HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10201998 - C68 tm
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ` on
FROM: WATER COMMITTEE , ' . ' Count'
Supervisor Joe Canciamilla, Chair
Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema '
r�
DATE: October 20, 1998
SUBJECT: REPORT ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AFFECTING WATER QUALITY PROTECTIONS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND & JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
AUTHORIZE Chair to sign letters to Secretary Doug Wheeler (Resources Agency), and
Edward Heidig (Office of Administrative Law) opposing changes to CEQA as proposed
which have the effect of diminishing protections to water quality.
EIS.CAL_IMP CT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
B�CIC'��t)U_ItiLDfRFo `O �,I~OR RE��{�14tIFNDE►TI._._C�I�IS
On October 5, the Board's Water Committee discussed recent proposed changes to
CEQA Guidelines which could result in the diminishment of protections to water quality
through the removal of key language in Appendicies G (Significant Effects) and I (initial
Study).
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ._X_ YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)-
ACTION OF BOARD ON 93ctt er 20,
_t 8__._. AP V D AS RECOMMENDED xx 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.
Contact: Roberta Goulart, CCPD (335-1226) ATTESTED October 20, 1998
Orig: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
cc: County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
County Administrator Office AND M7,
Y ADMINISTRATOR
BY
1AI , DEPUTY
Page 2
In Appendix G, Significant Effects, broad language defining (potentially) significant impacts, such
as degradation of water quality, water supply contamination, degradation of groundwater resources
and recharge is replaced by new language in the Initial Study.
The proposed Initial Study language would render further review of potential impacts as
unnecessary if it appears that water quality or wastewater standards are not exceeded (some new
language does refer to substantial groundwater depletion, substantial alteration to a watercourse,
etc.)
This is problematic in circumstances where discharges for pollutants are not yet regulated, in those
circumstances where regulation is expected to become more stringent, and especially in the
assessment of cumulative impacts. Specifically, the revised language has real potential to worsen
water Quality in the Delta by cumulative salinity increases that don't exceed existing standards. This
could affect Contra Costa Water District intakes, and in particular, CCWD's ability to fill Los Vaqueros
Reservoir.
This change is inconsistent with large-scale efforts to improve water quality in the Delta through
the CALFED process.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: WATER COMMITTEE
Supervisor Joe Canciami€€a, Chair
Supervisor Gayle B.Uilkema
FROM: Roberta Goulart
DATE: September 28, 1998
SUBJECT: PROPOSED CHANGES TO CEQA GUIDELINES WHICH DIMINISH
PROTECTIONS TO DRINKING WATER QUALITY
The Contra Costa Water District brought this item to our attention, and K.T. S um from CCWD
will be present at the Oct.5 Water Committee meeting to speak to this issue. It appears as
though CCWD(and subsequently, County residents)would be impacted by proposed CEQA
changes because of the existing reliance on Delta water supplies, (and its historic water quality
problems), and where several projects are proposed(which under the proposedguideline
changes), could further degrade water quality by lack of recognition of impacts as significant and
resultant lack of mitigation of those impacts. This coupled with other under-regulated pollutants,
such as selenium,cumulatively could present serious problems,which are inconsistent with
efforts underway through CALFED(and other programs)to improve water quality rather than
degrade it.
Recent proposed amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines have the
potential to worsen existing protections to water quality through language changes to the Initial
Study and replacement/changes to Appendices G and I. This includes removal of specific
questions and language on the effects of discharges,changes to surface water and groundwater
impacts which have in the past,helped define a significant impact. Discharges would not be
deemed significant if discharges do not exceed or impact existing regulation contained in a water
quality control plan,waste discharge requirement or other water quality standard. This creates
problems,particularly in some areas of the Delta where there are no water quality standards,
where discharges for pollutants are not yet regulated, or for those circumstances where regulation
is expected to become more stringent.
The Water Committee may wish to consider recommending to the full.Board that a letter be sent
to relevant policy-makers indicating Board concern and request for rejection of changes to
existing guidelines.
