Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Commission Agenda Packet - February 2018 Menchaca, Clarissa From: Thomas, Auturn Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2018 3:11 P,M To: BCWater Subject: Water Commission Agenda Packet for February 2018 The following are available on the Butte County Water and Resource Conservation website: Water Commission Aqenda Water Commission Packet Correspondence W,aterSolutions Newsletter You can access the documents by clicking on the corresponding hyperlink. If you are unable to access the information please feel free to contact me. Thank you, Butte"_­ounty Water and Resource Conservation. Administrative Analyst,Associate 308 Nelson Ave.,Oroville,CA 95965 Office:53-05..,-5-23-, -5 94,Fax:530.538,3807 "COUNTY OF BUTTE E-MAIL DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and any attachment thereto may contain private,confidential, and privileged material far the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review,copying,or distribution of this e-mail(or any attachments thereto)by other than the County of Butte or the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are NOT the intended recipient,please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this e-mail and any attachments thereto, WATER AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION ;'tea t $ 308 Nelson Avenue,Oroville,CA 95965 fi Telephone:530.552.3595 Fax:530.538.3807 www.buttecouniy.net/waterandresource Butte bcwater@buttecounty.net Paul Gosselin,Director WATER&RESOURCE CONSERVATION January 25, 2018 TO: Butte County Water Commission FROM: Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation SUBJECT: Meeting Agenda Date: February 7, 2018 Time: 2:30 p.m. Place: 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 AGENDA ITEMS 1) Roll call. 2) *Approval of minutes for the January 3, 2018 meeting. (Chair Skinner) 3) Public members wishing to address the Commission on items not listed on the agenda. (The Water Commission is prohibited by State law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda. Comments will be limited to five minutes per person) 4) *Presentation on the Northern Sacramento Valley impacts from the Bay-Delta Processes (David Guy, Northern California Water Association). 5) *Presentation on the 2017 Annual Groundwater Status Report (Christina Buck, Department of Water and Resource Conservation). 6) *Discussion and Possible recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to appoint Matt Meninga to the Technical Advisory Committee (Christina Buck, Department of Water and Resource Conservation). 7) Update on activities associated with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. (SGMA). (Water and Resource Conservation staff) a. Update on Groundwater Sustainability Plan development and governance b. Update regarding the Groundwater Pumpers Advisory Committee (GPAC) c. Update on the outreach strategy to private well users 1 8) *Update on the proposed North of Delta Storage Project(Sites Reservoir) (Paul Gosselin, Water and Resource Conservation). 9) Update on the activities of the Northern Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Board (NSV Board)comprised of representatives of the Counties of Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Tehama, Sutter and Shasta. (Christina Buck, Water and Resource Conservation). 10)Reports from Water Commissioners and staff on issues of interest. a. Report on Water Advisory Committee, Technical Advisory Committee and general groundwater issues. (Christina Buck, Water and Resource Conservation) b. Update on Delta Issues (Paul Gosselin, Water and Resource Conservation). c. Report on water related activities of the Board of Supervisors. (Paul Gosselin, Water and Resource Conservation) d. Other issues. 11) Future meeting dates and locations: March 7, 2018 Board of Supervisors Chambers 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 96965 12) Commissioners wishing to address items not listed on the agenda. (The Water Commission is prohibited by state law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda). 13) *Communications received and referred. (Copies of all communications are available in the Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation, 308 Nelson Avenue, Oroville, California). 14) Adjournment. *Materials attached cc: Water Commission Mailing List Window Posting 2 Agenda Item #2 MINUTES OF THE BUTTE COUNTY WATER COMMISSION January 3, 2018 Board of Supervisors Chambers 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 1. Roll call. Commissioners present: Commissioners Grover, Jones, Kimmelshue, Roethler, Schohr, Skinner and Washington. Commissioners absent: Commissioner Chance and Tennis. 2. Approval of minutes for the November 1, 2017 meeting. Motion by Commissioner Kimmelshue, second by Commissioner Grover to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried 5-0 with commissioners Schohr and Washington abstaining. 3. Election of Chair and Vice Chair. Motion by Commissioner Jones to elect Commissioner Skinner to Chairman, second by Commissioner Kimmelshue. No other nominees. Motion carried 7-0 with no abstentions. Motion by Commissioner Kimmelshue to elect Commissioner Jones to Vice- Chairman, second by Commissioner Schohr. No other nominees. Motion carried 7-0 with no abstention. 4. Public members wishing to address the Commission on items not listed on the agenda. None. 5. Presentation on the Evaluation of Restoration and Recharge Potential within the Groundwater Basins of Butte County Project. Mark Williamson and Byron Clark addressed the commission. Information only, no action. 6. Update on activities associated with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act(SGMA). a. Update on Groundwater Sustainability Plan development and governance. Information only, no action. b. Update regarding the Groundwater Pumpers Advisory Committee (GPAC). Information only, no action. c. Update on the outreach strategy to private well users. Information only, no action. 7. *Update on the proposed North of Delta Storage Project(Sites Reservoir). John Scott addressed the commission. Information only, no action. S. Update on the activities of the Northern Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Board (NSV Board) comprised of representatives of the Counties of Bunte, Golusa, G Glenn, T eha na, Sutter and Shasta. Information only, no action. 9. Reports from Water Commissioners and staff on issues of interest. a. Report on Water Advisory Committee, Technical Advisory Committee and general groundwater issues. Information only, no action. b. Update on Delta Issues. Information only, no action. c. Report on water related activities of the Board of Supervisors. Information only, no action. d. Other issues. None. 10. Future meeting dates and locations: February 7, 2018, 1:30 pm Board of Supervisors Chambers 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 11. Commissioners wishing to address items not listed on the agenda. Commissioner Kimmelshue and Commissioner Schohr addressed the Commission. Information only, no action. 12. *Communications received and referred. Information only, no action. 13. Adjournment. M: Agenda Ite to a 'a SAN�OAQUIiVTRIBUI'ARlbs AUTHORITY �4 " ..>taa..,.. NCVN SWC ` o1© ACWAA �� NplhrnUlApnuWaltrAttxirtbr sxmuawr yc a' ; rcwt nr^a.v>M:ar Aftxi­ FCF...;,WaverAgonna. OELr Q RTTA CASTAIC AKSanto Clara Valley ox Water Distrdt MtYonCSlrlDIDSgtariCt odesto ­0 _.______ L Mohave Westlands Water Aislrict }'I' wWa�fe{l/ SIl 1>ll Age nC/ WATER&POWER � 500TH SAH 10A0Uill ixxicnnax oisteut ` - �•1� Cucamonga Valley SOLANO CIoUNTY Ulf ._ Mesaa�:ere�olslrlcl r.W_,. .. WATER AGENCY .,._..,._ � ., ryAr o� DISTRICT'WA sarncc 8oyonrl Lxnacra;ron "' - ?� 11µ ,.-.. DESERT WATER 00 �4rga AAEr14- \TvVntt��� STOEKTON; ` EAST WATER DISTRICT ` SA AMEN 0 u 6 S RBAN weteR 6151 i1C1 $ 1 NCE ICL CALIFORNIA NEEDS NEW AND MODERN APPROACHES TO SUPPLY WATER FOR CITIES AND RURAL COMMUNITIES, FARMS, FISH, BIRDS AND RECREATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY November 13, 2017 Water suppliers in every part of California call on the Governor and both the state and federal administrations to embrace a coordinated and modern 21" century approach to water management for the Bay-Delta by protecting all beneficial uses of water. We share the current interest to improve fisheries and our agencies have made substantial investments and advanced programs for the benefit of fish. Furthermore, water suppliers acknowledge flow as an important component of habitat, and encourage a new approach where every drop of water serves a specific and targeted beneficial use or multiple uses. However, a flow only approach that fails to take steps to incorporate flow with habitat and other important species functions, such as proposed by the State Water Board in the Water Quality Control Planning process, will not improve species. Continuing on the path set by the State Water Board will not help the environment, it will not help water supplies throughout the State, and it will not help California successfully implement groundwater management. It could lead to an adjudication of the entire Bay-Delta watershed, which would threaten progress on ecosystem restoration and other priority water issues in the California Water Action Plan. We offer this statement to set a new path.We support California's co-equal goals of protecting,restoring and enhancing the Delta ecosystem and providing more reliable water supplies for California. We believe these goals can be achieved by holistically planning for ecosystem functions to ensure the most efficient use of water for all beneficial uses, by using the interaction of flow with other habitat aspects to create the type of conditions that allow us to meet our objectives. This requires us to take into account the altered physical landscape in California and our highly managed water system,which must be addressed in combination with appropriate hydrology to protect and balance all beneficial uses of water. Page 2 o€3 A Flow Only Approach Does Not Work for Modern California A flow only approach is at the core of the State Water Board's Phase I San Joaquin River Substitute Environmental Document (SED) and its recently released Phase 11 scientific basis report. These proposals, if implemented,would have significant negative impacts throughout California because they: • focus on one beneficial use of water (instream flow for fish) without balancing and protecting all beneficial water uses, including water for drinking and sanitation for cities and rural communities, fire suppression, farms, salmon, birds and wildlife along the Pacific Flyway, hydroelectric generation, and recreational opportunities; • ignore the state policy for"One Delta, One Science"and the Delta Science Program's conclusion that directing more water to a sterile and inhospitable rip-rapped channel in the Delta will not benefit fish or other aquatic species, regardless of how much water is applied; • will deplete reservoir storage and thus lose the benefit of water storage (including carryover storage) in such a way that will create greater risk for all beneficial uses during dry years, such as 2014-15,particularly under various climate change scenarios evaluated by the state administration; • undermine significant fishery efforts and success stories in areas upstream of the Delta,which have benefitted from integrating functional flows with habitat improvements and partnerships among our agencies; and • result in less surface water put into groundwater to help California comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act(SGMA)without significant economic impacts. California Should Embrace a Modern, Functional Flow Approach for 2111 Century California Together,the water suppliers embracing this statement serve water for 39 million people, the safest and most productive agricultural economy in the world, the wildlife refuges and ricelands that serve birds and wildlife along the Pacific Flyway, hydro-electric generation, recreation and many other beneficial uses of water. We are actively implementing progressive and innovative 21 st century water management to serve nearly every beneficial use of water in California.To support these efforts throughout California, we need state and federal agencies to also embrace a practical and progressive approach that will empower 21 st century water resources management. These initiatives are consistent with the California Water Action Plan and will create positive, transformative change in the management of California's water resources. The Natural Resources Agency's Resiliency Strategies, for both smelt and salmon, are prime examples of this progressive approach. The Resiliency Strategies pursue a new and innovative path to improve conditions for fish using scientifically based conceptual models to advance habitat and nourishment by connecting water and land with the volume, rate, and timing of flows. For example, the use of flows in the Yolo Bypass to export food to the Delta demonstrated that the right amount of flow at the right place and the right time can provide the ecosystem functions key to species success. Importantly, these programs can be achieved without negatively affecting other beneficial uses. We support this new path and implore the state and federal administrations to build upon the successes in the Resiliency Strategies by pursuing the following actions: Page 3 of 3 • Advance the landscape scale ecosystem improvements that are being implemented in many parts of the Central Valley to restore ecological functions to California's highly-altered landscape.These programs include: (i) the numerous actions underway and planned for Eco-Restore, (ii) the Yolo and Sutter Bypasses, (iii)the San Francisco Estuary Institute's(SFEI)Delta Renewed,and(iv)the various Fish-Food Programs in the bypasses, ricelands and other managed wetlands in the traditional floodplain. The modern, scientific, approach in all of these programs--to spread water out and slow it down--is the approach recommended by the leading scientists at the Delta Science Program and the University of California,and better matches the ecosystem functions in which the Bay-Delta species evolved. Evacuating water from storage and quickly conveying it through a sterile, inhospitable channel through the Delta cannot produce the type of ecosystem functions necessary to meet co-equal goals. This latter approach, in combination with other factors, has led to fish declines and makes California more vulnerable for the next drought. • Fully evaluate the nearly 1.3 million acre-feet (maf) of water that has been redirected annually to Delta outflow over the past two decades, largely through the 2008 and 2009 OCAP Biological Opinions and State Water Board Decision 1641. Only a small portion of this water was intentionally meant for outflow; the remainder is incidental to other restrictions. With the current flow-only regime failing for fish and wildlife and water supply reliability,an adaptive management approach would suggest that the state and federal agencies evaluate and then re-purpose this water to more effectively and efficiently to benefit fish and wildlife beneficial uses, and other beneficial uses of water. This should be done in the context of co-equal goals and directing water for more functional and targeted flows connected to land as part of Delta Renewed and the other landscape scale ecosystem programs. • Further develop the opportunities and mechanism for water acquisitions and re-operations to help balance supply and demand, and provide water for the Delta Smelt Resiliency Strategy's"Outflow Augmentation" adaptive management effort. For the past several decades, the principal stressor addressed through various regulatory processes has been flow,and fishery populations have continued to decline,notwithstanding the ever-greater quantities of water directed at "solving" the problem. In the California Water Action Plan, the administration committed itself to seeking transformative change by embracing new science and re-thinking old assumptions. Transformative change will not occur if we continue on the same path. The programs described above come directly from the California Water Action Plan and the Natural Resources Agency has seen the way that these programs have galvanized a wide variety of stakeholders to collaborate to restore the ecosystem. California is one of the most progressive parts of the world and California's citizens deserve a modern and innovative,21St century water management approach to support and reasonably protect all beneficial uses of water throughout California. We welcome the opportunity to discuss these multi-faceted, collaborative approaches and we stand ready to work with the administrations, including the resources agencies and State Water Board members and staff, to craft a solution that improves the environment and works for all beneficial uses of water. ) f RON BAYC A U , .......... D E LTA It I I MOK ORKIF.101m, JE a' CV°tyi.3 The various Bay-Delta processes continue with the Task Force continues to meet monthly to coordinate State Water Board moving forward with the Water all the various efforts in the Sacramento River Basin Quality Control Plan (WQCP) update; the state surrounding the Delta and to bring our team of administration is advancing Cal WaterFix(tunnels); and Directors, water resources managers, attorneys, the federal agencies are consulting on new biological biologists, and engineers together to strategize and opinions for the operation of the Central Valley Project take action to protect Northern California water rights and the State Water Project. These processes are all and supplies and to help manage the water resources looking to redirect water from the Sacramento River in our region for multiple 1�eneri6al uses.The following Basin to serve various water needs in the Bay-Delta. is an update on these various processes and the For context, these processes appear to be looking to actions that NCWA and the Sacramento Valley Water redirect 500,000 acre-feet (af) to 1,000,000 of from Users are taking as part of this unified and concerted the region. strategy. In Northern California, we all know What's at Stake NewTask Force Chair in these various processes. The NCWA Bay-Delta After 25 years on the NCWA Board of Directors, Tib Sacramento River Basin Belza retired from the NCWA Board and was honored by NCWA with the Will S. Green Award. NCWA Chairman Bryce Lundberg appointed Roger Cornwell FA as the new Chair of the Bay-Delta Task Force. Roger is the General Manager for River Garden Farms, he serves on the RD 108 Board of Trustees, he is 71 the Chairman of the Sacramento River Settlement x `r ' Contractor Group, and a Vice-Chair for the NCWA Board of Directors. SWRCB —Wafter Quality Control Plan E l• n h 4 Y 1) Regulatory Process fS L ��-.l ? - 15 The State Water Board continues to move forward W. jo { with the phased review and update of the 2006 Water Quality Control Plan for the Bay-Delta (2006 Bay-Delta Plan) and flow objectives for priority tributaries to the Delta to protect beneficial uses in the Bay-Delta e. a watershed. The update to this plan continues to be o the primary focus for Northern California water right Source:Department of Water Resources holders and suppliers, as many people want to use this process to redirect water rights and supplies away take place in Phase II with respect to the Sacramento from the Sacramento Valley to the Delta. The Bay- River and its tributaries. Delta Plan identifies beneficial uses of water in the Bay-Delta, water quality objectives for the reasonable Phase II involves other comprehensive changes to protection of those beneficial uses, and a program the Bay-Delta Plan to protect beneficial uses not of implementation for achieving the water quality addressed in Phase I,which includes the Sacramento objectives. River Basin (see map page 1). Phase 11 focuses on the following issues: (1) Delta outflow objectives, • Phase I of this work involves updating San Joaquin (2) export/inflow objectives, (3) Delta Cross Channel River flow and southern Delta water quality Gate closure objectives, (4)Suisun Marsh objectives; requirements included in the Bay-Delta Pian. The (5) potential new reverse flow objectives for Old Phase I plan has relied upon additional unimpaired and Middle Rivers; (6) potential new floodplain flows from the San Joaquin River—approximately habitat flow objectives; (7) potential changes to 40% of unimpaired flows from February through the monitoring and special studies program, and June as the preferred alternative (a range of 30- (8) other potential changes to the program of 50%4).The State Water Board is currently reviewing implementation. The State Water Board will also the comments it received on its Substitute consider other potential changes to the Bay-Delta Environmental Document (SED) for the San Joaquin Plan during this phase, including issues identified River (Phase 1). NCWA and the Sacramento Valley through the scoping process, and information that is Water Users are concerned about the approach produced as part of the Cal WaterFix. in this process and commented on the SED on March 17, 2017 The comments provided that: the ' Phase III involves changes to water rights and other unimpaired flow approach is not supported bythe measures to implement changes to the Bay-Delta best available science; by proposing to amend Plan from Phases I and 11. the wrong water quality control plan, the State • Phase IV involves developing and implementing Water Board fails to undertake the statutorily flow objectives for priority Delta tributaries outside mandated balancing of the public interest on of the Bay-Delta Plan updates, i.e. smaller tributaries the affected streams; complex delta systems in the Central Valley, see here. require a coordinated approach to management; and the unimpaired flow approach would impose The State Water Board last fall issued its scientific significant costs, without evidence of significant basis report for Phase 11, essentially proposing that it benefits. In July will consider a range of 35 to 70 percent unimpaired 2015, a broad group �''-..'... MA_. ,�,+-�,� flows. NCWA and many others commented on the `ti. -nm- RQA r-- 39` µ document on December 16, 2016, basically saying of water suppliers from throughout the zV ... the unimpaired flow approach does not work for state sent a letter California and instead the SWRCB should focus on to the State Water == - a functional flow approach for the Sacramento River Board encouraging - "' ' Basin. As part of these comments, MBK Engineers it to abandon the = has estimated that a 40% unimpaired flow for Delta unimpaired flow outflow would redirect 480,000 of of water and a 50% unimpaired flow 1 1 rnaf away from storage approach, which also ,:_ .___.... _,."..,. ,__...... p Y g raises concerns that :::: : == w .. -.