HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04061993 - WC.1 Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Costa
FROM: WATER COMMITTEE �\ . County
Supervisor Sunne Wright McPeak, Chair a
r
Supervisor Tom Torlakson
DATE: April 6, 1993
SUBJECT: Report on State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Decision 1630
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Authorize Chair to sign .a letter to the SWRCB indicating qualified
support of Water Right Decision 1630, and indicating areas where
additional consideration may be warranted.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND
A draft of Decision 1630, released in December of 1992, details
standards and conditions to accomplish protection of public trust
resources in the Delta, by setting salinity and flow standards. As
a result of hearings and numerous comments on the Plan, the SWRCB
is currently revising this document.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
Supervisor Sunne W. M8-Peak, Chair Supervisor Tom Torlakson
ACTION OF BOARD ON April 6, 1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
The Board approved the above recommendation, and in addition AUTHORIZED
communication to Governor Wilson of the Board's major disappointment in a retreat four
the commitment to set interim standards.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT I 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 (510) 646-2071 ATTESTED April 6, 1993
cc: Community Development Dept. (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
DEPUTY
RG:nv
RWC/D 1630WC.bod
d
Page 2 - Board Order
SWRCB Decision 1630
April 6, 1993
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND
D-1630 calls for reduced water exports and increased outflows
during portions of the year as well as pulse flows to benefit
fisheries. Operation of the Delta Cross-channel will be in
accordance with biological needs. The amount of water available
for export will be contingent upon how wet it is in any given year,
and forecasts of annual water availability will be more realistic
in order to improve reliability. Urban water conservation programs
will be expanded. Agricultural areas with drainage problems would
be required to reduce the amount of water. applied to crop root
zones. D-1630 implements HR 429, Central Valley Project Reform, by
dictating where water to benefit fish and wildlife shall go.
D-1630 sets mitigation and monitoring fees which apply to those not
already paying federal fees. Issues associated with a limited
range distribution of fees, and a possible lack of demonstrated
nexus between the degree of impact to delta resources and the
prescribed fee was brought to the attention of the Water Committee
during their last meeting. In addition, the many smaller diverters
(those using less than 100 cfs) , accounting for a great deal of
irrigated acreage, have not been assessed.
Although the County supports SWRCB efforts to protect public trust
resources, it may be appropriate for some further consideration of
fee structure assessments and diversion restrictions to take place,
to insure equity among the range of users.
RG:rw
RWC/D 1630WC.bod
1�
cr
n
i$ ° 3
Ipp
coAS Its
I
a as
-► S.
g �q ,ol
zt-
MW
N
IAa j. -0- 9 0.
lip
lop
„ G J
4 0
cr
18 u � 3 R �►
m-� - --
_ ° :: —cr 6
Sli
� std. y � $ .s 3 - �'r�,•� • �
jig'a JT3 $
T
jig[
M So
rr
.11.141 1&gig M-111 ilot c � �OA �'1 !
go. so I sit
ICU I I al Im It
- -
C
800 »W a .$0$ .
A
3A " AO1 $
fit .
e$ o o $ mv
Aag Fla- If
1
-
C - -
A � $off � .g art
; SL
3 g
—=D e = " i
IL
ova
as
r a
Lp
"" � . ~ law 04
gam _ ��'• s _ ,..
45.1 w
- fill, L pa�,�.a "' $rA !t
a Ftp � �C���p O G�•rt� sM 'Ma
O L. �a "too
ah 96
'vies
osr .. v .. p , $ -, �
lot
* C. A
a i R —
as NCR
7C f� .Q O g 1 .w A ,ior
- . .
tv _ _ E-¢ i r4—
. - iii•: ..�;. r '
z' rrttwerw
ECC.ID EwsIRRI.ATIOTNCorDlsrltlCCor
... ..... �Vii:�•��
Q?
t.
