Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter received from the Northern California Water Association e 0 fir 1 c o tiyrw BUTTE COUNTY �' ADMINISTRATION NOV 1 4 2013 Northern California°'Cr NC ,, ,. ]., Water Association !: OROVILLE,CALIFORNIA To advance the economic,social and environmental sustainability of Northern California by enhancing and preserving the water rights,supplies and water quality. November 12, 2013 Bill Connelly, Chairman WARD OF SUPERVISORS Members of the Board Butte County Board of Supervisors NOV 1 4 2013 316 Nelson Ave. OROVILLE,CALIFORNIA Oroville, CA 95965-3318 gig Dear Chainn,lantrgembers of the Board: With all the attention and debate swirling around the Bay-Delta and water policy in California, we want to provide an update on the various issues facing the Bay-Delta and how we are engaged in these processes. As you know, it is increasingly important that our state and federal policy leaders understand What's at Stake in the Sacramento Valley and recognize that if water is redirected away from Northern California, there is no way to estimate the long-term negative effects on our environment and economy. Unfortunately, with all the pressures emanating from the Bay-Delta, we do not have the luxury of time to take a wait-and-see attitude.Now is the time to stand by our convictions and present a clear assessment and defense of what water means to the Sacramento Valley. Northern California Water Association (NCWA) and water experts throughout the region are aggressively working to make sure Northern California water rights are fully protected and water supplies are available for present and future needs within Northern California. The NCWA Board of Directors (Board) in July reaffirmed our strong and aggressive policy on the Bay-Delta, which can be viewed at: http://www.norcalwater.org/bay-delta/. We also have a Task Force (chaired by Tib Belza from Yuba County Water Agency)that meets monthly to discuss the Bay- Delta and develop unified strategies on how Northern California can best protect its water rights and supplies. We have a team of water resources managers, biologists, modelers, attorneys, engineers and biostatisticians aggressively participating in these various processes, as summarized below. BDCP. With respect to the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan(BDCP), the Governor and Secretary of Interior are scheduled to release a public draft plan and environmental document on December 13, 2013. We are working with water suppliers and others throughout the Sacramento Valley to develop a unified response to the plan, focusing on how we can protect Northern California water rights and supplies, while helping solve California's water challenges. Our response outline is attached for your review. 455 Capitol Mall,Suite 335, Sacramento,California 95814-4496•Telephone(916)442-8333 •Facsimile(916)442-4035 • www.norcalwater.org rc gas SWRCB. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)is advancing its Water Quality Control Plan update for the Bay-Delta, which initially may set new water quality objectives and ultimately could modify and possibly limit water rights to achieve these objectives. There is tremendous pressure on the SWRCB to establish flow objectives that will require additional water from Northern California. Again, water suppliers throughout the Sacramento Valley have developed a Sustainability Plan for the Sacramento Valley that we have presented to the SWRCB and others over the past year, where we offer a plan that will provide water for various beneficial purposes in the Sacramento Valley, including farms, towns, fish, birds and recreation. The sustainability plan is enclosed for your review. Water Bond. The water bond is currently scheduled for the November 2014 ballot, although this may be postponed. For Northern California, there are two critical elements to the bond: 1) water rights policies and 2)public benefits that could be funded through the bond, including statewide water system operational improvements, such as Sites Reservoir. We will continue to advocate for these important provisions in the bond. California Water Action Plan. The state agencies have released an action plan that the Governor will consider advancing later this year. We are reviewing the plan and we will provide additional thoughts to the state administration with respect to the plan. We all know the central role that water serves in shaping this special region. Through efficient management of the region's water resources, the Sacramento Valley will continue to provide what's essential to California's future success and prosperity. Nourishment and sustenance from the fields, habitats for fish and wildlife,recreation and a special quality of life—the Sacramento Valley is home to all of this, and more. We hope that you will join us in this ongoing effort to tell the state and federal policy leaders What's at Stake in the Sacramento Valley. We would welcome an opportunity to brief your Board in more detail at a convenient time. There is tremendous value in developing a coordinated response to the BDCP and we would welcome an opportunity to work with you in this effort. We will also continue to keep you apprised of any new developments with respect to the Bay-Delta. In the meantime,please call us if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely yours, - / PerA%7 Bryce Lundberg / • Tib Belza David Guy cc: Richard Price Paul Gosselin Vicky Newlin Christine Buck DRAFT:August 14,2013 For discussion purposes only A Sustainability Plan for the Sacramento Valley An Element of the Comprehensive Update of the Bay-Delta Estuary Water Quality Control Plan "'u August 2013 The purpose of the