-- ... .. and beneficial uses in the Sacramento River Basin. a similar approach will NCWA including responses to peer review onnnnoanto| NCWA and " hydrologic modeling information (the Sacramento Water Allocation Model nrSacVVAK4) insupport of om Phase ||' including an updated model and model output and responses to peer review oornrnento onthe model. NCV\A and its Task Force will be reviewing the documents and engaging with the State Water Board NCVVA/SVVVU Counties in various ways. Importantly, since the State Water Board's last major V WK VVOCPupdate in2OOO' there has been eserious and concerted effort to irnp|arnont the following types of programs and projects intheSanranngntoRiverBasin: ^ flow arrangements; ^ habitat enhancements; , fish passage improvements; " fish-food production projects; and Growers Ducks Unlimited " studies to advance the science that informs The State Water Board had its scientific basis report management decisions. peer reviewed over the past several months and on October issued its final scientific basis report. It also These actions are described in comprehensive detail posted several documents with respect tnPhase II: inthe following document, ^ a Fact Sheet on the current status ofthe Phase || process, including o description of the proposed changes to the Bay-Delta Plan's vvutor quality objectives and implementation approach; ° a notice� informing interested persons how to stay updated onthe Phase || process (this notice was also mailed tnwater users and others); ° a series of questions for.public input to help inform potential Phase || implementation measures inthe Bay-Delta Plan, with comments due on November 9, 2017; ~ the final supporting potential Phase || changes tothe Bay-Delta Plan and information on poor review of the report, Ak �� ��CWA 2) Voluntary Agreement Process The parties are working to have initial agreements by The Governor in his California Water Action Plan calls for December 15, 2017 with final agreements by summer 201$ "state entities to encourage negotiated agreements among interested parties to implement flow and The California Budget that was passed this summer non-flow actions to meet regulatory standards and contained the following chapter to encourage the support all beneficial uses of water." voluntary settlement process. The Governor has called upon "The Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan former Secretary of Interior establishes water quality control measures needed Bruce Babbitt to convene to protect municipal, industrial, agricultural, and parties and to help facilitate = -- == environmental uses of water in the watershed of the these voluntary agreements. - Sacramento San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco The Governor's office has Bay. This watershed, comprising millions of acres worked with the Resources _- of farmland, is a source of drinking water for two Agency to encourage the thirds of the state's population. The waterways voluntary agreements. This = of the Bay Delta estuary and its tributaries also document summarizes the provide critical habitat for numerous threatened voluntary agreement process. and endangered species and recreationally and This process provides a good opportunity for the commercially important species. The Water Board is currently in the process of updating the Plan. Sacramento River Basin to shape its future water The Water Board relies on a regulatory approach management in a way that serves water for multiple to balance competing demands for water in the beneficial uses. Discussions Delta. As directed by the Governor, the Natural are underway on five rivers in , NCWA Resources Agency is leading negotiations with the Sacramento River Basin, water districts and environmental groups to including the American, "• �� develop voluntary agreements to achieve similar Bear, Feather, Sacramento, goals.These agreements would improve ecological and Yuba Rivers. The water flows and habitat for species, create water supply resources managers involved and regulatory certainty for water users, and in the process sent a letter facilitate a collaborative approach to the Water to Secretary Babbitt initiallyM-:.-.77=_ Board's update to the Plan. If sufficient, voluntary outlining their perspectives _..._ an a successful voluntary agreements could be accepted by the Water Board Modm in lieu of a regulatory proceeding to amend water Rowsforthe agreement process. Sacramento Valley right permits and licenses" In sum, instead of a proposal that focuses on unimpaired The budget also contained "an increase of$40 million flows, as proposed by the Proposition 1 to support Central Valley multi benefit State Water Board,we believe flood management projects that include, but are not an alternative approach limited to, actions identified by voluntary agreements. - -with functional flows -will- - State_ funding would incentivize and complement work better for all beneficial additional contributions from local public agencies, purposes. federal agencies, and others" NCWA - Additionally, the Legislature on September 15 passed stream flows at a time and location necessary SB 5,which, if signed by the Governor and approved by to provide fisheries or ecosystem benefits or the voters in June 2018, has the following provisions improvements that improve upon existing flow in Public Resources Code §80114 to encourage and conditions. Project types that may be eligible fund voluntary agreements: include, but are not limited to,water transactions "(a) Of the amount made available pursuant such as lease, purchase, or exchange, change of to Section 80110, two hundred million dollars use petitions to benefit fish and wildlife, surface ($200,000,000) shall be available to the Natural storage to be used to enhance streamflow, Resources Agency for implementation of voluntary forbearance of water rights, changes in water agreements that provide multi-benefit water management, groundwater storage and quality, water supply, and watershed protection conjunctive use, habitat restoration projects and restoration for the watersheds of the state to that reshape the stream hydrograph, water achieve the objectives of integrating regulatory and efficiency generally, irrigation efficiency and voluntary efforts, implementing an updated State water infrastructure improvements that save Water Resources Control Boards' San Francisco water and enable reshaping of the stream Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary Water hydrograph, reconnecting flood flows with Quality Control Plan, and ensuring ecological restored flood plains, and reservoir reoperations benefits. Expenditure of funds provided in this both at existing and new storage sites. section shall be in accordance with the following: (b) The funds authorized by this section shall (1) For the purposes of this section, watershed be available for direct expenditures and local restoration includes activities to fund wetland assistance grants by the Natural Resources Agency, habitat, salmon, steelhead, and fishery benefits, in consultation with the Department of Fish and improve and restore Wildlife, that satisfy all of the following: river health, modernize w.a... (1)Implement voluntary agreements executed by stream crossings, - the Department of Fish and Wildlife with federal culverts, and bridges, and state agencies, local government, water reconnect historical districts and agencies, and nongovernmental flood plains, install or organizations that improve ecological flows improve fish screens, and habitat for species, create water supply provide fish passages, _ and regulatory certainty for water users, and restore river channels, ,.mm "_s,.e.,w,...,' foster a collaborative approach to facilitate restore or enhance implementation of the State Water Resources riparian, aquatic, and Control Board's Bay-Delta Water Quality Control terrestrial habitat, improve ecological functions, Plan. acquire from willing sellers conservation easements for riparian buffer strips, improve (2) Implement a voluntary agreement submitted local watershed management, predation by the Department of Fish and Wildlife to the management, hatchery management, and State Water Resources Control Board on or remove sediment or trash. before June 1, 2018, for consideration. (2) For purposes of this section, funds may (3) Implement a voluntary agreement that is of be used for projects that measurably enhance statewide significance, restores natural aquatic NCWA -+ or riparian functions or wetlands habitat for birds 3) Delta Dynamic and aquatic species, protects or promotes the With respect to functional restoration of endangered or threatened species, flaws in the Delta, NCWA has ..�......... .,.-.._...__.. enhances the reliability of water supplies on joined water suppliers in other _._ . .�_�-.,....M.._.-....... a regional or interregional basis, and provides parts of the state to offer a significant regional or statewide economic different approach to the Delta --- benefits. that fully integrates flows with - - - - (c) Funds provided by this section shall not habitat. The current approach be expended to pay the costs of the design, that focuses on outflow has _ construction, operation, mitigation, or maintenance not worked for either coequal of Delta conveyance facilities, goal—ecosystem health or water supply reliability. A new approach to flows in the (d) If the Department of Fish and Wildlife submits Delta is clearly needed to meet the co-equal goals. a voluntary agreement that satisfies paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), unencumbered funds available California WaterFix (Delta Tunnels) pursuant to this section to implement that 1) Agency Approvals voluntary agreement shall no longer be available 15 years after the date the State Water Resources On July 21, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) _}': .=-- Control Board approves the submitted agreement, _ ^ at which point funds remaining available pursuant approved and certified the to this section shall become available to the Natural environmental documents for Resources Agency for the purposes of Sections California WaterFix, which is 79732 and 79736 of the Water Code. If no voluntary the Delta tunnel proposal. "The agreements are submitted on or before June 1 Notice of Determination and decision documents signed 2018, any remaining funds shall be available to by the DWR Acting Director the Natural Resources Agency for the purposes of Sections 79732 and 79736 of the Water Code.The approve WaterFix as the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency shall proposed project under the California Environmental ensure an annual reporting of the funds pursuant Quality Act (CEQA). to Section 80012" For more information on the DWR approval, see here. On June 26, the National Marine Fisheries Service �_.- ��= 3 (NOAA Fisheries) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ""� I� FN.^I^grlcNf ItSW BfGapkal OPhbm M Popottl Proms! (USFWS) released their biological opinions for the n._ --�-�- proposed construction and ".�. operation of California WaterFix. _These__agencies .. _M" _•- :_are responsible for the protection of species listed under the U.S. Endangered NCWA . Species Act (ESA).These biological opinions seem to • Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District, rely upon a significant increase of spring outflow of Reclamation District 1004 approximately 44,500cfs. • City of Folsom, City of Roseville, Sacramento Additionally, on July 28, the California Department of Suburban Water District, San Juan Water District Fish and Wildlife issued an incidental take permit for the construction and operation of California WaterFix ' City of Sacramento in compliance with Section 2081(b) of the California . County of Butte Endangered Species Act. This permit authorizes the incidental take of state-listed species associated with • County of Sacramento, future operation of the State Water Project (SWP)with Sacramento County Water Agency the addition of the California WaterFix, which includes . Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, Reclamation construction of the proposed water conveyance District No. 108, Carter Mutual Water Company, EI facilities within the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Dorado Irrigation District, El Dorado Water & Power Delta. A copy of the permit and more details are here. Authority, Maxwell Irrigation District, Natomas Various conservation groups on September 22 Central Mutual Water Company, Meridian Farms filed suit in Sacramento Superior Court challenging Water Company, Oji Brothers Farm, Inc., Oji the California Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW) July 2097 Family Partnership, Pelger Mutual Water Company, issuance of a "take" permit for the tunnel operations. Pleasant-Grove Verona Mutual Water Company, The suit claims that CDFW improperly authorized the Princeton-Codora-Glenn Irrigation District, Provident California Department Water Resources to kill and Irrigation District, Henry D. Richter, et al., Richter harm state-protected fish species, including winter Bros., Inc., River Garden Farms Company, South run and spring-run chinook salmon, longfin smelt and Sutter Water District, Sutter Extension Water Delta smelt. The groups include the: Bay Institute, District, Sutter Mutual Water Company,Tisdale Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Irrigation & Drainage Company,Windswept Lands Defense Council and San Francisco Baykeeper, all & Livestock Company, Biggs-West Gridley Irrigation represented by Earthjustice. District The details for the California WaterFix and California • North Delta Water Agency, California Central EcoRestore are available here. Valley Flood Control Association, Brannan Andrus Levee Maintenance District, Reclamation District 2) Legal Actions No. 3, Reclamation District No. 150, Reclamation With DWR approving the Cal WaterFix and the related District No. 349, Reclamation District No. 551, environmental documents described above, various Reclamation District No. 554, Reclamation District parties in the Sacramento River Basin filed legal action No. 563, Reclamation District No. 800 (Byron challenging the environmental review process. For Tract), Reclamation District No. 999, Reclamation the past five years, NCWA working with the North District No. 1002, Reclamation District No. 2060, State Water Alliance assembled a team of experts to Reclamation District No. 2067, Reclamation District provide detailed comments on the proposed California No. 2068 WaterFix. These comments were largely ignored by • Placer County Water Agency DWR and the proponents. These statements and . Sacramento Municipal Utility District correspondence are available here. The parties that filed suit in the Sacramento River Basin include: ' Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District NCWA On August 21, NCWA offered 3) State Water Board Proceedings this statement summarizing NCWA In addition to the Resources Agency processes, the the legal action and the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the U.S. importance of an operations Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) filed a petition plan surrounding the tunnels with the State Water Board in 2015 for a change in their to determine whether there respective water rights to move water via new facilities 'w will be an impact to water ___ __ _ on the Sacramento River. In addition to other federal, rights and supplies in the - - State and local approvals, DWR and Reclamation must Sacramento River Basin. __. -_ -^-4 u request changes to the water right permits and license of the State Water Project (SWP) and federal Central The various legal actions will likely be coordinated with Valley Project (CVP) to authorize the new points of all the parties in Sacramento County Superior Court. diversion. The State Water Board is responsible for Also, on September 15, several Delta counties were approving changes in water right permits and licenses, joined by Butte and Plumas Counties in legal action and the Board's review of this project is also required challenging the proposed by provisions of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta bonds that will be used to Reform Act of 2009 (Delta ' pay for the construction "' Reform Act). of the Cal WaterFix. The The proposed facilities, parties are seeking a court � part of the California order declaringthe bonds WaterFix, would divert invalid, which could prevent _ 7 `�l water near Courtland and the Department of Water : route it around the Delta Resources from securing I through two tunnels to required funding for the ;- the existing State and project to go forward. The { federal pumping facilities legal action contends that inTrac y. "DWR's bond validation -w7 must be dismissed as s' >'�__. . The State Water Board premature since essential _ F\ is transitioning between ti Part (water rights and details of the project and its , ..._ i P t 1 w financing remain undefined, . ...... supplies) to Part 2 (fish and wildlife). Part 1, unapproved, or both, and pp -. which just finished, was the procedure for bond «rt,6,,- mow_— �- �,_,. , repayment is vague and �'- : focused on impacts to ............ confusing at best"They also .,. water rights and supplies. claim that DWR is seeking 111 {, . at Nearly every water right holder upstream of the to illegally shift a substantial p share of the cost of the Delta has filed a protest tunnels to state_taxpayers,_rather than ensuring that with the State Water Board claiming injury to their the recipients of the water be responsible for all costs, water rights and supplies. Under the Water Code, the as state law requires and as Governor Jerry Brown agencies (DWR, Reclamation) must "demonstrate a promised. reasonable likelihood that the proposed change will NCWA ��....w.,.,... not injure any other legal user of water" and provide"a Section 7 consultation with the United States Fish statement of any measures proposed to be taken for and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine the protection of fish and wildlife in connection with Fisheries Service (NMFS) on the Coordinated Long- the change:'The issue before the State Water Board is Terre Operation (LTO) of the Central Valley Project primarily focused upon the operations of the projects (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP). Reclamation in conjunction with the conveyance through the Delta. requested re-initiation of consultation under the ESA DWR on September 8 provided a letter to the State based on the apparent decline in the status of several Water Board with a summary and tables of operating listed species, new information related to recent criteria for the project approved by DWR (see section multiple years of drought, and the evolution of best 1).The Natural Resources Defense Council and others available science.The overall goal of the re-initiation of have moved to strike the letter because it does not consultation (ROC)on the LTO to achieve a durable and have specific operating requirements. sustainable Biological Opinion(s)issued by the USFWS and NMFS that accounts for the updated status of the NCWA and the Sacramento Valley Water Users species and species' needs as developed through presented a detailed case in Part 1, with various ongoing collaborative science expert witnesses, questioning the lack of a meaningful g g processes, operation of CVP and SWP facilities, existing operations of operations plan to show that the project will not the CVP and SWP and operation of potentially new impact water rights and supplies. This testimony components of the CVP and SWP On December builds upon the work the past several years by the 30, 2016, an MOU was signed by all these parties North State Water Alliance to assemble a team of and the state Department of Water Resources and experts to provide detailed analysis and comments Department of Fish and Wildlife outlining the tasks, on the proposed California Water Fix. More details processes and schedules to complete the BiOps over on these recent statements and correspondence are the next three years. For more information, see here. available here. Specifically,with respect to Sacramento River salmon, Part 2, which focuses on fish and wildlife, will begin on January 19,2016(the last day of the previous federal soon.The State Water Board has just issued its notice administration), NMFS proposed an amendment to the describing its process for 2017-18. More detailed Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) of the 2009 information is posted on the State Water Board's NMFS Biological Opinion for the long-term operation website here. of the Central Valley and State Water Projects related 4) Project Proponents to Shasta Reservoir operations. The proposal would The primary proponent for Cal WaterFix is Metropolitan have major impacts on the operations of Lake Shasta Water District, which has published several white and the Settlement Contractors, wildlife refuges papers describing the importance of the project to and water service contractors. Reclamation has Southern California. responded to the NMFS proposal on both January 26 and March 22, 2017 and the Sacramento River For some perspective on the tunnels, these videos Settlement Contractors sent a letter on January 11, show how the tunnels would be constructed. 2017 providing concerns with the proposed RPA and Biological Opinions (BiOps) recommendations on a better RPA process. With the decade-long legal wrangling over the With the past two years having good storage levels in Biological Opinionsforthe CVPand SWP(BiOps)barely Lake Shasta, Reclamation has developed temperature resolved, on August 2, 2016, Reclamation requested management plans that have been concurred to re-initiation of Endangered Species Act (ESA) t NCWA '- • ti ....M ,n..w.,.....aW� by NMFS. The process to address temperature on enforceable management plan for the Delta—one that the Sacramento River appears to be folding into the requires reduced reliance on the Delta as a source larger process for revising the BiOps for the CVP and of water, sets aside zones to help restore the Delta SWP The Sacramento River Settlement Contractors ecosystem and preserves and enhances the unique are working with Reclamation and NMFS to improve character of the largely agricultural collection of islands modeling, monitoring and to develop a rationale and waterways east of the San Francisco Bay. The temperature plan. For more details, see here. Court did cite two instances in which it concluded that the Council's Delta Plan fell short of requirements For operations this year, in a positive light, the U.S. included in the 2009 Delta Reform Act that created Fish and Wildlife Service on September 27 approved the Council and directed it to develop the plan. The a plan to provide more flexibility on Fall X2 in the Court said the Delta Plan did not contain sufficiently Delta under the BiOps, which will allow state and quantifiable performance measures and also did not federal contractors to pump additional water this Fall adequately "promote options" to improve the way (approximately 400,000af) from the Delta. water projects move water across the Delta" The Recent work by Delta scientists have identified several Council and other parties have appealed the Court's possible causes of the smelt population decline, ruling, which means the invalidation of the Plan has including a sharp decrease in food availability in the been stayed (placed on hold) pending further action Delta, invasive plants and aquatic animals, and toxic by the Appellate Court. Thus, the Delta Plan remains runoff from pesticides. In response to the decision, in force and project proponents with covered actions the State Water Contractors added "based on new remain legally required to file consistency certifications research and the best available science, regulatory with the Council. agencies are adjusting one of the most restrictive water supply regulations, known as Fall X2, without The DSC Council is working on an amendment to the reducing protections for Delta Smelt" Delta Plan to promote conveyance options and better integrate new storage opportunities and improved Delta Stewardship Council operations. More information is available here. The Delta Stewardship Council (DSC} continues to An important part of the DSC, the Delta Independent provide a forum and integrating policy venue for the Science Board continues to perform valuable work various actions in the Delta.The DSC on May 16, 2013 regarding the science surrounding the Delta. The adopted the Delta Plan as required by the 2009 Delta various reports are available here. The Council Reform Act.The Delta Plan is a comprehensive, long- appointed Dr. John Callaway as the new Lead Scientist term management plan for the Delta designed per the for the Delta Independent Science Board, replacing Delta Reform Act to further the state's co-equal goals Cliff Dahm. for the Delta. In the legal arena, the Sacramento Superior Court last As part of this process, the Science Action Agenda (SAA)is a four-year science agenda for the Sacramento- year issued a ruling on the seven suits filed challenging San Joaquin Delta that prioritizes and aligns science the 2013 Delta Plan approved by the DSC. According actions to inform management decisions, fill gaps in to the DSC's news release, "The Sacramento Superior knowledge, promote collaborative science, build the Court...ruled in favor of the Delta Stewardship Council science infrastructure, and achieve the objectives of on the vast majority of issues regarding the adequacy - -- the Delta Science Plan. A new interactivewebpage of its master plan for the Delta. The court ruled that provides more information on this program. the Council did have