SEP--18-98 FRI 01.34 Phi CCWD WATER RESOURCES FAX N0, 510 688 8142 P. 01/10
CONTRA COSTA
WATER-!STRICT
.r�`irrrr ,
.ter 1331 Concord Avenue
P.O. Bax H2O
Concord,CA W24-2M
TELEFAX COVER SHEET
01,6
TO: John Kopchik (CCCWA) Fax: (5fO)335-1299
Terry Young (EDF) Fax: (510)658-0630
Spreck Rosekrans(EDF) Fax: (510)658-4630
Hamilton Candee(NRDC) Fax: (415)495-5996
Cary Bobker(BISF) Fax:(415)721-7497
FROM: Richard A.Denton
CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT
Tel: (925)688-8187
Fax:(925)688-8142
DATE: September 18, 1998
PAGES(including cover sheet): 10
COMMENTS:
Were you aware of these proposed changes to CEQA. They would mean that a Bay-delta
project could claim no significant impact on water quality if no water quality standards or
wastewater standards were exceeded rather than the existing Appendix 0 criteria of:
contaminating a public water supply,substantially degrade water quality, and impacts on
groundwater.
I have left messages with Asst. General Counsel at the Resources Agency,Matt
Francious(sp?) 916-653-5656,and Terry Rivas Plata at the State Clearing'House 916-
445-0613. Apparently there have been several rounds of review already(duly noticed in
the Regulatory Notice Register-who keeps track of that?)and the package has been
forwarded to the Office of Administrative Review for approval (they have 30 days)and
then it will be certified. After another 30 days it becomes State laws 11
Without Appendix G,CCWD would have no right to challenge EIRs on the basis that
they increase salinity(say by 100 mg/L chlorides)in the Delta if that increase in salinity
does not cause an increase above the existing 1995 WQCP standard of either 250 mg/L
(or 150 mg/L for part of the year). Even small amounts of degradation of rater quality in
the Delta can have major impacts on our ability to fill the Los Vaqueros reservoir with
high quality water(we need 50 mg/L chlorides or better). A small increase can change
water from 45 mg/L to 60 mg/L chlorides,e.g.,but remain well below the 250 mg/L
chloride standard.
Seems like we should all be opposing these changes.
Call when received: YES NO X
SEP-1898 FRI 01:35 PH CCWD WATER RESOURCES FAX NO. 5�0 688 8142
09/16/98 18:57 CA LJf BR,4 tiATER I EN ES 4 t.>Ety t UN—e u t rw+tv P- 02/10
a J/16 8
15,45 2132177778
SEP.16.1956 3s43PM PL.ANNXMG & RM.I1TH 213-2i77,,7C3 N3.742 P.2/6
state CEQA Guttle tics Rulcoxorittt
The Rresour o Agastcl is'tomplodug a roletttlstttltsg that revues the State CZQA Qui+dettee s
to sigrtltlatntly decrease C;zQA's e011117 to Vtotocc crater supplies.
The Raawx"s Agaroy is requIred by law to Update ttu OvWsUacs ovary two yetra to ret W ahw4os to the
CEgA steftW"A ist jaetieiaCl ime Metation. Tac current Mem4king prapoaai would Implement*pot#rias"
that cow to spealal Interests.
`i'Itc rulotaRkIaj It bclt:g readied for submutat to the OM*o of Admta'istradve Lave,and Is hoeing fast*
tracked wirh a sctta4wad ofnescdve date of lata October 1998. The Rtsoureee Agency General Couriol has
turned a deaf OW to abjttdons regarding tett loss of prove tlorn for carter mtouretes.
Time is of the ass es. "Your letters to s�mttmtor Wilsesn,Rasouree s Sectrtaty Wkeelct,RftOuroe s Cstrtaml
Counsel raccoon,W.Rives ptata nt the 6tate Clearinghouta tad U mow Idward Heldig at the Officeof
AdstrlAkvtdve lAw Opposing.*013t P0464 stt'iPPiAg Of water resotttcxs proitctlons fiat tits CEQA
duidelines ere needed noir. Ste+the atuolltd temple letrar.
