Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 07262005 - C30
Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS •''`� � ` Costa ! CountyFROM: Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee Otr'4.co I Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, Chair Supervisor Federal Glover ' DATE: July 26, 2005 SUBJECT: Report on San Luis Drainage Feature Re-evaluation Study SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1) ACCEPT update on San Luis Drain Feature Re-evaluation Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 2) AUTHORIZE Water Agency staff to comment on the Draft EIS on behalf of the County. 3) RECOMMEND that the Board of Supervisors reconfirm long standing opposition to building a drain to the Delta. FISCAL IMPACT None CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF OUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X_ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE _AP VE - OTHER SIGNATUR (S): Sup r Mary N. Piepho upervisor Federal Glover ACTION OF BOARD ON o APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT. TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Source: John Kopchik, CDD (925) 335-1227 ATTESTED Orig. Dept. Community Development cc: County Administrator (aftn: Sara Hoffman) JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF Public Works THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ti '- , DEPUTY Board of Supervisors July 26, 2005 Page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS Contra Costa County has actively opposed the building of a drain to transport agricultural wastewater from the San Joaquin Valley to the Delta. Drainage water from this area contains toxic concentrations of selenium and other substances. Such drainage water led to the death and deformation of waterfowl at the Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge which was closed in 1985. The disposal of this toxic wastewater in the Delta raises a number of environmental and water quality concerns. The County has worked with other organizations and agencies through numerous meetings and legal action and by commenting on draft documents to encourage a permanent, responsible solution to the drainage problem in the San Joaquin Valley. County staff worked with other organizations and the Contra Costa Water District to prepare a briefing book in March of 2001. The drainage briefing book, "Drainage Without a Drain," was completed in January 2003. In addition to Contra Costa County, a number of organizations and agencies concerned about the Delta signed on to the briefing book including: The Bay Institute, the Contra Costa Water District and Environmental Defense. The briefing book was first distributed at the San Luis Drainage Feature Re-evaluation scoping meeting on January 29, 2003. In June 2005, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) released the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the drainage project. The EIS evaluates options for providing drainage service to the west-side of the San Joaquin Valley. Three disposal options were evaluated: delta disposal, in-valley disposal (removal of toxic drainage constituents through treatment and/or evaporation ponds) and ocean disposal. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation found that"no alternative is clearly superior"and identified no preferred alternative in the Draft EIS. Though they did not identify a preferred alternative in the document, in subsequent briefings Bureau staff has indicated that they anticipate an in-valley disposal alternative will be selected. The Bureau has scheduled a series of public meetings on the Draft EIS, including one in Concord on Tuesday, July 12 at 6:30. Comments on the Draft EIS are due August 1, 2005. Staff recommends that the Board reaffirm its opposition to the Drain and authorize Water Agency staff to comment on the EIS on behalf of the County. Staff comments would state and explain the position of the Board regarding construction of the Drain, urge selection of alternative that does export a pollution problem from one area to another, and critique the aspects of the environmental analysis that, in the view of staff, downplay the environmental consequences of delta disposal. Staff plan to coordinate our comments with those being prepared by the Contra Costa Water Districts and by the other organizations who assisted with the Briefing Book. Attachment Briefing Book: "Drainage Without a Drain" 2 D G WITHOUT A D N TOWARD A PE ENT, RESPONSIBLE SOLUTION TO THE AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE PROBLEM IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY V�. :q 2' :+ef :y :.........:.. :+^'•'- .. , s:. .: ..• .•...y.. :.. :::.:. .�::.: �.: � :::.�:r.iii}ii:{-i:•:is ,...�...::.. •:... ....f.' is i::.{i.............:.:. �... :;. : a f. F w f This Briefing Book was developed by a coalition of environmental groups and local agencies downstream of the San Joaquin Valley,including: The Bay Institute C Contra Costa County Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa County Water Agency Environmental Defense Printed February 2003 COVER PHOTO: Photos by USDA,Gerald and Buff Corsi©California Academy of Sciences,The Nature Conservancy,CCC Department of Agriculture,and Patricia Matthews. 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Agricultural drainage problems in California's San Joaquin Valley have been a threat to the environment and to agriculture for at least the last forty years. Though some improvements have been made, inaction - not progress-has been the most characteristic result of efforts to deal with the problem. A recent federal appeals court ruling has focused the debate by establishing that there is no legal mandate to build the San Luis Drain and granting the federal government discretion to propose the best means of providing drainage service. This Briefing Book explores opportunities to break the decades-old political logjam and proposes a strategy for making long-needed progress on the agricultural drainage problem in the San Joaquin Valley. ORIGINS OF THE DRAINAGE PROBLEM:The history of the agricultural drainage problem in the San Joaquin Valley is long,complicated,and controversial,but may be roughly summarized as follows: • The groundwater problems in the western San Joaquin Valley were forecast and planned for - the environmental consequences were not. • Death and deformation of animals at the Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge revealed the danger of selenium bioaccumulation and led to the closure of the partially constructed San Luis Drain. • Lawsuits have dominated the implementation of drainage policy since the disaster at Kesterson. Though individual farmers and districts have developed and tested new tools to manage drainage, little progress has been made on addressing the drainage problem in a comprehensive way. BREAKING THE IMPASSE: After more than 30 years of conflict over an ill-conceived proposal to build a drain that discharges to the Delta, the debate should be refocused on the key public policy question: What is the best way to quickly and efficiently address the drainage tiroblem in the San Joaquin Valley? In this Briefing Book, we suggest initial steps and a process by which to resolve this difficult problem. The following principles underlie our proposals: 1) The debate over how to address the drainage problem has gone on too long, threatening the health of both agriculture and the environment. Consequently,our next steps should be guided by the desire to address as much of the problem as possible as quickly as possible. 2) Exporting pollution from one area to another is unjust and unjustified. 