the authority to develop a legally +11 NCWA February 16, 2017 •CALIFORNIA• The Honorable Jerry Brown o�v ACO State Capitol, Suite 1173 �:...;« g,< Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Concerns with SWRCB Flow Proposals �gLIFpRN Dear Governor Brown: The undersigned counties throughout the Sacramento Valley are very ��►Z�l ���1�. concerned with the recent scientific basis report (Phase II) prepared by the State G �y Water Resources Control Board as part of its Water Quality Control Plan update. We support a healthy Delta, but the approach proposed by the State Water Board will redirect impacts upstream into the Sacramento Valley and will likely fail to achieve its goal of protecting Delta water quality. The State Water Board proposal calls for a 35-75 percent unimpaired flow into the Delta. The result would redirect significant amounts of water away from the Sacramento Valley into the Delta. The simplistic approach would go beyond what is needed for environmental needs and would result in a substantial amount of water being put out to the ocean without any benefit. This in turn would be o t' devastating to both the economy and the environment in the counties we represent, adversely affecting the availability of critical water for cities and rural communities, farms, wildlife refuges for birds and many other species, salmon and other fisheries and recreation. i , More specifically, the "unimpaired flow" approach will have two o P significant effects in our region: 1) Evacuate critical water in storage and prevent the diversion of water throughout our region, which will significantly affect precious water supplies for all these purposes. This is particularly true in dry years r� like we have seen this decade, where water available in storage is critical to helping Californians get through these challenging times. In other words, we will go backward under the State Water Board OFS approach—not forward—in our efforts to better prepare for the next j(#0 drought in California. n 2) Less surface water available will lead to significant additional �,9��Fo�% groundwater pumping throughout the region, which will make our efforts to implement sustainable groundwater management envisioned under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) more difficult. In our region, the groundwater resources are currently St► Coll sustainable and we will continue to work hard with other local agencies to assure that our precious groundwater resources remain sustainable into the future. The State Water Board proposal will make I our collective efforts to achieve groundwater sustainability more 'e9trFone�� difficult if not impossible. it 11 Governor Brown Concern with SWRCB Flow Proposals Page 2 of 3 In sum, we encourage your administration to abandon the flawed c o "unimpaired flow"approach. Instead,we recommend that you pursue an integrated approach such as "functional flows," where water is used for a specific * * environmental purpose that is compatible with important flood protection and other * * water uses in the region. We believe that this 21" century approach to water * * management will better serve the Sacramento Valley and more effectively protect ,�t1Foa�tir Delta water quality. We encourage your administration to embrace an approach that achieves your water quality goals for the Delta without redirecting impacts to the Sacramento Valley. Sincerely, Date BILL CONNELLY, CHAIR Butte County Board of Supervisors Z/ 7 Date' GARY J. A S,CHAIR Colusa County Board of Supervisors or Date DRUM, AIRMAN #Glnounty Board of Supervisors 'r C' Ic. I Date 40P, ONTGOME , CH P cer County Board of Supervis rs ,92 10 901 -7 Date -- - -- -DON NOTTOLI,CHAIR Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Governor Brown Concern with SWRCB Flow Proposals Page 3 of 3 1-$ 7 2017 Date AVID A EHOE, CHAIR AN Shasta unty Board of S pervisors Date *tterCounty ER, CHAIRMAN oard ofSupervisors oa�o6�zor� Date DE S GARTON, CHAIRMAN Tehama County Board of Supervisors Date RAY FLETCHER, CHAIR Yuba County Board of Supervisors /ldr cc: Nancy McFadden, Executive Secretary—Governor Brown Karla Nemeth, Deputy Secretary for Water Policy—CA Natural Resources Agency Felicia Marcus, Chair—State Water Resources Control Board Bruce Babbitt, Special Advisor—CA Natural Resources Agency Agenda Item #5 Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation Groundwater Status Report 2017 Water Year Submitted February 2018 Executive Summary-_2 017 Water Year The 2017 water year started strong with over four inches of rain in October and each month after that through April had one or more significant storms that brought multiple inches of precipitation. The wet winter led to a new record for the Northern Sierra 8-station index making 2016-2017 the wettest year on record, surpassing the previous record that occurred in 1982-1983. In April of 2017, Governor Brown lifted the drought emergency declaration for most of California that had been in effect since January 2014. Overall,the 2017 Water Year was characterized by wet conditions, high runoff, and increased groundwater levels throughout Butte County. In many parts of the state,focus shifted from drought to flood response including the extensive evacuation ordered due to the Oroville Spillway incident. From ane extreme to another, 2017 WY brought both challenges and relief for water managers across the state. The 2017 water year began October 1, 2016 and was classified as a wet year for the Sacramento Valley. It followed a below normal year,two critical years, and a dry year. The wet conditions were a welcome relief from a historically dry period with little rain and snow. According to the Northern Sierra Precipitation 8 Station Index,the 2017 WY ended on September 30, 2017 with 94.7 cumulative inches of precipitation, 183%of the long-term average. The statewide total annual precipitation was about 165% of the long-term average. Another measure of hydrologic conditions is the amount of runoff to streams and rivers. The Sacramento River Region unimpaired runoff during the 2017 WY was 37.9 million acre-feet (MAF), which is about 212% of average. April 1 snowpack statewide was 160%of the April 1 average. The robust runoff and snowpack helped fill reservoirs across the state. Storage in the state's reservoirs as 2017 WY ended held 120% of their historical average. Although by some measures 2017 was a historically wet year, it joins only two other wet years (2006 and 2011) in the past 12 years that were otherwise classified as critical, dry or below normal. The wet conditions of 2017 provided a welcome improvement to groundwater conditions throughout the basin in Butte County. Although groundwater levels increased significantly, this one wet year did not make up for the cumulative effect of the multiple dry years that resulted in significant declines, particularly in groundwater dependent areas. Even as groundwater levels have come up, they continue to be near historical lows where declines during the drought were greatest. The Department, in cooperation with the Department of Water Resources Northern Region Office, conducts four (spring, July, August, fall) groundwater level measurements annually. Spring groundwater levels in 2017 were almost 5 feet higher on average compared to the spring of 2016 (see Table 4). Fall groundwater levels in October 2017 were about three feet higher on average compared to October 2016. Although the number of wells in alert 1 or 2 have declined, others remain at a spring and/or fall alert stage 1 or 2 indicating levels remain near historical lows (Table 8 and Table 9). The Department conducted its sixteenth year of groundwater quality trend monitoring for evidence of saline intrusion during July 24-27 and August 3, 2017. All samples were within the acceptable range for electrical conductivity and pH, and temperatures remained relatively i I Page consistent. The 2017 Water Quality Trend Monitoring Report can be found in Appendix D and highlights are included later in this report. Subsidence is monitored by periodic land surveys and by use of extensometers. No inelastic land subsidence was detected in Butte County from an evaluation of the extensometer records in the Western Canal, Richvale, and Biggs-West Gridley sub-inventory units. A Sacramento Valley-wide GPS survey was conducted during 2017. Results of the survey will be available in 2018 and will provide additional land subsidence data throughout the county to better measure and detect possible subsidence. ii ( Page Table of Contents Executive Summary- 2017 Water Year ........................................................................................ i Foreword........................................................................................................................................ 1 HydrologicConditions ..................................................................................................................4 Precipitation................................................................................................................................7 Feather River Surface Water Diversions..................................................................................... S Groundwater Conditions ..............................................................................................................9 MonitoringFrequency................................................................................................................ 9 Groundwater Quality Trend Monitoring ....................................................................................9 LandSubsidence ....................................................................................................................... 11 WellPermits.............................................................................................................................. 13 Groundwater Level Monitoring................................................................................................ 13 Change in Groundwater Levels: 2016 to 2017 ......................................................................... 15 Seasonal Groundwater Level Change....................................................................................... 16 Basin Management Objectives (BMOs).................................................................................... 17 Well Numbering System Appendix A Butte County Monitoring and CASGEM Network Maps Appendix B Groundwater Level Alert Stage Maps Appendix C 2017 Water Quality Trend Monitoring Report Appendix D Spring, Summer, &Fall BMO Summary Tables Appendix E DWR Groundwater Level Contour&Change Maps Appendix F Basin Management Objective Reports Appendix G East Butte Sub-basin West Butte Sub-basin Biggs-West Gridley SIU Angel Slough SlU Butte SIU Durham-Dayton SIU Butte Sink SIU Llano Seco SIU Cherokee SIU M&T SIU Esquon SIU Pentz SIU Chico Urban Area SlU Richvale SlU Vina Sub-basin/SIU Thermalito SIU North Yuba Sub-basin/SIU Western Canal SIU iiiPage Foreword This report presents the status of groundwater conditions and ground surface elevation monitoring based on data collected by Butte County and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) during the 2017 water year, October 1, 2016 - September 30, 2017. The fall measurements taken in mid-October 2017 are also included since they reflect conditions and activities of the 2017 water year. The report gives general information regarding locations of wells and extensometers, statistics related to groundwater level trends, historical precipitation information and hydrographs depicting groundwater levels over time (included in the individual BMO reports in Appendix G).This report was prepared by the Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation (Department) with assistance from DWR, Northern Region and the Technical Advisory Committee. This report complies with reporting requirements established in Chapter 33, Chapter 33A of the Butte County Code, and the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring program (CASGEM). In November 1996, the voters in Butte County approved "AN ORDINANCE TO PROTECT THE GROUNDWATER RESOURCES IN BUTTE COUNTY." One of the stated purposes of the ordinance was that "the groundwater underlying Butte County is a significant water resource which must be reasonably and beneficially used and conserved for the benefit of the overlying land by avoiding extractions which harm the Butte Basin aquifer,causing exceedance of the safe yield or a condition of overdraft."The ordinance is now codified as Chapter 33 of the Butte County Code relating to groundwater conservation. Section 3.01 — "Groundwater Planning Process" requires the preparation of a groundwater status report based upon the data gathered and analyzed pursuant to Section 3.02—"Groundwater Monitoring". Until 2010,this reporting was completed by the Butte Basin Water Users Association (BBWUA). In 2000, the Butte County Board of Supervisors amended Chapter 33, the Groundwater Conservation Ordinance, to require the Groundwater Status Report be delivered by February 21st of each year. In 2010, the Water Commission designated the Department of Water and Resource Conservation as the entity responsible for creating and submitting the annual report. Over the years, as responsibilities and water resource programs including advisory committees have shifted more and more to the County,the Butte Basin Water Users Association participation has declined. In 2012, its members voted to dissolve the organization, after twenty years of serving the region. In February 2004,the Butte County Board of Supervisors adopted the Groundwater Management Ordinance which was codified as Chapter 33A of the Butte County Code. Chapter 33A calls for the establishment of a monitoring network and Basin Management Objectives (BMOs) for groundwater elevation, groundwater quality related to saline intrusion, and land subsidence. The BMO concept was incorporated into California Water Code §10750 et.seq., as a component of AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plans. On September 28, 2004, the Butte County Board of Supervisors formally approved Resolution 04-181 adopting the countywide AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) that includes the components of the BMO program. In -- -2011,Chapter 33A was.amended andretitled to"Basin Management Objectives-(BMO)"and_now requires the BMO report be submitted in February of each year. The foregoing actions by the 11 Page Board allow the reporting of groundwater conditions from Chapter 33 and 33A to be consolidated into a single report to be submitted by the Department on an annual basis in February. The CASGEM program was amended to the Water Code in 2009 through the enactment of SBx7- 6, Groundwater Monitoring, as part of the Comprehensive Water Package. CASGEM mandates statewide groundwater elevation monitoring to track seasonal and long-term trends in basins throughout the state. The legislation created a statewide program to collect groundwater elevation data, facilitate collaboration among monitoring entities, and develop a means of reporting groundwater data to the public. The Department has this responsibility as the monitoring and reporting entity for Butte County. As described in the Butte County CASGEM Monitoring Plan,the Butte County CASGEM program will utilize approximately 72 wells from the network for the CASGEM program (Appendix B). The 72 wells comprise primarily dedicated monitoring wells and some key wells identified in the Annual Groundwater Status Report. Data from published reports prepared for the Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation are included throughout this document where relevant, and the referenced documents are listed in Appendices or as references, as well as being available on the Department's website at www.buttecount .net waterresourceconservation. All past years' Groundwater Status Reports and BMO documents are also available on the Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation website. The Groundwater Status Report will undergo revisions in the next few years in order to meet requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. On September 16, 2014, Governor Brown signed into law a package of bills collectively called the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act requires local management of groundwater basins, and provides the state with broad oversight authority and the ability to intervene. Local management of basins is the responsibility of a local public agency or combination of local agencies that designate themselves as the "Groundwater Sustainability Agency" for all or a portion of their basin. Local public agencies eligible to be a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) must have water supply, water management or land use responsibilities. If no Groundwater Sustainability Agency is formed by June 30, 2017, the State Water Board could assume management of that basin. All four of the groundwater basins within Butte County have established GSAs covering the entirety of the basin and met the requirements of this first important deadline. Groundwater Sustainability Agencies must prepare and implement Groundwater Sustainability Plans("Plan")for their basin or their portion of their basin or face the prospect of state intervention. Plans must be adopted by January 31,2020,for basins that are in critical overdraft condition or by January 31, 2022,for all other basins. Since the basins in Butte County are not in critical overdraft, Plans will have to be submitted by January 31, 2022. Plans must contain the same elements as those in Groundwater Management Plans. Additionally, Plans must include a water budget covering a 50 year planning horizon, measurable objectives and interim milestones(every 5 years)that will lead to sustainability in 20 years. Plans must address "undesirable results" that include chronic lowering of groundwater levels and significant and unreasonable reduction in groundwater storage, degradation of water quality, land subsidence and surface water depletions. Plans are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act but projects or actions to implement the plan are not exempt. 21 Page Groundwater Sustainability Agencies must submit an annual report to DWR by April 151. The report must include the following information: • Groundwater elevation data • Annual aggregated data identifying groundwater extraction for the preceding water year • Surface water supply used for, or available for use for groundwater recharge or in-lieu use. • Total water use • Change in groundwater storage. The first annual report will not be required until 2023. A likely approach will be to modify the County's annual Groundwater Status Report to meet the requirements of the report that must be submitted by Groundwater Sustainability Agencies for each basin. 31 Page Hydrologic Conditions There are a number of data sources and indices available to characterize hydrologic conditions. The data sources typically report hydrologic data on a water year basis, or the 12-month period from October through September. The 2017 WY began on October 1, 2016 and ended on September 30, 2017. The 2017 WY was classified as wet for the Sacramento Valley. At the end of the 2017 WY on September 30, 2017, statewide hydrologic conditions were as follows; precipitation was 165%of average; runoff was 215% of average; and reservoir storage, 120%of average. Sacramento River Region unimpaired runoff observed through September 30, 2017 was about 37.9 million acre-feet (MAF), which is about 212% of average. For comparison, Table 1 shows the volume and percent of average runoff for the previous water years since the last wet year occurred in 2011. Table 1. Sacramento River Region Unimpaired Runoff(Million Acre Feet) WATER YEAR 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 UNIMPAIRED RUNOFF (MAF) 37.9 17.4 9.2 7.5 11.9 11.8 25.2 %OF AVERAGE 212% 98% 51% 41% 65% 65% 138% The Northern Sierra 8-Station Precipitation Index (Figure 1) serves as a wetness index for the Sacramento River hydrologic region by averaging measurements taken at the following precipitation stations: Blue Canyon, Brush Creek Ranger Station, Mineral, Mount Shasta City, Pacific House, Quincy Ranger Station, Shasta Dam, and Slerraville Ranger Station.' This index provides a representative sample of the region's major watersheds: the upper Sacramento, Feather, Yuba, and American Rivers, which produce inflow to some of California's largest reservoirs - the source of much of the state's water supply. The 2017 WY ended with 94.7 cumulative inches of precipitation which is 183% of the long term average. The 2017 WY surpassed the previously recorded wettest year of 1982-1983 that had 88.5 cumulative inches. The 2017 WY curve is labeled "2016-2017 Daily Precip (wettest)" on Figure 1. ' http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/products/PLOT—ESI.pdf 4 1 P a g e 95 2016-2017 Daily Precip(wettest 94.7 90 1982-1983(2"d wettest) __ --as.5 65 BO 75 td / c 70 e cs c 65 c 60 2015-2016 Daily Precip a n _.�._...__.... _._.....__. , .9 Z 551 a S 50 e / M 45 / y i v 40 � m 35� A 3025 � W V 20 2976-1977(2nd driest&driest thru Au 19.0 15 1 10 5i Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 hlay 1 Jun 1 Ju[1 Aug 1 Sep 1 Oci 1 Water Year(October 1-September 30) Average(1966-2015)—1976-1977 and Driesq—1982-1983 and wettes0--2015-2016—2016- Figure 2016-Figure 1. Northern Sierra Precipitation:8 Station Index Figure 2 shows the water year type classifications based on the Sacramento Valley 40-30-30 Index going back to 1960. The Sacramento Valley was classified as wet for the 2017 WY with an index value of 14.9(Figure 2). Water year classification systems provide a means to assess the amount of water originating in a basin. Water year classification systems are useful in water planning and management and have been developed for several hydrologic basins in California.The Sacramento Valley 40-30-30 Index was developed by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for the Sacramento hydrologic basins based on Sacramento River runoff. This system defines one "wet" classification, two "norma!"classifications(above and below normal),and two "dry"classifications(dry and critical), for a total of five water year types. The Sacramento Valley 40-30-30 Index is computed as a weighted average of the current water year's April-July runoff forecast (40 percent),the current water year's October-March runoff(30 percent),and the previous water year's index(30 percent). A cap of 10 MAF is put on the previous year's index to account for required flood control reservoir releases during wet years. Sacramento River runoff is the sum of the Sacramento River flow at Bend Bridge, Feather River inflow to Lake Oroville, Yuba River at Smartville, and American River inflow to Folsom Lake'. 2 http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/iodir/WSIHIST 51 Page Sacramento Valley Water Year Hydrologic Classification is: Year Type Water Year Index Wet Equal to or greater than 9.2 Above Normal Greater than 7.8, and less than 9.2 Below Normal Greater than 6.5 and equal to or less than 7.8 Dry Greater than 5.4, and equal to or less than 6.5 Critical Equal to or less than 5.4 20 • Wet o Above Normal o Below Normal o pry 15 4 Critical - - —1960-2010 Average j I 10AA ! W �Vv 5 I ;t 1 II = i L f r S ! I 1 C0 (0CDC0WW WCDWCO (0WWCoW0WCOr.0006OO00000OO M M M M M --4 -4 �4 �I --JMMOD00 (000COCDC0O000O ' -• -► .. — ON � OC7oON •PO W ON -OL M W aPQ4M MON .AM000N4�iLO W Figure 2. Sacramento Valley Water Year Type Index 40-30-30 6Page Precipitation Figure 3 shows the total annual precipitation at the Western Canal Station for the 57-year period, water years 1960 through 2017. Precipitation for the 2017 WY measured at Western Canal Water District's Climatological Observation Station totaled 31.9 inches (151%of average). This is 10.74 inches above the 50-year average of 21.15 inches. 