir expansion($434 million);the Pacheco Reser- voir expansion($484.5 million)and local surface storage projects in San Diego($219.3 million)and Nevada and Placer counties(nearly A � ug :are, 3 nu) �7� .V tl li This weekly electronic newsletter is designed to keep you current on California Water Plan news. We welcome comments,suggestions,and any news tips that may be of interest to water planners. Third phase of system DWR has released the System Reoperation-Stud Phase Ill Report. It includes the evaluation of reoperation study reoperation strategies for Lakes Shasta,Oroville, ® posted by DWR and McClure to increase water supply reliability. e The reoperation strategies include groundwater conjunctive management.A fact s ee of the report's key findings and recommendations for the next phase,is also available. ,'�: .� Three climate change The Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board will be strategy meetings set for conducting three-meetings to collect ideas and input on a climate change adaptation strategy.The series will start Thursday,Sept.28, the Lahontan Region in Truckee.That will be followed by a meeting on Oct.5,in Apple Valley;and Oct. 11,in Bishop. Partners in Clime DWR's Climate Change Program has added a new blog to its blog added to DWR's website.Partners in Clime will provide updates on a variety of the program's projects.The initial entries describe a video being climate change website produced for the April 2018 Tribal Water Summit. Mark your calendars for The fall meeting of the Califon is biodiversity council fall Biodiversity Council will take a look at integrated regional conservation efforts .. meeting and field trip in the South San Francisco Bay region. It will consist of a half-day meeting on California Biodiversity, Nov.13 at Paicines Ranch event center,and a geld trig on Nov. 14 including stops at Hollister,and the San Luis Reservoir. The meeting agenda and field trip itinerary will be available in early September. International conference A four-day international conference on irrigation and_drainz�will be on irrigation and drainage held Oct.24-27,in Sacramento.The event is hosted by the United States Committee on Irrigation_and Drainage.The conference will to be held in Sacramento focus on finding a balance among infrastructure improvements, water management,and the environment. Two,programs accepting Applications are being accepted for two components of the California Department of Food and Agriculture's Healthy Soils P_mgrarm(NSP). funding applieations.fo.r The HSP Incentives Program provides financial assistance for proiects plromgtino healthy soil;: implemehtation of agricultural management practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.The HSP Demonstration l rog~aim funds projebts"that monitor specific practices for;improving soli health. Ar�tsl�catrone'are"due Tuesday,Sept'19 $aVe,'the dates•CplifOrnia' This year'sgia economic Summa will be NoV 2 and 3,�n ` San Diego The summa well address I#ems outlined:M the y/.,ro.,�,.". [o>k�q ft�C Stimmttf[q. lllt a [�[y=�'adrnap to 3haredl P 6bmcluding�til goals of reusing an admonal or[9q, il ion cre feet o Water a fuall bu ding on�H�on a CORRESPONDENCE ANNOUNCEMENT: Sustainable Groundwater Management Program News for August 2 3 From the Department of Water Resources,Sustainable Groundwater Management Program,August 24,2017 Basin Boundary Modification -9673 OPEN NOW—Required Initial Notification period. Local agencies Draft Guidance Documents for Engagement and Communication intending to submit a Basin Boundary modification request are re- DWR is inviting public comments on two draft guidance documents, quired to submit an"Initial Notification"of their intent within 15 Guidance Document for Groundwater Sustainability Plan(GSP) days of a local agency's decision to explore basin modification.Initial Stakeholder Communication and Engagement(C&E)and Engage- Notifications can be submitted and viewed at http:// ment with Tribal Governments.The C&E document offers guidance sgma.water.ca.gov/basinmod/ on communication with stakeholders for GSP development through a Tentative Schedule transparent and inclusive process. The Engagement with Tribal Gov- January 1,2018—Submission Period OpensDuring this 3 month win- ernments document is intended to help local agencies engage with dow,GSAs and local agencies can submit the required information to Tribal Governments in the planning,financing and management of a support a Basin Boundary Modification in the BBMRS on the SGMA GSA,or with the development and implementation of a GSP. The Portal http://sgma,water.ca.gov/portal/#intro. deadline for submitting public comments is March 31,2018—Submission Period Closes and 30-day Public Com- 5:00 P.M., Monday,August 28,2017. ment Period OpensAll information to support a boundary modifica- Please send your comments: tion should be submitted to the BBMRS By email to: sgmps@water.ca.gov Subject:Comments to Guidance April 30,2018—Public Comment Period ClosesDWR begins boundary Documents modification requests and public comments OR Approximately July 2018—Draft Basin Boundary Modifications Re- By U.S. Postal Service to: leased Approximately August 2018—final Basin Boundary Modifications CA Department of Water ResourcesP O Box 942836 Released Sacramento,California 94236-0001 Pursuant to SGMA, DWR developed regulations for a process to Attn:Lauren Hersh,Rm 201 modify Bulletin 118 groundwater basin boundaries.In November Technical Assistance 2016, DWR reviewed the requests and finalized the boundary modifi- cations,which are posted on the Basin Modification Boundary web Providing technical assistance to water managers and GSAs is crucial page at http://water.ca.gov/groundwater/sgm/ in enabling successful management of groundwater basins.DWR is basin boundaries.cfm. providing local agencies and GSAs with technical assistance which includes data and tools at both the regional and statewide level to Contact:Tim Godwin Timothy.Godwin@water.ca.gov (916}651- 9223 support Groundwater Sustainability Plan development and imple- mentation.Visit DWR's 5GM Program—Data,Tools,and Reports Groundwater Sustainability Agency(GSA)Formation webpage for more access to: More than 99 percent of California's medium and high priority Statewide Data Platforms groundwater basins are in compliance with the first phase of the gest Management Practices and Guidance Documents Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.The SGMA requires that the state's 127 high and medium priority groundwater basins be Interactive Maps—Groundwater Information Center Interactive Map managed by a Groundwater Sustainability Agency(GSA),groundwa- &Water Management Planning Tool ter adjudications,or alternative sustainability plans by June 30,2017. Modeling—Code and Applications Portions of basins not covered by a GSA,adjudication,or alternative plans are considered unmanaged areas and will be required to report Reports—Bulletin 118 and Bulletin 160 any significant pumping to the State Water Resources Control Board. Water Data Library and more As of July 1,2017,groundwater basins without complete GSA cover- age will be subject to State Water Resources Control Board interven- Contact:Steven Springhorn I Steven.Springhorn@water.ca.gov tion. (916)651-9273 All GSA notifications can be submitted,viewed,and managed within Upcoming Events DWR's SGMA Portal.Visit the State Water Resources Control Board's Unmanaged Area Identification Map. Principles of Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Contact:Mark Nordberg I Mark.Nordberg@water.ca.gov 1 (916)651 This Is an introductory course offered by the Groundwater Resources Association that reviews the concepts of groundwater Flow and transport,and of finite difference and finite element methods.It also provides an overview of various software programs for groundwater flow and transport modeling. Monday,September 11—Wednesday,September 13,2017 8:00 A.M.to 5:00 P.M. Seaport Conference Center 459 Seaport Court Redwood City,California 94064 More Information and Registration —Save the Date:SGMA Groundwater Sustainability Plan(GSP)Cen- tral Valley Workshop— This free workshop hosted by the California Department of Water Resources will provide Groundwater Sustainability Agencies and in- terested parties with an update on SGMA implementation and an open forum to discuss Groundwater Sustainability Plan develop- ment.Additional details will be provided soon.The workshop is open to GSAs statewide and the public. Wednesday,September 20,2017 1:00 P.M.to 5:00 P.M. Clovis Veterans Memorial District 808 Fourth Street Clovis,California 93612 Look for more information soon CORRESPONDENCE From: N[WA <jnoncalwutemrg> Sent: Friday,July Dl2OD9:28AK4 To, B[Water Subject: Week inReview-July J8.2017 NCVVAWeek inReview V;O*'8hi,', iu'Yuu!14ov,,Suer / Improving Habitat for Fins and Feathers The latest�C2��Nmgdetails the recent collaboration oftwo oJthe leading scientists inCalifornia in an article focused on{ooscpyn/9lk for Fi;�s azM±ea�/ie/ . Mark Petrie and Jacob Katz describe the amazing and innovative efforts that their respective conservation organizations—Ducks Unlimited and Ca|Tr ut—havetakento|mprovnhabitatforbo1hUnhundbinda. Much of their efforts have focused on California's Sacramento Valley and its unique mosaic of beautiful, picturesque farmland,world-class wildlife reserves and thriving communities,which are interwoven with dynamic rivers and streams, Nowhere are natural and human resources more closely integrated and cared for than the Sacramento Valley. « ^ ' Themhas been mcuncemedand uo||abonuVxeefo�inthe ` Sacramento Valley over the past several decades to improve ` conditions for birds,fish and wildlife.One example ofthe effectiveness oftheir approach iuthe success and lessons wecan |aann�umthe . Ducks Unlimited was `one ofthe early visionaries that saw the importance oJintegrating 'birds,fish and farms along Butte Creek and making sure the water ' system works for the benefit ofall these beneficial purposes.Jacob Katz recently wrote mhlogunthecg low Governor Brown Appoints New Director of Department of Water Resources Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr.announced the appointment of Grant Davis, of Petaluma, as the director of the California Department of Water Resources, Davis has been general manager of the Sonoma County Water Agency since 2009,where he was assistant general manager from 2007 to 2009.The agency provides wholesale water,wastewater treatment and flood control. It is the largest energy user in the county and became carbon-free in 2015 by providing its water through 100 percent renewable energy. Hnwas executive director of the Bay Institute from 1997 to 2007,senior district representative in the I Office of Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey from 1993 to 1997 and principal of Impact Consulting from 1990 to 1993. California WaterFix Reaches Milestone As State Environmental Review Is Certified On July 21, the California Department of Water Resources(DWR)certified the environmental analysis of the California WaterFix.The Notice of Determination and decision documents signed by Acting Director of DWR,Cindy Messer approve WaterFix as the proposed project under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), which requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. NCWA and the Sacramento Valley Water Users have commented on the earlier versions of the