Motor water resoastr+tes issues with the roletrtstictug are:
t, xAmtts=QA review eof wAter quality Impacts to projteu that t would violate water quality
stsundards or'1Y#a'jta discttesga requirements. Seo stwbod p>ages'eamporing existing surd proposed
Guidelines leaps ge. Thts is unacceptable:
+� Cetrt minatift not terAsoad elsewhere would not be taviewed pmturat to CSQA;and
»
It is inapprogtisa+e<for GRQA evaluations*f S4 a#tta artt Impaats to tnvoWatate the economic;
muMA tationt that are factored Into t"A tcds tad Waste d!>QcdmV regluirest wd%—CBQA
addresses eosnotrnio issues in the ideadflca lm offassible eltawRives and n h*fta
MOM",
Z. Ramoves considerable detail of potential impacts to surface and grondv sttsr that must
hes cousiderad. Sae tttmvhed pages compacta$existing a4d proposed Guldatlaet tarnguese.
3. I.mats lllealiltood of uddCatiod for Incremental cumulative Impacts to wexar suppliea by
requiring in Etlt ottty W.
o ttlette already rartsos at lawt a potentially eignifcant Cumuladve impact from other projects,
and
is the pro"oA projerei inatmeatal additiao,thougb IndfviduAy timited,is aufaulattvety
cotsslde:rabl4.
Further,even where shad is an existing tis cant cumulative tmpact,a lead ssgcacr wound by allowed to
detaomins that the pmpossd project's lncrmettal addition would only be m1uhnd and,asoeorctictgty,is not
"cumul dvely cot stdcrahte."
These cltatngtes will maho it much metras ditttoult to efflac&ely protect water resource$to the
CEQA,proms. CBQ k has been effectively used to a#nllange:
+ar pMosetel ell pipslina projects that would"post wour supplies to aignifivattt risk of
aatttaaarttistat[on,
• Proposed itttlttstriat projects drat would 4ischarge wastes tato water nopply aourom such as the
Su ft.oaqu in Fre+sue uc a DW-Delta.
Proposed water exchanges that would result In d1wbargc crater of tubstaettally infodor
quAtirf tate the Cel#toMIA Aquaduct.
• Proposed tatticfttlt probers adjaactet to or overlying Impanmi gro'undwatcr t7Shcuaa or Water
supply conveyances.
SEP-18-98 FRI 01:36 pH CCWD WATER RESOURCES FAX 1�0. �1tl 688 8142
e9-'3.6/98 18:59 CA t.3RBPN bitthR tut-f-t-) r vmvi"i ._. P. 03/10
09./16-198 i5ed6 •2132177778
5XP.16.179e 314APM PLPMING & REsc.11TH Z13-ZJ7-TM H0.742 P.
Kathy Kt#nY9% /0"4001 5t9l9a 1302 Pave 14 #
t>3zcxss;aai �`",
t rzaTvm j
rs
Y M a
t? 'Por a pro jeat within the mricinity of . prlaato eairstrip.would tete project
retatult in a safety hazard Sot: ftaerple residing Or wOrkingin tho project area?
q! Impair implaMontAtierrn Of or pftys,lcojjyiattorfet# with an adopted emocq*aoy
rq$ponst plan or `tnargetncy tnaeuatianplWn77
I es+s es a to ati tfi osr i as o death
.s.. ..«rwi.t.. w L'itCsy CZ +atvie �► Katt std ttasett to witbalctsiaaa3
arua►x~�r w, tart a a iezr i i*ax�tta.fetti 6: .�.`. -.....w
V111 z IMMO, r 0 RATKA €®RUTY -- Pould thepret jects
a►1 Violate uatar quality standard# or
waste disohirrge rlegtiirtants?
b7 Sub-stsAtially deplete roundaater suppii,sa of intact wouhstantially with
grouh,dwattu r*oh*vge such that there uoul,d be a► netdeficit in ate COV T01UMO
or a lowering of the local groundwater tableleaex (e.g., the production rete
of para-Mating noarbywelis would drop to a level which would not support
existirrq land uses otrplanned uses for which pelvoits have been e;ranteedd?
es Substantially alter the existing drainages pattern of the site or
#tree,inclutfing through the al,tereLtion of the course Of a stream Or rl.vex4- in
aetmsnner which would result in oubsttrttzial erosion or siltation on- aroft'-Vito?
d) Substantially altar the txiatinorainsira pattern of the site or asst,
Including through tht Alteration ofthet course of a setrsatat or river, or
avbstartt xl.l,y inaretaereo the rate oramount of surface runoff in a tarmac which
would result in floodinq on-Or 011-site?