45 aa�Annuai Precipitation 40 -1960 2010 Average ;: 35 y, (21 75 ins) N u 30 � 25 a 20 a 15 IL` 10 - 5 N oa 0 -� N N N N M M v __j co co (0 to O O O O O M O C.i1 (7 CJI O Cil O CJI © M, Water Year Figure 3, Annual Precipitation 1960-2017 Water Years-Western Canal Climate Station The timing of rainfall in the valley influences irrigation water use. The daily precipitation in the 2017 WY reported from the California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS)station in Durham provides an indication of when and how much rainfall occurred and how that may affect the irrigation season (Figure 4). The graph of daily precipitation shows storm activity throughout the fall,winter, and spring with nine separate storm events measuring over 1 inch of precipitation in a single day. Due to the wet spring, the irrigation season began later than usual, likely near the beginning of May. According to discussion by the Water Advisory Committee, water use for frost protection was needed for 4-5 nights at the end of February. 2.5 2 = 1.5 c 1 _ :° 0.5 L m 0 a ONS ,IS O�� Oy^ Otis O�� Oti1 Oti1 O1^ \ti tidy` ry `� -3�~`ry a��\ry h��_\ q �\ti\T \T Figure - Figure 4. Daily Precipitation (inches)-Durham CIMIS station 7 ) Page Feather River Surface Water Diversions Surface water is an important component of the water supply and has benefits to aquifer recharge in the Butte Basin. During the 2027 WY, 880,633 acre-feet (AF) of surface water was diverted by Western Canal Water District (WCWD)and the Joint Water Districts Board.The 2017 WY diversions increased by 50,563 AF from the 2016 WY amount and over 200,000 AF more than in 2015. However, the amount of surface water diversions was below normal years due to a reduction in planted rice acreage. Rice acreage was reduced due to unusually wet field conditions late into the spring. In the 2015 WY, WCWD and the Joint Water Districts Board had a 50% curtailment of their surface water deliveries due to the drought. It was the first curtailment in 23 years. Reliable surface water supplies reduce or eliminate the need for groundwater pumping, except when curtailments occur, and provide some recharge to the basin. This results in generally shallow and stable groundwater conditions in these district areas. Table 2 summarizes diversions in acre-feet to Western Canal Water District and the Joint Water Districts Board for water years 2000 to 2017. Table 2. Surface Water Diversions(acre-feet) Water Western Canal Joint Water TOTAL Year Water District Districts Board* 2000 314,737 707,018 1,032,392 2001 302,784 718,489 1,021,562 2002 305,460 597,529 902,989 2003 271,867 682,403 954,270 2004 329,700 790,663 1,120,363 2005 284,188 750,128 1,034,316 2006 294,898 743,345 1,038,243 2007 318,159 824,286 1,142,445 2008 332,500 740,748 1,073,248 2009 327,184 711,693 1,038,877 2010 313,196 689,518 1,002,714 2011 288,912 718,771 1,007,683 2012 309,213 706,671 1,015,884 2013 324,128 731,560 1,055,688 2014 319,073 654,696 973,769 2015** 249,965 392,091 642,056 2016 283,071 546,999 830,070 2017 263,179 617,454 880,633 *Joint Water Districts Board includes Biggs-West Gridley Water District, Butte Water District, Richvale Irrigation District, and Sutter Extension Water District. ** 50% Curtailment of surface water deliveries due to drought 8 Page Groundwater Conditions Monitoring Frequency Butte County Code, Chapter 33 and 33A, calls for the establishment of a monitoring network for groundwater quality related to saline intrusion, land subsidence, and groundwater levels. The Groundwater Quality Trend Monitoring Program is designed to track single monitoring events throughout the county during the peak irrigation season on an annual basis. The data is collected each July or August at the peak of irrigation season to establish baseline levels across the county to detect changes which may require further investigation. Monitoring frequency for land subsidence is conducted on a continuous basis by extensometers. Groundwater level monitoring occurs four times per year. Sections 33-4 of the Butte County Code enacted in 1996 and 33A-8 of the Butte County Code enacted in 2004 state that groundwater level measurements shall be taken from all designated monitoring wells at least four(4)times per year, during the months of March,July,August, and October. The California Department of Water Resources(DWR)and the Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation (Department) share the monitoring duties. DWR conducts the spring, fall and August measurements while the Department does the July measurement. As part of County's drought assessment activities, the frequency of groundwater elevation monitoring was increased to monthly monitoring from March to October in 2014-2016. Groundwater Quality Trend Monitoring Temperature, pH,and electrical conductivity(EC)are recorded for water samples from a network of thirteen wells throughout the county. These parameters provide the basis to evaluate for evidence of saline intrusion. Highlights from 2017 ■ 12 of the 13 wells were sampled July 24-27 and August 3, 2017 ■ 1 well was temporarily inaccessible ■ Temperatures remained relatively consistent in all water samples ■ All measurements were within the acceptable range for pH ■ All samples were within the acceptable range for electrical conductivity ■ No evidence of saline intrusion Water quality parameters have naturally occurring variability, so year to year changes are expected and nothing in this year's measurements give cause for further investigation or analysis. Further investigation would be advisable if values were to fall outside of the acceptable range. The 2017 Water Quality Trend Monitoring Report can be found in Appendix D. Program Background The Butte County Groundwater Quality Trend Monitoring Program is required by the Groundwater Conservation Ordinance (Chapter 33 of the Butte County Code) and administered through the Basin Management Objective (BMO) Ordinance (Chapter 33A of the Butte County Code). Degraded water quality is a common effect of over-utilizing groundwater resources and can occur by -saline intrusion from, among other sources, -marine-formations-underlying - freshwater aquifers. In Butte County, the primary freshwater bearing formations include the 91 Page Tuscan Formations, and overlying alluvium deposits, basin deposits, and the Riverbank and Modesto Formations. A number of marine formations beneath the Tuscan Formation make up the underlying saline aquifer system.3 Increasing salinity in groundwater wells could indicate over utilization of groundwater resources. To ensure sustainable management of local groundwater resources, monitoring efforts need to provide baseline trends related to salinity. This program is not designed to characterize specific groundwater contamination due to pollutants. Results are evaluated against established water quality standards and BMOs. Data that fall outside of a BMO for a specific parameter can trigger a BMO Alert Stage. For example, if the temperature is more than five degrees outside of the historical range of measurements a BMO Alert Stage is reached. If the pH is below 6.5 or above 8.5, a BMO Alert Stage is reached. A BMO Alert Stage for electrical conductivity (EC) is reached if the measurements are greater than 900 VS/cm for drinking water or greater than 700 pS/cm for agricultural water use. These ranges are based on secondary water quality standards established by the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Secondary standards relate to the taste, odor, color, corrosivity, foaming, and staining properties of water whereas primary standards are based on health considerations. 2017 Results To date,temperature has been relatively consistent in all wells.Temperature is a standard parameter measured when assessing water quality and is important because it affects chemical reactions that may occur in groundwater. Also, considerable changes in temperature could be an indication of other source waters migrating into the aquifer system such as stream seepage or flow from a different aquifer system.The 7017 measurements were all within 1.0°C of the average temperature for each well. The 16 year temperature range for all wells is less than 5 °C.The lowest temperature reading was in the M&T well (17.2 °C) and the high was in the Pentz well (21.6°C). Measurements for pH remained relatively stable compared to previous years. The highest pH was found in the Llano Seco well (7.7) and the lowest in the Chico Urban Area and Western Canal (East) (7.0). All measurements for pH were well within the secondary water quality thresholds of 6.5-8.5 Electrical conductivity(EC) measures the ability of a solution to conduct an electrical current due to the presence of ions. Observed readings for electrical conductivity can have a large range, up to 447 pS/cm at a particular well (Western Canal-west),yet 2017 measurements were all well within the secondary water quality thresholds established by State and Federal regulatory agencies.The highest EC measurement was from the M&T well (498 µS/cm) and the lowest was from the Thermalito well (136 pS/cm). Appendix D contains a monitoring network map, data tables, and graphs. 3 Fulton,Allan."Seeking an Understanding of the Groundwater Aquifer systems in the Northern Sacramento Valley:An Update".Article No.1— September 2005 101 Page Land Subsidence Land subsidence is a gradual settling or sudden sinking of the Earth's surface owing to subsurface movement of earth materials often caused by groundwater or oil extraction. To date, no inelastic land subsidence has been recorded in Butte County. The potential effects of land subsidence include differential changes in elevation and gradients of stream channels, drains, and water transport structures, failure of water well casings due to compressive stresses generated by compaction of aquifer systems, and compressional strain in engineering structures and houses. Land subsidence in the Sacramento River, San Joaquin River,and Tulare Lake Basins would most likely occur as a result of a uitard consolidation. An aquitard is a saturated geologic unit that is incapable of transmitting significant quantities of water. As the pressure created by the height of water (i.e. beadl declines in response to groundwater withdrawals, aquitards between production zones are exposed to increased vertical loads. These loads can cause materials in aquitards to rearrange and consolidate leading to land subsidence. Factors that influence the rate and magnitude of consolidation in aquitards include mineral composition, the amount of prior consolidation, cementation, the degree of aquifer confinement, and aquitard thickness. Subsidence has elastic and inelastic deformation components.As the head lowers in the aquifer, the load that was supported by the hydrostatic pressure is transferred to the granular skeletal framework of the formation.As long as the increased load on the formation does not exceed the pre-consolidation pressure, the formation will remain elastic. Under elastic conditions, the formation will rebound to its original volume as hydrostatic pressure is restored. However,when the head of the formation is lowered to a point where the load exceeds pre-consolidation pressure, inelastic deformation may occur. Under inelastic consolidation, the formation will undergo a permanent volumetric reduction as water is expelled from aquitards'. Butte County will prevent or liinnit inelastic subsidence as required through Chapter 33. To determine whether subsidence is occurring, three extensometers measure land surface displacement in Butte County (Figure 5). These extensometers have a period of record beginning in 2005 and continuously monitor for subsidence. Records are available by contacting DWR Northern 149 Region or from the Northern Region websites. To date, no inelastic land subsidence has been recorded in Butte County. 152 as 99 Figure 5. Extensometer Locations (continuous data available online) 4http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/pubs/fsOO165/ 5 http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/data_and_monitoring/northern_region/LandSubsidence/available_data.c fm 111Page Extensometer data is shown in Figure 6 for each monitoring station. For practical purposes,the error in measurements is about+/-0.01 feet so the graphs include only changes greater than this amount which are negative indicating subsidence (rather than uplift). Data is available through August 2, 2017. A Sacramento Valley-wide GPS survey was conducted during 2017. Results of the survey will be available in 2018 and will provide additional land subsidence data throughout the county to better measure and detect possible subsidence. 18N01E35L001M 0 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 -0.4 19N01E35B002M o - .................. 2004 200 2008 2010 2012 2014 016 2018 CD -a.2 N -0.3 C7 -0.4 -0.5 20N01E18LO01M 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 -0.2 n -0.3 C7 -0.4 -0.5 Figure 6. Ground Surface Displacement (GSD)in Feet 12 Page Well Permits Well permits are issued by the Butte County Department of Environmental Health for all water wells drilled throughout the county. Although the number of well permit applications does not necessarily reflect the number of wells actually drilled,the numbers provide a general indication of the development of the groundwater resource and potential drilling activities. According to the 2016 Water Inventory and Analysis Report, Butte County has over 12,000 domestic wells and 2,500 irrigation wells. When combined with municipal, monitoring and other well types (stock water, test wells, abandoned, or unidentified wells) the total well count in the county is about 17,5546. Table 3 shows the number of well permit applications received by the Department of Environmental Health for the following categories from 2006-2017: Small Diameter, Large Diameter, and Well Repairs and Deepening. Each of the categories is described below Table 3. Table 3. Number of Well Permit Applications Per Water Year a 10. A9 AA: AI` 1 9 A 1 Aill NO1 1 0 9 Small Diameter 260 228 176 188 140 77 102 221 259 175 129 IE 95 _._. -- - -- ........:_........ — ........... ........ ................E ........ . ........ .....--- Large 17 24 36 29 16 16 21 28 71 68 37 17 Diameter � Repairs � 4 9 I 15 F 20 ' 10 4 9 7 10 17 19 10 '�� 1 &Deepening g ..... ......... ................... ............ -- - *2006,2011 and 2017 were wet years,all others are below normal, dry, or critical water years Small Diameter-wells with a casing diameter of 8 inches or less. Large Diameter-wells with a casing diameter greater than 8 inches,generally for irrigation. Well Repairs&Deepening-an existing well is deepened to access groundwater in a deeper zone of the aquifer likely because the water level in the well has fallen below the bottom of the well. Well deepening permits are an indication that the existing well infrastructure is not sufficient given the current groundwater levels. During dry periods and drought as water levels fall in areas with heavy groundwater use (i.e. Durham/Dayton, Vina, Chico Urban Area, etc.), shallower domestic wells become especially vulnerable and may "go dry." This means the groundwater level in the well falls below the elevation of the pump in the well or below the bottom of the well itself. In this case, the pump can be lowered if the well is deep enough and allows for that. This does not require a permit from the County. If the well is not deep enough, it may be possible to deepen it. Well permits are issued for this activity and homeowners should enlist a licensed well driller to conduct the work. Groundwater Level Monitoring Groundwater levels typically fluctuate seasonally and from year to year. Seasonal fluctuation of groundwater levels occur in response to groundwater pumping and recovery, land and water use activities, recharge, and natural discharge. Precipitation, applied irrigation water, local creeks and rivers, and the Thermalito Forebay and Afterbay all recharge groundwater in Butte County. Groundwater pumping for irrigation typically occurs April-September although depending on the 6 Butte County Water Inventory and Analysis,2016 131 Page timing of rainfall, it may shift earlier and later. Consequently, groundwater levels are usually highest in the spring and lowest during the irrigation season in the summer months. Long-term fluctuations occur when there is an imbalance between the volume of water recharged into the aquifer and the volume of water removed from the aquifer, either by extraction or natural discharge to surface water bodies. If, over a period of years,the amount of water recharged to the aquifer exceeds the amount of water removed from the aquifer, then groundwater levels will increase. Conversely, if, over time, the amount of water removed from the aquifer exceeds the amount of water recharged then groundwater levels decline.These long- term changes can be linked to various factors including increased or decreased groundwater extraction or variations in recharge associated with wet or dry hydrologic cycles. Currently 127 wells are monitored for groundwater levels in Butte County as part of the BMO program (77 of them are assigned BMO spring alert levels). These wells consist of a mixture of domestic and irrigation wells, along with dedicated observation wells and ten Cal Water municipal supply wells in Chico and Oroville. Approximately 59 of the 127 wells measured by DWR and the Department are equipped with data loggers (i.e. transducers) which continuously monitor and record hourly changes in groundwater levels. These and the remaining wells are measured by hand four times per-year, in March,July, August, and October. From 2014 to 2016, groundwater levels were measured monthly from April through October due to severe drought conditions. The approximate locations of groundwater level wells monitored in Butte County are shown in Appendix B. The groundwater level monitoring methods are consistent with the procedures described in the Department of Water Resources'Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines (December 2010)7. Groundwater elevations are measured using a steel tape,electric sounder,or by transducers.The accuracy of the groundwater level measurement is approximately one tenth of a foot. In addition to the groundwater level monitoring conducted by Butte County and the DWR, California Water Service Company currently measures monthly groundwater levels in approximately sixty municipal groundwater supply wells in the Chico Urban and Oroville areas. Ten of these wells are included in the BMO program and assigned alert stages. Data from groundwater level monitoring can be obtained through DWR and the Department's websites. The primary access to the data is through the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program (ht_tp://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/casgem/). The CASGEM program was part of legislation passed in 2009,560-6,which mandates statewide groundwater elevation monitoring to track seasonal and long-term trends in basins throughout the state. As a result of this legislation, DWR migrated the groundwater level data from the Water Data Library (WDL) to the CASGEM database. DWR has reintroduced access to groundwater monitoring data through an updated WDL. 7 http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/casgem/documents.cfm 141 Page (http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/). Summary data tables of groundwater surface elevations from spring, summer, and fall measurements are included in Appendix E and are available from the Department's website. Change in Groundwater Levels: 2016 to 2017 The 2017 water year was classified as a wet year with record wet conditions as measured by the Northern Sierra 8 Station Index. Groundwater conditions responded positively to the wet winter with generally higher groundwater levels in 2017 compared to 2016. The overall average change in observed groundwater levels from spring 2016 to spring 2017 was an increase of 4.8 feet. Of the 116 comparable wells, 97 of them had a higher spring level compared to 2016. The average increase was about 6.0 feet. Of the 19 wells that had lower measurements in 2017 compared to 2016, the average decrease was about 1.3 feet (Table 4). The historically wet winter led to significantly higher groundwater levels, particularly in the Chico and Durham areas that experienced some of the greatest declines during the 2012-2015 drought period. In general, increases in groundwater levels throughout the basin in 2017 were in line with the declines observed in the worst of the drought years(spring 2013 to spring 2014), but were not enough to compensate for the cumulative effect of multiple dry years of the drought. Table 4. Groundwater Elevation Change-Spring 2016 to Spring 2017 Well Count Change (ft) SIU 116 Average GV& Change 4.8 Median GWL Chane 4.0 97 Average Increase 6.0 Median Increase 5.5 Max Increase 24 Chico Urban Area 19 Average Decrease -1.3 Median Decrease -1.2 Max Decrease -3.6 BiggslWest Gridley Note:Wells with Questionable Measurements not included Summer measurements, as required by Chapter 33A, are conducted in July and August during peak pumping for irrigation.This results in more questionable measurements because measured or nearby wells are more likely to be pumping during the irrigation season than in the spring or fall. However, a number of the sub-inventory units (S1Us) have a qualitative BMO related to maintaining summer groundwater levels at a level that will assure an adequate and affordable irrigation groundwater supply. Therefore, even though the data is less consistent because of direct pumping effects on water elevations, it provides a baseline for summer groundwater conditions on a regional scale. The summer groundwater levels in 2017 were about 4 feet higher on average compared to groundwater levels in 2016 (Table 5). Even with questionable measurements included, these measurements and comparisons primarily reflect static groundwater conditions (non-pumping). 151 Page Table 5. Groundwater Elevation Change-Summer 2016 to Summer 2017 Well Count I IChange (ft) ISILI with Min/Max 115 Average GWL Change 4 Median GWL Change 4 97 Average Increase 5 Median Increase 5 Max Increase 16 M&T 18 Average Decrease -1 Median Decrease -0.5 Max Decrease -2.2 Biggs W. Gridley Note: DOES include Questionable Measurements (i.e. pumping, nearby pump operating, pumped recently) because they are very common due to summer pumping Like spring levels, fall water levels in 2017 increased in most areas compared to 2016 fall levels by an overall average change of about 3 feet (Table 6). Of the 113 comparable well measurements, 91 of them had a higher 2017 fall level (average increase of 4 feet) than the corresponding 2016 fall measurement. Of the 22 measurements that were lower in 2017 compared to 2016, the average decrease was about 2 feet. Hydrographs in the individual BMO reports provide greater historical context for groundwater level trends (Appendix G) and the groundwater level change maps (Appendix F) show where the greatest increases occurred. Table 6.Groundwater Elevation Change-Fall 2016 to Fall 2017 Well Count Change (ft.) SIU 113 Average GWL Change 3 Median GWL Chane 3 91 Average Increase 4 Median Increase 4 Max Increase 12 Vina 22 Average Decrease -2 Median Decrease -1 Max Decrease -11 Butte Sink Note:Wells with Questionable Measurements not included Seasonal Groundwater Level Change In areas dependent on groundwater supplies for irrigation, groundwater levels decline as pumps turn on and the irrigation season progresses. To capture the effect of irrigation season pumping on groundwater conditions, summer levels are compared to spring levels of the same year. Table 7 compares groundwater levels in spring 2017 to summer 2017. Overall,the average decrease from spring to summer 2017 was about 9 feet. 161 Page Table 7. Groundwater Elevation Change-Spring 2017 to Average Summer 2017 Well Count I I Change (ft) JSIU with Min/Max 112 Average GWL Change -9 Median GWL Change -9 7 Average Increase 1 Median Increase 1 ' Max Increase 2.5 Pentz 105 Average Decrease -10 Median Decrease -10 Max Decrease Mina Note: DOES include Questionable Measurements(i.e. pumping, nearby pump operating, pumped recently) because they are very common due to summer pumping Basin Management Objectives(BMOs) BMOs are established for most of the wells in the monitoring network(77 of 127 wells for spring measurements and 69 of 127 for fall). BMOs are determined from historical data collected for the specific well. When a measurement fails to achieve the BMO for the well, a BMO Alert Stage is reached. When a BMO Alert Stage is reached, the Department increases outreach to stakeholders, seeks an evaluation by the Technical Advisory Committee and may conduct additional monitoring. tinder the BMO program, stakeholders from the SIU participate in the evaluation and outreach of BMO data. The BMOs provide a standardized way to evaluate spring and fall changes in groundwater levels. Two methods are used to determine BMOs, as described in Chapter 33A. Historic Range Method This method has two procedures depending upon the period of record for the well. The first procedure is for wells that have a period of record dating back to at least 1970. Measurements up through 2006 are used to set the BMO. The BMO is set by taking the historical low reading and adding 20% of the range of measurements, calculated from the first year on record through 2006. Measurements below the BMO and above the historical low would indicate an Alert Stage 1. Measurements at or below the historical low would indicate an Alert Stage 2. The measurements plotted after 2006 are for reference purposes only, and are not included in the calculation of the range. The second procedure is for wells that have a period of record beginning after 1970. For these wells,the historical low measurement prior to 2006 indicates an Alert Stage 1. The historical low measurement minus the range of measurements indicates an Alert Stage 2. The measurements plotted after 2006 again are for reference purposes only, and are not included in the calculation of the range. Specific Depth Method For this method, the BMO is set at five feet below the average spring groundwater level calculated for the well. An Alert Stage 1 is reached if the spring measurement falls five feet 171 Page below the average groundwater level (calculated from the first year on record through 2006). An Alert Stage 2 is reached if spring groundwater levels,for a second consecutive year, remain five feet below the average groundwater level established for the well. An Alert Stage 3 is reached if the spring groundwater level falls ten feet below the average spring groundwater level established for the well. All of the SIUs utilize the historical range method, except for Richvale and Western Canal which use the specific depth method. The specific depth method does not have corresponding fall BII A number of wells reached Alert Stages for both spring and fall BMOs in 2017. No wells reached an Alert Stage 3 (specific depth method only). The number of wells at an Alert Stage for 2008- 2017 spring and fall BMOs are shown in Table 8 and Table 9, respectively. Table 8.Spring BMO Alert Stages ee ; ee • i e t e a e1 P 111, e a e Alert 1.