environmental documents and will need to decide within the next month whether to file a lawsuit(s).The WaterFix proposal stili lacks an operating plan for the Central Valley Water Project(CVP)and the State Water Project(SWP),which means that the impacts on Northern California reservoirs,water supplies,and the environment is difficult to determine at this time. "Today,we have reached our next important benchmark in moving California towards a more reliable water supply,"said Messer. "With this certification,our state is now closer to modernizing our aging water delivery system in a way that improves reliability and protects the environment." The certification comes after more than a decade of analysis, review,and public comment. State and federal water and wildlife agencies have been working since 2006 to find the best way to improve how the State Water Project and Central Valley Project obtain water from the channels of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In addition to the certification, DWR also filed a"validation action"today with the Sacramento County Superior Court to affirm the department's authority to,among other things,issue revenue bonds to finance the planning,design,construction and other capital costs of California WaterFix.A validation action is necessary to provide assurances to the financial community for the sale of the California WaterFix revenue bonds. Meantime, DWR and the federal Bureau of Reclamation have completed a substantial portion of the proceedings before the State Water Resources Control Board to change the point of diversion for the state and federal water projects to allow operation of the WaterFix. Former Senate Leader, Water Commissioner ©ave Cogdill, Passes at 66 Dave Cogdill Sr.,who served as a state lawmaker and leader in Modesto and Stanislaus County government,died on July 23 at the age 66.As the Los Angeles Times rej�,:):!ed tn its cal��r ctc,Cogdill served three terms in the state Assembly, and served as assessor of Stanislaus County after his departure from the Legislature. Cogdill has also served as a Commissioner on the California Water Commission and as the Chairman of the Maddy Institute at Fresno State University. The late Senator Dave Cogdill served as the California State Senate Republican Leader from 2008- 2009. As the former chair of the California State Legislature Rural Caucus,Cogdill collaborated with local leaders on many issues concerning rural residents,such as access to health care and quality education. For his exemplary service to the community and state during the California budget crisis in 2009, Dave Cogdill was awarded the prestigious Profile in Courage Award from the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation in 2010. Sunsweet Growers Names New Chairman Celebrating its centennial year with unprecedented company performance, Sunsweet Growers Inc. anno,�nc cl ti-1I.e of SUTIS �eet_b0ald Ieadgrsh�p to Brendon S. Flynn,who will succeed Gary S. Thiara as the board's chairman. The appointment culminates a formal succession planning process,which included Flynn serving as the board's vice chair for the past 18 months, his serving 14 years as chairman of the finance committee,and his service as a Sunsweet board member totaling 15 years. Glenn County Resource Conservation District... is now hiring! The Glenn County RCD, is looking to fill the newly created position of Program Coordinator.This position will fill the role of'Soil Health Coordinator'as well as have the opportunity to work with other RCD projects 2 and programs. In a highly functioning team setting, the Program Coordinator will work closely with RCD staff, private landowners and land managers,the community,local,state and federal agencies to help carry out the RCD's goals and objectives. If you, or someone you may know,wants to help our community, provide education/outreach and strives to support agriculture/natural resources then this may be a position of interest,visit v nr�,cal�i�ricc,fm rcd.�rcl for more details. APPLICATIONS DUE BY NOON,August 4, 2097. No exceptions. Questions may be directed to L<,- ti ii Lr enncountvrcd orc�or by calling our office at 530-934-4601 x120. Civil Engineer Position - Ducks Unlimited Ducks Unlimited, Inc-,the world's leading wetland and waterfowl conservation organization,has exciting opportunities for civil engineers.Two positions our sought to join a highly motivated conservation team of biologists and engineers responsible for the planning,design,and construction of wetland and wild land restoration projects headquartered out of the Western Regional Office in Rancho Cordova,CA.An experienced professional engineer position will be focused on habitat projects in the San Joaquin Valley, Tulare Basin,and southern California.An entry level engineer position will assist with project engineering throughout California and Nevada. Please see Cl for position descriptions and application information. Water Board Schedules Workshop on Impaired Waterbodies On August 23,2017 at 1 PM in Rancho Cordova, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board staff will a hold public workshop to discuss the 2018 Triennial Review of the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basin Plans and to receive public comments. More information on the workshop can be found i er E A awit Py XB For a daily compilation of all the news shaping California water policy visit Aquafornia. httyflaguafornia.com Copyright O 2017 Northern California Water"Association, All rigl ris reserved. NCWA News and Events Our mailing address is: Northern California Water Association 455 Capitol Mall,Suite 335 Sacramento, CA 95814 Add ifs to}dour WIdrOSS_500k Want to change how you receive these emails? You can uixiliteyouutLf�retcrences or Unsuhscribe from this list 3 Agenda Item #11 COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED AND REFERRED BUTTE COUNTY WATER COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 6,2017 Copies of all communications are available at the Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation 308 Nelson Avenue Oroville, CA 95965 1. *California Water Plan eNews, Wednesday,Update, July 26, 2017 2. *Article from Chico Enterprise Record, July 27, 2017, Enough water agencies have bought in to get Sites Reservoir built even without Prop. 1 funding 3. *California Water Plan eNews, Wednesday,Update, August 2, 2017 4. *Article from Chico Enterprise Record, August 9, 2017, County to file suit to oppose 'twin tunnels' proposal 5. *California Water Plan eNews, Wednesday's Update, August 9, 2017 6. *California Water Plan eNews, Wednesdays Update, August 16, 2017 7. *Editorial from Chico Enterprise Record, August 17, 2017, Water Commission's the wild card in how Proposition 1 money will be spent 8. *Article from Chico Enterprise Record, August 21, 2017, AquAlliance files suit over twin tunnels 9. *Article from Capital Ag Press, August 21, 2017, Panel.to fund multiple water nroiects under Proposition 1 10. *California Water Plan eNews, Wednesday's Update, August 23, 2017 H. *Article from Maven's Notebook, August 23, 2017,ANNOUNCEMENT: Sustainable Groundwater Management Program News for August 23 12. *Correspondence received from NCWA 1 1 , Min In � f Ady26f2017 This weekly electronic newsletter is designed to keep you current on California Water Plan news. We welcome comments,suggestions,and any news tips that may be of interest to water planners. Natural Resources Agency California Natural Resources Secretary John Laird announced establishes Climate-Safe the appointment of 14 leaders in state climate science and $ infrastructure design to the Climate-Safe Infrastructure Working ® Infrastructure Working Group Group.Established byB�1 2800(Quirk,Statutes of 2015-16),the working group will unite experts from multiple scientific and state infrastructure disciplines to bolster the inclusion of climate impacts in state design processes. Making the case for a A recent entry on the California WaterBloct discusses the idea of new method of classifying creating a simplified method to classify the state's streams.It looks at nine natural stream classes including snowmelt and groundwater. California's streams The intent is for the classifications to be combined with other information to create environmental flow targets. Video answers one of It's a common question among water users,"if I'm using less water, the most common questions why do my rates increase?"The Alliance for Water Efficiency has put together a video explaining why bills keep getting bigger. It also posed by water users makes the case for conservation being the best way to keep water costs down. Study looks at using A report from the Alliance for Water Ef icienc looks remote-control systems to at the viability of water agencies remotely controlling residential irrigation systems to reduce peak summer . reduce peak water use water demands.The report has the results of a test M_ done last summer in New Jersey.While the tests didj�-: produce water savings,the report suggests moreu'k;:ti .s research is needed. tt Summit agenda looks to The Second Annual Water Data Summit will focus on how big focus on developing a guide water--data integration is supporting water managers in California. Hosted by the California Data Collaborative,the two-day event will for future use of water data be held at Stanford University on Aug.24 and 25.One of the goals of the summit is to develop a guide for future water-data work. .Santa Ana watershed authority The Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority is accepting applications from agencies and organizations interested in the looking for groups interested Community Water Internship Program.The internships are for in.internship program students attending a California State University or community college.The interns will assist with water education projects in disadvantaged communities in the Santa Ana RIVer.Watershed.. Forest Sel'vRe webItOffers The S Forest Service has launched a new website strotin dwater orocaram It includes a section information nn recreat,on y 4 with information on groundwater recreation sites AD1OlIiq�resOUr[$5 r ere is also tnforma#Ion an ouhd"terS�onal o �° } r �rOvded by�he FaresttS@J1dr6� '4ii3 tea' MO e :� �ai� � r�Z/"��,������' a„",�,��`��•,����Lc..