Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNorthern California Water Association Board of Director's Meeting 031914 Downey Brand Pt. 1pmEK \ \// 04§\ 0 \ w Em§ a \ #% e ) . y § \ ( ) 79 }\ /( EK }f S} \\ } 7 G! ƒ \\ z}/ .i. BUTTE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION E OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA Northern California Water Association _ ��• �,,.�.� saw Board of }Directors 1Vleetirig -.i n nn A ,uuwriuy JDruiiu= . a .... , a� NCWA Board of Directors Meeting Agenda Wednesday, March 19, 2014 12:00pm to 3:00pm Downey Brand 621 Capitol Mall, 18`h Floor Sacramento, CA (916) 444 -1000 I. Call meeting to order. Administrative Matters. II. Consent Items Pg. 1 A. Approval for the January Board meeting minutes. (Board Action) B. Approval of December and January Financial Statements. (Board Action) III. 2012 Audit. Reports: IV. Board Elections Update. Pg. 19 V. Water Leaders Update. VI. Farm Bureau Update. VII. Western Growers Update. VIII. Annual Meeting Recap. Policy Issues: Updates IX. Dry Year. Pg. 21 X. Water Bond. Pg. 63 XI. Water Quality. Pg. 77 XII. Sites Reservoir. XIII. Communications. Pg. 89 XIV. Executive Session. XV. Adjourn Meeting. The next Board Meeting will be held on May 21, 2014. The location will be announced prior to the meeting. If you are unable to attend the Board meeting, please request your alternate director to attend. Minutes Northern California Water Association Board of Directors Meeting January 15, 2014 I. Call to Order — The meeting of the Northern California Water Association Board of Directors was called to order at 12:10 p.m. on January 15, 2014, by Chairman Bryce Lundberg at the Yuba County Water Agency in Marysville, California. Directors Present Tib Belza Yuba County Water Agency Steve Butler Sutter Mutual Water District Roger Cornwell Reclamation District 108 Roger Dorris John Garner Bryce Lundberg Supervisor Leonard Moty Tom Ramos Ron Tadlock Walter Trevethan Bob Winchester Carl Yank At Montna Directors Absent Steve Danna Jim Edwards Nicole Montna Van Vleck Supervisor Bob Williams Others Present Assemblyman Dan Logue Jenny Cavaliere Amy Brown Dominic DiMare Staff Present David Guy Todd Manley Bruce Houdesheldt Ida Noey Hershey Land Company Princeton - Codora -Glenn Irrigation District Western Canal Water District Shasta County Natomas Mutual Water Company Yolo County Flood Control &WCD South Sutter Water District Browns Valley Water District Joint Water Districts Garden Highway Mutual Water Company Feather Water District Groundwater Garden Highway Mutual Water Company Tehama County California State Assembly Oregon House Farms DiMare, Brown, Hicks & Kessler DiMare, Brown, Hicks & Kessler President Director of Government Relations Director of Regulatory Affairs Administrator NCWA Board of Directors Meeting Minutes January 15, 2014 Page 2 Assemblyman Dan Logue discussed his proposed Water Bond legislation with the Board. II. Consent Items A. The Board reviewed the November Board meeting minutes and the August, September and October Financial Statements. The Board of Directors approved the minutes. Motion: Director Moty. Second: Director Butler. Unanimous approval. III. NCWA Board Elections — Mr. Guy presented the results from the Board elections. He encouraged the Board to help fill the vacant spots for alternate directors. IV. 2014 Officers -- Director Yank, on behalf of the Nominations Committee announced the slate of officers and Executive Committee for 2014: Chair - I" Vice Chair 2nd Vice Chair Secretary /Treasurer Past Chair Past Chair At Large At Large At Large Bryce Lundberg Steve Butler Roger Cornwell John Gamer Steve Danna Tib Belza Ron Tadlock Nicole Van Vleck Walter Trevethan Chairman Lundberg also reviewed the Committee list with the Board. He proposed adding Anjanette Shadley Martin as Vice - Chairman of the Communications Committee. The Board of Directors approved the 2014 Officers and Executive Committee members as recommended by the Nomination Committee. The Committee list was also approved. Motion: Director Garner. Second: Director Moty. Unanimous approval. V. Water Leaders — Mr. Guy reviewed the nominations for the Water Leaders class and the schedule. . VI. Annual Meeting Update — Mr. Guy discussed the progress on the Annual Meeting schedule. Mark Cowin has confirmed as a speaker. A. Will S. Green Award - The Board reviewed the nominations for the 2014 Will S. Green award. Nominations were submitted by NCWA members and other agencies in the Sacramento Valley. Ballots were handed out and collected by the Administrator. After votes were counted, it was announced that Fran Silva is the recipient of the 2014 Will S. Green award. 2 NCWA Board of Directors Meeting Minutes January 15, 2014 Page 3 B. Innovative Water Management Award — Mr. Guy and the Board discussed numerous potential recipients for the 2014 Innovative Management award. The Board discussed awarding Walter Cotter the Innovative Water Management Award. The Board of Directors approved awarding the Innovative Water Management Award to Walter Cotter. Motion: Director Garner. Second: Director Belza. Unanimous approval. VII. Dry Year Update — Mr. Guy discussed the probability of Governor Brown declaring a drought emergency and the impact it would have on the Sacramento Valley. He also discussed other drought issues facing the Sacramento Valley. VIII. 2014 Goals —President Guy presented to the Board his initial 2014 goals and priorities. The Board discussed each action item and directed Mr. Guy to move forward with each item as proposed. IX. Legislate Preview — Ms. Brown and Mr. DiMare updated the Board on the legislative landscape. X. Communications Report — Ms. Noey provided an update on the communications program and reminded the Board to continue to submit content for the social media pages. XI. Executive Session — Executive Session was not called. XII. Adjourn Meeting — Chairman Lundberg adjourned the meeting at 3:05 p.m. President 5 Northern California Water Association Statement of Activities Unaudited for the Month of December 2013 December Year -To -Date 2013 Year to Date 2013 Total Budget % of Annual Revenue 129,500 100% 1,016 11,792 Membership Dues $ - $ 1,080,803 1,062,410 102% County Dues - 17,500 20,000 88% Associate Dues - 22,000 27,000 81% Interest Revenue 19 500 4% Reimbursements /Other Income - 126,000 122,000 103% Total Revenue - 1,246,321 1,231,910 101% Expenditures Staff Maintenance 54,646 625,067 677,274 92% External Legislative Legal Communications Fisheries Biologist Special Projects Internal 18,686 129,799 129,500 100% 1,016 11,792 40,000 29% 7,345 54,433 84,000 65% - 10,410 30,000 35% 13,031 22,000 59% Office Lease 4,346 52,231 52,000 100% Office Equipment - Leased 1,931 22,911 18,800 122% Office Equipment - Owned 576 8,565 4,000 214% Office Supplies/Postage 1,496 12,395 16,000 77% Telecommunications 1,044 14,668 17,500 84% Publications & Subscriptions 49 1,233 1,200 103% Membership Dues 629 3,962 4,000 99% Insurance 618 6,738 8,000 84% Administrative Legal & Accounting 6,869 18,291 17,500 105% Vehicle Expense 1,782 25,137 28,000 90% Seminars & Training (Staff) - 94 1,000 9% Conference, Travel & Meeting Expense 6,419 26,345 34,000 77% Total Expenditures 107,453 1,037,099 1,184,774 88% Net Income $ 209,223 $ 47,136 (1) (2) 2013 P &LA-1 D=mba espenva should beat 100 %oftmal expendimoss. 31122014 N Northern California Water Association Notes for Statement of Activities For Month Ended December 31, 2013 1) Office Equipment - Leased — NCWA is over budget in this category due to overage costs on color copies. 2) Minor Office Expense - Owned — NCWA is over budget in this category due to the purchase of a new phone system. The previous system was outdated and no longer functioned properly. Northern California Water Association Statement of Activities Unaudited for the Month of December 2013 Special Projects December Year -to -Date 2013 Total Bay -Delta Joint Agreement $ - $ Federal Fish Screen Funding - Ferguson Group 5,593 50,791 IRWMP Implementation Grant - - Proposition 204 Funding - - OCAP Litigation Funding 93,464 109,475 Total Revenue 5,593 160,265 Expenditures Bay -Delta Joint Agreement $ 23,397 $ 23,397 Federal Fish Screen Funding - Ferguson Group 4,997 50,791 IRWMP Implementation Grant - - Proposition 204 Expense 6,649 6,649 OCAP Litigation Expense - 116,614 Total Expenditures 6,649 197,452 Year to Date Income over Expenses $ (37,186) 2013 P &L Special 3/12,_014 Fixed Assets Northern California Water Association Furniture Statement of Financial Position Equipment Unaudited as of December 31, 2013 Assets 35,976 Current Assets (90,008). Checking $ 16,697 General Fund Market Rate Account (MRA) 1,871 High Yield Savings (Reserve account) 30,987 Bay/Delta Account _ Accounts Receivable - 1,859,081 Prepaid Insurance 5,387 Payroll Refund 1,544 Prepaid Rent (2,970) Prepaid Accounting Expense 3,430 Prepaid Lobby Expense _ Prepaid Subscriptions 130 Prepaid Membership Dues 876 Prepaid Postage 75 Prepaid Misc. Expense 3,607 Total Current Assets $ 1,920,717 Fixed Assets Furniture 20,143 Equipment 64,806 Vehicle 35,976 Accumulated Depreciation (90,008). Total Fixed Assets 30,916 Total Assets 1,951,633 Liabilities & Equity Current Liabilities Accounts Payable $ 1,350,581 Pensions Payable 10,064 Unearned Revenue - Dues (1,500) Accrued Vacation 14,899 Workers' Comp Accrual _ Total Short-Term Liabilities $ 1,374,045 Long -Term Liabilities Copier - Note Payable 5,583 Vehicle - Note Payable 6,337 Total Long -Term Liabilities 11,920 Equity Retained Earnings 415,685 Net Income 149,984 Total Equity 565,669 Total Liabilities & Equity 1,951,633 2013 Bai n¢shm 3nz/2014 H c 0 o O Q � N i ^ 3 � a G ti y � Q O L N z m A cm- h N M W eH O 'd Q � O M N M M p M ti N ti O C G d [V 1n M a0 d� W N ❑ � q Q rl N q M M M M M M ti H N '+ ey ti m A cm- h N M W eH O 'd Q � b N ti N H N N N N m Q Fmi W .R-..R A .m-. W .m-, .m-, O b O ' Q � M v N Q O w E d m F EO Q _m u N N N H N N S O V� [� �D T W N r+ N W n If1 M N l6 W Oe N r-i I -Z L w M O P A C ti M N � 1n p p In O N N t7 N N N O w 1° Od M N b O ui Ll� ^ N O L tl � h O N H n M N CCVI .O N tM O O� O O e W -Z L6 CI L � Ll� T N V E R a 3 3 L N u ^ F O O jp p E 3� A s s M M ti ti ti n T O M S CV O N� O w 00 M M M M M M M M M M eX M H N H ti H H H N ey [V to eT' O� � O 0 6 C! OJ O w L� M W aT In M N ems+\ -Z D c7 H N r+ N N t� 16 16 C N c-i _,z N N r h Cr N c N h O v i a 3 3 v x N q C•' A F m C G O >, v TJ � N W 0 O M N M M p M ti N ti O C Lh [V 1n M a0 d� N b N ti N H N N N N m Q Fmi W .R-..R A .m-. W .m-, .m-, O b O ' Q � M v N Q O w E d m F EO Q _m u N N N H N N S O V� [� �D T W N r+ N W n If1 M N l6 W Oe N r-i I -Z L w M O P A C ti M N � 1n p p In O N N t7 N N N O w 1° Od M N b O ui Ll� ^ N O L tl � h O N H n M N CCVI .O N tM O O� O O e W -Z L6 CI L � Ll� T N V E R a 3 3 L N u ^ F O O jp p E 3� A s s M M ti ti ti n T O M S CV O N� O w 00 M M M M M M M M M M eX M H N H ti H H H N ey [V to eT' O� � O 0 6 C! OJ O w L� M W aT In M N ems+\ -Z D c7 H N r+ N N t� 16 16 C N c-i _,z N N r h Cr N c N h O v i a 3 3 v x N q C•' A F m C G O >, v TJ � N W 0 M H N v O M O O w W w w m O L � W N M MMM (�� N M N O M M H W ON H M N� n M eM L� w L. IA Im V] NMN N M N O tM N N O N O O w C w w N O t° l(1 IIJ M N M N O N Ch w T C5 H O Ll: [< N M M M C' M 0 0 0 0 0 0 If) N M In O O N b ri b.6 H NIs H16 uI M O] v1 L� w N w O U m T 3 4 m F y c U ❑ c: rn m t A So t ~s M H N v O M O O w W w w m O L � W N M MMM (�� N M N O M M H W ON H M N� n M eM L� w L. IA Im V] NMN N M N O tM N N O N O O w C w w N O t° l(1 IIJ M N M N O N Ch w T C5 H O Ll: [< N M M M C' M 0 0 0 0 0 0 If) N M In O O N b ri b.6 H NIs H16 uI M O] v1 L� w N w O U m T 3 4 m F y c U ❑ c: rn m t A C O a O u Iii O M N � N U R G M U a y, �C d �? COII v y O � N z r r m m O O O W b ON N O � O 4 O lO Lq O cppcs� e� N N C O H M m[ �Ory W 9 9 16 ti N O T li m '+ cp N n N n T n O O O �-i ri vi N v1 O m m � N O m O w b ry N t= O ( m � O x L2 0 n m m (� N W P n W O ��ll tX O N 0 9 n b W M P �fi L6 G C G G G G C C G G C m G G G m m o 0 0 0 0 yO� �O ti t(1 O h O m W m O G W O C+ N N W m' vim' �[ 1 f C m M m m m N O O oO pO �.Wpp O N O O T tri N L6 ri N o P ° 00 000 R o °o, O , M C N N N C N N H m to A b O N O p W n O p O ([[[yyy 2 ti O h N 00 O g O N0 T N 4 C N n R n 4 2, O m y 4 a O Nm n T m 16 e z -Z 16 r 14 tl� N L6 16 r4 Ki - -Z Z O p 0 o U $ o m � t t O A O C n roo U F q vi m G n F V w C C W v lam` q C C y G C C C U C G N W T •� '� O 'O 'G N U' '.1 '.� 6 C o a m ci v ri N 10 nm SR Northern California Water Association 2013 Associate / Affiliate Membership Dues Log As of December 31, 2013 11 Associate Amount Amount Date Memberships Billed Paid Paid 1 Associated Rice Marketing Cooperative 500.00 500.00 Feb -13 2 AVAG, Inc. 500.00 500.00 Feb -13 3 Bartkiewicz, Kronick & Shanahan 1,000.00 1,000.00 Feb -13 4 Buchalter Nemer 500.00 500.00 Sep -13 5 Butte County Rice Growers Association 1,000.00 1,000.00 Feb -13 6 California Family Foods/Myers & Charter Inc. 500.00 250.00 Feb -13 7 California Water Service Company 500.00 500.00 May -13 8 Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. 500.00 9 Cardno Entrix * *new ** 500.00 500.00 Apr -13 10 CH2M Hill 500.00 500.00 Aug -13 11 City of Yuba City 1,000.00 1,000.00 Aug -13 12 Colusa County Farm Supply 500.00 500.00 Feb -13 13 Davids Engineering, Inc. 500.00 500.00 Feb -13 14 DePue Warehouse Co. 500.00 500.00 Feb -13 15 Downey Brand 1,000.00 1,000.00 Mar -13 16 Ellison Schneider & Harris, LLP 500.00 500.00 Mar -13 17 Environmental Science Associates 500.00 18 Farm Credit Services of Colusa- Glenn, ACA 500.00 500.00 Feb -13 19 Farm Credit West 500.00 500.00 Feb -13 20 Farmers' Rice Cooperative 1,000.00 1,000.00 Feb -13 21 GEI Consultants, Inc. 1,000.00 1,000.00 Feb -13 22 MBK Engineers 500.00 500.00 Feb -13 23 Mead & Hunt, Inc. 500.00 500.00 Jul -13 24 Minasian Law Firm 500.00 500.00 Feb -13 25 Montgomery Watson Harza 500.00 500.00 Apr -13 26 North Valley Building Systems * *dropped ** - 27 Northern California Farm Credit 500.00 500.00 Jul -13 28 Pacific International Rice Mills 500.00 500.00 Mar -13 29 PG & E 1,000.00 30 Ray Toney & Associates * *dropped ** - 31 Reading Oil, Inc. /Superior Tire Co. 500.00 500.00 Feb -13 32 Rio Alto Water District 500.00 500.00 Apr -13 33 Sacramento Valley Landowners Assn. 500.00 500.00 Mar -13 34 Somach Simmons & Dunn 1,000.00 1,000.00 Feb -13 35 Syblon Reid 500.00 500.00 Apr -13 36 The Ferguson Group 500.00 500.00 Feb -13 37 Tully & Young 500.00 500.00 Feb -13 Total $ 21,500.00 $ 19,250.00 2013A octe Members 3/12/2014 12 Northern California Water Association Statement of Activities Unaudited for the Month of January 2014 January Year -To -Date 2014 Total 2014 Year to Date Budget % of Annual Revenue 10,667 10,667 129,500 8% Legal 1,777 1,777 40,000 Membership Dues $ 554,561 $ 554,561 1,075,403 52% County Dues 20,000 20,000 20,000 100% Associate Dues 24,000 24,000 27,000 89% Interest Revenue 3 3 500 1% Reimbursements /Other Income - - 122,000 0% Total Revenue 598,564 598,564 1,244,903 48% Expenditures Staff Maintenance 52,825 52,825 697,260 8% External Legislative 10,667 10,667 129,500 8% Legal 1,777 1,777 40,000 4% Communications 10,834 10,834 104,000 10% Fisheries Biologist - - 30,000 0% Special Projects 40,143 0% Internal Office Lease 4,346 4,346 54,000 8% Office Equipment - Leased 1,453 1,453 18,800 8% Office Equipment - Owned 2,052 2,052 4,000 51% Office Supplies /Postage 281 281 16,000 2% Telecommunications 1,654 1,654 17,500 9% Publications & Subscriptions 113 113 1,200 9% Membership Dues 346 346 4,000 9% Insurance 648 648 8,000 8% Administrative Legal & Accounting 810 810 17,500 5% Vehicle Expense 2,892 2,892 28,000 10% Seminars & Training (Staff) - - 1,000 0% Conference, Travel & Meeting Expense 5,465 5,465 34,000 16% Total Expenditures 96,164 96,164 1,244,903 8% Net Income $ 502,400 $ - (1) January expenses should be at 8% of total expenditures. 