` 26 31 25. 24 25 20 24 21. 17 13 Alert 2 0 6 3 0 4 15 21 25 25 11 Alert 3: 0 , 0 0D 0 : Di 0 0 p 0 Total 26 37 28 24 29 35 45 46 42 24 Table 9. Fall BMO Alert Stages os : ee a e i r i eI e i e `Alert 1 27 29 24 7 26 23._',j' 21 16 21 22 Alert 2 2 1 2 2 6 1 16 19 25 18 8 Total 29 30 26 9 32 39 40 41 39 30 *Alert 3 only applies to spring measurements Additional details on groundwater conditions can be found in the BMO reports(Appendix G) prepared for the sixteen SIUs in Butte County.These SIUs are located in one of four groundwater sub-basins:Wyandotte Creek, East Butte, West Butte, and Vina. The BMO reports include information on monitoring activities, current conditions, BMOs, hydrographs, and recommendations from stakeholders. Additionally,the BMO reports include hydrographs on wells that are selected for the program's network but do not have a corresponding BMO. These wells were either key monitoring wells that were monitored prior to the BMO program or are wells recently added to the monitoring network. The recently added wells are typically dedicated monitoring wells and do not yet have enough data to establish a BMO Alert Stage. The 2018 BMO reports (Appendix G)for each of the sixteen SIUs can be accessed from the Department's website under 'Reports' then 'Groundwater Status Reports' at: http: ,/www.buttecounty.net/waterresourceconservation. 181 Page Agenda Item #6 f P>v1 i 0$�� ' CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE Chico District 2222 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway, Chico, CA 95928 i i .u` Tel:(530) 893-6300 TFR SERJ January 12,2018 Mr. Paul Gosselin Director E E Butte County Water Resource and Conservation 308 Nelson Ave. Oroville,CA 95965 1 Re:Technical Advisory Committee Dear Mr.Gosselin: I am writing you to let you know that I am Interested in being appointed to the Technical Advisory Committee(TAC). Sincerely, Matt Meninga Production Superintendent E C11 I E e i' 0 Quality. Service. Value. calwater.com r�1 2305 Ceres Ave. Phone 530-956-2620 Chico,CA 95926 E-mail mmeninga@calwater.com Matti �rnr Nkm' ga Professional ■ Superintendent Il Experience 0912013-Present California Water Service Chico, Ca ■ Acting Fleet, Facilities and Equipment Manager 1112012-912013 California Water Service San Jose, Ca ■ Actinq District Manager 0312012-11/2012 California Water Service Westlake Village, Ca ■ Acting Customer Service Manager/General Foreman 1012011-0312012 California Water Service Marysville, Ca ■ Superintendent of Production 0512010-10/2011 California Water Service Chico, Ca ■ Leak Truck Foreman 0412008-0512011 California Water Service Stockton, Ca ■ Utility/Certified Pump Operator 0412002-0412008 California Water Service Stockton, Ca ■ Utili /Certified Pump O erator 0112000-0412002 California Water Service Livermore, Ca Interest and Activities • Treasurer- Kiwanis Club of Chico 1012016-Present Kiwanis International Chico, Ca ■ President- Kiwanis Club of Chico 0912015-1012016 Kiwanis International Chico, Ca ■ Vice President- Kiwanis Club of Chico 0612014-0912015 Kiwanis International Chico, Ca ■ Chico Urban Area Sub-Inventory Unit Rep. 0612011-0312012 Butte County Water Advisory Committee Oroville, Ca ■ President-Utility Workers Council Local 160 2005-2007 AFL-CIO Stockton/Livermore/Dixon, Ca Certifications ■ Water Treatment Operator, Grade 3 0712010 California Department of Public Health ■ Water Distribution Operator, Grade 5 0712010 California Department of Public Health Education 0111998-0611998 San Joaquin Delta Junior College Stockton, Ca ■ General Education Courses 0811999-Present California State University Sacramento, Ca ■ Water Treatment Plant Operation,Vol.1 ■ Water Treatment Plant Operation,Vol.2 ■ Water Distribution Operation and Maintenance ■ Small Water Systems Operation and Maintenance ■ Manage For Success ■ Utility Management ■ Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants,Vol. 1 ■ Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants,Vol.2 0312001, 2004, 2007 KTA-Tator INC. San Jose, Ca ■ Inspection of Protective Coatings and Linings in the Water/Waste Industry-course QA-1 1012007 Utility Training Academy Stockton, Ca ■ Subsurface Utility Locating and Marking Best Practices 1012011 California-Nevada Section,AWWA Sacramento, Ca ■ Certified Backflow Tester Course 1012011-0312012 California Water Service San Jose, Ca ■ CWS Management Trainee Program Agenda Item #8 Water and Resource Conservation Paul Gosselin, Director " 0-0,, 308 Nelson Avenue T: 530.552.3595 buttecounty.net/waterresourceconservation Butte •un ty Oroville, California 95965 F: 530.538.3807 bcwater@buttecounty.net MEMORANDUM January 25, 2018 To: Butte County Water Commission From: Paul Gosselin, Director Re: North of Deita Storage Project (Site Reservoir) At the January 3, 2018 Water Commission meeting, I provided an update on the North of Delta Storage Project (Sites Reservoir). The update focused on how the questions raised by the Water Commission in April 2016 were addressed through various documents produced by the Sites Joint Powers Agency (JPA). The Water Commission requested more details on two issues. The first issue was how the operation of Sites Reservoir would be coordinated with the operation of the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project. The second question was how the operation of Site Reservoir would impact Butte County. In the August 2017, the Sites JPA submitted application documents for the Water Storage Investment Program (WISP). One of the documents is a feasibility report developed by the Bureau of Reclamation. Appendix G-NODOSISites Reservoir Project Operations Plan (Alternative D) includes information that addresses the issues raised by the Water Commission. The following are the relevant excerpts from Appendix G: G.3 Proposed Sites Project Authority Operations Sites Reservoir would be filled by diversion of excess Sacramento River flows that originate from unregulated tributaries to the Sacramento River downstream from Keswick Dam. As described below, diversions are assumed to potentially occur in any month or water year type, but would likely be greatest in the winter months with wetter conditions (depending on storage conditions and annual flows and events). The project could operate in cooperation with CVP and SWP system facilities to facilitate a wide range of benefits. Sites Reservoir would provide water through two primary mechanisms: (1) water stored in Sites Reservoir could be released directly to Authority and Colusa Basin users or released to the Sacramento River; and (2)water stored in Sites Reservoir could be exchanged for water stored in Shasta Lake or other CVP and SWP system reservoirs. This second mechanism could be used to significantly increase upstream north-of-Delta storage and operational flexibility to support multiple water supply and ecosystem benefits. This Operations Plan employs the same opportunistic approach developed as part of the NODOS project to maximize potential benefits of the NODOS project, while not adversely affecting the CVP and SWP's ability to meet existing system regulatory requirements including the following: • Water rights • Instream flow requirements • Biological opinions • Delta water quality requirements • CVP and SWP requirements • Central Valley Project Improvement Act(CVP1A) G.5 Diversions to Sites Reservoir The proposed Sites Reservoir would be filled through the diversion of excess Sacramento River water that originates from unregulated tributaries to the Sacramento River downstream from Keswick Dam. These unregulated tributaries contribute over 3 MAF of flow to the Sacramento River on an average annual basis. Less than 1 percent of diversions to Sites Reservoir are assumed to be provided by flood releases or spills that flow through Lake Shasta. Under Alternative D, Sacramento River water would be diverted at the three locations on the river as described above. Excess flows are defined as river flows in addition to those required to meet the following: • Senior downstream water rights, existing CVP and SWP and other water rights diversions including SWP Article 21 (interruptible supply), and other more senior excess flow priorities (diversions associated with Freeport Regional Water Project and existing Los Vaqueros Reservoir) • Existing regulatory requirements including State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) D-1641, CVPIA 3406(b)(2), the 2008 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion, and the 2009 National Marine Fisheries Service biological opinion and other instream flow requirements • Bypass flow conditions needed to maintain and protect anadromous fish survival and Delta water quality The Authority would need to obtain a water right permit to allow the intended operations. Operations would be consistent with the terms and conditions contained in the water right permit approved by SWRCB. The permit would describe the points and methods of diversion, diversion season, purposes of use, and places of use. A description of proposed minimum bypass flow requirements and pulse flow criteria (identical to those developed previously in DWR NODOS investigations) to protect existing and future water uses are provided below. Sites Reservoir Diversion Bypass Flow Protection Excess Sacramento River flow diversions to Sites Reservoir would only fake place when flow monitoring indicates that bypass flows are present in the river due to storm event flows. Several existing and additional proposed bypass flow criteria were assumed at specified locations, as part of Alternative D. These flow criteria are designed to make certain only excess water would be diverted into Sites Reservoir to maintain and protect existing downstream water uses, as follows. + A bypass flow of 3,250 cfs downstream from Red Bluff Diversion Dam must be present to maintain flows in the upper Sacramento River that are required in SWRCB WR 90-5 to prevent dewatering salmonid redds and maintain water temperatures,. Diversions at Red Bluff Pumping Plant-for filling Sites,Reservoir would only be allowed when flows in the river were above the 3,250 cfs bypass flow criteria. • Diversions at the Hamilton City intake for GCID Main Canal currently require a bypass flow of 4,000 cfs to prevent fish entrainment. Diversions at Red Bluff Pumping Plant and GCID Main Canal intake for filling Sites Reservoir would only be allowed when flows in the river were above the 4,000 cfs bypass flow requirement downstream from Hamilton City. • Diversions for filling Sites Reservoir would only be allowed when flows below Wilkins Slough were above 5,000 cfs given the current minimum flow requirements. Wilkins Slough Navigation Control Point minimum flows currently range from 3,250 to 5,000 cfs depending on hydrologic conditions. • Diversions for filling Sites Reservoir would only be allowed when a Sacramento River flow of 15,000 cfs is present at Freeport in January, 13,000 cfs in December and February through June, and 11,000 cfs in all other months. This flow threshold was designed to protect and maintain existing downstream water uses and water quality in the Delta. Diversions to Fill Sites Reservoir Storage Diversions of excess Sacramento River water to Sites Reservoir using existing T-C Canal and GCID Main Canal conveyance facilities could occur at any time during the year, given the flow conditions described above are present in the river. Deliveries for TCCA and GCID service areas have first priority at the existing T-C Canal and GCID intakes, with diversions to Sites Reservoir using the unused capacities of the two canals. Diversions through the proposed Delevan Pipeline could also occur at any time of the year assuming Sacramento River flow conditions are above the bypass and pulse flow criteria described above. In summer months, preference would generally be given to Sites Reservoir releases to the river, resulting in limited diversions to storage because the pipeline could only convey flows in one direction at a time. Given the diversion criteria and facility capacities identified above, investigatory CalSim-II modeling results for Alternative D indicate an average annual diversion of 545 thousand acrefeet (TAF) of excess Sacramento River flow could be conveyed to the proposed Sites Reservoir. Annual diversions would be a function of varying hydrologic conditions, excess Sacramento River water availability, and diversion and conveyance facility capacities. Annual diversions of excess river water would range from close to zero in critical and dry years to over 1,000 TAF in wetter years. G.6 Water Demands and Supply Operations The fundamental concept guiding development of the NODOS project operations strategy was to develop a balanced operation that (1) provides reliable average annual water deliveries to supplement existing supplies, and (2) retains a reasonable volume of water in storage to provide deliveries during extended drought periods. In general, one-third of the reservoir storage capacity was operated aggressively to meet yearly demands, and the remaining two thirds of storage was managed more conservatively and retained as long-term carryover storage to provide water during drought periods. The drought periods of 1929-1934, 1976-1977, and 1987-1992 were used to evaluate longer-term carryover storage needs. The primary operational criteria developed through this evaluation process include the following: • Sites Reservoir water would be used to meet unmet demands and supplement existing CVP allocations to CVP contractors in the Colusa Basin, including participating TCCA districts (North-of-Delta CVP water service contractors with associated curtailment provisions and assumptions), and GCID and Reclamation District 108 (RD 108) (both CVP Sacramento River Settlement Contractors [SRSC] with curtailment provisions based on Shasta inflow). • Each of the participating members would be allocated a defined storage account in the NODOS project to manage their water, as well as store water from other potential sources of supply. • It is assumed that a water market of some form would be facilitated by the Authority to promote efficient use and exchange of water in Sites Reservoir storage. • All members would receive an equal proportional share of new water diversions into Sites Reservoir storage. • Any water in storage beyond designated member account volumes would be "at risk" and would be "spilled" if the reservoir fills to capacity. • A set of operating guidelines and rules would need to be developed to promote efficient water management for operations of Sites Reservoir and associated facilities. • All water stored in Sites Reservoir storage accounts are subject to evaporation and other losses. Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority Water Demands and Operations TCCA's CVP Agricultural Water Service Contracts are subject to shortage allocations based on CVP storage and annual hydrologic conditions. Although not typical, TCCA contractors received a zero allocation from the CVP in 2014 and 2015 because of severe drought conditions and extremely low Shasta storage levels. Prior to these years, maximum cuts had generally been no greater than 40 percent of contract supply, even in very dry years. Preliminary CalSim-II investigatory model runs were conducted at various supply levels to evaluate the availability of NODOS project water and storage to meet TCCA member district demands. TCCA participants ultimately determined the goal was to use water from the NODOS project to supplement their existing CVP contract supplies to meet demands. Participating TCCA districts served by T-C Canal north of Sites Reservoir would receive Sites Reservoir water through exchange. TCCA members located south of Sites Reservoir could take water directly through Holthouse Reservoir and T-C Canal. Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District and Reclamation District 108 Demands and Operations GCID and RD 108 are CVP SRSCs and are subject to a 25 percent contract reduction in a Critical Year. A Critical Year is defined as a year when the total annual inflow to Shasta Reservoir is below 3.2 MAF. In consecutive dry years, this criterion increases to 4.0 MAF. GCID and RD 108 historical monthly diversion data were reviewed to assess seasonal diversion patterns and variations in water use for recent operating conditions. The historical data were compared to CalSim-11 model demands to verify that CalSim-11 irrigation demands and diversion patterns .were,representative.of-actual..water supply_operations._.GCI.D_and._RD_1.08,areeach interested in 20 TAF of water per year from the NODOS project to supplement their existing CVP supplies and water rights diversions. Figure G-4 and Figure G-5 show percent annual allocations of NODOS project water needed to supplement existing GC1D and RD 108 CVP deliveries in Shasta critical years. GCID would take delivery of water from Sites Reservoir through the TRR pipeline, which has a gravity-flow capacity of 900 cfs. RD 108 would take delivery of water from Sites Reservoir through the Delevan Pipeline, which has a gravity-flow capacity of up to 2,500 cfs. Other Regional Water Demands In addition to improving local water supply reliability in the Colusa Basin, the project has the potential to provide a substantial amount of water to other potential project participants, and provide water to support a wide range of ecosystem and water quality benefits. With an estimated average annual diversion to storage of over 500 TAF, the NODOS project could provide an average annual volume of up to 350 TAF of water for other purposes after accounting for supplies dedicated to meet Authority demands. Other sources of demand for NODOS project water could include agricultural, municipal and industrial (M&1), and environmental needs. South-of-Delta Water Demands The parties that receive water from the NODOS project, and also have water supply contracts for either CVP or SWP water, have contract provisions for the conveyance of extra water through CVP or SWP facilities above their CVP or SWP allocations. It is assumed that South-of-the Delta participants would leave water in Sites Reservoir storage during wet and above normal years when there is little or no capacity to convey water across the Delta. Conversely, when hydrologic conditions are dry or critically dry, they would call on the stored water and convey it across the Delta for dry year supply. Ecosystem Benefits The operation of the NODOS project to provide a variety of ecosystem-benefits could allow for the potential development and administration of an ecosystem enhancement storage account that could be managed by either the Authority, the Federal government, or the State to provide water for ecosystem and water quality purposes. Such an account could provide a pool of dedicated storage to manage in cooperation with existing operations to improve coldwater conservation storage, stabilize river flows during critical fisheries periods, increase flows through certain watercourses and/or facilities (such as, Yolo Bypass), improve water quality, and/or enhance habitat restoration. G.7 Cooperation with Central Valley Project and State Water Project Under Alternative D, the NODOS project could be operated in cooperation with CVP and SWP operations to coordinate releases from Trinity Lake, Shasta Lake, Lake Oroville, and Folsom Lake. Releases from Sites Reservoir could allow reduced releases from other reservoirs while still meeting requirements for minimum instream flow objectives, Sacramento River temperature requirements, and Delta salinity control assigned to CVP and SWP. Through this reduction in releases, storage could be conserved in Trinity Lake, Shasta Lake, Lake Oroville, and Folsom Lake to significantly increase operational flexibility to improve river water temperatures for fish survival, Delta water quality, water supply reliability, flood control, and recreation. The following summarizes the anticipated primary benefits that could be realized through the provision of NODOS project water beyond that required to meet Authority member needs. The priorities and amount of water potentially allocated to achieving the benefits listed below will be identified as park of the development of the California Water Commission Water Storage Investment Program application and subsequent negotiations and agreements with interested participants. NODOS project operations could achieve multiple benefits over a wide range of hydrologic conditions. In drought conditions, the NODOS project could: • Provide water for local Colusa Basin and other project participant needs (including potential State and associated environmental needs) • Increase coldwater pool conservation in Trinity Lake, Shasta Lake, Lake Oroville, and Folsom Lake • Help regulate Sacramento River summer flows for best use of cold water for control of temperature conditions adverse to anadromous fish • Increase water supply to CVP and SWP water users participating in the NODOS project In non-drought hydrologic conditions, the NODOS project water could: • Provide water for local Colusa Basin and other project participant needs (including potential State and associated environmental needs) • Provide (via upstream actions) incidental Delta water quality improvements in the summer and fall • Improve (via upstream actions) flows for Delta fisheries habitat based on the X2 location In summary, Sites Reservoir documents released since April, 2017 address the questions raised by the Water Commission. The comment period on the North of Delta Storage EIR/EIS closed in January, 2018. Responses to comments will be made as part of finalizing the EIRIEIS in the next few months. The Sites JPA is seeking Proposition 1 funds through the California Water Commission. The California Water Commission expects to make funding recommendations by June 2018. More information on the North of Delta Storage (Sites Reservoir) can be found at www.sitesproject.orq. Agenda Item #13 COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED AND REFERRED BUTTE COUNTY WATER COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7,2018 Copies of all communications are available at the Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation 308 Nelson Avenue Oroville, CA 95965 1. *California Water Plan eNews, Wednesday's Update, December 27, 2017 2. *California Water Plan eNews Wednesday's Update January 3, 2018 3. *Article from Chico Enterprise Record, January 4, 2018, Survey finds little snow 4. *Letter of support for Proposition I applications for sustainable groundwater management funding within the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region from NCWA, January 4, 2018 5. *Editorial from Chico Enterprise Record, January 9, 2018, Water bond storage pitches get creative 6. *Article from Chico Enterprise Record, January 12, 2018, Talks underway about scali_np,twin tunnels back to one 7. *California Water Plan eNews, Wednesday's Update, January 10, 2018 8. *Article from Chico Enterprise Record, January 15, 2018, Local water saving rate double or triple state's rate in November 9. *California Water Plan eNews, Wednesday's Update, January 17, 2018 10. *Article from Chico Enterprise Record, January 20, 2018, Chico meeting seeks input on fed's water delivery plan 11. *California Water Plan eNews Wednesday's Update January 24, 2018 12. *Article from Chico Enterprise Record, January 26, 2018, Idea of`maximizing deliveries takes a beating 1 Wednesday Update A 27, 2017 This weekly electronic newsletter is designed to keep you current on California Water Plan news. We welcome comments,suggestions,and any news tips that may be of interest to water planners. - 2017: California Water - Year in Review e 2017 was a reminder that California water is a tale of two extremes.It was a clarion of the urgently needed ® changes charted out in the emerging California Water Plan Update 2018.After more than five years of drought,2017 was the year that brought drought-busting snow and rain across the state.There was a snownack_in-the Sierra that was well above average in May;reservoirs ended the year above historical capacity averages.But the second wettest year on record, behind 1985,also delivered water that led to flooding and an emergency incident at Lake Oroville. Expansive wildfires have devastated communities and landscapes in Northern and Southern California,fueled by dead vegetation from the drought, powerful winds,and a very dry autumn. All that is inspiring the development of California Water Plan Update 2018.It will provide a long-term vision for policies and investment in California's water future.Curing 2017,the development process included release of the draft Assumptions and Estimates Report in April.After a summer of public workshops,the 2reliminery draft of Update 2018 was released during a plenary meeting in September. .2018: Water Plan - Year in Preview-- The new year will bring more,progress in moving Update 2048 toward the finish line.It will be shorter than devious versions of the California Water Plan Update.Presented in five chapters, Update 2018 will provide a comprehensive strategy for water resources sustainability. 