> ���. �. ":_ _�� he CORRESPONDENCE hi CcoERCOM Enough water agencies have bought in to get Sites Reservoir built even without Prop. 1 funding By:Steve Schoonover,July 27,2017 Maxwell>>The deadline is Aug. 14 to apply for water storage fund- There are also several small streams that flow into the reservoir area, ing from the Proposition 1 bond measure voters approved in 2014, and ironically,this year one of them flooded the authority's office in and while the folks working to build Sites Reservoir will be applying, Maxwell with 3 feet of water.Watson said that wouldn't have hap- they don't need the money. pened if the dam had been built. Enough water agencies have agreed to invest in the reservoir near Flow it would work Maxwell that it can be built without taxpayer funds,according to The Sites Project Authority is what's tailed a joint powers agreement Sites Project Authority General Manager Jim Watson. including Glenn and Colusa counties and 10 Sacramento Valley water Twenty-eight agencies have signed on to support the construction in agencies.They will be the owners and operators of the lake,accord- exchange for a share of the water that would be delivered from the ing to Watson. lake,according to the authority's website.Watson said the funds The others are similar to the contractors who buy water from the committed would pay the$4.7 billion cost of building the reservoir. State Water Project.Although they can advise the authority,they So the Sites authority's application to the California Water Commis- don't have a say in the day-to-day decisions and operations of the sion will be a little different than most: Rather than a plea for funding lake. needed to make a storage project possible,the authority will be The level of their investment determines how much water they offering the state a chance to invest in a project that's likely to be would get from the 500,000 acre-feet of water expected to be deliv- built one way or another. ered from Sites every year. With funding identified,the biggest hurdle left is governmental ap- For example,the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California proval. is in for 50,000 acre-feet annually.The Cortina Water District in The project Colusa County is looking for just 300 acre-feet a year. Sites would be a 1.8 million acre-foot reservoir located in a valley Sacramento valley water interests have signed up for 146,411 acre- about eight miles west of Maxwell.That's roughly half the size of feet of the yield,with another 258,000 acre-feet wanted by south-of- Lake Oroville and twice the size of Folsom Lake. delta interests and others. There would also be a couple of small forebays.Three recreation A full list of participants is available at https://www.sitesproject.org/ areas are part of the plan as well. participants/. The main reservoir would be off-stream,meaning the water to fill it What the state could get wouldn't come by damming a river. Instead water would pumped in All told,the water agencies are seeking more than 404,000 acre-feet from the Sacramento River during times of high flows and saved for of Sites'annual yield.But Watson said,"We've already told them use in the dry times. they aren't going to get all they want." Its water source would be the Sacramento River drainage down- streamfrom Shasta Dam.There's roughly 10,000 square miles of Instead,the state will be given the first right to buy as much as half the water from the lake with Proposition 1 funding,if it so desires. watershed there that is undammed,except for Stony Creek,Clear Creek,a few small PG&E and farm diversions,and the Paradise Irriga- Proposition 1 includes$2.7 billion to add water storage in the state. tion District's dams on Little Butte Creek. No more than half the cost of any project can be funded. The streams that flow uncontrolled into the river in that area include The bond money also can't be used to build water storage for agri- Butte Creek,Stony Creek Chico Creek, Pine Creek,Deer Creek,Mill cultural,residential or commercial use.That has to be paid for by the Creek, Battle Creek,Cottonwood Creek, Elder Creek,Thomes Creek, users. and a number of others. Instead, Proposition 1 money must be spent to store water for This year,those streams and releases from Shasta Lake would have "public benefits,"with environmental needs the most clearly defined allowed the lake to be filled in a single year. Even in the peak of the of those benefits. drought,Watson said,the creeks put enough water into the river "We strongly believe that Proposition 1 creates water for the re- that each year"a couple of hundred-thousand acre-feet"could have source agencies,"Watson said."Right now the state does not have been taken out for Sites. water to provide for the environment." The water would get to the lake via a new roughly 16-mile canal con- Should Proposition 1 money be allocated pay half the cost of Sites, netting to the river between Princeton and Colusa,and through the that would make 250,000 acre-feet available for the environment Tehama-Colusa and Glenn-Colusa canals.The existing canals pass every year,with the state able to use it as it wishes. If 20 percent of within a half-dozen miles of the planned reservoir. the project were funded,there'd be 100,000 acre-feet for the state to use for the environment. The leftover water would go to the urban and irrigation water agen- cies that have invested in Sites. Proposition 1 also requires any spending produce"measurable im- provement"to the delta ecosystem.Sites is well-placed to provide more flow in the delta at times when it is needed. Releases from Sites could also be coordinated with Lake Shasta to allow more cool water to be saved in that deeper reservoir,to meet the needs of winter-run salmon that spawn in the river near Redding. What's next The Sites Project Authority expects to have its application for Propo- sition 1 funding to the California Water Commission by Aug.14. It will be accompanied,as required by the proposition,with a draft state.environmental impact report/federal environmental impact statement. A public comment period on the EIR/EIS will then be opened.A cou- ple of public meetings on the environmental documents are planned, Sept.26 in Maxwell and Sept.28 in Sacramento. Once a final document is prepared,work will begin on obtaining the necessary environmental permits to build the project,which can take 31/2 to 4 years,according to Watson. The environmental approval is the only loose end,but the impacts of an off-stream reservoir are far less than one damming a river. There's also engineering and design work to do,as well as obtaining the land for the lake,canals and other facilities. Best-case scenario would see construction starting in 2022,and be- ing completed by 2029. As for the Proposition i funding,the California Water Commission has until the end of 2021 to allocate the funds. Reach City Editor Steve Schoonover at 896-7750. l ® ® I cg IBM IS dat Wednesday U' A qq. 2, 2017 �. This weekly electronic newsletter is designed to keep you current on California Water Plan news. We welcome comments,suggestions,and any news tips that may be of interest to water planners. Looking at water system The process of consolidating water systems to provide safe drinking consolidation t0 improve the water will be discussed during a workshop on Aug.17,in Sacramento. The State Water Resources Control Board and the California Public e quality of drinking water Utilities Commission are hosting the workshop.System consolidation a may improve water quality in disadvantaged communities where individual systems lack resources for improvements. Seminar will explore the As part of its effort to promote stormwater benefits of using floating management,the Strategy to Optimize Resource ST Management of Stormwater STORMS will host �.,;. g �� STORM WAIER$?RAT FGY,: islands to treat stormwater a seminar on Friday,Aug.11,in Sacramento. ;- The information will include details about floating islands that can be used to treat stormwater and improve water quality in receiving waters.A webcast will be available. Climate change and flood The American Water Resources Association will be hosting a risks in the Central Valley to webinar to look at flood risks in the Central Valley brought on by climate change.The webinar wili be Wednesday,Aug. 16.There will be discussed during webinar also be information on flood management policy recommendat€ons included in the draft 2017 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan. DWR posts last month's DWR has posted last month's webinar on hydrologic warning shy terns.David C.Curtis of WEST"Consultants, Inc.presented webinar,Slides Ott an introduction to implementing the systems.The slides from the hydrologic warning systems presentation have also been posted. Water-budget framework DWR is developing a water-budget framework to support the plans t0 be discussed at implementation of the Sust i a G oundwat r Mana a ent Act. The project will be discussed during a we. binaron Wednesday, webinar later this month Aug.23.The first phase of the project will focus on the Tulare lake Hydrologic Region.Phase 2 will test the water-budget framework for the Central Coast Hydrologic Region. Traditional ecological The Southwest Tribal Climate Change Network and knowledg ,to be shared during the California Landscape Conservation Cooperative are teaming up on a roundtable webinar to discuss environmental roundtable traditional ecological knowledge(TEK).TEK is environmental knowledge developed by.Native: Americans over many centuries;The webinar will inclutle satellite mee ng locat<ons in,Arizona and California It'wil be hip_ Aug 21 z New=Vtdeo explains the, The delta StPuVadh€g Courtci€has put together a 'IQIAnf (letiul `tz> t?dtr exp�atrting how the eracieni (EEP)meets the 52 � } ,:y,Z,n7erall heeds of tt� Qelfay flze it P`is Made up of nine S'tateyaltd CORRESPONDENCE ChlcoERCOm # 4 County to file suit to oppose 'twin tunnels' proposal Steve Schoonover,August 9,2017 Oroville»Butte County plans to file a lawsuit over the plan to bury a delta counties—Sacramento,San Joaquin,Yolo,Solano and Contra Cos- pair of tunnels under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to move Sacra- to--though the impacts would be far more widespread. mento River water south. "In closing,"the September letter reads,"the California WaterFix and its County supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday to file the suit against related EIR/EIS do not comply with State water law and inadequately the Department of Water Resources over the so-called"California Wa- assess the environmental and socioeconomic impacts.The actions of the terFix,"the largest part of which is the"twin tunnels"proposal. California WaterFix would damage Butte County's economy,environ- The California WaterFix is technically a Habitat Conservation Plan and ment and communities.For these reasons,the Butte County Board of Natural Community Conservation Plan,with the stated goal of protecting Supervisors remains opposed to the California WaterFix and respectfully more than 50 species of fish,wildlife and plants over 50 years. implores the State Water Resources Control Board to reject the petition in support of the California WaterFix. However,it includes the two 45-foot-diameter tunnels to divert water THE CURRENT SITUATION from the Sacramento River,upstream from the delta,to the State Water Project and Central Valley Project aqueducts that start on the south DWR certified the California WaterFix EIR on July 21 without addressing edge of the delta. Butte County's concerns. East tunnel could move 9,000 cubic feet per second.The flow Wednes- "Unfortunately,the administration has ignored every suggestion offered day in the Sacramento River past Sacramento was about 20,000 cfs. by Butte County and intends to move forward with the California Water- Fix and California EcoRestore with little regard to legal requirements or The project is estimated to cost$15 billion,which is supposed to be mitigating impacts,"according to a county press release Wednesday. funded by bonds paid for by those who would benefit.There's currently some uncertainty about financing though. Hence,the lawsuit. THE COUNTY'S POSITION The county has until Aug.21 to file the suit,according to County Counsel The suit will be based on a Sept.13,2016,letter the county sent to DWR Bruce Alpert.Numerous counties,agencies and environmental groups pointing out objections to draft environmental documents that had been will be filing,he said."It's going to be a huge litigation." prepared to that point. He expected to have the county's suit filed in Sacramento Superior Court In the letter the county pointed out that while the Sacramento Valley by late next week. was not a beneficiary of the California WaterFix,its implementation "This is not a zero-sum game with the same amount of water,"he said. would"redirect impacts and impose obligations on communities,water He pointed out the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California users and the environment in the northern Sacramento Valley." has already spent$175 million to buy three islands on the delta tunnels The county also argued those impacts were not analyzed in the draft route."The only reason to do that is that they expect to get more wa- Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement.(An EIR ter." is a state requirement;an EIS is its federal equivalent.) "They've already ruined the San Joaquin Valley,"Alpert continued."We Specifically,the EIR/EIS said Sacramento Valley water users would lose have to make sure they don't to the same devastation to the Sacramen- to Valley." about 50,000 acre-feet of water a year that would have to be replaced with groundwater pumping.There is no indication where the pumping ANOTHER SUIT would happen,and no analysis of the effects on valley groundwater ba- The county may also be filing a second suit over another legal action sins. DWR took July 21 that Alpert said appears to be an attempt to broaden That part of the study also didn't take local groundwater ordinances into the pool of people who would pay for the project beyond just those who consideration,and ignored the state's Sustainable Groundwater Man- sign on for its benefits. agement Act that emphasizes regional self-reliance in groundwater use, the county's latter pointed out. A number of potential beneficiaries—particularly farm irrigation dis- tricts—have been balking about sharing the cost in light of the limited The report also said operating the tunnels would change operations amount of additional water they might receive. at Lake Oroville,shifting"substantial releases from summer months to "It's one of those things when until it's studied correctly and people un- spring months under high outflow scenario."Yet there's no analysis of erstand what new water there is,they're taking a lot of chances for the impact of that on the region's economics,recreation and ecosystem. very little water,"Alpert said. The county's letter paints out that the study area was defined as being the delta and the watersheds that drain into it.Then,the draft EIR/E[5 The action DWR filed in Sacramento Superior Court could make all the eliminated the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys from a hydrologic State Water Project Contractors responsible for paying off the bonds to build the tunnels,he suggested. study in to achieve"greater precision in model output in the Delta Re- gion." Butte County is one of the contractors. "The decision to eliminate the Sacramento Valley from hydrologic mod- Alpert said he would be asking the supervisors at a future closed session eling demonstrates the disregard of the region and creates an incon- to formally oppose that effort as well. sistency within the EIS/EIR,"the county's letter read. Reach City Editor Steve Schoonover at 896-7750. The analysis of socioeconomic impacts or the project was also limited to i A F , # 'IT8-s y' 7 Oh O fi i.Y:' G 9ll ltl K'H�Y .c:J z«,��•.-?ac`v Wednesday b1pcig .moi� J This weekly electronic newsletter is designed to keep you current on California Water Plan news. We welcome comments,suggestions,and any news tips that may be of interest to water planners. Update 201$pdviSory An advisory committee meeting for California_ Water Plan update 2018 has been scheduled committee meeting for this month.The policy advisory committee ® set for this month will meet Wednesday,Aug.23,in Sacramento RSVP s are requested.The meeting will be r N webcast.Registration is required to receive the `- :tib• ," webcast information. State climatologist t0 Water Year 2017 wilt go down as one of the wettest in California offer perspective on the history.Look back at the significance of this water year during a _ webcast by State Climatologist Michael Anderson on Aug. 15.He historic Water Year 2017 will examine the events that led to a historic string of storms,plus talk about the responses that helped mitigate the damages. Workshop to look A workshop on the connection between the Sust giaablg at stream depletion ManagementGroundwater Act(SGMA)and stream depletion will be held Tuesday,Aug,„ 29,in Sacramento.The event is being presented through the lens of SGMA by DWR and the Groundwater Resources Association.Theagenda includes a look at models for evaluating stream depletion,and potential solutions to be used by groundwater sustainability agencies. Delta ecosystem restoration A presentation on the Delta I, B on agenda for next California will be part of the next if 1 C is Water Commis 'on • a Water Commission meeting meeting.Commissioners will get a briefing on emerging strategies fol restoration of the Delta ecosystem.State agency representatives will discuss how the WaWr Storage investment Program can support Delta improvements.The meeting will be Wednesday,Aug. 16,in Sausalito. New version of General An updated version of the Gonera!plan Guidelines has been Plan Guidelines posted, released by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research.This is the first comprehensive uj?d@je tote qUideliaes since 2003.It first update since 2003 includes a chapter on c i ate gbarigg. $20 million in Climate Caltrans has announced it is providing$20 million in climate change adaptation grants over a three-year period.The link to final draft adaptat10f1 graritS,l}eirig, of the adaptation planning grants guidelines is available on the offered by Cpitrans calTiansgais vy}Age. CommelrlEts being aaelrted on Aubliccomments are being accepted on the t a r tnstruat�orls for submiftrn comments r ` ` UnCfiO IreCllllrme5 for rn platform v�nlf help advance the Appendix B Yui < kt t ater irta plaorm Tg �er►f Wates l Sata{A which requites DWR and partner - w�� ` s r ,����y `�aSer�cie?3 to tleyelap�ai�sfatew�dea�at��d�tar�lafFo'�'ftaatn rt2�,„Y� A A An aWednesdwy UpdFes. This weekly electronic newsletter is designed to keep you current on California Water Plan news. We welcome comments,suggestions,and any news tips that may be of interest to water planners. Agenda posted for next The agenda has been posted for next week's meeting of the California Water Plan week's Update 2018 Ljpdate 2018 Policy Advisory Committee. • advisory committee meeting Presentations throughout the day will cover ' Update 2098 draft chapters plus panel`' discussions on watershed sustainability pilot projects and concepts to advance regional e,n gagern1WEThe meeting will be Wednesday,Aug.23, in Sacramento. Central Valley flood The Central Valley Flood Protection Board has posted the adogtion plan update set far acka a for the Central Vallev Flood Protection Plan 2017 Update. The package includes the resolution for adoption.The board will adoption later this month consider the adoption package during its meeting on Friday,Aug.25, at Sacramento City Hall. Groundwater sustainability DWR is accepting comments on two guidance documents for guidance documents sustainable groundwater management.They deal with stakeholder engagement and tribal governmeDts.They are designed to help with available for public comment the development of groundwater sustainability plans.Comments are due by Monday,Aug.28. Student internships available The Santa,Ana Watershed Project Authority is accepting applications for DAC water projects in the for its water internship program.Applicants must attend a California State University or a local community college.Students will assist Santa Ana River Watershed with water projects in disadvantaged communities(DACs)within the Santa Ana River Watershed. Water board accepting The State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB)is accenting comments on surface water public comments for surface water augmentation recaulations.The comment period ends at noon on Sept.12.A public hearing on the augmentation regulations regulations is set for Thursday,Sept.7,in Sacramento. Survey finds California A survey conducted by DWR and the SWRCB found California reused 714,000 acre-feet of municipal recycled water during 2015. recycled WQter use jumps That,is a.6.3 percent increase over the last survey in 2009::8urvev more'than b percent.. ta' are available on the DWR website. Proposalnc s being accepted The Delta Conservay isaccepting e C c or!"$9 3 mlflhon in grotx�sals orits Ecosysfem'Restoraon and W� s� v i; rE� The grants Wl�l be y �� ���, �I�'I`f'eStOlatloll grpnts ;aVVarded to pratectEon and restoration protects ChicoEH.Com CORRESPONDENCE Editorial: `Nater Commission's the wild card in how Proposi- tion 1 money will be spent August 17,2017 Now that there's a list of projects vying for the$2.7 billion In Propo- The other projects largely increase storage for existing water users. sition i dedicated to water storage,you'd think the chances of the They're all south of the delta,which is the wrong side to be helpful to proposed Sites Reservoir In Colusa County getting some of that cash it. would be clearer.Not so. Their only public benefit is indirect:They might allow a reduction in There are few surprises in the list of projects seeking the money. the amount of north state water that has to be diverted to south of Most are proposals that have been around for years,have been stud- the delta,theoretically freeing up that water for the delta's needs. ied endlessly,and haven't gotten built due to a lack of funding. Sites,by comparison,is in the right spot to provide water to help the The uncertainty is because the decision will be made by the Califor- delta when it's needed.It's also in the right spot to allow more cold nia Water Commission,a panel obscure enough that only the most water to be saved in Shasta Lake to help endangered and threatened serious of water wonks even knew it existed before it was given$2.7 fish populations in the Sacramento River. billion to spend. But we don't know what the commission wants.It may favor some- The members are appointed by the governor,and there's no confir- thing like Semitropies proposal because it's groundwater banking. mation process so there's no accountability.It can do whatever it That's all the rage with one faction of the water world that dislikes wants. dams no matter what.If enough members of the commission come There's no track record based on previous decisions that give any from that faction,then a bit of Tulare Lake may be resurrected,as indication how it might go,although very few boards have a track weird as that proposal is. record when it comes to spending$2.7 billion.It's not something Don't expect an answer anytime soon.The commission has until the that happens every day. end of 2021 to allocate the money,and if past history is a guide, All we know is it has taken almost three years to get to the point they'll use that whole time. where the commission was even able to accept applications,which indicates it is either very careful or doesn't have a clue what it is do- ing. Looking at the list,we see advantages for Sites.It's the only one that has"new"water:the untapped tributaries of the Sacramento River downstream from Shasta Dam.There's a