HomeMy WebLinkAboutConveyance Winter issue 2.23.09 � � :, k�`s7'V"'��Yi7r r� •'�«�'x'y�r'3tY�+F9ze*�;�'Fa"•s`�-�"'��5��s�"'�x,.f ^"�' "'•�=5' 's'---��t��..s�'•s "a�tn-aEF���,-�.
t N. olume 4F lssue 1 FEB 2 3 209 E
wm r 2009
'rs 'cer�t'se `ort
OROVILLE,CALiFORNf
Talk Is No Longer Cheap
1
In the midst of my 6ffi week of serving the members of the Northern California Water Association,it has
3k fir; become apparent to me that there are at least three levels of complexity to the issues of water delivery and agricultural water use. Admittedly,this is oversimplifying the scenario,but here it goes.
drolo
h sts and environmental
r v, The first level is the water district. This is where the engineers, y gi
Bays professionals plan,design,build hnd manage the delivery mechanisms that get water from its source—
'� ,s surface or ground—to the end user. It's interesting,while not surprising,that the agricultural customer is
> ' .r' : so much more familiar with the challenges and intricacies of water delivery than the typical residential or
industrial customer.
` The second level is more esoteric,albeit so critical to NCWA members' survival. This is the legal and
al?" gewi policy-making level where the historical driver of economic activity—getting water from one location to
F f ` another as cost-effectively as possible-has been trumped by environmental values. Thus,the political
�k system is the filter from which water flows,or does not. This is where area-of-origin provisions and
u'' >r<<;,r:,-<•.,:,, f water rights,the core of any workable solution,are continually threatened.It's also where considerable
progress has been made in the areas of water managementTannings quality protection,efficient
water use and habitat protection.
� � tFru The third level is what I'll call the reality check level. And you guessed it,Californian's are in it now.
h' Y
This is where all of those good intentions and competing societal values collide with the need for more
water. It's where the inadequacy of our water infrastructure catches up with our environmental and
rr }, economic needs and standards. It's where the looming predictions of changes in our climate and
precipitation patterns make further delay intolerable. It's where talking about water solutions and being
' {fit just lucky enough to get out of a jam with one wet year doesn't work
zr3 anymore. Talk is no longer cheap.
et; -Y � Ironically,the last gime the federal government made a major investment in
California water infrastructure we were recovering from the Great
} = 1 Depression. Got stimulus? Furthermore,the State Water Project,which
x delivers water to more than two-thirds of Californians today,was the
` political initiative of Governor Pat Brown. Isn't there a Brown in a race for
�r governor next year? The last big reservoir in Northern California-Lake
Oroville-was completed about the time shag carpeting and avocado-colored
refrigerators were on the scene. Imagine if our roads and bridges hadn't
' been improved since the days of the Hudson Horned
e ote
The point to all of this? It's time to fix the problem. Millions of people later
xrr...
te1B and a heightened appreciation for a healthy environment should sound the
•r call for decisive action to simultaneously build new conveyance and
Northern California storage so that water rights,the economy g � Y and the
y. - r environment can be protected Or,we can wait for the return of the -
Hudson.
Ts- .�:
�r.':� r..Y mr nr -:'r r::,c;�; .::r":: rr,l':-'.• �:`4. �%r�-!-"L :.Fti2 r..r,. ��:;h
R '•SJ fe. �y-�-
�
e as ct; n
t
Wr
���k� to r L 2•t L I .:�fw ;t2•. F� � � ..a r',� ti -.c�-t E +a�Y'.,�..i>t ��s,, ..C•,�.r�:;,,;]Z?s � 5 1't�"' t :
r�-
�.Fi�.Y
�i.1L1 f r' � � i 1 # � •, t „ r, �t ' `J'��ka�Lr �_��t!-�t y
4 L
' - �� ¢ s .� n ��yi' -,-r "�,>� > � ' i. f..'•�r .,..c..!.a.:s,. .. z. 'tf r c t - i. r^' t �yfE {' „�. { r. > f : `
�� r MAR 0 2 2009
i
Bay-Delta
The NorthernCalifornia C Water
Association continues to play an active role as a partner in the Public Water Coalition of Califor-
nia. -
While the Coalition will not actively advocate for Iegislation,it serves a vital function in brining together water agencies and
those interested in water leadership to analyze proposed policies and foster consensus on critical statewide water issues. The follow-
ing letter was sent to Secretary Chrisman articulating the Coalition's perspectives related to the Adopted Delta Vision Committee
Implementation Report. NCWA participated as a signatory to the letter.
Public Water Coalition
of California
February 6,2009
Ian.Mike.Chrisman
Secretary:for Resources
Chair,Delta Vision Committee
650 Capitol 11'11111
Sacramento,CA 95814
RE:.Comments on Adopted Delta Vision Committee Implementation Report
Dear Secretary Chrismau:
The Coalition applauds the Committee for.concluding the Delta Vision process within the Governor's aggressive
timeframe: Your work and tha.tofthe Blue RibbonTask Force have significantly,advanced the discussion on
California waterpolicyand laid out;a thoughtful agenda forthe.future. We especially thank the Committee for
ti
recognizing in its Implementaon Report that resolving Californie'spdranry,water coiiElicrtequirm water-
conveyance improvementsin the Delta and additional storage. We also coneur with establishment of ah Interim
Delta Policy Group to further evaluate governance needs,rather duan creating anew Council. In additiop,we
share:yo4r desire for a much more rigorous assessmentofthe,potential use of a Coastal Zone.Manigement Act
structure to promote federal conformance with implementation efforts.
As we conveyed in our December 22,2008 letter to you,we look forward to workingwith implementing
agencies,other sfakeholders,and the Legislature to refine and improVq the Committee's recommendations related
to the issues with which we have continuing coneerns;as briefly:sumnmeaed below:
• Water.Rlghts
As tha.IrRplementation Report indicated,the existing water rights system(including erea of origin principles)
should remain intact'without fuadartieotat ttiodificaGoim Td W consistent with this system,any reguiatoryaction
intended to improve.Delta conditions must be supported by evidence and findings that prove"the activities of
affected Water users have t ontributed to the relevant ecosystem'problem and the proposed action`s. pact on each
water user is proportional to that user's contributidn.to that problem.
