HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Commission Agenda Packet for August 2018 r-37'7- 7'7.'7'7 WATER AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION
• 308 Nelson Avenue,Oroville,CA 95965
Telephone:(530)538-4343
Fax:(530)538-3807
www.buttecounty.net/waterandresource
Butte County bcwater@buttecounty.net
Paul Gosselin,Director
WATER 8 RESOURCE CONSERVATION
July 25, 2018
TO: Butte County Water Commission
FROM: Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation
SUBJECT: Meeting Agenda
Date: August 1,2018
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Place: 25 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
AGENDA ITEMS
I) Roll call.
2) *Approval of minutes for the June 6, 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) Report from the Basin Management Objective Program (Chapter 33A) ad hoc subcommittee.
(Kelly Peterson, Water and Resource Conservation)
5) *Update and possible recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on activities associated
with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. (SGMA). (Water and Resource
Conservation staff)
a. Groundwater Sustainability Plan development (Christina Buck, Water and
Resource Conservation)
b. Basin Boundary Modifications (Christina Buck, Water and Resource
Conservation)
c. Governance Structures Update (Paul Gosselin, Water and Resource Conservation)
d. Groundwater Pumpers Advisory Committee (GPAC) (Paul Gosselin, Water and
Resource Conservation)
1
6) *Presentation and possible recommendation on the Water Supply and Water Quality Act of
2018. (Paul Gosselin, Water and Resource Conservation)
7) Reports from Water Commissioners and staff on issues of interest.
a. Report on groundwater issues. (Kelly Peterson, 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. *Update on the activities of Integrated Regional Water Management(IRWM) Plans
i. Northern Sacramento Valley IRWM Board (NSV Board) (Christina Buck,
Water and Resource Conservation).
ii. Upper Feather River IRWM Board (Kelly Peterson, Water and Resource
Conservation).
e. Other issues.
10) Future meeting dates and locations: September 5, 2018
Board of Supervisors Chambers
25 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 96965
11) 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).
12) *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).
11)Adjournment.
*Materials attached
cc: Water Commission Mailing List Window Posting
2
Agenda Item
#2
MINUTES OF THE
BUTTE COUNTY WATER COMMISSION
June 6, 2018
Board of Supervisors Chambers
25 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
1. Roll call.
Commissioners present: Commissioners Chance, Grover,Jones, Skinner, Tennis
and Washington. Commissioner Kimmelshue arrived 00:04:45 into the meeting.
Commissioners absent: Commissioners Roethler and Schohr.
2. Approval of minutes for the May 2, 2018 meeting.
Motion by Commissioner Chance, second by Commissioner Jones to approve the
minutes as presented. Motion carried 6-0 with no abstention.
3. Public members wishing to address the Commission on items not listed on the
agenda.
None.
4. Presentation and Discussion of the North of Delta Water Storage Project(Sites
Reservoir)by Jim Watson, General Manager, Sites Project Authority.
(Commissioner Kimmelshue arrived)
John Scott, Robert Eberhardt, Debra Lucero and Lucas Ross-Merz addressed the
commission.
Information only, no action.
5. Update and possible recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on activities
associated with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act(SGMA).
a. Groundwater Sustainability Plan development
Information only, no action.
b. Basin Boundary Modifications to the Vina and Wyandotte Creek subbasins
Information only, no action.
c. Draft Governance Structures
Information only, no action.
d. Update regarding the Groundwater Pumpers Advisory Committee (GPAC)
Information only, no action.
e. Resolution in Support of Butte Environmental Council Involvement in the
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Process.
Natalie Carter,John Scott, Lucas Ross-Merz and Bruce Smith addressed the
Commission.
Motion by Commissioner Kimmelshue, second by Commissioner Washington
in support of the resolution. Motion passed 5-2-0.
6. Discussion of the Basin Management Objective Program (Chapter 33A) and
possible formation of an ad hoc committee to evaluate potential changes.
Motion by Commissioner Kimmelshue, seconded by Commissioner Chance to
form an ad hoc committee to evaluate potential changes. Commissioners
Kimmelshue, Washington, Skinner and Jones volunteered for the ad hoc
committee. Motion passed 7-0-0.
7. 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.
Information only, no action.
8. Reports from Water Commissioners and staff on issue 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.
9. Future meeting dates and locations: August 1, 2018, 1:30 pm
Board of Supervisors Chambers
25 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
NOTE: There is not a Water Commission Meeting in July
10. Commissioners wishing to address items not listed on the agenda.
None.
11. *Communications received and referred.
Information only, no action.
12. Adjournment.
Agenda Item
#5
:ix+';r-+�r-y�'�'e�:`.:T '` '2. Y"Ed� - -'ti;• u16%:;;:,s;'�� ...,,,,v,„;.i>'.�;sr��" e J:?: ti;,, �-�w+,.'r7.,ti^ :=�;�<e .:t,�;•
is^$� : b�vVV;V;, " 2d r Z tYr7, . v `: sk v 3't J' s' Er t-. -�� ,- "
,�'. t� Y i�'r�Y1-W1:.`"'- .
x�n??5�',•��: �, .r'�.•e?=,1'._ .3yx ''� ro Y -y'':€��3':,s� � ,I� %;�'i.,�4,F .. �r�`.� a3�1`�:�-3y..�'�4 �✓
z4�,r* a
;." j ca i O hi s T {": i i': `� ; S' r i ..i!AV : ti p,''.7.:`�"`� 03:4v -No.,
,11
/' �4i"'u�.^ell KU 7 e�"�r^' '� '="'fr5:e�.� ��s .� , u --� yc ' i*G� �`K3
i� bi;\\-v -A „ fie dY °4 0 f "'� i 0 k d ,4`''Np'x� �',3 .'in ,� + „ s„ F
: ji� 1 J) `'b fi F; .p. �.: �, k --f ` ��,c(np2 �,�� �l��y �'�,a � em f w,,,,,,,i`0,1,0,,ans� a3�:fh.
r l�� �I zx er r§. v r ted +ter ai a r a x {
. S ` a# ... � ,,x' ?t .•0 ,✓. 4s.��.xk,.. w: sn%`.�...,.,.. . .t'`.7r,.,_ritu ?t b.r�',=`g: .'-=fir z:cic�' .<„ tj c�:nt � �r,. 3��,;:. az::� :','f., .._.' .`»�,,g,.. .. :%„ L,.A,,,
41)
44 m8 � °� Resolution No. 18-096
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE BUTTE ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL INVOLVEMENT
IN THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT PROCESS
WHEREAS, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 ("SGMA") provides local agencies (counties
and cities with land-use authority and single and multipurpose special districts with water management authority) with
the directive and authority to manage groundwater locally,with State oversight;and
WHEREAS, high and medium priority groundwater basins must develop and be managed under a Groundwater
Sustainability Plan(GSP),which must be submitted to the California Department of Water Resources by January 31,2022,
for the subbasins within Butte County; and
WHEREAS, one of the steps in that process in Butte County is for eligible local agencies in each subbasin to
determine the make-up of an inclusive governance structure in their respective groundwater subbasin. The governance
agencies, known as Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs), can be a single entity managing an entire basin or
subbasin or multiple entities;and
WHEREAS,in many counties throughout the Central Valley of California,including Butte County,which are subject
to SGMA with high and medium priority sub-basins,there are tracts of land known as"white areas,"which are areas within
counties that are not within the boundaries of an otherwise eligible local agency; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to SGMA,these "white areas" may be covered and regulated by a county, or they may elect
to annex through a Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) process to an eligible local agency with SGMA authority,
or petition LAFCo to form a new eligible local agency under SGMA such as a California Water District(Water Code Sections
34000 et.al.); and
WHEREAS, Butte County is located within the Sacramento Valley Basin, and the State has identified four sub-
basins within the Sacramento Valley Basin per DWR's Bulletin 118, partially located within Butte County: namely Vina,
West Butte, East Butte, and Wyandotte Creek;and
WHEREAS, Butte County began a collaborative process in 2015 with all eligible local agencies to reach consensus
within the County on principles of GSA formation and future SGMA governance.The goal of this process is to define a set
of working principles that are shared among eligible local agencies and that consistently and constructively shape SGMA
interaction and decision-making; and
WHEREAS,those principles include the following:
1. Maximize value of familiar structures and relationships;
2. Acknowledge all key interests of eligible local agencies;
3. Respect legally recognized rights;
4. Anticipate GSA requirements;
5. Make use of basin boundary adjustments;
6. Comply with SGMA regulations;
7. Identify opportunities to address interests of current non-GSA stakeholders;
8. Distribute costs in an equitable manner as possible;
9. Respect mutual interests in maintaining independent decision-making;and
WHEREAS,the"white areas"of Butte County within the four sub-basins are not represented by other eligible local
agencies and will therefore be represented by Butte County unless these areas choose to annex to an eligible local agency
or form a new one;and
WHEREAS, Butte Environmental Council(BEC)as a local non-profit engaged in Butte County water advocacy since
1975 has taken an active role in the collaborative SGMA process since it began in 2015 and continues to engage in all
aspects of SGMA implementation and governance. Butte Environmental Council is uniquely positioned to represent key
interests in SGMA and supports the interests beneficial users of groundwater including domestic groundwater users,and
the environmental users as defined in SGMA in decision making processes; and
WHEREAS, the Butte Environmental Council recognizes and respects the leadership of Butte County and it its
efforts to create a workable and cooperative structure to discuss GSP; and
WHEREAS, the Butte Environmental Council recognizes and respects the leadership of Butte County to move
forward to complete a comprehensive GSP by January 31, 2022; and
WHEREAS, inherent in this process and timeframe Butte County will endeavor through the stakeholder process
to develop a governance structure,for SGMA oversight of each of the four subbasins within Butte County consistent with
the nine principles enumerated above;and
WHEREAS, principle number 7 above, recognizes that the interests of non-GSA stakeholders such as domestic
pumpers,and the environmental uses should be addressed;and
WHEREAS, Butte County recognizes the value of input and participation in the SGMA process by the Butte
Environmental Council, which has been committed to protecting and defending the land, air and water of Butte County
through action, education and advocacy since 1975, and is comprised of more than 600 community members dedicated
to our local environment.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The County of Butte will continue to work with stakeholders within Butte County utilizing a collaborative
process to establish a governance structure and ultimately develop a Groundwater Sustainability Plan, and the Butte
Environmental Council will openly and earnestly participate and cooperate in that process.
2. As a governance structure for implementation of SGMA is discussed among,and ultimately decided by all
eligible local agencies within the four subbasins, the County of Butte and the Butte Environmental Council will work
together to advocate for appropriate representation of domestic pumpers, and the environment at large within the
governance structure in each subbasin in compliance with SGMA.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Butte County Board of Supervisors this 26th day of June, 2018, by the following
vote:
AYES:Supervisors Connelly,Wahl, Kirk,Teeter,and Chair Lambert
NOES: None
ABSENT: None }�
NOT VOTING: None
Steve Lamb ,Chair
Butte County Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
Shari McCracken,Chief Administrative Officer
and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: ._...,..J,d0-
Deputy
Water and Resource Conservation Paul Gosselin, Director
308 Nelson Avenue I T: 530.538.4343 buttecounty.net/waterresourceconservation
Oroville, California 95965 F: 530.538.3807 bcwater@buttecounty.net
Butte County
WATER&RESOURCE CONSERVAITON
July 18, 2018
RE: Update on Butte County Groundwater Sustainability Agency's Intent to Submit a
Basin Boundary Modification Affecting the Vina,West Butte,and East Butte Subbasins
Dear Interested Stakeholder,
On June 12, 2018 the Butte County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution (No. 18-089) authorizing our
Department to submit a basin boundary modification (BBM)application to the Department of Water Resources
(DWR). The Board authorized three proposed modifications: 1) Moving the southern boundary of Vina south to
include the City of Chico and non-agricultural areas into Vina, 2) Expanding Wyandotte Creek subbasin to the
west to fully include the City of Oroville, and 3) Clean up to the Sacramento River boundary along the western
boundaries of Vina and West Butte subbasins to align it with the County line rather than the river. These
modifications are shown in attached Figure 1.The original deadline for submission of applications was June 30,
2018 but has since been extended to July 31,2018.
Since that time,the Feather River Districts(Western Canal Water District,Richvale Irrigation District, Biggs West
Gridley Water District, and Butte Water District) proposed a different subbasin boundary modification that
includes an alternate southern boundary for Vina and the consolidation of portions of the West Butte and East
Butte subbasins (see Figure 2). This would result in the creation of a new"Butte subbasin"that would replace
the West Butte and East Butte subbasins. This proposal is consistent with Butte County's original proposal to
expand the Wyandotte Creek subbasin and other neighboring Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA)
proposals that affect these subbasins. The only direct conflict is with Butte County's original Vina modification
proposal. Our Department has coordinated with the Feather River Districts on the logistics of reconciling the
two proposals.
Although this newest BBM proposal came out late in the process given discussions that have been occurring in
the region for the past several months, it has several advantages. This modification reduces the number of
subbasins from four down to three in Butte County. This change provides greater efficiency and will reduce cost
for Butte County and other GSAs, both for long-term governance of groundwater in these subbasins and for
development and implementation of Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSP). The major, contiguous
groundwater dependent areas would be in one subbasin under this proposal. This would afford greater
efficiency in communications and coordination with groundwater dependent communities and stakeholders and
increased efficiencies for potential implementation of future projects and actions within these areas. This
modification also places the City of Chico solely in the Vina subbasin,including their wastewater treatment plant,
which under the original Vina proposal remained in the West Butte subbasin. In addition,Western Canal Water
District would be solely in the newly created"Butte subbasin," instead of being split by Butte Creek and located
in the West Butte and East Butte subbasins. This change would allow these agencies to participate in the
development and implementation of a single GSP in each of their respective subbasins.
Importantly,the proposed governance structure for the Vina subbasin would be affected by this BBM proposal.
The current draft governance structure accommodates this modification and therefore would only require
development of an additional Management Area in the Durham area and the addition of Durham Irrigation
District(DID)to the Vina GSA board. DID supports joining the Vina JPA and the other Vina GSAs are preliminarily
amenable to these potential changes. For more information on the draft Vina governance structure, visit
http://www.buttecounty.net/waterresourceconservation/SustainableGroundwaterManagementAct/ButteCou
ntySubbasins/vina.
The purpose of this letter is to notify interested stakeholders that Butte County is working toward submitting a
BBM request to DWR in coordination with the Feather River Districts and other GSAs to modify the Vina,West
Butte, and East Butte subbasins. As shown in Figure 2, the proposed modification would create a new "Butte
subbasin" by consolidating large portions of the West Butte and East Butte subbasins. The "Butte subbasin"
would include County GSA areas (including the M&T Ranch), RD 2106, RD 1004,the Feather River Districts,the
City of Biggs,the City of Gridley and small portions of Glenn County GSA and Colusa Groundwater Authority. The
southern boundary would mostly align with the Butte-Sutter County line. As a result of these modifications,the
Vina subbasin expands to the south to include Butte County GSA areas and DID.
As in the original Vina modification, Butte County is coordinating with neighboring GSAs in subbasins bounded
by the Sacramento River where the River also serves as a county boundary between Tehama and Butte Counties
and Butte and Glenn Counties. Affected subbasins include the Corning,Colusa,Vina,and West Butte subbasins.
In these areas, the subbasin boundary will be slightly modified to align with existing County boundaries. This
addresses inconsistencies in the current mapping(existing shapefiles), but does not result in a material change
to the current basin boundary along the Sacramento River. This modification would be submitted as part of the
same application as the"Butte subbasin" proposal.
Butte County is interested in receiving feedback from local agencies and landowners in the Vina, West Butte,
and East Butte subbasins concerning this subbasin modification. County staff will bring the BBM proposal before
the Butte County Board of Supervisors for consideration on July 24,2018 at 25 County Center Drive,Oroville,CA
95965 during a timed item at 9:50 a.m. Additionally,formal comments can be sent via email to Christina Buck
at cbuck@buttecounty.net or mailed to 308 Nelson Avenue,Oroville,CA 95965(attn.:Christina Buck). AfterJuly
31, a 30-day comment period through DWR's BBM portal will begin. Information on the Basin Boundary
Modification process is also available on our website,
http://www.buttecou nty.net/waterresourceconservation/SustainableGroundwaterM a nagementAct/ButteCou
ntyBasinBoundaryModifications.
For questions or additional information on this Basin Boundary Modification, please contact Christina Buck at
(530)552-3593 or cbuck@buttecounty.net.
Sincerely,
c i t.,,,:.:.1.........- e ce.„.....4--
Christina Buck,Assistant Director
Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation
Figure 1.Originally proposed basin boundary modifications by Butte County affecting the Vina,West Butte,
East Butte and Wyandotte Creek subbasins in Butte County. Note:Tehama County Flood and Water
Conservation District is submitting a BBM to change the northern boundary of Vina to the Tehama-Butte
County line. Yuba County Water Agency is submitting a BBM to adjust the southern boundary of Wyandotte
Creek to move Ramirez Water District into North Yuba.
pr.----7----: 77,_ -,
g.
Modified Vina
IIW �1
^a,'� I Modified West Butte
,7 Modrfied Wyandotte reek
CourilyLire t
Bulletin 118 Subbasins
Colusa
Coming
VINA East Butte
' Los Molinos
North Yuba
Red Bluff
- Sutter
r ° ® Vtiresl Butte
= Wyandotte Creek
}
'. .z = TE
•. .- r . '' =65 3''�`Wt^ �
1 . .,, , , . _. .
- __ ,. .. .. ., .
.. . . . . , , . ,
. . .
. ......... ., .. ...,.. , ... . ... .
.. .. , , , . , .. .. . .. . ,,.
. .. ...... ,. . .
. .., , . , , ,.
. ,, .. . .,....., ..._ , _,
3 y .,. ..... ,
(���
Ikk . - S' tk".. ` h .. l• r tic `
.. ,,,. . ,.
,. ... ... .
fi 3,
NQ 2.5 5 10
mites �,�
Figure 2: Proposed"Butte subbasin"and Vina subbasin boundaries
` Tehama County 7 . Subbam 0 Potenoat Sutra "' _
. �, .:.
Butte County Submitted GSA
Pti*Oili1 Bums SI e4Iln
Pa1/M1414in t3 u@<Nt:n
' pC ur y6ru,MArlli
! Ramona Afarhtt
a«yGSAAAeas
(- - {• Infgati;n and Wane District 99AArsm
S• CI ey;.-Yks1 arwy'li`r OIrcs
: � r'-1i Mr Atter EZflsS
n'an 1rtRta"Hwy
Creek "� a 4Aa.rcne:i,'k,+"u�trtt
'AD' '" u?u?m CwKI YAW Pirk:;
:City of 11t,��Prow t GSA....
- ED Rickalkkloi)Catril 71E6
_... •.. • - �h1C0 �yt1 _ • t;�'raar,SmsknCivr».w.t Su
_ - -�e _ C.:,#Rats cncY.Fxaxr-um Qsrri
a^ [7rita'!Aiescy GSAArtes
i ... fternm Yfare aM 13=
t 34vtrCcucU
P Gk.:,CtuRt
. - DI WAH Cos*i„.,„.:Cara Gr;rN;m'1t Astzarhl
7-.."1031,0".; t tusr:L a+l
Vina - Cs Gle,,t ace:r0.314r,kittnar
r� -..1 ta�arta CnattA FCYCi7
Subbasin Datum' f.....:YtL4 Cut Mote,I.RrC/
G • i ] i r _
•
, Therni
>alitD•
Butte o my
a ti ts';°t :.• °,
' { ,' r ,:.:.;':,:.,.::•:;.,-...,..:.:.::.:..: CItY of
�.'-_ ' �E 2.. rprovl*
K
rf- aµ
f rag
a i j
rGIenn County Az �-,� x t(
Coluse County :• r - 3 '"""�'
I y, - k81§-gs V1�s 6rfdly c-''
r , ,w„ , ,Water-tiaitrst ( £r dl 1 r
801004 .c:. "6'..'-":,=--.,,.:3• Y ~--t,» '�" i r i v4--mi:,,- '
j3,-,---...,,,--�'r tte tic '_'V"
Butte Countyu .•- , IJ Bu •C
' — ` ,1 un"
tv
] Sutter County 41.
. i f
s ,v
,�. � ,ava GSA A+!trs sxr~+ntcot ktm C44R
"u0utt . C+�.`.a:murk:.Ab7k�kn Sosk:st at
.••: Enters r ' tri,?...,o Crugn:totAlays.cm
Ser.:c.:Awl DIM}Lh4r
'01 t.: - . to iWit;ttNM:sarrA3sf.
•
\:. \T\
ehama County Potential Butte Subbasin,
i Butte County Vine Subbasin,and
'..,'.(.,.•-••.
•
ft
'.-;..:.t..'.''L,.:...
Submitted GSA Areas
\ s..' Lege
nd
I. Potential Butte Subbasin
''.\ :i' Q Visa Subbasin
CountyBoundaries\ - Thennalito Aftertiay
=City GSAAreas
•' Irrigation and Wtateri District GSAAreas
I O Biggs-West Gridley water D strict
:i
r : Butte Water Olsulci
ROCIC l Durham Imgatan District
-e' ` O Richvale trrigabon Distdq
Creek Sailer @xtens on water Gini
! cl
{'RD� ` I Western Canal Water District
Cit Of Reclamation District GSAAreas
Wi ChICO l Reclamation District 2106
1 rI ®Rectamahon olshict No.100.1
it Rack Creek Reclamation OTstrict
Other Agency GSA Areas
`.. • .� / OW Therenaliio Water and Sewer DiSlrict
1 fJ
O Butte County
.t r--��L Glenn County
E EA Sutter County
r. � D Colusa Groundwater Authority
Coming Sub-bash GSA
Vina r` N. Glenn GroundwaterAulhority
-: - r \ O Tehama County FCWCD
Subbasin f Durham, OYub0 'Counz newt
rAgenay 5
ID Mi
'k ✓:!C 4vil'
.
RD2308- !B[I�te' r m
, tt4 ri .-„?.,,,,,,,..",..v..,,,,,,-
-, e«• `� -,,,,--t41�` Thermallto
• \WSD:
ButtelCoLLnty `~ ; ?.`-44. � . �t a£X%�'i" .
erorrfJ , arNr`vo- ° m 1 ry y, \
Glenn County's<; westernfiCanal s1„ y ?jam \ ;�
— # , < �:, WatelrDlstr ct , :_ 4,4:,,,,..`�, E o� {�°3 '•'��
�,,s,.,:Sit`•Jm'�°- . »ti•N "..x-4,• o 4) �,.wa✓ '�)iris3-,
`v° " ': w V 3 s Citi/of `
--Fye-O"Z`yg •{A� � .Jh
I rig,,. 'Ditrict ` '
1 ,a , w4
sI Itl I r
it
1 ot f-. ' ;= t
i' ;!, Bggs 0 ✓ uf
- '016.tlC°utty z x ° `Coua Couny l {l Ot - ♦ t
i _ Bfggs Wes4 Gridley1 SGIe. 1 , l; I t1 , I •
a
\IiWaterD]Stflcs ' _ \I E a f1 \l 11 I 1
A5+ WGtet:€ � ' �RDI004N
1 gr y7istrict y , —y
2c-! ,. e C0I , li I r ti i , u!E II E IButte County m CiuritY
ii ,i i StterCounty ' ` Cityo 1 i
Yub, I 1 II u , ;
, ! i' q
i ,
r, r,
a
1
iFlAfg `�
7~
i, iii 1 Note:GSAAreas downloaded from DWR
/ .Butt r' a GSA Formation r.ca.galonSystemat
I i Ii'- �, �! d http1lsgma.xceptca.govl10134, gse on
f r 1 t8nSI0Cl ; 6/2812018,except for RD100A,which Is
1
romp edited
based an Colusa Count LAFCO
Y
gg boundaries received 6f2612018.