lot of watershed there,and no way to collect the runoff. Most of the others enlarge existing dams,or in the case of Temper- ance Flat,adds a second dam on the San Joaquin!fiver above existing Millerton Lake. There is one odd proposal,from the Semitropic Water District in the southern San Joaquin Valley,that would re-create a small portion of Tulare Lake.The lake used to be the largest freshwater lake by sur- face area in the western United States.But the rivers flowing out of the Sierra that fed it were all dammed and diverted to irrigate the east side of the valley,and the lake dried up. Semitropic wants to make a new smaller lake that would recharge into the underground aquifers where it stores water. Problem is it would fill the lake by diverting the Kings River,and the people who use Kings River water say they don't have enough to spare. The"public benefit"aspect is another advantage for Sites.The bond money can't pay for storing water for residential,commercial or agri- cultural use,just for uses that benefit the public as a whole. Environ- mental uses are the most dearly defined public benefit.The money also has to result in"measurable"improvements in the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta. i CORRESPONDENCE ChcoERCOM I # AquAlliance files sunt over twin tunnels Staff Reports,August 21,2017 Chico>>Local water advocacy organization AquAlliance and a coali- Additional CECIA allegations brought forth by AquAlliance include tion have filed a lawsuit in state court against the Department of that the EIR: Water Resources over the proposed twin tunnels. The issue is over the Environmental impact Report's inadequate dis- .Failed to disclose significant past,present,and future groundwater closure,avoidance of impacts,analysis,and mitigation for the pro- and streamflow depletion. posed twin tunnels,according to a press release from AquAlliance. The over 50,000-page EIR was certified by DWR on July 21. - Failed to disclose the lead agencies'conjunctive use and water "Californians aren't doomed to repeat past destructive practices that transfer plans,programs,projects,and funding. have emptied the Owens Valley and caused the literal collapse of the -Vastly understated the extent of groundwater depletion in the San San Joaquin Valley,"said AquAlliance's Executive Director Barbara Joaquin Valley. Vlamis in the release."We are smart enough now to know that the .Failed to adequately disclose the existing geology that is the foun- twin tunnels would destroy California's largest river's watershed and dation of the Sacramento River's hydrology and the Sacramento Val- valley,which is essential for the health of the entire state." ley's groundwater basins. Some of the most significant CEQA allegations produced by AquAlli- .Failed to use verifiable and reproducible scientific methods for ante in the lawsuit to stop the WaterFix project include that the EIR: groundwater analysis with the Central Valley Hydrologic Model. -Failed to Identify the source water that is intended to make up for ,Failed to assess the seismic risks to the twin tunnels,deferring it to flows diverted through the twin tunnels. the design and construction phases of the project,but did explicitly -Failed to disclose the over appropriation of water rights in the Sac- admit that no substantial efforts toward accurate identification of ramento River Watershed. seismic risks yet exist within the plan's scope. -Failed to disclose the existing conditions of Sacramento Valley -Failed to provide realistic mitigation plans for the very-real risk that groundwater. liquefaction could destroy the project once it is built(or even dam- n Failed to disclose and analyze the direct and indirect groundwater age components of the system during construction). impacts to the Sacramento Valley that would result from expanded -Failed to adequately analyze the potential for subsidence effects north-to south,cross-Delta water transfers. during both the construction and operation of the project. Also of interest to Sacramento Valley and foothill residents is that •Relied on a deficient model to analyze the effects of the project DWR's documents do acknowledge that the tunnels project adds"... and its alternatives. additional capacity to move transfer water from areas upstream of the Delta to export service areas and provides a longer transfer win- dow,"and that"groundwater substitution transfers could approach as much as 400,000 acre-feet in any given year..." Vlamis explained that,"Transfers are dangerous to areas-of-origin as they facilitate expanded demand,which usually becomes long-term, cause impacts to local economies,and affect neighboring farms and residences when groundwater is included in a transfer." The complaint was filed by AquAlliance,California Spori ishing Pro- tection Alliance,California Water Impact Network,Center for Biologi- cal Diversity,Center for Food Safety,Friends of the River,Friends of Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge,Planning and Conservation League,Restore the Delta,Save Our Sandhill Cranes,and Sierra Club California. The complaint states that the project approval violates the California Environmental Quality Act,Delta Reform Act,California's"Fully Pro- tected Species"statutes,and the California Public Trust Doctrine. An EIR is required to consider reasonable alternatives to a project, but among many failings in the report,DWR ignored a range of alter- natives that would increase freshwater flows and reduce water sys- tem reliance on Delta water and its watershed through recycling, conservation,and water use efficiency.Despite demands for a new environmental review document,DWR certified the flawed EIR and approved the project on July 21,the release said. CORRESPONDENCE Cap Press Panel to fund multiple water projects under Proposition 1 By:Tim Hearden,August 21,2017 SACRAMENTO—Now that applications are in,members of a state $12 million). panel want to give portions of$2.7 billion in available water bond In addition,five projects that would involve the conjunctive use of funds to as many projects as possible,a spokesman said. surface and ground water are seeking funding.They are the Willow The California Water Commission received 12 applications by the Springs Water Bank in Southern California($305.8 million),the Chino Aug. 14 deadline for funding for storage projects under Proposition Basin project($480 million),the San Joaquin River and Tributaries 1,the$7.5 billion water bond passed by voters in 2074. project($22 million),the Tulare Lake Storage and Floodwater project That's fewer than the commission had expected earlier this year, ($452.2 million)and the South Sacramento County Agriculture and having received 44 separate"concept papers"from groups consider- Habitat Lands program($304 million). ing seeking funds for everything from large reservoirs to local The Kern Fan Groundwater Storage Project is asking for$85.7 mil- groundwater recharge projects. lion. "Originally we thought we might get upwards of 20 to 25,"panel The commission expects to hold multiple public meetings in early spokesman Chris Orrock said."But as the process continued on and 2018 as it determines each project's level of public benefits and gives we got more toward the end of the application period,we saw that it a final"project score,"according to a news release.For schedules only 12 organizations had started the process.So two or three weeks and the status of reviews,visit www.cwc.ca.gov. ago we understood that this was going to be about the number we'd get.,, Some commissioners have expressed a desire for"funding as many projects as we can,"Orrock said,adding that the number will be de- termined when the panel gets through a technical review next spring. The commission expects to make final determinations in June 2018. "It's not a beauty pageant,"Orrock said."We're going to be looking at the public benefits that projects say they provide and ensure that the public benefits are tangible and able to be realized.Then we're going to look at what the public benefits ratio is to the overall pro- ject." Overall,the commission received nearly$6.8 billion in requests for projects that would cost a combined$13.1 billion.The largest re- quest was for$1.66 billion for Sites Reservoir west of Maxwell,Calif., a planned$5.2 billion project to create as much as 1.8 million acre- feet of offstream surface water storage. The Sites Project Authority and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation are tak- ing comments through Nov. 13 on environmental documents for the proposed reservoir,and two public meetings are scheduled to pro- vide more information. The meetings will be held from 6 to 8 p.m.Sept.26 at the Sites Pro- ject Authority,122 Old Highway 99 West, Maxwell;and 1 to 3 p.m. Sept.28 in Room 306 at the Sacramento Convention Center,1400 J St. Another frequently discussed project,the planned Temperance Flat Reservoir near Fresno,is seeking$1.3 billion toward a projected $2.66 billion overall cost.Temperance Flat would create 1.26 million acre-feet of new storage above Millerton Lake. Other proposed surface storage projects seeking funds include the Los Vaqueros Reservoir expansion($434 million);the Pacheco Reser- voir expansion($484.5 million)and local surface storage projects in San Diego($219.3 million)and Nevada and Placer counties(nearly A 2017 Rt Inesie ,,y Upda This weekly electronic newsletter is designed to keep you current on California Water Plan news. We welcome comments,suggestions,and any news tips that may be of interest to water planners. _ Third phase of system DWR has released the System Reoperation St reoperation study Phase III Report. It includes the evaluation of reoperation strategies for Lakes Shasta,Oroville, • posted by DWR and McClure to increase water supply reliability. • The reoperation strategies include groundwater conjunctive management.A fact sheet of the report's key findings and recommendations for the next phase,is also available. :. Three climate change The Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board will be strategy meetings set for conducting three meetings to collect ideas and input on a climate change adaptation strategy.The series will start Thursday,Sept 28, the Lahontan Region in Truckee.That will be followed by a meeting on Oct.5,in Apple Valley;and Oct. 11,in Bishop. Partners in Clime DWR's Climate Chancre has added a new blog to its hlog added to DWR's website.Partners in Clime will provide updates on a variety of the program's projects.The initial entries describe a video being climate change website produced for the April 2018 Tribal Water Summit. Marie your calendars for The fall meeting of the California hiodiversity council fall Biodiversity Council will take a look at 2 integrated regional conservation efforts40 7. meeting and field trip in the South San Francisco Bay region. aw ; It will consist of a half-day meeting on California Biodiversity.<Council Nov. 13 at Paicines Ranch event center,and a field trig on Nov. 14 including stops at Hollister,and the San Luis Reservoir. The meeting agenda and field trip itinerary will be available in early September. International conference A four-day in ional conferenceo i-qation and d min will be on irrigation and drainage held Oct.24-27,in Sacramento.The event is hosted by the United State s Co i tee on Ir ' ti nand Drain .The conference will to be held in Sacramento focus on finding a balance among infrastructure improvements, water management,and the environment. Two programs accepting Applications are being accepted for two components of the California fundingapplications for Department of Food and Agriculture's Healthy Soils Program(HSP). . 