• Delta Conservancy
The Coalition agrzes that-a Delta Conservancy is necessary.The governing structure for the Conservancy will
need to be establi W.in the legislation creating the Conservancy,
Flow and Water Quality Standards
Consideration of any new flow and water.guality standards:must a)be based onpeerrepiewed science with a
clew ly defined correlation between the proposed-standard.and the desired result h)identify water-supply
reliability-impacts and c)be consistent with the co-equal goals o f restoring the Delta ecosystem and:creating a
more reliable water supply.for California. Moreover,the determination of such standards must be undertaken
A unite'd effort by public water agencies,•utilities and.leaders from'the°Oay'Area,.
.Northern and Southern C21110rrr6'.cCm91lfled to solving-our state s.water pro6loins
717 K-STREET,SUITE 21.8.,SACRAMENTO-,CA 9584 PNONIit.(916).719-9408:
:Y a_ F .'.'s;vim.,..+.�+.:rAn:�:'r ,:.:a:. .:tv .•'sar<" �.rs•'w•sx+•
�<-H�,�... ..._i'#�a�ICP_�.:.::.f....•.r.c�.- :.•.roc t.;lsy t..-. ,.,✓;.-...c.:... d ::s.r-{ -r c..cwt �{� �•S r a r w.. \( ",.
� .} .. .i �.' •zC�::.,nsi5m.sicS�*:rui:r:f--'_.. ,..n.f.,� �;b°°s:i`r'',.....• .... .:i:�"t+i .yE.�F?ii:=•:xnc4'::s•_:fe:::'.`ixi�4rY'}.?�i, ii
Bay-Delta
(Coalition Letter cont)
by the State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB).through.its public processes,and not'in.some newly
established forum.
• Policy Group
The proposed Interim Delta Policy Group will coordinate existing agencies'activities,including the SWRCB.
However,there must be a clear separation between the.SWRCB'sPolicy Group role and the exercise of its
regulatory authorities.
• DiversionData.
We agree this data should be reported electronically to maximize its utility. Becausesubstantial amounts of
electronic diversion data currently exist,but are not well-organized,organizing.and optimizing existing electronic
databases inust occur while,or ideally:before.;reporting programs are expanded.
• Regional.Water Conservation
EffortsAb achieve water.use reduction goals must recognize that characteristics un'igtte to each region and,locality
–e.g.climate,soils,hydrology,prior water-supply investments,infix of ecoriorriic activity.and existuig' uses of
,water—will determine the parameters:and needs afan:effective and practicaI''conservat on program. Actionsto
achieve agricultural water conservation goals musUhrther iecoginize that ffiatket conditions,are the petinary
drivers;of farmers'cropping choices. Consistentwitl}a cisting,.law,water.conservatiort programs must recognize.
that,resulting"water supply-bene f m Are.tobe f rst available-to the conserving cotnmumty;
Funding Arid)Fees
Fees onspecific water users.may be appropriate-to fund specific programs that are dedwnstrated:to benefit those
water`users,, provided:nexus.and proportionallty.exist. For-examplei Coalition-members who would benefit from
improved Delta conveyance intend tR contribute to ita construction, Fees for general state or:federal agency
activities,however,are not appropriate and would trigger-triggeropposition and.resistance.
• CWitying Co-Equal Goals
Statutes goveraing,i proved I)etta,canveyaMce artd:fiiading equld include:the'co=equal goals of a vttal:Delta
ecosystem and improved water quality and supplies..Flower+er,these-goals should not be inserted into the Water
Code generally because many water use.s.bear little or no relation to the Delta and because Articte. ,section two,
of the.Catifornia Constitution already states``reasonabk-use"-as Ari overriding p�neipleiif water law. .In addition;
thb cgnunon law public thk doctrine is,welt established to address environmental:concerns in'the public interest.
Delta Platt
The role land conteuf of the Gomrr ttee':s Delta t?laq:proposa(are,pot.clear.Any such plari lriu$t be consistent with
the Bay=.Delta Conservation Plan that is:presently being developed
• Water-Rights Accogntahalrty
The SW1tCS tntist coordinate with interested parties to develop means of Streamlining its,pracessesw Coalition.
members are Wmmitwd.to working,with the SW'CO on this efticiency improvement_
Scope of Ecosystem Measures
l;co. stem initiatives must recognize thatall Dettastressors are relevant and:should be-addressed as;quicklyas.
possible. State agencies mUs.i aggressively'purwe:efforts to.controlnota natiue:speties'such.as;striped and:l lack
bass- predatars:of listed native species:like delta:smelt.
-2= .1123/200910.01Ann.
F
��F�...�..~., ..�.. .�n�'�...-.^`.°.....L'_.1 .:G..:� � ! .....-.,.:a... . .�...,• ....}.� ° 1�, s ? ,_fsz. e s r...:. .. ;:.a�;?v��;;, ,ti,?n.:-:
1
"�1�f-rw'",
.J
(Coalition,Getter con's)
Water Pricing
Consistent with Proposition 218 and statewide conservation goals,local:agencies must continue to be able to
dev.elap'water pricing that recoups thein casts,supports local and regional Nvater management:objectives,.and
accounts for revenue loss from cost-effective conservation programs reflecting their unique oti curnstances.
• Coordination to Expedite Water-Saving Projects
Consistent with Article:X,section two's"reasonable use requirement,water agencies already seek to optimize
the:utility of their~Yater supplies to meet multiple purposes. To the extent water agenc'ies:are'expecte.d to
redouble these efforts,legislation and state=agency coordination must assist in pursuing related projects
expeditiously and in'a cost-effective manner.
Again,thank you;your fellow Committee members,and your stall for your valuable tivork developing
recommendations targeted on resolving these complex issues. We look forward to working with.you in"moving
this process forward,and in so doing,securing California's water future.
:Sincerely,
By By:
.Dohh Zed
President&.CEO
NbRTHE04CALIFORNIA WATER.ASSN:
Terty.Edewina
General Manager.
STATE WAFER C611TRACTORS
oy. 6y.