San Francisco Bay/Sacrauelit _San Joaquin River )elta Water Quality Control Plan (the"Bay-Delta WQCP") is to establish water quality obleccOes,and a program of implementation that will preserve and enhance all of the beneficial uses of water within the Bay-Delta watershed. The Sacramento Valley Wat&dlsers (the "SVWU") (see the list of participants attached as Exhibit 1), together with et llivers and The Nature Conservancy(collectively, the"Cooperating Parties")offerifollowing sustainability plan for the Sacramento Valley for consideration by the State Water Resources Control Board (the "SWRCB"), subject to review, approval and funds availability froom each of the governing boards of the Cooperating Parties We believe that the SWRCB coultllaid should include this plan in theu date of the Ba Delta W CP dkf'ljeve that thisplan Could be approved bythe P Y- Q t"m �; ,� PP SWRCB in mid-2014, with implementation of the plan commencing immediately. 12.. Broadly-based solutions have been few mill far between in the history of conflict over the Bay-Delta EstuaryOu 'hopkin.offering this propdt is to provide the SWRCB with a positive alternative to potenhdilyears bearings that could result in further harm to public trust and economically products esourc -1'. kxa 1. Guu4mg Principles .rte The Cooperating Parties have developed this proposal using five principles that we believe a' widely shared by water users,non-governmental organizations and state and federal regulatoryencies. These'five principles serve as the foundation for our proposal and, we believe, suggest-that a wide variety of parties should be able to support our proposal. 4`tea. First, any updaestto th Bay-Delta WQCP must be based on the best available scientific information. This statemttsshould now be self-evident,but while many(if not most) parties talk about using the best science available, the Cooperating Parties have tried to craft a proposal that is truly based on that science. We have not always agreed on what constitutes the"best science"but our proposal incorporates a process to continually re-examine the scientific underpinnings of our proposal and make changes as needed. Second, any updates to the Bay-Delta WQCP must, as required by the Delta Reform Act, improve water supply reliability while simultaneously restoring the environment. Again, this is a principle that has received a great deal of support from a variety of parties but most of the proposals that claim to advance these coequal goals lean heavily towards one or another of these Page 1 of 10 1330800.1 DRAFT:August 14,2013 For discussion purposes only goals. Our proposal incorporates a process that will allow us to make continuing improvements towards the achievement ofboth'of these goals. Third,the SWRCB should not wait to begin actions to improve the environment and water supply reliability until there are definitive scientific answers t the problems that plague the Bay-Delta watershed;instead,the SWRCB should begin withjeets for which there is reasonable scientific consensus,and adaptively manage those p its. These types of projects can treat the ecosystem holistically and can be framed to imp;_ e wt:;quality in a way that addresses multiple stressors and that improves water supply re&bili ,tee same time. Many of the Cooperating Parties' representatives have appeared before the SWRCB`iftconnection with Bay-Delta issues for decades; it is now time for mteresg stakeholders,wor.s collaboratively with the SWRCB and others,to take actions that will mpleinent the coequal goe .. the,Delta Reform Act. . Fourth,restoring the Bay-Delta ecosystem requ th ?projects address the various ecosystem stressors in a comprehensive way, while yet me 441 the legal standard of improving water supply reliability. Again, it is common for proposals to .titiress narrow elements of the Bay-Delta ecosystem and/or to focus s .wly on water supply Ability, Our goal in this ,rs . proposal is to enhance the ecosystem o s� amento Valley—onayatershed-wide basis— while at the same time improving water suit ability. I Fifth, but by no means last,accountab i ionttcal E updating the Bay-Delta WQCP, the SWRCB should clear ,vecify which agent es) will un rtake which action(s), should specify a timetable for43 �1�'ons,and should sc' ule regular reporting requirements wherein an agency would be_ ctured to us sort on its progress=( rlack of same) and explain that progress to the SWRCB. lifievregkg p. e ater Quality Cont 6l Plans, dating back to Water Right Decision 1485 in 1978,m rrRto., -r _simply were not implemented. As suggested in the third principle, it is now time"" i .terms d ,ak Iders and the SWRCB to act—together—to move towards enhancing the sus • g .ility of`thSacramento Valley. toopritedark 2. oMthkFoundation. Le of the A , nstream Flows Enhar *the sust 164;lity of the Sacramento Valley can best be accomplished by focusing on actions^'tllat can b en upstream of the Sacramento River at H Street to enhance salmon and other anaei p is ou Fo sh. The way to begin that effort is to recognize that, since 2006, water users in the Sacr: I '. o Valley have made extensive efforts—in cooperation with stated and federal regulatory agencies—to modify flows in the mainstem Sacramento River and its major tributaries to improve conditions for anadromous fisheries. Conceptually,maintaining Delta inflows while'increasing tributary flows in a targeted manner that focuses on ecological functionality leads to the following flow pyramid that provides a firm foundation for the sustainability of all beneficial uses(see attached graphic). Specifically: Page 2 of 10 1330800.1 DRAFT:August 14,2013 For discussion purposes only a. Baseline Flows i. Delta Outflow and Bypass