Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03071989 - WC.2 WIC,A To BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Water Committee fes, Ira Supervisor Tom Torlakson VVtI,,,��l��..��}}ll Supervisor Sunne McPeak Costa DATE: February 2 7 , 19 8 9 Wu SUBJECT: Water Related Issues �`1 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Authorize staff to submit comments on the Bureau of Reclamation water contracting draft environmental impact statement. 2a. Authorize staff to submit comments on the Environmental Impact Report for the Port of Oakland proposed plan to dispose of dredge sediments on Delta islands. 2b. Authorize Chair to sign letters to Federal agencies and the County Federal legislative delegation requesting timely consideration of ocean disposal of dredge spoils and consideration of metal reclamation from dredge spoils. 2c. Direct staff to work with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and Contra Costa Water District to review monitoring and mitigation program proposals for Port of Oakland dredging activities. 2d. Authorize letter to the Director of the Department of Water Resources regarding environmental assessments on materials used for levee maintenance. FINANCIAL IMPACT None. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND 1. The Bureau of Reclamation is proposing to allocate 1. 1 million acre-feet per year of remaining Central Valley Project yield currently held in reservoirs. Three Environmental Impact Statements (EISI ) have been released, each describing a different geographical -area ,-within the Central Valley Project (CVP) . This summary deals primarily with those aspects contained within the Delta Export Service CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES - SIGNATURE: ' RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATIO OF BOARD COMMITTEE _ APPROVE � OT R SIGNATURE s : Supe/Mr T`oMmJ T�oNla�kson Su ervisor Sunne McPeak r ACTION OF BOARD ON - March 7, 1989 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT I AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES. AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. cc: Community Development (Orig. Dept . ) ATTESTED County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RG: j17 :wa.brd M382/7-83 BY DEPUTY ...J 1 Area. The EIS' list alternatives describing various methods of water allocation. Some combination of these alternatives will be determined after comments on the Draft EIS' , and will constitute the proposed allocation in the final EIS. Objectives stated in the EIS include increasing water available to the Central Valley area, optimizing economic returns, and optimizing the amount of water available for all beneficial uses. This project proposes to use areas with major transport facilities, areas presently authorized for service, areas of origin with existing transport capacity and water supply deliveries to wildlife refuges. Those items proposed as part of this plan which are concerns or are contrary to existing County policy are listed as follows. Implementation of this program could result in reduced flows within the Delta area. Contra Costa County policy states that flow protection standards must be established, and economic as well as environmental needs of the Delta must be met prior to additional exports. No new programs should be established until the Bay-Delta hearings are concluded by the State water Resources Control Board and new flow standards for the Bay-Delta estuary are determined. Most alternatives proposed would have. significant adverse impacts on fish if -implemented -as a para of this project. This is due to increased diversion and export from the Delta, as well as reduced Delta flows. Mitigation measures must directly address any impacts to fisheries so a decline in fisheries will not exist as a result of this project, and past actions affecting fisheries must be mitigated as well. A pricing structure should be set whereby water users pay their fair share of all project costs, and subsidies are eliminated to encourage efficient use of CVP water. - Impacts of the seven alternatives were determined, projected to the year 2020, then compared with the "no-actions' alternative. This no-action alternative assumes full buildout of CVP facilities in the year 2020. Potential impacts of full buildout of facilities are not addressed in the EIS, as they are impacts associated with past contracting actions. This is an unrealistic method of comparison with project alternatives to determine project impacts. - Most alternatives proposed within the Delta Export Service Area and all alternatives within the American River Service Area have negative regional economic impacts. Any decrease in regional or other earnings within the Delta area must be fully mitigated. Any decline in water quality standards of the Bay-Delta estuary is not acceptable. - Concepts used in determination of firm yield should be scrutinized in greater detail. Firm yield is based on hydrologic assumptions calculated over a period of time using historical data as a basis. As two drought cycles have occurred within the last 10-year period, these assumptions may need to be reexamined, and ability to determine firm yield quantities reassessed. 2 . f The draft EIS' do not adequately consider the benefits of water marketing and enhanced water conservation as an alternative, as well as a means of more efficient water use within the service area. The requirement of water meters in new developments is one method to insure that limited supplies are not wasted, and also could be used as an aid in determination of future water allocation, pricing, and other conservation measures. Data for the two months of May and September in four different years was utilized in predictions of salinity for each alternative described in the EIS. It is questionable if this limited data is adequate to make salinity determinations when a full 57-year hydrologic cycle data base is available for use. A hearing on the EIS' is scheduled for March 23 , 1989 in Concord, and staff will attend. In addition, staff is working with attorney Cressey Nakagawa to clarify these issues. Final comment on the EIS' is due by April 3 , 1989, and will be reviewed by the Water Committee at the March meeting. 2a. The Port of Oakland is currently proposing to dispose of dredge materials onto Twitchell Island and lower Jones Tract in the Delta. A draft supplemental Environmental Impact Report was prepared by the Port, and testing of dredge samples was performed by Harding Lawson Associates in February 1989. The Water Committee has expressed concern that contaminants in dredge samples could harm water quality in the Delta, and asks that these documents be reviewed, and comments be prepared. 2b. The upland Delta disposal of dredge sediments was proposed due to conflicts which arose with ocean disposal sites, and time delay in the acquisition of a permit from the California Coastal Commission. The Water Committee wishes to continue examination of other alternatives for dredge materials, such as ocean disposal. The Water Committee wishes to communicate with the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency to encourage timely review of the establishment of an ocean disposal site, and any possibility of metal reclamation from dredge materials for safer disposal. 2c. The Central Valley Regional Quality Contro1.`,-Board is the permit agency for the Port of Oakland disposal of dredge sediments on Delta Islands. The Port of Oakland is in the process of establishing a program to monitor dredge material contaminants on the levees, and surrounding water quality, as well as proposed mitigation measures. Staff would continue to monitor development meetings between the Regional Board and Contra Costa Water District regarding these issues. 2d. Senate Bill 34 appropriates funds for Delta levee maintenance for levee stability and flood prevention. Contra Costa County strongly supports these measures. The Water Committee feels that confusion may result and water quality may suffer from local agency responsibilities in environmental assessment of any materials placed on levees. The Water Committee would suggest the Department of Water Resources consider coordinating environmental assessments which may need to be done on behalf of all the local agencies. 3.