Daniel G.Nelson
Executive:Direcfor-
Alleh:Short SAN LUIS&DELTA-MENCiOTA WATER-AUTHORITY
san Joaquin River Group Authority
1123IW 1"j.AM
,3-
tom
lmtk
Capitoi View
` P
DflJmtE,VAN VLECK&BRowN LLc
GOW,"RtENTAL RELATIONS & COmxiuNiCATIONS.
woo
The common thought in and around Sacramento is that once(or if!)the Legislature and Governor pass a budget,
water is going to be at the forefront of statewide discussions.The good news is that once a budget is passed,it's
good for another 10 months---no mid-summer negotiations that take us in to September,and past the June 15th
constitutional deadline.The bad news is that once the budget is passed,we will be in the same situation as we are in
now—that California is out of cash.
California is also out of water.We are expecting to hear from the Department of Water Resources any day now
about strict water rationing that will be enforced throughout the state.According to DWR,the state is facing the
most significant water crisis in history."After experiencing two years of drought and the driest spring in recorded
history,water reserves are extremely low.With the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ecosystem near collapse,court-
ordered restrictions on water deliveries from the Delta have reduced supplies from the state's two largest water
systems by twenty to thirty percent."
The Metropolitan Water District(MET)agrees.At a briefing for state legislators on.Tuesday,MET representatives
indicated that water levels in Owens Valley,the Sacramento and Colorado Rivers and the State Water Project are
some of the lowest they have seen.They also acknowledge a"fundamental failure of the water system",that is,the
invariable collapse of the Delta if a fix is not implemented.
Now,one would think that in light of these circumstances,the Legislature would be quick to pass a water bond and a
Delta fix,but over the past few years,decision makers have not come to an agreement on how these problems should
be repaired.A wise friend of mine(who happened to be a legislator)once said that the two ways to get lawmakers
motivated to make a decision is to(1)be in the midst of a statewide bonafied crisis without a playa,and(2)have
indecision be the source for a PR campaign to remove elected officials from office.Now,if you look at the budget
process as an example of this,you will see that the Legislature and Governor are faced with a crisis—infrastructure
projects halted,IOUs being given for tax returns instead of cash,deferral payments to counties for programs, and
couple it with statewide discussions on things like a Constitutional Convention,a part time Legislature,abolishing
the two-thirds voting requirement on constitutional issues such as the state budget.Now,elected officials are
beginning to take serious stock in their decision making abilities(or lack thereof)when issues like this are
considered publicly.
When it comes to water,it looks like we are there—the crisis of a drought, l
coupled with the state government's inability to react.And folks are talking.In a
recent Sac Bee article,Daniel Weintraub scribed that it might be time to overhaul .
the government.He mentioned our failing water system as one reason. -
The Northern California Water Association(NCWA)has made monumental
strides over the past couple of months by working with other water suppliers,
exporters and legislators in order to secure our water rights and areas of origin
while stressing the importance of a water bond that would include significant
funding for the development of Sites Reservoir.
In fact,a coalition of water interests,named the Public Water Coalition of
California,developed a position paper on the"common pursuit of Delta
'http://www.water.ca.gov/drouglit/does/2009water bank•pdfBy Amy Brown
a
2 h ://www.&wbee.gMI olitics/sto /1563405.html
.,.. .a �.• •. c ra [. s ..,_
r
• �C f .v if
.--�.n... ...... ... .... .-:.,....�. 1_�i�. -
_?x...y_ .. ... ....- ....v-.,..... ...., u'Y:• c:�:%:� - 3,%��.•- _ :�Fti:-. n52::..y
5 n�
!2; <1..
'.!`•7i -�..Y{�. ...+.. ...... .......�:'sC;s,:: .....,.t:.^C.'c..hc''✓'=::....n...�G...... ...�.:x....:....n.o_i,y tt.a.,....
a
".
r
Capitol View
Solutions".In addition to NCWA,Coalition members include the Metropolitan Water District,Westlands, State Water
project,Federal Contractors,Friant,and the Kern County Water Agency,among others.The coalition agreed that,"Delta
solutions,including ecosystem restoration and storage and conveyance,must be implemented in compliance with
California's water rights system and area of origin statutes, and must not create regulatory or ecosystem restoration
burdens unrelated to the source of impacts." Most coalition members agree that a water bond must be passed as well,
however some argue that the timing isn't quite right in light of the bludgeoning economy.Will California voters have the
incentive to vote for a multi billion dollar bond three years after the infrastructure bonds were passed,considering most
of those projects have been frozen?No one knows for sure,but the Legislature is moving forward.
Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez will be introducing a water bond bill in the next couple of weeks,which will
include funding for Sites Reservoir and Temperance Flat.Also, Senator Simitian from the Silicon Valley has introduced
SB 12 which attempts to address Delta improvements,water supply security,and environmental impacts. Another effort
being tackled on the.Assembly side is AB 39,authored by the Chair of the Water Committee,Assembly Member
Huffman.AB 39,while currently in"spot bill"form,will attempt to address several recommendations found in the Bay
Delta Vision report that require legislation.
This will undoubtedly be a busy year of water discussions in the Capitol.The uncertainty lies with whether the
Legislature and Governor finds our water woes as a serious enough crisis as a motivator for action.
-•:.c- -,..�u:srs �s,Sl. Tr� ,r�::;a=: �n.. ;c+:-. -'.-. _ ,a a.. .s,"u�:'�. � '> �- '! _ Z �- '.!-...-,rr�,i�,:.r.,,_. ,
.1
Beltway
"ME
or
FERGUSON
................
l GROUPLLC
Over the last few months,President Obama and Congress have been working to develop the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act,also known as the economic stimulus bill,legislation designed to revive the battered US economy.
The bill,originally a$60-$100 billion package,has grown to about an$825 billion bill in the House and$888 billion in
the Senate for direct spending and tax cuts. Within the bill are significant funds for a variety of`ready-to-go' building,
transportation and water infrastructure projects. Funding will be distributed to projects through a variety of ways,de-
pending on the agencies and programs,but there will be no specific project allocation within the economic stimulus bill.
Both the Congress and the Administration felt very strongly that this bill should be free of"earmarks".
The final version of the House bill,which passed the House on January 28`'by a vote of 244-188(with no Republicans
voting for the bill),includes$4.5 billion for Army Corps projects including: $2.2 billion for O&M projects; $250 million
for Mississippi River Projects; and$25 million for regulatory program. It also includes$500 million for the Bureau of
Reclamation projects including; $80 million for rural water projects; and$126 million.for Title VXI(reuse and recycling
projects).