0 create or contributorano£f water which would eexce64 the capacity at
existing or planA*46toxmwater drairtags rystatna-%* 06P0608407
;;k * plate housing within a 100-yeas area aatataPPed an a
federal risaod gasard Boundary or rioad Insurance Mata t'latp *rothtr flood hazard
daltmottor Wrap?
q1 >51ae4erikhin a 100-year flcod*4.ewaewtsa>Ard area ateuctures which would impods
or readtre►ot tloodglowa7
ew 1>, or etvlr p a i nif3oant siak o lave 3n or sSe>*th
nraMygAins. etd prod y tures trai sts Mt a larrws aa-
.� taeenrla r;ian by mmi-lwe>, eewsaml. osvtudi'Sa.e!
(PICfitIAE�
t r 1C3'tJRE 7
(PICTME 1
�P'1G'tttttl"t
tPICTUAZI
trIcTun>vt
(PICTM)
=r x axautc f
SEP-18-98 FRI 01:37 PH CCWD WATER RESOURCES
09. 1 le 59 CA UPN WATERactES i n�rrrt,tq-RiA� 510 688 8142 P- 04/10
0916/99 35:45 2132177778
L'.16.199a 3144PM f*LA►'IrIM t SC.117k 212T—EI77779"�..w. •74�. _ �rtt�� s
' R • i .+:`{ .-av .moi'xr +.`,•�• 1r4 tr+ f,`�`'r. .,,v,{�..t.i +5. ;+�'d}"tY`t t 2:.r. 4 t �.
V W4
• ` ;�r`^� ;�;'�'�<y,+:ice�'�.
Appendix 0
r
a.�'.•.' . r;`a'r++ �" + ,�
Significant Effoots
•fit 1# ';3� M r'; € 1t project m�►r be deemed td have a a€�jMagnt otiict on the envIton enr If It Wit;
t�# €acea) Contact with Wept rd atsA*1mer*plate And goals of tho community whsle it Is
{b} Have's 840standat,demortstrable rwgaws aeatha8c effect,
fc3 ttubata ntfaffy affect*n andertgeredt rats,or thrown ted a peaies of animal or
plant of the fietbftatcf lira spec€es;
c) Interterf twbatanttuffy*M the Mov"Ont of any retidertt of migratory fish or
w ifs►tPa des;
(e) Presch pubgshed rnsdional,state,or toast stetndards retattr4 to actid waste or
aft ntrof:
tj t3ub tatttfetfiy doomde wateir qusltty;
df GoYtt#t bes a p030 water supply;
hil Stbstan dograds at depItte grow-4 water resources:
t intertero erigt€Iywith wound water r!ach"',
0krvpt or ad"rtefy offticf a PMhfstarto or blelodo amhasolefooi3Otte or a
propfoy of htstorta at f3 t "d sig(tfir enca to a community or e1hr4a or twat group,Of s
F paleontological efts eozept"a pert of a SClerltillo stv*
{k} Mducl su startdat gtawth a#concontrol"of p+aputattesn;
() Canoe an Increase in trafoo whim It stRlatatttiet in eota<tian to the►existing traffic
tactd and rrapsolty of the etretet s'yatertr r
Q") Bolas a large number of psapls;
Ertt
n) o.�aurags whies which retsuh In the use of targe amounts at fueir water,at
energy,
O Use fust,water.or ellec�y in a wostalul manner, q
p lnatseaa sub4t0da€ty the Wnbient noise tercels for edjainthg aftle; !