ST P44,
4.� � 641071-,k,,x33 i'•.( F i aW:kwipW�V, ••t�gvZjpai,.0, ,4 3 -"``$"40 .x>� .I7-4 ti; F.,�, ' i -'
4Z 'ti% 4 1F R l :„ NS ,„ da' 4�' k - , Ow ?5 =i { .. ® '^ 4 ,
74,1440$0.4aa, ,' n :'; 1 • b A 3, t :8 w
,„&"....,-,:..A.4,,,,e f.Vglowicw 41, ft;
,, ,..„,,,,i 4.z.or.e 1 : t.74,-' fool-Live 't ',.-9Npt:tv
:4:
o? , L 1 Wrso
.l ; 'i,,,j,.-a a4'4.A'N,4,:vve.i,,-eq,4 wits-4.4 q-• ;,k,..7'-'.W i�kw!k t..-..' _%,..A,-;:. ',v r '., .?iv-1k „ ..,a,,A 7,: ,k.?
lib
Resolution No. 18-108
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION
OF THE PORTIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN 118 DEFINED
WYANDOTTE CREEK SUBBASIN LOCATED WITHIN BUTTE COUNTY
WHEREAS, the Legislature has adopted, and the Governor signed into law, Senate Bills 1168 and 1319 and
Assembly Bill 1739, known collectively as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014; and
WHEREAS,the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 went into effect on January 1, 2015;and
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2017 by Resolution 17-051 Butte County elected to become the Groundwater
Sustainability Agency for all those portions of the Wyandotte Creek (5-21.69) subbasin, as defined in the California
Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118, located within Butte County and not otherwise within the jurisdiction of
another Groundwater Sustainability Agency; and
WHEREAS, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 established a process for local agencies to
request that the California Department of Water Resources adjust the boundaries of existing groundwater basins or
subbasins as defined be California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118, including Jurisdictional Modifications;
and
WHEREAS, the Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation in coordination with the City of
Oroville identified that a Jurisdictional Modification, as set forth by the map in Exhibit A, incorporating the portion of the
East Butte subbasin located within Butte County, into the portion of the Wyandotte Creek subbasin, would improve
groundwater management within these subbasins.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Butte County Board of Supervisors hereby authorizes the
Department of Water and Resource Conservation to prepare and file an application to the California Department of Water
Resources to modify the boundaries of the Wyandotte Creek subbasin as depicted in Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Butte County Board of Supervisors this 24th day of J uly,2018, by the following vote:
AYES:Supervisors Connelly,Wahl, Kirk,Teeter, and Chair Lambert
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
NOT VOTING: None4C—!
Steve Lambe ,Chair
Butte County Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
Shari McCracken,Chief Administrative Officer
and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: 1
yr-
Deputy y
il
Exhibit A:
Proposed Modifications to Bulletin 118 Wyandotte Creek Subbasin Boundaries
I
•
• ref(, .,y „,..:_. :'•". ,,0 jef'.,,. -
•
///:(/// :;
•
. 1 1 //. 1"—
Ar
EAST BUTTE
,
•
•
i , r bif!0001 0-
, , ..., ,::// tiff 4 1., .''
Legend
®Proposed modified Boundary
El Wyandotte Creek Segment Points
t
BulletinCouny Line6
t t$Subbasin Boundaries
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies
t Butte County \`.
..- ////
City of Orovilka
[-----2 Thermalito Water and Sewer District /of.,,.,.,..
F---1 Yuba County Water Agency
.F--1_J,Western Canal Water District AO� ftichvale irrigation District
t •
C:JI Biggs-West Gridley Water District ;
1 Butte Water District � '� Aili' Ftri
I,'
I City of Biggs L,
[ City of Live Oak .f' NORTH YUBA
,c,=-.1.
d U.5 1 2 a Q . Sources:Esrl,HERE,Garrtn,USGS,Inrertna3,INCREMENT P.NRC E s
n.tJapan.METI,esn ca Horg Kongj,Esc Mont a,S {Tnliandl.NG ti
Miles
,, Oper.stree'Etarn=MIR:tcmm.aid The VS Uses Communq
4,r.° at
4 " + ,Pf o
o
;s: , � .}F`,.3:y�i�r..?r, > ., ., ,ss° ,-� -..''Z 7 T--°�E�.'}`.,4%,f%:3;� T✓nS ;'��rYarT ���rf:
'-'''�i3 `' (; f.ay,L �r1; r r ,, -fin' , r; t -f r 5 s*.' , ,,`�+"Y y s, �i`f", it s .. �7 -t* 5,a-
♦�, �-r � '�,�.-,+ + r i ,.,.nom FZ Sy a_ 7x �,y„
i m- 1 t, �}S,iY� r/ i� `
t i: Citi F= r s j 3 0 4 '_ ` a } �.; gy .t' c iV
z z ?fin ` ) y ' -, 7_d ''' f,
11 r S > 3 � � �." 'o- -�
ds ��
j ; t,"trr r,� �^ v.z- v� `�;'S , 8 ,,5 g,. ,, 8 s . ,..:1,,,,002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
`�5 �' R.°�. �`f�c � 2`0 z�it�� f<Y�'�• �� �� . i^ f . ,
,.:!, ,. S4 Yr) D �,.O *1, . 1.$>-T' A^I:`' -'[r: [ § tile.'O a ,y�, ��: ' „rm
wow, .
_:a ° �. //f((f _ ke. c z ,n. Y w 3w m"e, s s! ,,,,,,E, —,4,---,,,, .-,,,,,,r,-..,a ., ,, ?'Sr.�:„Y,3T'� i rr' `' e,tg5n..•
`� f'., H,S,:� tsr �� ' r:f;:. �v.:4..m, ra.,r y, ?'. FNs .,sy' hti..,+y>,. „Ys7- 'a --"� ";Yyy�ra �Y=,t,!.U,..; ...
r .,, --,7<.,�;. r .{u�•. .,}.x. v- y` 3. s f i zi5-F ', .x �..£?,fir' u n
n n
l:'ts� � x"�� � r,„.,,,..A .;-4,,.,. + �z< r�K"a• aw'F::,,��'�.`;_ r4�.,:�1��';'_:37� .,.,x�;u �.....��� Sde7..�s;'�r c�n2�`��”��, „r?s .��ar�i��"�.��- .°=rk�'.�a� ��.v�t����..ya�'i=L
litZiaiiio
Resolution No. 18-109
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION
OF THE PORTIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN 118 DEFINED VINA,
WEST BUTTE,AND EAST BUTTE SUBBASINS LOCATED WITHIN BUTTE COUNTY
WHEREAS, the Legislature has adopted, and the Governor signed into law, Senate Bills 1168 and 1319
and Assembly Bill 1739, known collectively as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014; and
WHEREAS,the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 went into effect on January 1, 2015;
and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2017 by Resolution 17-084 Butte County elected to become the Groundwater
Sustainability Agency for all those portions of the Vina (5-21.57) subbasin, as defined in the California
Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118, located within Butte County and not otherwise within the
jurisdiction of another Groundwater Sustainability Agency; and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2017 by Resolution 17-083 Butte County elected to become the Groundwater
Sustainability Agency for all those portions of the West Butte (5-21.58) subbasin, as defined in the California
Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118, located within Butte County and not otherwise within the
jurisdiction of another Groundwater Sustainability Agency; and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2017 by Resolution 17-085 Butte County elected to become the Groundwater
Sustainability Agency for all those portions of the East Butte (5-21.59) subbasin, as defined in the California
Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118, located within Butte County and not otherwise within the
jurisdiction of another Groundwater Sustainability Agency; and
WHEREAS, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 established a process for local
agencies to request that the California Department of Water Resources adjust the boundaries of existing
groundwater basins or subbasins as defined be California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118,
including Jurisdictional Modifications; and
WHEREAS,the Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation in coordination with the
Feather River Districts (Western Canal Water District, Richvale Irrigation District, Biggs West Gridley, Butte
Water District) identified that a Jurisdictional Modification, as set forth by the map in Exhibit A, combining
portions of West Butte and East Butte subbasins and incorporating portions of those subbasins into the Vina
subbasin, would improve groundwater management within these subbasins; and
WHEREAS, the Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation in coordination with
neighboring Groundwater Sustainability Agency's along the Sacramento River identified that modifying the
subbasin boundary along the River to be defined by the County Line,would improve groundwater management
within the Corning, Colusa,Vina and West Butte subbasins.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Butte County Board of Supervisors hereby authorizes the
Department of Water and Resource Conservation to prepare and file an application to the California Department
of Water Resources to modify the boundaries of the Vina, West Butte, and East Butte subbasins as depicted in
Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Butte County Board of Supervisors this 24th day of July, 2018, by the
following vote:
AYES:Supervisors Connelly, Wahl, Kirk,Teeter, and Chair Lambert
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
NOT VOTING: None
Steve Lambe" hair
Butte County Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
Shari McCracken, Chief Administrative Officer
and Clerk of the ;•.rd of Supervisors
By: k�
Deput�
Exhibit A:
Proposed Modifications to Bulletin 118 Subbasin Boundaries
42)
. Tetiam'aCounty. 7 - Polo ntialEton Subbasin,
1Ilinn Sabatiin,and
Suite County Submitted GSA Amu
LNertd
EiATIIn1Ulttntll S,elmin
r PClinlal V•rra 9utouen
. - i` DC urryBalerairal
tD in;anal in anneal
, May GM/aux
Inigin:,l acd Wm DaniciG9,lAr4u
--- _ - C.'l Fury n'vrr LYms
Rock ... - ENLirr:n:;-1.r..:a�:c
• p
...
Creek F7,7.,-,S, ^]rm lit nn
S4Y:Ott[rH,tr.r'Ali!,6i[i.tr
Vii
RD U '' - wt e n Cm=brat•n ,r
C€ty0!
Pon xla ailligGStirwn
Gttico zW:raaxmsa:nr rnstM
t7::f3r4 Gert tiny;c;to,O,r;:
iMurymcy G54rlrtm
6a1 rresntt>flat-a,:N1e,f,I,; .
!-1bUlt Cor ti
!'
SVina
Subbasin • aDrham
- unr.:meaa
xu
r
r ,,Acr,
uCr:Wax-r
a 4
:etD
5
RD2£O6 lEv Biu.e, 4rf .4-..,4,....,
▪ V
e Subbarh t ;'
Itik— ib n IVi i,
rye . ra . . zButteJCGunt} a . FTlermallto
VYSD n
— ' -,'--)----','frit-A iti:O% ,,,,,',,,-442:z..;,,,,,,„;,*,,, :
S s} :wz rF +�WaserDsslrcic,,4,040 r 11
/ i 5 .�,t� r,, -t �,' .. q r''tt City G!
1 "- , SIT f .Sw,f .:41 , • '4°""e
Iii iA�srS�"5�.�k,J,� - y
t
1 '` ?k, ▪ t
F: J .ii^. `V'�:}rte`." Sswgiv i
-- F Hags
-..County.-, ,
Calusa County ; --..i'
t :Sy •
.1 !.„,i.„-:,..„„,,,,, $9gs= 'At eidl ,,. �
r i' Z� h' s.i� toe eitne,. rid(' \L
!' {W{�,e i a • J. Bit
43 RDf00 65i�Y; 1 _'.
i
is )j ;L)Ii , r
fi : t —SutterButte County ,.I — • i 1.-..3 ,41_../1.:-_te G }
— County 'Alba nly
ti hV i City k Iva Oa .
rr l • Z
j - _{.:... t1rN GSr•A»w Wr*U»:s II.0,hk
r ,.- Suit GSl Conmen tarn.53kn.,SaS
}....Z ' F.xten-',Yu,' try:„ r.:xlruaar,:tnsinp:to
F';amtter:.Vv,mom or,,e,
Map eater: t Neocare Ca E.6.,0:•.,7a54.018 - _ r :«,om;rl:cm,a:eac.otE.
Short Summary of Major Programs in Water Supply and Water Quality Bond Act of 2018
Agenda Item
#6
CRUS
California Water Bald 2110
11
Short Summary of Major Programs in
Water Supply and Water Quality
Bond Act of 2018
Safe drinking water and wastewater treatment for disadvantaged communities. $750
million. Provides safe drinking water and wastewater treatment for disadvantaged
communities, especially in the Central Valley.
filen///bevm-deptstore/Water/Users/PGosselin/Water%20Commission/ltem%206%20a, %20Bond%20summary.html[7/20/2018 8:22:25 AM]
Short Summary of Major Programs in Water Supply and Water Quality Bond Act of 2018
Wastewater recycling. $400 million. Recycles wastewater mainly for landscaping and
industrial uses
Groundwater desalination. $400 million. Converts salty groundwater to usable water
supply.
Urban water conservation. $300 million. Leak detection, toilet replacement, landscape
conversion.
Agricultural water conservation. $50 million. Improves inefficient irrigation systems,
increasing river flows
Central valley flood management, including flood plain restoration. $100 million. Makes
farms and communities more flood safe, and makes flood plains for habitat friendly.
Additional $50 million for retrofit of a reservoir (probably Bullard's Bar) for better flood
management.
San Francisco Bay Wetlands and flood improvements. $200 million. Improves wetlands in
San Francisco Bay to provide flood protection and mitigate sea level rise.
Data management. $60 million. Better data collection and management: streamflow, etc.
Stormwater management $600 million for a variety of state agencies. Capture and
treatment of stormwater flows improved river and ocean water quality and increasing water
supplies
Watershed Improvement $2355 million to a wide variety of state agencies. Pays for better
management of watersheds throughout the state to improve water quality and water supply.
Includes $150 million for the Los Angeles River, as well as $100 million for the Delta
Conservancy, which helps fund the governor's Eco-Restore program. Includes $80 million for
the removal of Matilija Dam, a silted-in dam in Ventura County. $200 million for ecological
restoration and dust control at the Salton Sea. Watershed restoration after fires in the Sierra
Nevada and elsewhere receives $100 million. Funds state conservancies and state parks to
better manage watersheds.
tile:////bcvm-deptstore/Water/Users/PGosselin/Water%20Commission/Item%206%20a %20Bond%20summary.htnl[7/20/2018 8:22:25 AM]
Short Summary of Major Programs in Water Supply and Water Quality Bond Act of 2018
Land Management for Water Yield. $100 million. Removal of invasive weeds which use
excessive amounts of surface and groundwater such as tamarisk, yellow starthistle, and
Arundo. Estimates of water savings are in excess of one million acre feet per year.
Fisheries restoration. $400 million. Restoring fish habitat. Supplements necessary
streamflows.
Groundwater. $675 million. Implements the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.,
stabilizing groundwater levels in overdraft groundwater basins.
Water and specific habitat improvements for fisheries. $500 million. Purchase of water for
fish and waterfowl.
Completion of fish screens in Central Valley. $100 million. Will prevent baby fish from
being diverted into irrigation systems.
San Joaquin River fisheries Restoration. $100 million. Restoration of Spring Run Chinook
Salmon downstream of Friant dam.
Waterfowl habitat. $280 million. Helps meet waterfowl obligations under the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act, and other waterfowl habitat improvement programs.
Bay Area Regional Reliability. $250 million. Improves interconnections between Bay Area
water agencies, making it easier to survive droughts.
Improvement to Friant Kern Canal and other Friant water interconnections. $750
million. Restores lost capacity to Friant Kern Canal, pays for groundwater recharge programs,
water conservation and possibly new water conveyance in the Friant area.
Oroville Dam Spillway Repair. $200 million. Makes Oroville Dam more flood safe.
The initiative also allows state and federal water contractors to recover the funds they pay in
climate change charges due to implementation of AB 32, and use those funds in their own
systems for water and energy conservation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
file:Nl/bcvm-deptstore/Water/Users/PGosselin/Water%20Commission/Item%206%20a_%20Bond%20summary.html[7/20/2018 8:22:25 AMI
Short Summary of Major Programs in Water Supply and Water Quality Bond Act of 2018
HOME CONTACT US
Contributions to the water bond can be made out to "Californians for Safe
Drinking Water and a Clean and Reliable Water Supply", and can be mailed
to River City Business Services, 5429 Madison Avenue, Sacramento
California 95841 . Thank you for your support!
file:////bcvm-deptstore/Water/Users/PGosselin/Water%20Commission/Item%206%20a %20Bond%20summary.html[7/2012018 8:22:25 AM]
Questions and Answers About the Water Supply and Water Quality Bond Act for the November,2018 Ballot
YES
on
California Water Bon(' 2018
C
P
Questions and Answers About the
Water Supply and Water Quality Bond
Act for the November, 2018 Ballot
Updated November 17, 2017
What is the need for more State investment in water resources? What is the role of local
water agencies and the federal government in paying for this infrastructure?
flea///bevm-deptatore/Water/Users/PGosselin/Water%20Commission/Item%206%20b_%20Bond%20Q&A.html[7/20/2018 8:22:29 AM]
Questions and Answers About the Water Supply and Water Quality Bond Act for the November,2018 Ballot
The State of California has invested many billions of dollars in water infrastructure. This is
because California has three distinct water problems. First, most precipitation falls north of
Sacramento, but most water demand for cities and agriculture is south of Sacramento. Second,
most precipitation falls in the winter, but most demand is in the summer. Third, most of the
population lives near the coast, but most rivers and groundwater are inland.
Although some large cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and the East Bay have built large
pipelines to move water from east to west, it has taken huge state and federal investments to
move store winter and spring runoff, and move water hundreds of miles from north to south and
east to west for the benefit of most Californians. The federal government has invested billions
of dollars over the past 100 years, but there have not been any major new federal infrastructure
investments in California water for nearly 40 years. During this time, the demand for water for
vitally important environmental concerns, as well as population growth, have added to the
pressures on the existing system.
The state has helped fill the gap by passing a series of water bonds, beginning in 1960, and
continuing through 2014. The state has presented the voters with 21 water bonds during that
time, and 20 have been approved, totaling many billions of dollars.
Despite this large investment by the state, local water districts have invested even more money
in storage, distribution, wastewater recycling, desalting, and many other forms of water
management. The state usually acts as a partner to local water agencies, using state bond funds
to incentivize local water projects which might have otherwise been built later to be built
earlier.
Dozens of publications demonstrate the need for additional investment in water infrastructure.
Here are just a few:
Public Policy Institute of California report on water infrastructure funding need:
http://www.ppic.org/main/pressrelease.asp?i=1464,
Bay Area Council funding needs study
http:/ldocuments.bayareacouncil.org/bacwppfinal.pdf
Bay Area Council link to video about SF Bay flooding http://www.bayareacouncil.org
file://Nbcvm-deptstore/Water/Users/PGosselin/Water%20Commissionatem%2.06%20b_%20Bond%20Q&A.html[7/20/2018 8:22:29 AM]
Questions and Answers About the Water Supply and Water Quality Bond Act for the November,2018 Ballot
Governor Brown's list of infrastructure needs, including $50 billion for flood control:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/24/california-plans-to-bolster-states-flood-control-
efforts.html
Can California afford this bond?
Yes. The state can afford a new water bond. Taking on new debt is always a serious
consideration,however the state's bond rating is steadily improving, and the interest rate we
pay is equivalent to a bond with an AAA rating. There is a huge demand for California bonds
by the bond market.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/california-once-compared-to-
greece-now-trading-better-than-aaa
As described in the 2016 Voter Handbook published by the Secretary of State and the
Treasurer, California devotes less than five percent of its general fund budget to servicing
general obligation bonds. This is well within the prudent limit for bond expenditures.
http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2016/generallen/pdf/complete-vig.pdf (see page 114 for an
analysis of state debt)
Bonds are almost the only way the state invests in repairing its water infrastructure.
What is the history of water bonds in California?
Since 1972 California voters have approved 20 of 21 general obligation bond measures which
provided funding for water development. Those in green passed. The bond in pink failed.
Year
1960 burns porter act. Bond. Established state water project.
1970 recreation at state water project; fish and wildlife enhancement
file:////bcvm-deptstore/Water/Users/PGosselin/Water%20Commission/item%206%20b_%20Bond%20Q&A.html[7/20/2018 8:22:29 AM]
Questions and Answers About the Water Supply and Water Quality Bond Act for the November,2018 Ballot
clean water bond act
1974 clean water bond act
1976 safe drinking water bond act
1978 clean water and water conservation bond
1980 amend safe drinking water bond act of 1976
1984 safe drinking water bond act
clean water bond act
1986 water conservation and water quality bond
safe drinking water bond act
1988 water conservation bond act
clean water and water reclamation bond act
safe drinking water bond act
1990 water resources bond act
1996 safe reliable water supply bond act
2000 parks, water, air coast bond act
water bond act
2002 parks, water, air, coast bond act
water quality supply safe drinking water initiative
2006 water bond act initiative
Disaster preparedness and flood prevention
2014 water Quality, Supply, Treatment, Storage
Filea/Nbcvm-deptstore/Water/Users/PGosselin/Water%20Commission/ltem%206%206_%20Bond%20Q&A.html[7/20/2018 8:22:29 AM]
Questions and Answers About the Water Supply and Water Quality Bond Act for the November,2018 Ballot
Does this measure meet the needs outlined in the Governor's water action plan?
Yes. Governor Brown adopted a water action plan in 2013. It is comprehensive, including all
elements of water management, including water for people, agriculture and the environment.
This measure funds all elements of the water action plan. An analysis of how this measure
conforms to the Water Action Plan is on this website. See the Water Action Plan at
http://resources.ca.gov/docs/california water_action_plan/Final_California_Water Action_Plan.pdf
Are all parts of the state included fairly?
Every part of the state will benefit from implementation of this measure.No area is excluded.
How are the water bond funds allocated?
Proceeds from the bonds will be applied to the places of highest need. A table of all the
funding categories is found on this website.
What are the principal purposes of the water bond?
The water bond initiative invests in these important programs:
• Safe Drinking Water and safe disposal of wastewater for disadvantaged and other
poor communities. Many of these communities have no drinking water at all, or unsafe
water supplies. This is unacceptable in an advanced 21St Century society like California.
Funds for this purpose from previous bond acts will be exhausted by 2018.
• Implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The Legislature
passed this landmark act several years ago. This bond act will provide funds to help bring
California's groundwater basins into balance. Water from the ground provides nearly
40% of California's water supply, and has been subject to severe overdraft in some
regions. This must be corrected.
• Restoration of the delivery capacity of the Friant-Kern Canal. This canal, which
stretches from Fresno to Bakersfield delivers water to 15,000 farms, and has lost much of
its capacity due to subsidence caused by groundwater overdraft. The canal water irrigates
file:////bcvm-deptstore/Water/Users/PGosselin/Water%20Commission/Item%206%20b %20Bond%20Q&A.html[7/20/2018 8:22:29 AM]
Questions and Answers About the Water Supply and Water Quality Bond Act for the November,2018 Ballot
more than one million acres of California's most productive farmland, annually producing
more than $4 billion in gross agricultural production. Much of our long term food supply
will be at risk if this problem is not corrected.
• Wastewater recycling, groundwater desalting, and water conservation. These proven
techniques to increase and extend water supplies are ecologically sound methods of
meeting California's water needs.
• Stormwater management. Stormwater can pollute rivers and the ocean, by carrying
waste into these water bodies. By capturing and treating stormwater in urban areas, water
supplies can be increased and pollution reduced.
• Increased water supplies and improved habitat for fish,waterfowl and wildlife. By
providing more water and improving habitat conditions, these native California species
will thrive, and endangered species will recover.
• Watershed improvement and fire recovery. Most of our water comes from the
watersheds that supply our rivers, streams and groundwater. Better watershed
management can improve the quality and quantity of these water supplies, and restore
watersheds damaged by fire, improving public safety.
• Flood management. By broadening flood plains, flood damage to farms and cities can be
reduced. Modifying existing inadequate flood control facilities will also reduce flood risk.
• Salton Sea. Without state investment, California's largest lake will dry up, causing huge
air quality problems in Southern California due to blowing dust. The Sea's diverse
wildlife also needs protection.
• River parkways and urban streams. Many cities and towns in California are located on
or near rivers and streams. Enhancing these important recreational and habitat features
will improve the quality of life in these cities, as well as water quality.
• Bay Area Regional Reliability program. This important program will integrate the
water supplies of various water agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area.
• Oroville Dam Repair. State and federal general funds were used to pay for the flood
control and recreational features of Oroville Dam. Restoring the flood control features of
the dam is a reasonable purpose of this bond act.
How much water will this bond produce for people?
A great deal. A reasonable estimate of new water supplies provided by this measure is more
than 1.5 million acre feet. This is enough water to supply water for three million families. A
full analysis of these new water supplies is found on this website. (This link will be active
shortly.) Most of this new water will be available in critical drought years, greatly increasing its
file:////bcvm-deptatore/Water/Users/PCosselin/Water%20Commission/Item%206%20b_%20Bond%20Q&A.html[7/20/2018 8:22:29 AM]
Questions and Answers About the Water Supply and Water Quality Bond Act for the November,2018 Ballot
value.