Flows to Meet the Needs of Pelagic Species. The current Delta outflow requirements in the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan are governed by D-1641. Bypass flow requirements will likely be dete hed as part of the Bay- Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP)process and any subsequent peMits from the SWRCB regarding a change in point of diversion and place of use These flovtequirements are largely intended to protect pelagic fish species (e.g., delta smelt) ratherthan analtkomous fish species (e.g., salmon or steelhead). It is informative to note that inflows from theaSarramento Valley into the Delta have not changed substantially over thecOast fifty years, as showntin the accompanying analysis Thus, any flow enhancements in the Sacramentoalley,should focus on tributaryflows that serve specific ecolo�,nealfunctions of anadromous specre_S: ii. Instream Flows on Sacramento Valley Tributaries to Meet the Needs of Salmon y, ix The Sacramento Valley has instream flow agreements or requrenients on every major watercourse in the Sacramento River hydrojtc region. These requu 'ents are found in State Water Resources Control Board(S WRCBjgdecs%ns,biological opinions, streamflow agreements, and other processes. A good summary ,tltese agreements and the requirements contained in these agreements is available at lTTttpMMwwv*noroalwater.org/efficient-water- managementrinstream-flows/. Each of these agreements or requirements is intended to benefit anadromous fish by prQ,-I roved managed releases from reservoirs, increased instream flows and cooler temps natures Mite range suitable fok carious life-stages. The state and federal fishery agencies have b ttictiv involved in negotiating and approving these agreements, in overseeing their implementioniudiing monitoring,prudent management of reservoir storage, and adaptive managenli)ii nn,,ev uating the manner in which these programs meet the coequalfgals of water supply`t< Lability and ecosystem restoration. Strategtct Environmental Enhancement Flows f k :. Short-Duration Pulse Flows for Salmon Smolt Escapement Water re otirces managers, working with various partners, have developed a"Salmon Smolt Escapement Pllaafi to maximise the escapement of natural and hatchery salmon smolts through a coordinated program of water storage releases, additional strategic pulse flows, and the timing of diversions. It is4ell recognized that predation is the highest source of mortality to anadromous fish in both the Delta and the Sacramento River system. A coordinated plan could increase smolt escapement by 50% from rearing habitats to the ocean. This plan is described in more detail in the attached Program of Implementation. ii. Re-Managing Flows on High Priority Tributaries The California Legislature in 2009 required the SWRCB to develop a prioritized schedule to complete instream flow studies for high priority streams by 2018. (Water Code §85087.) With Page 3 of 10 1330800.1 DRAFT:August 14,2013 C. For discussion purposes only respect to the schedule in the Sacramento Valley,the water districts on Mill and Deer Creek, two high-priority tributaries to the Sacramento River, are implementing a water management plan, with various agreements,to coordinate flows, diversions,physical habitat restoration and other actions to improve spring run passage and habitat. c. Operational Flexibility/Adaptive Management ThrfTg '.•ter Transfers The transfer of water is one way to ensure that Cahfo ( 's ost precious resource can be put to reasonable and beneficial use to the maximum degree p icable 'le at the same time protecting water rights and meeting both current and fixture demands witlint �•e Sacramento Valley. Both short-term and long-term water transf ' occur in various fo and contexts (including water transfers to meet the needs of the gjvtromnent)and,based on tliwarticular context,they can provide additional flows to sattthe objective of co-equal goals water supply reliability and environmental restoration). d. Summarya a Together, this suite of flow regime!provides a strong fo on for sustainability in the Sacramento Valley. The requirements?4pLta outflows and for ins$rn flows provide a baseline level of flows that are intended toitroA ry;i tic species even during dry years. Those baseline flows include higher levels of flow n ; p g months and so provide the variation in flows that fisheries biologists beh win "enee t -it healthy and sustainable fish populations. The environ ental enhancement fl" s provideg+ditional seasonal and inter-annual variability and should j$! €tally targeted to m .t specific fishery functional needs each year. Lastly, facilitating trans particularly to sa the co-equal goals of water supply reliability and envirog id sial rest's tion—will provide=additional flows and additional variability, which further ei anc xstainability of the system. 'fi7z, R Alita3. nznn 4 uatic Resour§cesk W l-"rkl 1r.e is general consensus, as reflected in reports by the Delta Stewardship Council and others thapgram to sustain salmon populations in the Bay-Delta watershed must address p-` `t. 