9 is Envisioning Water Resources Sustainability--Enabling plariners and decision-makers to create policy and track progress in advancing what California's societal values. yr v 2.Sustainability.Outlook—Supporting mutual understanding of resource limitations,management deficiencies,and shared intent to identrFy State policy and investment 3 Aottons for Sustainability Providing vetted priorities and actions to strengthen State agency;:, alcgnrnent,and empower and butld:capaclty of regional water management efforts 4 Investing En Water Resources Sustainability w Estimating funding needs and offenng funding options;: for the gnvemor lregislature,and other decision-makers tq implerrsent tlpd ate 2018 actfors 5 Implementation Pian and Funding Options Prov<ding progress assessments.forthe fva priorities, and recamrnending refinements d pnoritaes;actions mleslresponsibilities;poGc�es and legrslat<an T��,pd I;fir va�lable,in eaHy Janttal`y the publrc review draft is expected to be released�n re e'n`[�ecem er�l�u�ngtNe.rieXt'(�mor�t(as:-tha*N�e3Pf�n;Tear�rWE�I �„ ^° s. �e �` Inc orksha s;and�the,final U d �2t]1$ n��a �leraa,.� h�_t `� 'Sp '� �.,�,'aa -43?Ti� ;'��•�;s'r -.r �'ps� �° ,�f9 y��.��'`�-i�: ' a se .tai r {o igee 1 , rf s.a: a � a Wednesday Updatea �4 n 3, 2018 htrc.i�; This weekly electronic newsletter is designed to keep you current on California Water Plan news. We welcome comments,suggestions,and any news tips that may be of interest to water planners. New draft chapters Updated draft versions of Chapter 4 and Chaoter 5 of California Water Plan Update posted for tomorrow's 2018 have been made available ahead of s Update 2018 workshop tomorrow's(Jan.4)workshop in Sacramento. Those chapters cover the funding and r;. implementation plan.There is still time to RSVP for the workshop.The latest drafts of all f1-e c apters tnidf e' posted before the all-day webathon on Tuesday,Jan.9.[wring that webathon, all chapters of Update 2018 will be discussed.RSVPs are being accepted online. Looking at the water A webinar on Wednesday,Jan. 10,will look at water legislation expected to be addressed by Congress this year.The webinar will reuse legislation coming focus on the legislation that could potentially affect water reuse. before Congress this year In addition to looking at the issues that will receive Congressional attention,there will be discussion on ways to advance a water reuse policy agenda. The benefits of using The latest science relating to agricultural ,v water reuse will be discussed during a xt recycled water for " rF Y workshop on Wednesday,Jan.31,in agricultural irrigation Sacramento.Presented by the State Water Resources Control Board and the 3 Water Environment&Reuse Foundation, m: the workshop will look at the benefits of using recycled water for agricultural irrigation. It will also cover some of the impediments to using recycled water. COMET webinar will A webinar on Thursday,Jan.25 will present an update on changes - made to the CarbOn Management and Evaluation Tool(COMET). cover uses W1.66'. It was developed in 2002 as a greenhouse.gas:estimation tool.The conservation process; webinar,will cover COMET's role it the conservation planning process: Smart Growth conference` The NrtneJs nor smart�rowtl Conference w111 be Feb 1 3 n',San;Francisco set for next monith It will provide a variety of topics and sessions �� IltStln Franasca , on ways to Improve communities Tie su acts ': 'W:be addressed Include buiEdmg capac�ies In t i �3 "4 $IT�all $�71m}7CbvItl � dnspdrtatiOn�oda tll�g �� Y�-,-z�' a S-? ���✓ -� ,+�* Ufa': �,ar�t�ti�.€� ,?�� �"w`�^ ,�-�' 'i�`:.'^ ���S a , fic tQ,�Glan In�Cltll'LiB� anc� arle 1NaEe�,li�Ji f� � „> Uri- B F3 I ChicoER.com CORRESPONDENCE # 3 Survey Finds Lithe Snow Associated Press,January 4?618 Phillips Station>>The grassy brown Sierra meadow where Califor- A stubborn ridge of high pressure in the Pacific--the same bad guy nia's water managers gave the results of the winter's first manual during the state's drought—has been blocking storms from reaching snowpack measurements Wednesday told the story—the drought- Southern California in particular. prone state is off to another unusually dry start in its vital winter rain In December,dry winds and parched vegetation combined for the and snow season. state's biggest wildfires on record in the Los Angeles area,after "We would like to have had more snow,"Grant Davis,the head of deadlier wildfires in Northern California in.actober. California's Department of Water Resources,told news crews gath- Even as the water officials spoke Wednesday,a welcome new storm ered in this mountain field,bare of all but a few crusty dots of old carried some of the first rain in weeks into Northern California,which snow. also had marked one of its driest Decembers on record. "It's early"in the snow season,said Frank Gehrke,head of the state's snow survey team.He stuck a metal pale into snow lying as little as Parts of Northern California will see rain —but not massive amounts of it—through the an inch deep in spots to carry out the measurements,which record- first half of January,with just 1 or 2 inches of ed snowpack at as little as 3 percent of normal in spots."We're obvi- snow expected in the Sierra,the weather service said. ously hopeful there will be more snow the next time we come out here." Climate change increasingly is changing the mountain snowfall equa- tion,but historically up to 60 percent of Californians'water supply each year starts out as snowfall in the Sierra.That makes the state's manual and electronic snowpack measurements in these mountains crucial gauges of how much water cities and farms will get in the year ahead. This winter,one month into the state's peak storm season,snowpack across the Sierras stood Wednesday at 24 percent of normal. The dry spell is even more acute in Southern California,including Los Angeles,which the National Weather Service said this week was marking its driest 10-month period on record.Residents there last saw significant rainfall in February. The dry start to the rain and snow season is raising worries the state could be plunging right back into drought.The scene Wednesday was reminiscent of 2015,when Gov.Jerry Brown stood in the same meadow,equally bare of snow,to declare a drought emergency, including mandatory water cutbacks by cities and towns. Near-record rainfall last winter snapped the historic drought,filling reservoirs and sending many rivers over their banks. Reservoirs re- main at 110 percent of normal storage thanks to the last wet winter, water officials said. As Californians, "we live in the most variable climate in the country," Davis said Wednesday,surrounded by forecasters and water officials in parkas for their mountain-meadow news conference."That varia- bility is what we have to manage." He called for more improvements in long-range forecasting,to help the state's reservoir managers better operate dams for both water supplies and flood control.As the climate changes,much of the state's water is coming in the form of rain during storms known as atrnbspheric nv&s, Davis note . "It's very clear to us that we need to have more information"about how atmospheric rivers behave overall, Davis said. This winter,in contrast to the previous rain-sodden one,meteorolo- gists point to a strengthening La Nina weather pattern in the Pacific, which typically brings drier weather. Northern California Water Association 70 advanct,Ilit,ccmtomic'social suslahia"'Ilif v oO(It-thcr)l('ah fiJI-ma bY c;d1utichig andlylvse)-vi)k�"dic 11 ater sup" its Fuld it aw),ffmdil.t. January 4, 2018 Jason Brabec, Project Manager Planning Grant Program Department of Water Resources 1416 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Mr. Brabec: The Northern California Water Association (NCWA) supports the Proposition I applications for sustainable groundwater management funding within the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region. As the attached Fact Sheet: The State of Sacramento Vallev Groundwater shows,the entire Sacramento Valley floor is organized and covered by local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSA)that are all pursuing active and sustainable groundwater management. Importantly, through our Region-wide Groundwater Management Task Force,the GSAs(both counties and special districts)are all closely coordinating their efforts across the ten Counties along the Sacramento Valley floor to avoid overlap,to make sure that the entire Valley floor is covered by GSRs and to foster robust Groundwater Sustainability Planning (GSPs) across the region. The local agencies who have submitted applications we strongly support include: • Butte County Department of Water and Resources Conservation • City of Redding (in Shasta County) • Colusa Groundwater Authority • County of Glenn • Sacramento Groundwater Authority (including Placer County) • Sutter County Development Services • Tehama County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Yuba County Water Agency Local agencies in the Sacramento Valley have a strong track record for sustainable water management and active groundwater management.NCWA was a strong and active supporter of Proposition 1--the funding authorized for this program will greatly assist these local agencies build upon their current efforts and develop more robust GSPs by 2022 in support of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act(SGMA). 455 Capitol Mall.'miile 335.Sjicr;inwnto,Calitlornsa 95914"1496 1'ejcphonc(916)442-83-13 Facsimile(916)442"1035 %v%vw,norea1%VU1CT.oqL Mr.Jason Brabec January 4,2018 Page 2 We have appreciated the Department of Water Resources efforts on sustainable groundwater management. Please call if you have any questions or would like to discuss this further. Sincerely yours, Fritz Durst,Chair David J.Guy Groundwater Task Force President cc: Grant Davis Taryn Ravazzini Trevor Joseph 455 Capitol Mall,Suite 335,Sacramento,Califomia 95814-4496 Telephone(916)442-8333 Facsimile(916)442-4035 www.norcalwalcr.org FACT SHEET: The State of Sacramento Valley Groundwater NorllFcrn NCWA RCRC Calilomia Wattr As3ociatian .................. ........... FACT SHEET: The State of Sacramento Valley Groundwater 1. The ENTIRE Sacramento Valley floor is covered 2. Groundwater is a VITAL component of the by local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies Sacramento Valley's water supply. (GSAs)that are pursuing active and sustainable The recent consecutive dry years in Northern groundwater management. California have illuminated the pressures on Local governments across the ten counties overlying Sacramento Valley's water resources and the the Sacramento Valley floor are working closely to- challenges we face in providing reliable and gether to effectively organize and assure sustainable affordable water supplies for various beneficial water resources in the Sacramento Valley. purposes in the Valley. This includes ten counties and nearly 100 special water Groundwater provides nearly 30% of the districts and companies.These local agencies will region's water supplies, with this percentage likely invest more than $10 million over the next five greatly increasing during dry years and during years to advance sustainable groundwater manage- sustained droughts. ment as they refine Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) that will be completed by 2022. Total Water Supply'in the Sacramento River �� Sh1i,•CPunY hydrologic region,2005-2010 average annual %1 :�_. data: 9,008 thousand acre-feet ................................................................ Use met by other water sources: Y 6,265 TAF 70%of total Use met by Groundwater: 2.743 TAF 30 of total hr j { Planning Area: �` � - 501:Shasla-Pit3` - 'N� t �' 502:Upper Horllr& y J Valley 1% f 503:lower Horum al �1 %S.Southwestr 4>' 506:Colasa Basin YP SQ7:Butte-Sates Yuba 21' < ? SMSoutlxaztr SO:cenualti n Details on GSAs and the full map is available from West 1B' DWR by clicking HERE, St.WameatoDelta r 91:Central Bann Cast WWI Upon submittal to DWR on June 30,2017,DWR and local agencies are working to resolve the minor discrepancies that involve shape Nes with siigh6y different data layers. source:DWR Bulletin 160-13,SR55 � . NCWA �- 2 3. The surface and groundwater resources in the Sacramento Valley are currently SUSTAINABLE, recognizing there are several pockets of concern that have emerged in the past decade. '' The newly formed groundwater sustainability agen- cies(GSAs)in the region will be working with water resources managers and the water quality coalitions to keep the region's water resources sustainable. which means avoiding "undesirable results" that are described in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).For the pockets in the region that may not be sustainable, the local entities will take action to achieve sustainability through groundwater sustainability plans that are due in The report provides a discussion on the histor- 2022. As described below, the GSAs in the Sacra- ical development o€land and water resources; mento Valley will build upon the foundation that the ongoing efforts for sustainable groundwater local agencies have taken throughout the region management; the effects of increasing use of to sustainably manage groundwater resources. groundwater; and recommendations for the future. Most importantly,the report summarizes long-term trends within the Sacramento Valley 3a. Water Supplies and Groundwater Levels that affect the region's groundwater resources. The Sacramento Valley is generally in balance Although groundwater levels in the Sacramento with respect to its surface and groundwater Valley have been generally consistent—draw resources, recognizing there are pockets that down during dry years and then recovery in have shown declining groundwater levels during wet years--the report shows that the Sacramen- the recent dry period.There are no critically to Valley is starting to see certain pockets where over-drafted basins in the Sacramento Valley. groundwater levels may not be recovering as Keeping the region in balance is largely dependent they have in the past. upon the availability of affordable and reliable surface supplies. While we cannot yet distinguish between the impacts of the recent drought and what may be In 2014, Macaulay Water Resources, Davids longer-term changes to the Sacramento Valley Engineering,and West Yost Associates prepared water balance,the lack of surface supplies cou- a Sacramento Malley GrociodwiterAssessment pled with an expanding and intensifying use of with a technical supplement,which provides an groundwater in the Sacramento Valley contrib- overview of the Sacramento Valley's groundwater ute to this dynamic. Further and more detailed resources and the evolving efforts to better analysis will be part of the region's Groundwater understand and actively manage the resources Sustainability Plans. to provide sustainable benefits for the Sacramento For trends analyses by DWR in the Sacramento Valley.To view the report,click HERE. Valley,click HERE. allow 3 NCWA RCRC FACT SHEET: The State of Sacramento Valley Groundwater 3b. Water Quality The Sacramento Valley generally has high quality including agriculture practices,soils and hydrogeoi- groundwater,although there are pockets with water ogy,and existing groundwater monitoring networks quality concerns that need to be addressed.The and data. In this manner, the GAR serves as an initial map below shows these small pockets for nitrates. framework that establishes the technical basis for The goal is to preserve these high-quality ground- the groundwater quality monitoring and implemen- water resources in the Sacramento Valley for future tation program. generations,while continuing to support economic The reports identify areas of low and high vulnerability and environmental uses in the Valley. to water quality impacts from irrigated agriculture, and areas having data gaps that indicate the need for further evaluation. ' ENT£RRRISE f ILLVi1.LE The GAR supports the Central Valley Regional Water Nov0 EWO,OD SOUTHiBATTLE EEK Quality Control Board's Waste Discharge Require- t: aNDr ments for the Long-Term Irrigated Lands Program 0 MAN k ANTEt OPE and informs the Central Valley Salinity Alternatives ED LUFF nir>=.'cReeKV:. for Long Term Sustainability(CV-SALTS)Basin Plan Eos MOEtNo.s process. This will also inform the GSPs.The water C RNTNG VIHA a quality coalitions are working with the regulatory w£sT t3tiTTE agencies to address these water quality issues. The report is available,click HERE. EASfiBUTJE NbRTN YUBA 4. Water resources managers are ACTIVELY MANAGING COEU5A souTN'YSgeAfF the region's surface and groundwater resources to SUTrER:-�' support the rich mosaic of inter-dependent fiarm r lands,refuges and managed wetlands,meandering APAY ALLEY NORTH AMFRICA'N m tea... riverc fhnf crmnnrt fiehorioe and wilrilife+ and tho Eo �' ,° cities and rural communities sprinkled throughout Figure 3-23(Page 3-40).Final CV-Salts Salt and Nitrate the region. Management Plan Click IMAGE below to view the video clip. Legend CH2MHILL developed Qucnualvalley WalcrBoard Groundwater Quality 6YVRHydiulu1jruRegiunn Assessment Deports GroundrralerBasin Boundary (GAR)for the Sacramento Upper Zone Ambient Valley that provide water Nitrate as N resources managers and the leaders in the water ` 1 S.1-7.6M911 quality coalitions with a u2 current assessment ofe i t.E ,�1.fi•111.0 rt1Dn 3 h >11JomyL groundwater quality in the region. The GAR provides a rigorous review of regional set- tings of irrigated farmlands in the Sacramento Valley, 4 NCWA RCRC 4 5. The California Water Action Plan calls for promoting 7. The water resources managers and GSAs in the GROUNDWATER RECHARGE and increasing storage: Sacramento Valley are making a concerted effort to BETTER UNDERSTAND the surface and ground- "Sustainable groundwater management in California water resources in their area and to work together depends upon creating more opportunities for ro- to assure that we have the appropriate technical, bust conjunctive management of surface water and institutional and legal knowledge and tools to groundwater resources.Climate change will inten- define and measure sustainability and support sify the need to recalibrate and reconcile surface local groundwater management. water and groundwater management strategies." This approach was described in a technical report The Legislature has also expressed its intent"to articulating r(ficient Mater Management for Regional increase groundwater storage and remove impedi- Sustainability in the Sacramento Valley ments to recharge."(Water Code §10720.1)(g).) The technical report,which brought together water As one example, the Yolo County Flood Control and management experts in the region,provides a sophis- Water Conservation District(District) recharged ticated foundation to initiate the process to evaluate underground storage in Yolo County over the past improved water management opportunities in the several years by diverting and percolating 11,000 Sacramento Valley and the trade-offs that will need acre-feet of additional surface water from Cache to be considered in making future management Creek into its existing unlined canal system. decisions in this region. This project is an important element of the District's Click HERE to read more. conjunctive management of surface and groundwater HERE. to and it shows the value and importance of implementing recharge projects for sustainable groundwater management in the Sacramento Valley fru g and throughout California. The project was facilitated by the Governor's Executive Order(B-36-15) "to accelerate approvals for projects that enhance the ability of local agencies to capture high precipitation Fwl events... for local storage or recharge"and the , State Water Board issuing temporary permits. 