1?P The HSIP Incenti es eEggram provides financial assistance for projects prolmotikng healthy soil implementation of agricultural management pract€ces#hat.reduce. greenhouse gas;em'issions.The HSP.DeaigDg don l.rofram furkds., projects that monitor specific practices far€mproving soil healft apo!€canons are due Tuesday,Sept 19 Sago the dates Cahforma This year's € it M rivlii be Nov 2 and 3 in �iungkml�c Summit'coIng San Diego The summit w!I€'address items ou�fleii m the ? `T fDSa1l D.fig�n oarembel addltconaf one mil€Ion acre feet of weer ataalfyutld ng �*m!€l�orr Qt�tesand�tiittalmng CORRESPONDENCE ANNOUNCEMENT: Sustainable Groundwater Management Program News for August 23 From the Department of Water Resources,Sustainable Groundwater Management Program,A:ugust 24,2017 Basin Boundary Modification -9673 OPEN NOW—Required Initial Notification period. Local agencies Draft Guidance Documents for Engagement and Communication intending to submit a Basin Boundary modification request are re- DWR is inviting public comments on two draft guidance documents, quired to submit an"Initial Notification"of their intent within 15 Guidance Document for Groundwater Sustainability Flan(GSP) days of a local agency's decision to explore basin modification.initial Notifications can be submitted and viewed at http:// Stakeholder Communication and Engagement(C&E)and Engage- ment with Tribal Governments.The C&E document offers guidance sgma.water.ca.gov/basinmod/ on communication with stakeholders for GSP development through a Tentative Schedule transparent and inclusive process. The Engagement with Tribal Gov- ernments document is intended to help local agencies engage with January 1,2018--Submission Period OpensDuring this 3 month win- Tribal Governments in the planning,financing and management of a dow,GSAs and local agencies can submit the required information to GSA,or with the development and implementation of a GSP. The support a Basin Boundary Modification in the BBMRS on the SGMA deadline for submitting public comments is Portal http://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/#intro. March 31,2018—Submission Period Closes and 30-day Public Corn- 5:00 P.M., Monday,August 28,2017. ment Period OpensAll information to support a boundary modifica- Please send your comments: tion should be submitted to the BBMRS By email to: sgmps@water.ca.gov Subject:Comments to Guidance April 30,2018--Public Comment Period ClosesDWR begins boundary Documents modification requests and public comments OR Approximately July 2018—Draft Basin Boundary Modifications Re- By U.S.Postal Service to: leased Approximately August 2018—Final Basin Boundary Modifications CA Department of Water Resourcesp O Box 942836 Released Sacramento,California 94236-0001 Pursuant to SGMA, DWR developed regulations for a process to Attn:Lauren Hersh,Rm 201 modify Bulletin 118 groundwater basin boundaries. In November Technical Assistance 2016, DWR reviewed the requests and finalized the boundary modifi- cations,which are posted on the Basin Modification Boundary web Providing technical assistance to water managers and GSAs is crucial page at http://water.ca.gov/groundwater/sgm/ in enabling successful management of groundwater basins. DWR is basin_boundaries.cfm. providing local agencies and GSAs with technical assistance which includes data and tools at both the regional and statewide level to Contact:Tim Godwin Timothy.Godwin@water.ca.gov (916}651- 9223 support Groundwater Sustainability Plan development and imple- mentation.Visit DWR's SGM Program—Data,Tools,and Reports Groundwater Sustainability Agency(GSA)Formation webpage for more access to: More than 99 percent of California's medium and high priority Statewide Data Platforms groundwater basins are in compliance with the first phase of the Best Management Practices and Guidance Documents Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.The SGMA requires that the state's 127 high and medium priority groundwater basins be Interactive Maps—Groundwater Information Center Interactive Map managed by a Groundwater Sustainability Agency(GSA),groundwa- &Water Management Planning Tool ter adjudications,or alternative sustainability plans by June 30,2017. Modeling—Code and Applications Portions of basins not covered by a GSA,adjudication,or alternative plans are considered unmanaged areas and will be required to report Reports—Bulletin 118 and Bulletin 160 any significant pumping to the State Water Resources Control Board. Water Data Library and more As of July 1,2017,groundwater basins without complete GSA cover- age will be subject to State Water Resources Control Board interven- Contact:Steven Springhorn I Steven.Springhorn@water.ca.gov tion . (916)651-9273 All GSA notifications can be submitted,viewed,and managed within Upcoming Events DWR's SGMA Portal.Visit the State Water Resources Control Board's Unmanaged Area Identification Map. Principles of Groundwater Flow and Transport Modeling Contact:Mark Nordberg I mark.Nordberg@water.ca.gav 1 (316)651 This Is an introductory course offered by the Groundwater Resources Association that reviews the concepts of groundwater Flow and transport,and of finite difference and finite element methods.It also provides an overview of various software programs for groundwater flow and transport modeling. Monday,September 11—Wednesday,September 13,2017 8.00 A.M.to 5:00 P.M. Seaport Conference Center 459 Seaport Court Redwood City,California 94064 More Information and Registration —Save the Date:SGMA Groundwater Sustainability Plan(GSP)Cen- tral Valley Workshop— This free workshop hosted by the California Department of Water Resources will provide Groundwater Sustainability Agencies and in- terested parties with an update on SGMA implementation and an open forum to discuss Groundwater Sustainability Plan develop- ment.Additional details will be provided soon.The workshop is open to GSAs statewide and the public. Wednesday,September 20,2017 1:00 P.M.to 5:00 P.M. Clovis Veterans Memorial District 808 Fourth Street Clovis,California 93612 Look for more information soon I CORRESPONDENCE Thomas, Autum #_j 6L ------�_ From: NCWA <jridgley@norcalwater.org> Sent: Friday,July 28, 2017 9:28 AM To: BCWater Subject: Week in Review-July 28, 2017 NCWA Week in Review vie",tris mail i[I vow browcr L �x 1 i. !. Improving Habitat for Fins and Feathers The latest NC\NA bioci details the recent collaboration of two of the leading scientists in California in an article focused on C:onsen u.,o habrt l,orFms arxr r-ea�!fhers. Mark Petrie and Jacob Katz describe the amazing and innovative efforts that their respective conservation organizations—Ducks Unlimited and CalTrout—have taken to improve habitat for both fish and birds.Much of their efforts have focused on California's Sacramento Valley and its unique mosaic of beautiful, picturesque farmland,world-class wildlife reserves and thriving communities,which are interwoven with dynamic rivers and streams. Nowhere are natural and human resources more closely integrated and cared for than the Sacramento Valley. There has been a concerted and collaborative effort in the Sacramento Valley over the past several decades to improve conditions for birds,fish and wildlife.One example of the effectiveness of their approach is the success and lessons we can { "learn from the Bugle Creel Salmon Ref overµ, pucks Unlimited was one of the early visionaries that saw the importance of integrating birds,fish and farms along Butte Creek and making sure the water - system works for the benefit of all these beneficial purposes.Jacob :,.Katz recently wrote a blog on the Secwts of 5alrnor Success:W,r_lorr� Jessous learrx,d orr Boole Creek( err recover flit irk Nre S_Icranre{No-`Valf_r;_y. Governor Brown Appoints New Director of Department of Water Resources Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr.announced the appointment of Grant Davis,of Petaluma,as the director of the California Department of Water Resources. Davis has been general manager of the Sonoma County Water Agency since 2009,where he was assistant general manager from 2007 to 2009.The agency provides wholesale water,wastewater treatment and flood control. It is the largest energy user in the county and became carbon-free in 2018 by providing its water through 100 percent renewable energy. He was executive director of the Bay Institute from 1997 to 2007,senior district representative in the 1 Office of Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey from 1993 to 1997 and principal of Impact Consulting from 1990 to 1993. Caffornia WaterFix Reaches Milestone As State Environmental Review Is Certified On July 21, the California Department of Water Resources(DWR)certified the environmental analysis of the California WaterFix,The Notice of Determination and decision documents signed by Acting Director of DWR,Cindy Messer approve WaterFix as the proposed project under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), which requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. NCWA and the Sacramento Valley Water Users have commented on the earlier versions of the environmental documents and will need to decide within the next month whether to file a lawsuit(s).The WaterFix proposal still lacks an operating plan for the Central Valley Water Project(CVP)and the State Water Project(SWP),which means that the impacts on Northern California reservoirs,water supplies,and the environment is difficult to determine at this time. "Today,we have reached our next important benchmark in moving California towards a more reliable water supply,"said Messer."With this certification,our state is now closer to modernizing our aging water delivery system in a way that improves reliability and protects the environment." The certification comes after more than a decade of analysis, review,and public comment. State and federal water and wildlife agencies have been working since 2006 to find the best way to improve how the State Water Project and Central Valley Project obtain water from the channels of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In addition to the certification, DWR also fled a"validation action"today with the Sacramento County Superior Court to affirm the department's authority to,among other things,issue revenue bonds to finance the planning,design,construction and other capital costs of California WaterFix.A validation action is necessary to provide assurances to the financial community for the sale of the California WaterFix revenue bonds. Meantime, DWR and the federal Bureau of Reclamation have completed a substantial portion of the proceedings before the State Water Resources Control Board to change the point of diversion for the state and federal water projects to allow operation of the WaterFix. Former Senate Leader, Water Commissioner Dave CoQdili, Passes at 66 Dave Cogdill Sr_,who served as a state lawmaker and leader in Modesto and Stanislaus County government,died on July 23 at the age 66.As the Los Angeles Times_re122;:ted in its covora e, Cogdill served three terms in the state Assembly,and served as assessor of Stanislaus County after his departure from the Legislature. Cogdill has also served