3/1212084 13 Northern California Water Association Notes for Statement of Activities For Month Ended January 31, 2014 1) Minor Office Expense - Owned — NCWA is over budget in this category due to the purchase of a new computer. Northern California Water Association Statement of Activities Unaudited for the Month of January 2014 Special Projects 14 Expenditures Bay -Delta Joint Agreement - - Federal Fish Screen Funding - Ferguson Group 4,000 4,000 IRWMP Implementation Grant - - Proposition 204 Expense - - OCAP Litigation Expense 656 656 Total Expenditures 4,656 4,656 Year to Date Income over Expenses S (656) 2014 P &L SpxW 3/130014 January Year -to -Date 2014 Total Revenue Bay -Delta Joint Agreement Federal Fish Screen Funding - Ferguson Group 4,000 4,000 IRWMP Implementation Grant - - Proposition 204 Funding OCAP Litigation Funding - - Total Revenue 4,000 4,000 Expenditures Bay -Delta Joint Agreement - - Federal Fish Screen Funding - Ferguson Group 4,000 4,000 IRWMP Implementation Grant - - Proposition 204 Expense - - OCAP Litigation Expense 656 656 Total Expenditures 4,656 4,656 Year to Date Income over Expenses S (656) 2014 P &L SpxW 3/130014 Northern California Water Association Statement of Financial Position Unaudited as of January 31, 2014 Assets Current Assets Checking General Fund Market Rate Account (MRA) High Yield Savings (Reserve account) Bay/Delta Account Accounts Receivable Prepaid Insurance Payroll Refund Prepaid Rent Prepaid Accounting Expense Prepaid Lobby Expense Prepaid Subscriptions Prepaid Membership Dues Prepaid Postage Prepaid Misc. Expense Total Current Assets Fixed Assets Furniture Equipment Vehicle Accumulated Depreciation Total Fixed Assets Total Assets Liabilities & Equity Current Liabilities Accounts Payable Pensions Payable Unearned Revenue - Dues Accrued Vacation Workers' Comp Accrual Total Short -Term Liabilities Long -Term Liabilities Copier - Note Payable Vehicle - Note Payable Total Long -Term Liabilities Equity Retained Earnings Net Income Total Equity Total Liabilities & Equity $ 190,566 1,871 30,990 1,328,324 5,009 1,544 (2,970) 3,430 130 812 325 3,607 $ 1,563,638 20,143 64,806 35,976 (90,008) 30,916 1,594,554 $ 522,966 5,935 (1,500) 14,899 6419 $ 542,300 5,583 6,337 11,920 565,669 474,665 1,040,334 1,594,554 2011 BeW. Shm 31122014 15 C 0 C � 1� O y P V Q � O C. G pj 3s� 7 L � G � � h L r O y N z tV O N N N N O OF Q P N N N n H N LO O O O O N O O m O N O m O m O O N N N O 'O M O O N O M hN M b O W 1 1 1 ery N M P tlN� M O b W eM-I O �Nry N n e ry O y � b� N a INry N N N �D VCi O N N '1 N H N H M W h N W M O M d� d� N M H➢ N n M O N 14 k N h ti � b ti ti N Q F Cy O� 1ri N 4 k N N co [: vi o d ti y N M N h e-i N '1 O O N O N O N N O O O O O O N O O N O y N O N N N N O M O h O N N O H N O M O QW N �D O D h tC M O cO O N co O P N N �G O C t c + -Z i .- N N O jQ. co l� vl O ri ti O H d 'J N H C W F� O O N O N N M-� O N h O N O hi O O ti O N tfi b N O P O M O n r» M N C W 'r N eT C4 L� N ri M N r N N N N O U v v .Vi 0 W L F Q 0' y =+ O .G. _w 4 V1 as '�. Q C '� C] F .°1L. � m p m .� E 3 x❑ y ao 3 3 w F i w v O P h W h N N N [Yl N M N OO ei of oo N [V b rn m n Iq ° �D N eN N N N M N N O N O O W W W W N O O O O O O I1J N N N W In M P m � h M ti N e-i M ti O N d� �➢ O O N M N M n H N oc� � N W W n N M ti O U L N F F T w i U F O y o 3 3 F v v F ^Q�j N d V w �a��zc. c.�c? 16 o� 0 o' 5 �n O P o o M O oo N N o o N N o o w w o o w o o 4 k N N co [: vi o d ti y N M N h e-i N '1 O O N O N O N N O O O O O O N O O N O y N O N N N N O M O h O N N O H N O M O QW N �D O D h tC M O cO O N co O P N N �G O C t c + -Z i .- N N O jQ. co l� vl O ri ti O H d 'J N H C W F� O O N O N N M-� O N h O N O hi O O ti O N tfi b N O P O M O n r» M N C W 'r N eT C4 L� N ri M N r N N N N O U v v .Vi 0 W L F Q 0' y =+ O .G. _w 4 V1 as '�. Q C '� C] F .°1L. � m p m .� E 3 x❑ y ao 3 3 w F i w v O P h W h N N N [Yl N M N OO ei of oo N [V b rn m n Iq ° �D N eN N N N M N N O N O O W W W W N O O O O O O I1J N N N W In M P m � h M ti N e-i M ti O N d� �➢ O O N M N M n H N oc� � N W W n N M ti O U L N F F T w i U F O y o 3 3 F v v F ^Q�j N d V w �a��zc. c.�c? 16 o� 0 o' 5 O O N N O O N O N N O O O N O O M N N O P N O O O O O O O N O d' N C V� Lf n [Y O c0 vi bn ti N N N N N ti N Lr N e-i M w cl ti O M O w P P ti '+ h N a L N w N p C� a N O a O N O M M O O O O N O w V] O O O W N O W M O P W O N N n13! N +(�, h O O O O O O ri ri O O T N N M W 'Ni 3 c H N N O d z - 'ti � 'Mi W N H Ln N N CI ri rti fri vi of P R � R C U O P N O M M O O O N O W N O O O M N O W M M O P W O N N O d' N C V� Lf n [Y O c0 vi bn ti N N N N N ti N Lr N e-i M w cl ti O M O w P P ti '+ h N a L N w N p C� a N O N G G G G G G G C C� H G G Q Q Q p 0 CA FL O y o Y U � Q� Q o o N U � � v .p •C " y CC ti 41 C7 w u N C7 UO. H M P N N O O ti W ti d� N a 17 S@ ma 0 0 O d' N C V� Lf n [Y O c0 vi bn ti N N N w M-� N O a O N O M M O O O O N O w V] O O O W N O W M O P W O N N n13! N +(�, h O O O O O O 3 c H N N O d z - n Ln N N L R � R C U O `O E ti r. O O N O O Ory L� O L� M V: O O M L� P O O N T O C N O S O R �d O C N ry OM N L� wN jai N ti M ryO a L� a O n T C N N �Vry� N W GN1 n H N H O C S N M C N C O N N m N N <+i N ri vi L[j L[j a H L � rl U O Hle Q Q Q p 0 CA FL O y o Y U � Q� Q o o N U � � v .p •C " y CC ti 41 C7 w u N C7 UO. H M P N N O O ti W ti d� N a 17 S@ ma 0 0 RIK Northern California Water Association 2014 Associate / Affiliate Membership Dues Log As of January 31, 2014 Associate Amount Amount Date Memberships Billed Paid Paid 1 Associated Rice Marketing Cooperative 500.00 2 AVAG, Inc. 500.00 3 Bartkiewicz, Kronick & Shanahan 1,000.00 1,000.00 Jan -14 4 Buchalter Nemer 500.00 5 Butte County Rice Growers Association 1,000.00 6 California Family Foods/Myers & Charter Inc. 500.00 250.00 Jan-14 7 California Water Service Company 500.00 8 Cardno Entrix * *new ** 500.00 9 C112M Hill 500.00 10 City of Yuba City 1,000.00 I1 Colusa County Farm Supply 500.00 12 Davids Engineering, Inc. 500.00 13 DePue Warehouse Co. 500.00 14 Downey Brand 1,000.00 15 Ellison Schneider & Harris, LLP 500.00 16 Environmental Science Associates 500.00 17 Farm Credit Services of Colusa - Glenn, ACA 500.00 500.00 Jan -14 18 Farm Credit West 500.00 19 Farmers' Rice Cooperative - 1,000.00 20 GEI Consultants, Inc. 1,000.00 21 Larry Walker & Associates 1,000.00 22 Lundberg Family Farms 1,000.00 23 MBK Engineers 500.00 500.00 Jan-14 24 Mead & Hunt, Inc. 500.00 25 Minasian Law Firm 500.00 26 Montgomery Watson Harza 500.00 27 Northern California Farm Credit 500.00 28 Pacific International Rice Mills 500.00 29 PG & E 1,000.00 30 Reading Oil, Inc. /Superior Tire Co. 500.00 31 Rio Alto Water District 500.00 32 Sacramento Valley Landowners Assn. 500.00 33 Somach Simmons & Dunn 1,000.00 34 Syblon Reid 500.00 35 The Ferguson Group 500.00 36 Tully & Young 500.00 37 Woodland Davis Clean Water Agency 500.00 38 WRII IE, Inc. 500.00 Total $ 24,000.00 $ 2,250.00 2014A oche Members LIti2014 19 Northern California Water Association Board of Directors 2014/2015 Feather River Class (4 directors. 4 alternates ❑ Steve Danna, Jr. ❑ Al Montna ❑ Bryce Lundberg, Chair ❑ ❑ Nicole Van Vleck ❑ ❑ Carl Yank ❑ Yuba/Bear River Class (2 directors. 2 alternates ❑ Tib Belza ❑ Dave Richter ❑ Walter Trevethan ❑ Bob Winchester Groundwater Class 0 director, 1 alternate) ❑ James Edwards ❑ Jenny Cavaliere Sacramento River —West Class (4 directors. 4 alternates) ❑ John Garner ❑ Marty Stripling (Alt.) ❑ Ron Tadlock ❑ Roger Dorris (Alt.) ❑ John Brennan ❑ Brenda Haynes (Alt.) ❑ Roger Cornwell ❑ Don Cecil (Alt.) Sacramento River— East Class (2 directors. 2 alternates) ❑ Tom Ramos ❑ ❑ Steve Butler ❑ Countv Class (2 directors, 1 alternate) ❑ Supervisor Bob Williams — Tehama Co. ❑ Supervisor Bill Connelly — Butte Co. ❑ Supervisor Leonard Moty — Shasta Co. Quorum — 16 Board = 9 for a quorum 20 21 Drought Action Plan Priorities (Updated March 10, 2014) Objective: Place pressure upon the state and federal administrations to make timely fact based decisions on water availability by allowing the project operators to develop sophisticated analyses and operational scenarios that will meet basic human needs for water, while serving farms and other beneficial uses in the Sacramento Valley to the fullest extent possible. 1. Advance Credible Project Operation Scenarios • Bureau: CVP Water Right Settlement Contractors -Thad, Lewis • DWR: Feather River Settlement Contractors - Ted, Donnie o Coordinated operations • Yuba: Curt • Bear: Brad • Yolo: Tim • American: Purveyors... • Support from MBK and others 2. SWRCB Process • Ongoing discussions with Executive Director— David • Ongoing discussions with Board members (as allowed) - David • Evaluate revisions to Temporary Urgency Change Permit and provide objections etc. — Legal team • Evaluate and anticipate legal options —Legal team 3. Honor Settlement Contracts /Agreements — • CVP Water Right Settlement — Stuart, Kevin zz • DWR Settlement- Dustin 4. State Administration • Governor /Chief of Staff — Bryce, Al • Agriculture Secretary— Bryce, Don • DWR Director— David • Rich Rominger— Bryce, Al, Fritz 5. California Legislature —Amy, Soyla, Pillar, Louie 6. Congress— Roger Gwinn 7. Allies • California Rice Commission -Tim • California Farm Bureau —John G, David • President's Council —Tim • Western Growers —Steve • Waterfowl, Bird Organizations — AI, Paul, Todd • North State Water Alliance —David • Others 23 To advance the economic, social and environmental sastainability of Northern California by enhancing and preserving the water rights, supplies and water quality. March 3, 2014 VIA U.S. MAIL AND E- N1AIL: MICHAEL.BUCKNIANO WATERBOARDS.CA.CO V Mr. Michael Buckman California State Water Resources Control Board PO Box 2000 Sacramento, CA 95812 -2000 Re: Objections to Order Approving a Temporary Urgency Change in License and Permit Terms and Conditions Requiring Compliance with Delta Water Quality Objectives in Response to Drought Conditions (With Modifications Dated February 7, 2014 and February 28, 2014) Dear Mr. Buckman: In accordance with California Water Code section 1438(d), the Northern California Water Association, and various upstream senior water rights holders and water users identified on the attached Exhibit 1 (collectively "Upstream Parties "), respectfully submit these objections to the above - referenced Order Approving a Temporary Urgency Change in License and Permit Terms and Conditions Requiring Compliance with Delta Water Quality Objectives in Response to Drought Conditions (With Modifications Dated February 7, 2014 and February 28, 2014) ("Order "). The Upstream Parties fully recognize that the State of California is facing an extraordinary water supply situation in 2014. Since the inception of the current drought, the Upstream Parties have worked cooperatively with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the Department of Water Resources ( "DWR ") and the Bureau of Reclamation ( "Reclamation ") to develop solutions to the current water supply crisis, and they will continue to do so. These Objections seek to better focus the current proceedings on what we believe are the important issues yet to be appropriately addressed by DWR, Reclamation and the SWRCB. The Upstream Parties' primary Objections are to paragraph Lb of the Order, which allows the continued export of up to 1,500 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water from the Delta for "health and safety" purposes. Simply stated, the Upstream Parties do not believe that DWR and Reclamation have made an adequate showing, as required under Condition 2 of the Order, of the amount of water needed for `health and safety" purposes. Nor have they documented where the 1,500 cfs of export water is currently being delivered and used. As a result, DWR and Reclamation have failed to satisfy the explicit requirements of the Order. The Upstream Parties, as senior water right holders, as well as others (including the general 455 Capitol 6tall, Suite 335, Sacramento, Califomia 95314 -4496 Telephone (916) 442 -3333 Facsimile (916) 4124035 www.noralwatararg 24 Mr. Michael Buckman March 3, 2014 Page 2 public) are entitled to know how DWR and Reclamation are operating the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project, and whether water rights priorities are being honored. Similarly, the S WRCB's February 28, 2014 Notice of Modifications to the Order states in pertinent part, The Executive Director intends to make additional revisions to the Order no later than March 7, 2014 ... [and] [t]hese revisions will include: • Clarification on the allowable uses of water pumped under the health and safety export provisions of the Order, and a requirement to report where this water is delivered and how it is used. • A requirement to record the quantity of water that is stored in Project reservoirs as a result of changes allowed under the Order. A requirement to maintain a minimum quantity of water in Project reservoirs at the end of September sufficient to meet health and safety needs in the event of continued drought next year. The Upstream Parties have significant concerns about the actions of DWR and Reclamation under the Order, and the SWRCB's proposed actions. Among other things, these actions ignore vested property rights in water that are protected by State law, Federal law and contracts, as well as by the State and Federal constitutions. While we recognize the critical nature of the current drought, there is no legal or constitutional basis that would allow DWR, Reclamation or the SWRCB to proceed without regard to those rights. In particular, the following have not, but must be, accounted for: "Public Health & Safety" is a term that is not defined in the law. As a consequence, the notion that one can abrogate long standing vested property rights based upon a mere assertion of "Public Health & Safety" needs is a dubious proposition, at best. We believe that there are better approaches to help accomplish these objectives, including working with Upstream Parties on collaborative solutions. At a minimum, DWR, Reclamation and the SWRCB must explain what they mean by this term, and must account for the means that they intend to rely upon to take vested property rights from those who hold them in order to meet "Public Health & Safety" needs. DWR, Reclamation and the SWRCB must publicly provide detailed technical analysis to support the proposed action or any action that the SWRCB undertakes to address the current situation. This should include an explanation of proposed uses of water, including the 1,500 cfs exported across the Delta, and projections of end of the year storage in upstream reservoirs. The SWRCB must also explain its intended requirement that DWR and Reclamation maintain minimum amounts of water in their Project reservoirs at the end of September, without apparently taking into account the existing stored water supplies in other reservoirs that could be used for Public Health & Safety needs. DWR, Reclamation and the SWRCB must explain the basis of any decision that has an adverse effect on those with water rights priorities. In this context, Upstream Users and others with senior water rights have certain due process rights that, thus far, have been ignored and violated by DWR, Reclamation and the SWRCB. The United States and California Constitutions and due process require reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard before governmental deprivation of a significant property interest. 455 Capitol Mall. Suite 335, Sacramento, Cali fomia95814-4496 Telephone (916) 412 -8333 Facsimile (916) 4124035 www.nomalwatec.oca 25 Mr. Michael Buckman March 3, 2014 Page 3 For the reasons stated, the Upstream Parties request that the SWRCB promptly hold an evidentiary hearing on the Order and these Objections in accordance with Water Code Section 1438(e). In the alternative and without waiving their request for an evidentiary hearing, the Upstream Parties are willing to participate in an alternative dispute resolution process under the authority and direction of the SWRCB the purposes of which would be to ensure (i) compliance by DWR and Reclamation with paragraph Lb and Condition 2 of the Order; and (ii) protection of the senior water rights of the Upstream Parties in accordance with state and federal law. Very truly yours, 9�/—w President cc: (via email) Thomas Howard, SWRCB James Mizell, DWR Amy Aufdemberge, USBR Regional Solicitor Paul Fujitani, USBR Upstream Parties 455 Capito l Mall, Suite 335, Sacramento, Califomia 9531314496 Telephone (916) 442 -8333 Facsimile (916) 442 -4935 wwwmorcalwater.ora FD EXHIBIT 1 Upstream Parties ANDERSON - COTTONWOOD IRRIGATION DISTRICT BIGGS -WEST GRIDLEY WATER DISTRICT CARTER MUTUAL WATER COMPANY CITY OF REDDNG CONAWAY PRESERVATION GROUP, LLC GARDEN HIGHWAY MUTUAL WATER COMPANY GLENN - COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT HOWALD FARMS, INC. MAXWELL IRRIGATION DISTRICT MERIDIAN FARMS WATER COMPANY NATOMAS CENTRAL MUTUAL WATER COMPANY OR BROTHERS FARMS, INC. OR FAMILY PARTNERSHIP PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES (aka M & T CHICO RANCH) PELGER MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PLEASANT GROVE - VERONA MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PRNCETON- CODORA -GLENN IRRIGATION DISTRICT PROVIDENT IRRIGATION DISTRICT RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 1004 RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 108 RICHTER, HENRY D., ET AL. RIVER GARDEN FARMS COMPANY SUTTER MUTUAL WATER COMPANY TISDALE IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE COMPANY WINDSWEPT LAND AND LIVESTOCK COMPANY anxu Water Boards State Water Resources Control Board March 10, 2014 The Honorable Diane Feinstein 331 Hart Senate Office Building United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Barbara Boxer 112 Hart Senate Office Building United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Jim Costa 1314 Longworth House Office Building United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 The Honorable John Garamendi 2438 Rayburn House Office Building United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Senator