—V ljr� 3 P
if
30
Directors March 2, 1993
Don Christensen
President
Lori Griggs
Frank M
VicePresident Committee for Water Policy Consensus
Mark Dwelley 1485-G Enea Court
Cliff Pierce Concord, CA 94520
Glenn Stonebarger -
............
Chuck Ham lion Dear Ms. Griggs ,
Manager/Secretary
Enclosed for your information are copies of the Comments and
Objections and Offer of Proof prepared by our attorneys in
response to the State Water Resources Control Board ' s
proposed Water Right Decision 1630.
My purpose in sending you this information is to alert you
to a a very serious problem that would adversely affect the
Brentwood area.
The problem is this : East Contra Costa Irrigation District
is erroneously viewed by the State Board as a major
responsible party relative to the current problems of the
Delta. As. a result, ECCID will be subject to a $5/acre foot
mitigation fee and at . least a five day interruption of its
water supply in late April or early May if the proposed D-
1630 is not amended.
In fact, ECCID' s impact on the current Delta problems is
very slight. Yet the costs associated with a major
interruption in an 80 year old water supply and the proposed
mitigation fee, as described in the enclosed documents ,
greatly exceed ECCID' s share of the problem. It is also
unfair that many smaller diverters in the Delta, whose total
irrigated acreage in the Delta grossly exceeds that of ECCID
and the other two Delta diverters subject to D-1630, are
excluded from the decision.
Thank you for whatever assistance you are able to give us in
this serious matter.
Sincerely,
Charles B. Hamilton
General Manager
cc: Tom Torlakson
Sunne Wright McPeak
Roberta Goulart
P.O.Box 696 - 626 First Street - Brentwood,California 94513-0696
Telephone(510)634-3544 FAX (510)634-0897
.a
,v
I DOWNEY, BRAND, SEYMOUR 6 ROHWER
GEORGE BASYE
2 KEVIN M. O'BRIEN
555 Capitol Mall, 10th Floor
3 Sacramento, California 95814-4686
(916) 441-0131
4
5
6
7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
9
In the matter of Permits and ) COMMENTS AND OBJECTIONS OF
10 Licenses held by various ) EAST CONTRA COSTA
diverters of water from the ) IRRIGATION DISTRICT,
it watersheds of the SACRAMENTO- ) RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO.
SAN JOAQUIN DELTA and from the) 999, AND RECLAMATION
12 channels of the SACRAMENTO-SAN) DISTRICT NO. 2068 TO DRAFT
JOAQUIN DELTA. ) WATER RIGHT DECISION 1630;
13 ) OFFERS OF PROOF
)
14
15 East Contra Costa Irrigation District ("ECCID"} , Reclamation
16 District No. 999 ("RD 999") , and Reclamation District No. 2068
17 ("RD 206811) (collectively, the "Delta Purveyors") respectfully
18 submit these comments and objections to Draft Water Right
19 Decision 1630 ("Draft D-1630") . It is the position of the Delta
20 Purveyors that their uses of water (and the effects of those
21 uses) are distinctly different from those of upstream and export
22 water users and that they should be dismissed from the
23 requirements of Draft D-1630. Additionally, the Delta Purveyors
24 assert that Draft D-1630, if adopted, would exceed the authority
25 of the State Board and that the record should be re-opened to
26 receive evidence on the anticipated impacts of the proposed
27 decision.
28
DOWNEY
BRAND
SEYMOUR
1 I. THE STATE BOARD SHOULD TREAT THE DELTA PURVEYORS DIFFERENTLY
FROM OTHER PARTIES TO THESE PROCEEDINGS.
2
The Delta is distinctly different in its history and
3
operation from the tributary streams and the State Board should
4
deal with historical Delta diverters differently than other
5
parties to these proceedings. By contrast with either the
6
Sacramento River and its tributaries or the San Joaquin River and
7
its tributaries, the Delta is a "leaky reservoir."