The final version of the Senate bill has not been released at time of print but the current draft contains$4.45 billion in
spending for the Corps and$1.4 billion for the Bureau of Reclamation including; $50 million for California Bay-Delta
Restoration(CalFed); $60 million for rural water projects; $110 million for Title XVI projects and$10 million for in
spection on urbanized canals. Also included in the Senate bill are several provisions relating to the Bureau including:
repayment provisions allowing for extension of repayment of reimbursable amounts for rehabilitation for up to 25 years;
provisions that would allow funds that expire for obligation to be used to defray costs of"supervision,inspection,over
engineering and design'; and unlimited reprogramming authority for the Secretary of the Interior. The Senate billis
expected to be considered on the Floor of the Senate the first week of February.
------------
When Congress adjourned for the year on October 3"',2008,they passed the current continuing resolutions(CR),
funding the federal government until March 6".2009. At that time,there were still many uncompleted appropriations
bills. While those bills were not taken up in Committees,they have been packaged together in an Omnibus
Appropriations bill that is expected to pass the House and Senate in February.
Of specific interest to NCWA members, the House has approved an extra
$7,500,000 above the budget request of$2,500,000 for the Anadromous Fish Screen
Program and the fish screen projects being advocated by the NCWA members. The
Senate has approved an extra $4,000,000 above the $2,500,000 budget request,
under Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project, Miscellaneous Project
Programs. NCWA is urging Congress to approve an additional $7.5 million above
the $2,500,000 budget request, under Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley
Project, Miscellaneous Project Programs, for the fish screen program. NCWA has
also sought and won support for continued federal funding for the Sacramento
Valley Integrated Water Management Plan. The House approved$500,000 and the
Senate approved$2,000,000 for this important initiative.
By Roger Gwinn.
.f ..-.4 .. ........-.
0 51-1 Inside the Beltway .
OEM
At the end of the last year,Congress packaged more than 150 public lands and water resources bills,including the SE-
CURE Water Act,into one omnibus lands and natural resources bill that they hoped to pass during a lame-duck session
after the elections. Combined,the different bulls in the omnibus land and water package would create more than a mil-
lion acres of wilderness, and protect rivers and historical landmarks
The Omnibus lands package did not pass in 2008 and the bill was reintroduced in the Senate as S.22 and passed the Sen-
ate on January 15,2009. To date,the House has not considered the bill but plans to as early as February 9'11. House Lead-
ership would like to bring the bill to a vote under an expedited procedure called"suspension of the rules,"which limits
debate to 40 minutes,prohibits amendments and requires a two-thirds majority vote(290)for passage. However,there
are many Republican that criticize that approach because bringing up bills under suspension is usually reserved for non—
controversial smaller measures. This disagreement as to how to bring the measure to the Floor could delay the passage
past Febnu-uy although it is expected to pass early this year as it is a package that has wide bi-partisan support.
•ei', <- _y._.K Vis" ;.ti? :::S�v:.r,�}�Y ::s:�\�:t�iil�`=• .v... c' �4;, v- v,'��'-i..�t q '�r�r:
. -�....,,. ..:M1 .' �,'� :•.":rc..- •- S 13 x .,r z _e. r - r _.g; „.�;k�;,„ ;-f: ,.t: t..t
�`�`"5=- .�; Y ,t. i ,i _ .'c G _t. 3 ",c:::�a�s�?.r.sk- �.�� �_.: .`C. 7 ..,x t .. ...;::tt,,...,tt,�'t.-c:...•,...,... ..
��� �_ •�� ,s,:.lr.-,-�1�- ?e: �;. :h�-!r,�T,�=.cr�,v dc�4..,,Y.,.,Y$:��.�f�i�:i a :�: s� _d.,:�=`'
a
Water Quali
ty
It is with mixed emotions that I write my last water quality articles for the Conveyance.Although excited at what lies
ahead for me at MBK Engineers,I will miss working with all of the great people I have come in contact with over the
past three years. As I look back over the past couple of years I am so proud of the accomplishments the Coalition and
its members have made. The Coalition is where it is today as a result of the hard work of each and everyone of you.
However, it isnot time to become lackadaisical.There are many issues on the horizon that have the potential to impact
irrigators. Tina.Lunt
Welcome
This month we welcome Bruce Houdesheldt to the North-
ern California Water Association(NCWA),as the new
Long-term�� Director of Regulatory Affairs. Bruce will manage the
Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition(Coalition),
The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control handled very capably by Tina Lunt since 2006,as well as
Board(Regional Water Board)adopted regulatory Regional Board discussions on revisions to the Irrigated
requirements for discharge from irrigated lands Lands Regulatory Program and other water quality issues
(tailwater,water from underground drains,operational that will no doubt emerge and potentially impact NCWA
spills, stormwater runoff)under a Conditional Waiver is and Coalition members.
undergoing review.These regulatory requirements are Bruce comes to NCWA with a strong public policy and
considered part of an interim program for regulation of regulatory background.For three and a half years he was a
discharges from irrigated agricultural lands.The Project Planning Manager for Lennar Communities,the
Regional Water Board is currently developing a long- land development arm of Lennar a national homebuilder
term strategy for regulating discharges from agricultural operating in 14.states. At Lennar he was responsible for
lands to protect waters within the Central Valley. securing regulatory approvals,planning entitlements and
managed legal and technical consultant teams for projects
In December 2008,the Regional Water Board and ranging in size from 40—815 acres.These approvals in-
contractor Jones and Stokes released the Existing cluded wetlands delineations and permits,drainage studies,
Conditions Report(ECR). The ECR will be used to water supply allocation,and water quality permits. Prior to
help develop the Long-term Irrigated Lands Regulatory Lennar Communities,Bruce was a Legislative Advocate
Program(II.RP). The ECR, originally circulated in aiid Director of Government Affairs for the North State
was revised to address comments received and to Building Industry Association(NSBIA),and spent a year
2006
as a Legislative Advocate for the California Building In-
include data collected under the current irrigated lands dustry Association(CBIA). While with the NSBIA,he
program. The report is available online at: spent six years as a stakeholder representative to the Sacra-
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/ mento Regional Water Foanun process as one of the original
water issues/irrigated lands/ participants. While Director of Government Affairs for
NSBIA,he spent considerable time on NPDES issues,MS4
long tenn pro grarn development/ Permitting,and working with and educating members on
rev_existing conditions report/ Stormwater Pollution Prevention Planning(SWPPP). His
The ECR summarizes general surface and groundwater Past experience includes participation in multi-stakeholder
conditions over the entire Central Valley in order to collaborative efforts on Air Quality and Transportation,as
support development of a programmatic Environmental well as Placer Legacy,a countywide,science-based open
space and habitat protection program and discussions on
Impact Report(EIR)for the long-term ILRP. Yolo County's Farmland Preservation Strategies.