Caw"aubsftrttial 11090-Serosion of totation;
r Ex00ry People sit structural to"or geatagic hsmdrr,
e1 A—tend a tGowartru»lt tints wfth Cepac^fly to seeve new develvprrtent;
ty Subutanda cffmintah habitat for fish,w�tr!€€ts or!slants:
4 U C?latupt er a the physical sitars pment of an a t blished commurft:
v Assts a potanow Put"boom hazard or invvtvr the iraee production ar disponi
t Of materials which{rasa a heizartt to people or Ontmst or plant MW*tlww In the:arra
affected; ,
fns(WIConf3te:t vwM esta b tshed recreational,uducatlanat.retigfotra or aciante'tic uays of
areett
(x) Metals a xMWOnt sift quality atartdaed,eontr(We subsla+ett lly to an e)ittint}
or projected air quality violation,or expost sensitive r"tore tax aubatantiat pollutant
concentrations,
CCftVW 4f prfret�t veto agricultural� fond to Man-sgricvttarvl use or I"alr the aldculturel
(at lritetlarts with a morgency rovento#tient or emergency evacuation plans.
i ice
t
t
BEP--18-98 FRI 01;37 PIS CCWD WATER RESOURCES FAX NO. 510 688 8142 P, 05/10
09/16/98 18:59 CA URM i WATEP R 1Ji..i t� y utly{u{1 t., +_«,..
09116-+98 15;47 21 17?7?e
SEP.26, 3 r
PLOW IWG 8,PZSC I I`E t t 21.3-2177," .• ,7d2�p.+ »�.., .
aWrrt
�t
If. IMPUt.A'TttON AND HOUSINL3. Wood#I*prvposat;
0) C +cru ad*06161 tt0E0081 Or#seat p9PUlQ vn t_3 M t,..3 t.3
1 b) Endum substantial grvwth 1n an area efthr f d+`reatvy or 0 0 d 0
(ndtrettiy{a4 thrauphCtrajeatt in an utdovataloed area ,
at wen3Eoa at major tnrastn anrrr}? { } ��^tt tit
E3
a) Mpface oxwtnq housing,esoe dally affordefga #r�....1 0 El
Iri, 61501001CAt.PftOMEM9. Would 11"proposal result to or
expose pmopt*to potential"aatrr Involving:
a) Fault tupture? { } M M C3 M
e) Satsmfc ground fellum,Endue ft Hquefaction? { ) E3 0 cl 0 1
d) Selene.tavnamt,or%AWCOnic haterd? ( } t� 0 Q 0 �
a) txttdattaosesrrnucttivrnE? { ) t-Q-t #�-E t�� t#��-�
tj groslon,changes In topography at unstable sa(1 El 4..t C3 #...1
1 canciftno from exeoavalfon,grading,at M? { )
t#} 6uhslder+ce of the land? { ) 0 M 0
h) expensive soft? 0 El 11 0
q Unfit geotogfo of pfsycfoaf features? { } 13 1 IM C3
IV. WAYEA. Would the propmaal rosutt fn. ❑ C..i
A) Changes In*Xorptfvn raters,dndnager patterga,or
the rete 4"d at"Unt of surwa runeRf'f' ( �
b) fxpeoure of people or pro porty to wator rotated Q Q 0 13
ha=rdtsuth as fl000lmo? { }
c) i"t:hsryo Mitt vurtaoo water or othot aftetatfan of C C-1 E..»I i...,,t
surface tva#ar R04ft 46,9.tennparatare.taaoclved
oxygon or t►r+'t wM? { }
d) Chanyas in tht amount of surtace water 3n wvy wow,
fxxiyt { E--� E--t tit
e) Chaamea in turmit,at the covat at direction of C3 t..»~f C 3 C�
w 1der movements? t
f) chonve in the Quantity at proand waters,ofther ttwwon � � t—►
j direct additions or withdraws*or threwprs Int rceptror+
at an aquifer t+y cuts or excavation;at through 4
E substantial lass of groundwater re charq# !