8
Historically, this "reservoir" was filled by winter and spring
9
flows which flushed the Delta of intruding salinity, in most
10
years pushing the salinity line well out into Suisun Bay and
11
beyond. Delta water users then gradually depleted this reservoir
12
during the growing season, which resulted in the slow intrusion
13
of salinity from San Francisco Bay. The delayed impact of this
14
salinity intrusion meant that in most years adequate water was
15
available for irrigation until nearly the end of the irrigation
16
season, even in the most critical years. (e.g. , WRINT-ECOID-12) .
17
The evidence presented to the Board in the present
18
proceedings indicates that historical diversions by in-Delta
19
water users did not adversely impact fish populations. The
20
concerns expressed on behalf of fish and wildlife have arisen
21
since the operation of the state and federal projects altered the
22
way in which the Delta operates. There has been no significant
23
difference in the quantity of water used by the in-Delta
24
diverters in approximately the last seventy years (WRINT-ECCID-9,
25
WRINT-ECCID-12, WRINT-ECCID-11, WRINT-RD999-11, WRINT-RD2068-
26
11) ."
27
28 1. Indeed, it is possible that the Delta (at least the
(continued. . .)
DOWNEY
BRAND —2—
SEYMOUR
do ROHWER
Y
I For these reasons, the Delta Purveyors, particularly RD 999,
2 which is composed exclusively of lowland areas, should be
3 eliminated from Draft D-1630.
4 There is strong precedent for segregating in-Delta water
5 users because of the Delta's complexities. For example the
6 Bureau of Reclamation, attempting to resolve the water right
7 issues relating to the operation of the Central Valley Project,
8 set aside the issue of Delta water uses and entered into
9 contracts only with the Sacramento River diverters. The Bureau
10 concluded that the Delta was a different area with different
11 problems which had to be addressed separately. Draft D-1630, in
12 attempting to deal with the impact on the Delta of exporters and
13 tributary flows, should similarly exclude treatment of the Delta
14 Purveyors in the present proceeding.
15 II. THE DELTA PURVEYORS INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE THE STATEMENT
TENDERED ON BEHALF OF THE SACRAMENTO RIVER PURVEYORS.
16
If the State Board will not dismiss the Delta Purveyors from
17
the present proceedings, the Delta Purveyors incorporate herein
18 0
by this reference the Comments and Objections presented to the
19
State Board by Natomas Central Mutual Water Company et al. ,
20
("Sacramento River Purveyors") . These Comments and Objections
21
show that the State Board, in proposing Draft D-1630:
22
23 • improperly fails to consider area of origin and
watershed protection requirements imposed by statute
24
25 1. (. . .continued)
26 lowlands) would use approximately the same amount of water
whether or not irrigation were conducted, due to the intrusion of
27 the sub-flows which exist throughout the Delta. Delta lowland
islands with elevations below 5 feet mean sea level would fill up
28 with seepage water if they were not being constantly pumped for
MoWNEY drainage.
BRAND —3—
SEYMOUR
do ROHWER
1 (including the Delta Protection Act (Water Code SS
12200-12220) ) ;
2
• violates the California Environmental Quality Act by
3 failing to prepare an environmental impact report for
Draft D-1630;
4
• lacks authority to impose the proposed mitigation and
5 monitoring fees and lacks authority to apply the fees
to enhance fish and wildlife habitat;
6
• misconstrues the public trust doctrine and ignores the
7 priority system;
8 • fails to follow its own procedures to review instances
of the alleged misuse of water;
9
• engages in an unreasonable use of water in mandating
10 pulse flows and the cessation of diversions;
it • violates the Due Process Clauses of the California and
United States Constitutions by relying on data obtained
12 from ex parte contacts with staff of the Department of
Water Resources; and
13
• takes private property without just compensation, in
14 violation of the Takings Clauses of the California and
United States Constitutions.
15
In addition to incorporating the Comments and Objections of the
16
Sacramento River Purveyors, there are special considerations
17
unique to the Delta indicating that the State Board has
18
improperly applied D-1630 to Delta water users.