How are the needs of fish and wildlife met?
The bond will focus urgently needed resources to the environment. Fish and wildlife need two
things to thrive: a good water supply, and protected habitat. The water bond includes funding
for a wide variety of projects which provide for both these needs. Funding is provided to
acquire water for fish and wildlife, and also to protect and expand wetlands and other water
related habitat. A full analysis of the benefits of the bond for fish and wildlife is found on this
website.
How does the bond help with flood control and management?
Although much of California is arid, floods are a constant problem throughout the state. There
are two responses to this problem. The first is to keep development out of flood plains,to allow
floods to pass by developed areas safely. The second is to use levees to channel floodwaters,
and to detain flood flows in reservoirs, and then meter them out slowly to provide a water
supply benefits.
This measure uses both these methods to avoid and reduce flood damage. It includes repairs to
existing flood control reservoirs including Oroville and those in Southern California. It also
provides funds to improve and set back levees, so that the floodwater carrying capacity of flood
plains is increased.
Are there still funds left over from the 2014 water bond?
For water storage projects, but not for the kinds of infrastructure needs this bond will address.
The 2014 water bond included two major categories of funding. The first was water storage
projects. Due to provisions in the bond, these funds could not be expended until at least 2018.
The California Water Commission is charged with expending these funds. The Commission has
received 12 proposals for these funds, but will not award grants until at least 2018. Since these
funds are still unexpended, and to avoid interfering with the Water Commission process, this
measure does not have an expenditure category for new water storage.
The remainder of the 2014 water bond went to a wide variety of categories of expenditure. The
various state agencies charged with awarding these funds have followed the mandate of the
file:////bevm-deptstore/Water/Users/PGosselin/Water%20Commission/Item%206%20b_°/a20Bond%20Q&A.html['7/20/2018 8:22:29 AMI
Questions and Answers About the Water Supply and Water Quality Bond Act for the November,2018 Ballot
voters to award these funds as quickly as possible. The California Natural Resources Agency
keeps track of these expenditures, and states that more than 75% of the funds have been
obligated, spent or encumbered. Most of the remainder will be spent by the time this measure
goes into effect. You can examine the expenditures of the 2014 water bond at:
http://bondaccountability.resources.ca.gov/PDF/Propl/PlAllocBalRpt.pdf?v=1
Why didn't this go through the legislature?
Proponents of the water bond asked the Legislature to include at least $3 billion of items in this
measure in Senate Bill 5 (DeLeon), the legislative water and park bond. But the legislature
decided not to accept this increase in the bond package. For this reason,the supporters of this
measure decided to proceed with the initiative.
Senate Bill 5 will appear on the June, 2018 ballot. Although it includes some water elements, it
is not a comprehensive water bond. The water bond initiative includes a wide variety of
programs which are not covered by Senate Bill 5. There is little overlap between the two
measures. The water bond initiative will appear on the November, 2018 ballot.
Who supports the water bond?
The bond will be endorsed by a wide variety of conservation, agricultural, water,
environmental justice and civic organizations.
Why should so much money be devoted to meeting the water needs of the Central Valley
watershed?
Most of the water California uses originates in the mountain watersheds surrounding the
Central Valley, and in the aquifers underneath the valley. While the bond act responds to the
flood control, water supply and environmental needs of the coastal and other inland regions of
California, it is impossible to deal with the major water problems of California without
concentrating on water supply issues in the Central Valley.
Why is money for Oroville Dam repair included? When Oroville Dam was built, the federal
government paid for the flood control aspects of the dam. Since the public agencies that receive
water from the dam do not receive any flood control benefits, they were not required to pay for
file:/1//bcvm-deptstore/Water/Users/PGosselin/Water%20Commission/Item%206%2Ob %20Bond%200&A.html[7/20/2018 8:22:29 AM]
Questions and Answers About the Water Supply and Water Quality Bond Act for the November,2018 Ballot
the flood control purposes of the dam. Indeed, by dedicated a large amount of space in the dam
to flood control, the water, recreation and power supply purposes of the dam were diminished.
The federal government is providing some funds to repair the damage to the dam caused by the
2017 storms, but will not provide enough money to repair the flood control aspects of the dam.
It is reasonable for the state to pay for at least part of the flood control repairs.
This is not the only case where general fund money has been used to pay for aspects of the
State Water Project that are not the responsibility of the State Water Project contractors. The
Davis-Dolwig Act provides state general funds for recreation facilities at the State Water
Project. Proposition 84 provided $54 million for this purpose in 2006.
Does this measure fund the Delta tunnels (California Water Fix)? No. The water bond
contains language which prohibits any of the bond funds from being used to pay for the tunnels,
and requires that the tunnels be paid for by the water users.
Does this measure benefit Disadvantaged Communities and Economically Distressed
areas?
Yes. Nearly half of the funds are either entirely dedicated to these communities, or include
provisions which waive matching fund requirements for disadvantaged communities, or grant
them high priority in funding. An analysis of the bond act from the perspective of these
communities and a table of benefits to disadvantaged communities are both found on this
website.
Does the bond act provide seismic safety benefits so that an earthquake will not disrupt
water supplies? Yes. The $200,000,000 provided to upgrade flood control facilities at Oroville
Dam will also improve the seismic resistance qualities of the dam. An additional $100,000,000
is provided to improve flood control reservoirs, mainly in Southern California, to make them
more earthquake safe.
Why is so much money provided to the Friant Water Authority? Shouldn't local farmers
and irrigators take care of these needs? What about the federal government fixing this
federal facility? During the drought, overpumping of groundwater along the Friant-Kern Canal
caused the canal to subside, reducing water supplies to up to 15,000 farms covering more than
one million acres of some of the most productive farmland in the world. Almost all of these
farms are family farms of 1,000 acres or less. . Some of the overpumping was done by farmers
filen///bcvm-deptstore/Water/Users/l'Gosselin/Water%20Commissionntem%206%206_%20Bond%20Q&A.html[7/2012018 8:22:29 AM]
Questions and Answers About the Water Supply and Water Quality Bond Act for the November,2018 Ballot
who are not supplied by the Friant-Kern Canal. Capacity in the Madera Canal has also been
reduced. Many of the communities along the Friant-Kern and Madera Canals are disadvantaged
(see this map of disadvantaged communities: look at the area between Madera and
Bakersfield). Many farmworker would be unemployed if water deliveries from the Friant-Kern
and Madera Canals were permanently curtailed. Much of California's fresh fruit, vegetables and
milk are grown with water from the Friant Kern Canal.
Given the huge demands on the federal government for recovery from Hurricanes Harvey and
Irma, plus the Trump Administration's budget cuts for the Department of Interior, it is very
unlikely that they would provide the funds to repair the Friant-Kern Canal.
Any funds that remain from the Friant allocation could go to water conservation and
groundwater management in the Friant-Kern service area, to help prevent the subsidence
problem from recurring, and to improve the ability to move water within and to the canals.
For decades California has invested in urban water supply improvement projects such as
wastewater recycling, flood control, water conservation and desalting. Given our dependence on
California agriculture for our food supply, it is reasonable to make investments in our
agricultural water supply as well.
What is the impact on other sources of funds for water development?
Funds from other sources such as Proposition 1 (2014 water bond) are diminishing, and the
federal government is investing less in water purposes. Providing the funds from this bond act,
will reduce pressure on these other sources.
Do bonds create incentives for good behavior by grantees?
Yes. By providing matching funds for such projects as wastewater recycling, water
conservation, and groundwater and other types of inland desalination, the bond act will steer
local agencies in the direction of investment of these types of projects. The bond will make
these projects more affordable for local agencies.
Elea///bcvm-deptstore/WaterlE3sers/1?Gosselin/Water%20Commissionfltem%206%20b %20Bond%20Q&A.html[7/20/2018 8:22:29 AM]
Questions and Answers About the Water Supply and Water Quality Bond Act for the November,2018 Ballot
tr HOME CONTACT US
Contributions to the water bond can be made out to "Californians for Safe
Drinking Water and a Clean and Reliable Water Supply", and can be mailed
to River City Business Services, 5429 Madison Avenue, Sacramento
California 95841, Thank you for your support!
file:/N/bcvm-deptstore/Water/Users/PGosselin/Water%20Commission/Item%206%20b_%20Bond%20Q&A.html[7/20/2018 8:22:29 AM]
Rural County Benefits
November 2018 Water Supply and Water Quality Bond Act
Fire prevention and recovery
The bond act provides more funds for fire prevention and recovery than any other
previous state measure. All the following provisions fund fire-related activities.
$100 million for fire recovery and mitigation was included in the bond at the
recommendation of RCRC. As appropriate, funds may be spent on fire recovery
and fuel reduction on federal lands.
All funds allocated to watershed management agencies can be spent on fire prevention and recovery:
86080.The sum of two billion three hundred fifty-five million dollars($2,355,000,000) is appropriated
from the Fund to protect, restore and improve the health of watershed lands, including forest lands
(including oaks, redwoods and sequoias), meadows,wetlands, chaparral, riparian habitat and other
watershed lands, including lands owned by the United States, in order to protect and improve water
supply and water quality,improve forest health,reduce fire danger consistent with the best available
science,mitigate the effects of wildfires on water quality and supply, increase flood protection,
remediate aquifers, or to protect or restore riparian or aquatic resources. No grants made pursuant to
this section shall be for reservoir maintenance or sediment removal from a reservoir or upstream of a
reservoir,except as necessary for field research required pursuant to subdivision (a).
(a)Two hundred million dollars($200,000,000)to the Sierra Nevada Conservancy for the protection,
restoration and improvement of Sierra Nevada watersheds, pursuant to Division 23.3 (commencing with
Section 33300) of the Public Resources Code and including the purposes outlined in Section 33320 of the
Public Resources Code. Funds shall also be spent for the implementation and to further the goals and
purposes of the Sierra Nevada Watershed Improvement Program. Projects eligible for funding under the
Sierra Nevada Watershed Improvement Program may include research and monitoring to measure the
impact of forest restoration work on water supply, climate and other benefits,including long-term air
quality,water quality and quantity,greenhouse gas emissions, carbon storage, habitat, recreational
uses, and community vitality. Projects funded under the Sierra Nevada watershed Improvement
Program shall be based on the best available science regarding forest restoration and must be
undertaken to improve water supply and quality, protect and restore ecological values and to promote
forest conditions that are more resilient to wildfire, climate change,and other disturbances.The Sierra
Nevada Conservancy may make grants to federal agencies if it determines such grants are the most
efficient way to implement the intent of this division on federally managed lands.
(x) (1)The sum of fifty million dollars($50,000,000)is appropriated from the Fund to the Sierra
Nevada Conservancy for the purpose of awarding grants within the jurisdiction of the Conservancy to
eligible entities as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 86166 for the purpose of reducing the threat of
wildfires which would negatively impact watershed health. Projects may be for the purpose of
hazardous fuel reduction, postfire watershed rehabilitation,forest management practices that
1
promote forest resilience to severe wildfire,climate change,and other disturbances,and
development of local plans to reduce the risk of wildfires that could adversely affect watershed
health.Preference shall be given to grants which include matching funds, but this preference may be
reduced or eliminated for grants which benefit disadvantaged communities or economically
distressed areas.
(2)The sum of fifty million dollars($50,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for the purpose of awarding grants in areas outside the
jurisdiction of the Sierra Nevada Conservancy to eligible entities as defined in subdivision (a)of
Section 86166 for the purpose of reducing the threat of wildfires which would negatively impact
watershed health. Projects may be for the purpose of hazardous fuel reduction,postfire watershed
rehabilitation and restoration,forest management practices that promote forest resilience to severe
wildfire,climate change,and other disturbances,and development of local plans to reduce the risk of
wildfires that could adversely affect watershed health. Preference shall be given to grants which
include matching funds,but this preference may be reduced or eliminated for grants which benefit
disadvantaged communities or economically distressed areas.
86084. (b) (1) Funds appropriated pursuant to this chapter may be used for protection and restoration
of forests, meadows,wetlands, riparian habitat, coastal resources,and near-shore ocean habitat;to
acquire land and easements to protect these resources and avoid development that may reduce
watershed health, and to take other measures that protect or improve the quality or quantity of water
supplies downstream from projects funded in whole or in part by this chapter. Forest restoration
projects, including but not limited to hazardous fuel reduction,post-fire watershed rehabilitation, and
forest management and tree planting using appropriate native plants shall be based on the best
available science regarding forest restoration and must be undertaken to protect and restore ecological
values and to promote forest conditions that are more resilient to wildfire,climate change, and other
disturbances.
(2)Fuel hazard reduction activities on United States Forest Service lands in the Sierra Nevada
and similar forest types shall be generally consistent with objectives of the Sierra Nevada Watershed
Improvement Program and the best available science, including United States Forest Service General
Technical Report 220 as it may be updated.
Central Valley Fish Advisory Committee recommends expenditure of$400 million for fisheries
restoration projects. Section 86106(f)(1)(C)states:
(C) In proposing projects,the committee shall take into account the entire life cycle of the
fish species to be benefitted,and shall consider the interaction of the effects of each project within a
river basin with projects in other river basins.The committee shall also consider adverse impacts
resulting from poor watershed health, including severe wildfire and extensive tree mortality.
86178.Agencies implementing this division shall give special consideration to projects that employ new
or innovative technology or practices, including decision support tools that support the integration of
multiple strategies and jurisdictions,including, but not limited to,water supply,wildfire reduction,
habitat improvement, invasive weed control,flood control, land use,and sanitation.
2
Safe Drinking Water and Wastewater Treatment $750 million
Many rural communities lack funds to develop safe drinking water and safe methods of disposing of
wastewater. The water bond includes$500 million for safe drinking water systems and $250 million for
wastewater disposal systems.
Economically distressed areas
At the request of RCRC, many programs in the bond act give high priority to grants to benefit
economically distressed areas (EDAs), as well as disadvantaged communities. Matching fund
requirements are waived for economically distressed areas
86010. (a) For the purposes of awarding funding pursuant to this chapter, a local cost share of not less
than 50 percent(50%) of the total costs of the project shall be required.The cost-sharing requirement
may be waived or reduced for projects that directly benefit a disadvantaged community or an
economically distressed area.
86083. In making grants pursuant to this chapter, agencies shall give high priority to applications that
include cost sharing, and to grants that benefit disadvantaged communities and economically distressed
areas whether or not they include cost sharing.
86151(c)Any agency providing funds pursuant to this division to disadvantaged communities or
economically distressed areas may provide funding to assist these communities in applying for that
funding, including technical and grant writing assistance.These funds may be provided to nonprofit
organizations and local public agencies assisting these communities.
Technology assistance is provided free for wastewater recycling and desalination projects in EDAs.
Economically distressed areas get high priority in the following grant programs:
Desalination
Water Conservation
Central Valley Flood Protection
Groundwater management and SGMA implementation
86163(b) in the appropriation and expenditure of funding authorized by this division, priority will be
given to projects that leverage private,federal, or local funding or produce the greatest public benefit.
All state agencies receiving funds pursuant to this division shall seek to leverage the funds to the
greatest extent possible, but agencies shall take into account the limited ability to cost share by small
public agencies,and by agencies seeking to benefit disadvantaged communities and economically
distressed areas.
Reduced cost sharing by small communities
86155. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, a local public agency with a population
3
of Less than 100,000 and a median household income of less than one hundred percent(100%) of the
state average household income shall be required to provide matching funds of no more than thirty-five
percent(35%)for a grant for a project entirely within their jurisdiction.State agencies making grants to
these local public agencies may provide funding in advance of construction of portions of the project, if
the state agency determines that requiring the local public agency to wait for payment until the project
is completed would make the project infeasible.
(b) Nothing in this section prohibits a state agency from making a grant to a disadvantaged community
or economically distressed area that does not require cost sharing.
Property tax payments preference
86179.4. In awarding grants for land acquisition,the Wildlife Conservation Board shall give preference
to organizations that voluntarily pay property taxes.
Central Valley Flood Plan Implementation $150 million
Lake Tahoe Stormwater Management $40 million
Integrated Regional Water Management Coordination $5 million
Grants to Resource Conservation Districts and agricultural land protection $60
million
Resource Conservation Districts are eligible to compete for all other funds in the bond act.
Salton Sea recovery and dust prevention $200 million
Weed reduction and other land treatment for water conservation: $100 million
Groundwater: Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Implementation:
$640 million
Repair of Oroville Dam $200 million
Removal of sediment below Oroville Dam: $21 million
Butte County emergency communications equipment $1 million
4
Why is funding for repair of Oroville Dam included in the
Water Supply and Water Quality Initiative?
The Corps of Engineers paid for the flood control elements of Oroville Dam in the 1960's.
Including flood control at Oroville was detrimental to the State Water Project (SWP). From the
point of view of the SWP, keeping Oroville full (no flood reservation) would improve water
supply, energy production, recreation and fish and wildlife preservation (improved cold water
pool). Including flood control was something Pat Brown insisted on, after his experience with
the Feather River flood of 1955.
The State Water Project contractors were never responsible for flood control, since they are
actually harmed by its inclusion in the Oroville project. There is no logical reason they should
have to pay for flood control at Oroville.
The state's failure to properly design and maintain the flood control features(spillway and
auxiliary spillway)should not impose costs on the State Water Project contractors. The Federal
Emergency Management Agency will pay for part of these costs, but the rest will be state costs.
The final cost of flood control repairs will be around one billion dollars. The State Contractors
will be forced to bear part of these costs, but it is certainly reasonable for the state general
fund to share some of these costs. In many previous bond acts,the state general fund has
always been the source of state flood control money.
Agenda Item
#7b
..r
."7- 0
Water Boards
Fact Sheet
Proposed Final Amendments and Final Substitute
Environmental Document for Lower San Joaquin River
Flow Objectives and Southern Delta Salinity Objectives
Overview
The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary includes the Sacramento-
San Joaquin Delta (Delta), Suisun Marsh, and San Francisco Bay. California's two major
rivers, the Sacramento and the San Joaquin, converge in the Delta and meet incoming
seawater from the Pacific Ocean in San Francisco Bay. Vast numbers of species live in or
migrate through the Delta, including salmon and other at-risk native fish. In addition, water
diverted from the Delta helps meet the drinking water needs of more than two thirds of
Californians and provides irrigation for millions of acres of productive farmland.
The Delta is in ecological crisis, with precipitous declines in native migratory fish species
occurring over the past decades. Under state and federal law, the State Water Resources
Control Board (State Water Board) is tasked with protecting the waters of this vital area. The
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento San Joaquin Delta
Estuary (Bay-Delta Plan) is a key component of this protection. The State Water Board has
engaged in a multi-year process to amend the Bay-Delta Plan to revise outdated objectives
for the protection of fish and wildlife beneficial uses in the Lower San Joaquin River and
agricultural beneficial uses in the southern Delta. That process included extensive public
outreach, comment, and revision.
On July 6, 2018 the State Water Board released draft final plan amendments for the Lower
San Joaquin River and Southern Delta objectives (Lower San Joaquin River/Southern Delta
update) and a draft Final Substitute Environmental Document (draft Final SED), which
provided the environmental analysis in support of the plan amendments. The draft final
proposal would update water flow objectives in the Lower San Joaquin River and its major
tributaries, the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced Rivers.
Additionally, because the Lower San Joaquin River drains into the southern Delta, the
update also amends southern Delta salinity objectives. The new flow objectives recognize
the need for flows of an adequate volume and more variable pattern on the three major
tributaries to provide habitat and migratory signals and protections for native fish. The
refined salinity objectives reflect updated scientific information about salt levels that
reasonably protect farming in the southern Delta.
I
State Water Board Responsibility
The State Water Board holds dual responsibilities of allocating surface water rights and
protecting water quality. The State Water Board allocates water through an administrative
system that is intended to maximize the beneficial uses of water while protecting the public
trust and serving the public interest. This requires an appropriate balancing of interests.
State and federal law requires the protection of the State's water quality and beneficial uses
of water. Accordingly, the State Water Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards
develop water quality control plans that identify beneficial uses of waters and establish water
quality objectives to protect these uses. The plans also contain implementation, surveillance,
and monitoring elements to achieve the water quality objectives. While most water quality
control planning is done by the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, the State Water
Board has authority to adopt statewide water quality control plans. The State Water Board
historically adopted the Bay-Delta Plan because of its importance as a major source of water
supply for the state, and to help ensure a coordinated approach across Regional Board
boundaries. In addition, because diversions of water within and upstream of the Bay-Delta
are a driver of water quality in the Bay-Delta, much implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan
relies upon the combined water quality and water right authority of the State Water Board.
The Bay-Delta Plan protects water quality in the region and includes water quality objectives
to protect municipal and industrial, agricultural, and fish and wildlife beneficial uses.
Updating the Bay-Delta Plan
In addition to Lower San Joaquin River/Southern Delta update, the State Water Board is in
the midst of developing a proposal for updating flow requirements for the Sacramento River,
its tributaries, and the Delta and its tributaries, including the Calaveras, Cosumnes, and
Mokelumne Rivers, Delta outflow objectives, Delta interior flow objectives, and coldwater
habitat objectives. The State Water Board is engaging in two watershed-based planning
strategies in order to more fully take into account the distinct hydrologic, species,
environmental, and water use characteristics of each region. Previously, for administrative
convenience, the Lower San Joaquin River/Southern Delta update was referred to as phase
1, while the Sacramento/Delta update was referred to as phase 2.
At the same time that the Lower San Joaquin River/Southern Delta update is being released,
the State Water Board released a framework that describes the draft proposal for updating
the flow requirements for the Delta and its contributing watersheds, including the
Sacramento River and its tributaries. This Framework document is a preview of a
forthcoming draft staff report and allows the public to better understand how the two updates
relate to one another and how each watershed is being asked to share responsibility for
protecting fish and wildlife for the betterment of the entire Bay. This framework provides
additional details about the likely proposed flow requirements, how these new requirements
could be implemented, and preliminary information on their potential benefits and water
supply effects.
2
Lower San Joaquin River/Southern Delta Plan Amendments
The State Water Board is proposing to update two elements of the 2006 Bay-Delta Plan. A
brief description of the proposed amendments to the two elements is provided below
followed by more detailed descriptions of important highlights of each:
• Lower San Joaquin River flow objectives for the protection of fish and wildlife: the
proposed plan update would increase the required flows to be left in the three main
salmon-bearing tributaries to the Lower San Joaquin River, the Stanislaus, Tuolumne,
and Merced Rivers, during the critical February through June period, as wells as
increasing the variability of those flows and allowing the flows to be adaptively
implemented to better achieve successful ecological functions. The update would also
add compliance locations on the three tributaries instead of only on the Lower San
Joaquin River at Vernalis.
• Southern Delta salinity objectives for the protection of agriculture: this proposal would
adjust the salinity requirements to a slightly higher level to reflect updated scientific
knowledge of Southern Delta salt levels that reasonably protect agriculture.
Monitoring and compliance locations would be changed to better reflect overall
salinity levels and protection of agriculture.
Lower San Joaquin River Flow Objectives
• The draft Final SED recommends increasing flow on the San Joaquin River and its
tributaries to 40 percent of unimpaired flow within a range of 30 to 50 percent from
February through June. Unimpaired flow represents the water production of a river
basin, unaltered by upstream diversions, storage, or by export or import of water to
or from other watersheds. Historical median February through June flows from
1984-2009 in the Merced, Tuolumne, and Stanislaus Rivers were, respectively,
26, 21, and 40 percent of unimpaired flow. In other words, half of the time more than
60 or 70 percent of each river's flow is diverted out of the river during these months
and the proposal seeks to return some portion of that diverted flow to the river.
• Scientific studies show that flow is a major factor in the survival of fish like salmon
and that current flows are inadequate to protect many endangered and threatened
species, as well as species relied upon by the commercial fisheries. The draft Final
SED recognizes that other factors, like predation and loss of habitat, affect fish
populations, and the draft Final SED encourages and incentivizes habitat restoration and
other"non flow" actions that are complimentary to the flow objectives.
• The unimpaired flow requirement is designed to mimic the natural cues that species
have evolved to respond to, but is not intended to be a rigid and fixed percent of
unimpaired flow. The proposal provides for and encourages collaboration to use the
flows as a "water budget" that can provide flow that are "shaped" or shifted in time to
better achieve ecological functions such as increased habitat, more optimal
temperatures, or migration cues. Adaptive implementation of flows allows a nimble
3
response to changing information and changing conditions while minimizing
unintended impacts and can provide more timely and efficient use of flows than an
inflexible regime of prescriptive flow rates.