as a Commissioner on the California Water Commission and as the Chairman of the Maddy Institute at Fresno State University. The late Senator Dave Cogdill served as the California State Senate Republican Leader from 2008- 2009. As the former chair of the California State Legislature Rural Caucus, Cogdill collaborated with local leaders on many issues concerning rural residents,such as access to health care and quality education. For his exemplary service to the community and state during the California budget crisis in 2009, Dave Cogdill was awarded the prestigious Profile in Courage Award from the John F.Kennedy Library Foundation in 2010. Sunsweet Growers Names New Chairman Celebrating its centennial year with unprecedented company performance,Sunsweet Growers Inc. i�_ULiguiiced ;ze_trans€tion of Sunsweet board Ieadoiship to Brendon S. Flynn,who will succeed Gary S. Thiara as the board's chairman. The appointment culminates a formal succession planning process,which included Flynn serving as the board's vice chair for the past 18 months, his serving 14 years as chairman of the finance committee,and his service as a Sunsweet board member totaling 15 years. Glenn County_Resource Conservation District... is now hiring! The Glenn County RCD, is looking to fill the newly created position of Program Coordinator.This position will fill the role of'Soil Health Coordinator as well as have the opportunity to work with other RCD projects 2 and programs. In a highly functioning team setting, the Program Coordinator will work closely with RCD staff, private landowners and land managers,the community, local,state and federal agencies to help carry out the BCD's goals and objectives. If you,or someone you may know,wants to help our community, provide education/outreach and strives to support agriculture/natural resources then this may be a position of interest,visit;-vti+4+, ..r€en.nc i l tyr.c c.c)rg for more details. APPLICATIONS DUE BY NOON,August 4, 2€17. No exceptions. Questions may be directed toar,cli.t:rlennce�ir�tyrcr-i_crc� or by calling our office at 530-934-4801 x120. Civil Engineer Position - Ducks Unlimited Ducks Unlimited, Inc.,the world's leading wetland and waterfowl conservation organization,has exciting opportunities for civil engineers.Two positions our sought to join a highly motivated conservation team of biologists and engineers responsible for the planning,design,and construction of wetland and wild land restoration projects headquartered out of the Western Regional Office in Rancho Cordova, CA,An experienced professional engineer position will be focused on habitat projects in the San Joaquin Valley, Tulare Basin,and southern California.An entry level engineer position will assist with project engineering throughout California and Nevada. Please see „� If �vCi for position descriptions and application information. Water Board Schedules Workshop on Impaired Waterbodies On August 23,2017 at 1 PM in Rancho Cordova,Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board staff will a hold public workshop to discuss the 2018 Triennial Review of the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basin Plans and to receive public comments. More information on the workshop can be found rA ' i I 0 0 aITIB i For a daily compilation of all the news shaping California water policy visit Aquafornia. hitp:/laguafornia.com Copyright 2017 Northern California Water Association, All rlcjhts reserved. NCVYA News and Events Our mailing address is: Northern California Water Association 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 335 Sacramento, CA 95814 G cicl us tO_Vour address bock Want to change hoW you receive these entails? You can upcialc your p3 efor W subscrib%,from 0.!is list 3 ti f; t G ' Zp11:.... ....,...� .,..,,.::, '_. _-.- ." .. ...,...,.:. ..Tfi..:..r'a ✓t,s�...t.,.5fir.S.�'S�.. Butte County Water&Resource Conservation September,2017 Volume 18,Issue 9 WaterSolutions ,. "To manage and conserve water and other resources for the citizens of Butte County" NSV TAC By Vickie Newlin The Northern Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Technical Advisory Committee (NSV TAC)has been utilizing their monthly meetings as a forum to. host experts on water-related activities to inform not only the TAC, but also the gen- eral public. This body consists of a number of very talented individuals dedicated to helping the Northstate get, and stay, informed. I invite you to get to know them. I have had the privilege of chairing this committee for the last several years and as I leave county service, I would like to honor them for all that they do for the Northern Sacramento Valley. Inside this issue WaterFix Lawsuit............ 2 National Groundwater Oa 4 Water Quality Trend Monitoring. ......... 6 Groundwater Level Summer Update............. 7 Lake Oroville Storage..... 8 Hatchery Temperature... 8 From teff,Oscar Serrano, Bill Ehorn,Kevin Greer, Lisa Hunter,Allan Fulton, Lisa Fahey, Guadalupe Rivera, Vickie!Newlin, Ryan Teubert, Eric Wedemeyer and Gerry Cupp The NSV TAC meets the third Wednesday of the month at 9:00 am at the Willows City Hall. .r� ..�.- "�S'T+' ti� F`t' n.. N' "_1": ""',;;�*i`!%"i £ r'"' r-S;-S;`s e.T'i -•\.; `tin'Y+.':4 '."'vn?� 7- Butte County's California WaterFix Lawsuit By Paul Gosselin On August 8, 2017,the Butte County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to file a lawsuit against the California Department of Water Resources(DWR)for failing to fully assess the environmental and socioeconomic impacts from the California WaterFix. Until 2016,the California WaterFix was referred to as the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). So,when there are references to BDCP, it also means California WaterFix. The California WaterFix is a Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conser- vation Plan intended to meet the protection standards of the federal Endangered Spe- cies Act and California's Natural Community Conservation Planning Act. The California WaterFix is intended to protect more than 50 species of fish, wildlife, and plants over 50 years. The California WaterFix project includes two 45 foot diameter tunnels that create new diversion and conveyance facilities of the State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP),which draw water from the Delta. DWR is the lead agency for the California WaterFix and is required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by identifying significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible.This was done through an Environ- mental Impact Report (EIR) and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). On July 21, 2017, DWR issued the CEQA certification, Notice of Determination, and decision docu- ments that put the California WaterFix a step closer to construction, which could begin as early as 2018. The Butte County Board of Supervisors engaged at the beginning of the BDCP and the subsequent California WaterFix processes. Butte County had high expectations that a successful California WaterFix process would achieve the co-equal goals of water sup- ply reliability and environmental restoration in a way that was beneficial to all Califor- nians. Butte County offered constructive recommendations over the course of the California WaterFix development and repeatedly found that the project did not ad- dress the concerns of Butte County. The lack of responsiveness by the state and feder- al agencies led to the Butte County Board of Supervisors in August 2012 to adopt a Resolution in Opposition to the BDCP. Since then, state and federal agencies contin- ued to move forward with the California WaterFix with little regard to legal require- ments or mitigating impacts. The Board of Supervisors submitted formal comments on the draft EIR/EIS which were ignored. Butte County's list of concerns with the Califor- nia WaterFix are more than legal technicalities. If ignored the failures would lead to actions that will ultimately damage the region's economy, environment and communi- ties. The following are some of the specific examples where the California WaterFix CEQA documents failed to evaluate or mitigate local impacts: The California WaterFix would damage local recreation opportunities and the econo- my by depleting Lake Oroville. The California WaterFix CEQA document confirms that "No substantial changes in reservoir operations are expected as a result of the BDCP, with the potential exception of Lake Oroville, where the BDCP could shift substantial releases from summer months to spring months under high outflow scenario to con- tribute to spring outflow criteria." Despite acknowledging this impact, the California WaterFix CEQA documents did not assess the environmental or socioeconomic im- pacts from their action of depleting Lake Oroville. k :N. f-`y�e�+� sy1.s.�,yi ' :%.;•s:'d�� ��;aTw�- aE - c;v ��, -S:,t'��r:,`s� �i•"j. ✓ �tin.:z? $%f �'3a s- <-y - x; ;/,f��3u,a _ - 5 ., a .e�.•.3n"�PZi;.`^.4sati �- Sa,�, 1 "^i3;,. z:..sn5 t.,',:,=Ru .,l,.eH .,.t, _�;,,; ..<y r. n z.r•_ .,3,. him->.L.Y�.�;x;,s'�?,_.- ,4. . a.,?v S"•.� �.,_, .�., ,.,...,"��, {..1, rr...,R:.. .,-�:ti :'-`U+A,. .=,a ,.aaiv�, _.za&� ,.r. -:,; �i: �,-r„vt.�-��,r.< ..J ':,<• 1 f, vat,. f:2^>; ,<..�e .:ter... v,%„y:.; a{, ".%s;:''o �.rr',o-.,. .,.�T, -b-,5< `\.'a,. ,.2:?':"%54e,3.x+ ,a ,�„-,„xa'`a. c�. .� 1 r�-� •x...,�`u.,?�;v.;r.;>�-e-,3 •ss`'t< � e. ,,,',.r ,,'..,snv5,n:r,,.,',a<.. ..t'rs'�''^'s"''�1.•...,,-tffaS3�i..s"�J:�„!•n,.;: �,r�fi. x�.r .-.«�:.->..�?�a'.e:^-;',i:a, -,`z .w .,�.:. �3 .�,,.. .;��.->.•, 1.,:.?-,r,,,3�,,,.Y.YY, z3.,S<, -,�r� -,-�'” �,.�r:.-�:.v .�Z..,°sem:_ v ... ..�e;: ,,l'u.°,Lf” .� r" l -a v,, z •.PY. is;tt if. :a.`-S:,t^-a`,'.J;3� -.7, .1fv...- , The California WaterFix documents disclosed that there is an expected increase in groundwater use in the Sacramento Valley to make up for any shortfalls in surface wa- ter supply of Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors. The California WaterFix CEQA document discusses the California WaterFix may result in "minor decreases in water supply availability to CVP water users in the Sacramento Valley . . . ." (See Analysis of Groundwater Conditions in Areas that Use SWP/CVP Water Supplies, EIR/EIS, p. 7-32, lines 30-40). The estimated decrease in supply is 50,000 acre-feet/year. The section concludes, "[a] 2% increase in groundwater use in the Sacramento Valley to make up for any shortfalls in surface water supply is not anticipated to substantially impact the groundwater resources as long as the additional pumping is not concentrated in a par- ticular area of the valley'. The California WaterFix CEQA documents did specifically not assess the environmental or socioeconomic impacts to groundwater resources in the northern Sacramento Valley. The California WaterFix CEQA documents acknowledged the integration of the Water- Fix project and Sacramento Valley water resources. The California WaterFix CEQA doc- ument state, "Because the SWP and CVP water infrastructure is operated as an inte- grated system, the effects of implementing the BDCP may extend to aquatic systems beyond the Delta, both upstream and downstream, and will implicate water opera- tions parameters as well as species and their habitats located in those areas. As such, the BDCP effects analysis (Chapter 5, Effects Analysis) takes into account these up- stream and downstream aquatic effects, both positive and negative, and describes, analyzes, and