3)Knowledge and tools necessary to solve the drainage problem are available now. Projections in the state-federal Rainbow Report show that existing, n_g, environmentally-benign, in-valley tools, namely improved irra_tion, drama e reuse, and land retirement, are adequate to address more than 90%o of the drainage problem waters in the Wesdands area. Imp g roved irr ation also results in increased productivity g ng and long-ter cost savings for farmers. BUILD ON LOCAL PROGRESS: The final report of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program (1990),known as the "Rainbow Report," was produced jointly by California State and US agencies through a broad-based stakeholder process. The Report provides a pragmatic blueprint for addressing the drainage problem. These detailed technical and policy recommendations are based on the premise that"...management to 'call be s in the valley with a broadly shared effort to reduce the amount of drainage water to tilace the remaining water under control. and to contain and isolate toxicants such as selenium." Technological advances could further increase the effectiveness of these tools and address an even larger portion of the drainage problem. While the Rainbow Report can and should be updated periodically,its findings have been validated by ad hoc implementation of key techniques.More comprehensive implementation has not been realized. Innovative farmers and irrigation districts have independently implemented tools recommended in the Rainbow Report and have added their own new techniques. Two noteworthy examples include: • The Grassland Bypass Project: Farmers in this area have developed institutions to coordinate drainage management within a 100,000-acre area and to meet selenium load limits. The farmers have pioneered the use of economic incentives to promote effective and economical technologies to reduce,manage,and treat drainage. 0 Red Rock Ranch: The owner of this farm is developing a met-hod for sequentially reusing drainage on marketable crops to eventually reduce salts to a solid. Additional refinements are needed to avoid harm to birds, but the approach offers inherent protections that are not available with evaporation ponds. Tools described in the Rainbow Report and adapted by local farmers should be applied to other areas and implemented comprehensively. However, individual farmers cannot implement all of the Rainbow Report's Coals alone. For instance, g thoujzh there is now widespread support to retire the most severely impaired lands, this critical element of a drainage solution is generally best accomplished with the participation of government agencies or the cooperation of water districts. Increasingly, retirement of drainage impaired lands is being explored as an important part of the overall solution. The potential benefits of retiring these lands for managing drainage are enormous, provided the land retirement strategy is carried out in a manner that fully protects the environment. OUR RECOMMENDATION: We recommend a coordinated, phased approach to alleviating the drainage problem that is locally managed,flexibly applied,and not limited to one-size-fits-all prescriptions. The overall framework we propose,the drainage Four R's,is summarized below. • REDUCE the volume of drainage problem water. • REUSE/MANAGE drainage within the region where it is produced. • RETIRE lands with significant drainage impairment by purchasing lands and associated water rights i i from willing sellers,while assuring environmentally sound management of retired lands. While these proven economical tools are implemented more widely, techniques should be studied and developed to: RECLAIM solid salts through treatment,bird-safe solar ponds,and on-farm methods. As we apply existing tools to address more than 90% of the drainage problem, technical and policy review should be initiated of methods for reclaiming salts to address the remainder of the drainage problem economically and in an environmentally-responsible manner._ The drainage problem can be solved effectively and affordably starting right now without building environmentally damaging disposal facilities. While proven techniques are implemented comprehensively, new technologies,, management measures, and financial incentives can be developed to address the small portion of the drainage problem that cannot be solved immediately. 111 DRAINAGE WITHOUT A DRAIN TOWARD A PERMANENT, RESPONSIBLE SOLUTION TO THE AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE PROBLEM IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY SectionI The Agricultural Drainage Problem.........................................................................1 What is the Drainage Problem?.....................................................................................................1 ForFarmers............................................................................................................1 Forthe Environment............................................................................................1 For the State and Federal Governments............................................................2 Origins of the Drainage Problem............... Disaster at Kesterson Reservoir..........................................................................3 20 Years of Lawsuits and Studies........................................................................3 Breakingthe Impasse......................................................................................................................5 Section II Agricultural Drainage Can Be Managed Responsibly.............................................6 TheRainbow Report.......................................................................................................................6 KeyFindings..........................................................................................................6 Implementation......................................................................................................7 Case Studies: Grassland Bypass Project......................... Red Rock Ranch................................................................................................. ....8 Section III The Environmentally Preferred Solution .............................................................. 10 Our Recommendation:The Four R's.........................................................................................10 Reduction..............................................................................................................10 Reuse......................................................................................................................10 Retirement............................................................................................................11 Reclaim..................................................................................................................11 Cost........................................................................................................................12 PlansInto Action...........................................................................................................................12 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................15 "his!bre ng book was developed by a o itlon.Of en�ronrne t l groups an 'local ag ncles do c�crnstrean cif the S oaqt Valley,including: . .. ....- The'Bay Institute Contra Costa'mater District'' Cotura Costa County nvironental Defense otra Costa County matergency 1 ................... --r.:.:.n:•::.�:r.:•,t,y:<-n�::•:i:.}:{.�r:.�x>r�:�xn,:•,fiez�.��'Una.- k,>kak. ...................... ..............:.: ,, ::.. ..-. :. - ._ rx,-::.;a..n,;.:•i.:;:::••.:xr::^.!..F.n;.ix 1..+� vtj�y,.+• ...................:......, -.:...,... ..............,..,,.,... ..::.. ti+•' ......... ..-.....,.... .....-.,:'..................................... . .................... .............. .. .......... ..,......., .. :.............. :.. ............: ......-...: ... :'.. ... - .. .. .. ....... ........ .... .......................... ::.........--.............:... {�3{`• vr+::•trf::vh r. .Y`. l•vh r :. I 1. .,:... .. .... .: ..... ..-. .. .. .:. .:...... ... .... ...:... ... ............. .. .. .. .. I., I I -�_,.... .....1VF.V.._, I.......I- : .. .. ,.. : } :Y t• r?: :it is .........::::::._.....-,};-{$:'i{:i{>5'::i.:.Ski}:Jnv:•::..n:v::nvr::r:.r$$::'r'xn:ri-:.ir.:Y'$ivr. ;_::1. ,"<' ...':' 11: .... 'r.,•,::::.:.,.....v:::.:n.:::x::�;i;;{n.;:tx;-n.�i:;};:,.Sv,.•rk,= }v-.... ••y f; xLl} } .I...---......... .. ........................ ................................................... ........ ___ '.-".'111.1111-.'1-: :*"I...::.1.:�{Yh f?.::,4•.:,h;<.:.'v:"':v;a..`+•:•."':,x;•hv n::;?°,u;.x:r.:;X;rt;'4;rG,• ":?:v:;"v{:,r iv'¢4::::::.?. :;rs:-}'r Y•...•};.:h:k`,:. ;F:.Y}Y:.:...<-P,.¢: :ffn. rf}.: .},xY3 ::�..,r,.:: ,,.,;'?•,.k"i.,0}''{:,: ....... H. .:',{x.`:$ ::: i!i1 $�;::::S +:r 5••:}.,✓.•:: { r:. -•,'.;%:.. ';:},i„.,.•r.:.?^' .:Y,.n•:r:.•:::'t�.,i.;/.d:.;.,,.:r,..,v.: .n:.::,:.{}:..,....?;ty„r:;;.;:,r;;..:,;r}•.::::}>.•' :r11M ,..:^:,:,.}:r••:::.•...'.,{:r.tJ:•r..z:;:t}}h.;'.:.:::{{::.::•^•,,;r::}}•::......k{:.:;:•}:::ii3::>, r{r ....K: n.:W ris ..e e to the level f crop � r� e o the c ...................................... ..... �:.. ..:X.,,...