• In addition to increasing instream flow levels, the draft final update differs from the
existing Bay-Delta Plan in that it requires flows from each of the three major salmon-
bearing tributaries to the lower San Joaquin River. The existing plan measures flows
at Vernalis on the San Joaquin River, and puts the burden for maintaining flow entirely
on the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation through releases of water from New Melones
Reservoir on the Stanislaus River. The draft plan recognizes the importance of
balancing the flow requirements among the three tributaries, and the need for flow on
all three to restore and protect the populations of migrating fish in those rivers
throughout their lifecycles.
• The draft Final SED recognizes that reduced diversions can create financial and
operational challenges for local economies. The flow requirement considers the needs
for fish and wildlife along with the needs of agriculture and local economies. Some will
find the requirement too "high," and others will find it too "low." The proposed flow
requirements are designed to provide reasonable protection for fish and wildlife without
imposing undue burdens on water users.
• The draft final plan amendments incorporate flexibility so that stakeholders are
encouraged to work together to reach voluntary agreements that could implement
Bay-Delta Plan objectives for fish and wildlife beneficial uses. Voluntary actions to
implement non-flow measures such as habitat restoration, gravel augmentation, and
predator suppression can improve conditions for fish and wildlife and may support a
change in the flows within the 30 to 50 percent range. While the revised amendments
enhance flexibility, the Board remains interested in receiving potential plan
amendment language which would authorize, with the affirmative concurrence from
the California Department of Wildlife, a coordinated control of flows and other, non-
flow factors that would achieve benefits comparable to the unimpaired flow
requirements. In this way, people working together can yield comparable or better
benefits to fish and wildlife at lower water supply cost. The State Water Board cannot
order these collaborative efforts in a regulation, but can accept them if offered.
• The draft final plan amendments also encourage local water agencies, fish and
wildlife agencies and other experts to work with State Water Board staff in a working
group that will make recommendations on how best to implement the flow objectives
within the proposal framework. The Executive Director can approve, on an annual
basis, the recommendations of one or more working group members to shape or
shift flows or the consensus recommendation of the working group to change the
percent of unimpaired flow within the range.
• The draft final plan amendments also give the State Water Board the flexibility to
4
respond to new information or take longer-term adaptive implementation measures.
The Board can approve, on an annual or multi-year basis, flow shaping, shifting or
changes in the percent of unimpaired flow within the range. For example, the State
Water Board could approve a multi-year voluntary agreement that includes flows
within the range and non-flow actions.
• The plan amendments include a robust process for constantly learning and adapting
to best available information with monitoring, special studies, coordination, and
evaluation. Transparency of both actions and data are a central feature of the
proposal with annual reporting and then comprehensive reporting every three to five
years that includes peer-review and public meetings.
• Biological goals, including for salmon population growth, distribution, and other
factors, will be among the tools that inform future State Water Board decisions on
whether to adjust the unimpaired flow percentage. Adaptive implementation can
optimize flows and consider improvements in biological conditions that support
native fish when making decisions about flow adjustments.
• While carefully considering the comments received, the draft final plan concludes the
recommended flow requirements are necessary for recovery of fish populations.
Scientific studies indicate a flow closer to 60 percent of unimpaired flow would
improve conditions for a healthy fishery. On the other hand, a 60 percent flow
requirement would cause more significant economic damage to water users. It is the
State Water Board's task to balance competing beneficial uses for water.
Southern Delta Salinity Objectives
• The recommended amendment to the southern Delta salinity objective (southern
Delta salinity proposal) would eliminate the seasonal element of the objective by
raising the current April through August objective of 0.7 deciSiemens per meter
[dS/m] to the same level as the current September through March objective of
1.0 dS/m for an objective of 1.0 dS/m year-round.
• Analysis of southern Delta water quality and crop salinity requirements shows that
the existing salinity conditions in the southern Delta are suitable for all crops and
that the existing April through August salinity objective is actually lower than what is
needed to reasonably protect agriculture.
• The United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) would be required to
continue to comply with the 0.7 dS/m salinity level for the Lower San Joaquin River at
Vernalis as a condition of its water rights. Reclamation's activities associated with
operating the Central Valley Project in the San Joaquin River basin are a principle
cause of salinity exceedances at Vernalis and maintaining a salinity level of 0.7 dS/m
at Vernalis is needed to implement the 1.0 dS/m objective downstream in the interior
Southern Delta.
5
• The revised water quality objectives coupled with the implementation measures
included in the Bay-Delta Plan update would provide the same or better conditions
for agricultural uses in the Delta, as compared to existing conditions through the
continuation, or improvement, of existing management actions, including
maintenance of water levels.
• The proposal includes requirements that the State Water Project and federal
Central Valley Project address the impacts of their export operations on water
levels and flow conditions that may affect salinity conditions in the southern Delta.
• The southern Delta salinity proposal would also replace the three current fixed points
for monitoring southern Delta salinity compliance, and instead identifies three
extended channel segments for monitoring conditions and measuring compliance.
• Increased February through June flows under the San Joaquin River flow element
would improve salinity conditions in the southern Delta early in the irrigation
season.
Public Comments
• On September 15, 2016 the State Water Board released draft amendments to update
the Lower San Joaquin River/Southern Delta objectives (draft plan amendments) and
a Recirculated Substitute Environmental Document (Recirculated SED). There was a
six-month long comment period on the draft plan amendments and Recirculated SED.
This is the longest public comment period the State Water Board has ever held.
Initially, the plan was released for a 60-day public review from September 15, 2016 to
November 15, 2016. In response to requests from the public, including stakeholders
who asked for additional time to negotiate voluntary agreements that would
implement the flow objectives, the 60-day review period was extended twice: first from
November 15, 2016 to January 17, 2017, and then from January 17, 2017 to March
17, 2017.
• The State Water Board received over 1,400 unique comment letters on the draft plan
amendments and Recirculated SED from federal, state, and local agencies; elected
officials; stakeholders; and other members of the public. The State Water Board also
conducted a public hearing over five days and in four locations (Stockton, Modesto,
Merced, and Sacramento) to receive oral comments on the draft plan amendments
and Recirculated SED. The public hearing occurred between November 2016 and
January 2017.
• The State Water Board appreciates the active engagement of the public and
stakeholders in the water quality control planning and environmental review
processes, and acknowledges the plan amendments are controversial with some
members of the public and stakeholders. Comments were received from both ends of
the spectrum—with many in favor, and opposed, including individuals, local, regional
6
and statewide organizations, and elected officials, expressing strongly held views that
the amendments are not strict enough or that they are too strict. Amending the Bay-
Delta Plan presents many complex and challenging issues, and the State Water
Board appreciates the efforts of all parties that reviewed the draft plan amendments
and Recirculated SED and submitted comments. The comments were thoughtful and
covered a broad range of policy and environmental issues. Major topic areas that
elicited frequent comments included agricultural resources, regional economies,
groundwater resources, fish and wildlife ecological health, commercial fishing,
drinking water, disadvantaged communities, the water quality control planning
process, project alternatives, hydrology, and hydrologic modeling.
• The State Water Board considered all comments, criticisms, and suggestions in
determining whether and how to modify the draft plan amendments. The draft Final
SED (at Volume 3) provides written responses to all comments received during the
comment period. The responses represent the State Water Board's best effort to
carefully and objectively review and consider the comments and supporting
information provided by commenters.
• The proposed draft Final SED represents the conclusion of an extended public
outreach and environmental analysis process. The State Water Board issued a Notice
of Preparation for the update in 2009. A Draft SED was released in 2012 and
substantial changes were included in the Recirculated SED in response to comments
on the 2012 Draft. Examples of these changes include incorporating information from
the recent drought, and recognizing the enactment of the 2014 state policy for
sustainable groundwater management (Wat. Code, § 113) and passage of the
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (Wat. Code, § 10720 et seq.). In addition,
clarifying modifications were made to the plan amendments, after consideration of all
comments received on the Recirculated SED. The modifications can be reviewed in
the draft Final SED, Appendix K, Revised Water Quality Control Plan, and an
explanation of the modifications is provided in Volume 3, Master Response 2.1,
Amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan.
Next Steps
The draft final amendments can be found in Appendix K of the draft Final SED. After
consideration of public input, the text of the proposed amendments was modified. Those
revisions are identified in double strikeout and double underline in the draft final
amendments. The State Water Board is accepting written comments on the changes
contained in Appendix K that are identified in double strikeout/double underline.
Written comment letters on changes to Appendix K must be received by 12 p.m. (noon) on
Friday, July 27, 2018. Late written comments will not be accepted. The State Water Board
will not accept or consider any written comments on the draft Final SED. The meeting notice
and instructions for submitting comments on the revisions can be found here.
This is a draft final staff proposal and draft Final SED for consideration by the State Water
Board's members. The State Water Board members will consider the draft Final SED
before approving the project, and the SED will become final upon project approval. The
State Water Board will begin consideration of whether to adopt the proposed final
amendments and proposed Final SED at a public meeting commencing on August 21,
2018. A notice of the meeting has been provided and is available on the Board's website
here.
An expanded summary of the proposed updates to the Bay-Delta Plan is available here.
(This fact sheet was last updated on July 6, 2018.)
8
Agenda Item
#7d
Mission Statement
The mission of the Department of Water and Resource Conservation is to manage and conserve
water and other resources for the citizens of Butte County.
Department Description and Key issues
The department operates programs that enhance and conserve water and related resources for
the residents of Butte County. A comprehensive strategic plan for managing and conserving
water resources was enacted in 2005 through the Butte County Integrated Water Resources
Plan (IWRP) and the Groundwater Management Plan. The IWRP established the strategy for
managing water resources and priorities for the department. The key activities of the
department include:
• Managing Butte County's State Water Project (SWP) Table A Allocation;
• Monitoring the status of groundwater(i.e., elevation, quality, subsidence) and reporting
annually through the Status Report required under Chapter 33 of the Butte County Code;
• Administering the Groundwater Conservation Ordinance (Chapter 33 of the Butte County
Code);
• Overseeing the implementation of Basin Management Objectives (Chapter 33A of the
Butte County Code);
• Leading the County efforts to assess and respond to the drought through the Drought
Preparedness and Mitigation Plan;
• Leading efforts to educate and inform the public about water resources;
• Advancing a regional water resource management approach through the Northern
Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Board; and
• Providing administrative support for the Butte County Water Commission, the Technical
Advisory Committee, and the Water Advisory Committee.
The department's core responsibilities include administering County-mandated programs
pursuant to the Groundwater Conservation Ordinance (Chapter 33 of the Butte County Code)
and the Basin Management Objectives Ordinance (Chapter 33A of the Butte County Code). The
department is responsible for leading the County's implementation of the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The department will continue to manage the County's
SWP Table A Allocation and seek opportunities to secure full in-county utilization and fiscal
sustainability. The department will continue to support the Northern Sacramento Valley
Integrated Regional Water Management (NSVIRWM) Plan. The NSVIRWM provides an
opportunity for regional coordination of water resource issues and for eligible groups to seek
funds for water projects. Additionally, the department will participate in State initiatives (e.g.,
Water Action Plan, California WaterFix, and State Water Resources Control Board proceedings)
that may impact Butte County water resources. Despite the wettest year on record in the 2017
water year, decade long drought conditions have not abated. The department will address
drought conditions through the Drought Task Force.
The continued implementation of the SGMA will dominate activities in the 2018-19 fiscal year.
Butte County is a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) responsible for developing and
implementing a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) in each of the four subbasins in Butte
County by 2022. The GSPs will establish groundwater sustainability goals for the subbasin and
the enforceable actions that will achieve sustainability by 2042. The department is working with
the other GSAs to develop a governance structure to develop and implement a single GSP in
240
each subbasin. The Water Resource Management and Protection Project, authorized by the
Board of Supervisors on January 8, 2013, provides an important foundation for Butte County to
meet County water resource priorities and specific requirements of SGMA. The department is
making progress on the Water Resource Management and Protection Project. In 2016, the
Water Inventory and Analysis Report and the Butte Basin groundwater model (phase 1) were
completed. The steps to improve the understanding of groundwater recharge (phase 2) were
advanced by the completion of the Stable Isotope Recharge Study October 2017. The
department will participate in a pilot study to a geophysical approach, Airborne Electronic
Method, to better characterize portions of the Butte Basin hydrogeologic architecture.
WATER & RESOURCE CONSERVATION BUDGET
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2018-19
Actuals Adopted Requested Recommended
Intergovernmental Revenues 51,759 149,272 - -
Miscellaneous Revenues 42,500 - - -
Total Revenues $ 94,259 $ 149,272 $ - $ -
Salaries and Employee Benefits 527,795 559,284 544,683 544,683
Services and Supplies 296,231 247,817 175,447 175,447
Other Charges 1,243 - 750 750
Special Items 22,536 61,656 67,597 67,597
Total Expenditures $ 847,805 $ 868,757 $ 788,477 $ 788,477
Net Costs/Use of Fund Balance $ 753,547 $ 719,485 $ 788,477 $ 788,477
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
241
Source of Funds (Revenues)
• General purpose revenue (GPR) supports the operation of the department.
Recommended Source of Funds(Revenues$788,477)
100%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
GPR
Use of Funds (Expenditures)
• Salaries and benefits is the largest expenditure category for the department.
• Services and supplies include contracts for groundwater monitoring and studies, as well
as office supplies, utilities, and training.
• Special items include costs for support services provided by Administration, Auditor-
Controller, County Counsel, General Services, Human Resources, Information Systems,
and Treasurer.
Recommended Use of Funds(Expenditures$788,477)
100%
80%
69%
60%
40%
22%
20% . ................ .............. . .................. ................ ................. . ................ . .............. ..............
9%
0%
0%
Salaries and Employee Services and Supplies Other Charges Special Items
Benefits
242
u
Summary of Budget Request and Recommendation
Salaries & Employee Benefits
Full Time Equivalent
Requested Position Allocations Total
• The department budget request 2014-15 Adopted Positions 4.00
includes funding to maintain current 2015-16 Adopted Positions 4.00
staffing levels. 2016-17 Adopted Positions 4.00
Recommended 2017-18 Adopted Positions 4.00
2017-18 Current Positions* 4.00
• The recommendation includes 2018-19 Recommended Positions 4.00
funding to maintain current staffing
'As of 4/24/2018
levels.
Services & Supplies
Requested
• The department budget request includes funding to maintain current service levels.
• The department budget request also includes $100,000 for the Airborne Electronic
Method pilot project to better characterize portions of the Butte Basin hydrogeologic
architecture as part of the Water Resource Management and Protection Project.
Recommended
• The recommendation includes funding to maintain current service levels.
Capital Assets
Requested
• The department budget request does not include any capital assets.
Recommended
• The recommendation does not include any capital assets.
243
STATE CONTROLLER SCHEDULES BUTTE COUNTY SCHEDULE 9
COUNTY BUDGET ACT FINANCING SOURCES AND USES BY BUDGET UNIT BY OBJECT
January 2010,revision#1 GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
FISCAL YEAR 2018-19
BUDGET UNIT: 620-WATER&RES CONSV
FUNCTION: PUBLIC PROTECTION
ACTIVITY: OTHER PROTECTION
FUND: 0010-GENERAL FUND
Detail by Revenue Category and Expenditure Object 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2018-19 2018-19
Actual Estimated Requested Recommended Adopted by
Board of
Supervisors
1 2 3 4 5 6
REVENUES
450 IN I ERGOVERNMNTL REVENUES 51.759 149,272 - - ..
470 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 42,500 - - - -
TOTAL REVENUES $94,259 $149,272 - -
EXPENDITURESIAPPROP.
510 SALARIES&EMPLOYEE BENE 527,795 559,284 544,683 544,683 -
520 SERVICES&SUPPLIES 296,231 247,817 175,447 175,447 -
550 OTHER CHARGES 1.243 - 750 750 -
590 SPECIAL ITEMS 22,536 61,656 67,597 67,597 -
TOTAL EXPENDITURESIAPPROP. $847,805 $868,757 $788,477 $788,477 -
NET COSTS/USE OF FUND BALANCE $753,547 $719,485 $788,477 $788,477
244
Agenda Item
#10
COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED AND REFERRED
BUTTE COUNTY WATER COMMISSION
MEETING OF AUGUST 1,2018
Copies of all communications are available at the
Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation
308 Nelson Avenue
Oroville, CA 95965
1. *Article from Chico Enterprise Record, May 27, 2018, New set of scores released for
water bond protects
2. *Article from Chico Enterprise Record, June I, 2018, Drought or no drought:
Permanent water saving rules set for Californians
3. *California Water Plan eNews, Wednesday's Update, June 6, 2018
4. *California Water Plan eNews, Wednesday's Update, June 13, 2018
5. *Article from Chico Enterprise Record, June 18, 2018, Oroville almost triples state
water saving rate
6. *California Water Plan eNews, Wednesday's Update, June 20, 2018
7. *California Water Plan eNews, Wednesday's Update, June 27, 2018
8. *California Water Plan eNews, Wednesday's Update, July 3, 2018
9. *California Water Plan eNews, Wednesday's Update, July 11, 2018
10. *Article from Chico Enterprise Record, July 12, 2018, Where would extra water in
river come from?
11. *Article from Chico Enterprise Record, July 13, 2018, Oroville a leader in water
savings
12. *Email from Susan Strachan to the Butte County Board of Supervisors, July 23, 2018,
Item 5.04—Resolutions Supporting Proposed Basin Boundary Modifications
13. *Article from Chico Enterprise Record, July 25, 2018, Sites Reservoir earns $816
million in Proposition 1 funding
1
s CORRESPONDENCE
ChICOERcom
New set of scores released for water bond projects
By:Steve Schoonover May 27,2018
Sacramento»Water storage projects seeking money from Proposi- be better,according to Natural Resources Agency spokeswoman Lisa
tion 1 got another round of scoring Friday from the California Water Lien-Mager. Rather,the Temperance Flat proponents reduced the
Commission staff,adding a little more clarity to what will get how amount of money they were seeking to what they'd been told they
much. could expect.The ratio approved accordingly.
Proposition 1,a water bond measure passed in November 2014,in- "They reduced their denominator," Lien-mager said.
cluded$2.7 billion for new water storage in the state.
All of the surviving projects appear to have done so,as the scores
Twelve projects initially sought a share of that money,including Sites have all jumped since early May.At that time,only two projects had
Reservoir,a proposed 1.8 million acre-foot off-stream reservoir west a public benefit higher than the amount sought,and now they all do.
on Maxwell in Colusa County.
Sites,for example,is now at$1.10 per dollar sought, up from 67
Project proponents and the staff of the Water Commission have cents on the dollar.
been conducting a back-and-forth since February over the value of When all four rankings are totaled,Sites comes in third from bottom,
the"public benefit"of their project. with 61 out of 100. It has a relative public benefit score of 13,a rela-
That is critical because the language in Proposition 1 says the money tive environmental score of 15,a resiliency score of 21,and an imple-
can't go just for increasing the amount of stored water.Instead it has mentation risk score of 12.
to go to water stored to meet five specified public benefits:ecosys-
Scores for the eight projects range from 82 to 48 out of 100.
tem benefits,water quality,flood control,emergency response and
recreation. What's next
The public benefit assessment process wrapped up with the Water Lien-Mager said the Proposition 1 statutes require grouping the pro-
Commission meeting the first week of May.At the conclusion of that jects into tiers.The top tier is for scores of 85 and above,the second
meeting,just eight projects were left in the hunt for funding. is for scores of 84-70,and the third is for 69 and less.
More scores The law holds that the top tier be fully funded,with subsequent tiers
The public benefit is just one of four factors that will determine getting less.
where the money will go. Currently,there are no projects in the top tier,which means the four
Each project is also rated for its relative environmental value,based —
projects in tier two would be fully funded,and the four in tier three
on ecosystem priorities established by the Department of Fish and including Sites -would get less.
Wildlife and the water quality priorities established by the State Wa- "Tier three will still get funding," Lien-Mager said, "but they might
ter Resources Control Board. have to take a haircut."
There's also a ranking for resiliency,which is how flexible a project's Currently the projects are oversubscribed for the funding available
operations are,how well it integrates into the state water system, by about$140 million,she said.
and its ability to respond to an uncertain future. The release of the numbers starts another round of negotiations be-
Finally there's a ranking for implementation risk:What are the tween project proponents and the Water Commission,and the num-
chances the project won't be completed. bers could change.
It's something like a television cooking contest.Each project can get The commission plans to make the final allocations in July.
up to 33 points for its public benefit,27 points for its relative envi- Reach City Editor Steve Schoonover at 896-7750.
ronmental value,25 points for its resiliency and 15 points for its im-
plementation risk.
The scores are graded on the curve,with the best project getting the
maximum score,and the others set on that basis.
Friday's numbers
The numbers released Friday included one big surprise:Temperance
Flat Reservoir,proposed on the San Joaquin River above the existing
Friant Dam,was ranked at the top of the public benefit category,
earning 33 points.
But early in May,the commission ruled Temperance Flat had negligi-
ble public benefit,just 38 cents on each dollar sought.In the new
report,the public value is$2.92 for each dollar sought.
The difference isn't that the project was re-evaluated and found to
ChICOERcom
CORRESPONDENCE
#
Drought or no drought: Permanent water saving
rules set for Californians
By:Paul Rogers, June 1,2018
Although he declared an end to California's historic five-year drought District,and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
last year,Gov.Jerry Brown on Thursday signed two new laws that Environmentalists supporting the laws included the Audubon Socie-
will require cities and water districts across the state to set perma- ty,the Nature Conservancy and the Natural Resources Defense
nent water conservation rules,even in non-drought years. Council.
"In preparation for the next drought and our changing environment, "They are definitely a step in the right direction,"said Tracy Quinn,
we must use our precious resources wisely," Brown said in a state- water conservation director for the Natural Resources Defense Coun-
ment. "We have efficiency goals for energy and cars—and now we cil,of the new laws."The framework strikes the right balance be-
have them for water." tween local control and necessary state oversight."
Brown signed two bills,SB 606 by Sen.Robert Hertzberg(D-Van Quinn said that most cities and water districts in California already
Nuys)and AB 1668 by Assemblywoman Laura Friedman(D- are close to,or under,a standard of 55 gallons per person per day
Glendale),that require cities,water districts and large agricultural for indoor use.
water districts to set annual water budgets, potentially facing fines of Last year,urban Californians used an average of 90 gallons of water
$1,000 per day if they don't meet them,and$10,000 a day during per person per day for indoor and outdoor use combined,down
drought emergencies. from 109 gallons in 2013,according to the State Water Resources
Under the bills,each urban water provider will be required to come Control Board.
up with a target for water use by 2022. Fines for agencies failing to Most communities using more were in hot places in Southern Califor-
meet their goals can begin in 2027. nia and the Sacramento area,while cities with smaller yards and
The targets must be approved by the State Water Resources Control coastal areas with cooler climates used less. In the summer at least
Board between now and then,and will vary by city and county. half of residential water use in most communities goes to watering
They will be based on a formula that is made up of three main fac lawns and landscaping.
tors: Opponents of the bill mostly broke into two groups:Environmental-
An allowance of 55 gallons per person per day for indoor water use, fists like Sierra Club California who said the rules didn't go far enough.
to 50 gallons by 2030. Of particular concern was a compromise inserted in the bill that al-
droppinglowed cities and water districts to get 15 percent credit on their wa-
A yet-to-be determined amount for residential outdoor use that will ter use totals if they produce certain types of recycled water.
vary depending on regional climates. "All water should be valued,"said Sara Aminzadeh,executive direc-
A standard for water loss due to leak rates in water system pipes. for of the California Coastkeeper Alliance,which opposed the bills.
The new laws make it likely water agencies will need to offer more "With energy we wouldn't want to offer incentives for the wasteful
rebates for home owners and business owners who replace lawns use of solar or wind energy. Likewise,we want to make sure all wa-
with drought-tolerant plants and who purchase water efficient appli—
ances,along with other measures like potentially limiting the hours Some of the state's major water agencies also opposed it,many on
and days of lawn watering,even when droughts are not occurring. the general argument that Sacramento shouldn't be telling local gov-
The laws are a response to complaints from some water agencies ernment what to do.Among the opponents were the Alameda Coun-
that the mandatory water targets the Brown administration put in ty Water District,Kern County Water Agency,San Diego County Wa
place during the recent five-year drought were too inflexible and
ter Authority,and the Zone 7 Water Agency in Livermore.
didn't take into account local water supplies,population growth and "Every local water agency supports conservation and has a responsi-
other factors.Those limits ranged from an 8 percent reduction in bility to make sure its water users use water efficiently,"said Tim
water use to a 36 percent reduction,based on each community's per Quinn,executive director of the Association of California Water
capita water use. Agencies,which opposed the bill."This was never about whether we
The months-long debate over the new laws split the water communi should be pursuing conservation.It was about how."
ty,environmental groups and business groups.