Feinstein, Senator Boxer, Congressman Costa and Congressman Garamendi: Thank you for your letter of March 5, 2014 regarding water deliveries in California during this time of extraordinary drought. I want to address your concerns about both the timing and substance of future revisions to the current Order approving the Temporary Urgency Changes requested by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) for the operation of the State and Federal Water Projects (Projects). As your letter points out, critical spring planting decisions are now being made by agricultural operators and it is imperative that they make these decisions in full recognition of the water that will be available to them throughout the growing season. I want to assure you that the State Water Board is working closely with DWR, Reclamation, the state and federal fisheries agencies, and stakeholders in its response to the drought. The leadership of the State and federal agencies and the Real Time Daily Operations Team has been meeting constantly to guarantee sufficient water supply to meet public health and safety needs through the remainder of this year and into a possible dry 2015. This same team is also looking for appropriate flexibility, as new storm systems approach, to boost storage in reservoirs both north and south of the Delta. For example, the Projects just increased pumping at their south Delta facilities to take advantage of recent precipitation and capture additional water for later use. Recent collaboration among the agencies and Project water recipients is unprecedented and reflects the circumstances in which we find ourselves. The most recent precipitation events and their effect on reservoir storage and operations are now being 1001 1 Svaa:. Sanamxom. G. 95.1+ J Maleng Ar)dr +as a 0 a.. 1cc. Sa.:ramsrin. Ga 35.12 -0100 I wwvr watar�oaras ca 9oa 27 •- tag A x EouvxonG, 8.0" J. r v¢axo en. xuxu,lpoo,aoUe ,.o.. The Honorable Jim Costa 1314 Longworth House Office Building United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 The Honorable John Garamendi 2438 Rayburn House Office Building United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Senator Feinstein, Senator Boxer, Congressman Costa and Congressman Garamendi: Thank you for your letter of March 5, 2014 regarding water deliveries in California during this time of extraordinary drought. I want to address your concerns about both the timing and substance of future revisions to the current Order approving the Temporary Urgency Changes requested by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) for the operation of the State and Federal Water Projects (Projects). As your letter points out, critical spring planting decisions are now being made by agricultural operators and it is imperative that they make these decisions in full recognition of the water that will be available to them throughout the growing season. I want to assure you that the State Water Board is working closely with DWR, Reclamation, the state and federal fisheries agencies, and stakeholders in its response to the drought. The leadership of the State and federal agencies and the Real Time Daily Operations Team has been meeting constantly to guarantee sufficient water supply to meet public health and safety needs through the remainder of this year and into a possible dry 2015. This same team is also looking for appropriate flexibility, as new storm systems approach, to boost storage in reservoirs both north and south of the Delta. For example, the Projects just increased pumping at their south Delta facilities to take advantage of recent precipitation and capture additional water for later use. Recent collaboration among the agencies and Project water recipients is unprecedented and reflects the circumstances in which we find ourselves. The most recent precipitation events and their effect on reservoir storage and operations are now being 1001 1 Svaa:. Sanamxom. G. 95.1+ J Maleng Ar)dr +as a 0 a.. 1cc. Sa.:ramsrin. Ga 35.12 -0100 I wwvr watar�oaras ca 9oa 27 The Honorable Diane Feinstein et al. - 2 - March 10, 2014 28 analyzed and we expect to discuss proposals for next steps in the coming days. No action, other than actions to increase operational flexibility, will be taken to revise the Order until our collective analysis of current and projected conditions and proposals for operations to address these conditions is complete. We will be working with affected stakeholders to minimize the effects of future decisions on California agriculture and other uses of water. I anticipate that next steps will be announced on or about March 21st, as suggested in your letter. I want to express my appreciation for your recognition of the complexities and challenges facing the State in managing our water resources during this extraordinary drought. Please let me know if I can provide further information or if it would be helpful to meet with members of your staff. Thank you again for your interest and concern. I look forward to working with you and your staff to help address this crisis. Sincerely, Thomas Howard Executive Director cc: Mr. Gareth Elliott Legislative Secretary Office of the Governor State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Ms. Kristin Stauffacher Assistant Secretary for Legislation California Environmental Protection Agency 1001 1 Street, 25th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Ms. Felicia Marcus, Chair State Water Resources Control Board 1001 1 Street, 25th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Mr. Robert Egel Legislative Director State Water Resources Control Board 1001 1 Street, 241h Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Coltgres'2; of the Eitliteb 6tateg Wagfjittgtott, CDT 20510 March 5, 2014 Tom Howard Executive Director State Water Resources Control Board 1001 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Mr. Howard, We urge you to defer issuing the State Water Resources Control Board's extraordinarily far - reaching proposed order prioritizing water deliveries throughout the State until at least March 21 to make sure it is correctly calibrated to minimize the potentially devastating effects on many Californians. We appreciate the efforts of coordination that are underway between federal, state, and local stakeholders, and are encouraged by the outreach on the proposal that will occur this week. Nevertheless, we believe that additional time is needed to allow all affected parties ample opportunity to fully understand your proposal, and to work with your staff to develop alternatives that account for the recent rainfall, maintain fully defined public health and safety goals, and avoid catastrophic reductions of water deliveries to California agriculture. It is our understanding that the State Water Resources Control Board ( "the Board ") plans to issue a decision as soon as next week that could cut back all Delta water pumping for agriculture and refuges, except possibly during periods of high outflow, in order to achieve enough carryover storage at the end of this September to protect public health and safety should extreme dry hydrology continue into 2015. We are aware that the Board faces difficult decisions in balancing all beneficial uses of water. However, we are very concerned that if the current proposal as reported to us is enacted, it will have significant near- and long -term effects on the California economy and, more importantly, will not achieve the desired water supply security intended by the proposal. 30 Before the Board makes such a momentous decision, we believe it is crucial to have enough time to gather more data and input. We understand that recent rains are expected to lead to significant outflows at the Delta over the next two weeks, which means the Board's proposal would not take effect during that period regardless. We now have a window of opportunity for all affected parties to work with the State Board to assess viable options. We hope that federal, state, and local entities working together can develop options that would be respectful of the Board's goals, but also allow flexibility in fulfilling water contracts and mitigating the effects of a severe cutback in water deliveries. Providing more time would also allow stakeholders to assess the effects of the current rainstorms, and provide the Board with the best available information on which to base complex water delivery decisions that could affect large parts of California, especially those regions that are integral to our nation's agricultural economy. We acknowledge that the Board is eager to issue a decision so that senior water rights holders do not plant crops with the expectation of receiving a 40 percent CVP water allocation when public health and safety considerations may require a significant cutback. Federal and local stakeholders have informed us that there may be ways to maintain the advance notice that the Board desires, but still leave enough time to fully consider relevant data and options before issuing a decision. The Board's final decision could have far- reaching effects. The potential of stopping all pumping out of the Delta for agriculture and refuges, except when there are high runoff flows, is of deep concern to water contractors both north and south of the Delta who have been hit by one piece of bad news after another. These are the same contractors who have received, for the first time ever, an initial allocation of zero from the State Water Project. Many of them also received an initial allocation of zero from the Central Valley Project (CVP). Even those who have senior water rights, and who have never received less than 75 percent of their allocations, are unlikely to receive greater than 40 percent of water deliveries this year. The Board's current proposal could reduce allocations further. For example, the Exchange Contractors estimate that the proposal would leave them with the equivalent of a 10 percent allocation, down from 40 percent, and without any option to make up the difference even with significant groundwater overdrafting. 31 This final order must be formulated with great care so that its burdens do not unduly fall on those who have already had to give up a great deal. We are deeply troubled by the difficulties that face California agriculture, and do not wish to see the situation worsen. Again, we sincerely appreciate the dialogue and collaboration you have planned for the coming weeks with various stakeholders. We reiterate our hope that you will defer your decision until at least March 21, so there will be ample time to assess all viable alternatives before the Board issues a final decision. Thank you for your urgent attention to this very important matter. A" '7621,1ZL- Dianne Feinstein U.S. S¢hator Jim C sta U.S. Representative DF /fy Cc: Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. U.S. Senator )hn Garamendi .S. Representative G Karen Ross, Secretary, California Department of Food and Agriculture Janelle Beland, Undersecretary, California Natural Resources Agency Gordon Burns, Undersecretary, California Environmental Protection Agency Felicia Marcus, Chair, State Water Resources Control Board Dorene D'Adamo, Member, State Water Resources Control Board Tam M. Doduc, Member, State Water Resources Control Board Steven Moore, Member, State Water Resources Control Board Frances Spivy - Weber, Vice Chair, State Water Resources Control Board 32 ATE CAPITOL GACRAM Cq 85219 19161 1 051- 09t-4O04 FOREST AVT . STE. 263J FOREST AVE. STE. IIO �RCO, CA 95928 I9]OI BT ?'1 -024 NT .1 OIS'RICT.DICE IOBO MASON MgLL, STE, 4 E CRESCNT CITY CA 05531 11.11464.1255 EYILLE DISTRICT pPPICE 2200A DOUGLAS BLVD.. STE. 100 ROSEVILLE. CA 95165 191.17'72.0071 ,..A CRY IETACT OVflci 409 CENTER $T, $YE. C YUBA CITY. CA 85993 15301791 2651 March 6, 2014 The Honorable Edmund G Governor of California State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Governor Brown: 33 Tn1i#arninc �4ate �jonafe A :V SENATOR JIM NIELSEN FOURTH SENATE DISTRICT Brown, Jr. BUDGET a FISCAL REVIC'N HEALTH INSVRANCE VETERANS AFFAIRS It has been brought to my attention that the state may eliminate all water allocations from the State Water Project to the agricultural community to zero this year. A minimum amount of water in state reservoirs is required by the State Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB) at the end of September. If carried out by SWRCB as planned, this wil mean that the agricultural community will not have access to water this year. This will have long -term devastating impact to farmers, farm workers and their families. Given your family roots in the North State, you know the importance of farming and its significance to the region and to the state economy. The state's 80,500 farms and ranches earned a record $44.7 billion for their output in 2011, according to the most recent statistics available by the California Department of Food and Agriculture. California remains the number one state in farming with 11.3 percent of the United States' total. The state accounted for 15 percent of national receipts for crops and 7.1 percent of the US revenue for livestock and livestock products. Water is a scarce resource, and California is suffering from an historic drought. All users must share the scarcity equally. This is a much more equitable way to divide the allocation of water for the benefit of all users — farmers and residential. Should this policy go into effect, farmers will not be able to water their trees, crops and livestock. This will result in the reduction of dairy and cattle herds. We will also see the deaths of fruit trees, rice fields (which are critical habitats for many of California's migratory birds and other species), and other crops, not only for this year, but years to come. Page 1 of 2 Consumers still recovering from the Great Recession will undoubtedly be subjected to higher prices at the grocery store. On behalf of the agricultural community I represent, I ask that you use your executive power to join us in partnership to resolve this crisis without eliminating water to agriculture. Please initiate some collaborative meetings with agricultural water users and organizations with members of your administration to present constructive alternative solutions to zero supply. I look forward to hearing from you, and I pledge to work with you in bringing about the best possible solution for all water users. Respectfully and with regards, Jim Nielsen Senator, Fourth District Page 2 of 2 34 STATE CAPITOL P.O. BOX 942849 SACRAMENTO, CA 94249 -0003 (916) 319 -2003 FAX (916) 319 -2103 DISTRICT OFFICE 150 AMBER GROVE DRIVE, SUITE 154 CHICO. CA 95973 (530) 895-4217 FAX(530)895 -4219 EMAIL Assemblymember.LOgue C msembly.ra.gov March 6, 2014 �S�PkYClil�i zli �r itt TZPffislkfuu� sr+re, z`& DAN LOGUE CHIEF REPUBLICAN WHIP ASSEMBLYMEMBER, THIRD DISTRICT Hon. Felicia Marcus Chairwoman, State Water Resources Control Board 1001 "I" Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Chairwoman Marcus: 35 COMMITTEES BUDGET BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE 83 ON RESOURCES AND TRANSPORTATION ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING HEALTH TRANSPORTATION We write to express our concern with potential actions that the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) may be taking at its upcoming March 12 meeting regarding water allocation for agriculture. The Board will soon be making a decision as to how much water needs to be preserved as "emergency supplies' for health and safety reasons. Many individuals and concerned parties have brought to our attention the fact that, depending upon the Board's estimates of how much water is needed in reserve for both this year and next, could result in a sever reduction of water allocations for agriculture statewide. We need to keep agriculture interests at a high priority when making decisions that impact California. Agriculture is the backbone of California's economy, and we need to take great care not to create unnecessary and perhaps irreparable harm to farmers and ranchers. While we understand the difficult circumstances you face and the urgency to address our current drought emergency, it is also important that the Water Board be deliberate in using its broad discretion with potentially dire ramifications hanging in the balance. We strongly encourage you to reject any proposals that would remove agriculture from the definition of health and safety. Additionally, we are urging the Water Board to postpone any decision to be made until April 1, 2014 in order to allow interested parties to provide input and provide fondue consideration. We urge you to seek a fair solution that achieves the consensus of all stakeholders, and protect the interest of agriculture in our state. Sincerelv, vv?