-111-.:. T s ., p ����A ��RtBI.EM. root zone, water-logging the � st � roars over-exposing lams to dr ' +� Tait ah arra ..:.:n n.✓.4..v,..,n,nh.,:.•.v:•n,.:.v,.,.n.,,ii;i.`•>:::}:i•iit'v:k•''.••:{{{{: ...: ., .::.: ,.. :?.}?:.:<s.:..:.;'.<.::::v•}}r:{'.r::rr.:::.r.::::..::..,..r::::::nk•.,i:.::•r:::.:n..:::•:.::,.n...xr: .....�...,. ::.•n.:::::::::::rn.., :::.nt•::.t.:::::.:.:.: :::.n.:::, 1. ?'`` . ':.; salts an cn* lin ro uctiv- h t ,cc f t .:.� .: I. . :::. Pp g p :::.....-..: :::,..:....... ::::::::..:.......:.: P % .. :..... :..:.r::., . ::::::.:.::':.:”: -:-... .:.. _ .:.- - :}:.}:..a.}:•}:}}:.ta.}::•.;t:.}:attt.}, }:.:i:.{:.$:i.::}{:.;$:.}ta.}n.;:.k•}.}::{}.::}.::+ r,.i:.t?:. {::r{{:::{N:{:.Y r: n...:.r,. ,;:.f.;,!:r.;,,..r=.;;h,:-:,;.v. ...}.ix�:'..,?.,,�•.•:.v^--,r:rl:.d.:-•.yf:{ rv.;^:r;:;. ,..}.1...;.,::,:.;..,., ..... .. ....... .......... .Y,.::: :..u. .:.:.... :.{, ..... .. ..... ... ........ ..................... :"I.M...... r.::}r:}}}•:.:,.x:.,.;i......v n::+:•.v{:,;,;•::.•:+v•}:;.':}:•:.vr•Y.:P;x.;.•.:?.•y:`::_::}:?i}../.:v.}}•e y:vi.::$:'i:;}.}.r.....f•:;+±: ............. ............................. .n.n........v...n...Y.k.:-.,x.w.v.,vn..v:#x.....Nh•:.k,.n.,:.tt.,..x.:...n„cvn,,.:...,rk r.,..Y.xx:.iv.n.v...«t.vv..:.=v:a.....i•..r:..r.,>,.::r: 1F .::`i>::»:<.:�}.1::;:_::::::5��++,,:;:,,��::::�•..::::{`}{{}.ii::c>:is�>:�::;�:;e::o-::;:•:>i{:::::�:::�{:::�:k'r,'Gi;::: 'tkk:?r {'>::vt:�:•.��''•'�'.-•`'�{.�k:✓. ,v':l{:: ::A'. :r.Y{{::'vk:}:;•{y: xk{:i: .....::G':{:i.x. ..x....:,v i�{'is:v v:::}rii .,r .. .n ....rr,r.::,,hs r.,4 iT•i}r"{.{:.r: ,i}f'i'. v..:_ ow Many farms on the ow Soils in the Westside con- aV Semi-permeable layers of Westside have underground tain high concentrations of clay underlie several hundred tile drains and pump systems selenium, a naturally occurring thousand acres of intensively to remove the problem element toxic to humans and irrigated land on the and west groundwater from their prop- wildlife at trace concentra- side of the San Joaquin Valley. erty before it reaches damag- tions. When these soils are ing levels; others don't have irrigated, selenium and other ov Irrigation water not ab- tile drains now,but want them elements are concentrated in sorbed by plants seeps down installed. The largely unan- the drainage water. Selenium through the soil until it swered question is: Where concentrations as high as 7400 reaches the clay layers. After should the water go, once it is parts per billion (ppb) have years of intensive irrigation, pumped from the ground? been measured in subsurface this shallow ground water can drainage from the Westside. FIGURE 1:SELENIUM BIOMAGNIFICATION FORECAST FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY-DELTA Dry year/low�seams S I E R R A::'... � `� A D A :....- . :, . . RANGES. "'! . , i .: :... t 'S ;A N J 0 ;� U � V A L L � • :: 800 * it if i ; :. r• �? �� QIP!" f� S Gumlines f ... :.:. i :.:::.::::... ::: _....h.. n. :;_ �x ... :.:::r•:. :..... ":.:.:. :. ,.::-: ..,,,.. _. :^.,.:::i::::::.::...... M :w-:-:.:.. :r.....-..,, .. ...... .. ..... :::. 1. ....... .. - .... .... k .,..:. '...:':�::.iiia• ::.:.... 1. ...;y :.: F .y�, ...: .... . .. x. .1 I ....r.. - .. ::+�:..�:: 111� .::.�:.is;:;::v,.:..... .... - .. ' Ate' ........ .. ..:..::3 M: :. ... :. .:.:.}.::'::::,i'::::jj :..:....:. :. :::'#:. :.;'�. ::...:..::::.: ...................... ... . .:..,-.:::. y......:....... '::..'} ...:SiWi68.4i ::.•.•:.{tiEi.Frw•.www,+w,..rMi+irwknvnrw.r++a { --3;! .,moi: ' �j,-w:,,-.::::;-Si;. ...-......'. ........:.: h.': .. :::: ".: ::: * .... ::. #, .} .:....:. .:.::. ... .... .. :,.:n:.:':::::;:is ::ii:i::::?:i:,:�:: .. . ..- .. ... ......... 11�. ::::i::'::'rj:}::: k :::: ::: ::: ..,.L,.::'{.v;-::;•Y-:::}..:-:::.:mo i;'.•;•:,.,-_.t::-:;:'.:: .... .. .: -'::•:iii.::.:-:i'•::v}X:}:iiii:v::iii:.. 11... .. .... .... .... t .8 ... ...:. ..::..:.::v:;:... ..... ggpp v:;?::iiY.:.:::J::..:: rw, ..:. ...... .... .::. 7 .40.........r:.... :.. ;: ` :• 1. "IF ...................x..................:..:::- ....: :.. , :... .......................................... :: :. }{:}: }:::+'` 'f�� ?F. 2$ v:.i:i:�:iii. :: ::. -`. :2;.::.:....�....:::.::..:::.:�.................r. .: ... :t;;:t::r`::•i}::.,::}};::::::is is":is em��,.�,..-...-...-.---...,���.,�.,�. .:.'::.: } <<.�....:.::::.:...... :.:.:.::.:'.i> ::::::.::r.:........:._.. 1. ::.:,.:.... .:. . 1. L. a,:.....: ..................... _.........:::.........._._.......__..-............. _ . .:is;v..4:L'.:•.:t?:..:':.:::.{.;i.-;}}:J;.::;::.•i::.-:::,:...iii::'}`..i::;..J:;:^;J:i::..::.:.:.:.:.:... .. ............. ...........................:......................... :................................ .. .,. ::'. .... ::: ......,k!!<xt:a!5,!.....:':.:::::::.i>i.:i>:::..�t::;i::::i:::.i:.:...>::ii::..?::t.:i.::':::'}',::?.:::::.:i'.?i.'.:>:..i::..:..:.,..::.....::. :=i:::::::':::::?::>{:;::�:: 2 The federal standard for sele- et- The California Depart- ORIGINS OF THE nium in surface waters is 5 ment of Health Services has DRAINAGE PRoBLLE ppb. The criterion for pro- maintained a health advisory 111 tecting aquatic wildlife is 2 on the consumption of diving ppb. ducks from parts of the Bay The history of the drainage since 1986 due to dangerous problem is long, complicated, Selenium bioaccumulates selenium exposure. Both oil and controversial (see Figure in the food chain. As animals refineries and agriculture con- 2,page 3)_ consume plants or other ani- tribute to selenium problems nd mals, they ingest and retain in the Bay. ' ' t... ..d+ s - what they eat. A recent study o,b►le ........... s by the U.S. Geological Survey ww Agricultural drainage islann:.......... &NIO eftv. modeled selenium biomagnifi- high in salts and substantially .................. .. es �„ ................ � cation in the San Francisco aggravates the salinity problemweft V. g� Estuary, predicting impacts to in the San Joaquin River and top predators even when sele- Delta. Overall water quality in nium concentrations in the the Delta is a major concern as The existence of the Corcoran water were far below the 5 it is a source of drinking water clay layers and the threats parts per billion standard (see for about 2/3 of California posed to crops by elevated Figure 1,page 1). residents. groundwater levels were well known by the late 1950s. The av Selenium is causing prob- ov Boron, molybdenum, pes- San Luis Act of 1960 reflected lems today even though most ticides, and fertilizer residue in this understanding. The Act of the Westside is not draining drainage water are also poten- provided for construction of to the river or the Delta. Sele- tial threats to water quality. an interceptor drain,that came nium levels in the San Joaquin } to be called the San Luis Nll D asp art of a package e ofRiver system regularly exceed quality objectives, forc- � , rc irrigation canals and reser- watering farmers to aggressively i h �tr best to ter s voirs. Subsequent planning curtail existing discharges. for the Drain identified pChips Island,n d near the con- Selenium has also been a ..:..:.....:.. :;Sy.;:.s:;;4:;}•:?:.:y v.vn•::::;•:fv.4;:•::::.�:.?+�:•:v.{<4:'?•i•v}:<4;:•{:S:x:{'r•}h'•;??.}:?i:4}:{i3:. Y?i::,::i$::5;:4��:::w:}:.r✓{f,'..{r.<;:,.};.;};.;};.;n.::{.:.4..<v:?n{•::..::.:..•..:�::::.nK:.J.:v.•::::n:.:.:.:.4:n..•.:..•..:..:X:::...:t>.:3}:irri4:'.y i•:;.}:•: problem in larger water bodies { fluence of the Sacramento and with higher dilution rates. San Joaquin Rivers, and just offshore of the cities of An- tioch and Pittsburg, as the in- tended discharge location. ....... .... . .. ... Contra Costa Water District '. '. .. has a drinking water intake at " y the same location and has ... ....... yi:E•. o < f been extremely concerned ........... ::..:....h..,.�.: 1' { x about the pub c health - . >: }, pacts of this proposed dis 4•R 4' M. $ ••:•.. Y?{.4.{:•.:'::{:::-{:.:1fi7 charge. ............... Y. ........ ••ti"x•w: •...may{{fi£fi .... ::::.::::?tt:_....;:::::Si:::} .3::,;;t-:' -•{: ........... y4 government l era d ef The Th ::•� :.:.:;.: .:.:::::..::.: g began f ` construction of a middle sec- tion of the San Luis Drain in y fi ee W s ands area in 1968. Construction halted after 81 { miles of the drain had been Panoche Water District-Discharge of agricultural drainage from a file drain to an irrigation canal. built, 107 miles short of com- Photo:Susan Austin pletion. Serious economic and environmental concerns fac- 3 tored into the decision to halt highest tissue concentrations ' O M construction of the project. of selenium ever recorded. { O ..,: '.: �' is • v::nY};•Y•v,.iY:.