addresses the overall effects of the BDCP. Areas potentially affected by the implementation of the BDCP located outside of the Plan Area, have been included in the analysis of effects to ensure that all of the potential effects within the action area (all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action), as defined by Section 7 of the ESA, have been adequately assessed." However, the California WaterFix CEQA documents did not assess the environmental or socioeconomic impacts upstream of the Delta. These are just some of the recognized impacts in the WaterFix CEQA documents. Not only were they not assessed, the California WaterFix CEQA documents specifically eliminated the northern Sacramento Valley from modeling and other analyses. The CEQA document explains that, "The CVHM domain was reduced by eliminating most of the Sacramento Valley and San Joaquin Valley from the domain when developing CVHM-D. This modification allowed for greater precision in model output in the Delta Region." The decision to eliminate the northern Sacramento Valley from hydrologic modeling demonstrates the disregard of the region and creates an inconsistency with- in the CEQA documents. The sensitivity of groundwater basins in the northern Sacra- mento Valley necessitated that the California WaterFix fully disclose and assess groundwater impacts upstream of the Delta. Something they refused to do. The Board of Supervisors legal action was necessary to protect Butte County's econo- my,environment, and communities from California WaterFix impacts. For more infor- mation on the California WaterFix and Butte County's concerns please visit the Water- Fix webpage at: http://www.buttecounty.netlwaterresourceconservation/ CAWaterFix.aspx �3 ifi � � S a' f� S •t'y, 'S C*Vr' TCI J �: C Y \.� � y �? 5��SfS\'��`��� 23 it �Y Z' -.ry2' 9 ��, . ...,. >....,. ._...,may .,..,.,_.. ., l..� . a_.._.. _� ..._... >_-r,_...... ...f,._._.. ......_�,. ..,.,_..-..._ ,..w....,. _...,.o._ .......v ,.��,..,.,e._. -. ..._..,:r_:L.rt'�a.. SON protect ! groundwater... . . day Protect Your Groundwater Day By:National Groundwater Association If you are a private water well owner,there are many ways to protect your water qual- ity.Two of the most important are: CQQ►'[ HOW TO 1. To make sure your well is properly capped,and PROPERLY 2 ro = � CAP YOUR WELL To p perl y p lu g any abandoned wells on your property. That is why the 2017 theme for Protect Your Groundwater Day is, "Cap It, Plug It!" CAP55HOMD Why is this so important? BE LOCKED AJ& A water well provides a direct connection between the what's above the ground and OR BOLTED 4W NOTJUST groundwater in the subsurface. TIGHT Fn-nNG If an active water well is not properly capped—or if an abandoned well is not properly ' plugged—it can create a direct pathway for contamination in the same groundwater you and others use for their drinking water supply. • �� If you own a household well, you are responsible for making sure that your well is *ter properly capped and any abandoned wells on your property are properly plugged. WELL CAP What makes a properly capped water well? RUBBERSEALS MUST BE First, not just any covering will do on top of the well casing, that vertical pipe that ex- MAINTAINED 3 .: . tends above the ground in your well.A proper well cap should: • MON CNTAMINA Be bolted or locked,so that it cannot be easily removed Have a rubber seal to prevent anything from infiltrating the well where the cap is ® � ®e joined to the well casing Be in good condition. Conversely, a tight-fitting well cap that is not bolted or locked can be jarred loose or removed by someone other than the well owner. Also, a well cap that lacks a rubber seal or is cracked or otherwise broken can allow bugs,vermin, bacteria or other types of contaminants above the ground surface into the well. � r Well caps should be installed by a water well system professional, and any well cap ! • r maintenance or replacement should be done by a professional. Also, a well system � should be disinfected when a well cap is installed, repaired, or replaced. rt w 0", How do l properly plug an abandoned well? [ HI I'YOUS OULD KOW ABANDONED First,the challenge is same- :. WELLS times to find abandoned wells on your property. Some abandoned wells are {..�"" 'Y ,; �,, obvious while others are s` not. Survey your property ~ i — MILLIONS OF THEM for: ARE ACROSSTHE Pipes sticking out of the • UNITED STATES ground THERE ARE EVEN MORE ABANDONED BOREHOLES FORMERLY USED FOR PURPOSES Small buildings that ' may have been a well 0 OTHER THAN • DRINKING WATER house •0 ABANDONED WELLS AND BOREHOLES Depressions in the CAN PROVIDE round A DIRECT PATHWAY g FOR CONTAMINATION :. . The presence of con- INTO THE AQUIFER THEY ARE OFTEN DISGUISED crete vaults or pits }" BY GRASS, BRUSH, AN OR COLLAPSED BUILDINGS Out-of-use windmills. w ONLY WATER WELL PROFESSIONALS IALS Other tips for finding old,abandoned wells can be found in: USING DEQUIPMENT5HEDMATERHEM ANO EQUIPMENT SHOULDPLUGTHEMS THEY ARE SOMETIMES BIG ENOUGH - . Old maps, property plans or property title documents FOR CHILDREN,PETS, AND WILD ANIMALS Neighbors TO FALL INN Additions to an old home that might cover up an abandoned well. A water well system professional may do additional checking—including a records RS. dx;�"•r�a, check—for more information about abandoned wells. _ e A water well system professional should always plug an abandoned well using proper techniques, equipment,and materials.The professional should: ` Remove all material from the well that may hinder proper plugging "µms; Disinfect the well Then plug the well using a specialized grout that (1) keeps surface water from E' workingits way into the borehole and 2 prevents water from different levels in Y ( ) the subsurface from mixing. The cost to plug a well depends on factors including: The depth and diameter of the well The geology of the area Accessibility to the well, and The condition of the well. To learning more about water well system maintenance, including abandoned well plugging,visit Www.WellOwner.org. 5w_0 .:._.. _w v f� x i LV 10 r S 4 { ` ._,.... ._..tie g�.'.. ..,... 2017 Water Quality Trend Monitoring Results By Christina Buck ui {Ir! The sixteenth year of Water Quality Trend Monitoring was conducted July 24-27 and August 3 to measure pH, temperature, and electrical conductivity in twelve wells r throughout the county. One well was unable to be monitored this year, but is expected w,t; '. Q to be included again next year. These parameters are the basic water quality character- istics needed to evaluate a basin for evidence of saline intrusion. In general, Electrical Conductivity (EC) values were close to previously observed levels S 3 and ranged from 136 to 498 pS/cm. This is well below the secondary water quality } threshold of 700 µS/cm established by State and Federal agencies for irrigation water R " (<900 µS/cm for drinking water). As usual, this year's results indicate no significant changes in groundwater quality with respect to temperature, pH, or EC. This data con- tinues to help establish baseline levels for these parameters across the county so that any future changes in water quality can be evaluated and further investigation and/or additional monitoring can be developed. Detailed tabular and graphical results are presented in a staff memo to the Technical Advisory Committee. This is available on our website: http://www.buttecounty.net/ waterresou rceco nservation/G round wate rQuality. Many thanks to the well owners that coordinate with us and allow access to their wells to make this monitoring possible! mange ot zr fr> Secondary Standard or Notes re: Butte County 2017 Parameter Secondary • Threshold Results Values 1; Within range of secondary pH 6.5 to 8.5 7.0-7.7 water quality thresholds Electrical <900µS/cm—drinking water Within range of secondary Conductivity <700 VS/cm—ag water 136-498 water quality thresholds (EC) Groundwater Level Legend Ave.Depth to Water Monitoring—Summer Update Ave July BAugust 2017 38 VINA' rte;`2-5 By Christina Buck 6-12 13-16 Groundwater levels were measured in July 17-27 and August in wells throughout Butte Coun- 28-a7 11RHA ty. he two maps show averages based on 48-63 o;ar:O 64-75 wells measured within each subregion for ©Sub-invento units depth to water in July and August and for M+T tory groundwater level change from Summer 24ANG 2016 to Summer 2017 levels. In groundwa- LO 16 s3 navTON SLO<�GH ter dependent areas, groundwater levels are 4 CHEROKEE generally 1-10 feet higher on average this LLANO'' 4$ summer compared to last summer. Levels in STERN CANAL ' individual wells can be significantly different © than the average. For more details, ground- water levels for individual wells can be found ` > Average THERMALITO online from the Water Data Library. Contact Depth to Water 27 Christina Buck with any questions. by Subregion 'PRICHVAMM Summer 2017 ✓ C S 54 Average GWL. Change BEGGS WYANGOTTE by Subregion wEsrGRau�ev 11 CREEK u"E Summer 2016 to 2017r � � s ' Bu E:61 �a N`_. 7 a � o , > < 6 sM,res Units Feet A OA ANGTp SLO GH ESQUO CHEROKEE LLANO SECO WESTERN CANALr� � Y � � f.: Legend THERmALITO GWL Change by SIU 4 °° Summer 2016 to 20'17 0 RiCHVALE 2 3-4 BIGGS. WYANOOTTE Q W@S#GR1bLEY CREEK 5 6 0 E 7 BUTTE r 'Y s-s 1 jf� ? a k rs E . 7Sub-Inventory units BUTTE SINK N aasaa Units Feet 3cr 1�1 NO- _2 1 y �.'. _ a Meeting Schedules Water Commission PERMANENT CALIFORNIA WATER LAWS ft 9/6/2017,1:30 p.m. Board of Supervisors Chambers SPRINKLER' 25 County Center Drive Board of Supervisors RUNOFF 9/12/2017,9:00 a.m. Board of Supervisors Chambers Save Our 25 County Center Drive water 9/26/2017,9:00 a.m. r Board of Supervisors Chambers 25 County Center Drive Lake Oroville Storage Combination Water/Calendar Year Department of Water& 4.0 Resource Conservation 3.6 ---------- ---- --------- `----------- 308 Nelson Avenue / 10 \ Capachy=3.54 maf Croville,CA 95965 _ 3.2 ------ ---- i \ Phone:530.538.4343 \ 2.8 Fax:530.538.3807 d E-mail:bcwater@buttecounty.net v 24 Website:r>nvw.buttecounty.net/ waterandresource � 2.0 Water&Resource 1.6 ' - Conservation Staff Paul Gosselin,Director 05 1.2 =: ..,.�2ass-20tt _ • Vickie Newlin, —20 016 ......... .... ..... Assistant Director 2014-2015 • Christina Buck,Water —2013.2014 Resource Scientist -4 2012.2013 • Autum Thomas, ---alawa6e 6ountlanes Updated thrwgh 8/COMV Administrative Anal st, 0.0 y Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Associate 2017 Hatchery &Robinson Riffle Temperatures Water Commission 66 P 0 0 440W • Kathy Chalice 64 �7•R,Afl e n 00p.11ota, en------ol .... 40000 • Mark Grover • DC Jones,Vice-Chair 62 - ..._............. - 36DW • Tod Kimmelshue 60- - - ... ..------- -------' '-_ ...............'-"'_.___..-..._ 32DD0 • Mauny Roetlllel- xal�h ryouiocuvo.t..t• • Ryan Schohr sa -- ----------- - - - 2e000 • David Skinner,Chair as • Matthew Tennis 56 --- I-----:---------------- ... ,: ,� _..• ---------------------------- --•' --------- 2400D • Ernie WashingtonCL f xe o�orl•-u a E 54 ! .. ..�__- .,. ... 20000 H 52 L....,.. ff .. '___._.__------------------------------ _------- 16000 50 _- 1. ..._ _.._._ -__ __.. __.-. --. - -. _ .................. 120W 4B --.. 6D00 xtN a' 44 D Butte County � g � 5 WATER&RESOURCE CONSERVAMN ----Ha1che7 Objective —R,R Water Temp -T--65 Degree R.R.Objective Hatchery Water Temp c Pull Shutter w Install Shutter Lav Flow Channel(CFS) --River Valve#1(cls) —Rvor valve#2(c%)