Organizations who supported the new laws say it makes sense to
reduce demand as the state's population grows,and allow each local
area the flexibility for devising their own plan.
Supporters included water agencies like the Contra Costa Water Dis-
trict, East Bay Municipal Utility District,the Santa Clara Valley Water
CALIFQkNIA „
�
r J4 �2 f
;!?7,''''-',;.:::-,::.-1:::::::::::::
f _.
''.:: ''.'-% -
::.
s �.
...' ,... .. :PLAN
.
eNEWS..�
t,. r;S,v...„45� X�: f„ ra, t .....
WATER
�... � .� , ,„. d ...,:.. J fn�F,.a� , ..,k
t,);`,:;,° axt ,-* � � . w � r: .
E�F�
..,-i.YM � 4 .S �/ : i b..w o vupdate mo..`
..-,-,,,,,,,,,...$.•,,,,,..2.1•Aavill.V.e.t.,.. ,
6Wednesday
„(1,..,,,,„,_:_,„..
ill2018
.-1 4ivin
t ✓ytrz.'fez,s,.o 1,r z e< ti�2 x �''
., ;. 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.
WATER PLAN
CALENbAR Newly signed water The effort to"make water conservation a California way of life,”
received a boost when Governor Brown signed two bills last week.
conservation bills add to They establish guidelines for more efficient urban and agricultural
' GONINfEN' S I a "California way of life" water use and drought preparedness,and a framework for setting
811GGESTIONS
urban efficiency standards and water use objectives. In a memo to
".tSUBSCRIBE� -. employees, DWR Director Karla Nemeth said the action"...builds on
', s, UNSUBSCRIBEDWR's ongoing efforts to develop a sustainable water management
system..."The bills call for the guidelines to be in place by 2022.
4 /!
Y Webinar will promote A webinar on outdoor water use will be presented by the Alliance
for Water Efficiency on Tuesday,June 26. It will focus on improving
ideas to improve stormwater management by using tow-impact development and
stormwater management green infrastructures.The topics will include reducing the pollutant
` s ., loads in stormwater.
DWR posts progress has pasted the second a `Y
Progress Report for Implementation < se F •r
report on implementationy 3 t
of Assembly Bill(AB) 7755. the 0k V ? rr
of water data act Open and Transparent Water Data ; .. d
Ate.The legislation directs several .; y
State agencies to improve the $ '" ' , ��
accessibility and usability of water .:
data.The report also describes an a ri Gh� R -
updated strategic plan and protocols for implementing
AB 1755.Other resources being made available for the effort to put
\ k data to work include a report on governance and funding options,
f along with a set of use cases that support the argument for decision-.
driven data systems.
Ground is:broken: Ground has been broken on a critical habitat improvement project
'. ` in Northern California.Work is underway on the Fremont Weir
On rteman Weis
Adult Fish Passage Modification Project DWR,the U.S:Bureau
fish migration project of Reclamation and the California Natural Resources Agency are •
: • restoring a'fish migration corridor in the•Yolo,Bypass.One,p
the protect will widen a than art of
channel,making it easierfor:fishto reach
upstream habitats ,
, ? � s tral�Valley prrogram Public com%ments are being accepted on the draft gu delines for the
a , 3 , a,; s ' ':y Ce`rntral Valley"1nbutary Program The program provides grants for
. 'i'', re eases1d g l !e I 5�
,, 14s.,,,,T`''=vl ; ` ;y:,; rt - ��' 4:;. pr sj thati'educ+r ftoo,'risks and enttance,ecosysterrtsicPublic
ti , '-_ r rol• ..a <workshopsjjfor comments=w 11=be h�eldthi:;R,on - n3 p', n
. i '.-' " - _ �a-a 'a' :,-ti .lit ;The�commentde dli e s-1",,ic ,,Ju ',20 V>z RFs
x - d.xn xth"',i y;'..>l.'t ,�ygs",�za�'�F1 �"e;��v� �r- f j ��r�.t; ,,�
, f+ r •ns ,, `� a l.: C ,6 4A a l a , .. e z a a 0 r
r .... , ., ., . ._ •_ s a _ - _ 0 p o 0 a 0 0. . 0,eks s�� a
r Lsajs .�y s!
yyR<>Cic. '� /5• : L N 1 :nti- « it t A _ - _ _ O 0: 0 0 0 0
- '.. .. •.x,.'_s�;.,,s'.'2.. ",.<,m.rR..»STz-Y,. ls-at.•,�". ' s &�. jt•",rve•',v:'' r...,�'°'.e.:;,.?,.,.yx=,,r;';:-;, •�«>m3:A`'r c.ru,.'y',.-t°°t": ,'.�.?..3kr?"> .'s...',"�`F;,-''``s.,:". :.z"r'.'''•i'.y'e"._'�. '' -,' s ?P C , C� - C ` hU ,"JFh ` f
p ''e�`ti{v`
arr5'
•
•
'.s.,i : ryE ?J :v3 ''-.,:, C7;> 9 .u. C( ° ' : kLY, Via'm: , :1!-. :x�: <. -',.,,„`.rtick!. fi� ' _A i.--. �, G„_ i ( r�rn.r� „ 4' v�omwr-.vcx �w4co �4 ySS` ? „> ,,R,, ? �4 �� .V `,%tt.,..�as *;..':( � k ^\ �< - - -',,,.f " . �. :'!w2t� h a ,�,�?,;2.�;�tom - �`'` • .�. .�`1 h �,�,�:: '. , ';w�. ✓n„ �_ ' 3S'.k yi�2"�1y t I-aw✓ >'',',..--:.,':,--.,•'',:....” t,, �oi ,'-',,,:•„'::-,':',:::---'-' -n-:-v�.'�le. r'� ='.:.-v:„h�J�. p. L h � ,rn�,,, ,�.• : ��� .e. ;�., m.n. ta3.,=5rl;•"; ,. { d . ; 1i4v'k $�. y ,r - h fZ -r . r .r42- 5kv ,'"s�' <� „; ��ikF4 v �-� r. �e`ea :§ ,!,-....,:,:,,,/,-.'� m�a ' &' -zr -e. i` l,...------7,',.',r1Y a i , : ..: tiYfe ... .Hs; . ,...- , •S,. ? � ? T.st > Kk £ r :
{, .ti���;Z.'s,' ;.;.:�n'-'F.Y�`y` �"'.�u,.,:�'�7a 7^"`R7-�'�':.
{ fl taw'
_,
f Z t � is) L.,
CALIFORNIA , k
ti ` !r.F i1 � t�T ��c r` vJ
r �,:..,� v j -�PLA.N
Z
A� r _4r'r ; reNEWS
3r,n X,,s
;. " :R` `' i .,.�:. r \'r"<.=., 4..�, X'�x=� �a�z^, .
w. r•. h�;e:4',l, E•, -.r- -> 5- � 4�c-� ,;,y�r. ;,e{::�?i ..; ^°:r:•`Kv7..•z.e, •'f�'',.—f...,-,,
••;�' c .�R.:hr •�Z
x. ...-:,,....,: =.,.,,,,-11 "x e;&,.,, y . . _;,.?-✓l: 'o., ....., `Yh.:l,R<. ?:h,.r -.•`,'tT'.':2..r. ' ',:5...!'r„'F.?�ry
•��ff��". � rr siyy
a '��Jw�l'� s?� s `G yr
�`. , 2018
k
z,t
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.
WATER PLAN
California Water Boards The California Water Boards annual science symposium will be
CALENDARJune 20 and 21, in West Sacramento.The event aims to enhance
'• holding annual science
the use of water quality monitoring to generate meaningful data for
COMMENTSTONS l symposium next week water quality management decisions.This year's theme is
SUGGESTIONS
"Adapting in the Face of Disruptive Landscape Change”
' \ SUBSCRIBE I
UNSUBSCRIBE Questions about the Anew online resource is available �°
with details on an integral portion = � .
Delta?This beginner's of California.A Beginner's Guide *- -- ;��
guide has many answers to the Sacramento-San Joaquin � 5
v Delta,provides a wide variety of
v�z Y a
information,including details on ,,
some of the most common Delta �� ,. , � r_:.
„ questions.The guide is organized in several sections covering the
history,plants and animals,challenges facing the Delta,and more_
Adaptation forum will This year's California Adaptation Forum will focus on promoting
take a close look at California strategic leadership across all areas of climate change adaptation
and resilience.One of the key topics will be an examination of
action on climate change legislative and regulatory efforts in California.The forum will run
Aug.27-29,in Sacramento.
Webinar to provide insight The aftermath of last December's wildfire in San Diego County,
will be discussed during a webinar on Tuesday,June 19.The
on San Diego county wildfire Lilac Fire burned more than 4,100 acres and forced the evacuation
damage and recovery of hundreds of residents.The webinar will describe the damage
done,and the recovery efforts that followed.
Details of Northwest Forest The U.S.Forest Service will be hosting a science forum to share key
findings of a Northwest Forest Plan science report.The report will.
Plan to bediscussed at be used for the revision of land management plans for 17 national
forest Service symposium forests in Washington,Oregon,and;Northern California.The forum
will be June 26,in;Portland.A webcast option will be available
urban suet in■bdrty Save the dates for the illfeeting of the Minds Annual S mmit,in
T Sacramento Itwillsbe Nov 2742.9:The sumrmitfeatures urban
•,-,=;,.t.'_.solutions on the'agenda for
t -� , , , t sustainability solutions for a variety of Issues The list includes water
��MeetingN`` ';Minds sulmmit policy,waterfront redevelopment,and climate resiliency Discount
>YM rG.y ',7 Airn ,,�a, ct, ,t..n', f .max:, } t T.L,-,-„ �`s: 3' ^^ x r fr
q' `, r;�F�'''').1'4,A..,,' n%z `Nz.i`, istration rates are'available through Frida ,A .;.I7 �} ,>
,•a - ar« m 1,' •`"Y.?�t.ti^�< ,,A M.r=! `'�;?' ;-e'G; '�, ',"4-„ •' p �y' .. ,k;d .z r}+i:z,Sz'_
�s` : � ,. �--' <_v'� tf ...>•:�.� `, ;`��,� -�s�,�-;t'...���.,�,^r;�:3.�,„. '�{-'ate' r�n r�,�,,,,�;��;.
'���'�._� Fiii$� .V ��,:..:Z�,y'F.,,,,".;:,,>..,7r'i�5� t � -r �,4z✓�-r` [., if`�T..G..L-+� - S`ir,,, ,
e ” an• {S{Se' ersustai abi i1.o" `�:�� Ii..,,,,,
a~, _ °h'gi,, toaics aI,a< sed.ate G�'.4p °rB Y --...1,:---,,,.-%
�+ �, c �,�.:•�c tiati:
_ ;uls fiv,, [ ,.t9ki5 - - `e •c •I ° °: o a �r CALIFORNIA -�'
ECONOMIC ;
; _Tilt\
. ,,,,,;::„„,..,,..„;„,„„,,,,„„,,,,,.....,.,,„,„......z„..,,,,..:„„.c..„.„,_„,-q,„t--,-,Li,:q.vnwa,,„,.p„,,,,r„t:„,„..m,„. ,„„..,,,„„,
tl c a' 0° o 0 0 0 - SU`�NiIT
. :„,,...„..„,,,,,„,„:„.„,,,.,,,,,-„,..„,.,,,,,..,,,,.„,.:„„,..„,„,,,,,,,...„,„fit,.h....iia.....!..:7L.,.7.,..,.0„.,,....,,,....,..,.....„R „,..„-,:,,„,,,,,-7txt,z5,,...k.k.
sr.�.;,�.F:a,.t`5saY'>,>.1rl,,:-f.,.7,�.,....-cfi./,,.,.r,-,..�.w-:.i,�-c.y./.,`,,r�1rVi�t;...%,a;.,si�'..`;k'✓nfi�,rr.N�.`v'�'�.vr'>=rv?.E%la�..fr.i.,;�,v.�A,..S'a't 2.;,-;�..a,,tiFr✓i,r�`;•�u <
� 3s`.��;3•FM6��uQ'�Y•Fi"'Cr`v ' <ec. ' ��:.!"' "< :�,r'M,i✓J.k�" h3,.�h..,,:,-�,�.,`.'7.<=.>.3!•Cr�...a�w •s.-w"':<,y:ha�
�;auS>,"•�'�u- 2a(},,`.,•;u,zN;«ry`3A`,.•�
ct3r,-1,�, :.? . 3';h5k`,,,,'•;,':. b7�N' s �f �$ S.Ev^�a W• itV °•�t✓ ';',"'',;1:,_,:`,,,c,.:,\ : ` � 'e.��,e.y.�' �; :ac',-,-<1U 4 Y� .'„1,';,:::',":;;;„';,{ � , ,Q`�J- ?�e , ,2 .^ . - , „ ; v � .?,y'!
te
TF-' rC ,C; „Yxe ,.;r � us /�
tea_ 5
,� CORRESPONDENCE
CI1ICOER com # �J
Oroville almost triples state water saving rate
By:Steve Schoonover, June 18,2018
Water conservation took a dip in April statewide,but locally the April,but that number includes landscape watering.
numbers were much stronger. Oroville used the least water locally in April —53 gallons per person
Oroville saved water at almost three times the statewide rate in per day—while the number for Chico was 91 gallons, Paradise 85
April,with Chico and Paradise more than doubling it,according to gallons, Del Oro 58 gallons and Willows 80 gallons.
numbers released last week by the state Water Resources Control
Board. The full conservation report is available at http://tinyurl.com/
aprilh2osavings.
The water board said savings averaging 19.6 percent were reported
in April by the state's larger urban water providers.That's compared
to the benchmark year of 2013,which is considered before the
drought.
But customers of the Oroville Division of the California Water Service
Co. used 57 percent less water in April than in April 2013.
Cal Water's Chico customers used 41.1 percent less,and use in the
Paradise Irrigation District was down 47.3 percent.The Del Oro Wa-
ter Co.reported savings of 20.4 percent,and Cal Water's Willows
customers used 37.9 percent less.
The Sacramento River watershed overall had savings of 33.4 percent,
according to the water board.Savings in the Bay Area were 26.4 per-
cent and,on the South Coast,13 percent.
April's statewide number was a dip from the 24.8 percent reported
in March,but March was a huge shift from a trend of declining water
savings.
Savings have dropped ever since mandatory conservation rules were
lifted and had reached the point in February where the state was
using more water than in February 2013.
Then came March,and it saw the most conservation since February
2017.April's number is the best—excluding March—since May
2017.
Conservation numbers may improve as they've been given a boost
by two bills signed by Gov.Jerry Brown that will reinstate conserva-
tion targets.
SB 606 and AB 1668 require cities,water districts and large agricul-
tural water districts to set strict annual water budgets,potentially
facing fines of$1,000 per day if they don't meet them,and$10,000 a
day during drought emergencies.
Under the bills,each urban water provider will be required to come
up with a target for water use by 2022.Fines for agencies failing to
meet their goals can begin in 2027.
The targets must be approved by the State Water Resources Control
Board between now and then and will vary by city and county.
Standards will be based on a formula that is made up of three main
factors:an allowance of 55 gallons per person per day for indoor
water use,dropping to 50 gallons by 2030;a yet-to-be determined
amount for residential outdoor use that will vary depending on re-
gional climates;and a standard for water loss due to leak rates in
water system pipes.
Statewide, per capita water consumption per day was 81.2 gallons in
JC4n �', S4" ` rcm7"` � ,'. y ,mp
• '' �7,'-i:.-1, 5j�lr/ . "£�k" Vit' r
�' ; i
2-f, r � �' > > ' �ylr<s..t5n�y,H.�.' .
�+'�;1: � s t 7if ` , �'�. �i•"'e�,;-.{ �.��` �-��K � r'r _'s+.�-.GLr£ `"a., "�x"�-�
� a ` `� r� • c3 1�� Z `% . y` d . � o,' a�a, s�yY'si ti ;J't
'i } µa t 4 9ffk---'.. i `+;:c�` rL< : < •3• ..;',.:::Z...-,:
::Z.. *;' fi:` '.:'',1; k ',7 '� �,'12 `�
,P,'
�, , x. r z• . • W _ e;, y� x3 n4 a ,.75,,,',,,,,..-_':,--t:i5 :“.;:l s F-c,-, l 4. r 4^, ,�v j
�• }zs-,:-:.,,:',1""•"•-;;.••••rr, 6 �' Fk ,� � «F, 1's�� 5�. k`§Y" •v c.��" �Cu'^. ys. _.v x ;.�
°�'�"�r� 2 Y �v�. Uea'%�'�...,..H� y-, F a:. G'..e ��w^-
. � ��fb F'�it i' ! Ini.' . y� 7< 'd �q •' _"x14' r �,"' -ca �er�� Frr i 54:' ' " � 4--'1ftrY•'-‘1.4s
> i �N �, yti ';' e"." a
fnv ' `� ' r d Iii .:rr i�� rJz� `.� � �, v°�j�s�� � y - d Sy �'�$ S ,�.. �t ani v > -;. 'c% � _.z`
fi
:�i?y+h 1
r'4,- ,AV.4:,(,,,....-:.°,:i' , '''.- .:•:•—„,i----!-:',,,:;s:-...-N 4! is 7 d ,n,..._.,..„,
,....,..:.,„,,;,..,gfrAz..,- ._,..-...----7,-.,.; -, •';g-.3,.. ;,..,...,::. . . .t ,ip pesd,:y update , i„-...,.t.....,,,,: ihr_._ 5, ,
,i4i,
f ��.4� \ �' „,`-,:40.4N„:4--,,,,
x SFf Yif
�' ` z 7 '° � 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.
''j n (WATER P,LAN�`, .
3,r:�i.
White paper and research DWR has released two documents }�; .
•� CALENDAR- ' detailingflood-managed aquifer ....",',;;;;;.,"•.,
," ``
���;� y r= framework outline f�WR s � a� ��
recharge(Flood-MAR).A Flood-MAR ",'[..--',.,,,,,...",,7:::,,-,`,,,..a.,.,1.---4-4,,,:,-.,,, �etmot ,
". fCp MEN fS/: F"•,•,) Flood-MAR strategy white paper looks at the potential of „;;;,.,'",'.'1:170.....,1,z.:1,,&•,.,„
r. 2 SliGGESTION 1 ,"v using flood water on farmland,and ” •.'4:',.' t
ysuBS R other working landscapes to help .,;;,..:',i.:; zit x
Slf8 CRIBS w recharge groundwater supplies.Also :
being released for public comment _ y , '
i:lj'''1::):_-"::
i: :.` - is the draft Research and Data '}'7', '1,' '
� Development Framework that will 7 •i .,
� a•`t� identify ways to advance Flood-MAR �.
s This will be discussed in Sacramento
FLOOD-MAR
tomorrow June 21 at a joint luncheon
n s � sponsored by the Floodplain ` s Z
• Management Association and the � a, f
a •° ,
Groundwater Resources Association . rA
Comments beingaccepted The comment period is open for the Statewide Flood Emergency
Y
1 . .; on draft list of grants for Response Grant Program's draft list of awards.The list recommendsfor
ter,
�'it F� ���f �� more than$10.1 million in grants spread among 25 requests
yr f .. , Fey emergency flood response funding to improve emergency flood response.The comment period
fi runs through Wednesday,June 27.
r ,
Recap of February A recap of the February governance conference on the Sustainable
;r�� ,ur<•„sj „ � r: Groundwater Management Act(SGMA), is available online.
UC Davis SGMA conference
� ,x ., s ` _ .' The conference at llC Davis was held to discuss the ongoing
4°tet available online implementation of SGMA.The report includes summaries of
°rf <
roundtable discussions conducted during the conference
Next week's meetingof the California Water Commission will include
4xti
WSIP decisions expected
decisions on the final application scores for pr ojec#remaining in the
at next weeks water Water Storaae Investment Program(WSIP).The meeting will be in
commission meeting Sacramento on June 27 and 28,and if necessary,June 29.
<f , ” The annual report released byPacific Forest
Annualreport details
,. Trust details progress the organization has made , 17.
,�� Y spy �a progress toward ensuring
r xt u, toward its goal of valuing the benefits provided
}
, , ,' ' a sustainable forest future by forests.The report covers accomplishments A'
I, , .
:: ''•x f F ' . of the past year,including the securing of funding
�� f' F ; for forest stewardshi ,wildfire prevention,and
:��w>
P
climate adaptation The organization works to untte'urban an rural
z comrmunities In efforts to ensure a sustainable forest future
kir.,�,..--_-1.::-
�� aFP � ry- ~ atir c
FYI ! wt t .7.'--.-''.
r sc h ':.',44,;---R,..WebElEl ar.olll<direct 'o table A Wei tear on designing resilient direct potable reuse(DPR)systems
..'-,-i.- `K, tz '. � ,kr�'.-,:- -.'�' Lai _,}� [ pat ' „.. i
:;:., f ' ,,. _F,. WI/ tseroffered on , —,.esd:_2 July'11 The t`AhdF6 ahonwill highlight
'-- e..:.r ...;. <--'".;? R x_3 xrerise--b Jn offered nex' .,,> , r , . f , t.:,.
- -'cru, " M5,,,::2:. -. . t,,h' . .a , h-, _ cerin. ''4'. rov"-Ci uidanceforan
��.-,•;.l,,4i.�^.r:%`^4„- ,��,.�5'�r,.,,:>:'>. -3���r�i.�.,�.� .�;� �`�'n ,m� �t' vs;i •y �_�, a, ,, �y.. >rr r. �...a5�"�.i5t,�`9-� Y ,
'-`y`t, > �F � `�C4 `� ��.'m:.nr ._ c �. .t�..�•
� i,z� ,:• s' a r c=S� c �
:::; � o 1-,! d Ri ' �>n� � eai sldenng .I.Pi ssyster 3� ti ,'-%:. ,lj�•
S '''8.ff�ebt.f4
' �,Y�-. �j�C tyr -�: r", •� Yom F•
° �7 �.�4r �, .� � y � ¢� �. �C�s
t,„:,::::,,-.,,..,„" �� .,:-;::,:.!.-i2-..,:',.ry � N >. � � '��}..✓�' a�� �� `�a�c'��T'., ;�e�:a '�i,z �:� `�'` ,� 1��C. a��51
rr , , x�� V '.?i 1
5,,,;,"es rr >'130 '� x ,d '� a`. d
ts-
4:31,3
•
:•"-;:'• sn fzs $zrVi"` � � k' i✓'`" yC ' r' r� caf r 5 j �"�'"arr�\�, ft" Z F r �`, x : x � ,' , � tn t .-,'.;.•N v:. fc} . i 3' 5f, `+jk'.'°n iaCE- r ' h^ : ,, R•
kh < 5,, \ v- 1 .2 x•'. a _�•3.x ti R� t£' (c a 5 nl
N,,,,,",;•,, i ,�r zt •u - F lT;G-ls� s t < 1,..."=;=:::'—':::..:::,;,',.,..'i- c r i @ S` {' ' �xui '
,;•,,, i 5 ) '' .fc° , ., ... s' l,�1:4:,3''''4 l ' F ,r. .. ,y •t„hti .�9
} ti -t �v •
> Q;:) } j-;.a gr.< ,1*, sv :4 ..
{. �c -5 }' ,?_ 1 i s ) /. `j A L 1-. x O R)tN- Y a: `3e zFi x.,n.�.�._ o ,. e'"'r .3 STx
. 4rnU £ht a�ryv i < < S s S., s'a. '� �f ;' � d,_ "o a� v>� �'" --;,:r -- :-
h� 'S� 'S F � c3-�, >k�� ✓ J ,:,,:::::,..:'.,,,,-.,L:;1::
� �� i z{� h �c � F "� '{ � r. �'
�� v, a�r-',�Y s - < < ":zC 'Kti rte._� ,, ff '3.