�- fit r�i
g} Altered r�rocYon or rats of Row of grmtmdwatsr7 f } 0 C3 12
j } Impacts to grocrerdwato(qunW
gra .:1
1:
1
ti
SEN-23-98 WED 08: 14 PSI CCWD ENGINEERING DEPT FAX N0. 9256888303 P. 02/06
CWRACOSTA
WATER DIMICT
1331 Concord Avenue
Ro.Sox Filo
Concord,CA 94524
(925)588-8d0() FAX(925)86"122
September 23, 1998
olrectors Mr. Edward Heidig, Director
Joseph L.CaMbell Offices of Administrative Law
AresJdenr 555 Capitol Mall,Suite 1290
James Pretti
Vice President Sacramento,California. 95814
Elizabeth R.Anello
Bette 8catmun Dear Mr.Heidig:
Noble 0.Elcenko.D.C.
Walter J.Bishop
6enerat Manager Re: Request for Rejection of Proposed Changes to Water Quality protections In
CEQA Guidelines
Contra Costa Water District(CCWD or District) is concerned that the current proposal
to revise the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines significantly
diminisl>;cs existing protections of drinking water supplies and water quality that are
provided through the CEQA process. The revised CEQA Guidelinescould result in
significant adverse impacts on CCWD's drinking water supply for 400,000 residents of
Contra Costa County. For example, the revised guidelines could seriously reduce the
performance of the District's recently completed Los Vaqueros Project,>a$450 million
water quality and emergency supply reliability project consisting of a new reservoir, a
new Delta intake and conveyance facilities, funded entirely by the customers of
CCWD. A description of the Centra Costa Water District operations and facilities is
attached.
CCWD raises these concerns as an urban drinking water supplier dependent upon the
quality of the source surface and ground waters to meet drinking, water duality
standards,and to safeguard the public health. In particular, the District relies heavily
upon CEQA to protect the water quality in the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta, the;
source of drinking water for more than 20 million Californians. The;Delta is under
heavy stress from agricultural drainage and urban runoff and discharges from
wastewater treatment plants, and numerous water supply projects are proposed for the
Delta that can degrade the water quality for CCWD's 400,000 drinking water
customers. Such projects include the Delta Wetlands Project, Interim South Delta
Program, and San Luis Drain. As California's population grows in the future, more
and more projects will be proposed to change the magnitude and quality of the flows
into the Delta., expand or build new wastewater facilities that discharge to the Delta,
and otherwise impact CCWD and other urban water agencies' drinking water supply.
The proposed changes to the Initial Study Checklist and deletion of the Appendix G
listing of probable significant impacts eliminates significant protections for water
SEP-23-98 WED 08.15 Pit CCWD ENGINEERING DEPS" FAX NO, 9256888303 P. 03106
Mr. Edward Heidig, Office of Administrative Law
Request for Rejection of Proposed Changes to Water Quality Protections in CEQA Guidelines
September 23, 1998
Wage 2
resources and water quality. In the reworking of these portions of the Guidelines, CEQA
consideration of water quality impacts in terms of substantial degradation of water quality,
contamination of a public water supply(both in existing Appendix G), discharge Into surface water
or other alteration of surface water quality, and impacts to groundwater quality (both in existing
Appendix 1)has been reduced to compliance with standards and waste discharge requirements.This
is entirely inappropriate and irresponsible because it puts at risk the health and safety of all
Californians.
For example, CCWD has three drinking water intakes: Rock Slough at the entrance to the Contra
Costa Canal,Mallard dough near Chipps Island,and the District's now Los Vaqueros intake on Old
River near the Highway 4 crossing. The only water quality standard that directly addresses water
quality at any of these three drinking water intakes is the State Water Resources Control board
(SWRCB)'Water Quality Control Plan's 250 mg/L chloride standard at Rock Slough which applies
year round and a 150 mg/L chloride standard that must be met for 155 to 240 days per year.