19
III. THE STATE BOARD'S SELECTION CRITERIA FOR PARTIES TO THESE
20 PROCEEDINGS ARE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.
21 Out of approximately 600,000 acres of irrigated land within
22 the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, only three diverters have been
23 identified 'by the Board as being subject to Draft D-1630: ECCID,
24 RD 999 and RD 2068. Singling out these three agencies, while
25 allowing literally thousands of other diverters to escape
26 regulation, is grosslyunfair and illogical. Apparently, these
27 three agencies are the only three that have organized farmers.
28 into a large enough system and associated water rights to meet
DOWNEY
BRAND -4-
SEYMOUR
do ROHWER
1 the arbitrary criterion of a license to divert 100 cfs or more.
2 Consolidation into such systems should be encouraged, not
3 discouraged, for such systems allow the most efficient use of
4 water.
5 A case illustrating the efficiencies associated with
6 consolidating farmers into large irrigation systems is RD 999.
7 As is well-known; the Department of Water Resources has divided
8 the Delta into "uplands" and "lowlands. " Lowland areas lie below
9 an elevation of 5 feet mean sea level and are subject to seepage
10 from surrounding channels. RD 999 is located in the Delta
it lowlands. RD 999 's irrigation system is extremely efficient and
12 permits the type of water conservation program that the State
13 Board wishes to encourage. (WRINT-RD999- Ex. 9 .11 10-11) . In
14 light of these considerations, singling out ECCID, RD 999 and RD
15 2068 for regulation under Draft D-1630 is unreasonable, unjust
16 and punitive.
17 More generally, it is uncontested that ECCID, as well as the
18 lagencies included within North Delta Water Agency (which includes
19 RD 999 and RD 2068) have been in operation, for a great many years
20 prior to the construction and operation of the State and Federal
21 projects. If fisheries are to be further protected in the Delta,
22 then it is the obligation of these projects, and not of the in-
23 Delta diverters, to provide protection against project
24 operations. There is no evidence in the record suggesting that
25 diversions by ECCID, RD 999 or RD 2068, which long preceded the
26 installation of the project export.pumping facilities, have had
27 any impact upon Delta fisheries. Subjecting those agencies to
28 the requirements of to Draft D-1630 under these circumstances ,is
DOWNEY
BRAND
SEYMOUR -5-
L D rUrUmD
1 arbitrary and capricious.,
2
3 IV. THE STATE BOARD LACKS ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE
APPLICATION OF PULSE FLOW DIVERSION RESTRICTIONS TO DELTA
4 DIVERTERS.
5 A. In-Delta Diversions Do Not Affect Flows at Freeport or
Vernalis.
6
Draft D-1630 lacks any evidence to apply the proposed 5-day
7 ,
ban on diversions during pulse flows to in-Delta diverters. The
8
pulse flow objective on the Sacramento River is measured at
9
Freeport while the pulse flow objective on the San' Joaquin River
10
is measured at Vernalis. Flows to Freeport and Vernalis are, of
11
course, positive and downstream. Flows downstream of Freeport
12
and Vernalis, by contrast, are affected by the daily tides. The
13
impact of the tides upon the "flow" far exceeds the impact of
14
either the inflow or the diversions.
15
For instance, as indicated in the attached offers of proof,
16
RD 999 has a siphon intake four miles below Freeport. The tidal
17
daily range at the point of diversion is approximately 3 to 5
18
feet. Similarly, RD 2068 diverts water from Haas Slough north
19
and west of Rio Vista at a point more than 30 river miles below
20
Freeport. Tidal variation at that point is four to five feet.
21
Finally, ECCID diverts. water from a point approximately thirty
' 22
river miles below Vernalis. The tidal variation at the ECCID
23
intake is also four to five feet. In each of these cases, the
24
impact of tidal variations overwhelms any effect attributable to
25
the district's diversions.