�.' •e �� .x vx t ✓i��� � �,.. `� =�k�t , �.�rNr�u^�so c.".i�(z� .,.. �-�.:e.�a-.:��•swr•—•—•«,."...s..�..
,,,,,,** ;�a v�� ti`�"� „mac a,,�r s a � � � a � ,�y� � Y, ''4 ;.� ."} ;� � S r
,,,.;.„,f
mit�' s ,. F `` � • ro -5 j j isf4h t `e
,vis` 'L-, �' r . � sr n h z a .m.? r,8 :4
(:.C1,-,,_.. .'''"•- ,.x,_.r.,:...c..r.:•r:riSf ...+1„�.Y'az.+h 3. .xv 't k-ckf3a,'-r.�rA � "`�. "f_��
•
s a d'- ft& 9
r 7e s H ,�s ' '
•
d�+ � �k�J 1, 3 p�!Ip.C¢'���', `� rI� June
�$•',�` r}
. .,3 �-;',,,AV.-,--0C1 t 1-..,,,:•,,,
4 t l', . ' �1 '. nes it ay
y ' 3 � �'r �}�5� iYl C d 7
4..,'} '.:r✓ d J 6� d!a'4 ' <. W' oµ
� : , y, _' •s. . This weekly electronic newsletter is designed to keep you current on California Water Plan news.
r r r r We welcome comments,suggestions,and any news tips that may be of interest to water planners.
�af,.”, yTERlAtpi d Wwn
y� �• tty Stf�.,
F� sere 4 hr' ''jyf,2 i,Yr3•'
' 1' - '¢5� � Tribal Water Summit Videos of the recent Tribal Water Summit ---,--,C ".....
k; .:i;/CALENDAR .. are available online.The event was held in , ��'
videos,other materials McClellan Park on April 4 and 5. It looked at ��
s' �7 jig '� '-
t p
�(�IYIbiENTs1.v x available online indigenous water rights and the effort to address 11>-I-,p Fi �-
1; � ,S(JGGE ,TION$ '°t tribal water policy needs. Other available ", .1E
" z i--"`r � '-t-6�f a�t publications include the summit program and 14`
1 UNStJB`St RIBE. , w Tribal Water Stories 2.
Deadlines extended for basin DVVR has added one month to the submission period for basin
boundary modifications.The new deadline is July 31.The extension
.�� ' boundary modifications,` gives local agencies more time to consider modifications that support
r1' Vfr} SGMA prioritization comments sustainable groundwater management.At the same time, DWR has
}�i by :,.� extended the comment period for the 2018 Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act(SGMA) Basin Prioritization.Comments will be
:44,-,:-..-(,,;.,-.=.; '... 'a ... ,r accepted until Monday,Aug.20.
, , . -.7'.'".:;:.-i• ", Sb
: .. "4 Application process is The Sierra Nevada Conservancy is accepting pre-applications for its
f23-5,;:;:::,,...-::: y� � 's
Y� y''� �,<„,.....-c."�tt� �`'�� � underway for Sierra Nevada Watershed Improvement Program grants.The funding is for projects
,,z that support forest health and provide multiple watershed benefits.
`" q:r` �'-..,c,„.',..:,:.,, Conservancy grant program Pre-applications are due by Wednesday,July 25.
r f-' /5' y° € . Delta Stewardship Council The Delta Stewardship Council will continue the Data to Decision-
t?..;!'::.*::-/-:5.,. '' k .'1"1" .13 Making Summer Series at its meeting tomorrow.June 28, in
` ,L to put focus on data during
rF ,,-z '` Sacramento.The session will include how data can be used to
, tomorrow's meeting develop performance measures,and how those measures translate
,, ? -...--....',...-..,...--..r.. into quantifiable progress.
Pr•0' $1,500 prize added to A prize of$1,500 has been announced for the team that wins this
G. f� 'vtixr � Y'1 'o year's California Safe Drinking Water Data Challenge. Imagine H2O
r < the California Safe Drinking
ii.i..4P,T;;3:t'l•-'.1:'''.6"::. 42x4si is providing the prize money as part of the contest to find the best
�� , ,, /.
`N ' ,y•••••'..t;
� ;,. Water Data Challenge ways to use data to increase access to safe drinking water.The
fey
.,,..1.,..::;...5•,.....,:...,-...,.--.....-..: `, , .. winner will be announced in August at the end of the challenge.
' ..-.'...-'..:1.,--.;_,...._,-,,.•:,,,„. Surface water report looks The 2098 California Surface ,k
t ,,
r , z<� { Water Quality Status Report has .�.. ��"`�
,Y�: ��- at water quality changes �y
0.',..,:.!,.--;:_';_:,:i:..::'.,,..'-",-•:...:.';.,S..::. been released by the State Water
r y from land to the sea Resources Control Board.This years t� yd •*v '
h edition examines how surface water r
�
�, �s '��t� �., quality changes as it flows from the -��- Y ��• .
,. , ' n land to the ocean:.Each section of the report includes a
' � data.analysis summary,and.an overview of management actions:.
'I r The results of a joint DWI EJC Davis:stud on consumptive water
�, £�/'' L, F ' REce consumptive Y
;�: � ,'•a 'y�. � ' 3 fuse of.rice are available in two new reports Phase I consists of a
w< r . ` a water use examined UC Davis field study based on data collected in Sacramento Valley
�x�C ' 'Y� ..r'� ,� ea 3:,a,�r � s .� a Ir- z
.�x b-, nf';'''''' ' E z II ,t1 o reports ,ricefieldsfrom 2011 to 2013 PJiase(i is a Catfom a'Si ulation of
`'t; ,;}''''..' '''. ""�'r'' (Ka' ' a` y.'? x .- '',*� '''' ;lit r__ .- ,v, .
: �r Fr .. �rY ;° t,% , � . t,3. =a,, «,`' �. E otifranspirat�onfofi�Aoplied.Water(Cal SIMETAIIV}1t•toc_el study to
£- l 3 K r ti r• 1; '•�*1,.,--7,7,:',„
a �� kr x, nam; z , i. �, R zS n'^ori ,-L ,.+;t"t•. ''y' a )
� �,�y�. ;.f��� '3r "��° � y �� Nrns, ;, eStIFYl�#@�+�EFjlvatBl`,�regl,�li�ements,for Cice,lki;�le SaC w11GC1to,1Ua(Iey��,.: ,
�t'� ,- .. :'S �,, f. '� r A r4, ... ,tr: %o• ,�:.c,.`� "G c S.,a.• t'V .a'K r w.:rl r'^:,-, r1k' pjF,. i sa.fi,J "&s,,
,FII, sk,,�,, "--'fi; �ti ,.b 0 ,•'''k'-!"._d' � :�i s:.z ,j , .''' -%a ; z 1,q-1x c {�w $ -3
,116.4ve),..,,,,v,,,,v,,,,46_..,4"..,4:4*,,.,..x..1.„,,,Ift ,„0. %
460 0
54 L ":� , E ' i k''13 3t'' 3 .t aWIN ' r -,,4�3!
1'r - t y
:";%' `„'i;` '�y'r[-'.y:,u3;:"��"fi'.✓'%°='t�,,'„�n',S:✓'� '.�,�.tc.j;a,'::; �r.: -^nom ✓fi r"».um
i'-'j''�yv`,z.li�,�jx�'��bSsa��f-.?�_3�'i�y.'r.c��7..� °i<rti,3-.Y�i,.r-h t 7`�4':✓�.¢xF��1�ZE�T,nY}fq' i�`srf{,r}a't?,2r���s_z-'•ae'Ztr _yr-.c-z.._aPrt.r�.r,ar.r.'g,>`r-o....vr.; .ryxn '�'`4?�i:�c'irpror,i'Yy�4i'',✓'ai, °"I�„L,?,��.a���'.fir�`•st+r3:€�'>xr`sr..�{.•r�.�S^.v�es r5 `d�4iifi�rr""," e
,a!r
av;f
RkS r :•'::.-,?.:::..,_':',.
_! i <z ',v ,>�,{. + �e%-;i :h :; rtiV �x, :' t ��� '�dE fi ea�ic� iP,
ts1
•Ft
��
\`
h
3
c.;"1,;2'1:":-f:....
..`�N„ f{S,Kti' 's Y 7 V0 + 1 : m. Nn ,�f �1/{� ::s „✓r�as2'F�w�;x���5 ,243,1AA.:»ir' n' * ,$�„•.�5;Y� 5,„�� v �,�, xS.��,,� ,{ rs :k5i.` , n2--:'i.kw; �� v ;; . yu^��.ikrw i�`�v'xs sb�* e,^a ° r� �{�
4114 .
ri6
, 4'. ” '4.4 f
,? . r � � •� ' ;� � � � u� i� Y f{}, � x.,, Za � r 26�5p�, ;‘,:.;•,;'''-i,:::,3'f r l\ � P, � ..i;_2',.',,., r :,�� 1 ' blwsFx, ,TAA
H \ f ` a � v v;5 -..:;.,,,,,:,,,:„,;;;;;....,....,,,,,y,;.:-.-,.;g-.,:i:,,..: -.dmss*�x+`;y , C
e �777.4c-•;":.1:; ✓ 'x
t _ik.i ti1 � -.rl ' ? , fday1/ dyxte As, A 2 fJ ,0
t
�,, This weekly electronic newsletter is designed to keep you current on California Water Plan news.
.q L.r 1t
: NA'i31w�t P CV '',$r. We welcome comments,suggestions and any news tips that may be of interest to water planners.
yr✓f Sr '"`1 �Lf ,.,,
uY0ti , •\ x},51 '
•
�r S s V:CAL•.•.4-•'.--...-:;:,;--!:;.2.....:,.......:.
l4DA1i CWC set to award The California Water Commission (CWC)has approved final
Tit>. } `4_ -n'•''':,:T,-.'"
jTQ-p application scores for eight proposed water storage projects.The
w s ;
$2.7 billion in funding
action clears the way to award nearly$2.7 billion in funding to help
,c at this month's meeting expand the state's water storage capacity.The commission will
� Q � " `.. conditionally award the funding at its meeting on July 24-26.
�, $u.S �B�{.. R'
' is -cik,"r- Fr A report from the U.S. Geological
� , . �r" r�3 Report finds li S water
,5<4,4 � '' Surveyfound the nation's water �' te a #" t �
r a use reaches lowest `l� : i t
n z
ifiiiirr a consumption is at its lowest level in r< , z ,. r - *
�� �'' level in 45 years more than 45 years. In 2015,Americans �',,' '.. f
0:„:1!.:5;:,.):::,... -:-,,,:-..,:-:'...:.:::-.•-.,-,-
, aa�t ,..k-;'.'1.,;...,-.,..4.---:..,":,YzySf withdrew 322 billion gallons of water , 3t �.'•f'«..
-� , ' a day.That was a 9 percent less than 3"c- ,."
2010, Consumption by power plants
dropped 18 percent during that same period; largely because of the
use of more efficient water-based cooling systems.
5 tFy-,,.y4 ✓k �
` ____ EPA-sponsored WaterSense WaterSense is out with its annual accomplishments report.The 2017
'" 3`'L- '` .71-L: ' lists accomplishments list includes new specifications for home irrigation sprinklers,and a
' pilot program to fix water leaks in Fort Worth,Texas.WaterSense is
* '+' f: d in annual report a program sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1111111111101.1111''1.4, Webinar to explore The geoscience of managing groundwater storage and recharge will
''Aillt ill.'M p be discussed during a free webinar on Wednesday,July 18. !twill
ePI , groundwater research include a look at California's groundwater policies and the research
r \� � and policies in California being done in the state.The webinar will be sponsored by the
American Geosciences Institute.
''re f ''`''' r i''.2ti? After lookingat stormwater programs across the country,the
��° �� � ��a �� : Pacific Institute has ideas for P g
.'. Pacific Institute has come up with some ideas that might work for
� kk� 4� .`. � expanding theCalifornia
is gway California. Stormwater Capture in California:Innovative Policies
+��, ? G , ` captures its stormwater and Funding stormwater asOa local l water supply It includes recommendationspportunities provides insight on the potential of on
� expanding stormwater capture in the state.
, t'''.
z'' y''= Arley` a Fire-prevention travel tips The latest edition of the Western States Federal Arley Support
'.1A6"'''''''''..:'''''''''''''''.
e � ' Team(WestFAST)newsletter includes fire-prevention information
2? included in latest edition of for those taking summer trips in drought-stricken areas.Also,a
a ,` � the WestFAST newsletter recap of the work being don a to redefine"waters of the United
w �x . states."WestFAST is a collaboration of federal agencies with water
F _ say ` management responsibilities in the western U.S.
fi; s 1: rs 7 „ < Bluepr at outlines a way Building a bridge between water managers and the leaders of arts
"' v %a r,.,','x ; sy ` and:odlture;is ex-lored in a;blue blueprint from the US Water Ailiartc°:
,;r < 15 "� ` Ci is ani culture Ulil P o evelo new
'x� ��i-����:"�,�"� ����<:�t� r`�� ,, .�y,� '' ... :;. .. _ ,. ..��,,� The-idea is to Use:the creative thinking•ofa�ists t d _p
��s`",' %') : �, : ,5,,,,„..„,,,,,,c.,7„..,-.-. :--wateF 'r% a it aches�to Water mana ement This Ideas include usin an
�, � n *,,,C,,V. Me' �iIL1 ,, p`P g �i� ea a efo ,,g r t'
.t-„�� ''4_,4:_<„.r� ;avrt, ,4:'$ ,.�' .n `R�ia,�:��6.?`b1. �.,Tt',ctc K°"s� �Z '�mJz.���,;3 r �, r yz �.i` ,>; .'� �,.r„Yk'i'=33,y.L. s�.=-
r����� � � � �,.;��'�'s.�1,Y'��� > �-�� :.� , �, � �r�� �� �. d� est,= i�i�in�a�e �
= ,, .)t..- f , � < a .jj.:a.Oo �r,� .x. :ar#stic a roach to help FyeoplA,w,rsta d an ticpY>I w,z„� F
�5ifv:v �r2 s�. i ,�.i•r•s. -;11',4,.%-� ,-`.� .�f'.v 1^.k.'z z,:�'_, .{,���,� r;�c.h.. P.v s'h,c..;,ts �>.vx�„u?�z�:a�-'v.9"�;'%� `��i'�” �:�t
.;ate�9 ` a �',`�,€�, �r �" Vii. ,-Cra` _5� a ��-�S�n`S� i-*. s r� i ,1' 3 `��- `s ���-..'T_. Y�+,s,F,
,r .� v``'- §.1« -.. �w� .:�'•�� +, �`�>w�Y�%`s ,��':1�`����w.�,. �.�:G:���;a:,-:: _ � i^ �-,, � 3ti w wI3- rar � fir;. � t� sa„
, ,:•• , .,!,,..'„,..,/, ';;
er r fi ,a,^.r. 1 •{ fy',n,�''�_ 5 '4;- raf ar 5 ._ ,+>'zy- ''..d"z' rzy rcr�'�. .:.vv'' -
"6 t r , .i 'C{.•�<e z� �,�. s �. '� J 3 �'r„ d. `<x a�`?�, ��',''��F ty 3E4��K 5�
,1 _ a- 's�,' -? t Tks� r .�`f r, [k ..ii '''- (- rt- Y2.�j`�-�'`t�'�'G .R'+:`f} y.x"i d t t .'" c:
a L . n '`As!. 'fi g s-jc_r.o-; '_.,''''''',' �C. ., r ` '�"' �
y ``� ''.� i + ',r �r sfi 5 �.v, -€�--,—rx i'� t"..3—Z...``. •dz � •3'V. k ,,':T ee, 'a .y,
xy -• ' , + + -` ,' ti r ` �t `-.•:•'''ra `ti •s '`r 4... -•::"'-',"•7'...::'z°x =7�,"••;_,".,,,'','''...'.----` ` `rs,::- -x Y,q�
•f:••••':,,
i. fir ' 7 ? •�x }�S"') Lb�x • Y
Vii :.• _ 1 • v•s • �5 ••,'':.- F',r Lie r-5F �zLTa"' l-i ;,• ? . -': - ,?z es}.'9. ,ae1.� 1
.� ` a i ?x3 �F�.�s?e.:a •k!`t�T�.{' " '�'� N, � r�� aL>�;`r�`•-,,---
z- '^+ „,,:,.:1..,....„.1;,.,_,
�•FS
-. '' s 5 tr A t r - �''`"t 'r -! i'v - ry r�< ,: 'ry •.:
„...-,:::.. �_ ,P v �;.� t� 4 ' C. -� 2� ! l . rti R.X1 „• is-31s. 'hS'” .h � .F •i ' �y
,_ff� �� a39 �' 'b y ,s. =/1� .r �` ,�t _ �' - < x kl r °` � '•'���. s �n vt�`,�c c`'�!>��' ����; � � �.r:'-��;,.�5��.��, �°� t
�l�a b s F „._:.''.•-• s<r f� s'� ��' 1 :, • z� � �.� ,a , x � -,s
�r t t s . ,-,§J : K, 'r i y1� 'i. 'f' 'f'f S'',., P -...''''''TL"--i
.arses •-x:+
�-wr ��, 'f�"HL� r°A 4�� a�$"�.�m"a, t ' 3 .:�`�� `� , ,7."t;.,":12.:',.:. � ; :,,:'''''5'.'f'‘
*.•- 2•y r g
-,1:1::;•5,&-',:-.•.,:::1•''4.••<'•J.-..:.,.,:.-".,--:'
2. r 'r > s.c , „, a, f, r. ,,,,,,..,:;,,,,„e„„
S�t "., si ,��."x} 3;, -� ; v34
m ?-�y" o r 4y K• W��, 4 t w �i r- C.•=•:•"•••.-.:-.:'
:: 3 1. • >,�`' •
El-ii''...:.-:"C'1", :.;•
`:rr� �� �y .,1?.�2�� of a 5�<y ,i� - r ,. Jk '�S ® � z�
r :,-•"-:.'.../.. ,,:.,"'•,.,.,•-••.--::.,..,- , t 1- .�—.1 7 fis r'.� t .. Pc
•
y o-S ,, �, - Ca ..t it' :k .„,.,.,... , �3:• it? ;g[ •4'; `” "
(ii # fiT
,Igf ;, xj � � L t l r`r,, di t
a' t?4ir.,Ys v� ✓ 7 �����i '�". '1 uite {� S� r '�pp �s¢'� ,y��,���FtpVLesinesday ii �� \+ / iu 9 k Ca
# F., ; i '. h This weekly electronic newsletter is designed to keep you current on California Water Plan news.
'' . z+ wr ,,. We welcome comments,suggestions,and any news tips that may be of interest to water planners.
' = .- JNA' T.., f u -- Flood-MAR posts new blogs, The latest blog about Flood-Managed
i';-55:'- ',..:.',N4'.'‘,7,77.7.70 V.,- Aquifer Recharge(Flood-MAR)has ,. „
- - : �: comments beingaccepted on
�.- -� t; � 5 s�• � � been posted to DWR's website.The new � s' :- � '` �'
{ 00: � 5 i development framework entry provides an overview of the Flood- ,; - -
�� ' S STS.zS MAR strategy,which uses flood water to °"
,. S1i1B$ I El, recharge groundwater supplies.Another . / '' ` �
�= �WStlEtSCRIB 1 bloq was posted about the Flood-MAR —'•-...;•4;,-,.,,...„H. 7"�
1�•�;a• ,,v �.• •
draft Research and Data Development Framework The comment
r', ��, , r� '�� FfN period for the draft runs through Sept.20. Instructions for submitting
R sN � '. ; comments are available on the first page of the draft.
L4
',,i' Groundwater storage The geoscience of managing groundwater storage and recharge will
"-' , s„ v"< ” be discussed during an American Geosciences Institute webinar on
•t rT::: }h s;h webinar will include look Wednesday, July 18.The agenda will include a look at California's
F- r ✓y r n at California policies groundwater policies.The one-hour program will also review casex ha5.� studies and potential groundwater developments.
`t%'•':-...Y -.:k''.';','. :.':--:".'"..,;:j5-',,B
.�r> f : Tribal funding opportunities DWR,and a group of State agencies will host a meeting next week
-"" ' C ,"' ,:.:,� " to be discussed during to update tribal governments on funding opportunities under the
n.r ``, ••„:5 -L' Wednesday,July 18,
Proposition 1 water bond.The meeting will be
�
Pro 1 update next week
' ' , '..74",...--
..7 may,,ki p• in Sacramento.A webinar option will be available
u` b J +e3
.&J,-.--..- nn >Tjr4y.....Jc
A change in policyfrom the Government AccountingStandards
Policy change opens
abs Board has opened up the ability for utilities to debt finance water
-- •:, w�-- possibilities for debt financing
' F ; r conservation and green infrastructure projects.This development
, o�z ' ;', L water conservation projects should help reduce the costs that have accompanied these projects,
which are often financed with utility operating funds
Looking for ways to A webinar focusing on nature's inputs to the economy will be held
Thursday,Sept.6. Natural capital,such as forests,wildlife,and water
-. r>A' add natural capital to
gy t t + are not included in most economic reports.The webinar will review
n� t -- . �'' national economic reports some of the latest water data,and discuss ways for building a more
. bf complete view of water's role in the U.S.economy.
--- ':''.:',,..•-..-:....,:-.......
2 i
:2< Presentation will provide The Orange County Sanitation District is making a transition from
-- s ` `T , being a wastewater treatment plant to a resource recovery agency.
• �! v- ., overview of a en s transition
�.• - . , ` .,1,-, g N An overview of the move will be presented at an Orange County
�t " , ; r.,�5 . , to a resource recovery agency Water Agency event on Wednesday,July 18,in Irvine. It will include
�?` ti y , z` details oria sewer construction project designed to gain 9 million
„ • gallons of hew wa#er:
=is t '' + Ce station conference This-month's lnternatipnal since station PISS)~'research and
�� ,,� tr •
� •" r:'�t� x }ev,eloornent Conferen, will include a workshop On Water
•• ..;i""$,- -.,'„,;,,,,, to"mcteide watewi, ,
/� c `' -- s �z,. 5 „ r- t - --„,,„1 ;,t}I Itw•�l f- , on , . -,theISS Can raESE Awareness,and
Yz;,3s ? fi a s. � v � a, t .o...,, - s,�:.e, .+ r, 7
r ,r>� ., s ,�:. ' su ainnbil ,worksbo ,s deYelop poientlal soiutians,for avatar issuesyY Ite conference rens
:a .?i4r .s „;+,+,,f",�r.•!`>L 7.o j y e 4e"ls, zr,p.7 :gip _y ' .r,. z T ,. -_. r-t: �S
� � �.,x�'-�� � +i,�, ��' '.�ys--rv� a� ��+��r �r-o, >�E1t�/��.�`�.�'?`j Irl 5`aCt Francisco TFI�wOf�(5�10pp,IS 0� �1`�E�I�.'3- ar 1 > 5;
, ..p °:>''x�.,: srr,t''','”.'.4 e4 r rr y. *lit. V ` _ s s, y 1 'S t f.. s ''+' `t ♦ ?aj�,�ur c k
.;,,:�J�t.� ,i �^s,� �,r ':�,,E�`i��,3� �' u��"r<� ��aFj ,s, ': s"�� �' rn r'iira �1 Ssf'<;�`ai.:>�ha .t2'�' �';�x,' � ti;,,;..,��-er � c ;�r''
�. "f^`tt;a�,•G[-:rr ',.`a'.F yS .."1 - a." :;; .? jam-r.a�,_ i;,.. .�;ff::`Lr i;t. ey-,,._'r. 41 +„f�„ter 4r 't , L;1 _- =c'�a.,�. {:rv, ”` . t --f. .]'t f c�i `1`z t- rl
��r� �'�RCz��i.r3z�t o` ''/ �. ra`4����_rP ���" � `}3`' tt� ,s� qty-'�{ a 3 'c..•��$ s=3 >z���r3
� ..r4, [ A‘SO r �Yssr%�,s.. ` A-§r�ti ^2.
�` M i
4i1-1.":,3:'-'.--":j�; it r»'i>�����rii7 ° ,.�d b�:c1�' 'Y- t� f�y zt"� a c� ?t '.� '+���
`G� �cC;a :a�1 N�- _ 7 u;fn5..' % tr ak ,s, 3i
ChICOERcom
CORRESPONDENCE
# 10
Where would extra water in river come from?