� ©Ze Dan Logue Assemblyman, Sri District Kristin Olsen Assemblymember, 121h District Cc: Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Karen Ross, Secretay, California Department of Food and Agriculture Janelle Beland, Undersecretary, California Natural Resources Agency Gordon Bums, Undersecretary, California Environmental Protection Agency Felicia Marcus, Chair, State Water Resources Control Board Dorene D'Amado, Member, State Water.Resources Control Board Tam M. Dodue, Member, State Water Resources Control Board Steven Moore, Member, State Water Resources Control Board Frances Spiw- Weber, Vice Chair, State Water Resources Control Board Representing Tehama, Glenn, Butte, Colusa, Satter and Yuba Counties Pnmed on Rerycled.Paper IZ, Print Name Mare W Aa ro r\ Print Name k>iT<K 6 A-C �4'9t'7xAtl 3�7— Print Name � t✓1'rF2ia`� F �� � Print Name 54P-pl al 6r- Print Name Print Name l 3 AIL-- Print Name (�Pt)P� rt-,- Print Name & t I zl1ubE4, Print Name Sign Name Sign Name Sian Name ,Ir,u� --� Sign Name s ian Ni. ne 36 V/ Print Name Print Name rint Name Aj i,dv V; dg Print Name Print Name 1 �51V Print Name Print Name Print Name Print Name 37 Sign Nara Sion Name trJ .�ign Name Sip Name Sign Name /'//� �� - --m' Sign Name- Sim Name. Sian Name Sian Name W 39 (ta�lifornia Rice NwnLem<ullf sNYlerM1tia March 10, 2014 Governor Edmund Brown State Capitol First Floor Sacramento, California 95814 Cc. .� = -� 0 / ' DUCKS e �� Glenn- Colusa Irrigation District UNLIMITED Oil G„HS4rS CENTRAL VALLEY BIRD CLUB F RE: Possible State Water Board Actions on Drought Dear Governor Brown: On behalf of the significant agricultural and wildlife conservation interests in the Sacramento Valley, we want to convey our tremendous concern regarding your possible actions on drought management which could have devastating economic and environmental impacts in the Sacramento Valley. This Valley is a place where a great sense of balance exists between the needs of agriculture and wildlife -- especially wetland- dependent species of wildlife - -with the common underpinnings being the local surface waters flowing through this highly efficient watershed. The possible actions that we understand are being contemplated by your drought task force and State Water Board would be catastrophic here. The Sacramento Valley is largely made up of nearly 2 million acres of small family farms and the small rural communities that are fully reliant upon a farming economy to function. From the school districts to the barbershops on Main Street, income from farming is the life blood of these tranquil towns in the Sacramento Valley. Just looking at rice farming alone in this region, we see a crop that generates an estimated $1.8 billion and 25,000 jobs for the state's economy each year. And that's just from activity in the field. The processing and marketing of this product generates another $3.6 billion. However, all agriculture combined in this region represents an even more staggering economic picture. Many of these lands have been farmed 40 Governor Edmund Brown March 10, 2014 Page 2 by the same families for multiple generations. In total, there are over 11,000 small family farms in the Sacramento Valley that contribute several billion dollars more to the state's economy over and above rice's contribution. These same farms also provide almost 53,000 valuable jobs. In addition, California's migratory bird hunters contribute nearly $500 million to the state's economy each year and create over 5,500 jobs. The rice fields and wetlands found in the Sacramento Valley support many of these hunters. They will have nowhere to hunt without water for these vital habitats. The other exciting piece of this story revolves around wildlife conservation. California rice growers have had a longstanding love affair with ducks. Indeed, their rice fields are literally filled with millions of them. In fact, without rice fields and the water that supports them, half of the 5 -6 million ducks in the Sacramento Valley simply would not be here. They thrive on highly nutritious waste rice grain in order to head up north, fat and happy, for successful nesting activity. And, the story doesn't stop just at ducks either. Of the more than 200 species using this rich complex of these rice fields and adjacent wetlands here, we also find geese, shorebirds, wading birds and majestic raptors that fill the skies. These lands, along with the public and private wetlands found here, are designated as Shorebird Habitat of International Significance for one very important and historic reason -- water. Without it, this story ends. As one of the last great complexes of habitat for these species in California, we owe it to them to keep this working agricultural and wetlands habitat setting intact or they will perish. We just can't let that happen in this great state where, unfortunately, 95 percent of our original wetlands are gone. This is one of the last great landscape -scale regions in California where these wetland- dependent species are thriving. How important? Consider these key points: • Central Valley holds 20 percent of the continental population of winter waterfowl. • Central Valley holds 60 percent of the entire Pacific Flyway waterfowl population in winter. • Nearly 60 percent of all the food for wintering waterfowl comes from rice fields. • Approximately 57 percent of Sacramento Valley wetlands rely on rice drain water for flood -up. Governor, we urge you to use thoughtful restraint as you responsibly manage this delicate environmental and economic situation. Shutting down this region by removing its essential ingredient -- water - -will have devastating impacts beyond just this one year. Agricultural infrastructure and rural communities will suffer grave consequences for years to come, as will the wildlife species that are so historically dependent upon this region. AIN Governor Edmund Brown March 10, 2014 Page 3 The Sacramento Valley has a strong track record of working with others throughout the state to help meet water supply needs for all Californians. We call upon your leadership to foster a more collaborative spirit with the Sacramento Valley to work through these challenging times. We believe the existing water allocation system in this Valley will adequately address this situation, in partnership with you and the rest of Californians, in a win -win approach to getting through this drought in a thoughtful and cooperative manner. We can do this while still achieving a proportional amount of flooded rice and wetlands so essential to so many species. Let us work with you, your drought task force and the State Water Board in a balanced approach to this crisis. Sincerely, Tim Johnson, President -CEO California Rice Commission Chris Conard, President Central Valley Bird Club Mark Biddlecomb, Director of Operations Ducks Unlimited, Western Region Thaddeus L. Bettner, General Manager Glenn - Colusa Irrigation District David Guy, President Northern California Water Association 42 43 TheNature '` Conservancy Protecting nature. Nr ing life.- March 5, 2014 Felicia Marcus, Chair State Water Resources Control Board 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 TXE TRUST ' IV PUBLIC LAND ' Audubon CALIFORNIA RE: Comments on Drought Actions and Potential Impacts to Refuges and Central Valley Wetlands Dear Chair Marcus and Members of State Water Resources Control Board: Our groups are writing to provide the Board and related agencies information about the continuing stress and adverse consequences that the drought is causing to critical ecosystem values that are at stake along the Pacific Flyway. Recognizing the complex interests the Board must balance and weigh in this critical —and now compounded —third dry year, we recommend priorities and actions to protect basic habitat for waterfowl and migratory birds, especially in the Central Valley refuge areas. In sum, our concerns are that the ongoing drought this year will compound impacts to wetland wildlife, already stressed by declining water supplies to our state and federal refuges and other managed wetland habitats over the last 2 dry years. This year, Central Valley refuges anticipate receiving little more than one - quarter of their legally- mandated water supplies. Furthermore, post - harvest flooding of wildlife- friendly farmland —a collaborative success story for agriculture and the environment that has provided a vital component of or the flyway habitat mosaic necessary to support birds by supplementing public and private managed wetland habitat —could decline severely this year because of potential water supply curtailments. The loss of flooded agricultural habitat places overwhelming pressure on our public and private refuges, and cuts to refuge water deliveries make refuges less able to provide food H V. resources and nesting habitat for millions of birds and other species. Collectively, available habitat may be reduced to levels not seen since the early 1980s. We must consider these collective and compounding effects on birds and other wetland- dependent wildlife and safeguard against so much habitat loss in the Central Valley. We appreciate and recognize the challenge confronting the Board to balance all interests in response to the drought and increasingly scarce water resources. We understand through the proposed revisions to the Board's Emergency Order (February 28, 2014) that the Board staff continues to seek an overall water management strategy that addresses multiple public interests, including contractual obligations for both urban and agricultural water users, water quality considerations, and conservation of fish and wildlife. We also recognize the important objective of maintaining salinity control in the Delta throughout 2014. We continue to support the Board's efforts to anticipate and plan for continued drought conditions, and to ensure enough water is stored for the health and safety of all Californians, while also recognizing north -of- Delta, in- Delta, and south -of -Delta environmental protections. However, we discourage the Board from being too hasty. Take action only after directly engaging with agencies and organizations, considering all information provided by the state and federal water projects and creative solutions proposed by water users. Protecting Central Valley wetlands is critically important —especially during drought. California's public refuges, private wetlands, and some agricultural land provide indispensable habitat along the Pacific Flyway— together piecing together less than one -tenth of the four million wetland acres that once supported migrating birds and other wildlife before human development over a century ago. Millions of birds depend on these wetlands to rest and feed between long flights of hundreds or even thousands of miles. Their over - winter survival and breeding success from one season to the next is critically linked to the quality, abundance, and distribution of wetlands in the Central Valley. These relatively few remaining wetland areas are not incidental; their existence depends on dedicated water supplies and active management. During the last severe California drought in the late 1970s, curtailments to refuge water deliveries resulted in significant impacts to wetland habitat and waterbird populations, especially wintering waterfowl. Further declines in the 1980s ultimately led to federal legislation and international agreements to mitigate for and reverse the damage. Since the 1980s, thousands of acres of wetland habitat have been restored, and thousands more have been supplemented through compatible agricultural practices such as post - harvest flooding of rice and corn. Central Valley rice fields and wetlands collectively have been designated one of the largest internationally significant shorebird ecological sites in North America. Populations of many once - listed or declining species, such as the Aleutian Canada goose and White -faced ibis, have improved significantly. Recreation opportunities such as hunting and birdwatching have benefitted local communities and economies. iv This drought—now entering a third consecutive dry year — threatens to dramatically impact the value of these long -term public investments. In particular, the cumulative impacts of habitat lost on both refuges and agricultural land presents an unprecedented challenge to birds and other wetland - dependent wildlife, and it may take many years for populations to recover. Unquestionably, our farms and communities are suffering during this drought. So, too, are migratory birds, resident waterfowl, and other wetland wildlife. These species have no insurance policy to recover from the significant loss of habitat they could suffer this year if no action is taken. To protect our public investments and international commitments, we must provide a backstop to so much habitat loss in the Central Valley by prioritizing and augmenting water supplies to the remaining 5 percent of California wetlands. It is our hope that the Board's actions will help provide a backstop to severe cutbacks in agricultural wetland habitat by prioritizing water supplies to public and private wetlands, especially in dry years. In consideration of substantial public investments in Pacific Flyway habitat over many years as well as international commitments to recover migratory bird species in the Central Valley, the Board's considerations and actions should: • Recognize that the remaining wetlands are a fraction of historical wetlands in the Central Valley, and thus require adequate water to be optimally managed to support the millions of migratory birds that depend on them in wet and dry years. With dwindling agricultural habitat, these wetlands face overwhelming pressure to provide for birds. • Maintain water deliveries to managed wetlands. Legal commitments to refuge water contracts should not be compromised, especially in drought years. This is exactly the moment when larger ecological values in the flyway are most at risk. • Provide funding for refuge infrastructure improvements and operations, such as groundwater wells for critical -year supplies, wherever feasible and appropriate. • Allow refuges to manage forecasted water supplies optimally and efficiently by providing assurances that conserved water will be kept available for delivery in fall, when needed most by refuges to flood up wintering habitat for millions of arriving birds. • Duly consider our obligations under international commitments as a signatory to the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, an international treaty recognizing the importance of recovering and maintaining waterfowl and other wetland wildlife through wetland restoration throughout North America, by providing water to wetlands in all years. To minimize wetland habitat losses this year and protect flyway habitat values, we recommend that the Board consider measures to help ensure some wildlife benefits from water transfers, improve infrastructure, and fund emergency water supply operations. Such measures should include: 3 45 46 • Maximize opportunities to build environmental benefits into these activities that enhance habitat for resident and migratory waterbirds. Water transfers that take water away from habitat - providing rice and other seasonal crops will likely impact birds and other listed terrestrial species. • Enhance fallowed farmland resulting from water transfers through landowner incentives to provide habitat for resident nesting birds and other wildlife. For example, cover crops can provide critically important waterfowl nesting habitat with minimal precipitation and little to no supplemental irrigation. • Seek out collaborative measures between state and federal efforts to make additional funding available to refuges so that existing water supply wells and pumps can operate as necessary to support habitat units, without funding restrictions. • Where appropriate, rehabilitate existing wells and construct new wells at refuges and easement lands to provide supplemental or alternative water supplies in critical years to safeguard the longevity of established managed wetlands. • Install new and rehabilitate existing infrastructure to improve water use efficiency of public and private wetland units. For example, functional lift pumps and pipelines can provide wetland managers the ability to reuse water flowing through the wetland units to provide spring irrigations to augment food resources to support migratory waterbirds. Grading ponds can also allow more efficient flooding targeted to foraging waterfowl and shorebirds. We urge you to begin monitoring conditions on the ground to adaptively build and manage a better systemic response to emergency drought circumstances, now and in the future. • Investments are needed immediately to gauge stress and impacts during this drought year so wetland managers can best optimize conditions for birds across the valley and provide habitat more precisely when and where it is in greatest demand. Disease outbreaks can signal overcrowding on too little available habitat. Supplemental funding is needed for disease detection, diagnosis, and control so that federal and state refuge managers can manage changing conditions and coordinate water and habitat management across the Valley to minimize disease outbreaks. • Additionally, lon' term monitoring programs should be established or existing programs given renewed support to assess habitat conditions for waterfowl and shorebird populations. Impacts of the drought are complex and long-lasting, and current bird population surveys may not adequately reflect drought impacts. We, the undersigned parties and organizations, very much appreciate your consideration of these measures, and we urge the Board to frilly consider the cumulative effects that comprehensive "dewatering" of the Flyway may cause. It is within the Board's authority to prioritize multi - benefit actions that can help sustain habitat values in the Central Valley for the benefit of migratory birds and wildlife. 