8. The largest threat to groundwater resources in 6. Leaders in the Sacramento Valley are working to- the Sacramento Valley is the various REGULATORY gether to expand the ability to store surface water THREATS to surface water resources posed by resources,such as SITES OFF-STREAM RESERVOIR, agencies that want to redirect water away from for critical times of need. the various beneficial uses of water in the These surface water strategies are essential to Sacramento Valley. sustainable groundwater management by taking The counties on the Sacramento Valley floor sent pressure off the groundwater resources in the a letter to the Governor expressing this concern. region and providing new and innovative ways to Click HERE.The region has also prepared a document conjunctively manage surface and groundwater showing What's at Stake:The Importance of Protecting supplies in the Valley. Water Resources in the Sacramento Valley. For more information on Sites Reservoir,click HERE. Click HERE to read more. 5 NCAA RCRC FACT SHEET: The State of Sacramento Valley Groundwater 9. The overarching goal for water resources managers is 10. The preservation of Northern California's ground- to continually improve water management as a means water resources is critical to the economic,social of achieving regional sustainability with respect to and environmental fabric of the region. water resources. Importantly,the ongoing sustain- As part of ongoing efforts to achieve sustainability, ability initiative in the Sacramento Valley advances water leaders throughout the Sacramento Valley the state policy: have convened the Northern California Water "To improve regional self-reliance for water- Association Groundwater Management Task Force to through investment in water use efficiency, water coordinate across the region and make a concerted recycling,advanced water technologies, local and effort to assess Sacramento Valley groundwater regional water supply projects,and improved resources, both for groundwater levels and quality. regional coordination of local and regional water Our objective is to better understand the water supply efforts." (Water Code§85421.) resources and use this information to bring the region together to actively manage our water resources—both surface and groundwater—to assure sustainable water supplies for cities and rural communities, farms, fish, birds and recreation. NCWA .n„.«. . .,,.,.v.�. RCRC For more information, please contact: Northern California Water Rural County Representatives Association(NCWA) of California(RCRC) 916-442-8333 916-447-4806 norcaiwater.org rcrcnet.org Y' 6 CORRESPONDENCE ChicoER.com 1 1 # Editorial: Water bond storage pitches get creative January 9,2018 We now know which water storage projects are vying for money both Sites and Temperance Plat Reservoir on the San Joaquin River from the Proposition 1 water bonds,and we now know the appli- will be disappointed.They might both get some money,but they're cants are very creative at describing what they have In mind. the big-ticket items. Eleven different advocate groups made multimedia presentations to Sites still seems like the best choice to us.it's the only one really po- the California Water Commission in December,making pitches for sitioned to add water to the delta rather than not taking it out,which the$2.7 billion for water storage that was included in the measure seems more useful.It would collect water from the largest untapped passed by voters in November 2014. watershed in California,the 10,000 square miles drained by tributar- There are strict limitations on how the money can be allocated,and ies of the Sacramento River downstream from Shasta Dam. that inspired some interesting representations of what was pro- It looks like it's going to get built one way or another,as enough wa- posed. ter users have bought In to pay for it.It would be a shame for the Only half of any project can be funded,which was flat-out ignored by state to miss the opportunity to participate. five of the applicants. The public money also has to go for water uses that benefit the pub- lic as a whole.It can't pay to increase the water supply available for houses,farms or businesses.And the spending has to result In some benefit to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. That's a problem for most of the proposals,because only three of them could actually deliver water to the delta. Here's where people started getting creative. A number of the projects are pretty straightforward bids by agencies seeking to stash more water away for their customers.They argue that benefits the delta because every gallon of water that's stored is a gallon that doesn't have to be taken out of the delta.Instead,that gallon can be used to support rare fish populations. The arguments get into quite a bit of detail,with one proposal offer- ing a bit of math that suggests it would allow another 14,451 juvenile chinook salmon to reach the ocean every year.Not 14,454 or 14,452, mind you. All the south of delta projects also claim a public benefit of "emergency response."That means if an earthquake collapses delta levees in a way that prevents moving water from north to south, there'd be an additional supply of water already on hand to the south. The proponents of Sites Reservoir west of Maxwell might also meet some skepticism,as they list flood control as a public benefit.Wow can an off-stream reservoir help with flood control? Well,actually one of the ephemeral streams that flows from the res- ervoir area came out of its banks last year and flooded the office of the joint powers authority that's planning to build and operate the reservoir.So yeah,they can claim that one. No one knows what the Water Commission will do.it's an obscure Tittle agency that has never faced a decision like this one. There are three projects that would treat wastewater and bank it underground that look interesting and probably have a good chance. There are six new or expanded darns.There are a couple of proposals that make us think the applicants have to be kidding,but you never know. But we'd wager that the people who thought the bond would pay for CORRESPONDENCE ,co # .com LO Talks underway about scaling twin tunnels back to one By:Paul Rogers,January 12,2018 Sacramento>>Faced with a shortage of money and political support after ney with the Natural Resources Defense Council in San Francisco."But the seven years of work,Gov.Jerry Brown's administration is working on a plan state and feds refused to study it.And it's pretty ironic that they seem to be to scale back one of his key legacy projects,a$17 billion proposal to build pivoting to a smaller project now." two massive tunnels under the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to make rima the said Obe i it easier to move water from Northern California to the south. g primary goal of his organization is for the state to lake less water from the Delta.Regional projects like water recycling,stormwater Instead of two tunnels,each 40 feet high and 35 miles long,Brown's Depart- capture and the construction of new off-stream reservoirs should instead ment of Water Resources has been negotiating with major California water meet California's future water needs,he said.Other environmentalists agencies in recent weeks on a revised plan to build just one tunnel at slightly agreed,and said they want to see studies that would show how much water more than half the cost of the original project. would be taken in a single tunnel,when and what the impacts on the envi- The new pian reflects the reality that Brown only has one year remaining in ronment would be. office and that the original project has failed to win enough financial backing "After spending over a quarter of a billion dollars pushing for the big tunnels, from water agencies around California whom Brown was asking to pay for the state and the Metropolitan Water District have finally recognized that it construction. is dead,"said Jonas Minton,a senior water analyst with the Planning and The new approach—a huge shift in the often-intractable world of Califor- Conservation League.`The problem with a somewhat smaller version is that nia s water politics that has implications on everything from the environ- it still lacks all the safeguards required to ensure that it will not destroy the environment and economy of the Bay Delta estuary." ment to the water bills of millions of people�--could be announced in the next month,said Jeff Kightlinger,CEO of the influential Metropolitan Water The water agencies involved in the negotiations reportedly include Metro- District of Southern California,which serves 20 million people in Los Angeles, politan,Santa Clara Valley Water District,Kern County water Agency and San Diego and other areas. other contractors of the State water Project. "I'm hopeful this will be seen as a kinder,gentler,more agreeable ap- John Laird,secretary of California's Natural Resources Agency,said he could proach,"said Kightlinger. not discuss details of the current negotiations between the state Depart- Rather than two tunnels with a capacity of 9,000 cubic feet per second, ment of Water Resources and other large water agencies.But he did not which is about 4 million gallons per minute,as the original project calls for, dispute Kightlinger's characterization of the talks. the one-tunnel proposal would carry between 3,000 and 6,000 cubic feet per "We are in negotiations,"Laird said."We hope they are concluded in the second,Kightlinger said. next few weeks.Everything is on the table and we hope to get a project that The two-tunnel project could still be saved in its current form,Kightlinger can be built." said.But he conceded that it is increasingly unlikely,given the fact that ma- The Delta,a vast slough of wetlands and channels where the state's two jor players such as Westlands Water District in Fresno and the Santa Clara largest rivers—the Sacramento and the San Joaquin—meet before flowing Valley Water District in San Jose voted in recent months not to fund it.But in into San Francisco Bay,is one of California's most important water sources. negotiations over two vs.one tunnel,there are nearly enough commitments It provides water to 23 million people from Silicon Valley to San Diego and from water agencies to get close to funding a smaller,one-tunnel project,he irrigates millions of acres of Central Valley farmland. said. The Delta tunnels plan was begun under former Gov.Arnold Schwarzeneg- "lJnless we can figure out the money in the next 30 days,which seems really ger.The idea is that the tunnels would take water from the Sacramento Riv- difficult,my hunch is we're heading toward the latter,"he said. er,south of Sacramento near the town of Courtland,and move it to the huge pumps near Tracy that are part of the State Water Project and Central Valley "1 think there's a pretty decent chance it will happen,"he added."You need project.That,supporters say,would reduce reliance on the pumps and make about$10 billion get to the single barrel approach.I think we're pretty water deliveries more reliable by protecting endangered salmon,smelt and close to having that." ." other fish,which can be killed by the pumps.Protecting the fish leads to Kightlinger said the project could be built in phases,with a second tunnel an reduced pumping. option in the plan but with no timetable for construction."Whether or not But critics call the tunnels a huge boondoggle that will eventually allow large that ever happens,who knows,"he said. agribusiness interests in the San Joaquin Valley,as well as urban users in Los Environmental groups have fought the twin tunnels plan and vowed to tie Angeles,to take more water out of the Delta,regardless of what promises them up in court over concerns that the project could allow large San are made now. Joaquin Valley farms and Southern California cities to potentially take more Complicating Brown's plans,his administration has not been able to guaran- water in the future from Northern California,harming the Delta's fragile tee that the tunnels will allow any more water to be pumped out of the Del- ecosystem. to than is being pumped out now—roughly 50 percent of all its fresh water But in 2013,several environmental groups,including the Natural Resources in most years. Defense Council,Planning and Conservation League,Defenders of Wildlife Meanwhile,political intrigue is swirling.Earlier this week,Grant Davis,who and the Bay Institute called for the state and federal government to study a was named executive director of thestateDepartment of Water Resources - smaller,one-tunnel project that would carry 3,000 cubic feet per second,as in July,resigned abruptly to take back his former job as general manager of a way to potentially move water south during wet years,and reduce pump- the Sonoma County Water Agency. ing during dry years when salmon,smelt and other fish species are most at risk. Davis,a former environmental activist with the Bay Institute,was replaced by Karla Nemeth,who has worked in the Schwarzenegger and Brown admin- istrations since 2009,largely on Delta tunnels projects.Nemeth is married to "We've always wanted to study a smaller facility,"said Doug Obegi,an attor- Tom Philp,a chief strategist at the Metropolitan Water District. Wednesday Update ' � ~ ; A717. 10, 208 This weekly electronic newsletter is designed to keep you current on California Water Plan news. We welcome comments,suggestions,and any news tips that may be of interest to water planners. a ' Cal OESra rant ram has The Cal QES Hazard Mitigation Grant Program has g program vqa - opportunities for California funding available for projects related to last October's wildfires in California.To be eligible for the funding,a a wildfire mitigation projects notice of interest(NOI)must be submitted by Tuesday, Jan.30.The NOI form and instructions are available �+ on the program's website. WaterSMART program offering The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has announced two funding funding far water management opportunities through its WaterSMART program.The first would fund projects that increase water management flexibility and improve and drought contingency plans the resiliency of water resources.The other would provide up to $200,000 for efforts to develop a drought contingency plan. Forestry grants made CAI-FIRE has started a new round of grant program available through two funding.The Forest Health Grant_Proararn will accept concept proposals through Feb.21 for projects CAL FIRE programs that help reduce greenhouse gases and protect watersheds.And,the Urban and Community Forestry Program will accept proposals through Feb.26.It works to mimic forest conditions in neighborhoods. Comments being accepted on The U.S.Global Change Research PrograM is accepting comments draft of Fourth National on the latest draft version of the Fourth National Climate Assessment report.The final version of the report is expected to be released later Climate Assessment report this year.The comment deadline is Wednesday,Jan.31. New date set for California The January meeting of the California Water Commission has ,. been pushed back one day.It will be held on Thursday,Jan. 18, in Water Commissions Sacramento.The commissioners will elect a new chair and.vice :January meetlEng, chair;before receiying their staff's proposed`outline�for the 2Q17 State Water Ordlea Review. W. P3 Water Summlt DISC(?urtt reaistratton rates for the P3 Water f Surnmat wall Ise avaalabie through Fraday,Jan 12 rates`discounted r 4„ The summ>r will bnng together representatives ? through >ES'Frrd from tl�e publ[c and pnvate sectors to dascuss w t w -h� ti soluirag water cltalEenges hrough par#raem 1ps} 3'a and 4, yrl Kk ;k a2 wy� 7 z asRC ° P- ' fdcteVp�� z e f Chico .com CORRESPONDENCE # S - 1 Local water saving rate double or triple state's rate in November By:Staff Reports,January 15,2018 Sacramento>>Statewide water conservation ticked up slightly in November,although local reporting agencies doubled or tripled the statewide average. The State Water Resources Control Board reported savings in No- vember amounted to 11 percent statewide,compared to the same month in 2013.That was up from 8.5 percent in October. Locally however,customers of California Water Service's Oroville Division saved at a rate of 41.3 percent,with the Cal Water Chico Division not far back at 38 percent.Cal Water's Willows Division cut water use by 27.8 percent,the Paradise Irrigation District was down 26 percent,and the Del Oro Water Co.saved 23.5 percent. Oroville's conservation rate was the ninth best in the state,while Chico was 13th. Redding posted savings of 27.2 percent, Red Bluff 19.3 percent, Marysville 26.4 percent and Yuba City 24 percent. The statewide savings amounted to 49,883 acre-feet,according to the water board. There were vast regional differences,with the Sacramento River wa- tershed saving 27 percent,the Bay Area saving 19 percent,and the South Coast at just 5 percent. Statewide per capital water use averaged 84.1 gallons per day.In Oroville the figure was 40 gallons, 11.7 gallons in Chico,93 gallons in Paradise,54 gallons for Del Oro and 71 gallons for Willows. e AM Wednesday Update , 17, 2018 This weekly electronic newsletter is designed to keep you current on California Water Plan news. We welcome comments,suggestions,and any news tips that may be of interest to water planners. a ' ` DWR offering webinar A webinar on using the new Groundwater,Sustainability Plan G P to explain groundwater Initial Notification System will be offered by DWR on Friday,Jan. 19, $ at noon.Groundwater sustainability agencies can use the system $ sustainability plan system to submit their intent to develop a GSP.The link to the webinar is available at the top of the GSP Initial Notification_webl2agee. The state of potable The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)has posted reuse In the U.S. the 2017 Potable Reuse Compendium. It looks at the current development and practice of potable water reuse in the country, detailed in EPA report along with information to assist planners in making their potable reuse decisions. Discussion on the Science A workshop to discuss the science of stream restoration in the Russian River Watershed of stream restoration in the will be held Friday,,tan.26,in Cloverdale. Russian River Watershed Presented by the California Land Stewardship Institute,the workshop will cover restoration s techniques and the recent fire damage to creeks.The Russian River Watershed covers approximately" 1,500 square miles within Sonoma and Mendocino counties. Delta Stewardship Council The next meeting of the Delta Stewardship Council will include a will look ahead,and look discussion on the council's proposed priorities for 2018. In addition, staff will review the progress made on the Delta Plan implementation back,during next meeting during 2017.The meeting will be Thursday,Jan.25, in Sacramento. Central Valley landscape The.Central Valley Landsca a Conserva i n Pro'ec will hold its next wig on Feb.26 and 27,in Sacramento.One of the workshop WOCI(ShOp set fornext goals.is to identify working groups to address crtain activities, month In Socrpmento- including designing projects for climate smart'la.ndsca0e restoration. A"pre-workshop webiriar will be available"oi 'Thursclay,Jars:25. exploring the preservat!<aln The C, pnserVation l3lotctgy Institute is presenting of Ailndscape connestmllrtyy a w i rort praviding habitatwith landscape � wnnectjY during tlmeS Of climate Change dluCmg Climate Change Morgan Gray,from UC Berkeley,wilt discuss bier " research on forecas#ing the'effects 6f land use x FFE z }y( Y 0." l , w anct climate changwon species aid ecosysferans c rgt �Tiwebirafwi�ij)v 011mumplay Jank25 E � 7IN r a Q' Q �l��� "` •o-..y, r�� M � 't4follow��p O t���b�P.�§CE a SVM 'i o{.3�"��5��,��C ' Iii "-gde Ibeteld a2 d� S e o e 5{a O•e 0• - CORRESPONDENCE Chico .Com # 10 Chico meeting seeks input on fed's water delivery pian By Steve Schoonover,January 20,2018 Chico>>A meeting in Chico has been scheduled for Thursday to take That publication kicks off a required public comment period. input on a Trump Administration plan to maximize water deliveries from the federal Central Valley Project. Reclamation is currently seeking input on what the alternatives the EIS should include.The meeting in Chico and two others are called The project,which dates to the 1930s,consists of 18 dams and reser- "scoping"meetings,to determine the"scope"of the environmental voirs and 500 miles of canals that primarily deliver water to farms study. and cities in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys. The current plan is laid out in the Federal Register filing,which can In the north state,its facilities include Shasta, Keswick,Whiskeytown be viewed at http://tinyuri.com/cvp2018change. and Trinity dams and reservoirs.These provide water to a number of Comments on the scope of the EIS will be taken through Feb.1,but Sacramento Valley irrigation districts,and also to farmland on the the entire process is expected to take 18 months. west side of the San Joaquin Valley via the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Originally only two scoping meetings were planned,in Sacramento and Los Banos,but the Chico meeting was added after complaints However the federal water flowing through the delta and out to sea from north-of-delta interests including AquaAlliance. is also critical to maintaining the damaged ecosystem there,and that's a source of conflict. The three meetings will be: Some farmers farther south have long decried those flows as cutting •Tuesday,2-4 p.m.at the Stanford Room,650 Capital Mall,Sacra- into water they believe they deserve.Then-candidate Donald Trump mento. played to those feelings during a speech May 27, 2016,in Fresno .Wednesday,6-8 p.m.at Los Banos Community Center,645 Seventh when he called it"insane"to shovel water out to sea"to protect a St. certain kind of 3-inch fish,"a reference to the delta smelt. In the same speech he said there was no drought,and that more 'Thursday,6-8 p.m.at Bell Memorial Union(Room 210),Chico State water would be available if he was elected. University. Written comments can also be mailed or hand-delivered to Katrina This seems to be a step toward delivering on that.The Federal Regis- Harrison,project manager,Bureau of Reclamation, Bay-Delta Office, ter notice on the proposal published Dec.9 reads: 8011 St.,Suite 140,Sacramento,CA,95814-2536;or faxed to 1-916- "State and Federal regulatory actions,federal trust responsibilities, 414-2439;or emaied to kharrison@usbr.gov. and other agreements,have significantly reduced the water available For additional information,contact Harrison at 1-916-414-2425(TTY for delivery south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta,in or- 1-800-877-8339). der,among other things,to protect water quality within the delta and prevent jeopardy and adverse modification of critical habitat of Reach City Editor Steve Schoonover at 896-7750. threatened and endangered species. "This project will evaluate alternatives to restore,at least in part, water supply,in consideration of all of the authorized purposes of the CVP." Bullet points listed as the goals of the proceeding include: • Maximizing water supply delivery,possibly including new or modi- fied storage and export facilities. •Considering modifications to environmental regulations resulting from the biological studies of the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. • Evaluating and addressing environmental impacts on fish from stressors other than the amount of water flowing through the delta. • Evaluating changes in laws,regulations and infrastructure to bene- fit power marketability. What's happening The notice the Bureau of Reclamation Dec.29 published in the Fed- eral Register says it intends to prepare a environmental impact state- ment on"Revisions to the Coordinated Long-Term Operation of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project,and Related Facili- ties." A AM f Wednesday Updatez This weekly electronic newsletter Is designed to keep you current on California Water Plan news. We welcome comments,suggestions,and any news tips that may be of interest to water planners. $34.4 million in funding DWR's Water Desalination Grant Program is recommending funding recommended for eight for eigh>yprojects that support potable desalination.Total funding for the projects is$34.4 million.A public meeting to comment on the potable desalination projects recommendations will be held Monday, Feb.5, in Los Angeles.Other ® comment instructions are provided with the meeting details. OPC accepting preliminary Preliminary proposals are being C A [ ; r Q n N , A proposals for grant accepted for the California Ocean Protection Council's(OPC's)comAetibve `> '� funding through March 15 grant program.The funding is for projects that benefit California and support the OPC'spriorities.The pre- a' proposals will be reviewed to determine which ones will be invited to submit full proposals.The deadline is Thursday,March 15. Field sessions to be part The 2nd National Living Shorelines Tech nologyTransfer_Works ho of two-flay workshop will be Feb.21 and 22, in Oakland.There will be discussion on the latest science, policies,and developments in living shorelines.The on living shorelines o- a 12rograLn includes field sessions at the North Richmond Shoreline and at Arrowhead Marsh. Inaugural San Diego An in-depth look at climate science,and Climate Summit will provide related issues,will be discussed at the inaugural San Diego Climate Summit. It look at latest science,issues will showcase an assessment by local climatologists that will be released as part of California's Fourth Climate Change CLIIvtATiS ssCfl l•!Cl Li�lPi�E Aessment.The summit will 6e March 6: . Strategic Growth C6vn4. The next meeting;of the Strategic Growth Council will include an [tem Wait! the investment:plan;for the Climate Clianae:Research. to digcoss.t imatB.thangB. prwr„ 7f a cou.nc[I w[Il..review staff reeammendatians to.;proceed research lmresiment plan with the process for awarciirng the research prograrn`s funds:The meeting wiil be Monday,Jan.29,in Sacramento Aririval Cal�fornla Water a run rs open for the annual Cal ornra r Pal[ } pOl�cy Cor>Eference Sett Copfefapce on March 22 and 23,rn Dav[s [Jnderthe theme,"Water J!r t = 111r"e Gonna Da? the conference will-look ata nr.lmber of different � f� �. � , 7 .i L r t - �tf � 0 li4archIl IlwavwlS 4 aspects otftastates water supplyrychallenges�Thejtapres include az r E ax -^ x rc y s �"v'"T•"�h'..f+S rlhsarJ � 7��' ���chfl wcw � U r y,fir :n kr i^ , '4 � y ' "�; .A �N �,,�.