HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10141986 - WC.1 w G
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: WATER COMMITTEE
DATE: OCTOBER 6 , 1986
SUBJECT: SWRCB REPORT ON AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE IN
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
Specific Request(s) or Recommendation(s) & Background & Justification
RECOMMENDED ACTION
AUTHORIZE the Chairman to sign a letter transmitting comments of Contra
Costa County to the State Water Resources Control Board on their draft
report entitled "Regulation of Agricultural Drainage to the San Joaquin
River" .
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND
At the October 6, 1986 meeting of the Water Committee, the Committee heard
a report from the Community Development Department on the interim draft
report from the State Water Resources Control Board entitled "Regulation of
Agricultural Drainage to the San Joaquin River" .
The purpose of the study is to propose water quality objectives for the San
Joaquin River, propose effluent limitations for agricultural drainage
discharges in the San Joaquin River basin, and to propose methods to
regulate these discharges.
The interim report Contains information on:
1. Constituents of greatest concern in subsurface agricultural drainage
of the San Joaquin River basin.
2. Beneficial uses for each reach of the San Joaquin River from below
Friant Dam to near Vernalis.
3 . Ranges of potential water quality objectives to protect the beneficial
uses from the constituents of greatest concern.
4. Description of historical and existing water quality, including the
sources and loads of these constituents to the river system at criti- .
cal locations.
Continued on attachment: X Signature:
Recommend of County Administrator Recommen ttee
Approve Other
� -
Si ature(s
Supervisor Sunne McPeak SupeAvisor 1z. Schroder
Action of Board on: O Approved as Recommended r Other
Vote of Supervisors I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
Unanimous _X (Absent ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
Ayes Noes BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN.
Absent Abstain
DBOcl L2:swrcbRPT.t10 Attested
Orig. iv. - PHIL BATCHELOR
cc: CLERK OF THE BOARD AND
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY
DEPU7 CLPRK
SWRC8 REPORT ON AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE -2- October 6 , 1986
IN SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
5. The amount of constituent removal or dilution that would be required
to achieve the potential water quality objectives for the constituents
of greatest concern at critical locations.
The final report to be issued in November 1986 will also include the
following:
1 . Cost to achieve the potential water quality objectives.
2 . Economic impacts of the potential objectives.
3. Environmental effects, including changes in river flow and quality, of
achieving these objectives, and whether the objectives will be met at
downstream locations.
4. Possible programs of implementation, including potential sources of
funding.
After reviewing the report, the following conclusions of importance to
Contra Costa County were made by staff:
1. The effect of pollutants from the San Joaquin River on municipal and
industrial water supplies for the Contra Costa Canal and the CVP and
SWP are absent from this report. The report should discuss the
findings that the committee has researched concerning the water
quality of the outflow of the river on the Sacramento/San Joaquin
Delta (if this was done) . Any study or standards without considering
this would be incomplete.
2. Other possible pollutants should be studied in more detail in a study
that should commence immediately following the completion of this
study. The technical committee identified other constituents of
concern which warrant further study but for the sake of expediency did
not make any recommendations at t6his time.
3 . The report states that pesticides were not considered in the scope of
the report. There is mention that pesticides are found in surface
water drainage, not subsurface water drainage, so pesticides were not
discussed in this report. Surface water discharges also flow into the
San Joaquin River and additional justification or documentation is
needed to verify that pesticide contamination is not serious.
4. The County has received comments on the report from The Bay Institute
of San Francisco. The Bay Institute has convened a panel of experts
to review the report and has submitted detailed comments.
The Water Committee recommends that a letter be sent to the State Water
Resources Control Board expressing the conclusions listed above and noting
that the County was not sent a copy of the report when it was initially
issued, therefore, the County was unable to submit comments by the request-
ed date (September 10, 1986) . The letter will also request to be sent any
other notices concerning this study.
DBOcl
L2 :swrcbRPT.t10