•....::.•:.Y}}Y:Y:y`ii?::Y:?:•:ni:niin+iiiY} :y}}•rn'4:^i}+:•:::..x:.:nvv:.,,Y}..Y:}ix}•.:n::'Y........:..+...... •:ti{:.:. P4 w Biologists O StS began to suspect e ct ... ....T istreset © this relatively unknown agri- + :' 1t cultural drama e constituent :}.. g `-, w "3 was the culprit. The ecologi- kh: When work stopped the San cal tragedy worsened over the v ?:. Luis Drain - E >w o had been con next few years, capturing the � ? { �� •i,•''{•:';;i.yr:: y >rrY:Y.,•;}'.^..R:;:+'fi.•.o'�"t?;!:.<::}:;::i:�;:::.S.,A -- i Xf;i�+:'::Y,.oi•,+.:q:: r.,.:>. 5 :Y::^::<?•:�[i:<?C;yh?Y'�'i':.v:�:::::�: i structed as f nthe far north as the site attention of - me of the planned Kesterson dia. }•.. .i: ;:}�?:.•}:•}:<:}Y..:w':}:-•?;.x;.:i;.•.Y:?iY;.}x?.x..}:?•r.;:}}:•wa. -- }:i.Y::}:•:•i:•.:;:.:.:::',-•:.:•:��:.• Regulating ir. Resery o To make use of what had been M . .........I.. ' '' e Sixty Minutes aged a segment 1^ t .................. built, the regulating reservoir on the debacle in March of •::a;:::}:•:::::::.•Y:?}:•:..:..`'.r}Y:Y:•Y:•}k.:.:..:r.•::....:...............,::}},.<t.?.�.}:.�:..,d{.y..;L::':..:::}:::::?:::.,:.;:<.Y:..Y:..}:•}::•}::•r:o: was designated as a terminal 1985. Five days later, advised Since the disaster at Kesterson reservoir and assigned asec- that federal officials could be and the closure of the Drain ondary role as a national wild- prosecuted under the Migra- ' life refuge. Drainage from a tory Bird TreatyAct, the Sec- lawsuits have dominated the limited area of the San Luis retary of the Interior ordered debate on how, to dispose of the drama e. Farmers in the Unit began to flow into the the Drain closed. g multi-use system in 1981. San Luis Unit sued the federal This episode has hada pro- government for not providing p p In 1982, biologists noticed an found and lasting impact, a drain, and in a 1986 ruling, commonl referred to as the alarming number of dead and awakening the state and the y deformed birds within the ref- nation to thep erils hidden in Barcellos Judgment, a federal uge. Fish in the reservoir were agricultural drainage water. judge directed the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation tested and found to have the (USBR) to develop and implement a drainage plan. FIGURE 2: TIMELINE OF SAN LUIS DRAIN CONTROVERSY USBR,as part of the Barcellos Judgment, submits an EIS Secretary of the Department for the San Luis Drainage Program. The EIS suggests in- USBR begins CVP water deliveries to the San Luis of the Interior(DOI)orders the valley approaches to the the drainage issue and states"the Service Area and construction of San Luis Drain. San Luis Drain and Kesterson social and environmental unacceptability"of completing a Public Law 86-488 authorizes Reservoir closed. drain"precludes further consideration." The Court rejects the San Luis Unit of the the EIS as not complying with the judgment. Central Valley Project(CVP). USBR completes 85 miles of the San Luis Drain to The law makes a provision for Kesterson Reservoir. Construction halts due to Federal DOI,Contra Costa County, the construction of an budget restrictions and growing environmental concerns Contra Costa Water District, interceptor drain to the SF Bay regarding discharge to the Delta. and environmental groups Delta. Rainbow Report appy Wanger decision. :..:.....::. Lam► ...::::<,:.1: k: >': :. ......................................... . _........ ................_L� .........1 �$r _.......... ... ...... Congress includes a rider to CVP appropriations,specifying Barcellos Judgment Sumner-Peck case. Wanger Decision, development of a plan which conforms with state water quality US Fish and Wildlife Service reports US District Court:Orders USBR to standards to minimize any detrimental effects of the SLU drainage bird deformities and deaths at Kesterson apply for a discharge permit for the rn waters. Reservoir. SLD to the SF Bay Delta.. USBR and US Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) US Court of Appeals determines that the USBRdoes not have to build a drain,but must designate Kesterson Reservoir,a regulating reservoir for propose a plan to provide drainage service. the San Luis Drain,as a new USFWS National Wildlife Refuge. 4 .: �: �' ; �T �. _. __ � 't�1�`I'�N�G DR�1'�AG�'�`�:'�'H���1��►�11�E�'T� � ;: ��Q-��� - C�t'� E� E�+TES AN+�UT1�A'I"E P�tt�PC.�SL' IT�I .� �E�`T �� _ '� __ �. '�`hreaten � ruc�at eco s�te,.._. - zone er �� • fr t�wa er alt wat ;I�etta�s tte tar est es �n tie Wiest wast. its.h' � � t . .e.Sa�cra�n�nta- fin Jc�agr�uri g � � ._ c e d.e u�as�.e cif �.a.nts an €�f water an+d-wetland:�abt:�;�ts c a�xni ue b�r��Q � su e� P end great c��re�r��tq q � �� �a a v��. s . - e e .. eyed� �crit�t�fe �.nctud�x �l�r a number caf threatened arid.end. � � �; � o. ►e . _ o�ed fan�uas:�ara�n �edzcts ��.hsta�t�a1 Maar t .� d b tie �J�. ecatc� eat�t �f e acts �f the rca , � _ ,, _ , , . . 7 :e stud Iso red�:cts-de aatiori.e�er��rhen set cxeased d�sehat e-of elen�uxn �a: he Ba :��ttta. ._..food�veb �ro�n _ 3� � .. n t fs t� s�anttated current ri�oraito�in . ;: ncentrattvns �,re wett laetow � le � standard.�, �. rec3�:c�t� __ �un�..tlxo �refines are the cox cast�aurce Se�re:rat ec�.es cif a�rds gin.the este ark alxead aged b �ei�n�. .1� _ � p � dar .; . - ,.:and:amb�ert s :er�� coneentrat�ons:are.tow retat�ue to the nat�anw� a mater s at present ,. >,�.:: �. .� ,�: ,�, i _.- ���`r ., �'� . .«� .t �,: R.�,u vsc-t4 �1'. x.R .z a Y- �" A 4 I �'p: � Y>. �'� '; t:,. I ��,. �� � '� f�� �. �,. :��..;:< ..�:. '�1�gp+c�'Rayl;�ac�tc�.US�� . . , , �. . '' �m acts to tie Lamest Dr���� mater�►�urc ,�—� �� ;, e r�is atr cad a f con. c rn . _ . to �Cal�fc�rn�:a residents ccarries fora. . tb�e delta: 'fie �a� cif tt�s ova �r� �n water fQr��� �f '� ?�Y . � ., . _ ; ... och rar the en��a ►r� ' e-_ tb�n a few .e n caf cax�c Batt aaden:dram�w�.ter near.int! dct�arge of�c�ns c►f Otto � t�es. e►f dr�n water tries�:.�rould l�a�e se�re�e coris+e uen _ _ q �� f� x�:::.:: �� �:;.: {: ..:.:::, :: :: :::.. :: : ::: ...:..., .:..:.. .: .:::.� :u... r;. d> ;.i. .f;' :'•�iv� ��.f.'� $; .;`:''fi; C.. r� 'rat � �:gt;� � '� -;. .,r;3.. .,5 r ,'��. ..�' .S..�. ,..+,:: >'. fi� f r y Y. ;, .. . .� ��� Pho#ti . , . _ ,USES '«: Undermines� a er���est�rie�n�t-1�the Bain i3�elta ---x -�'. r d at a er sae e �►� stex and a' cuttz�arat water users state and fe +e� I�atg�el�to red�u+ce canf�cts betw+�e�a.�. catta�s�,n c Y �_ - . �'� Y ,: � t n of dcatlars tca restore the a IJelta enon�nent and Ica..� re►ve ate u onstruet�ng a a s�end�ng b � s � la � rjts, v��►uld undere-these efforts,.arid.waste h � ast and f�.ture�nv�stme e _.. . .. r�. ,� x ..�t� .k,". .;�h,. �r.F.'Bay Delta,:'Photc�:�3SGS � ; �T�ijreatens�u�►.an e�l�h . .: :uz effect� ortY+��s cif the Ba -�D�It�, far hta��.ec��su t��n of dig duces. Increased. � Health adsor�es are:atr�ead� p �' �' � pollution�vd�ld a� ra�ate�e heap�hreat aid h t���unt �aid?�sh .g �;du:�t�a.e�. �. �.. :.. ��. .fi .v.::.::�r.::. .:::. . .r..: s:.:. ..�. ::.S V M.:.�;:"::i"' £11t f X1511 8E1� aYt2 ..� ,. ,��,�,�@ Photo:C;A Departm c� G j` t �. � : 5 In response, the Bureau re- Court in part,ruling that the This Briefing Book provides leased a draft plan in 1992 that DOI has no obligation to suggestions for answering this did not include a drain to the build the Drain. They left question and developing a Delta and considered only the matter of how to provide comprehensive solution. The limited future discharge to the drainage service up to the dis- following principles underlie San Joaquin River, all from cretion of the U.S. Bureau of our proposals: sources already discharging to Reclamation and remanded the River. The federal court the case back to Judge 1) The debate over what to subsequently invalidated the Wanger. do about the drainage prob- draft plan as inconsistent with lem has gone on too long, the Barcellos Judgment. BREAM7VG THE threatening both agriculture and the environment. Our Farmers then brought a sepa- IMPASSE next steps should be guided rate suit, commonly referred by the desire to address as to as the Sumner-Peck case. much of the drainage prob- In an early ruling in this case Unfortunately, the Bureau's lem as possible as quickly in 1994,Judge Oliver Wanger court-supervised planning as possible. of the U.S. District Court for providing drainage ser- found that the San Luis Act vice .has marginalized or g- 2) Exporting pollution from required, not authorized, the nored such essential drain- one area to another is unjust Bureau to construct the San age tools as source control, and unjustified. Luis Drain. He further found on-farm reuse, and land re- that federal environmental tirement, relying instead on 3) Much of the knowledge g statutes such as the Migratory constructing either as out- and many of the tools nec- Bird Treaty Act did not auto- Of-valley dr am► or an exten- essary to solve the drainage matically preclude such con- sive in-valley complex of problem are available now. struction and ordered the Bu- evaporation ponds. reau to apply to the State Wa- ter Resources Control Board for a discharge permit for the After more than 30 years of San Luis Drain. conflict over an ill-conceived proposal to build a drain that The U.S. Department of Inte- discharges to the Delta, it is rior (DOI) and many of the time to refocus the debate on organizations that collaborated one overriding question: on this Briefing Book ap- pealed Judge Wanger's ruling. What is the best way to ad- In February of 2000, the 9th dress the drainage problem in the San Joaquin Valley? Common Snipe,San Luis Wildlife Refuge Circuit Court of Appeals Photo:Gary Zahm,USFWS 1999 overturned the District 6 o :.,.y,.Y•�t•::v.,,:.,...,..ww�v..:a:t.t•:v.