't five stressors: (s) contaminab,,�oading, (ii) fisheries management(both harvest and hatcheries), (iii)flow manage!t,,*(iv)m agement of invasive species, and(v)the loss/alteration of physical habitat. This lan a ,,resses each of these stressors, as well as a number of other factors —most notably terrestriayurces—in order to improve water supply reliability and long-term environmental sustainability in the Sacramento Valley. a. Contaminant Loading. The Sacramento Valley is one of the major success stories in the control of agricultural herbicides/pesticides. Discharges from agricultural areas (mostly rice)have declined dramatically over the past twenty years. The Sacramento Valley has a large number of local groups that monitor water quality and are devoted to restoring local streams,reducing discharges, etc. These efforts —which include the Regional Board's irrigated lands program, programs to Page 4 of 10 1330900.1 DRAFT:August 14,2013 For discussion purposes only control urban stormwater, small community grant programs, and others-can and should continue. b. Fisheries Management, Flow Management and Habitat Enhancement. It is important to address these stressors in a holistic and ' tegrated fashion. There should be a coordinated operations plan for the mafem -:4acramento River that includes the following elements:' -471K v i. Enhancement of spawning gravels in the.ppper Sacramento River ii. Coordinated operation of Shasta reservoir with ran fal events so as to take advantage of naturally turbid con ions. iii. Coordinated operation of releases of salmon smolts from hcberies to "ride the wave"of turbid wale"m the system. 44civ. Release of short-duration `pulseowsassist in moving smolts through the system, together with the coorc'11, a 'losing of diversions in the Sacramento Valley and the closing o-ftl'te Delta Cross-Channel gates. v. Creation of floodplain habitat (e.g., in fh`_ :.olo Bypass),provided that measures are adon1ed to prevent salmon fro;. fraying into other areas. vi. Removal of predatfon ,` Qt spots"that have dis"tt ortionate effects on anadromous fish populate Removal of"hot spots"may involve physical reconfiguratian of WaelI ys,modification of mannas or other structures,modifying lumtatbns ontishg and/or take of predatory fish, as well as other measures ' c. Invaji$species f e chief invasive species that have adversely affected native species at,largemguth bass, striped bass,the Asian clam, and various plant species that�'eftangatei chemistry in the Delta and beyond. Often, as noted on page 156 of theaelta Platt, these;f3on-native species create conditions that are witor�e favorable foy er inevasiva species than for native species, thereby -demoting v ating the probl ;,The SWRCB must adopt, or cause its sister agencies to fiP adopt asures to controirese species and prevent new species from invading the Delta`( ,#g„removal of bag limits on bass or imposition of new restrictions on ballast water ' Nt The extent dithese meures could be vast,reaching from Keswick to the Delta and potentially costing millions of dollars each year. The Cooperating Parties lack such resources but do have expertise in ttideistanding our region and in understanding ways to accomplish these goals as affordably as possible. We look forward to an implementation plan that begins with pilot projects and then focuses on"scaling up"the successful pilot projects so that they can address problems on a watershed scale. The State of California-including not only the SWRCB, but also the Department of Fish&Wildlife and the Department of Water Resources-should be willing to partner with us in those efforts. The chief tributaries in the Sacramento Valley already have flow regimes that are specifically designed to promote salmon and that have been approved by state and/or federal regulatory agencies. As a result,this plan focuses on the Sacramento River mainstem. Page 5 of 10 1330800.1 DRAFT:August 14,2013 For discussion purposes only 4. Sustaining Recreation,Agriculture and Terrestrial Resources It is widely recognized that the Sacramento Valley contains i'que mosaic of farms, cities,wildlife habitat,hydropower facilities, and unparalleled recrx`i a a. opportunities. Water is the ingredient that ties the region together. Ensuring that thew t!z ii ento Valley is sustainable over the long-term requires that all of these beneficial uses bei®rote ed. Specifically: a. Agriculture and Wildlife Habitat One of the reasons that `:..cramento Valley continues to be a healthy ecosystem is kagriculture supports: at ecosystem and the ecosystem supports agncultr Mot obviously,rice proutc onsprovides food and habitat for overwinterin i4•terfowl,,making the Sacramento alley the most important wintering ground on 'acific _ ay. Information provided during the SWRCB's Fall 2012 worksho a..a -w®®it.nstr-ated the importance of the Pacific Flyway to the many avian public trek!, :sources and showed how wildlife- sensitive cultural practices have enabled the pop® ation of these species to rebound over the past m 4ecades. Indeed, the suaaful,efforts that have been made to benefit waterfo t t,i A. number of lessons'1Vceholders begin to mount a similar effort for " . a A'es. In these efforts, though, it will be important to develop projects at dorl leek to sacrifice avian species in the �F effort to assist aquatic species. �qy '":,Iii:- �. b. Munic ftl��trial. The Sacrain'e�nto Valley includes many small cities and the Sa'd ento 'C0 opolitan region. T , ether, these areas are re-envisioning water ni emen ,. the Central Valle, where climate and'the natural systems of water r . efficiency very great. Even with this efficiency, urbanwater a S.�4,te leaders in attempting to improve the 1 njunctive use o-a i dwater i d surface water, a practice that will be more �""l' ..0, it as Californi it§.to climate change. These efforts to provide water t suppl" a bility in an - �z'at`.nmentally sensitive manner serve as a good model �� �;_ for the a av efforts thatiwill be necessary as California seeks to implement the '..coequal goa°"5f water supply reliability and ecosystem restoration. ' rte t. c. Rereational a ! Hydropower Uses.The Sacramento Valley is the source of most of Cavia' .enewable hydropower. Water impounded in reservoirs for nonconsve power use also produces extraordinary recreational opportunities on those reYeervoirs. Summertime releases from those reservoirs then produce additional recreational activities on the Sacramento Valley's many rivers. 