However, these chloride concentrations are totally Inadequate for meeting existing or future
drinking water regulations under the recently reauthorized Federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
A three-member water quality expert panel, recently convened by the California Urban 'Water
Agencies, found that in order to ensure that urban water agencies can meet more stringent
reasonably foreseeable future U.S. EPA drinking water regulations using Delta water and existing
treatment technology, the chloride concentration may need to be as low as 20 mg/L chloride (50
htg/L bromide). This is considerably less than the 250 and 150 mg/L standards set by the SWRCB.
The proposed changes to the CEQA guidelines would enable a project to be considered to have no
impact on waxer quality even if that project caused the chloride concentration at Rock Slough to
increase, e.g., from 50 mgt to 150 mg/L (increasing the salinity threefold) because the water
quality standard of 150 mg/L would not be exceeded. Even greater increase would be considered
insignificant at times when only the 250 mg/L chloride standard applied.
The goal of CCWD's $450 million Los 'Vaqueros Project is to deliver water with a chloride
concentration of 65mg/L or better to our customers. To achieve this goal, the District will need to
fill the reservoir with high quality (e.g., 50 mg/L chlorides or better) and use that stored water
during times of high salinity in the Delta to blend with Delta water to meet the 65 mg/L chloride
goal. Under existing Delta operations and level of development,CCWD expects to be able to meet
that goal at least 90% of the time. However, any projects that increase Delta salinities and reduce
the availability of high quality for filling Los Vaqueros Reservoir will have a very significant impact
on the District's drinking water quality, water supply and operational costs. The proposed changes
to the CEQA guidelines, in particular Appendices 0 and I, allow a load agency to consider these
substantial impacts to be not significant because no existing water quality standard in the Delta has
been exceeded.
No SWRCB water quality standards apply at the District's told River and Mallard Slough intakes so
the proposed changes to the CEQA guidelines could result in a lead agency overlooking significant
impacts at these intakes entirely. The Resources Agency has apparently attempted to provide a
Str-?�-88 WED 08:16 PM GCWD ENGINEERING DEPT FAX N4. 0256888303 P. 04/06
Mr. Edward Heidig, Office of Administrative Law
Request for Rejection of Proposed Changes to Water Quality Protections in CEQA Guidelines
September 23, 1998
Page 3
more focused and comprehensive analysis of the effects -of the proposed project than currently
provided in the separate appendices. However, in doing so the requirement to analyze and mitigate
degradation of the drinking water supplies has been almost completely eliminated;
CCWD also requests that the existing provisions for assessing cumulative impacts i be retained in the
State CEQA Guidelines. As an urban drinking water supplier, it is imperative that our sources of
supply be protected from cumulative degradation that will significantly reduce drinking water
quality and put at risk the public health and safety of not only the 400,000 people receiving water
within C+C'VVD's service arca in central and eastern Contra Costa County,but all Californians.
CCWD has concluded that these changes will substantially reduce meaningful protection of water
quality and water resources in the CEQA process and that projects such as industrial projects that
would discharge waste into important sources of water supplies, oil pipelines that would expose
water supplies to significant risk of contamination, and landfill projects that would significantly
degrade important groundwater basins would be allowed to proceed without any mitigation for those
impacts.
CCWD was not included on the trailing list for this revision process was not able to comment on
this elimination of water quality protections. CCWD requests that you not finalize the proposed
revisions to the CEQA guidelines that were transmitted to you on September I I and return them to
the Resources Agency for revision to include language protecting water quality in the Guidelines,
and further public review. If you have any questions regarding these comments, Tease contact me
at(925)688-8034, or Dr.Richard Denton at(925)688-8187.
Sincerely,
,—Walter J. Bis
t� General Manag
Attachment: CCWD Operations and Facilities
WJB/AJD/R.AD/rlr
cc: Byron Buck, California Urban Water Agencies
Felicia Marcus,U.S.EPA Region 9
Phil Bafth"
The Board of Supervisors Contra am
�tyAdm ram&Aalry Costa �°c`�z
1351 F'irte Street,Room 106 County���
Mar&*z,CWftmia "&53-1Z* y
Jim RoOres,Oat t)lab'k� _
Q"U$.tlipoOM,2nd ti"id
Dar"ii ".Std D*Wd
•a.