•fi•::..::•.,.nv;.xm.....,... r.....'........... ...._. Despite the conflict over sions of a $50 million effort to range of drainage management drains and drainage, individual define the nature of the drain- strategies not widely practiced farmers, some irrigation dis- age problem and to explore at that time, including: irriga- tricts, and the state and federal new and practical methods for tion improvements, land re- governments have independ- controlling and reducing tirement, and application of ently made progress toward drainage. The report was pre- drainage water on salt-tolerant- solving this problem. This pared through an extensive plants; section summarizes some of public involvement process the key innovations upon involving all concerned stake- C,%3 Specific recommendations which a more complete resolu- holders. for each sub-area of the tion of the drainage problem Westside detailing which suite can be built. Initiated in response to the of strategies should be em- disaster at Kesterson and the ployed where and predicting SHE RAINBOW REPOW T closure of the Drain, the the net contribution of each Rainbow Report was a land- management technique; Officially known as "A Man- mark in drainage policy, shift- agement Plan for Agricultural ing the planning emphasis eg Baseline information and Subsurface Drainage and Re- away from export drains and maps documenting the extent lated Problems on the toward in-valley solutions. of the groundwater problem in Westside San Joaquin Valle " each region, including the spa- q Y� ..... :...:. ..: ::: ::::,:, .,. the Rainbow Report was tial variation in the concentra- :. ,..::... .:.:...:... S: .t. t completed in 1990 by the San tion of selenium and other Joaquin Valley Drainage Pro- The final report reflected a constituents in the groundwa- gram, a joint project of the broad consensus among all ter; State of California and U.S. parties. Some of the key con- Department of Interior. tributions and findings of the eg A conclusion that agricul- Rainbow Report were: tural drainage problems on the The Report is both a technical Westside could be managed document and a policy docu- C,>3 A technical analysis of the for at least fifty years without ment. It presents the conclu- potential effectiveness of a export of drainage. "..it is...generallyWeed that the drainage problem ismanageable and that this management logically begins in the valley with a broadly shared effort to reduce the mount of drainage water,-to place the remaining water under control,and to contain and isolate toxicants such as selenium. Such actions would largely correct present problems of waterlogging offarm lands and could greatly reduce adverse impacts on Akb and wildlife. The la-valley_actions recommended in the plan would also be necessary for any eventual ex- port ofsalt from the San,joaquin valley. The recommended actions would provide-a regional drainage infrastructure that now exists only in scattered pieces. If the plan proposed here is implemented, a salt export decision need not be made for several decades." -Excerpt from the Rainbow Report 7 :::..::::: :.: ort an effort called the San is unique amongWestside ag : .. ° .: v{ Joaquin Valley Drainage Im- ricultural areas in that it has plementation Program. This historically drained into the Some of the Rainbow Report's effort has yielded technical San Joaquin River. Until re- recommendations have been advances and some institu- cently, Grassland drainage implemented - though not in tional tools for drainage man- flowed through irrigation ca- the way the plan's authors agement. nals that also supplied water to would have expected. Indi- an array of national wildlife vidual farmers and irrigation CASE.STUDIES refuges and duck clubs before districts have been the primary discharging to the river. actors. The Grassland Bypass Project and Red Rock Ranch drainage In 1996,in order to bypass the Throughout the west side of program are examples of suc- extensive wetland areas, the San Joaquin Valley, many cessful decentralized implemen- Grassland's drainage was re- farms already rely on recom- tation and extension of the routed through an existing mended actions from the Rainbow Report recommenda- segment of the San Luis Drain Rainbow Report to reduce and tions. before resuming its historic manage their drainage prob- route to the River. In ex- >.:+.•:.:;:?%v:tv .......:v.{::y lem. Some farmers have even :.::::.:::..::;:::::.::.::::::v :::::r: change for the ht to make ..:. g advanced drainage manage- use of the Drain, farmers in ment technology beyond the The Grassland drainers within the Grassland area were re- Rainbow Report, adding re- the San Joaquin Valley have quired to make a number of finements and developing new made extensive progress in commitments to the environ- and innovative techniques. controlling and reducing its ment,including a commitment drainage problem. to reduce selenium discharges There has also been a central- by 15% over 5 years. As ized, government-led effort to This 100,000-acre area in- shown in Figure 3, Grassland implement the Rainbow Re- cludes 7 irrigation districts and area farmers have reduced FIGURE 3: GRASSLAND AREA MONTHLY SELENIUM DISCHARGES Selenium Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 in Ibs 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 1,600- 1,400- 1,200- 1,000- Discharge ,6001,4001,2001,000 Discharge Targets 800 kn, 600 l' :N ,4W TVV 200 .71 0 Oct. Jan. April July Oct. Jan. April July Oct. Jan. April July Oct. Jan. April July Oct. Jan. April July "February-June 1998(Year 2)discharges were declared by the Grassland Bypass Oversight Committee as"unforeseeable and uncontrollable",due to record-breaking rainfall in the EI Nino year. Data Sources: San Francisco Estuary Institute Monthly Data Reports. All data are selenium loads at Station B. 8 :•::a their as es dischar promised.g p Using economic incen- ... ................................•••::j;+::•"J`i'f.•.;,:ii:j/iii:ii;i:: i"J.i•::.:v{x:l::;{:;:;:iii iyi:.ii'j'{ii%:r'r'•:i:• -------------- -- tives such as tradable selenium The plan to continue this discharge permits to optimize This 640-acre farm within the plumbing arrangement beyond the regional cost-effectiveness Westla.nds Water District is a 2001 requires farmers to re- of drainage management. model of local drainage inno- duce drainage by as much as vation. The basic premise of 85% from historic levels to tag Monitoring selenium con- Red Rock's pioneering ap- meet selenium water quality centrations on a farm-by-farm proach is to repeatedly use objectives for the San Joaquin basis. Such monitoring results drainage water on increasingly River. A compliance schedule in individual farm accountabil- salt tolerant crops. Additional for this reduction has been ity for drainage management refinements are needed to incorporated in a waste dis- and allows more efficient im- avoid harm to birds, but the charge requirement (state plementation of control ef- approach offers some inherent permit) adopted by the Central forts. protections not available with Valley Regional Water Quality evaporation ponds. Here's a Control Board. The new plan cf3 Installing drip systems and brief overview of the process: will also begin to reduce salt other irrigation improvements loads from historic levels. to maximize efficiency and Step 1: Irrigation water is minimize drainage. applied to salt-intolerant crops To meet these requirements, such as vegetables. These the farmers and water districts 03 Recycling surface run-off high-value commercial crops have developed a number of and subsurface drainage for cover almost 75%of the farm. innovative strategies for reduc- irrigation. Recycling of surface ing and controlling their drain- run-off is required for farmers; Step 2: Surface and subsur- age problem,including: Panoche Water District has face drainage water from these installed a regional recycling planted areas is collected and C3 Forming a regional drain- facet,• used to grow salt-tolerant age entity to manage drainage commercial crops such as cot- flows and carry out environ- CZ Purchasing lands with ton and alfalfa. These crops mental commitments made in severe drainage problems for cover about 20%of the farm. order to use the Drain. use as regional re-use facilities. One 4,000-acre facility is Step 3: The resulting drainage c 3 Using economic incen- planted with salt tolerant crops is next applied to salt-tolerant tives such as tiered water pric- and is irrigated with subsur- grasses covering about 2% of ing to encourage farmers to face drainage from nearby the farm. use less water and produce less farms. drainage. Step 4: Halophytes like salt- grass and iodine bush con ........ ........... sume drainage resulting from .f.:.. . .: ::..; .:..r::.�-••;,..r. ... .. f�.-f f �.. { !J f kxC ...yf; :-- ' ......... Step 3 These halophytes oc- cupy - cuPYless than 1/ o the ,.•: Step 5: Sprinklers spray the x t remaining brines into a solar evaporator, a flat area with tile j drains underneath occupying 0.2°o of the farm. The sprin- klers are timed to avoid pond- Wit:::...... ing that might attract and harm wildlife. This step ........... eliminates all liquid effluent. s for commercial Methods ia ..• ..:'�•: . � `°� �`.�;��� �:.ri...• e re- 4 Turlock Fruit Company drip irrigation filters Photo:Susan Austin 9 4::N }F; r'^ris.•:;...;.:�::`•.Ftaf o ♦} T x'+r F. 7^• rF• Yr»:rar +�.Y3 t �e� � y�%a'�,yr^. }.M� . Y Yr F4 ger }Y'+`4f ryt 4f r+•�y�ytF-'�• 'L'xY'Kf�•.. f^-r�4x,;1 r a:, sc• a bkr :'. r^,SL F,.;IF;r..r F eA'� ; Ykki .'9 M •fs''.''7 sc -use foxed' egg exp level o { b olnti` s o� crea�ve e ck 0 at Red oiled e and �ra :h:.t e� n� -Fad _ = '• n on �a erne�t�` SIS. 1�-anal' ch I� ock Ran an e�� �S�snlct Red` R strates ethod ire�ate e der,�an orcale , the pante.. systems d ec°'� e v�ater• Y.. c>>ngsye� care ds y on cleat �` dra�ag •aln�e"eey ust be eat�g p vjjvd of reusg at o ter' txatl°''°�a n x�'�°� av°ld c� sys use o Too mear,Aust 'Pet aged t° ct and p I� cave e proto. s�pp p amara d's draOag boat but rY,a�es 'PTO of e low a Vie. g after ' t �0°/0 �ely xea ` e c, aboxi cre�and cr°p e salts patio a�,d ater; eels by a et f a� e Z� evapo Waste' abort n Duey eases n dace e mal •dered level°p ces i and incr pr°�g 1��°- to const led to t ,s redn vJater vae by ed R°CVS p er re"tly is laee is iToo 0 4 sav�g taco ,ons q. b x,28 p sese!x r°d,�c conditl • creased y ke ' 'le p f°r° 's a, � cti°n�' mar sidIle- t11e f 'et per do er`le i d" salt re educes acre € ,w�tli acre p •on regi r to 0��, aced o cauta` of '�`ent land t water' �o n°tes acb'• cre °£ e I'r°)ecappro and t° 3 ing t� ee�g Genes elf Z i^ engin evap°_ s °r Itlo s se�e cape 1e ode so pay becau th e use s ila part installog °" r°u year sts of er co p tat c° and °t� are Tela" l�bing ' ofs systems p tst� nen 10 ihS•A•-Y .v +rr' .ri�•+6 5:;:i:::;:::r:.#::.`::.{:.,.'is5•':tri':;%::"':r.-':.:ir?{;R;.^.'yr.? ..Y n r/4 r.Unv Given the clear need to act now, Reuse and management of and based on the lessons of sci- .: drainage water on farmsand as d entific r esearchn a d recent - ex within districts. can minimize perience, we offer the following problem water and maximize observation: More than 90%of A range of techniques is avail- efficiency. Reuse includes the the drainage problem in the able to reduce drainage effluent strategies such as the Red Rock San Joaquin Valley can be before it becomes a problem. Ranch system of sequential re- solved in 5 to 10 years using These include: installation of use of drainage on increasingly affordable, environmentally drip irrigation systems (or any salt-tolerant crops, limited recy- sound management tools. alternative, similarly efficient cling of drainage for irrigation, technology), lining water deliv- use of drainage for dust control To seize this opportunity, we ery channels, reduced pre- (a Grassland innovation), and recommend a coordinated, season watering, etc. These and recycling of surface water runoff phased approach to the drainage other practices are underway in for use on ordinary crops. Such problem that is locally managed, the Grassland area. In addition, tools could address approxi- flexibly applied, and not limited land may be fallowed during dry mately 36% of the drainage to one-size-fits-all prescriptions. years; operating costs can be problem water. defrayed by selling conserved OUR irrigation water. Based on the Reduction and Reuse strategies RECUMMENIIA7IU1�: analysis in the Rainbow Report, to manage' drainage have the such drainage reduction tech- following advantages: THE FOUR R S ni ues could collectively address q Y about 36% of the drainage *V Proven technology Four categories of actions hold problem water in the Westla.nds Tested, successful strategies can the key to rapid progress: Re- area(see Table 1,page 10). be directly exported to other duce, Re-use, Retire and Re- areas without delay or uncer- claim. Each strategy is de- tainty. r: ?:f:!if::YGS:;.• '{$: .::Y..;'.:.^.:.k>t;::::.i:::v:::;•f{f'{.'{.:;.,:.' :?.3,;,{.'' •{v'2'`;`S}},.3'r,;:; scribed in further detail in this '>: ' .r: section. a4v Economically viable Many strategies, when imple- TABLE 1: EFFECTIVENESS OF ENVIRONMENTALLY-SOUND DRAINAGE OPTIONS Projection of amount of problem drainage water(acre feet)that can be effectively eliminated with environmentally sound drainage options. Source.Rainbow Report, Table 32,p. 146 Year2000: s r:204W::a:::s::::: 040 Environmentally-Sound Drainage Options roiet iri 19 prrected'in99a Source Control 295400 55,800 Drainage Reuse 305000 61,000 Land Retirement 135600 245800 Total Environmentally-Sound Drainage Options 733000 1415600 Overall Drainage Reduction Target 811200 1535200 Percentage of Target 90% 92% 11 mented, will pay for themselves Where land is retired by volun- but needs to be funded by the quickly by increasing yields and tary arrangement, and without state legislature. reducing water costs. The Red using public funds, care should Rock Ranch system paid for its be taken to assure that the water Interest in land retirement op- own construction in just over acquired from the retired lands tions has been expressed from two years, not including an 18% is not applied so as to exacer- stakeholders on all sides of the savings in irrigation water. bate drainage problems else- debate. where. Solves more than 90 % ofBoth the Rainbow Report and . . ......... problemetxcx► nt pan be the Central Valley Project Im- ......... ....... As documented in Table 1, the atractve aternate t darn_ provement Act demonstrate that Rainbow Report predicts that age redUC.O ani an ge land retirement is desirable from drainage reduction and drainage nen' well as salt����a� both a policy and fiscal perspec- management can collectively 1Qri when: tive. Recently Westlands Water address about 90% or more of District has acknowledged that the drainage problem. Practical Winds hive sinifi�cant as much as 200,000 acres (about experience at Red Rock Ranch drana, e pa :rnet, a third of the water district) .. has validated and exceeded should be retired as part of a these Rainbow Report predic- or. ath r took c drainage solution. This is ten tions. substares ely times the amount of land re- g ; tirement projected in the Rain- Taking these steps will allow bow Report. adequate time for implementa- Retie lamed d tion of and retirement as we llas .0 research p research and development of a assure ttage' complementary long-term strat- pr i cc�rrcted, not While these proven, economical egy to address 100% of the ranpinte � tools are implemented more problem long in to the future. widely to control at least 90%of ]fid grad the drainage problem waters, Decentralized,locallycant ale as habitat f techniques should be studied controlled teSt{�►eC adtst and developed to reclaim solid Experience in the Grasslands salts through treatment, bird- area demonstrates that eco- etremet'' ' land gees safe/bird-free solar ponds, and nomic incentives and perform- , raver P MI. e. a offer, on-farm methods.- ance—based requirements induce q cnsaon or farmers and districts to produceit retcra# n resects. Reclamation of salts, selenium, ..........l less drainage and manage t and other substances of concern more effectively. This approach from water is relatively straight- has spurred innovation in the Passage of the Central Valley forward from a technical point area. Project Improvement Act in of view. Doing so on a large 1992 created a funded program scale in an affordable and en vi - for buying, •c ronmentall sound is Lural lands with drainage im- not. Promising methods include pairments and their associated treatment technologies being Voluntary retirement of lands water rights. However this pro- explored in the Panoche Drain- with significant drainage un- gram has only initiated a few age District and in the dry pairment is an important step pilot projects and needs to be evaporation system operating on toward solving the drainage more forcefully pursued by the Red Rock Ranch. problem. Some areas are simply Department of the Interior. A too severely impaired to irrigate. similar state land retirement In contrast, traditional evapora- They disproportionately con- program created at the same tionponds are highly problem- tribute to the degradation of time also provides a vehicle for atic, as such systems resemble water quality in both the aquifer retiring drainage impaired lands Kesterson Reservoir in function. and downstream lands. In these traditional systems, se- 12 FIGURE 4:PER ACRE COST COMPARISON OF DRAINAGE SERVICE OPTIONS $1,200 $1,121 f. $1,000 - P L: C 1 a tal per acre { rvfA Operation, Management ement v N,:: <::: and Research $800 �f $623 $600 - $500 00 <r r ''i%: f 7:R: %t�• 50 $200 - ... 0 69 .'•'.:moi 32 ^iii: 3is so Evaporation ponds Drain to Delta Red Rock(I FDM) with Selenium Treatment Sources: 1.San Luis Preliminary Alternatives Report,December 2001,Page ES-6 2.San Luis Preliminary Alternatives Report,December 2001,Page ES-6 3.Salt Utilization Technical CommitteeThe San Joaquin Valley Drainage Implementation Program and The University of California Salinity/Drainage Program,February 1999,Page 19 4.San Luis Preliminary Alternatives Report,December 2001,Appendix B,Page 1318-1319 lenium-laden drain water is dis- Reclaim form the core of the 1) The federal and state gov- charged to, and concentrated in most cost-effective and envi- ernments should support ponds where wildlife impacts ronmentally-sound approach to more rapid implementation are impossible to avoid and ex- addressing the drainage prob- of drainage reduction and pensive to mitigate. Many lem. Figure 4 compares the drainage reuse/ management "ponds" are the size of small costs of one example of the tools. Significant public funds lakes. Even with treatment, the Four R's approach with tradi- have already been committed to question of what to do with the tional evaporation ponds and a help support the implementa- solid remainder is unresolved. drain to the Delta. Because our tion of these techniques (see For these reasons,many existing approach utilizes proven on- Table 5, page 13). Access to ponds have been shut down by farm technologies, it is signifi- public funds does not relieve the Central Valley Regional Wa- cantly cheaper and faster to im- farmers and districts of the obli- ter Quality Control Board. plement than the alternatives. gation to pay for measures that directly benefit them, but a The state and federal govern- PLANS INTO clearer state-federal policy initia- ments could substantiallyaid A��°� tive, increased technical support resolution of the drainage prob- W and continued funding with ap- lem not onlyb continuinge support an overall drainage y to service and management plan propriate local cost-sharing are fund development of treatment g P needed to speed the adoption of technologies, but also b fund- that includes multiple ap- y proaches proceeding on parallel these techniques and move us ing research and development of p g p closer to a solution to the drain- commercial uses of reclaimed tracks. While water reduction age problem. While these - salt. and reuse technologies can be g p tech employed immediately, land niques may not eliminate the retirement and reclamation aredrain problem entirely, the s Rainbow Report predicts they phased strategies. are sufficient to control the P pose ro en- These four management strate- More specifically. we tyre drainage problem for at least fifty years. gies: Reduce, Reuse, Retire and that the following actions be taken now: 13 TABLE 5: EXISTING FUNDS POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE TO HELP SUPPORT WESTSIDE DRAINAGE REDUCTION,REUSE,RETIREMENT,AND RECLAMATION EFFORTS Though farmers are responsible for managing their water use and drainage, substantial public funds have already been allocated to assist with drainage management. State Funds Total Authorization* 2000 The Safe Drinking Water,Clean Water, Watershed Protection,and Flood Prevention Act California Water Bond Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program $10090009000 Water Conservation Program $3590009000 (Agricultural Water Conservation Bay-Delta Multi-purpose Management Program $25090009000 Water Recycling Pro am $10590009000 Federal Funds Approximate Annual Appropriations* ,Central-Valley Project Improvement Act Section 3408(h),Land Retirement $390009000 USDA,Conservation Reserve Program Federal Conservation Reserve Program $20090009000-$300,000,000 continually appropriated over several years USDA,Natural Resources Conservation Service Environmental Quality Incentives Program $65,0009000 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program $5,0005,000 USDA,Farm Security and Rural Investment Section 3201 $9,000,000,000 through 2007 USEPA,Clean Water Act Clean Water State Revolving Fund Portion of$152,000,000-$26890009000 USEPA,SWRCB,Clean Water Act Nonpoint Source Implementation Program $596009000 *Not all of the money authorized and appropriated is available for addressing the problem drainage from the San Joaquin Valley. Further, rather than prescribe drainage-impaired lands. How- fits. The only element lacking is specific actions for specific ever, neither the state or federal political will. farms, it is more efficient and governments have implemented effective for the state and fed- these programs aggressively. 3) Begin immediately to re- eral governments to provide a search salt reclamation tech- menu of options to farmers and Worse, recent proposals for nology and markets for re- districts. This flexibility is nec- substantial land retirement de- claimed salt products. A essary to address the varying veloped during lawsuit settle- proven, responsible, and permit- needs and problems of impacted ment negotiations have been ted method for addressing the farmers should allow farmers to linked to controversial provi- 10% residual drainage does not optimize the cost effectiveness sions opposed by the environ- exist. With continued research, of drainage control. mental community. such a method could exist in 5 Outside the courtroom, much to 10 years if the involved par- t)Work with willing sellers in of the land that has been retired ties begin work now on a coop- the area to initiate an active has been purchased by individ- erative process to identify, test, program to retire the most ual districts. There are many fund, and permit a long-term severely impaired lands. Both more growers and districts will- solution. the US Congress and Califor- ing to sell drainage-impaired nia's State legislature have rec- lands at reasonable prices whose ognized the importance of land associated water supplies could retirement by creating new pro- also provide conservation bene- grams to acquire and retire 14 TABLE b: THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE vs. THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION"S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE As this Briefing Book went to press,the Bureau of Reclamation released its "San Luis Drainage Feature Re-evaluation Report." This report identified a preferred alternative that includes ultimate construction of 5,063 acres of traditional evaporation ponds. The report does not include the environmentally pre- ferred alternative presented in this Briefing book. .................... :?.:.Y::::::,.:...:.::::..:-.::.:....,.:�. .:::.:...:�.7:.:�:.7777::t.77:.•:::.�..77%77,7::.:...:%:?a...77:•7: .:.}:•n:.n.:t.:.......: .::�:t•,...:...n,•,•....?....r..,..r..................J.,..t..:::r........ ..:.ir,..�.... ...vn ..<.::w:.Y:.J7:a;t•7%>....:nw<.w :Y:r•.y+kr%>}%::�-%%::�??:•::}•?.}•?,:?::ran ...:.............. :. r..<..... ;4#tt%:•✓ S:k:�:�i:i�:;:�ri:;:"r'':'•:r:`;r:�:''�:•3�:; .::::.n•:n,:r.:::..t•:.;... :...:...:::..%•,,............J:r..n.r..w...:.✓,wr..,.:............... ... :??•::-:e,.. v'•'? j N ..??r :4y�i�${if':`'i?:itiSn:it�{.�::f:;}:;i::'l�+}:?r•:J vi,,>J::..::.+:.r.r..,.r :...v. J...x::,",X:::• :v; •-::'tit?•'l, '7:.f:'$;: ..C....,. 'r'%'YIIY :i::•J:?•::J:»vrr. ., ;. •.•,.?r:?x??:�r v., :i:+Y:'??�•n:.:r' :i:;,::C•%:$.:.'•,::?Ci:r�'r:•:?i?:?::iL7 i:':::: x.Jn:: ..r,.J....w:::?•.n• .. J ,:<: ✓ri:v»:•:n: l{��:.� ••?�7:'�• j%::�::i:$ .. .. ................... .......... ..: .....:%.;^:....r.•:::.:x:7:::;.:nY:Ji..v.: :::r.•r..:r......:??C�.•:?'v:••:v:v.Y-::•::v.nn,::::........................;,.�.••.� •:::::::.:n:.n•..:.n.v::•:r,•:x:.:•nv,.,..v.:.::::.x•. n..:..:;,.;;:nv:...,•,..,:.;;,... .Y;.;:.,...n....:: ::.n.., +n:v::.+.v,• :..,:xn:•:nrr.•::.;.:r.,...,,n.:..nv J..:....... •........... .v n. .. ...,...::..:.:::.::n...i7:rc.,......,..n...:...<.xt.n...<;,::.,..rs•n::...::. rvn...•::. :r?:,.:n•,,.x<:.x>.'.�':??.x}::•'^:iYLrr.}:i4 v�fw::'$'r•,i,::Y'rr:::'i::hYi::?�i::f?'•:''i•:vv�X rr':f�?$S'•,rx vr.4»::•i»:<:.rrrsw.J.:?:rw:::::vr. ?.F .... .v•::::•:+::r:..w:r;.rw:v✓::rxnvr•rru...r.x:.r:rr.:....ry:v:.t.»:+v. ....rrr.v;.;r.• ......x...n:.rJ,....,..»:.✓...r.................. .< .r .. ..•}.....v......... .,..... i..:. ...r....:.....Jl v...rr✓.:>..,.w::r..r.<rr.$C::.r•:.%}:•t::?.Yv"iRitiv}{'?{ .n..., .. t ................... r..... .:.. .. rrr..r7+..>,...x.......;......n {....... >...lv»»:<xrxn.w:»:::v..,....,..... ...:.•,..< ••:•:'l�'•:•:t?�.:nir^:{^i:;•}... ................ ............. ... ....:r..,r r.r..$:...»..n.x,.,.r.r:.:,.r..r:r-n.v....r.r.,n..,..J...r.....n.r.r ...,r..x».......r.. r .... J.t.;.y..r.<.:;,. ? +rx,<.::r..r:+•$ .. ..........tv...nr..n, .w:, , .. ., ....... ..::... ..... .... ...:.....n::.r.:.::v✓.v::�vx:rc::}»:.;v.vr:;:vr::n•:r::::n.t::::::•:n::•r::x:»s?.,::::.n:v:n.>n.,.:.».n:;:::,v...t...:,J.,.:.r..r.::<.:v;n'{;:r:{::t Li:;i:;:y:;:;.';:'ri: ........................ rr.r.:<..:✓.n...r.rr...<....r.J...v.:..».n....n, .r»o....n., r..... r.... ................Y..........,.... ..... :n........:...•:.:...vx-.:r:n?vr..:n:•:vJ,•s:x:r,.•:.vnwrJ:::nt•nv:;.,..,r,xv:r:::r.+.nv:n:t::v<:?•:»:•rr.::::tt:•.-.•s.....n...✓r..:....v....r..i::i'$.?.i%:•:??ji:L• .. ........... ... ..r.:s.••n x..nr : .:........r..,.�.. >......r.:.:..:..,..J r..r.J...v.✓....J..,..»..r..<r..:.n.r. ..H. Y,J, r:ii$::?:i:$�vn�;,..?.:•i7.Cv:�:kv:x::;SSS::�::.i::v:<t:<$'.$:i$:'ii:::4:�,'i :::iii{:::i:'::i'.%:'.`v'iti^+'4$'%:$:%�y�:::;;�::$• :.Y:?:»...r.r....r..n:r.>.....,.✓.y .>.:n..,.n.n>..v.. ..x..x...n i�:7.::. .....r✓.•x:::%• <.?n•.:t, w::.vir..r:•,.•rn•ry •n•x:.�:vr. r .,.:r::,vr. v.::.n.:.vn•,✓•::. :•n}r•.•:r• :• :.s..rJ::n::t. N ::::...:.vim:.7:r:r.v:.;v.{••:::.:...::. r,..;r.•:::,.,.:::::w::::✓ � s w.••:::,»::.n.r:•< ..::<:xx:.::.:..:: � :r:::.vn:%}'Y+%+:?n7y r •:.:.:,:..:vx: :r..vn:•x::?J:::i%:{•7::j.7v....:.✓•...:..r.....'::::i:i4i}:i?•i:c .. ..... .............. ...,r:.r....<..v:::r:.:::.<x:x::.r.•.v+.r}7x7:::::r:•+.r:v+r,..r:::r..x:::i.:.::rr..:.v•:»..v:.�:.rxrv.:.xwJ.+.•rvr:✓r:rr..rn;.:vr,:::yx:. .r.. .....r..✓.,..,,..J... ......... ...................... .r.r ...r$n<..,. ..:.....n......». ;;.............Y...........,.v ...t::s:'r'::;•':r:'i;:ir•::ii}<:{:$$ji ..................:�........................ , .... ....J..x .v. r .. ,...,...{........r........,.. .. ..v..r,.:.v_vx;xrn•nv::»:Y,.....n...,n:r..,.....J.vr:.......<..:J.r .. : ......... `J1 '•.•.�..:::•r✓.rf•....n;n.r..,..r..x....:...n..,n.....r.....»r..r..r.....rx......n,..r.....J..n.n..: - ...:rt.r.....r.<....r.:n..r.:.<........n n....v.r.. .. .. ..........'�+.�................................. .........v...•.:• v»:••tv:;:.:•nvn:•x».:.:✓.....,.✓. .. ............................... ..............,... ........r.r.,..,.....n..,.:n......r.,......t...r..<..r..}..r,..v..»,+.»..........:.»,.., ..,..n,.:J.:✓..,..;.}n.,.•;......v i:$ii .......... ........rr.....<,.rY..r..J.....:r........n.r...,.....n....n.,..J.r:..»..r.n... ..<.........J...w. ......>.......................................................r......:.:•.r...,:,..:::::w::•:r.:.n•::,,:J.::<.:vn..,.+.:.....,:....,.n.....r..:....,..............::....:..... .....::^:++%:??:••::'::+?i; i:i:T'.•T...... .?...:.....:?i:%:i:C:::%::}".•$i i'�%:`r.^:'�>;;;}L;x: .. ...............:....,.»,...r..:....t..<..r.,.....r..,..r.✓.:... .r.r,n..w✓.,..,.. v....rJ..rx.... ......,.. •?t`: .... .............................. ...................... ,.:,:.,:.:.:..:::..:.:.:::r::».w. $::i::,✓.wr;:::,.w,,,...w;:.w,.w,.Yx::nY::::.:.::::.w,w:::,,•.•:::n;•Jr:n:;w:...::✓,v:»::,• .e:::.$ :rri-':::%�'::;��iso:Ei'2::>{::yr>i;''t::;';::':::'S#`?':t:_::�;�::�.•':r,�:�;:?{:{::; Tiered water pricing and other economic incentives--such as tradable Incentives for farmers to No Yes selenium or salt permits--have been used successfully to decrease produce less drainage drainage discharges andspur innovation. Performance requirements that cap No Yes Farmers and districts in the Grasslands area of the San Luis Unit have drainage amounts successfullv met their selenium discharge caps for six years. Improvements in Better irrigation systems produce less drainage and require less water irrigation efficiency by No* Yes from the SF Bay-Delta. Money saved on water purchases defrays the farmers costs of efficiency improvements. On-farm recycling of surface runoff and Less More drainage Recycling is already mandated in the Grasslands area. On-farm reuse of drainwater for irrigation No* Yes Reuse has proved profitable for Red Rock Ranch. This farm produces of salt tolerant crops zero drainage discharge. Fallowing of cropland in dry years,perhaps with NO Yes Land fallowing during dry years decreases water imports from the SF sale of conserved water Bay-Delta and/or allows water to be sold to others Panoche Water District has already installed and successfully used a recycling system. The recycling system helps the district manage District or regional Yes Yes drainage discharge amounts and enables it to sell selenium discharge recycling of drainage credits. Districts in the Grasslands area of the San Luis Unit already manage a District or regional re-use Yes Yes 4,000 acre area where salt tolerant crops are irrigated with drainage. We facilities prefer decentralized facilities to centralized,government-managed ones. Lining water delivery Yes Yes Lining of channels helps lower the regional groundwater table,minimize channel drainage,and decrease water imports from the SF Bay-Delta. A broad array of farmers and districts supports the concept of Less More purchasing land from willing sellers,then retiring it permanently from irrigated agriculture.Westlands has proposed retiring 200,000 of its Voluntary land retirement acres. Retired land does not actively produce drainage. Promising experimental systems have been developed by the Panoche Treatment systems that Yes Yes Water District and others. Further research and development is remove selenium required for scale-up. Evaporation ponds with high selenium concentrations have been closed Traditional evaporation Yes No by regional authorities. Birds attracted to the ponds produce deformed ponds young. Aggressive product development and market No Yes The federal government should fund an in-house or extramural grant research for reclaimed program to develop products from reclaimed salts and provide the salt Imarket research required for successful sale. *The Bureau of Reclamation's alternatives presume that the following techniques are not cost-effective and will not be implemented: improvements in irrigation efficiency,on-farm reuse of drainage for salt tolerant crops,and land fallowing. Drainage rates are predicted to be 0.5- 0.G a-f/acre/year. 15 +�� i r. a + __ '' b� �_ __ _ cin . q. .-__ k6d : . _ _ 11 .__ .. i:: t1. • e: . . __ c a ,.:� cam: .:> I. :. . a 5 ;; .......... .�.:..,.. ..�. -- ..:,.: .. 1�+i7►:...::: L hl 1 }} ....i d .:. ,. : __. _ C . _+E3 + t. _. ::.. #, '. l es, :a'd . .. � 1. ► 1._ �e ewe __ r6bL. :Ii . 1 ev s die + n - p:: L._:.e is 11, a �e d ne __ L' L ►t1. , ; a . Vii. e: �aihe1.m . l a u 1.' __ sem . __ i.t Eaet. f f r. - <:>O so►_ a L. S h ; • __ _ . e se r ..... .....:: .. . iZI L. c _. ..� ,::_ c . 1. L. 1. _ ...- L1. +a . L.L. L 1. a -fits __ __ __ _. _ _ �.