47 We appreciate your attention to these matters, and look forward to continued dialogue to address the myriad challenges of this drought for the benefit of people, farms, cities, and wildlife. Sincerely, Jay Ziegler Director of External Affairs and Policy The Nature Conservancy Kim Delfino California Program Director Defenders of Wildlife U v.� Erik Vink Central Valley Program The Trust for Public Land Mark Hennelly V.P. Legislative Affairs & Public Policy California Waterfowl Association CC: State Water Quality Control Board: Member Francis Spivy - Weber, Vice Chair Member Tam Doduc Member Steven Moore Member Dorene D'Adamo 4"-�k0.1 plj�4-)- Meghan Hertel Working Lands Program Director Audubon California Mark Siddlecomb Director of Operations, Western Region Ducks Unlimited, Inc. Karen Ross, Secretary, Department of Food and Agriculture John Laird, Secretary, California Natural Resources Agency Matt Rodriquez, Secretary, California Environmental Protection Agency Chuck Bonham, Director, Department of Fish and Wildlife Mark Cowin, Director, Department of Water Resources Nancy McFadden, Executive Secretary, Office of the Governor Thomas Howard, Executive Director, State Water Resources Control Board Caren Trgovcich, Chief Deputy Director, State Water Resources Control Board Sandra Schubert, Undersecretary, Department of Food and Agriculture Martha Guzman - Aceves, Deputy Legislative Director, Office of the Governor Debbie Davis, Community & Rule Affairs Advisor, Governor's Office of Planning and Research Cliff Rechtschaffen, Senior Advisor, Office of the Governor Hu Point Blue Conservation Science (formerly PRBO) Chair Felicia Marcus c/o Jeanine Townsend, Clerk to the Board State Water Resources Control Board 10011 Street, 24th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Conservation science for a healthy planet 3820 Cypress Drive, il11 Petaluma, CA 94954 T 707.781.2555 ' F 707.765.1685 pointblue.org Sent via electronic mail to. comment letter5@waterboard5.ca.gov Dear Chair Marcus: Point Blue Conservation Science appreciates the complex and pressing decisions the California State Water Resources Control Board must make in this year of extreme drought. Founded as Point Reyes Bird Observatory, we have been studying birds and their environments in California and the West for over 45 years. Our scientific findings (and the findings of others) can enhance water management decisions. The importance of managed wetlands to birds Our work on shorebirds has clearly demonstrated the importance of managed wetlands. We conducted surveys of shorebirds over multiple years across California's Central Valley during winter and migratory periods. We found that: Y The Central Valley is one of the most important regions in western North America to migratory and wintering shorebirds. • Up to 40% of all shorebirds in the region rely on managed wetlands in winter and over 60% during spring migration. Areas in the Central Valley with the greatest acreage of managed wetlands were most important to shorebirds. The importance of managed wetlands has been recognized by the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network which designated the Grasslands Ecological Area of the San Joaquin Basin, and the ricelands and wetlands of the Sacramento Valley, as sites of international importance to shorebirds. In recognition of the value of wetlands to birds in the region, the National Audubon Society and Bird Life International have designated 11 Global and 14 State Important Bird Areas in the Central Valley. 50 The science on waterfowl is also definitive. While greatly reduced from their historic numbers, today: • Nearly 40% of all the food that supports wintering waterfowl in the Central Valley comes from managed wetlands. • The Central Valley supports up to 60% of the waterfowl in the entire Pacific Flyway, making it one of the most important places for waterfowl in North America. The importance of flooded agriculture to birds California has lost over 90% of its wetland habitats. Flooded agriculture provides vital alternative habitat for waterbirds. In the Sacramento Valley, for example, rice provides 85% of the habitat available to wintering waterbirds. The concern of disease outbreaks The loss of historic wetlands has already concentrated birds into fewer and smaller areas; crowding is well known to increase the chance of disease transmission and the frequency of disease outbreaks in waterfowl. Conditions that further exacerbate bird concentrations into even smaller areas may put bird populations at further risk of disease. Summary We are concerned that if water allocations to refuges are severely reduced, wetland- depend birds of the Pacific Flyway would likely be negatively impacted. It is our understanding that Central Valley refuges are anticipating receiving little more than one - quarter of their legally- mandated water supplies and post - harvest flooding of farmland could decline severely because of water supply curtailments. Hence, a great reduction in available flooded habitat could lead to longer -term, population -level impacts to birds. We strongly encourage the Board to engage stakeholders from relevant public agencies and nonprofit organizations to develop creative, multi- benefit solutions, including water deliveries to refuges and croplands. We support the Board's efforts to plan ahead for more drought, making sure enough water is stored for the health and safety of all Californians and its wildlife. We believe that multi - benefit action, for health and human safety, local economies, and for birds and other wildlife are readily achievable and necessary to maintain our rich heritage and long -term 51 conservation investments. Thank you for your consideration of our letter. For additional information, please contact Catherine Hickey (chickey @pointblue.orq or 415 - 868 -0371, ext. 307). Sincerely, Ellie Cohen President and CEO Point Blue Conservation Science Cc: Catherine Hickey, Point Blue Conservation Science 52 53 Economic and Environmental Impacts of the Drought on the California Rice Industry and the Sacramento Valley California Rice Commission March 4, 2014 Industry Overview California grows an average of 550,000 acres of rice annually, predominantly in the Sacramento Valley. Heavy clay soils, Mediterranean climate and consistent surface water combine to provide the ideal location for the production of temperate japonica rice. Production is concentrated in the Northern California counties of Colusa, Glenn, Butte, Sutter, Yuba, Yolo and Placer. Economic Activity Annually the California rice industry, through the growing, milling and selling of rice contributes over 5 billion dollars to the state's economy and nearly 25,000 jobs. In many rural communities agriculture, and predominantly rice, is the basis for the economy contributing 30 to 50 percent of the economic activity. In addition to nearly 2,500 family farmers, the Sacramento Valley is home to 11 state of the art rice mills and hundreds of rice dryers and warehouses which annually grow, store and process more than 2 million tons of rice. Exports account for approximately 50 percent of the average crop, with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the Middle East the major destinations. In total, California rice is shipped to over 40 countries worldwide. Exports create a significant number of jobs at the ports of West Sacramento and Oakland. Global competition for these markets is fierce with major competitors including Australia, Egypt and the southern U.S. rice industry. In addition, non - tariff trade barriers in Asia require constant vigilance in order to maintain market access. Impact of the drought: Urban and rural economies will be severely impacted in the Sacramento region with many small towns in the region devastated, as rice and other crops contract. Significantly reduced production threatens loss of high value export markets in the Pacific Rim and Middle East. Groundwater Substitution Rice and other annual crops in the Sacramento Valley rely almost exclusively on surface water for irrigation. Senior water rights have meant that, even in past severe droughts, water was available for transfer to other regions of the state and also for reduced rice production. Farmers largely have not had the need to drill wells. The ability to develop groundwater resources this year is almost non- existent, as contractors and equipment are impacted well into next fall. 54 Impacts of Drought: Only 5 to 10 percent of rice acres have access to groundwater, according to an industry survey. Habitat Rice fields provide habitat for 230 species of wildlife=, as the crop is grown and straw decomposed during the winter. Rice fields have been documented to provide nearly 60 percent of the food needs for the millions of wintering waterfowl that annually migrate along the Pacific Flyway. This is a key reason that the Central Valley holds 20 percent of the continental population of winter waterfowl and 60 percent of the entire Pacific Flyway population in winter season3. In addition, California rice fields have been designated as shorebird habitat of international significance by the Manoment Center for Conservation Sciences. Combined with private and public wetlands, many of which receive runoff from rice fields, the 620,000 acres of habitat is the second largest designation in North America. Impact of the drought: Habitat for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds will be reduced by up to 550,000 acres and water for refuges reduced or eliminated. Conclusion Impact of significant surface water cutbacks would be severe and disproportionate on the rice industry and the Sacramento region. Communities in the Sacramento Valley rely on agriculture and particularly rice for the basis of their economic activity. Due to historically consistent supplies of surface water for production, substitution of groundwater not a viable solution for Sacramento Valley rice as it is in other regions of the state. The impact on habitat may be even more severe. In a state that has lost over 95 percent of its wetlands, hundreds of species and the entire Pacific Flyway rely on rice production and winter flooded rice fields for survival. Rice is the only crop that provides wetland like habitat and is widely seen by conservation organizations as vital to the health of state's ecosystem. 1. Richardson, James W. and Joe L. Outlaw. 2010. Economic Contributions of the U.S. Rice Industry to the US Economy, Agricultural and Food Policy Center, Texas A &M University, AFPC Research Report 10 -3. 2. Sterling, John and Paul Buttner, 2011. Wildlife Known to Use California Ricelands, ICF Jones & Stokes. 3. Central Valley Joint Venture, 2006. Central Valley Joint Venture Implementation Plan - Conserving Bird Habitat. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. C R O W E R S A S S O C I A T I O N March 7, 2014 Ms. Felicia Marcus Chairwoman, State Water Resources Control Board 1001 "I" Street Sacramento, CA 95814 2300 River Plaza Drive, Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95833 Ph. 916/925 -0225 l Fax 9161925 -0213 ctga @sbcglobal.net i www.ctoa oro RE: S WRCB proposed reduction of surface water to agriculture both North and South of the Delta. Dear Chairwoman Marcus: Please take a moment to review the attached document regarding what impact a zero allocation would have on the Processed Tomato Industry. Throughout the year decisions and investments, by both growers and processors of our industry were made based upon existing state water rights and supply projections. A decision to further reduce allocations for agriculture could have long term impacts to the viability of our industry. California produces 96° o of the US food supply of processed tomatoes and 34% of the world's supply. Given the current global shortage of processing tomatoes around the world, there will be a good chance that tomato products will not be available on the grocery store shelves. The CTGA fully appreciates the current water situation and understand that difficult decisions are going to be made. We ask that all parties work together to ensure that the best data available is being used, and have an understanding that these decisions will severely impact California. These impacts will be felt in 2014 and beyond. Sincerely, A6 4 4, /?V �- - Mike Montna President/CEO CC: Edmund G. Brown, Governor, State of California Karen Ross, Secretary, California Department of Food and Agriculture Mark Corwin, Director, California Department of Water Resources SWRCB Members 55 m C A.. t I F O R N I A 2300 River Plaza Drive, Suite 100 t Sacramento, California 95833 Ph. 916/925 -0225 1 Fax 9161925 -0213 C R O W E R s A S S O C I A T I O N ctga @sbcglobal.net I www.ctoa.oro California Tomato Industry Processed Tomato Industry Overview and Impact of SWRCB Reducing Agriculture Allocations To Zero Percent Industry Overview: Processed tomatoes with a farm gate value of $1,147,635,000 grown on approximately 290,000 acres, which will produce 13,500,000 tons of raw product. The central valley of California has a climate that produces a very consistent finished product with regards to taste and quality. California Industry Facts: • California it the largest producer of processed tomatoes in the world. • California produces 96% of the Domestic supply of tomato products. • Fresno County produces more tomatoes than any other country in the world. The following is a list of counties that processed tomatoes are grown in by order of size: 1. Fresno 7. Kern 13. Sacramento 2. Yolo 8. Stanislaus 14. San Benito 3. Kings 9. Solano 15. Santa Clara 4. San Joaquin 10. Sutter 16. Glenn 5. Merced 11. Madera 17. Tulare 6. Colusa 12. Contra Costa There are 13 processors who operate 21 processing facilities spread throughout California. At least 50% of these factories will operate 12 months a year, re- processing products for consumers. Many familiar brands purchase from local growers. A few are Heinz, Campbell's Soup, Hunt's, Ragu and Del Monte. 57 Markets: California is the largest producer of tomato paste in the world. Approximately 22% of the California crop is exported to countries across the globe. The largest purchasers are Italy, Canada, Mexico, and the Netherlands. The majority of our crop goes to the domestic markets. Consumers eat approximately 75% of the tomato intake in the form of processed tomatoes. One acre of processing tomatoes provides 1,415 people their current annual consumption of processed tomatoes for the year. The California market has been attractive in recent years partially due to the following: • Favorable economics due the conversion to drip irrigation. c Drip irrigation has reduced water requirements by 20 -25%. o Increased yields by 10 -15 %. o Currently 80% of our industry has converted to drip in order to minimize the amount of water used, while at the same time increasing tons produced per acre foot of water. • Consistent quality and safety for customers. Impact on Processed Tomato Industry if SWRCB were to reduce a "zero allocation for Agriculture" What is at risk with SWRCB implements zero allocation action? Growers: Based on a survey conducted during the first week of March, there are 2,855,956 tons at risk if the action were to be implemented. This represents 62,086 acres that will have insufficient water to be farmed. The areas in the state that would be impacted are not as heavily developed with well water as other parts of the Central Valley. It should be noted that given the current supply of water available, the majority of growers in these districts had already set aside acreage to be fallowed this year. Financial Impacts: • The 2.85 million tons represents a gross revenue of $242,784,820 to the growers. • The loss of 2,450 seasonal jobs and 184 full time jobs on the ranch. • The financial impact to processors would be approximately $997,500,000 in gross revenue lost. • Processing facilities would operate 3 weeks less out of a 13 week on average season, This would result in fewerjobs and fewer hours for the remaining employees at the 21 processing facilities. • Total impact to both growers and processors $1,240,254,820 to California's agriculture industry with additional multiplier effects to local and rural communities. M Market Impacts: If the 2.85 million tons were to not be produced, there would be no place in the world to replace this product at this time. The markets are nearing all -time prices, as the world supply of tomato products is very tight. Major Branded companies would be at risk of being short of product for their shelves. o This may bring a long -term implication for the California industry of the multi - national companies spreading the risk to purchase in other places in the world. Domestically the 62,086 acres would represent a total of 87,851,690 people that would not have their current food supply of processed tomatoes for the upcoming year. Current Status (as of 2/28/14): • All ground preparation has been completed • Currently 5% of crop is in ground 50% of the crop is in the greenhouses and will be planted when at proper maturity 0 95% of processed tomato crop is done through transplanting. o The 50% represents tonnage deliveries that will be made between the third and fourth week of August. o It should be noted that this does not mean that each grower has 50% of their crop in green houses. In some cases growers in impacted areas have 100% of their transplants in already. Growers have significant amount of expenditure in processed tomato crop at this point of the process (ground work, pre- irrigation, treatments, seed, and land costs /rents). Compiled on behalf of the Processing Tomato Industry by Mike Montna, President /CEO, California Tomato Growers Association. "311212014 California drought: 17 convrunities could run out of water within 60 to 120 dale, state says- San Jose Mercury News California drought: 17 communities could run out of water 59 within 60 to 120 days, state says By Paul Rogers progers @mercurynews.com San Jose Mercury News Posted: MercuryNews.com As California's drought deepens, 17 communities across the state are in danger of running out of water within 60 to 120 days, state officials said Tuesday. In some communities, wells are running dry. In others, reservoirs are nearly empty. Some have long- running problems that predate the drought. The water systems, all in rural areas, serve from 39 to 11,000 residents. They range from the tiny Lompico County Water District in Santa Cruz County to districts that serve the cities of Healdsburg and Cloverdale in Sonoma County. And it could get a lot worse. "As the drought goes on, there will be more that probably show up on the list," said Dave Mazzera, acting drinking -water division chief for the state Department of Public Health. Most of the affected water districts have so few customers that they can't charge enough money to pay for backup water supplies or repair failing equipment, leaving them more vulnerable to drought than large urban areas. The state health department compiled the list after surveying the more than 3,000 water agencies in California last week. The list will be updated weekly, Mazzera said. State health officials are in discussion with leaders of other agencies, including the state Office of Emergency Services and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to work on immediate solutions, he added. Those could include everything from trucking in water to the health department providing emergency funds for drilling new wells or connecting faltering systems to other water systems. A similar list of vulnerable communities was compiled during California's last drought, which lasted from 2007 to 2009. But the current drought is more severe. Less rain fell in 2013 than in any year since California became a state in 1850. Even though some rain is forecast for Thursday, major storms are desperately needed this winter and spring to replenish depleted reservoirs, rivers and the Sierra Nevada snowpack -- which on Tuesday stood at 14 percent of normal. "This is a statewide drought. This is a serious drought," Bill Croyle, director of the state Drought Task Force, said Thursday. "It's all hands on deck." Croyle, an official with the state Department of Water Resources, made his remarks at a meeting of the Delta Stewardship Council, a state board of water experts. httpJ/www.mercurynews.corr/ science /ci_250133Wcaliforria- drought -l7- communities - could- rurrout- water# 113 3!12/2014 California drought: 17 communities could run out of water within 60 to 120 days, state says -San Jose Mercury Nexus Asked by board member Hank Nordhoff, a San Diego businessman, where the water will COME 6 0 from to bail out small systems, Croyle said he's working on it. "You are going to get it wherever you can get it," he said. Retorted Nordhoff: "That's a frightening reply." Croyle cited the possibility of new pipe connections to other water systems and trucking in water. "On the Central Coast, they have in the past looked at desalination," he added. "So if we lose our groundwater and surface water, we are going to go to the ocean. It is going to be expensive, but you bring in mobile plants and fire them up." Since California's last major drought, which ran from 1987 to 1992, most major urban areas have spent millions of dollars to store water underground, fund conservation programs, build new reservoirs and construct wastewater recycling plants. As a result, their residents are feeling little effect so far. On Tuesday, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission announced a voluntary 10 percent cutback for its 2.6 million customers in San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Alameda counties. Similarly, the Santa Clara Valley Water District has requested a 10 percent voluntary cutback. Others, like the Contra Costa Water District and the East Bay Municipal Utility District, have not yet asked customers to meet conservation targets. The story is different in many rural areas. Lompico County Water District, in the Santa Cruz Mountains near Felton, has long- standing water supply issues and is exploring a possible merger, but so far has been stymied by nearly $3 million in needed upgrades -- a hefty bill for the district's 500 customers. "We have been unable to take water out of the creek since August and well production is down, and we didn't have that much water to begin with," said Lois Henry, a Lompico water board member. Henry said she hopes the state comes with funding to help the agency find more reliable water. The district could soon have to begin trucking in water, she said. "I'm frankly worried," Henry said. "I know people turn their faucet on and say, 'Oh, everything's fl ne.' And I know it's not." In Cloverdale, where 9,000 Sonoma County residents draw their water from four wells, low flows in the Russian River prompted the City Council last week to put in place mandatory 25 percent rationing, which includes a ban on lawn watering. The city raised water rates 50 percent to put in two new wells, which should be completed by July, said City Manager Paul Caylor. "Hopefully," he said, "we'll be able to get through the summer and the development of this project will pay off." http. /k w. mercurynews. corrVscience /ci_25013388/california- drought- 17- communifies- could -rur out -w t,,# v3 3/12/2014 California drought: 17 communities could run out of water within 60 to 120 day;, state says -San Jose Mercury News Santa Cruz Sentinel reporter Jason Hoppin'contributed to this report. Paul Rogers covers 61 resources and environmental issues. Contact him at 408 - 920 -5045. Follow him at Twitter.com /PaulRogersSJMN http:/A w ,n- ercurynews. corn/ science/ci_25013388/california- droug ht- 17-comnuni ties- could- run- out-water# 3/3 Severe water shortages State health officials on Tuesday identified 17 small community water districts in 10 counties that are at risk of running out of water in 60-120 days due to the drought. San 0 AMADOR COUNTY ( ■ Jackson Valley Irrigation District Redd i© FRESNO COUNTY ■ Shaver Lake Heights Mutual Water Co. ■ Sierra Cedars Community Services S District San Luis Obispos_ Santa -ra°s a Sah Diego, Source: California Department of Public Health © KERN COUNTY ■ Boulder Canyon Water Association ■ Camp Condor ■ Cypress Canyon Water System ■ Lake of the Woods Mutual Water Co. 0 MADERA COUNTY ■ Bass Lake Water Co. © MARIPOSA COUNTY ■ Whispering Pines Apartments ()MENDOCINO COUNTY ■ Brooktrails Township Community Services District ■ Redwood Valley Community Water District ■ Willits 0 NEVADA COUNTY ■ Washington Ridge Conservation Camp 0 PLACER COUNTY ■ Ophir Gardens 0 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ■ Lompico County Water District SONOMA COUNTY • Cloverdale • Healdsburg BAY AREA NEWS GROUP 62 63 To promote the economic, social and environmental viability of Northern California by enhancing and preserving the water rights, supplies and water quality of our members. January 24, 2014 The Honorable Anthony Rendon California State Assembly State Capitol, Room 2136 Sacramento, CA 94249 RE: AB 1331— Oppose Unless Amended Dear Assembly Member Rendon The Northern California Water Association (NCWA) opposes the January 7, 2014 version of AB 1331. NCWA is committed to advance the economic, social, and environmental sustainability of the Sacramento Valley by enhancing and preserving its water rights, supplies, and water quality for the rich mosaic of farmlands, refuges and managed wetlands, meandering rivers that support fisheries and wildlife, and cities and rural communities in the region. The January 7, 2014 version is a step backwards for your water bond authorization legislation. NCWA appreciated your process last year with the working group and the hearings that were held to receive input on the bill. This work was reflected in the September 11, 2013 version of your bill. The many changes that have been made subsequent to that version of the legislation have resulted in a bill that we cannot support. In particular, the changes to Chapter 9, Water Storage for Climate Change, have created uncertainty as to what funding would be available for storage projects that address "the most urgent statewide needs and priorities...." In this time of water shortage, California needs meaningful storage that will contribute to the overall state water system, providing the flexibility and additional water supplies that benefit the state as a whole. Over the past several decades, the state has not invested in surface water storage projects that provide statewide water management benefits. During this time, multiple water bonds were passed that could have included surface water storage funding. But, they did not. As a result, we are now ill- prepared for a multiple -year drought in this state. Additional surface water storage that provides statewide benefits, such as Sites reservoir, will increase the flexibility of the water system in the state. If constructed, it will at the very least limit, if not avoid, the tradeoffs currently being considered by the state, as described in the Governor's drought proclamation, of decreasing instream flows now to hold water for the cold water pool later in the year. As such, NCWA opposes AB 1331 as it is currently drafted. We will support AB 1331, if it is amended back to the September 11, 2013 version and the funding for Chapter 9, Water Storage for Climate Change is increased to $3 billion. With the drought California is currently 64 experiencing and the predictions of the impact Climate Change will have on the state's water supplies, now is the time that we must make a substantial investment in water storage projects that can provide statewide benefits. Sincerely, :T&WQ AMY Todd N. Manley Director of Government Relations To promote the economic, social and environmental viability of Northern California by enhancing and preserving the water rights, supplies and water quality of our members. January 29, 2014 The Honorable Dan Logue California State Assembly State Capitol, Room 4158 Sacramento, CA 94249 RE: AB 1445 — Support Dear Assembly Member Logue: The Northern California Water Association (NCWA) supports AB 1445, the California Water Infrastructure Act of 2014. NCWA is committed to advance the economic, social, and environmental sustainability of the Sacramento Valley by enhancing and preserving its water rights, supplies, and water quality for the rich mosaic of farmlands, refuges and managed wetlands, meandering rivers that support fisheries and wildlife, and cities and rural communities in the region. Your legislation would provide a much - needed investment in storage projects. Over the past several decades, the state has not invested in surface water storage projects that provide statewide water management benefits. During this time, multiple water bonds were passed that could have included surface water storage funding. But, they did not. As a result, we are now ill- prepared for a multiple -year drought in this state. Additional surface water storage that provides statewide benefits, such as Sites reservoir, will increase the flexibility of the water system in the state. If constructed, it will at the very least limit, if not avoid, the tradeoffs currently being considered by the state, as described in the Governor's drought proclamation, of decreasing instream flows now to hold water for the cold water pool later in the year. With the drought California is currently experiencing and the predictions of the impact Climate Change will have on the state's water supplies, now is the time that we must make a substantial investment in water storage projects that can provide statewide benefits. Because of this, NCWA supports AB 1445. Sincerely, �6 uWAr Todd N. Manley Director of Government Relations 65 M.- 67 To promote the economic, social and environmental viability of Northern California by enhancing and preserving the water rights, supplies and water quality of our members. January 31, 2014 Senator Lois Wolk California State Senate State Capitol, Room Sacramento, CA 94249 RE: SB 848 — Oppose Unless Amended Dear Senator Wolk: The Northern California Water Association (NCWA) opposes SB 848 unless it is amended to include our recommended changes. NCWA is committed to advance the economic, social, and environmental sustainability of the Sacramento Valley by enhancing and preserving its water rights, supplies, and water quality for the rich mosaic of farmlands, refuges and managed wetlands, meandering rivers that support fisheries and wildlife, and cities and rural communities in the region. We appreciate the effort that has gone into the development of this comprehensive water bond. But, over the past several decades, the state has not invested in surface water storage projects that provide statewide water management benefits. During this time, multiple water bonds were passed that could have included surface water storage funding. But, they did not. As a result, we are now ill- prepared for a multiple -year drought in this state. Additional surface water storage that provides statewide benefits, such as Sites reservoir, will increase the flexibility of the water system in the state. If constructed, it will at the very least limit, if not avoid, the tradeoffs currently being considered by the state, as described in the Governor's drought proclamation, of decreasing instream flows now to hold water for the cold water pool later in the year. Chapter 6, the Water System Operational Improvements chapter of SB 848, needs to be increased to at least $3 billion. If California is going to make a meaningful investment in the public benefits that storage projects can provide to instream flows, Delta water quality and terrestrial habitat (including the development of Level 4 Wildlife Refuge water supplies), increasing the funding dedicated to storage to at least $3 billion is necessary. With the drought California is currently experiencing and the predictions of the impact Climate Change will have on the state's water supplies, now is the time that we must make a substantial investment in water storage projects that can provide statewide benefits. Sincerely, Todd N. Manley Director of Government Relations W. To promote the economic, social and environmental viability of Northern California by enhancing and preserving the water rights, supplies and water quality of our members. March 11, 2014 The Honorable Henry Perea California State Assembly State Capitol, Room 3120 Sacramento, CA 94249 RE: AB 2686 — Support Dear Assembly Member Perea: The Northern California Water Association (NCWA) supports AB 2686. This water bond contains the right balance of fiscal responsibility and appropriate investments in the water infrastructure, projects and programs necessary to enhance water supply reliability, increase regional self - reliance, provide safe water for all communities, expand water storage capacity and help achieve co -equal goals for the Delta. NCWA is committed to advancing the