M�tk Dwauww,41tt r?jt wd n;
Joan CWWW",Stlt Diaadot
Mr. Edward Heidig,Director October 20, 1998
Office of Administrative Law
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1290
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Mr. Heidig:
Today,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to oppose the proposed
revisions to CEQA Guidelines which would have the result of weakening protections to water quality.
We find it particularly disturbing that OAL is considering this type of revision while an extremely large-
scale cooperative State-Federal effort is taking place to determine the best method of improving water
quality in the Bay-Delta area,and subsequently,to millions of Californians. This effort,called
CALFED, has spent years on evaluation of options to protect water quality in the Bay-Delta area. Your
proposed rulemaking is in direct conflict with this effort.
The removal of key language in Appendices G(Significant Effects)and I(Initial Study),combined with
new proposed language which renders additional review of projects unnecessary when existing water
quality standards or other discharge requirements are not exceeded will weaken water quality protections
considerably,especially in the Delta area. Many residents within Contra Costa County depend upon the
Delta for their drinking water supply,and water quality in the Delta is already a significant problem.
Water quality standards in the Delta are not a good indicator of`significance' as defined in CEQA.
Increases could affect the quality of water at Contra Costa Water District intakes and can impact the
ability of the Water District to fill the recently constructed Los Vaqueros Reservoir.
The CEQA Guideline revisions are also disturbing in terms of the inability to determine cumulative
impacts of salinity increases from projects,whether they exceed existing water quality standards or not.
In addition,discharges of pollutants which are unregulated at this time will not be addressed.
We would appreciate your help in rejecting the abovementioned proposed changes to the CEQA
Guidelines.Thank you for your decisive and prompt attention to this matter,as we understand that you
must act regarding this rulemaking by October 26,1998. If you have questions,please contact Roberta
Goulart of our staff",at(925)335-1226.
Sincerely,
3ir�Rogers,Chair
Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors
The Board of Supervisors Contra WW
County Agm„nist ,n Sulam Costa (510)335-1900
s51yPr�stmt,Room California��,@f�o�s4 M County
JM flog,tot Dio O ------
" b
Darin.tial,«,ant Mutt
M"DM&8UWor,401 DlWid
.Me Com.tt Dem c
. c=
'v
The Honorable Douglas P. Wheeler, Secretary October 20, 1998
California Resources Agency
1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311
Sacramento,CA 95814
Dear Mr. Wheeler:
Today,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to oppose the proposed
revisions to CEQA Guidelines which would have the result of weakening protections to water quality.
We find it particularly confusing that you would agree to these revisions while supporting the CALFED
effort,which has,as a central component,the improvement of water quality in the Bay-Delta area.
The removal of key language in Appendices G(Significant Effects)and I(Initial Study),combined with
new proposed language which renders additional review of projects unnecessary when existing water
quality standards or other discharge requirements are not exceeded will weaken water quality protections
considerably,especially in the Delta area. As you are aware,many residents within Contra Costa County
depend upon the Delta for their drinking water supply,and as you know,water quality in the Delta is
already a significant problem. Water quality standards in the Delta are not a good indicator of
`significance' as defined in CEQA. Increases could affect the quality of water at Contra Costa Water
District intakes and can impact the ability of CCWD to fill the Los Vaqueros Reservoir.
The CEQA Guideline revisions are also disturbing in terms of our inability to determine cumulative
impacts of salinity increases from projects,whether they exceed existing water quality standards or not.
In addition,discharges of pollutants which are unregulated at this time will not be addressed.
We would appreciate your help in rejecting the abovementioned proposed changes to CEQA Guidelines
which are inconsistent with other larger-scale efforts to improve water quality. Thank you for your
decisive and prompt attention to this matter,as we understand that the Office of Administrative Law
must act regarding this rulemaking by October 26,1998. If you have questions,please contact Roberta
Goulart of our staff,at(925)335-1226.
Sincerely,
Jinn Rogers,Chair
Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors