HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmail from Susan Strachan - Item 5.04 Resolutions Supporting Proposed Boundary Modifications - SGMA Commitments Menchaca, Clarissa
From: Susan Strachan <susanstrachan@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Monday,July 23, 2018 1:00 PM
To: Clerk of the Board
Subject: Fw: Item 5.04 - Resolutions Supporting Proposed Basin Boundary Modifications
Typo in your email so this bounced back.
----- Forwarded Message-----
From: Susan Strachan <susanstrachan@sbcglobal.net>
To: "BConnelly@ButteCounty.net" <BConnelly@ButteCounty.net>; "LWahl@ButteCounty.net"
<LWahl@ButteCounty.net>; "M Kirk@ButteCounty.net" <MKirk@ButteCounty.net>; "District4@ButteCounty.net"
<District4@ButteCounty.net>; "DTeeter@ButteCounty.net" <DTeeter@ButteCounty.net>
Cc: "ClerkoftheBoard@ButteCounty.ne" <Clerkofthe Board@ B utteCo unty.ne>; Paul Gosselin
<pgosselin@buttecounty.net>; Christina Buck<cbuck@buttecounty.net>
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2018 12:42 PM
Subject: Item 5.04- Resolutions Supporting Proposed Basin Boundary Modifications
Good afternoon Supervisors,
would like to provide public comment on the Sustainable Groundwater Act proposed basin boundary modification on
tomorrow's agenda. I have a work conflict and am unable to attend in person. I am representing the interests of domestic
well owners, who are forming a nonprofit organization to formalize that representation. I would not characterize our
position on this proposal as"general support." We believe the way in which this concept was developed and brought
before the board of supervisors presents significant public policy issues. The development of the previous Vina basin
boundary modification (excluding Tehama County/incorporating all of Chico),was heard at multiple meetings of the
governance committee and presented an at evening workshop where domestic well owners in the subbasin were mailed
invitations. This new modification was daylighted and brought to the Board with a recommendation that the county submit
it in about one month, without similar opportunities for public input, An additional concern is splitting the county into a
groundwater dependent subbasin and a surface water dominated subbasin will affect the underlying data and
assumptions that must be used in groundwater planning and will limit the potential for projects to address groundwater
concerns using available surface water.
While this proposed modication presents these issues, we understand that there are some benefits to bringing the
Durham and Butte Valley areas into the Vina subbasin, so that they will fall under the proposed Vina joint powers
authority. To address the public process issues identified above, to ensure that domestic well owners in the proposed
Butte subbasin have an opportunity for input to groundwater plans (especially those in disadvantaged communities), to
assure that sound science underpins planning in both subbasins and to forestall any barriers to project development and
implementation arising from bifuracation of the county into groundwater and surface water subbasins, we recommend that
groundwater sustainability agencies in the proposed Vina and Butte subbasins commit to three actions. This commitment
will demonstrate the agencies' commitment to sound public process, consistent science and collaboration.
1. Using an inclusive and transparent public process that provides the opportunity for stakeholders to review.This
process will provide the public with the opportunity to provide substantive input on draft elements of governance
structures formed for the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and on the groundwater sustainability plans
developed pursuant to that act.The process will be formal,with a proper notification process for all interested parties
and will include adequate public notice and meetings held in the very late afternoon or evenings so that members of the
public can attend.Where input is not incorporated into revisions of proposed elements,the revised documents will
include the reasoning and support for the direction chosen.
2. Using the same data, methodologies and assumptions for the four subbasins as currently defined for the following
elements:
i
(a) Groundwater elevation data. (b) Groundwater extraction data. (c) Surface water supply. (d) Total water use.
(e) Change in groundwater storage; (f)Water budget. (g) Sustainable yield and (h) interbasin flow. These
elements are required to be consistent when multiple plans are developed within a subbasin.
3. Identifying, analyzing and including feasible recharge and water supply projects in their groundwater sustainability
plans,without regard to the proposed subbasin boundaries, particularly the opportunities for utilizing supply from
available surface water in the County
Thank you,
Susan Strachan
Domestic well owner
2