Interested parties will have another opportunity to He is past co-chair of the Sacramento Metro Chamber's
provide comments on the ECR when the Water Board Land Use and Natural Resources Cap-to-Cap team.
circulates the draft programmatic EIR for public review. Bruce lives in Roseville with his wife Shelley,his son
However,even though comments are not being formally Cole,and their Golden Retriever Maggie.
solicited on the ECR,you may provide comments
regarding the ECR or the EIR process at any time.
41M
�t 'n,.�y. .
Water Quality
Many agencies and groups monitor water quality,water flows,and ecological conditions in the Bay-Delta,but there is no
comprehensive contaminants monitoring and assessment program.The Interagency Ecological Program(IEP),CALFED,
and other organizations,including the Water Boards,conduct some of these analyses,but due to their specific mandates,
information gaps may exist.Emerging concerns with contaminants related to the decline of pelagic organisms in the
Delta,wastewater treatment plant discharges,agricultural discharges,pesticides,blue-green algae toxicity,and unknown
toxicity events all highlight the need for well-coordinated contaminants monitoring.A system is needed for coordinating
among monitoring programs and integrating contaminants monitoring into existing monitoring efforts whereby all data
are synthesized and assessed on a regular basis.The Strategic Workplan for Activities in the San Francisco Bay/
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary,which was adopted by the State Water Board,Central Valley Regional Water
Board, and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board,identifies the development of a comprehensive monitoring program
for the Delta as a priority action.
The short-term(1-2 years)goal for this action is to establish a framework for regularly gathering,compiling,assessing,
and reporting readily available data currently being collected under Water Board programs and external programs, such as
the IEP and the Department of Water Resources' Municipal Water Quality Investigations(MWQI)program.The long-
term(3-5 years)goal is to develop a Regional Monitoring Program(RMP) for the Delta.Inherent in both the short and
long term efforts is the need to develop a framework for coordinating monitoring and assessment efforts in and around the
Delta.
http://www.waterboards.mgov/centralvalley/water issues/delta water quality/comprehensive monitoring_program/
index.shtmL
Ammonia Workshop
The Regional Water Board and CALFED Science Program are sponsoring an ammonia workshop in March 2009. The
focus of the workshop will be to develop a framework for research needs concerning the effects of ambient ammonia
concentrations on the Delta ecosystem. The workshop is intended to provide a foram for discussions among scientists,
stakeholders,agency staff,and the public about ammonia-related issues in the Delta and associated research needs. A
panel of independent scientists will be tasked with preparing the framework. Additional details concerning the workshop
will be distributed as they become available.
Monitoring Directory
The Aquatic Science Center is developing an on-line,interactive directory that provides access to current surface water
monitoring information to facilitate monitoring coordination and integration. The directory includes monitoring program
information(e.g.,objectives,duration,contact)and metadata(e.g., sampling sites,parameters,frequency,data
availability); a search form for customized searches; an interactive map for GIS based searching and viewing of
monitoring locations and program information;and password protected domains as a tool for program managers to keep
monitoring information updated.
Stakeholder Meetings
The next stakeholder meeting(s)will be scheduled following the release of the following reports:
• The contaminants synthesis report being prepared by UC Davis researchers;and
• The report summarizing existing water quality monitoring in the Delta being prepared by the Aquatic Science Center.
Both of these reports are slated for public distribution in March 2009.
Topics for the upcoming meeting(s)will include the results of these two reports and their relevance to the Delta
RMP planning process,fiu'ther discussion concerning governance,and the Initiation of discussions concerning
monitoring questions,funding options,data integration and other issues.
i �w;%`:7:+ .r,:;5 ....:.C..-..;.:-.;:- ....,;",,...h:: •.v,w....i' -,�.. t- - ,-ter... v�
a �,. r�. :e_ !?c.. - ;;t.. _:¢:;y�L ::.- ,�,- r,.- �. �•.,4Z�i.� � s .1z2;::.iyh.. i- x.� v=:;5�` ^'i'^�..
-t3'� ....,�-''.�..f nEel'. w..;..,..t....,r..:..,pry:.-...n..,.::.-_,:....t:.. -.:r:k.. , ._.- ..> ,- •+ '
ter Quality
Central Valley Salinity
The Central Valley Salinity Coalition(CVSC)represents the stakeholder groups joining the Board in the CV-SALTS
collaborative basin planning process.In February 2009,the CVSC will take on the support tasks for the effort, including
launching an informational website, scheduling committee meetings and preparing and distributing information. Current
committee information will now be posted on the CVSC website: www.cvsalinity.org.
Archives of past meetings(2006-2008)will remain posted on the CV-SALTS site until further notice.
The CV-SALTS web pages will be undergoing changes in the coming months. Staff intends to beef up the site with addi-
tional technical and regulatory information needed to support long-range salt and nutrient management planning.
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwgcb5/water issues/salinity/whats_new/index.shtml
Delta Mercury TMDL Stakeholder Meetings
The Delta Mercury Control Program must be considered by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board by
October 2009.The stakeholder process for the first part of the control program must be complete by May 2009. The
next Delta Mercury TMDL meeting will be held on February 1.9.Meeting documentation will be available soon at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water issues/tmdl/central valley_projects/delta hgtstakeholder meetings/
index.shtrul.
Management Plan
In January 2009,the Coalition submitted its final draft of its"Management Plan"detailing actions to be taken on several
waterways in the Sacramento Valley. The plan outlines steps the Coalition,its 10 regional subwatersheds and members
are expected to take over the next three years to correct water quality problems traced to irrigated lands. Management
plans are work plans,written by the Coalition and approved by the Water Board,that describe known and potential
sources of water quality problems and ways to address each problem.
The Regional Water Board is allowing several Central Valley coalitions to prioritize either waterways or constituents for
MP development where sampling shows two or more exceedances of state water quality standards,the trigger for writing
an MP. In the Sacramento Valley,the subwatersheds are prioritizing constituents found in each waterway based on how
likely the source is crop production inputs or activities. The highest priority constituents showing two or more ex-
ceedances are pesticides and toxicity followed by medium priority constituents including E.coli,legacy pesticides,and
trace metals,followed by lower priority constituents including dissolved oxygen,pH and salinity. The most frequent
pesticide exceedance,found in four waterways in the Valley,is from chlorpyrifos(Lorsban,Lock-On,Govern). Those
waterways are Willow Slough(Yolo County),Walker Creek(Glenn County),Coon Creek(Placer County)and Pine
Creek(Butte County). Toxicity to water flea(C.dubia)was also found in two waterways. Uses for chlorpyrifos insecti-
cide include almond hull split sprays,codling moth sprays in walnuts and-worm sprays in alfalfa,among other crops and
pests.
' '•,,�FrA�,r,.F- >., H ^- :;,;,.- i r ,...} :�. -` - .... d Y -i ,`'.t,F - '4£ v. tis'�. .. ,
S
raw.:,.�•,.•. i:;�_
ORE
NwA Wer Quality
Proposed Revisions to the 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies
The Clean Water Act requires states to conduct an assessment of the quality of all their waters(Section 305b)and de-
velop a list of those that are"impaired or threatened"(Section 303d).A Report has been prepared that integrates the two
assessment efforts into one Integrated Report. _
Public Hearing-The Regional Water Quality Control Board,Central Valley Region(Central Valley Water Board)will
hold a public hearing to consider the Integrated Report and to consider proposed revisions to the list of impaired water
bodies developed pursuant to Section 303(d)of the Federal Clean Water Act.The impaired water body list includes a
proposed schedule for addressing impairments.The hearing is specific to waters in the jurisdiction of the Central Valley
Water Board.
Date: 23-24 April 2009
Time: To be determined.Please contact staff two weeks prior to the meeting for a projected time at which this
matter will be heard.
Place: Regional Water Quality Control Board office
11020 Sun Center Drive, Suite 200
Rancho Cordova,CA 95670
Public Meeting-Staff of the Central Valley Water Board will hold a public meeting to discuss the draft Integrated Re-
port and the draft proposed revisions to the list of impaired water bodies developed pursuant to Section 303(d)of the
Federal Clean Water Act. One or more Central Valley Water Board members may be present,but no Board action will
be taken at this meeting.
Date: 10 March 2009
Time: 10 AM to 3 PM
Place: Regional Water Quality Control Board office
11020 Sun Center Drive,Suite 200
Rancho Cordova,CA 95670
The integrated water quality assessment report,including proposed revisions to the 303(d)list and schedule for address-
ing impairments,is available for review on the Central Valley Water Board's website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water issues/tmdl/impaired waters list/303d list.shtml
In order to be included in the written response to comments that is a part of the final administrative record,written com-
ments must be submitted by 5:00 PM on 16 March 2009 to Danny McClure,Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Central Valley Region, 11020 Sun Center Drive,#200,Rancho Cordova,CA 95670 or dmcclure waterboards.ca. ov.
._ 'ti.:av rA- :._.�J...�. i-, _: 3 _. w-; y Y cf•t y - - -'r'l. ,�4 5:
MW
Water Quality
On December 30,the Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition(Coalition)submitted its 2008 Irrigation Season
Semi-Annual Monitoring Report(SAMR)to the Regional Water Quality Control Board(Regional Water Board)under
the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program(ILRP).The SAMR provides a detailed description of the Coalition's
monitoring results as part of its ongoing efforts to characterize irrigated agricultural and wetlands related water quality
in the Sacramento River Basin.The SAMR characterizes potential water quality impacts of agricultural drainage from a
broad geographic area in the Sacramento Valley from April 2008 through October 2008.For this period of record,
Toxicity
From April 2008 through October 2008, 307 water column toxicity tests were conducted with 3 aquatic species on
106 samples from 18 different sites.There were 9 statistically significant water column toxicity exceedances(6
Ceriodaphnia tests, 3.Selenastrum tests, and no Pimephales tests).No sediment toxicity was observed in the 19 sam-
ples tested.
Chemical results were evaluated for all of the cases of observed toxicity. In two of these cases,the toxicity to Sele-
nastru .was explained by the concentrations of chlorpyrifos or diuron.Two of the samples were not persistent indi-
cating a rapid breakdown of the source of toxicity.
Pesticides
When detected,pesticides rarely exceeded applicable objectives,and were typically not associated with toxicity.Two
registered pesticides(diazinon and atrazine)and 2 unregistered legacy organochlorine pesticides(dieldrin and DDE)
exceeded applicable water quality objectives in a total of 9 Irrigation Season 2008 samples.There were no observed
exceedances of the Basin Plan diazinon objective in the 2008 Irrigation Season.As mentioned above,in only two
cases elevated pesticide concentrations were detected(chlorpyrifos and diuron)associated with instances of toxicity.
Many of the pesticides specifically required to be monitored by the ILRP have rarely been detected in Coalition water
samples, including glyphosate,paraquat,and all of the pyrethroid pesticides. Glyphosate,one of the most widely used
agricultural pesticides,has been detected in only 7 Coalition samples to date,and has never approached concentra-
tions likely to cause toxicity to sensitive test species.Over 98%of all pesticide analyses performed to date for the
Coalition are below detection. This indicates that monitoring for many of these pesticides in water is unlikely to pro-
vide meaningful results regarding sources or needs for changes in management practices.Based on these results,the
Coalition has proposed much more focused monitoring of ILRP pesticides in 2009,when the recently adopted revised
ILRP Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan will be implemented. Similarly,the Coalition has proposed to conduct
more focused monitoring of most trace elements(arsenic,cadmium,lead,nickel, selenium,and zinc)in 2009 because
Coalition monitoring has demonstrated that these metals do not exceed objectives and are not likely to cause adverse
impacts to aquatic life or human health in waters receiving agricultural runoff in the Coalition watershed.
Other Parameters
Exceedances of adopted Basin Plan objectives and advisory limits were observed for boron,conductivity,dissolved
oxygen,E.coli(not approved by State Board),pH,and total dissolved solids.There were no exceedances of water
quality objectives for monitored nutrient compounds.The majority of exceedances of adopted numeric objectives
consisted of boron,dissolved oxygen,and E. coli.Although agricultural runoff and irrigation return flows may con-
tribute
ontribute to exceedances of these objectives,all of these parameters are controlled or significantly affected by natural
processes and sources that are not controllable by agricultural management practices.Follow-up strategies to evaluate
causes of pH and dissolved oxygen exceedances were implemented by the Coalition in the 2006 Irrigation Sea-
son. Sources of E.coli exceedances have been looked at through a region-wide pilot study conducted by the
Coalition.However,due to the limited information obtained through the pilot study,the Coalition is currently
working with the Regional Water Board to develop a more comprehensive E.coli study.
�:ae}.-;;r;,> arw.'it.;va"„a:� tom- i,�,. ;t✓:x:,e t- t - ?•,?-- -r- _
r4�'.+5k!•me1+���� �t1A.;...f .�.. �E�> .:.. ..�....:+zls... -t.... ,..'....'�r.'f.3t�...,,{..�-... ....^r r...,K 3.�`ft�'r.-... .,N... ?.'... �.r ... ... .. -� .
1� r
Water
ty
L,
:4 er
� �r.,.9th'`-.,,�`T�r``�.-�-^' �"�=''�°•�.t`c, !
FIE
ZM-
,W111
� _ r
i 7i �• xsu =rte �v.�r � x+
'•cf a.r s.r -� i'rts
MR-01
�y �frt��-F
-IY' t+„��,.'""` *! '�'2 �^'ra ? t `� i"r✓�i 'T
3'
4• �.+nom'
1K•d'x!z '�'� tiT L'^2"Srn'`'�'r1'i `y. s+ '-9-x.1 s`r-'a .-.f t1 ��y w "F-.. .°r-'- "s `m��''h.a..
'ti`z rr- ^cK y �`' u..^'y yT �-Q•a45 � at..t �f �k L ~ �`
gial
r4, u'�i'v ia,.2r`5-•--�"�''�'�r�c..�z rtc,'+� � c`R k �� 7
art, i,iy. ia
-!§`ar3ss'" 0`a
. �F �
� ..-..�
�r� t,
N's ref -, ,� s a! •. F„E
w .zY�"'", _� `k��-SES '� rw'� --X•�-.,-a.-yarr" -' Z R,;
��.,.d"+ ,�5 � � �• .7•-ys
iyvh � r i {-M ,ty � �"<' .i q/r"rLi' F � .k a{ �"',r• 4„_
�r '� -c7Sr c ,
'ti^Ivy �r� ti
'}` i?� w- ,`wiz - .ft h �u i�� f�.• -
�
t ` NC£ _
ry
UN-r��VA
Water wy_ . c _:
Sacramento Valley
In ' i 1 ' i R' I i / Water ManagementPlan
The Department of Water Resources(DWR)in December released draft guidelines for the Integrated Regional Water
Management(IRWM)Region Acceptance Process(RAP). These draft guidelines were established to assist DWR in
determining which IRWM regions meet criteria outlined in the Water Code and are accepted into the IRWM grant
program. Acceptance into the program is required for any Integrated Regional Water Management Plan(IRWMP)
seeking state IRWM grant funds. The Sacramento Valley IRWMP will be participating in this process.
As part of the region acceptance process,DWR is dissuading IRWM regions from having overlap. This is counter to
the"nested approach"the Sacramento Valley IRWMP used to incorporate more localized planning efforts. NCWA
submitted a comment letter on January 27 asking DWR to recognize the benefit of having more localized planning
efforts as well as a comprehensive plan for the Sacramento Valley. DWR has not released the final criteria for the RAP
and is not expected to do so until after the State budget crisis is resolved.
It has been two years since the Sacramento Valley IRWMP was adopted in December 2006. Since that time,we have
had a chance to evaluate the plan,considerable progress has occurred on projects and programs in the Valley and the
IRWMP criteria has been amended by legislation passed last year. Now is an excellent opportunity to take a look at the
plan and determine areas that could be updated. We will be beginning this process later this year.
IRWMP
Elements
t
T' sh passage
The Sacramento River Fish Screen Program has had some success in the federal appropriations process this fiscal year.
On July 10,the Senate Appropriations Committee"marked-up"the Energy and Water Appropriations bill for fiscal year
2009. The bill provided an additional$4 million for the Anadromous Fish Screen Program above the President's budget
request of$2.5 million and$2 million for the Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan(IRWMP).
In June,the House of Representatives'Appropriations Committee provided$7.5 million above the President's request for
the fish screen program.and$500,000 for the IRWMP.
The next step in the appropriations process will be a conference of Senate and House committee members to consolidate
their respective bills into one piece of legislation that will need to be approved by both houses prior to being sent to the
President for his signature. The government is currently operating under a continuing resolution that does not expire until
March 6,2009. Now that the Stimulus Bill has passed,Congress is expected to take up the fiscal year 2009 appropriations
bills. In addition to the March 6 continuing resolution deadline,Congress is also pressured to pass the fiscal year 2009
bills because work has already begun on fiscal year 2010 appropriations legislation.
Representatives from NCWA,Natornas Mutual Water Company,Meridian Farms Water Company and Reclamation
District 2035 will be headed back to Washington,DC the week of February 23 to request funding for their respective fish
screen projects in the fiscal year 2010 Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
mater Use ���cienc�
The Department of Water Resources' (DWR)release of the Proposal Solicitation Package(PSP)for the 2008 Water
Use Efficiency Program,has been anticipated for more than 6 months. But,this has not occurred,and with the current
state budget crisis and the freeze on bond funding,it is not expected to be released anytime soon. When the PSP is
finally released,there will be$20.3_ million available for agricultural water use efficiency projects and an additional
$15 million for urban projects.