26
In fact, the pulse flows may actually damage levees of Delta
27
districts, and may, in particular, damage the levees surrounding
28
MOWNEY
BRAND -6-
SE im
I RD 999. Normal spring flows at Freeport are much less than the
2 proposed 18,000 cfs proposed for the pulse flows. The force of
3 such flows poses the threat of erosion damage to levees and the
4 threat of flooding riparian habitat. Finally, the pulse flows
5 will result in increased seepage through Delta levees; such
6 seepage will increase drainage costs and may cause an increased
7 risk of levee failure.
8 B. The State Board Lacks Substantial Evidence for the
Five-Day Ban on Diversions.
9
The State Board lacks substantial evidence showing the need
10
to ban diversions by ECCID, RD 2068 and RD 999 during pulse
it
flows. If the purpose of the ban on diversions is to prevent
12
entrainment of fish, the hearing record is devoid of evidence of
13
the entrainment of any fish by ECCID, RD 2068 or RD 999. This
14
lack of evidence is in marked contrast to the overwhelming
15
evidence of entrainment of fish by the export pumps. If, by
16
contrast, the purpose of the ban on diversions is to assure flows
17
at Freeport and Vernalis, the hearing record is similarly devoid
18
lof evidence showing that diversions by ECCID, RD 2068 or RD 999
19
(all of which are downstream of the points of measurement) will
20
have any significant impact on the level of such flows. For all
21
these reasons, the State Board lacks substantial evidence to
22
support the. 5-day ban on diversions.
23
24 V. THE PULSE FLOWS WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT.
25
Draft D-1630 only considers. the environmental impacts of
26
pulse flows on fish and wildlife within the Sacramento and San
27
Joaquin Rivers and within Delta channels. The draft decision
28
DOWNEY
BttAND -�
I fails entirely to recognize the impact of the pulse flows on
2 other portions of the Delta. As noted in the testimony of John
3 B. Cowan (WRINT-NCMWC-9) , irrigated agriculture provides
4 substantial benefits to wildlife. As explained in the attached
5 offers of proof, the uncertainty associated with pulse flows will
6 result in increased use of groundwater, increased fallowing of
7 land, increased air pollution, and increased pressure to convert
8 prime agricultural land to residential subdivisions. Determining
9 the scope and extent of such effects demands an environmental
10 impact report, . not the "see-no-evil" approach of Draft D-1630.
11 The 5-day ban on diversions during pulse flows is
12 particularly ill-advised when applied to districts such as ECOID,
13 where many landowners have invested in micro and drip irrigation
14 . technologies. Unlike conventional irrigation methods, which may
15 provide moisture to significant depths in the soil profile,
16 micro and drip irrigation technologies are more efficient because
17 less water is applied and moisture is provided to the soil
18 profile at a lesser depth. The tradeoff, however, is that
19 irrigation water must be applied more frecruently, particularly
20 during the early stages of the growing season. The 5-day
21 diversion ban, coming when it does at a critical stage of the
22 growing season, will make it difficult if not impossible to farm
23 successfully using micro and drip irrigation systems.
24
25
26
27
.28
DOWNEY
BRAND -8-
SEYMOUR
&ROHWER
1 VI. THE BURDEN OF ANY ADDITIONAL FLOWS IN THE DELTA MUST BE
BORNE BY THE STATE WATER PROJECT.
2
Testimony submitted last summer on behalf of NORTH. DELTA
3 -
WATER AGENCY (of which RD 999 and RD 2068 are member agencies)
4
and ECCID made reference to their contracts with the State of
5
California through the Department of Water Resources. Those
6
contracts provide for an adequate water supply and quality for
7
reasonable and beneficial uses within each agency. Landowners
8
within each agency have paid the State of California for those
9
assurances. Accordingly, the State Board should recognize the
10
contract between NDWA and the State and between ECCID and the
11
State as the proper vehicles to resolve issues relating to Draft
12
D-1630 within the boundaries of each agency. These contracts
13 •
place the responsibility of obtaining water for pulse flows or of
14
paying additional costs associated with protecting the Delta on
15
the State Water Project rather than on in-Delta diverters.