'It is important to note that these reservoirs provide a significant percentage of California's overall energy supply and that they do so in a way that has an extremely small carbon footprint. As the SWRCB considers long-term sustainability for the Sacramento Valley,protecting this type of sustainable energy production must be a key goal. Page 6 of 10 1330800.1 DRAFT:August 14,2013 For discussion purposes only d. Protecting Beneficial Uses. Not only has the SWRCB recognized all of these beneficial uses in the WQCP, the State of California has—for most of a century— recognized that the Sacramento Valley's water needs will grow and develop over time. This means, according to the SWRCB, "at limes when natural and abandoned flows are insufficient for all diversions, di-versions for export by the CVP and the SWP, including diversions to storagefgr'etport later in the year, must be curtailed before any diversions entitled tOT4Eitershed of origin [priority] are curtailed." Water Right Decision No. 1650'¶38 . 5. Adaptive Management Ory One of the lessons of the SWRCB's fall 2012 workshops is that itis essentia t]iat the WQCP have a robust program of adaptive management-and thQthis program be used to evaluate each and every measure included in the WQCP. Dave Vogel.has'neatly characterized the framework of an adaptive management plan in the attached gaphic. The Cooperating Parties believe that any adaptive management program should be base&pnaat least the following principles: a. Experimental Projects Showa Be hall. Large-scale, long-term experimental projects (like the Environmental Water .ccount or the VAMP) are difficult to assess. There are a very large nivbe&of potential-variables and those variables differ subftially from year to year. Thus, itryis very difficult (though not impossibtdevelop good comparisons that isolate key variables and so yield result?`tjlat have'% requisite scientific Igor. The lack of such rigor leads to controvers_wand pqalysis. b. Experimental P, eectfSha thetapttick. Some results show up immediately and one require a peri0ctof several y ars (e.g., it may take several return periods of three,Ryears in order todetermine whether a measure intended to promote salmon recovei$is,yreally workirial However, as mentioned above, long term experime'n' rojects are difficult to evaluate but yet can be very valuable. Thus, we should eri4age in such experimental projects but also ensure that our evaluation meliteds are up to the task. rari C. Monzto zng Is Critical. Up until recent years, fisheries biologists evaluated the results of experiments by doing coded wire tag(CWT) studies, where tagged fish are released''into the wild and then recovered. More recently,biologists have been using acoustic tracking to achieve the same result. Unfortunately, the acoustic transmitters used do not allow a biologist easily to distinguish between a fish that is alive and a fish that has been eaten and whose acoustic transmitter is now inside a predator. Fisheries biologists are now working on ways to identify fish that have been eaten, but this problem illustrates the need for intensive monitoring— and monitoring that can be trusted to provide accurate data—of the results of experiments. It also counsels for an awareness of what can go wrong in a complex ecosystem. 1330800.1 Page 7 of 10 DRAFT:August 14,2013 For discussion purposes only d. Hypothesis Testing. It seems elementary;but still relatively few adaptive management programs explicitly use the structure of developing'a hypothesis and then testing the hypothesis under conditions•where the experiment can yield results that might directly lead to the revision of the , .'thesis. e. Practical Cooperation. In designing experim`c_rWi,.'ects, any interested party should be able to propose a project, with imp u5 en lte j.being based on the scientific promise of the project and the ability imple"6 t. that project given practical constraints (e.g., funding, permitting, etc:). °,,3, fiftL 6. The Program of Implementation Tai- '$ a Mandate to Sister State Agencies _W Under the terms of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality 1 el Act, as interpreted by Justice Robie in the SWRCB Cases, a%iva tej;quality control plan m j,.e a program of implementation that will ensure that the i ata¢gpwality objectives the ` CB has determined are necessary to protect beneficial uses are me A41st,the program/of implementation has largely focused on mandating additional flog w'ij;a'q e scussion above shows are not reasonable or necessary—and given less attentm%. o-the ' i ii proved management, habitat restoration,etc. To the e nt that the program divaplemen ;Ii on has addressed these needs, it has recommended theiet*h agencies be requested to take actions,but has not monitored implementation or sought to fo 1 hose agencies to ttceotctions. The SWRCB shoultitse is ority under Water Code section 13165, as needed and appropriate,to require that smsi&ate a ies-. . the needed scientific or technical expertise conduct A.,,,aeesrthat advance the o' tetives o flme WQCP. In addition,Water Code section 13247fialeaa des: "State gibewlepartments, and boards, in carrying out activities whicl,It.y affect wat *,o ality, shall comply with water quality control plans approved or adopt 6 .e state boafr ntless otherwise directed or authorized by statute, in which case they shall mdic e the regionah Bards in writing their authority for not complying with such plans." Thus,the SWIR can and should enforce provisions in the program of implementation that it believes are needed49 yreservefeneficial uses. The Cooperating Parties provide additional details on how the SWICB tai accomplish this task in the proposed Program of Implementation ye accompanying this plan.` b. Early Implementation Actions All of the projects proposed by the Cooperating Parties could begin as early as mid-2014, provided that the state and federal agencies responsible for permitting such projects are willing to issue permits in a timely fashion. The Cooperating Parties have developed a matrix (attached) 2 136 Cal.App.4t 674,726,730(2006). Page 8of10 133060.1 DRAFT:August 14,2013 For discussion purposes only that describes the general contours of these early implementation projects. Further refinement and approval by governing boards will be required, but the Cooperating Parties believe that these tasks can be accomplished by early 2014, with subsequent formal consideration of this plan by the SWRCB by mid-2014. In this way, the SWRCB could meet the mid-2014 deadline recommended by the Delta Plan for the SWRCB to complete the current update the Bay-Delta ""- WQCP. Because these measures would be accomplished on a vol}uit"uy-..basis by better coordinating/using existing resources, there would be no need f 'i$water right hearing. Instead, sial � all parties could focus on implementing measures that are generally ected to benefit to the environment and testing the hypotheses on which those actronsaare b eat. One essential element of the early implements ipp.projects (as well a#° Jr;, long-term 1� g implementation plan)must be regular reporting of successes and failures, for orily` roug,h that type of a program can there be the type of nimble,adaptive management needed for se-�iiecess. The Cooperating Parties propose that they and other par'tiieS mvolved.in implementing projects approved under the auspices of the WQCP will report annua Veltthe status of each project. Such annual reporting will allow the SWRCB to hold a hea"rttrg,to consider those annual reports approximately 45 days after the annual report is due. During t1iaj nnual review, the SWRCB will be able to assess progress,help th�arties modify the projectkp achieve the parties' goals a and otherwise ensure that the entire suite l2 prglects is serving to co fil to to the implementation of the coequal goals and applleatkewater quality objectives. i& baa s c. Relationship to BDCP -tiea The program of pIme ntation is intended o be consistent with the terms of the current Biological Opinions adgpted under provisions of the'fedefal Endangered Species Act as well as the Bay-Delta Cons to Plan%e`BDCP), if that plan is approved. The BDCP will focus on flows and habitat restoratrobp the.Delta, this sustainability plan focuses on efforts in the Sacramento Valley that will not= ve anadwgerrskMffect on the Delta and may, in fact, assist in the restoration o ;fisheries and habitat in the Delta.'Together, these two plans can provide the SWRCB withtcomprehensive upda e,,of the Bay-Delta WQCP (see attached graphic). 3 d Long TaWQCPDevelopmentProcess 7L3'. . The f24012 workshos served as a very important milestone in the SWRCB's implementation dfItlie triennial eview process required under the federal Clean Water Act. Despite all of the many 4isagreements among expert witnesses, the invited science panel for the third workshop—led byDr lay Lund of U.C. Davis—was quite optimistic about the ability of scientists and modelers to-Pork together to develop measures that are based on scientific consensus rather than the views of one or two individuals. That message was reiterated in the testimony of Walter Bourez on behalf of the SVWU. In pointing out the complicated relationships among the many models needed to evaluate a policy proposal, Mr. Bourez noted that—notwithstanding policy, legal and political differences—the modeling community generally works well together to ensure that the technical work that must be the basis of any future WQCP is well done. Accordingly, the SWRCB should structure its long-term WQCP development process around the type of collaboration that Dr. Lund and Mr. Bourez described in Page 9 of 10 1330800.1 DRAFT:August 14,2013 For discussion purposes only Workshop 3. The first update of the WQCP would occur in 2017 (assuming adoption of a new WQCP in 2014) and should continue every three years thereafter. It is important to note that a"triennial review"need not mean that the SWRCB begins with a clean sheet of paper to draft an entirely new WQCP. Instead,-I! 'erinial review should mean that the SWRCB considers events of the past three years (wod't ` ,' I be facilitated by means of the annual review process proposed in the Program o •. . ementation-accompanying this plan) and then determines what,if any, changes to the W 1_; P .."o i t be needed. In most cases—particularly given the three-year return periods for salmon, the` eQ.erating Parties expect that there will be minor modifications of projects/measures that . cur during the annual review process and that the triennial review pr rvs will largely endorsose mid-course corrections. t. :. To the extent that more significant changes •e wa ted in the WQCP,the process outlined by Mr. Bourez and Dr. Lund has great merit. a=t® s-.eg d, there will need to be a cooperative effort to model the Bay-Delta Estuary, as weltematives to the then-current WQCP in terms of water supplies/water quality. That processely-based on past experience —to take at least a year. Upon compleo s of that modeling effort``tier experts will need to weigh in: fisheries experts, avian exp ;. ower and recreatio "erts, etc. For such a plan to be based on the best available scieiP.F- u a!•.tion, at least as regards salmonids, then the data will need to reflect two complete re- a per%aya� ®r at least six to eight years of recent data. Completion of the modeling needed for me Willalrearepare a"state of the art" environmental document is thus likely to take twn.r three yes's. The SWRCB would also then need to complete the ap$S'- environmental doocnment before being able to adopt an updated WQCP. Lastly, the a g term ' `@ CP plan update promo should be coordinated with the more intensive review ofth't cramenl®'ValleyProgram omplementation, which calls for intensive reviews every eight years, . ed ® o 9 o full cycles of salmon returns. In these ways,the SWRCB can ensure that the vrOCP is ' • ..to-,late and is always based on the best available scientific information. z #tom` " R .e 1 y1 Y §4e5'i _Ty b_!IEnak V' Page 10 of 10 1330800.1 RESPONDING TO THE BAY-DELTA CONSERVATION PLAN (BDCP) A Unified Sacramento Valley Response As we prepare for the release of the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) and the associated environmental documents, we propose the following unified and coordinated response strategy for water in the Sacramento Valley. I. Timing We will be prepared at rollout to: 1) present a broad policy statement (similar to our July 25, 2012 statement); 2) have a briefing packet for legislators and state and federal agencies regarding our position on the BDCP, and 3) be prepared to brief the public, local elected officials,the business community and other affected groups within our region. We will submit detailed comments within 120 days as part of the formal comment period. II. Guiding Principles Our statements and comments will: • Focus on water rights and supplies. We will leave land use issues to others (possibly incorporating by reference certain salient County comments on land use). We will defer flood issues to the Central Valley Flood Protection Association and individual jurisdictions. • Serve multiple purposes, including: 1) providing the basis for our discussions in the political and legislative arenas, 2) building the administrative record for any necessary legal proceedings, and 3) supporting a compelling narrative as part of our communications strategy. • Anticipate and assume that these documents may inform our actions on related processes that are important to the Sacramento Valley:the SWRCB Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan, biological opinions, Delta Plan etc. • Form the basis for our actions on water rights change petition(s) for the BDCP (i.e., Water Code 85086). • Present a broad Sacramento Valley perspective. We will explore opportunities to proceed as the North State Water Alliance where there are common issues. 1 • Support comments from subsets of participants and comments from individual agencies, organizations, or individuals. • Recognize alliances with other upstream water users and water rights holders when appropriate, such as modeling with upstream water users. • Follow the NCWA Bay-Delta Policy adopted on July 15, 2013 (which reaffirmed the earlier 2006 policy) and RWA Bay-Delta Policy (September 5, 2012). Ill. Policy Measures In our comments at the broadest level, we will measure the project against four policy pillars affecting the Sacramento Valley: regional self-sufficiency; water rights and area of origin; no- redirected impacts; and the co-equal goals.The Legislature in the 2009 Delta Reform Act expressly recognized the unique nature of areas upstream of the Delta and its provisions are tailored for water management in areas upstream of the Bay-Delta. This includes: • Regional sustainability:The state policy on regional sustainability in Water Code §85021 calls for"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." Conversely, any Delta solutions should not interfere with upstream efforts to maintain or promote regional water sustainability and self-sufficiency. • Water rights protections:The Legislature expressly recognized that water rights and area of origin provisions in the Sacramento River watershed shall not be impaired or diminished as a result of any program or project in the Bay-Delta (Water Code §85031). Water right priorities and area-of-origin assurances must be recognized and protected to ensure reliable supplies for all water uses and needs in our region. Importantly,these assurances provide our communities the right to use our local water sources to meet both present and future needs in the region. • No redirected impacts: The Governor, Secretary of Interior and policy leaders in the BDCP process have emphasized that the BDCP will not redirect any impacts to areas upstream of the Delta. Water supply, economic, environmental, and other impacts must not occur in the Sacramento Valley, as the region receives no direct benefit from the BDCP. 2 • Coequal goals:The state's co-equal goals call for "providing a more reliable water supply for California." (Water Code §85054.)This includes areas in the North State upstream of the Bay-Delta, where water supply entities will provide more reliable water supplies for the region through the types of projects described above. More specifically,this includes more reliable water supplies for all beneficial uses, including cities and rural communities, farms, refuges and managed wetlands, recreation and the meandering rivers that support fisheries and aquatic habitat. IV. Scope of Comments The comments will focus on the importance of the agencies and PRE's to internalize all elements of the project as part of the HCP, NCCP and related processes, including the various permits. More specifically, comments will focus on the following areas: A. Flows A primary focus of the comments will be related to flows, as any changed flow requirements may impose additional curtailments in Sacramento Valley water rights and supplies. We will start with the Governor's commitment on July 25, 2012, which provided: State and U.S. governments will make sure implementation of BDCP will not result in adverse effects on the water rights of those in the watershed of the Delta, nor will it impose any obligations on water users upstream of the Delta to supplement flows in and through the Delta." We will also refer to the various commitments in the correspondence with the Resources Agency, SWRCB etc. Additional discussion of flow-related components of the BDCP is included at the end of this document. B. Operations Our analysis of the BDCP and comments will seek to ensure that operational changes to CVP and the SWP facilities incorporated into the BDCP do not reduce the reliability of water supplies of Sacramento Valley water users. C. Biological Impacts Our analysis and comments will identify impacts on fisheries of the Sacramento River and tributaries as well as wildlife, especially waterfowl, in the Sacramento Valley. 3 D. Finance Plan We will seek the appropriate assurances that the BDCP and related processes fully allocate all costs to the PRE's and do not impose or expect fees on parties outside the BDCP to pay for the implementation of the BDCP. The direct beneficiaries of the BDCP (coupled with any available public funds) are obligated to pay for all the costs associated with the actions and the related conservation and mitigation measures under the BDCP. Further, we will seek to ensure that the allocation of state and federal funding for Delta restoration does not reduce opportunities for environmental improvements in the Sacramento Valley. E. Governance We will review Chapter 7, in the context of the Delta Reform Act and the other regulatory processes. V. Approach To respond to the BDCP and EIR, we propose to continue and potentially expand the collaborative efforts to date among Sacramento Valley Water Users. In addition to responding to the EIR,technical analyses will be conducted with a focus on providing a factual and legal basis for a possible protest to the SWRCB on change petition(s)to implement the BDCP (and possibly a consolidated place of use).This will focus on injury to water right holders and fish and wildlife in the Sacramento Valley and seek assurances that all bypass flow requirements are met by the permittees. Jointly conducted technical efforts are proposed as follows: A. Hydrologic modeling— Evaluation of the previously released and any refined CalSim modeling supporting the BDCP and EIR. B. Biological analysis-- Review of biological analysis in BDCP and its EIR/EIS, and preparation of comments. C. Migratory bird impacts—Evaluation of effects of BDCP on migratory birds that use Sac Valley refuges and rice fields for habitat and making any necessary comments. D. Pelagic fisheries and Delta flows—Updating work developed for the SWRCB workshops as applicable to BDCP. More detailed analysis on the above topics and others may be conducted by specific sub-groups or individual entities. 4 Attachment 1 Scope of Analysis and Comment on Flow-Related Components of the BDCP Flow Components: With respect to the specific flow paths contemplated in the BDCP and its decision tree process, we will analyze and comment on the following flow components and their associated operations. There will be a focus on the science surrounding these decisions. • Spring X2 outflow. These flows are largely designed for longfin smelt during March through May.The initial proposal suggests that an average annual 500,000af of water may be required at some point in the future, ranging from 700,000af in wet years to 50,000af in critically dry years.The federal fish agencies in April 2013 and July 2013 provided additional comments on the BDCP that advocate for more aggressive flows during these times. • Fall X2 outflow. There is serious discussion around an additional fall flow and whether it is supported by good science.The Fall X2 requirement is in the current BiOps. NCWA commented on Fall X2 in our April 25, 2011 letter to the U.S. EPA. In the letter,we referred to studies that question the nature of the relationship between fall X2 and delta smelt abundance and we urged USEPA to work with scientists to better evaluate the relationship, if any, between Delta outflow and delta smelt abundance before proposing any fall X2 measure." The federal fish agencies in April 2013 and July 2013 provided additional comments on the BDCP that advocate for more aggressive flows during these times. • Yolo Bypass fishery enhancement. Conservation Measure 2 is intended to "improve upstream and downstream fish passage, reduce straying and stranding of native fish, increase availability of floodplain fish rearing and spawning habitat, and stimulate the food web in the Yolo Bypass and to investigate the potential for food web export from the Yolo Bypass to the Delta." The Yolo Bypass Fish Enhancement Program (YBFEP) is also part of the BiOps and is being evaluated under a separate EIS. The RPA's for the 2009 Salmon BiOp called for "increased seasonal floodplain inundation in the lower Sacramento River Basin" and "improve fish passage throughout the Yolo Bypass." (1.6.1, 1.7.) 5 • North Delta Water Agency Contract. It important to the entire Sacramento Valley that DWR honors and fully implements the requirements under this contract. Our comments will seek continuing assurances in this regard. • Old and Middle River(OMR). This does not appear to affect Sacramento Valley water operations, but we should confirm this and make sure there is no impact.There also may be benefits to the projects that could be attained in modifying these measures. 6