economic, social, and environmental sustainability of the Sacramento Valley by enhancing and preserving its water rights, supplies, and water quality for the rich mosaic of farmlands, refuges and managed wetlands, meandering rivers that support fisheries and wildlife, and cities and rural communities in the region. While we support AB 2686 as a whole, there are specific sections of the legislation that we would like to highlight. In particular, we support the inclusion of the language in the bill recognizing the importance of the state's water rights priority system and Areas of Origin protections. In addition, this legislation contains important investments in water quality improvements and ensuring that all Californians have access to safe drinking water. The language in Chapter 6 highlighting the importance of funding projects and programs that "Protect and restore aquatic, wetland, and migratory bird ecosystems, including fish and wildlife corridors...." And, the continuous appropriation of $3 billion for Statewide Water System Operational Improvement will provide meaningful and much needed investments in the public benefits water storage projects can provide. NCWA looks forward to working with you on this important legislation. Please contact me at (916) 442 -8333 if we can provide any assistance. Sincerely, 60- ,AW Todd N. Manley Director of Government Relations cc: Assembly Member Adam Gray Assembly Member Rudy Salas W-4 w To promote the economic, social and environmental viability of Northern California by enhancing and preserving the water rights, supplies and water quality of our members. March 11, 2014 The Honorable Anthony Cannella California State Senate State Capitol, Room 3048 Sacramento, CA 94249 RE: SB 927 — Support Dear Senator Cannella The Northern California Water Association (NCWA) supports SB 927. This water bond contains the right balance of fiscal responsibility and appropriate investments in the water infrastructure, projects and programs necessary to enhance water supply reliability, increase regional self - reliance, provide safe water for all communities, expand water storage capacity and help achieve co -equal goals for the Delta. NCWA is committed to advancing the economic, social, and environmental sustainability of the Sacramento Valley by enhancing and preserving its water rights, supplies, and water quality for the rich mosaic of farmlands, refuges and managed wetlands, meandering rivers that support fisheries and wildlife, and cities and rural communities in the region. While we support SB 927 as a whole, there are specific sections currently in the Water Code that this legislation maintains. In particular, we support the language recognizing the importance of the state's water rights priority system and Areas of Origin protections. In addition, this legislation retains language supporting important investments in water quality improvements and ensuring that all Californians have access to safe drinking water. The dedication of funding to promote habitat for migratory waterfowl and other species utilizing the Pacific Flyway And, the continuous appropriation of $3 billion for Statewide Water System Operational Improvement will provide meaningful and much needed investments in the public benefits water storage projects can provide. NCWA looks forward to working with you on this important legislation. Please contact me at (916) 442 -8333 if we can provide any assistance. Sincerely, Todd N. Manley Director of Government Relations cc: Senator Andy Vidak 71 72 • i 4 LL f +► w LL t 0.. r, i !_ 0 !. E CL � r s � 3° N O N ca to tL H (6 d y O d N 00N 00 W N N N Co LL il o N m° N [L G M N N W 6i LL G,. O � O NC! S N N L M ` M O ei C co G Q 3 Q N W r O �O L Y 0 3 w R v N py O ° CL N O CL i 1 1 a ,n m o 0 ¢ u Z a o z L_ O K N � T Y o. N � O u X w a i eV Q a c m m w O v O Q U m Z > ^ p3�v, ri l o o SE 3om o 3 n o- 7 N Y o `n m u v a Y o 3 O ooa o am m i 00 m Y w w y z o o m E o m w m 00 u o ou 3 w c N N � V `h m o p� w o Y D o c ° w ;�; '� '^ 0 o o m nn v 3 O y t0 U1 W .� H C j ry C N n V L O c O m O O O P O O O m C ¢ V a c °3 v N I 0 0 v Z N 0 1 E o d ~ p 0` V? W_� � E O 13 N O O m� G N� o o 0 3 '^ a o w a Ln oM N N` O o o v N c O m C N V � � lA O. N N p�j C T T w G1 L Oq Y O QO Y Y C. c >> y h "O c d C v Y ` c N U m �O m m O J y 0 3 �` m a 3 O CL O — O m N Y C7 M u N FO- V N 73 v z N 0 m • t r -- i r • S f L6 LL J co + ;. • f ce 0 LL • i *: s Y V 6 0 N � O � N W M CO w L LL m � d N b rq ap N tD L. N CO tL Q o V v N bAo N G] � M N NLL m 6 O chi �O o � N d H L M L M A ci C m G Q 'Q U Q GJ O m0 L R Y L � e 0 " aN 0 CL 74 N'' w v m N tlt 0 w O o C W O a N - vO ' O O y w p N 4❑ 6 O m e u aw+ O a0t O u 0 0 Q ate+ LL •-Q N U u w N °ry Q n •- w N w m m an C O O N v. L _� d O O U vii v U N `O d in vii woy L v'^i wu m v} v TcYo u a`u O Za O •� O N O Ow C O U v u n m .n a 0 u m a m v°a• E .. E � O w a= m c« Q Q v H10 m 2 E` u p E c c o T ,ro, �• m O O > M u m � .. 3 O ` co w Q r w W C o7$ ✓ a N O �' vi 3 O C tCa �• � >o N« E � j m C5 3 w w a v O C aw+ 6 O \ w Q f0 - U O � Q w c O N Y w � w � N Y O m O O O Y — 3 E LL wi" LL Q E w m C y E N cA > w G J w 74 N'' w v m f' rte" w .i E v N r' R ii s. M M E 9 r m 75 N C V N O m Q � a H � O y M C O > p U H p °o M v u gy. oy 0 °O •--• U N LL a C 'T- .-1 �4 .3 N SO/i a v m E o m v a of in vT o > a o � cL. c E «° Y G O j�� O� aa+ T O o0 �p N Y N O c N K •- � cr o E u o v Z E° o m a>i 0 v v 3 N 3 w Y o^ in Y Y c `m o o ° o ¢ a c to z z m o U V N O u O 3?+�n > � 3 i L u V IA p p L p o O a ri c �^ G O c E • o o o c -- � Ea TO mry c > o VTYN OCNK c a �C cUE v — v a O Q p O N N p m W m Z n O N Q m .MiF vNi •°n 3 o m U U Q Q m c r a N ~O a C v Z m o E a `O N C a 'O Yp N h p d m +' N V N V A m 75 N C V N O m %7, AY .a a.. i w R.. R Y' i e y • 1 LJ Y d' 3 0 N V N W ca LL h N O p, N pp N N v Q LL C N O N M �`+ R � O v N LL lfl O r o O N d CL vi N L M u N M 3 a d w C m G L L .3 m v N r O o O N 0 CL � N O N O � O a o v E c v y E a C 3 1* M 0 u N O� y} C O N O O O N .� YO M Vf M VT N C p u v O' C LM N L p Ol O a O O � Z O O C iMR 4A G Ol O O O n O d u• rdo OO v v >_ d jp tl1 w a v m N O � � o O � � v u E C y � N y c N � a Y m E u° u° Y >2 O ' o o m 3 ba N r p Y 0 " o U v l7 H 76 a v o: v m 77 Regional Board Adopts New Sacramento Valley Irrigated Lands Program On March 12 the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) adopted new requirements for irrigated lands in the Sacramento Valley. In adopting the new regulatory requirements for the Sacramento Valley, the Central Valley Regional Board members also acknowledged that the extraordinary hardships faced by agriculture from the drought may require some flexibility in implementing the new program. The new requirements, known as a Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Order are the culmination of nearly two years of negotiation between the Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition (Coalition) leadership and Regional Water Board staff. As a result the Coalition's Order is the only one in the Central Valley Region to include a Reduced Monitoring and Management Practices Verification alternative, which provides the opportunity to reduce the frequency of surface water quality monitoring to every five (5) years in areas with a low threat of pesticide discharges from irrigated agriculture when it is demonstrated that management practices used by growers are protective of water quality. This will enable some subwatersheds of the Coalition to reduce costs for growers. The Regional Board members also expressed sensitivity to balancing increased costs related to grower reporting requirements and groundwater quality monitoring with surface water monitoring requirements. in Rivers WATER QUALITY 2013 Surface Water Quality Annual Monitoring Report By Bruce Houdesheldt, Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition /NCWA The Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition (Coalition) Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) for 2013 S V W Q C once again underscores the actions of growers and ranchers to protect water quality. Pesticides were infrequently detected (-12% of 2013 pesticide results) and when detected, rarely exceeded applicable objectives in surface water monitoring. Three registered pesticides (chlorpyrifos, dimethoate, and malathion) exceeded applicable water quality objectives or Trigger Limits in a total of five Coalition monitoring samples (including one field duplicate). In addition, two breakdown products of the legacy pesticide DDT [DDD(p,p) and DDE(p,p)] exceeded applicable water quality objectives in a total of six samples from two sites. Surface Water Quality Monitored Many of the pesticides specifically required to be monitored in the past by the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (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 agricul- tural pesticides, has been detected in only seven samples to date and has never approached concentrations likely to cause toxicity to sensitive test species. Over 98.5% of all pesticide analyses performed to date for the Coalition have been below detection. Similarly, the Coalition has con- ducted more focused monitoring of the ILRP required trace elements (arsenic, cadmium, lead, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, and zinc), which have demonstrated that most of these metals rarely approach or 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. The consistent year after year results are a direct outcome of Coalition members use and implementation of manage- ment and cultural practices targeted specifically to improve water quality in the Sacramento Valley. To date the thirteen subwatersheds of the Coalition have secured nearly $25 million in Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) cost sharing program funding, water quality funding from Proposition 50 and 84, plus 319(h) Clean Water grant funding ad- ministered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to assist the 8500 growers and ranchers enrolled in the Coalition. The AMR characterizes potential water quality impacts of agricultural drainage from a broad geographic area in the Sacramento Valley from October 2012 through September 2013. To date, a total of 91 Coalition storm and irrigation season events have been completed, with additional events collected by coordinating programs and for follow -up evaluations. For the period of record in this AMR (October 2012 through September 2013), samples were collected for 10 scheduled monthly events and 2 wet weather ( "storm ") events. 79 Advisory Committee Kickoff Meeting Monday, March 10, 2014 —1:30 p.m. Joe Serna Jr. - Cal /EPA Headquarters Building Sierra Hearing Room 1001 1 Street, Second Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 THIS MEETING IS A CONTINUATION OF THE EFFORTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD CHAPTER 1 OF THE SECOND EXTRAORDINARY SESSION OF 2008 (SBX2 1, PERATA) REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE — RECOMMENDATION 14, EXPERT PANEL AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE FORMATION OBJECTIVE: Development of a stakeholder- driven set of questions that will help determine the focus of Expert Panel work when it convenes. AGENDA 1:30 -1:45 Welcome and Introductions Darin Polhemus- State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Sam Magill- Center for Collaborative Policy (CCP) 1:45 — 2:15 Expert Panel and Advisory Committee Background information Darin Polhemus • State Water Board Recommendations to the Legislature • Recommendation 11 and the Nitrogen Tracking and Reporting System Task Force and report - CDFA • Recommendation 14 and Expert Panel to assess existing agricultural nitrate control programs and develop recommendations • Review Notice and Anticipated Role of Expert Panel and Advisory Committee • Describe anticipated Expert Panel process and Advisory Committee role • Schedule, plans and objectives for Advisory Committee 2:15 — 3:15 Questions for the Expert Panel- ROUND 1 Sam Magill All Meeting Participants • Questions from WQ Order 2013-0101 (Central Coast Agricultural Order) • Consideration of Questions Submitted during Solicitation • Question Language Discussion /Revision 3:15 -3:30 BREAK 3:30 -4:00 Questions for the Expert Panel- ROUND 2 All Meeting Participants • Refine Questions from Round 1 • Straw Poll /Question Prioritization Exercise M 4:00 -4:15 Expert Panel Nominations Darin Polhemus Sam Magill • Process for panel selection • Review of nominations to date • Process for providing input on panel selection 4:15 — 4:30 Action Items and Next Steps Sam Magill 4:30 ADJOURN Parking, Accessibility and Security The Cal /EPA Building is accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals who require special accommodations at the Cal /EPA Building are requested to contact Tanya Cole, Equal Employment Opportunity Office, at (916) 341 -5850. For a map to our building, visit: http: / /www.calepa .ca.gov /EPABIdg /location.htm. Due to enhanced security precautions at the Cal /EPA Building, all visitors are required to register with security staff prior to attending any meeting. To sign in and receive a visitor's badge, visitors must go to the Visitor and Environmental Services Center, located just inside and to the left of the building's public entrance. Depending on their destination and the building's security level, visitors may be asked to show valid picture identification. Valid picture identification can take the form of a current driver's license, military identification card, or state or federal identification card. Depending on the size and number of meetings scheduled on any given day, the security check -in could take up to fifteen minutes. Please allow adequate time to sign in before being directed to the hearing. f Central Valley Water Board Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program Questions and Answers Updated November 2013 I received a letter from the Water Board. Why was I identified? The Water Board conducts outreach to landowners who likely own commercial irrigated lands and whose parcels do not have regulatory coverage with the Water Board. We use publically available data such as county tax assessor information and the California Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program to identify these landowners. This is the first I've heard of the program. Why was it created and when did it start? The Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP) was created to address discharge of wastes (e.g., sediments, pesticides, nitrates) from irrigated lands. Such wastes can affect surface water quality and groundwater quality. Before 2003, waste discharges from irrigated lands had a broad waiver from regulation through a specific Water Board program. New legislation required the Central Valley Water Board and other water boards to terminate existing waivers and replace them with Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) or a conditional waiver of WDRs. In response, the Water Board approved a conditional waiver for waste discharges from irrigated lands in 2003 to address discharge to surface waters. Waste discharges from irrigated lands have been regulated under the ILRP since that time. How can the Water Board claim that my farm operation is discharging waste? The Water Board's authority to regulate waste discharges that could affect the quality of the waters of the state, which includes both surface water and groundwater, is found in the Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code Division 7). The Water Board has used this statute to find that all commercial irrigated lands operations have the potential to affect water quality, either through waste discharges to land /groundwater or surface waters. The most common waste discharges associated, with irrigated lands are sediment, nutrients, pesticides and salts. How are discharges from irrigated agriculture currently regulated? Of the estimated 35,000 growers in the Central Valley, there are about 25,000 landowners /operators, with a total of nearly 5 million acres of land, who are currently regulated by the Water Board and are part of water quality coalition groups. The coalition groups conduct surface water monitoring and prepare regional plans to address water quality problems. The growers are required to implement management ILRP Q &A — November 2013 Page 1 L&I Central Valley Water Board Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program Questions and Answers practices to protect surface waters, such as creeks and rivers. The focus of these efforts is in areas where monitoring has identified problems. The Water Board is in the process of replacing the existing Irrigated Lands Conditional Waiver with regional and commodity -based Waste Discharge Requirements. WDR's have already been approved for the Eastern San Joaquin River watershed and Tulare Lake Basin areas; and WDR's are planned for rice growers, for the San Joaquin County and Delta area, the