As was the case for the last PSP,applications will be accepted for two types of projects. Section A projects are
:,.,x. .: ,..,._.. .... � ..w .-.n.. ..+.f„:. -..:.•: r.::..•4n-_M 1. :�: - ..5..�2.r ...x-.. •_1,: ":cs:w' .'3r: ::{;: �:F• 4_:.�,z;r
•s .� ;r.• :'Y. .ii;ri• - .rte: i ~ ,tz .:`:ti.z %:z",,.:,-:y:+
pv
Sacramento Valley
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
implementation projects that provide benefits to the State. There is$18,050,000 available for agricultural Section A
projects. Individual projects in Section A can receive up to$3 million. There is a local cost share requirement for these
funds.
Projects that can apply for funding from Section B include research and development, feasibility studies,pilot or
demonstration,training, education or public outreach programs,and technical assistance programs. The funding cap per
project is$100,000 to$200,000,depending upon the project type. There is no cost share requirement for Section B
projects.
The proposal process will once again be conducted in two steps. Step 1 proposals are limited to two pages and a cost
estimate. Qualifying proposals totaling up to 150 percent of the funding available will be invited back for Step 2. Step 2
will require the development of a much more detailed proposal.
Additional information and the PSP are available at httt)://www.owue.water.ca.ggv/finance/index.chn.
IRWMP
Implementation
On January 28 a meeting of the Sacramento Valley IRWMP participants was held at Western Canal Water District to
discuss upcoming activities associated with the plan. At the meeting,a number of pending issues associated with the
plan were discussed:
In the two years since the Sacramento Valley IRWMP was adopted,considerable progress has been made on planning
efforts and projects in the Sacramento Valley;a large and diverse group of participants have joined the plan;and,the
State Legislature has amended the IRWMP language in the Water Code,providing new requirements and increased
documentation of the planning process. All of these factors have created the opportunity and need to reassess the
IRWMP and determine the sections within the plan that need to be updated. The following are some examples of
expected changes to the IRWMP.
f
The passage of SBX2 l last year repealed the section of the Water Code providing guidance for the development
of IRWMPs and replaced it with new requirements that will impact the Sacramento Valley IRWMP. There are
additional requirements on the issues IRWMPs will need to address,documentation of activities,dissemination
of data and participation in the IRWMPs' development and implementation,
Groundwater .
Groundwater monitoring and management activities in the Sacramento Valley have advanced considerably over
the past two years. Development and updating of Groundwater Management Plans,additional monitoring and
coordination of activities will all need to be recognized in the IRWMP update.
.a.-v.• :^,vJ ..r n.�. .-....,f;,.,,n,.,.IA-._ ... ... ^r. :�—...v..•...:.v- ..,.S.-t.....,..-,... ....: fa •.iw^ ..'.. .4.1� L � ::Fir•-i
4„ ., .r..t ...:::s. . T..... ... .h?_sa.• 1 of%:_k...;�3., ; r.. _Cci.,,S..... ,�...t..�.::t�:,-.........sz..•..-
�nk�,...h�dWd �OCfG4 .-
Sacramento Valley
Integrated RegionalWaterManagement :!
Plan:Partrcrpa�on
One of the new requirements in the Water Code is for IRWMPs to include a more formal description of the op-
portunities to participate in the IRWMP's development and implementation. The Sacramento Valley IRWMP
currently has three categories of participation: The Joint Exercise of Powers,which was established to contract
with the State;Pian Participants,which includes entities that can contribute to the implementation of the
IRWMP and have adopted resolutions of adoption or support,or have submitted letters of support for the
IRWMP; and,Interested Parties who have expressed interest in the IRWMP in one form or another. As part of
the IRWMP update the roles of these groups in the IRWMP will need to be clarified.
Larxd and Water opment dss .
This section of the document,which was developed using county General Plans and local planning documents,
will need to-be updated to reflect changes in the source materials and the inclusion of new information.
0 - I I
The Department of Water Resources has released draft guidelines for the Region Acceptance Process which will be used
to determine the IRWMP regions that will be eligible for Integrated Regional Water Management grant funding. The
guidelines reflect changes in the Water Code made by SBX2 1. The Sacramento Valley IRWMP will need to participate
in this process in order to apply for upcoming grant funding from Proposition 84.
The project list was included in the IRWMP as an addendum so that it can be updated to include new projects or make
changes to the existing projects without having to amend and readopt the plan. Project participants can add projects to
the IRWMP at any time by submitting a brief project description and budget.
As was the case with the development of the current plan,the update of the Sacramento Valley IRWMP will require a
number of publicly noticed meetings to allow for input from all interested parties. We will need to establish a schedule
of the meetings that will provide opportunities to discuss the process and content of the update.
During the upcoming year,we expect to invest considerable time and resources to advance these issues and update the
IRWMP.
A.
.;� a..`....
S ,
Water Notes
B04"nnounces gntkti aced ftduction in Waterflffocation
On February 13,the Bureau of Reclamation(BOR)announced that low natural flows into Shasta Reservoir have trig-
gered shortage criteria for Sacramento River Settlement Contractors. This announcement was made prior to the official
initial alloation for Central Valley Project(CVP)supplies,which will occur on February 20.
As a result,letters were sent to Settlement Contractors to notify them of the hydrologic forecast and the triggering of the
shortage criteria. Sacramento River Settlement Contractors will be reduced by 25 percent for water year 2009 and San
Joaquin River Settlement Contractors will be reduced to"about 77 percent"of maximum contract amount.
Based upon the February 1 Department of Water Resources(DWR)runoff forecast,natural inflow to Shasta Reservoir is
2.47 million acre-feet for the 2009 water year. In comparison,the average inflow for 1956-2005 is 6.1 million acre-feet.
In related news,on February 5,the BOR and DWR submitted a request to the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB)for temporary emergency modifications to some February Delta outflow objectives.
'. s nf''�,` -� ? F": s - _ ..,.._-..I.F .--.Y....p s -k` z-<iw.S,l....F-lvf.Y.�.i,3 f£_.�..).. r.. n.. ..<F... ..r��:,.C::•:r..,! ..a:.. :e ...L..fi x........,.(......,.•.•s
e