By:Steve Schoonover,July 12,2018
The framework of a plan for the Sacramento River watershed re- fish and wildlife through voluntary action,which the proposed plan
leased Friday by the state Water Resources Control Board calls for an seeks to reward."
increase in the amount of water running into the Sacramento-San Thad Bettner,general manager of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation Dis-
Joaquin Delta and out to sea,but it leaves the question of where that
water would come from largely unanswered. trict,says his agency has had discussions with the Water Board to
voluntarily provide more flows at certain times of the year to help
It's a good chunk of water.According to the framework,the target of fish,but thinks the focus on how much water is in the river is mis-
letting 55 percent of"unimpeded flow"run downstream amounts to guided.
a reduction of 17 percent of the current average surface water sup-
Were pretty concerned about what's in the report,"he said."We
ply available in the Sacramento River and its tributaries,plus the don't believe they're going to accomplish much just with flow."
three rivers that run directly into the delta from the east.
Those four watersheds are grouped together in the Water Board's He said a"strong habitat component"was also necessary,as well as
framework. improving water quality and assuring there was ample food for the
fish.
About 75 percent of the reductions would go to increased delta He also says groundwater users need to be brought into the discus-
outflow during winter and spring,according to the report.That
sion on how to solve the problem—"everyone who is using water
means it would probably have to come from the big dams in the wa- out of the system."
tershed,as they are the only things that restrict the flow those sea-
sons. But the big question is how and where the Water Board gets the wa-
The dams save water in the wet season to release It when it is dry.
ter sought by the plan.
For example in March,according to information on the California "Who would be putting that water on the table?"Bettner asked.
Data Exchange Center website,average daily inflows to Lake Oroville
He said the state should work with water users to come up with a
reached as high as 64,000 cubic feet per second and were consistent- solution,and that release of the plans indicates the conversations
ly above 2,000 cfs.Average daily releases to the Feather River in aren't happening.
March never got above 3,200 cfs,and were as low as 200 cfs.
"There will be significant impacts if this is done in a dictatorial way
To get the desired outflow in the wet season,the releases from the rather than cooperatively,"Bettner said.
dams would have to be increased.There's no way to increase flow
from streams that aren't dammed. The Sacramento River plan is not as far along as the San Joaquin Riv-
However that creates another problem in that the big dams are the er plan released Friday.A draft of the Sacramento plan is expected in
only places where the pools of cold water can be saved that are nec-
fall,with a final plan months after that.
essary for salmon survival in summer and fall,another goal of the
framework.
It points out in the past the Water Board has obtained water for en-
vironmental needs just from the Department of Water Resources
and the Bureau of Reclamation,partly as a result of agreements be-
tween those agencies and other water users.
"The current Bay-Delta Plan Is implemented by a limited subset of
water users,on a limited subset of streams,for only parts of the
year,"the framework reads.
"The current Bay-Delta Plan requirements,as implemented,result in
overburdening some streams to the detriment of all beneficial uses
in that stream while at the same time failing to protect beneficial
uses In other streams and the watershed."
The solution seems to be a hope that other water users will voluntar-
ily come up with ways to let more water run into the river.
"Californians want a healthy environment,healthy agriculture and
healthy communities,not one at the expense of the others,"Water
Board Chair Felicia Marcus said in the press release Friday announc-
ing release of the framework and a final plan for the San Joaquin
watershed.
"That requires the water wars to yield to collective efforts to help
CIIICOERc0m
CORRESPONDENCE
# k
Oroville a leader in water savings
By:Steve Schoonover,July 13,2018
Oroville continues to be one of the state's leaders in water conserva-
tion,more than doubling the statewide average in May.
But it had local company,as Paradise and the Del Oro Water Co.also
saved at twice the rate of the the state.
The State Water Resources Control Board released water saving
numbers earlier this week,and reported statewide savings of 20.2
percent in May,compared to May 2013,the benchmark year for be-
fore the drought.
Customers of the Oroville Division of the California Water Service Co.
saved at a 45.4 percent rate.The other two Oroville-area water pro-
viders—the South Feather Water and Power Agency and Thermalito
Water and Sewer District--do not report their water use to the
state.
Oroville Cal Water customers'saving rate was the fifth best in Cali-
fornia.
The Paradise Irrigation District and Del Oro Water Co.—which
serves Magalia,Stirling city,Lime Saddle and a number of other
north state communities—weren't far behind with 42.8 percent
savings.That was good enough for eighth and ninth in the state.
The Chico Division of Cal Water saved at a 32 percent rate,and Cal
Water's Willows customers saved at a 32.4 percent rate.
The savings in other north state cities included 31.1 percent in
Marysville,22.5 percent in Yuba City,24.1 percent in Red Bluff and
23.7 percent in Redding.
Of the 361 urban water agencies reporting,199 has savings in excess
of 20 percent.Only four reported using more water than In 2013.
Regional variations weren't as strong as usual.Savings in the Sacra-
mento River watershed were 25.7 percent.On the South Coast,the
rate was 17.6 percent.
Statewide water use per person per day was 94.4 gallons.Del Oro
led local companies with 58 gallons per person per day,followed by
Oroville at 84 gallons,Willows at 128 gallons,Chico at 143 gallons
and Paradise at 148 gallons.
Statewide,119,374 acre-feet less water was used in May 2018 com-
pared to May 2013.
The full report can be viewed at http://tinyurl.com/
may18h2osavings.
Savings might become more important as drought has crept back
into a majority of California the U.S.Drought Monitor report re-
leased Thursday put 85.15 percent of the state in some form of
drought.That's up from 44.3 percent at the start of the calendar
year.
More than a fifth of the state was in extreme or severe drought.
None of the state was in that status at the start of the year.
CORK SPONDENCE
Gosselin, Paul # I
From: Susan Strachan <susanstrachan@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Monday,July 23, 2018 12:42 PM
To: Connelly, Bill;Wahl, Larry; Kirk, Maureen; BOS District 4;Teeter, Doug
Cc: ClerkoftheBoard@ButteCounty.ne;Gosselin, Paul;Buck,Christina
Subject: Item 5.04- Resolutions Supporting Proposed Basin Boundary Modifications
Good afternoon Supervisors,
I would like to provide public comment on the Sustainable Groundwater Act proposed basin boundary modification on
tomorrow's agenda. I have a work conflict and am unable to attend in person. I am representing the interests of domestic
well owners, who are forming a nonprofit organization to formalize that representation. I would not characterize our
position on this proposal as"general support." We believe the way in which this concept was developed and brought
before the board of supervisors presents significant public policy issues. The development of the previous Vina basin
boundary modification (excluding Tehama County/incorporating all of Chico),was heard at multiple meetings of the
governance committee and presented an at evening workshop where domestic well owners in the subbasin were mailed
invitations. This new modification was daylighted and brought to the Board with a recommendation that the county submit
it in about one month, without similar opportunities for public input. An additional concern is splitting the county into a
groundwater dependent subbasin and a surface water dominated subbasin will affect the underlying data and
assumptions that must be used in groundwater planning and will limit the potential for projects to address groundwater
concerns using available surface water.
While this proposed modication presents these issues,we understand that there are some benefits to bringing the
Durham and Butte Valley areas into the Vina subbasin, so that they will fall under the proposed Vina joint powers
authority. To address the public process issues identified above,to ensure that domestic well owners in the proposed
Butte subbasin have an opportunity for input to groundwater plans(especially those in disadvantaged communities), to
assure that sound science underpins planning in both subbasins and to forestall any barriers to project development and
implementation arising from bifuracation of the county into groundwater and surface water subbasins,we recommend that
groundwater sustainability agencies in the proposed Vine and Butte subbasins commit to three actions. This commitment
will demonstrate the agencies' commitment to sound public process, consistent science and collaboration.
1. Using an inclusive and transparent public process that provides the opportunity for stakeholders to review.This
process will provide the public with the opportunity to provide substantive input on draft elements of governance
structures formed for the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and on the groundwater sustainability plans
developed pursuant to that act.The process will be formal,with a proper notification process for all interested parties
and will include adequate public notice and meetings held in the very late afternoon or evenings so that members of the
public can attend. Where input is not incorporated into revisions of proposed elements,the revised documents will
include the reasoning and support for the direction chosen.
2. Using the same data, methodologies and assumptions for the four subbasins as currently defined for the following
elements:
(a) Groundwater elevation data. (b) Groundwater extraction data.(c)Surface water supply. (d)Total water use. (e)
Change in groundwater storage; (f)Water budget. (g)Sustainable yield and (h)interbasin flow.These elements are
required to be consistent when multiple plans are developed within a subbasin.
3. Identifying,analyzing and including feasible recharge and water supply projects in their groundwater sustainability
plans,without regard to the proposed subbasin boundaries, particularly the opportunities for utilizing supply from
available surface water in the County
Thank you,
Susan Strachan
Domestic well owner
CORRESPONDENCE
ChICOERcom # 1�
Sites Reservoir earns $816 million in Proposition 1 funding
By:Staff Reports,July 25,2018
SACRAMENTO—Nearly four years after voters approved billions of "Over the last four years I have worked closely with the Sites Project
dollars for new water storage in California,the state finally an- Authority to ensure that this vital project received its fair share of
nounced how the pie would be divided. funding out of the Proposition 1 water bond,"Gallagher said in a
Sites Reservoir in Colusa County,west of Maxwell,will get the largest statement."We held town hall meetings in the district with water
chunk. commissioners,built bipartisan support in the Legislature,and were
constantly reminding the Water Commission of the many benefits of
The proposed reservoir has been on the drawing boards since last this project.Today 1 am proud to see that our advocacy has paid off
century.It's the largest and most expensive proposal of the eight ...including over$40 million in early funding to help get Sites off the
projects considered by the California Water Commission on Tuesday. ground.This has truly been a team effort that would not have been
It received the largest award,too—$816 million. possible without us all working together."
The proposed 1.8 million acre-foot off-stream reservoir,which would
fill with Sacramento River water with the help of canals during high
winter and spring runoff,is estimated to cost$5.2 billion to build.
Even before the Proposition 1 money awarded Tuesday,the Sites
Project Authority said it had enough commitments from water users
to get the project built.
As designed Sites would add 500,000 acre-feet of water to the state's
system annually,according to the project authority,two-thirds of the
total water the eight projects will provide.
The bigger concern is lawsuits,which in California are likely to greet
any effort to build a new reservoir.
The Water Commission approved$2.5 billion in water storage fund-
ing on an 8-0 vote.Four of the projects were for new or expanded
reservoirs.Four were for groundwater storage.
Other funding commitments for reservoirs included$171.million for
Temperance Flat Reservoir on the San Joaquin River,a fraction of the
total cost of$2.6 billion;$459 million for Los Vaqueros in Contra Cos-
ta County,which will pay about half the total price tag;and$485
million to replace and expand the Pacheco Reservoir Dam in Santa
Clara County,which also will pay about half the total cost.
The groundwater projects were in Sacramento and San Bernardino
counties,and two in Kern County.
Sites proponents have argued that storing more water in wet years
at Sites would give the state more flexibility both upstream and
downstream in the delta.
"Sites is the only project approved by the Water Commission that
can improve water supply reliability within the Sacramento Valley
Watershed while also increasing flows on the Sacramento River at
times that are most critical to struggling fish populations,"said Jim
Watson,general manager of the Sites Project Authority in a news
release.
"The Sites Project offers the unique benefit of improving water quali-
ty and habitat conditions in the Sacramento River and delta when
and where it's needed most,"Watson said."The project will not
block fish migration,does not dam a large river or stream,and will
only be filled by storm events,when excess water is available in the
Sacramento River and after all existing environmental requirements
have been met."
Assemblyman James Gallagher,R-Yuba City,was relieved that the
hard work to secure funding paid off.
IP 1/)1,()/ ,jji//' 014110/i'l*?0'11111Plit/0/11$1/1
Butte County Water&Resource Conservation August,2018 if/( frri
Volume 19,Issue 7 iff 7./c11/i A ifq/(n'iC0i110 ?
1'V )47'),i'AVVI.,;,'il,t11;11,441t101,0011isi0
WaterSolutions
iilitilimilil,, ,(')pv 011000001,00,ii,p),PeoldVi iNq# #vflik,
11111111111111, \ 14dtAll/i (4,,111010112,,,100,144,0 ir il[0111?ol,),1,1
-To ttratiage and cottserre tearer and other resources for the citizens of Butte County- 111119111111111[111111111111111111! i,, '
toll 0004y„,11,0,11,;,1
1,1011 „00011,,o ,„pit,,,i1q,11110111,11NlemykliwIl ,,i)olliiiiiih,1„1,,,,i((,/,;,,
40101 1 1110 l'',A101,,111401,16,111 ,„1,,,,,1111,,01,' 14 \,4,„',1,/,,43',,,t
170,1442) ,, ,)111,'0,1111'41 1 ,110;01111 'Ir''Oli'',/)H i„0"*II
01,,,iii,ff,// /4)#410,11111 ,,,,Offitli#4,11,S,,', ( 'ilill 1
111101i6V/41 i'11001,,,,,11010','Ob.,,4,11, '`,' '',4140)
tifIllikli,l''0)0$k,,'(.1,1,,10,d),110r,0,,ki "(fiii, 410,11i1
I i
(
1' 0it"
,+
,, 1tIff/40),,/,,,t,,
4)itic, tr4,1 /4),10jjj if,, , 2/(/1)1 I /441q, ,ji
104 /;j,w ,4,110111111, f f/iri,i/1
1 q411,i,(,/ /;27'11,,,i,,,7/7(ii,,1411,11,111111111111111111 ,„ rif
ioup.0,1111,11,,,,k101,, /t tfili,/#7,p rok,011 +7//
hopolik0041$(1,011 06jF)/ t, gip 111,(111111", 0
1,11,onopol 11
il '''N1 $1,i'l,'11111111t111,4' i", illy1111,11$ 0'II #/,,i
1141'', )),0111/ '11,11111111551101ji '/(ii'll14,11,11,1r 11%, 11,111y
,,,./1illly v/v;, )1 II'JI, 51 111110,,f/e
. '1, g °pre'r(/ //fgoi
Vina Subbasin Public Meeting in Durham ,(,11111,,,,,, 0/4„ , 1 „11.
11 ,
By Pau Gossehn 1r111111i'l, ,,e‘\''';1',110'LI)1611111111111114 P '
111111,Alillil r+,Illu ,,,,,,)(/ 11,
11111111 il IIIIr,yr 1 1,111 IO, ill 01111;
1111141?1,eikqu# , „III IIII! ''
1 5 , 11111111111111 up dile'1
, 0050,1, 0,100005,1 1•
ti oh 1 w I
Please join us for a discussion on the Sustainable Groundwater Management k.linp\II,i11.1„1,00,111 14 '' 11, P 11 1,111 P11111Vy ,
„711,#"1,1111,1111 1101.01h h„„L h % p.
Act (SGMA) on August 15th from 6-8 PM at the Durham Memorial Hall, i,,14,1",111,11 ,Il lim 111,0111, 111 ,
, ) a,,e, 1 1 1111 ',Ili,'\),11,11111111111111111111111111111 111i,
1111, 11,1111111111
rrol ,(01 1,11,11111111114 1 11 oli 1111111 11 ,)p i in11011111111100001
Midway. SGMA requires groundwater basins to be managed under a "0.),1„f'11111111 11,111111.11.11
Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) and to achieve sustainability in 20 years.
,.11
11 1 ,1
' ll<11111111111,11111'1111111[111111111111111'llidilliVill'i
,, II 1., illip , p,lopolio
The deadline to submit the GSP is January 30, 2022. The responsibility for L.„111014; lir,/ ph",01,11,11.00000111
!IIP.,114.1 pi'
preparing and implementing GSPs rests with local groundwater sustainability io fill 0 1,°',1,,4 i,111(1 III jlloll
001
P 1 P10100111 0001111 , I 11 1 # 4,
agencies (GSA), comprised by local public agencies with water supply, water
1 Ili Ipl Iv 111' ,„ .14,11
management, or land-use responsibilities. The GSAs have been meeting since h. 1
the fall of 2017 to find the most effective way to develop and implement one 11111 1,11„1„1„11 11,11,11 ,110111 ""1 1 I "I,
1111111111111111 III doi 1[, 1 '1,1 II
GSP for their subbasin while engaging all groundwater users in the process. As LI' im olhh11111111.1 hill 101/,1 „i „„h1„0„„111,1 I
discussed in Christina Buck's article, Important update to proposed Basin
Boundary Modifications affecting subbasins within Butte County, the proposed
"Butte basin" boundary modification would bring the greater Durham area into Inside this issue
the Vina subbasin. This potential change offers an opportunity to include the
Proposed Basun Boundary
Durham groundwater users in the Vina subbasin discussion. The meeting on Mods Update,_____ 2
August 15th will provide a brief overview of SGMA, focus on the governance
Recharge Fact Sheet__ 4
structure proposed for the Vina subbasin, and describe the basin boundary
Bay Delta Water Quality 6
modification proposals. Please join us on August 15th at 6PM at the Durham
California Reservoir
Memorial Hall. For more information please visit the SGMA webpage at http://
Storage„......._..............
www.buttecounty.net/waterresourceconservationi
SustainablieGroundwaterManagementActaspx
Important update to proposed Basin Boundary
Modifications affecting subbasins within BuCounty
By Christina Buck
On June 12, 2018 the Butte County Board of Supervisors (Board)adopted a resolution (No. 18-089) authorizing our
Department to submit a basin boundary modification (BBM)application to the Department of Water Resources (DNA/R).
The Board authorized three proposed modifications:
L. Modified Vina Subbasin-incorporate portions of West Butte and East Butte subbasins into the Vina subbasin.
2. Modified Vina and West Butte Sacramento River Boundary.
3. Modified Wyandotte Creek Subbasin-Incorporate portions of East Butte subbasin into the Wyandotte Creek
subbasin.
For more details on these original proposals,visit our BBM webpage (tiltlps://tinyurl.comilyatqwqf9). The original
deadline for submission of applications to DWR was June 30, 2018 but the deadline has since been extended to
September 28, 2018.
In mid-June just after the Board meeting,the Feather River Districts (Western Canal Water District, Richvale Irrigation
District, Biggs West Gridley Water District,and Butte Water District) proposed a different subbasin boundary
modification that includes an alternate southern boundary for Vina and consolidates portions of the West Butte and
East Butte subbasins (see map). This modification results in the creation of a new"Butte subbasin"that would replace
the West Butte and East Butte subbasins. This proposal is consistent with Butte County's original proposal to expand
the Wyandotte Creek subbasin and other neighboring Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) proposals that affect
these subbasins. The only direct conflict was with Butte County's original Vine modification proposal. Our Department
has coordinated with the Feather River Districts on the logistics of reconciling the two proposals.
Although this newest BBM proposal came out late in the process, given discussions that have been occurring in the
region for the past several months, it has several advantages,This modification reduces the number of subbasins from
four down to three in Butte County. This change provides greater efficiency in implementing the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) and will reduce cost for Butte County and other GSAs, both for long-term
governance of groundwater in these subbasins and for development and implementation of Groundwater
Sustainability Plans (GSP). The major, contiguous groundwater dependent areas would be in one subbasin under this
proposal. This affords greater efficiency in communications and coordination with groundwater dependent
communities and stakeholders and increased efficiencies for potential implementation of future projects and actions
within these areas. This modification also places the City of Chico solely in the Vina subbasin, including their
wastewater treatment plant, which under the original Vine proposal remained in the West Butte subbasin. In addition,
VVesternCana|VVaterDistrictuwou|dbeso|eh/inthenewl/creeted "8ut1esmbbasin," imsteadufbeingspKikby8utte
Creek and located in the West Butte and East Butte subbasins. This change allows these agencies to participate in the
development and implementation of a single GSP in each of their respective subbasins.
Importantly,the proposed governance structure for the Vine subbasin would be affected by this BBM proposal. The
current draft governance structure can accommodate this modification and therefore would only require development
of an additional Management Area in the Durham area and the addition of Durham Irrigation District (DID)to the Vina
GSA board. DID supports joining the Vina JPA and the other Vina GSAs are preliminarily amenable to these potential
changes. For more information on the draft Vina governance structure,visit http://www.buttecounty.net/
vvaterresnurcecmnsem/atimo'Sus1ainah|eGrmu»d««aterW1ana!emeOtAct ButteCount Subbasins vina.
A number of GSAs have formally expressed their support for these proposals by sending Letters of Support. They are
available on the BBM webpage. No opposition has been expressed by any GSAs. A few stakeholders have expressed
concern regarding these potential changes.
attft County 1 Submittal GSA Areas
The following entities have sent ,
"Butte subbasin proposal":
Cloy GSA km
Western Canal Water District, , p!WWII n16)4°4410 Oman GSA ken 11
Ro.0 II
2106, RD 1004, IV18LT Ranch, City
NO yipm• Y nlyuo00 w.0,0 444444144 414444
of Live Oak, and South Feather 4444ithoi 04404 Oil.Al1;01 44
Water and Power. Chico 1:y,3 U'1010,41 41$44 N.„44N4441 444 "4,444 1
Letters of Support regarding the ,„
I 0 0 000,0 0000,0 01,P N11441 44 I 444
District,Yuba County Water 1
Agency, City of Live Oak, RD
submitting a BBM request to
1 k, ),o/>/y/*PA<7/1, 1/,;f6f/e,bo) , //) ,,, li ,,,,q,#0400,4-
Feather River Districts and other 'Ie rt'"/'filulY1/7//'JY°'Y'yt(//l'ifrefO1;IPijplfg.OlctPP.1?gtityoi,f„Yt„"„I'IOYYgpi }AI,A0Ill In '' Otc41"
GSAs to modify the Vina,West ;, ' '/,0/P1///,11,1/0460r1,110#Ih,id,Y r,i1I)Ifftt OAYYMilflOnY ntO4Itt,00
Creek subbasins. The ,,,,, "P, /, ,f,(<</0000114fittiliqOuvritqo',,„ 1, ,
-- -----A i",,, ' -//olttolop,000,+:1/ d,f,(so,4, tr,,„ ",
Sacramento River Boundary ir , p),,,,, Oollittil0?#/?01/911'10(' ' 0 ' '
modifications remain unchanged 7-i';717-1;"------ '1410110,19/1 I'il(i))0?illy' / / (
June. The"Butte subbasin" r, ';, f,,iJ,,0, j,(0,,,c"Jo it/i , ' , 'I
modifications were approved by r 0,40.c.un„,), toil,,,,i ,i, , , e „ IL ,„„,tt,,, /-
ILAPA 000,1,4
updates regarding the status of
the"Butte subbasin" proposal,
We are interested in receiving 4''''/44.'"'4(1 44'71k#4d 44N N44N4 444 44 404444 P0)00414 pin 00 I°00 1
and landowners concerning .
"Butte Subbasin"Proposal,including modified Vina and West Butte boundaries
these BBM proposals. Formal along the Sacraniento River
comments can be sent via
email to Christina Buck at bcwater@buttecounty.net or mailed to our office. After the application is submitted to
DWR, a 30-day comment period through DWR~sBB&4 portal will begin.
Please contact Christina with any questions, S38352.3593.
io„,i%/r%%%//%/;11/%f'rP>>;i
/✓ d rl /�✓ �r/// rr /ii/r/ r ,r, i., / ' „ , ,,,, ,,,,, ,;,, rig /yir/r//(r„//l/rri /�i i�
,,, „ , ,,,, ,,, ,,,,, r r r r i� i// ///r�n f i����� �� 1 r
,,,,�%� r,�>%�f/,f��ff��/�il��,���t��n
Fact Sheet on Recharging
Butte County's Groundwater Basins Now Available Online
By Kelly Peterson
Our department has recently published a new Groundwater Recharge Fact Sheet for Butte County including an
overview of recharge and of the recently completed Evaluation of Restoration and Recharge within the Butte County
Groundwater Basins report, completed in February 2018,The Fact Sheet describes that the emphasis of the 2018
report was to:
a Identify the most advantageous groundwater recharge areas in Butte County
« Evaluate surface water supplies available for managed recharge
• Provide design and implementation options for future recharge projects that may become part of the
Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs)for subbasins subject to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
(SGMA)
While the concept of recharge or"deep percolation", (defined as the downward flow of water reaching the water
table to replenish groundwater aquifers) has been discussed in local groundwater management discussions for many
years,the Groundwater Recharge Fact Sheet dives into answering questions such as:
« Why is recharge important in Butte County?
« What are we doing to understand recharge in Butte County?