Western San Joaquin River Watershed, and the Western Tulare Lake Basin area. What have the monitoring efforts shown so far? The monitoring of rivers and streams has identified problems in some areas clearly associated with irrigated agriculture (for example, the pesticides chlorpyrifos and diazinon) and water quality problems that need additional study to identify sources (for example, e. coli, which is an indicator of potential pathogens). Has the existing program improved surface water quality? There is evidence of improvement in some cases, but it is too soon to tell whether those improvements will be sustained or whether improvements are wide spread. Coalitions are required to prepare Water Quality Management Plans anytime water quality objectives have been exceeded more than once in three years. Plans have been prepared to address over 600 combinations of water bodies and parameters. For some problems it is not clear if the identified problem was caused by agriculture, so further investigation is being conducted. For other water quality problems, there are clear agricultural sources and the plans include implementation of improved practices, as well as education and outreach to growers. How have the program requirements been enforced? There have been two primary areas that have been the focus of our enforcement efforts: 1) ensuring growers who are required to have regulatory coverage have proper coverage; and 2) addressing site - specific water quality problems. Through public outreach and use of enforcement tools, the Water Board has identified growers and ensured they are properly regulated by joining a coalition. Site - specific water quality problems have been addressed by working with coalitions and using the Water Board's enforcement authority. Cases of discharges of excessive amounts of sediment have resulted in fines ranging from $10,000 to $300,000. ILRP Q &A- November 2013 Page 2 MM Central Valley Water Board Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program Questions and Answers Why are changes to the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program needed? When the Water Board adopted the current program in 2003 (and renewed it in 2006), it recognized that an important element needed to be added - regulation of discharges of irrigated agricultural waste to groundwater. The Board directed staff to develop a program that addressed both groundwater and surface water. In addition, the Board told staff to prepare a Program Environmental Impact Report to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. Adding discharge to groundwater to the program could result in the regulation of a total of 35,000 growers and more than 7 million acres of irrigated agricultural land. What are some of the key changes in the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program? The new Waste Discharge Requirements recently adopted by the Board have the following key elements that were not part of the previous approach: 1. Expand the program to include discharges to groundwater. This is especially critical to protect sources of drinking water from contaminants such as nitrate, which can come from fertilizer application. 2. Base regulatory requirements on what is known about threats to water quality from irrigated agricultural discharges. Known high threats have more regulatory requirements, low threats have fewer requirements. 3. Tailor requirements to the setting and issues relevant to specific geographic areas or commodities. This will result in the Board issuing 7 to 8 general waste discharge requirements. 4. Increase grower and coalition (or third party) accountability by identifying specific expectations that must be met to avoid individual regulation by the Board. 5. Require growers to conduct evaluations of their management practices to ensure they are protecting groundwater and surface water. In areas impacted, or potentially impacted, by nitrates, requiring growers to develop individual nitrogen management plans. 6. Require third parties to develop regional water quality management plans for areas where irrigated agriculture is contributing to water quality problems. Growers will need to implement practices consistent with those plans to address the identified problems. 7. Conduct monitoring to fill data gaps (e.g., determining whether agriculture is contributing to a problem), determine the effectiveness of management practices, and track water quality trends. 8. Focus on areas where irrigated agriculture is contributing to a water quality problem that is impacting the beneficial uses of water. ILRP Q &A - November 2013 Page 3 84 Central Valley Water Board Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program Questions and Answers How much flexibility will growers have in meeting water quality standards? Growers will determine what practices they use to protect water quality. However, third parties and their grower members must demonstrate to the Water Board that those practices are effective in protecting water quality. If implemented practices aren't protective, growers will need to implement improved practices that will achieve water quality goals. What will growers be required to do? The primary responsibility of growers is to implement management practices and verify their practices are effective - meaning they protect water quality. All growers will be required to conduct a farm evaluation to determine what farm practices are currently being implemented and to determine whether any improvements can be made to protect water quality. Nutrient management is a recommended key element for all growers; however, growers in areas where groundwater is known to be severely impacted by nitrates, pesticides or other constituents associated with agriculture will be required to have a certified nitrogen management plan. Water quality monitoring will be a key element of the Program. Water quality monitoring may involve contributing to regional efforts and participating in studies to evaluate how effective management practices are. What is the role of the third -party or coalition? A key element of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program is to maintain the ability of individual growers to join third -party or coalitions groups. The third - parties or coalitions will work directly with their member growers to assist them in complying with Central Valley Water Board requirements. Third - parties will: • assess fees to cover their costs and State Water Board fees; • conduct education and outreach to inform growers of requirements and practices to protect water quality; • prepare and implement regional water quality management plans and water quality monitoring plans; and • report to the Board on the results of the monitoring efforts and the effectiveness of the plans. The roles and responsibilities of the third - parties or coalitions will be clearly identified to increase accountability and transparency of this process to the growers and Board. ILRP Q &A - November 2013 Page 4 M Central Valley Water Board Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program Questions and Answers Will growers have any direct interaction with the Water Board? Growers who are currently members of third - parties or coalitions, and are complying with Water Board requirements, will have little or no direct interaction with the Board. Any growers who are not part of a coalition or do not meet their obligations in the coalition will be directly regulated by the Board. Water Board staff will also conduct inspections of growers in response to complaints or to evaluate compliance. How will requirements be tailored for differences in agricultural operations? The Water Board plans to issue 7 to 8 geographic or commodity - specific Orders containing requirements tailored to the issues relevant to the geographic area or commodity. In addition, the Orders tailor requirements based on water quality threats and whether an area is vulnerable to discharges from irrigated lands. How will vulnerability assessments be conducted? The third party will evaluate available data for a given area to determine the vulnerability of groundwater aquifers and areas that are vulnerable to sediment erosion and discharge. The evaluation will be conducted for different constituents. For example, a given area may have a problem with nitrates in groundwater (high threat/vulnerability); pathogens in surface water with an unknown agricultural contribution (unknown threat/vulnerability); and no pesticide residues in groundwater (low threat/vulnerability). Growers, third - parties or coalition representatives and the public will be engaged in this process with staff prior to staff developing its recommended approach. What opportunities will the public have for input as the program is implemented? As the Water Board considers issuing the waste discharge requirements, there have been and will continue to be opportunities for the public to provide comments as part of the hearing process. In addition, interested parties will be able to provide input on an administrative draft of the waste discharge requirements. When final draft regional water quality management plans are submitted by third - parties or coalitions to the Water Board for approval (or changes to existing plans are made), the public will have an opportunity to provide comments on those plans prior to the approval decision. Board staff will also provide periodic updates to the board on program implementation, which are open to the public. Here's a link for these meetings: http: / /www.waterboards .ca.gov /centraIvaIlev /water issues /irrigated lands /new waste d ischarge requirements /brd mtq presentations info /index.shtml ILRP Q &A— November 2013 Page 5 EV. Central Valley Water Board Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program Questions and Answers What is the schedule for developing the WDRs? The Waste Discharge Requirements for the Eastern San Joaquin Watershed, for individual growers, and for the Tulare Lake Basin were approved by the Water Board in December 2012, July 2013, and September 2013, respectively. Where can I find the recent regulation that expanded coverage to groundwater as well as surface water in the Eastern San Joaquin River Watershed or Tulare Lake Basin? The regulation is found in the Waste Discharge Requirements General Order for Growers within the Eastern San Joaquin River Watershed that are Members of the Third -Party Group (Order R5- 2012 - 0116); and the Waste Discharge Requirements General Order for Growers within the Tulare Lake Basin Area that are Members of the Third -Party Group (Order R5- 2013 - 0120). Here's the link for these Orders: http: / /www. waterboards .ca.gov /centralvallev /board decisions /adopted orders /general orders/r5-2012-0116. pd http: / /www. waterboards .ca.gov /centralvallev /board decisions /adopted orders /general orders/r5-2013-0120. pd My irrigated lands are covered by the Dairy Order. Do 1 still need coverage under the ILRP? No, but you must report the parcels that you are using for dairy waste applications to the Water Board. This should be done on your Dairy Order annual report. I have a newly planted orchard that will not be harvestable for a few years. Do I need regulatory coverage? Irrigated lands are lands irrigated to produce crops or pasture used for commercial purposes including lands that are planted to commercial crops that are not yet marketable (e.g., newly planted vineyards and tree crops). Irrigated lands for which the crops are not yet harvestable must still get regulatory coverage. Is enrollment in a coalition mandatory? No. Growers also have the option of applying for the Waste Discharge Requirements General Order for Discharges from Irrigated Lands within the Central Valley Region for ILRP Q &A— November 2013 Page 6 M Central Valley Water Board Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program Questions and Answers Dischargers not Participating in a Third -Party Group (Order R5- 2013 - 0100). Here's the link for this Order: http: / /www. waterboards .ca.gov /centralvallev /board decisions /adopted orders /general orders/r5-2013-01 00. pdf Depending on the specific site conditions, growers with their own individual WDRs are often required to monitor runoff from their property, install monitoring wells, and submit technical reports regarding their actions to comply with their Waste Discharge Requirements. Costs would include State administrative fees (for example, annual fees for farm sizes from 10 -100 acres are currently $750 + $5 /acre); cost to prepare a report of waste discharge; and monitoring and reporting costs. What is the benefit of joining a coalition? The coalitions conduct monitoring and submit required reports to the Water Board on behalf of enrolled growers. For example, the coalition will conduct studies to determine whether agricultural management practices are protective of groundwater quality. Individual growers who do not join the coalition would need to conduct individual monitoring and develop such studies to determine whether waste discharges are protective of surface and groundwater quality. The Water Board has developed separate Waste Discharge Requirements for growers who don't want to join a coalition. The requirements of this Order can be found here: htti): / /www.waterboards.ca.gov /centralvallev /board decisions /adopted orders /general orders /r5- 2013 -0100. pdf How do I apply to join a coalition? Directions for joining a coalition group can be found in the link below. Keep in mind that the procedure is different for areas with new Waste Discharge Requirements than for the other areas. http: / /www.waterboards.ca.gov /centralvallev /water issues /irrigated lands /app approval /index.shtml What is the purpose of the Water Board's application fee, and how are the fees used? The application fee covers the Water Board's administrative costs to identify owners of commercial irrigated lands. This includes costs for staff time; maintaining information management systems; acquiring tax assessor parcel information; and sending out ILRP Q &A- November 2013 Page 7 I_ Central Valley Water Board Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program Questions and Answers letters using certified mail. Basically, the less work that must be done by the Water Board to get a farming operation under proper regulatory coverage (if it is needed) the lower the administrative costs to the farming operation. There will be a grace period when each new Waste Discharge Requirements are approved. During this time, which will vary depending on the area, there will be no administrative fee for growers who join the coalition in the recently- approved WDR area. Additionally, growers can enroll directly with the coalition during this time without any need to submit paperwork or fees to the Water Board. After the grace period, and application and administrative fee will have to be submitted to the Water Board. How do I stay informed about the new Waste Discharge Requirements proposed as part of the Long -term Program and other ILRP- related news? You can receive ILRP - related notifications, updates and other correspondence by e- mail. Subscribe on -line to our electronic mailing list here: http: /Iwww.waterboards.ca.gov /resources /email subscriptions /reg5 subscribe shtml I want to speak with Water Board staff. How do I reach a real person? Irrigated Lands Program staff can be reached via phone at (916) 464 -4611, or via e-mail at IrrLandSCLDwaterboards.ca.go . If you call, you will be asked to allow up to two business days for staff to return your call. ILRP Q &A — November 2013 Page 8 t 0 2 m v 3 Q T p = Y m c p m E am+ am+ 3 N v °0 m E Z EO o '� v r ai ,°. a c v ° p CO T N w a m an a w m — ,FN, imn c W hp m 0 O T 00 m m m a 'X m O N M N w v_ `w v s v o `m v - ° +' H v c m v u > v v a v E M m 3 E o •` N o C w v 3 w v c ° 'p m 'o v 'x t y m v m 025 E m - M v 4 w m c -Eb OV C •" w 9 0- v y 0 O c m 'Y w w E m v' o x> m e v E 0 m W. .n �°.. H u m u v o m' > v 3 v ._ 0 E o �n v L a y E °' a w v Y a 3 �' �° -�L., v '-^ m c c v 'p Y N E o m 3 o m a o, ° v w m u w> V w$ .. u .E v m o w s 2> LA E° E •° `Eooii °1 E >' maEm« a> u` Ev.ocIw o m e c `v L „;. o v m E c c w v v d m' N >, a y c L H S m > a m e °c « m L« w y w 3 c- v m is v 3 o m a o m ,L' H 'm" c v v 3 m u c w o s N v y s N s m a o m 3° o o v ° T 'o a y a a w m en c D L v y EY" ° '> c = °-' v h° a a v 3O 2 v 3 o 0 v` «. a •� v C a .°_- -° N✓ m v •a- m' C � 0 m w= a w N C O j V L N � a ate+ C hp C c w — v n — 3 m u« o _ m m .9j. w o w a .L. m «• O v pm o" 3❑ v H o° c w ''° o° E w 00 v:°_ m m m m CL « 'o c o ni c '� ° c E N E �. E .:.. T 3 v Y m v- 'o, c o Y N 'y v 0 Y ou , c a p 0 z v o V v 3 a'� N o L v m 3 v >i v 3 O E .m O H a 3 a am. > m w m c v N FfO w +G . v . E c . E . 0 u y � N N m � CD GL O L E lY6 3 c a C 0 u 0 L a m E ^ m m M^ m T d 0 v d E 0 c r v E > m E 3 0 ° O o y c d o L Oq E m •L H / V m ,y � d a 3 � Y a a° cr d °E