�`r'• r '�{ i�^�r-;,. � Say,c �` �w}^'`a"y.- T r' "` /� s �ss ;� �� °�'p^�{�S'•z� ���d. 3�' .;r" "`r.z�"r1 f i S �' � ! �Lt� ;lad e• e: 1�I"-.s '�Y'kl � :a ��,y ri e. ' @ ChiCOER.com CORRESPONDENCE # 11-- Idea of'maximizing' water deliveries takes a beating By:Steve Schoonover,January 26,2418 Chico>>The Bureau of Reclamation came to Chico Thursday to take Dunlap said he'd really like to see the Central Valley Project disman- input on a proposal to maximize water deliveries from the Central tied.Failing that,"consider what the environment was prior to the Valley Project,and for two hours a succession of speakers told them CVP and start from there." it was a bad Idea. The meeting was the final one of three to take input on the"scope" The meeting was nominally to get comments just on what the envi- of the environmental impact statement to be prepared for the pro- ronmental studies for the proposal should look at,but most of the posal.There was a meeting Tuesday in Los Banos and Wednesday in speakers objected to the basic idea of taking more water from the Sacramento. north to deliver to the San Joaquin Valley for what more than one Ben Nelson,a natural resources specialist with the bureau,said there speaker called desert agriculture. were about 30 people at the Los Banos meeting,and only about Rick Switzer compared the proposal to seeing how much more could three citizens spoke.There were about 100 in Sacramento,but far be squeezed from an already dry sponge. fewer comments than Thursday. "I question the premise of what you are doing.Water's finite;you Comments on the scope of the EIS will be taken until the close of people don't seem to be familiar with the concept." business next Friday,Feb.1. There were close to a hundred people crowded into a room at the The current plan is laid out in a Federal Register filing,which can be Bell Memorial union on the Chico State University campus,and doz- viewed at http://tinyuri.com/cvp2ol8change. ens of them spoke. Written comments can be mailed or hand-delivered to Katrina Hard- The proposal to revise the operations of the Central Valley Project— son,project manager,Bureau of Reclamation,Bay-Delta Office,8011 and the State Water Project—first surfaced In December.It seems St.,Suite 140,Sacramento,CA,95814-2536;or faxed to 1-916-414- to be fulfillment of a campaign promise then-candidate Donald 2439;or emailed to kharrison@usbr.gov. Trump made In May 2016 during a speech in Fresno to deliver more The comments will be used to shape a draft EIS laying out a number water there if he was elected. of alternatives and evaluating their Impacts.That will then be Reclamation officials Thursday stressed the proceedings were in their opened to another round of public comment and additional revisions infancy and alternatives haven't been developed,but the documents before a final EIS is approved. accompanying it start with the statement that the amount of water For additional information,contact Harrison at 1-916-414-2425(TTY available for south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta has de- 1,800-$77-8339). creased since the project was built in the 1930s. The goals laid out for the revision include maximizing water deliver- Reach City Editor Steve Schoonover at 896-7750. ies and hydropower marketing,giving consideration to modifying environmental regulations to do that. Numerous people asked where the new water was going to come from.Grim pictures of the health of the rivers were painted with accounts of dwindling numbers of fish.Well owners talked about how groundwater levels were already dropping. "Our environment Is already collapsing from the over allocation of water,"said Robert Dunn of the Northern California Guides Associa- tion."We're totally opposed to more water going south." There was no support for relaxing protections for fish to send more water south,so farmers"can make money from it downstream,"as one speaker put it. "We don't have any more in the environment to take from,"said Lucas RossMerz of the Sacramento River Preservation Trust."When is the agriculture side of this have to give something back?" That point was,aiso,made,by James Dunlap_of the Yurok on the-Kla- math River.The tribe has had to have an emergency declared in or- der to get extra water released into the river to battle a fish disease. "The Westiands(the largest San Joaquin irrigation district)should have to prove a emergency to get the water instead of the tribes having to prove an emergency." } 1 f Butte County Water&Resource Conservation February,2018 Volume 19,Issue 2 z , L WaterSolutions .0 "To manage and conserve water and other resources for the citizens of Butte County" l d aY f 5 U, ua' r ,�pfa�ur Nd.l -q'ry. „r.•dsv6ya .;n`�w.�;y� s.er# Ilk Groundwater Recharge Opportunities , µ, pp By Paul Gosselin ` Butte County and many parts of California are in the process of developing long term sustainable groundwater management strategies as required by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Under SGMA, groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) must develop groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) that characterize groundwater basin conditions, develop sustainable management criteria and identify actions to achieve sustainability within 20 years. The options to meet sustainability goals in some areas can be limited or undesirable. One beneficial i11 . strategy is to increase groundwater recharge to improve basin conditions to achieve sustainability. We are fortunate to have sources of natural and developed surface water that could improve groundwater recharge or reduce the need for groundwater pumping. In 2016, the department took a proactive step to identify groundwater Inside this issue recharge opportunities through the "Evaluation of Restoration and Recharge within the Butte County Groundwater Basins" project. The project was funded from a 2017 Groundwater Counties with Stressed Basins Grant under the Sustainable Groundwater Planning Status Report................. 4 Grant Program pursuant to the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Text to Sign-up.............. 6 Improvement Act of 2014 (Proposition 1). The project was conducted with technical take Oroville support from GEI Consultants, Inc., in cooperation with Davids Engineering, ERA Spillway Update............. 7 Economics and Land IQ. A local Experts Group provided data, information and Lake Oroville Storage.... 8 guidance throughout the project. The project is now completed. The results were presented at a workshop in January and are available in a newly released report. Lake OrovillenP Winter Operations Plan............. 8 RECHARGE,page 2>>> .• .....� _•a.,.,._ ..,.._ ....< ..•a .. r �z, >>> Recharge (cont.) a'r�r'1N" eKK' w s s Z 41, � �g 1 �✓ r z �? if �r W.l' .11. leis M r� e-�I . F �� , 2 :d E4 kz ti s s tf yCv N 10. ` c C 5 a c, ti4 rr ss ' seri _ .� 1 i �. ,y�4�J. { x� fir. - ✓`��v+''aKi t M%-a ti. z 'f� a �� 4,'S ✓ !" Fri / r gg ....r :.. ..__ "Wcl�`V-5'tC s,?9 'v N ..5"S :• }. [+'f t�P - �" g 'Z .• k`�'S �' )L {rs TT" }tib 4 x Vii; ®N:x 1 f a > �u L� Y``. c .,n a The project focused on identifying and evaluating the feasibility of both direct and in- lieu recharge of the groundwater basins within Butte County (Nina, West Butte, East Butte and Wyandotte Creek). Dirort rerharaa involves physically delivering Ovate to the aquifer system, whereas indirect (or in-lieu) recharge increases groundwater storage by offsetting the use of groundwater with another water supply source (e.g., surface water). There are advantages to each approach, and local conditions will dictate which methods will work best in a particular location. Analysis was conducted to find the best places for groundwater recharge and to evaluate the availability of surface water supplies that could be used to provide recharge or offset groundwater w Z s j F �3 BUJ, demand. A recharge constraints analysis was conducted to identify superior recharge ,. ` < areas by weighting an array of relevant physical characteristics (e.g.,soil type, depth to water, geology) and anthropogenic (human-influenced) conditions that affect where recharge could be conducted. Injection wells were evaluated but were not s { determined to be viable. The clearest opportunities for promoting groundwater recharge lie with improving the use of water supplies currently available within the County. Potential sources of water available for direct and in-lieu recharge projects in Butte County fall into the following categories: a K • Contracted water—primarily Butte County's State Water Project Table A •. --Sacramento-River.water-(use-of-this-source would. likely-require-an-exchange-o# Table A water for water extracted from the river) • Surface water diversions distributed through irrigation facilities i t2-1 , b Fk 7{` + Natural flow in local waterways y?� � ,Ni 3u�f x _? One of the best opportunities for in-lieu recharge could come from making surface water available to groundwater dependent irrigators or municipalities (i.e. Chico) who do not currently have access to surface water. Butte County has a 27,500 acre-feet 4 , surface water source from its State Water Project Table A allocation. Making the Table A part of the City of Chico's water supply has been a long time goal.There are options . being evaluated on how to best bring this surface water supply to Chico. The project $` also identified other opportunities to make other surface water sources available to a groundwater users. Another viable option for groundwater recharge is creating dedicated recharge ponds which would allow capture of available stormflows. � Flooding fields, similar to recharge ponds, could also provide some groundwater recharge opportunities. However,the field flooding method has limitations to the non -irrigation season and compatibility with the crop. Bringing these opportunities into reality will require a heavy commitment of resources, planning and partnerships. s ; In the short- and medium-term, additional opportunities exist to make use of surfacer. water now available within the County. These alternatives include policies toa .. incentivize urban developers and property owners to install semipermeable pavements, and efforts to identify and advance local in-lieu recharge projects to W groundwater reliant landowners and to growers who already have access to surface �> Y water(such as in Butte Water District) but have converted to groundwater systems for a variety of reasons. Taking advantage of these opportunities will require further site specific analysis, planning and cooperation. , A_ Lastly, existing and potentially future surface water supplies could offset groundwater • use if irrigators use a dual source irrigation system. A dual source irrigation systemt� `�dfllf� allows growers to effectively utilize surface water when available and use their wells e5(,' wi ' when surface water is not available. This project conducted an extensive economic evaluation of dual source irrigation systems. The evaluation included upfront (capital) ; 5 < and ongoing (operations and maintenance) costs relative to systems utilizing ' groundwater only, agronomic factors a preliminary economic anal sis of local and f s regional benefits and costs of utilizing dual source systems to address potential groundwater overdraft conditions. Preliminary evaluation of benefits and costs ` associated with dual source systems suggest that benefits may significantly exceed the costs. The project developed a too] that growers can use to evaluate the cost effectiveness of dual source irrigation systems under a variety of scenarios. There are resources available for growers through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural r Resource Conservation Service to implement dual source irrigation systems and other agriculturally viable sustainable solutions. For more information, contact the NRCS office at the NRCS Oroville Service Center, 150 Chuck Yeager Way, Oroville, CA 95965- s�tSx 9215 or by phone at(530)534-0112. t The "Evaluation of Restoration and Recharge within the Butte County Groundwater a,` Basins" project produced a range of viable groundwater recharge opportunities that , 1 ' could be part of Groundwater Sustainability Plans in our four subbasins. As the work ` w, proceeds on developing GSPs, the groundwater recharge opportunities identified in ' ey, the project will be further evaluated, refined and developed. The report on theridl < "` r "Evaluation of Restoration and Recharge within the Butte Count Groundwater Basins" g Y project will be available on our website within the next two weeks: htts: y www.buttecountV.net/waterresoureeconservation/Specia[Proiects/ G rou ndwaterRechargeOpportu nities.aspx 1001 9S 2016-2017 Daily Precip (wettest 94.7 I k .���t,a y 90� 1982-3.983 (211d wettest) 85{ r.` i . 80 715 v L 70 w c 654 I o C a 60 2015-2016 Dail Prec _ y i p _; 53j s CL C [EE [ L i 45 � _ ; Y 4 40 4 ;: 35 I r-------tet P 6 30 ~ V r i I 25 s 20 �/ 1.976-197'7(2nd driest&driest thru Au -19.0 15 10 f —' f s b'q Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1 Jan i Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr i May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep 1 Oct i j 3 Water Year(October 1 - September 30) Av!! 0!n ofi6_2n1�—1076-1077 nn nriec�—19g2-1983 end+++et[�ctt -._--2015-2016 —2.016-2017(Wettesn ii Northern Sierra Precipitation:8 Station Index �-� Highlights from the Groundwater Status Report Water Year 2 017 By Christina Buck The 2017 water year started strong with over four inches of rain in October and each month after that through April had one or more significant storms that brought multiple inches of precipitation. The wet winter led to a new record for the Northern Sierra 8-station index making 2016-2017 the wettest year on record, surpassing the ^ previous record that occurred in 1982-1983. In April of 2017, Governor Brown lifted g-: the drought emergency declaration for most of California that had been in effect since January2014. Overall,the 2017 Water Year was characterized by wet conditions, high runoff, and increased groundwater levels throughout Butte County. In many parts of the state; focus shifted from _drought to flood response-including-the-extensive evacuation ordered due to the Oroville Spillway incident. From one extreme to another, 2017 WY brought both challenges and relief for water managers across the state. ffigo -1_ F , The 2017 water year began October 1, 2016 and was classified as a wet year for the RA k" Sacramento Valley. It followed a below normal year,two critical years, and a dry year. The wet conditions were a welcome relief from a historically dry period with little rain and snow. According to the Northern Sierra Precipitation 8 Station Index,the 2017 WY ended on September 30, 2017 with 94.7 cumulative inches of precipitation, 183% of the long-term average. The statewide total annual precipitation was about 165% of the long-term average. Another measure of hydrologic conditions is the amount of I runoff to streams and rivers. The Sacramento River Region unimpaired runoff during the 2017 WY was 37.9 million acre-feet(MAF),which is about 212%of average. April 1 snowpack statewide was 160% of the April 1 average. The robust runoff and snowpack helped fill reservoirs across the state. Storage in the state's reservoirs as 2017 WY ended held 120% of their historical average. Although by some measures 2017 was a historically wet year, it joins only two other wet years (2006 and 2011) in the past 12 years that were otherwise classified as critical,dry, or below normal. 20 • Wet o Above Normal o Below Normal 0 pry 15 $ Critical ---1960-2010 Average x L I aCUu 14 _A............................. _. {y3 t 1 P ! ! 3- �.: N N N N N N N N N N CD t4 to to CD CD to co tO CO CO CO tO to CO CO CO CO to to C, C7 C3 C3 O C7 O C7 C) C7 M M M M M —1 -1 -i ­4 v 00 00 00 00 M W 0 0 W W O C7 0 C7 0 — — — -s — C7 f V 4�-. 0 W O N4�, M OD O N 4�6 CA W 0 N4�-. M M O N 4�h- M M Ca K) .i? Cn M Sacramento Valley Water Year Type Index 40-30-30 I The wet conditions of 2017 provided a welcome improvement to groundwater conditions throughout the basin in Butte County. Although groundwater levels increased significantly, this one wet year did not make up for the cumulative effect of the multiple dry years that resulted in significant declines, particularly in groundwater dependent areas. Even as groundwater levels have come up,they continue to be near GROUNDWATER STATUS REPORT,page 6>>> N.MM66 ;; thus 4 ti 1 \ s ' >>> Groundwater Status Report (cont.) IN I 10, historical lows where declines during the drought were greatest. The Department, in POW 'M, _ cooperation with the Department of Water Resources Northern Region Office, r f: w conducts four (spring, July, August, fall) groundwater level measurements annually. Spring roundwater levels in 2017 were almost 5 feet higher on average compared to the spring of 2016. Fall groundwater levels in October 2017 were about three feet higher on average compared to October 2016. Although the number of wells in alert 1 lhw• `"` a or 2 have declined, others remain at a spring and/or fall alert stage 1 or 2 indicating I: I� j 3 levels remain near historical lows some c, w in me areas. rYr^ The Department conducted its sixteenth year of groundwater quality trend monitoring e< � = for evidence of saline intrusion during Jul 24-27 and August 3,2017. All samples were within the acceptable range for electrical conductivity and pH, and temperatures remained relatively consistent. Subsidence is monitored by periodic land surveys and by use of extensometers. No inelastic land subsidence was detected in Butte County from an evaluation of the extensometer records in the Western Canal, Richvale, and Biggs-West Gridley sub- We want to inventory units. A Sacramento Valley-wide GPS survey was conducted during 2017. Results of the survey will be available in 2018 and will provide additional land make it subsidence data throughout the county to better measure and detect possible subsidence in the region. easy. .. Annual Reporting Each February the Groundwater Status Report is submitted to the Board of Supervisors. This report provides an overview of the previous water year's hydrologic conditions, surface water deliveries, and groundwater conditions. As appendices, it also compiles maps of the current monitoring network, results from the summers Text water quality monitoring, and data summary spreadsheets for spring,summer, and fall groundwater levels. In addition, the report contains individual Basin Management BCWATER Objectives (BMO) reports for each of the 16 sub-inventory units. These reports locally describe land and water use,geology, current conditions, and management objectives. 02BMO wells for groundwater level monitoring are identified and their spring and fall ff �1,t 8hydrographs included. The hydrographs plot groundwater elevation and depth to groundwater over time. Some of these wells have data going back to the 1940s. to get Others, more recently installed or added to the network, have only a few data points. Nonetheless, this data provides a sense for how groundwater levels vary and have changed over time and in different parts of the county. The reports are prepared by sta rted. the Department in consultation with Water Advisory Committee members from each area. We are grateful for their input and participation. The Groundwater Status Report was reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee at their January meeting and will be presented to the Water Commission on February 7th. It will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors by the end of the month. The draft report is available online from http://www.buttecounty.net/ waterresou rceconservation/ Message and data GroundwaterStatusReport5/2017GroundwaterStatusReport. Contact Christina Buck rates may apply. with any questions, 530.552.3593. �� y� m.�,,'^'z'• 'v _'a t r m x -�� \-\ ti5 /�t n'f Y r,f�C f �� 4 r t \S� c �*, F l Y RI- Lake Lake Oroville Spillway Incident Updates 3s ' By Paul Gosselin The answers about the causes of the Lake Oroville Spillway Incident was evaluated in the Independent Forensic Team Repo (January 5, 2018). The report found that there was no single root cause of the Oroville Dam spillway incident, nor was there a simple chain of events that led to the failure of the spillway and overtopping of the emergency spillway. The report states that the incident was caused by a complex interaction of physical, human, organizational and industry factors, starting with project design and continuing through a failure of management. The report noted that despite many opportunities to intervene and prevent the incident,these opportunities were ignored. The report went into extensive detail on the various causes of the Oroville Dam spillway incident and recommendations for preventing future incidents. The full report can be read at http://issuu.com/asdso/docs/ independent forensic team report fi?e=16355058 57087615 As for the repair of the spillway, DWR announced that they met their goal of repairing and reconstructing the main, gated flood control spillway by November 1, 2017. DWR released the 2017-18 winter operations plan for Lake Oroville. The plan, which will guide reservoir operations between November 1, 2017 and April 2018, calls for DWR to maintain lower-than-average lake levels during the winter months to provide space for inflows and manage releases from the substantially reconstructed main spillway. More information on DWR's activities to repair the Lake Oroville Spillway can be found at http:Uwater.ca.gov/oroville-spillway/. - 7 ti :0 Meeting Schedules �, J, I "h i Water Commission 2/7/2018,1:30 p.m. Board of Supervisors Chambers ■ 25 County Center Drive Board of Supervisors z Ht r 2/13/2018,9:00 a.m. Board of Supervisors Chambers 25 County Center Drive 2/27/2018,9:00 a.m. Board of Supervisors Chambers 25 County Center Drive GPAC Meeting No GPAC meeting in February Lake Oroville Storage Next meeting will be Combination Water/Calendar Year March 19,2018 4.0 3.6 i \\ Cepacily=3.54 ntaf Department of Water& 3.2 ' \ ------_ ——————— --------- Resource Conservation ' \ 2.8 ! ti 308 Nelson Avenue ' proville,CA 95965 a 2.4 Phone:530.552.3595 ° 2 Fax:530.538.3807 0 �' E-mail:bcwater@buttecounty,net r 1.6 Website:www.buttecounty.net/ waterandresource 1.2 _ �2017.2018 Water&Resource _ - �-2016.2017 Conservation Staff 2615.2016 �-- 2014-2015 • Paul Gosselin,Director 0.4 —2413.2614 • Christina Buck, ---allowable baundades Assistant Director 0.0 Updated through 1!2&2618 • Autum Thomas, Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Administrative Analyst:, Associate California Snow Water Content, January 29, 2018, Percent of April 1 Average Water Commission 250 North Percent of Amage for this Dole:29% • Kathy Chance 200 1382-1483 (max) • Mark Graver 2016.2011 150 • DC Jones,Vice-Chair • Tod Etimmelshue 100 Mauny Roethler Ave rag. • Ryan Schahr 50 • David Skinner,Chair ig 1976.1977 • Matthew Tennis o • Ernie Washington 250 ....... ......... Central Percent of Average for this Dare:36% 200 1982-1983 (max) 150 2016-201 100 50 21 1976- County 0 014-2015 (min utte Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul WATER&RE5DURCE CCN5ERVATION