• What are some examples of different types of natural and managed recharge?
• What are some of benefits and considerations of managed recharge approaches?
« Where are the best areas in Butte County for recharging our groundwater system?
« Where could this potential recharge water come from?
Recharge and the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
The management and enhancement of recharge to our groundwater basins may be a very important tool in achieving
sustainable groundwater levels in the four subbasins subject to SGMA in Butte County. For success under SGMA, a
complete assessment of each subbasin is needed in the GSPs for Butte County's subbasins to determine optimal places
for groundwater recharge and to evaluate the availability of surface water supplies that could be used to provide
recharge.The 2018 Recharge report provides useful information to guide further evaluation to maintain or achieve
sustainable groundwater management in Butte County during GSP development for the subbasins subject to SGMA in
Butte County. Proactive efforts to identify solutions to potential sustainability challenges offer the opportunity to
minimize the risk of actions that could adversely impact the local and regional economy.
In-Lieu Recharge and Dual Use Systems
One managed recharge approach referred to as "in-lieu recharge", involves irrigating with surface water supplies
instead of, or in-lieu of groundwater.While there are many considerations for the feasibility of using this approach in
specific areas throughout the county, if used it could reduce local demands and dependence on groundwater. In-lieu
recharge keeps the groundwater in the aquifer by relying more on surface water for irrigation, resulting in more stable
groundwater conditions. Stable groundwater conditions would not only be beneficial in meeting the goals of SGMA
and avoiding the undesirable results identified in SGMA, but could also decrease water supply risks for irrigators.
Having more groundwater in the ground equates to increased groundwater supplies for future conditions during times
when water supply could potentially be uncertain.This 'banked'groundwater could be used during periods when
surface water isn't as readily available i.e. during drought conditions and/or periods of surface water curtailments.
Dual-use irrigations systems are a tool for implementing in-lieu recharge.They are designed with the ability to use
both groundwater and surface water using the existing infrastructure as well as pressurized pumps and filtration in
most cases unless gravity-fed flooding or furrowing techniques are used.These systems require field specific
assessments to determine the feasibility and proper design for each operation; however dual-use systems may be cost
-effective overall when taking the costs of pumping groundwater only into account.The 2018. Recharge report and
r;
future Fact Sheets will provide ,
more detail.The new
Recharging Butte County's Groundwater Basins
Groundwater Recharge Fact 'dd'ddp/dai dd//d/
Sheet is the first of three rune 2( 18
publications planned for release Butte CountyWhat is Recharge?
in 2018 by our Department,The "Recharge" or "'deep percolation , is defined as the downward flow of water
CC'1""'"''''''A"C"'''4 reaching the water table to replenislt groundwater aquifers,
next Highlight Issue#1 will focus
Departntent of Water
more on the costs, benefits and &Resource
considerations of groundwater
and surface water in dual-source 3 no Neisou ANNIT.Pe 01: , 11,1',14;
91 N IVO',GA teStlfth litOn 7101llliteidikt3/3';'3v3 "la," ,34)),/ttin,',
11111 /°'IJJJJJ , 44,;,04(/
systems for Butte County ;ply d#4-,drirs; do.„,/ dd%Y,dod d
Phone,trate)n'tn 4343 [ aoatlItt[•
3',v343if`ar'PIL '0,,,,tl.„13'3'3 3 tattf,'" 3/3.3303343" ''//33:373r3P'/,',:33"3/V;33' '"33'3'"'I[11111110P341lit't
f (tt 30)ttle t IVO t ' , [,,,a3,1at33330le3,3,331;,,allt,
irrigators. Highlight Issue#2 will „,'ddlicdgiiiigigio0;14hog
cmdil
provide more of a detailed review hoddtddoddi.o,costly[lel Aso " ,nIta333,3p,[3, 0,,,,[tIttett 3,[410tIlillellitettIllIlliit451103
rdr rrddr mdr rdrom "40 flO 411(le 114,
of the economics and other d,
important considerations forioss„d
iOihiat
Our Mission
Butte County irrigators.
"1 iii 10100'ntid
The di 'v tun above shows the vartety of S011rei'lo for[Inflows and outflows of water to and front the
ron sfrit,r,it[otet mut other Ifi ouluthvater system Photo Credit,ealtiornta Department or Water Resources,201
Recharge Water Sources roanory, rhe eithrens
Wily is Recharge Important in Butte County?
The 2018 Recharge report ..ffluac L'orlyrhi,”"
As inflow to the groundwater system,recharge is needed to balance outflows such
identified that potential sources as groundwater pumping or groundwater flow to streams. A variety of water
of water for direct and in-lieu Repartritent Staff sources replenish existing groundwater supplies through natural recharge plat.
cesses. Groundwater is a major source of water for residents,agriculture and the
recharge projects in Butte County • taut Gosselin, environment throughout Butte County.Managing and enhancing recharge to our
groundwater basins allay he a very important tool in at sustainable
fall into the following categories: 1)we1 tor
groundwater levels in the four sul)basiits subject to the Sustainable Grouritlwat or
Management Act(SGIVIA)in Butte County.
•
Buck,
• Contracted water—primarily
Assistant'.pirl'cler What are We Doing to Understand Recharge in Butte County?
State Water Project Table A A number of studies have been conducted in recent years focused on recharge in
i<elly Peterson,
water contracted to Butte waipr Resollren Butte County including the Lower Titstm Aquifer Monitoring,Rerikvive and Data
SdenHst Mtanagettleatt Project (2013), the Butte County Suable Isotope Rechtu-ge Study
County and stored in Oroville (2017)and the Evaluation of Restoration and Recharge Within the Butte County
• A tittim'Thomas
Reservoir Groundwater RasiIts report,completed in February 2018 which iii)ciised on Mogi-
Andysl,Assockute lying and tleteraitining the feasibility of recharge projects in groundwater sub-
. Natural flow in local basins subject to St1MA.
waterways "file emphasis of the 2018 report was tot
• Surface water diversions Identify the most advantageous groundwater recharge areas in Butte County
Evaluate surface water supplies available for niamiageil recharge
distributed through irrigation
Provide design and implementation options for future recharge projects that
facilities Kdddddcddd46`44/,d2),,"d' . • Groundwater • 11-
klittlw4%,;;dedo/did, , now oet cane part of SGMA Sustaina Plaits
• AINEWNSINOM
Sacramento River water(use
of this source would likely require an exchange of Table A water for water extracted from the river)
Key Findings
The 2018 Recharge report found that given the high cost and long horizon for implementation of any projects
described in the full report,the best short-and medium-term options make use of water now available within the
County.These projects tend to be programs to encourage agricultural water users to install dual-source irrigation
systems that use both groundwater and surface water, policies to incentivize urban developers and property owners to
install semi-permeable pavements and efforts to identify and advance local in-lieu recharge projects that would
provide areas, now partially reliant on groundwater, access to surface water supplies from willing local partners.
To review the new Groundwater Recharge Fact Sheet please visit: http://www.buttecoLlt1tv.t1et
waterresourcecanservation/WaterEducation
To review the 2018 recharge Report please visit: httos://www.buttecounty.netiwaterresourceconservation
5keciallProiects/GroundwaterRechargeOpportunities
Bay-DeltaWater Quality 0,,,i,,t,li)',,,,Ivi,,44k ,,io'i, 11 ,,,,,Iyo,,,11,,,1,1,411,,,,,\oN ko
liof\oo"oll,l'oo'o oo oyo!'000f iod o',144‘'llo oilool000l000gO400loilikio ~�~ ~r PlanUpdate
By Pau Gossekn
rotect
human^�sh,onduxi|dl�eisinthepnmoessofupdaNngkheBay-Qe|taVVat\11)0e��uaUty
Plan which may change water rights and impose water quality requirements. The
SWRCB is pursuing the update in two phases. Phase I will set water quality standards,
objectives and enforceable flow standards for the major tributaries of the San Joaquin
0'1'"'g',0'l Ili i Si )ii 01 ot'011,01''''1,ro iil!II
River including the Stanislaus,Tuolumne, and Merced Rivers. Phase II will set
ilN''','0,'I'00r101' di 010'0'04',.0 ,10l)i'l 0j0i0ii0iliii01,
enforceable flow standards forthe Sacramento River and its tributaries. On July 6,
' jo
2018,the SWRCB released their final plan for Phase I. The proposal would set
0,0010A If i0,&00/0,,,,,,i0000 010,i0,0",10,i',i,(010lii,44,,t'„"
,i ii,.)(i`,01iAli,,i(,,iit,i'ii00k,i'li"",,,0'0,;0(i,iiiiii,t) required flows to the Delta within a range of 30-50%of unimpaired flow from
0,'„i0Iiii ,,,,,,Ii'00;',,,)i,l,0 ,!, 0,),itilipig(t,
February to June, nearly double the unimpaired flow from historic levels.
"Unimpaired flow" represents the water production of a river basin, unaltered by
ill0''y'f'"' ,'0i" ' li i0i0Iii' ')'1 '�i� atreanmdiweminns, storage orbyexpmd/inmpo�ofvvater. The proposed increase in
f,
����/�����° ' flows tothe Delta wviK|conze fronmreduced su�acevvater de|ivehes.This proposal voi||
��������r~o
��^° create significant water supply cbaUeogesimareas that nmayalready beincri�cal
overdraft;significantly affecting the development of groundwater sustainability plans.
On July 6th,the SWRCB also released a framework for the Sacramento/Delta Update
����� �������-� to tothe Bay-Delta VVaterUuaDtyPlan (Phase |]1. This pordonofthe Bay'DekeVVater
��&y~~ want '
Quality Plan covers major rivers and tributaries from the Sacramento Valley and will
�����N~�� ~,� affect su�acewater rights and reoemoiropera�ons. The framevvorkcalls for
�� � �
oow�� �� maintaining inflows from the Sacramento/Delta tributaries at 55%of unimpaired
flows,within an allowable adaptive range between 45 and 65%of unimpaired flows.
easy... According to the framework,the SWRCB would consider maintaining inflows at 45%
provided other actions are taken that would achieve the habitat restoration benefits
of 55%unimpaired flows. The increased unimpaired flows would result in reduced
Iiii/if(i'l(lilld'rild,l'''if',,,."'';',11,/¢'''t'll((I il'iAr',"1('',)#.11,111'1'''';1''''''')„,,i1,„,','1,,,n'',,,/r 1'''',,rri'.' /r.''II,,,i'/r,,/jr''r r,r , / , ,in1111,,,111,,1111,11,,11'111,1'11.1111111111,1111,1?ii,1111,1:1,,i'lil:u1111111111111,111111,1111:11:1111111111111,11111 ,/, , ,, r,,',,,,,,, , qr,111 '',frrt',)„,/,,'1,,,,,,,,,p.,,/,,irryr,,•rl,,,,) 'r,(„‘,,,,,, ,///111,111,,p,r///i,,,,,r,,11,,,,.(,,,,,,IIIIIroujj1.,,,,,,',,,,,r,/,''',1,,,,ri,,,,,I,{111111111,1,:,,,O,u;:(0111,10(1111111,1,111;111
, 11"111""111111"11.11.1"...11:11.11.11.111:11111111$1,'.1,111111 11;l'ithl/Fr'mr'Dip,1 ,,.,1',t4i111,''''',', , , 'u,1.,„ ' 11111111111111,11i)ii4lt?'1111 In 1,, '',t,,i1C,I, ,,e0 li,Ilii'liNIPti81)1 1111,,1111 1, 1 1
qill 11,,111,1,,,I OH 1.. qi 11111111'1„11111,1,11 11 0,1:1'1"1111,1 1 11 1111'1'111:1111 ILNI,,i,„Ir,,10,111.0.111.11,111111,1 'III, ,',11.1111„1,1,,.,,,1,1„„„1111111111,11111g1.1,1,1,11:11.,u„..1%,,,111 0, ,1„1110:,,;III 1111 1:11'1111?:::'11:11'111'11L111:1:111111:11'1'11:11:11-1,1,11111V111—":11111111111111111111111111111111111'1111111'1'1111411111111111111111171111111111111111111111111111111,11,11,11,11,11,11,1,1,1,11,1,'11',11,111,i11,'Ill',11,1'1,1,'1,'1,1,1,1,‘11,111,1,111,11,1'11,111,1111111'1111'11111111111111111111111111111111111'1111111111111111111111111111111111111111k1 '1;11111'1'k 1)'°'''''‘''1'1''''''ll''''''''?I'lli'l''I''''I''ll'')6'''I'''''''11‘;''''Ill'''''.!'''''ll'''If''''''''':''''')'''''''''''''';'''''''''I'll
00,00,000„11,11,11,101,000 iv 1,,„0000011 001 110
11::1,1, 11 1 11:7 1,1111111111111,111111111111,1„11111:11111111 „1,i,111,11,;„„.,1
1 1111,11111111011,1111 III.
1 „,111 110,1,1,111111.,,110.1010p01000000000000000000100,11111111111111111111111.11111.1
111111101,111:11„0:1111,1',',1,1:101,011:1"110.11,11000,10"1111101„1111,1,11111110,111111101i0,1,10141,,,11,11,),1,,,,111,,,0101,1'00,h,,J0000,I„,''i,t'0,''.,',,N0,1,000;$;0'00#1,11oo „00 1111111111:1111111 0010 .::111... 1001"""1. 1 1..0000""'I'l'I'l'Io,vll'I'1,'I'l'u;;;;01010111110101010101010111111111111111111111\0101010;1110110110101011111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIII0,0000,0iIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIo000""I
,,,1„,,,I, ,'11,0',11111110111,111111'0'000111111111,11'111'111111010::11'111,,1111'''11111,11111[',11,110,101'''0,'"10001111,111,11,11,111111111111,11111'1111,0 1111 1'''''1':::1"111h1':11:,11{i,',!.,00,h\i,'0411''','1,101),111,1m10'101,10i,1001"1:0111,,11,00''''',,'0',0"A0,,,,,''')°,,,',0,1„00;0001'1,1‘:',,,,,0,,:),'00,!0'(,'ill'1,'1,"00,bi,,ci,,''0',,,11'11,1)!,1
'000000111111111111111110011111111?,,'1,0100,1.0000100,010000„0„„„,.1.1,pi?
000000,0100010100,1,11000010100
,11111,1111.1110010010,011111111000,11 1
10101001""1111 00010,0
11,111,1116,1111
surface water supplies by 1.1 million acre-feet at 45%unimpaired flows and 2.0
million acre-feet at 55%unimpaired flows. The unimpaired flow approach would have
two significant effectin the Sacramento Valley. First, long standing surface water
deliveries would be permanently cutback. Growers would have to replace their
surface water supplies with groundwater, Secondly,the operation of the state water ~���°�
� �
system will beeffected bythe unimopairedflovvrequirements. Reservoir levels in Lake
°~
Oroville and all of the other major reservoirs (Trinity,Shasta and Folsom)would be
graat|yreduced. Reservoir|eve|svvou|dbeat"deadpoo|° |eve|s (effemtive|yenmpty) by Botili,lielliTER
the end of summer in half the years, substantially impacting the local economy.
Addh�ona||y,the|nomf storage could result inaddi�ona|cuts tosu�acevvat*rrights. �-�� ''4' 1)')''
° ��� ��"������"��
Relying onanoutdated and simp|isbc"uninmpaired�ow approach would harm Butte
County and the region and not likely improve the health of the Delta.
��� �����
��� �
There isabe�erway toachieve ahealthy Delta*vithoutdecima�ngthe Saoamemto ��~~
Valley. �Vateragencies inthe Sacramento Valley have offered toreplace the simp|isdm «�,��� �.���
� � ��
"unimpaired flows" approach m/ithanintegrated, sden��capproach. The integrated
^� �� �� "
approach utilizes a "functional flows" approach where water is used for a specific
environmental purpose that is compatible with important flood protection and other
water uses in the region. In February 2017, a coalition of Sacramento Valley counties)
including Butte County,sent a letter to Governor Brown calling for the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB)to adopt an integrated approach in their Bay-Delta
Water Quality Plan update. In part,the counties recommended abandoning the
"unimpaired flovv" approach and adopt an integrated,science based methodology to
Message �nd ^���a
achieve ahea�byDelta ecosystem. Unfoduuate|Kthe SVVRCBappears noignore real ~
�
nppo�uni�estoimprove the Delta ecosystem tothe detriment ofthose upstreonm. ����� ���� ����"y,,
'�����,
' .
. ..
4 ii ri.
Meeti.ng Schedules
Water Commission
, !,0, 1],1',. i';'..;,.1.',i11,,,,,,11'11.,.,,,
„.„,...1,,,,m,,,,, ,,,,,i11 J., 4,„,„„11,,,,,,,111,,,,,,,,,00 ,
',."„, f,'1„.4, ,,
,,,,,1.1,1,,u, R.,'.';',", .-,, .'.111. :.:.,le 1.i.i..........'„,,'11.,,,lulii,',....;,....:.:..',„.,..,. ,i, i..„.,1,1,11!",...?...\1,
8/1/2018,1:30 p.m.
"" ' ' '
Board of Supervisors Chambers
i'' ,,11..11 ,11',"110
, ,,,,.1.1.1,1111,o.
,'
25 County Center Drive
: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,r,,,,,',,,,,,,,,„1,i.,,,,,,.,..,,,, „,„„,,,,,',„„.,114f.'11,::,If.'"''''',:,'1,,,3:4",',,.:
„.:,,,,,411,,,;11,:',„',,I.1:',1??,il'A',',.,,,,,,::::',1,3„,„,,,,,l',,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,. ,
(,,,,,,,,,,o,,,,,,,,,,,,,„ f,f,,,, 111..01111).;
',i .
Board of Supervisors
g.":1.,;,.;',,,,.,','?„''',,,!:!,,!,,41.,.1,,I,.:,,!,....!1,1.1'..,i1,i1.,1,1,1,,!!..',,,i.T,..,',1111.,',...i,..1...„w1,1".,..,1)11,:,!,"",
'',1,4';',?:,,,::',..,,,''.'"'..."...",11::,';',4,1illil.,!1.1.!"1,1111).!",..i',1„,',;,;,,J,',',';',,:,',,,,,J,',..",;.:',';','.,1,ii,i'1,1"4:,,,,,,..,,, .,,!?,J ,, ,1,,.1,..44,1,1.,,,,,,,,u,,,,,.t..(,,i1111,4;.1.44ii;1,',14,i',!',,',",,,!;11,1111,—.4,1,J1,1.!Jiiliii,l,li
8/14/2018,900 a..m.
,,,,.1111.1.1.1(,Il i.11;,,.,,11,!,?,,,,,4r,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,E,„:„, 1
:',„'',,,,,,,„,„,„,;:,,,,:::::',:',:o.f.',,111„,,mi,,,„,,,,I,F 1, ,, ,
1,,,„,,,,,,!,,, ,,,.,,,,,,p,I,, , I , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„„
'' 11' „..ollp,) ,,,,,,,
011,,,,,,,,„,'.111,,,,„,,,,,,...„.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„0„„,„„,„,„,„„)„„,„„., . , .
',,,,,i.,:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„,.* „,„4,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
.,,,,,, ,',,:i'',':1, '0.1:,;,!.:',,:!','1.,'„',,;:',„?..,":,,I!„,I,',"..',,'1„,,,,,,,,,':,'.,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,;:',,,,,',.%.1',11',!:,:",'i;(1'1',:l'ill'';',1:,",:':;';',1iff'1:3,'(;.:.,!:111:1';'1;i1'.C,1::(1,,1„::(1,,,ii,,,,I,,,,,i,i',',1„1,i,1,„,rd'it, '„'!,':`,1'.'::'il. ''if ' „,m
Board of Supervisors Chambers .,,,,,,,..„::...: P4I'll'(111'''''':1;1'1'1::1'11.'L''''°',':::!::?(.(1'llill'Ill\ll'ilil'i;l'il:11:li'l:(1,..1111:'11,'1!,,,,,,,,
l'1,1....„'.,:',''11',,11111,1' ,'1 ,,,...:,-''J,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,!,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,g,,,,o,,,
25 County Center Drive
8/28/2018,9:00 a.m.
Board o upe
0„„, r II ilog
GPAC Meeting
8/20/2018,8:30 a.rrl.
311 Nicolas C.Shouten Lane
Chico,Room A009 Ending Al l'\i'licini(-'Iht- July 23,2010
4502
4000
Department of Water&
,
3000 . 1
"00 ' '''..,..'.."','"....'".1
.
,; l./.'..:„,.i....,,,,,,,,!..,,,,....,,,,.,...,,,,.,,
Resource Conservation
, .
I
,
2000
30fi Nelson Avenue 4400
11 1, : ,
1000 , , 1000
I IN
01-oville,CA 95965
1000
, 1
Phone:530,552.3595
Pax:530,538:3807 0
il
, 0
.,
1...akelOro.,,cille Foilsurri La Iiie
Ti iri ity Lake Lakcii Shast81
.-,,,,:::',...,,,,I. f., ,,, '. ,.',,1 '..."1..'„'''.'...',',,,
1:-rriaili Ix will tel•(iiiiiii)l)ki tteci.iii II ty.iii(:t
ii:ii.iiil''')iiii l iidii. i
WciiIiisite:*iivwl,v,brittecol.inty.ticili./
vi, tierariclresotirc(,,
i°i!ii
Water&Resource
Conservation Staff'
...„,,„()14,&,.: .,,,',..1.'?:'''',,..,” ,f.'',1,,./„:.''',4,.),,,g,d.„,,.
'''./„,'!,,,,,,,..,,,, ,,,,,4,1t141'{'..'',',i° ..,:'''' j
2000 ' f 1'',,',:,'g,;:'
0 Paul Gosselin,Director
, 1
2030
.i.,h1 ,„,,,I,,,.,.,ijXi,ril{!,,,,,,,.,,,',,f. ,,,.`1.,,,,, ,,'
. (..:111-istitra Bucln,',
1000 1 1 'ff,,,....,;'i' r'''„'1:'; `„''',),!,q,P,,' ',,6.
1000
',.,',' :,,,f.
AssisUrrit On ,
i ,iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii„ iiiiiiiiiiiiIiiii',. ,.iiii.iiiii .1,,, „,„
lo ,
, ,, , 11(, 11,,,ill ,0,.„,...f,, .:„,,,,,,,,,P111,,,,,,1„,,I Don Pedro Reseriiiiioir 1021
Kelly Peterson,Water
Nevi.,liOelones L.ai,iie ', iiiiiiiiii,iiiii,iiitii.iiiiiiiiiiiiii''{iii ' ii
i„,iii,,iii.„..„ii„, iil i'ii iliMi
Resource Scientist
iiii',7.iiiiiiiiiiiii
,„P,, ,,....",„y,,,,„,'.,,,,p,.'„, Lake tr'ACI:Alire
a ,111,l1 tli I 11.1.1-iolinas,
iiiiliniii,iiiiiliiiiil.liiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Acirninistiiitive Analyst
i . , ki..„,,f,
' ',1,110.:,,i'. .:;'
Water Continission '
, . ,,:.,.;',,,411,.:', ,),4 ,.4,1,1";4„.,
:.ii,'„',,;:?1(,'"1,)i(4'':[;'"'':'1'' l),(''' ',11''” '.1',:.:',„',:';','''
.
Kathy Chance
2039 ,
(.
Mark 1;rovel-
. DC Jones,ViCL Chair
' I
0 'I'orl i<illimelslitie
0 Manny R()etiller
Sari Lu is Rselli CI 1 i , .,I.,,.'„.' ..',',,'11(1;.,„''',,,.,,••,ii,;',,i1;1,',;:',.'i''''.:q/,?',,',.'',.',.1,,,d:
1000
,'.'• .,ININI1
,,,,,,1),,,,,,,,,,,,, .0
l'y a n S rho h r' ,;.,1,'/,/:,,,,,,,.1,.,,,,,,,,d,,f(,,,ii0,f,,,,(r..11!,,I,, a
0 David Skinner,Chan-
,)1',„0,;„,..' ;:fq"I'lw''' Pine FlaIPeseiv3
0 Matthew"1"eilis
o '
0 Ernie'Afzisllingtoir
lii4rilerilen Lake.
Ii rid:ill-1;i,-,
,1
1.:
500 325
int(
B tfe..County '"
Lake Perris
,i'iiiiiI iiiiiiCastaic Lake
',,.7% 1,..),2":"/.'....,
.. ..
. . .
,
WATER&RESOURCE CONSERVATION', % d 2