16
VII. CONCLUSION
17
For the reasons stated above, the Delta Purveyors
18
respectfully request that the State Board dismiss them from these
19
proceedings, on the ground that the Delta Purveyors have no
20
adverse impact on public trust resources in the Delta.
21
Dated: February 16, 1993
22
23 Respectfully submitted,
24 DOWNEY, BRAND, SEYMOUR & ROHWER
25 0G,
26
By: e-- 007.
Kevin M. O'Brien
27
a�rr�arn
28
DOWNEY
BRAND -9-
ENO-UR
RJU*iWER
4
I DOWNEY, BRAND, SEYMOUR i ROHWER
GEORGE BASYE
2 KEVIN M. O'BRIEN
555 Capitol Mall, 10th Floor
3 Sacramento, California 95814-4686
(916) 441-0131
4
5
6
7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
9
In the matter of Permits and )
10 Licenses held by various )
diverters of water from the ) OFFER OF PROOF BY EAST
it watersheds of the SACRAMENTO- ) CONTRA COSTA IRRIGATION
SAN JOAQUIN DELTA and from the) DISTRICT
12 channels of the SACRAMENTO-SAN)
JOAQUIN DELTA. )
13 )
)
14
15 East Contra Costa Irrigation District ("ECCID") will present
16 testimony from its engineering consultant, Marc Van Camp, its
17 manager, .Charles Hamilton, and landowners/farmers within the
18 district not limited to the following matters:
19 1. The general distinction between diversions in the Delta
20 for in-Delta use and diversions on tributary streams or
21 diversions in the Delta for export.
22 2. The relationship of Sacramento River flow at Freeport,
23 San Joaquin River flow at Vernalis, and Delta
24 diversions to tidal variations in flow at ECCID's
25 points of diversion. For instance, ECOID diverts water
26 at a point approximately 30 river miles below Vernalis.
27 The tidal variation at the ECCID intake is four to five
28 feet.
DOWNEY
BRAND
SEYMOUR
A vnuuMn
1 f eet.
2 3. The lack of impact on fish populations of ECCID's
3 historical use of water.
4 4. The impact on farmers in ECOID of the pulse flows
5 proposed in Draft D-1630. Specifically, the pulse
6 flows proposed for the San Joaquin River at Vernalis,
7 and the associated five-day diversion ban would cause
8 the following secondary effects, among others:
9 a. Farmers in ECCID primarily grow a variety of row
10 crops (e.g. tomatoes, corn) . These crops are
11 quite vulnerable in late April and early May to
12 variations in water supplies. Recharging the
13 ECCID irrigation system would result in some
14 farmers not receiving water for a period of up to
15 two weeks, and possibly longer.
16 b. To avoid the potential effects of the five-day ban
17 on diversions, farmers will increase their use of
18 groundwater (if groundwater is available) , fallow
19 some of their fields in the hope of obtaining
20 sufficient water for the remainder or wait until
21 after the five-day ban to plant crops.
22 (1) Increased use of groundwater has an obvious
23 environmental impact. In addition,
24 increasing the use of groundwater in ECCID
25 may increase levels of seawater intrusion.
26 (2) Fallowing lands has the effect of reducing
27 food and habitat for numerous species of
28 wildlife that use irrigated agriculture. In
DOVNNEY
BRAND
SEYMOUR -2-
1 addition, fallowing lands may increase wind
2 erosion, which would increase the amount of
3 particulate matter in the air above the
4 Central Valley.
5 (3) Delayed planting may have a serious impact on
6 the profitability of farming. Crop varieties
7 are carefully optimized to take advantage of
8 a specific planting "window." Delay beyond
9 that "window" will result in inferior yields
10 and/or quality of produce. Furthermore, many
11 canning contracts are closely tied to typical
12 planting and harvesting times. Farmers who
13 delay planting to avoid the impact of pulse
14 flows are at risk of finding no buyers for
15 their produce.
16 C. The pulse flows themselves may have serious
17 adverse impacts on the environment in ECOID. The
18 increased flows associated with pulse flows may
19 serve to erode ECCID's levees and increase seepage
20 rates. To the extent the levees are under stress,
21 there is an increased risk of levee failure.
22 Furthermore, by increasing river levels in the
23 Sacramento or San Joaquin Rivers upstream of
24 ECOID, the .pulse flows will flood much riparian
25 habitat that state and federal agencies have tried
26 to cultivate during the last few years.
27 d. The mitigation fees will directly increase
28 production costs for farmers in ECCID. Given the
DOWNEY
BRAND
SEYMOUR -3-
&ROHWER
1 low profit margins associated with farming,
2 increasing costs will cause some farmers to fallow
3 land (with the impacts noted above) , to shift to
4 higher-value crops (which may or may not require
5 more water) or to leave farming. The increase in
6 rates of conversion of prime agricultural land to
7 suburban uses will be highest in areas adjacent to
8 suburban areas, such as that served by ECCID.
9 5. The 5-day ban on diversions during pulse flows is
10 particularly ill-advised when applied to districts such as ECCID,
11 where landowners have invested in state-of-the-art micro and drip
12 irrigation technologies. Unlike conventional irrigation methods,
13 which may provide moisture to significant depths in the soil
14 profile, micro and drip irrigation technologies are more
15 efficient because less water is applied and moisture is provided
16 to the soil profile at a lesser depth. The tradeoff, however, is
17 that irrigation water must be applied inore frecuently,
18 particularly during the early stages of the growing season. The
19 5-day diversion ban, coming when it does at a critical stage of
20 the growing season for most crops, will make it difficult if not
21 impossible to farm successfully using micro and drip irrigation
22 systems. -
23 Dated: February 16, 1993
24 Respectfully submitted,
25 DOWNY, BRAND, SEYMOUR & ROHWER
26
27 By:
2 8 Pm-"397 George Basy
DOWNEY
BRAND
SI YMOUR
&ROHVItEK
• * # * *Sunday. Marc! 21, 1993 B-1
WASSE ON `QUALITY STANDARDS FOR BAY
-- Wilson water policy impen"Ied
Plan was meant
to end California's UK=tsm W ought
Its first step was to have been
endless wrangling adoption by Dec. 31 of standards
aimed at halting the degradation of
By Eric Brazil Bay-Delta water quality
OF THE EXAMN a STAFF The second step was to have
been to formulate a long-term"fix"
An impasse over water quality
standards for San Francisco Bay for the Delta to maximize its effi-
and�the Delta may well demolish ciency for north-south.water taans-
y port and storage — whether by
Gov. Wilson's state water policy.. means of a peripheral canal,than-
says the administration's leading . nal dredging, offstream storage'br
environmentalist,Resources Agen some combination of facilities.
cy Secretary Douglas Wheeler.t The state'-water board, which
State Water Resources Control:, has two seats vacant,is split 2-1 on
Board indecisiveness.on the Stan- adopting Delta water quality Stan-
. dards issue has environmentalists dards. It will take a unanimous
on the governor's year-old Bay= vote of the three remainning�
Delta Oversight Council fiustrated bers to adopt a stsndards-eetting. .
and ready to quit.-:"
"If(the council).fails,the policy' _ ..Chairmail Marc Del Piero and
As gone,"Wheeler said in an inter- mer James Stubchaer are.re-;
i view with The Examiner's editorial pommy ready to vote on April 1—
board' :a self-imposed deadline —:5or a
Few Wilson administration ins- ;revised board-order on the etan-
tiatives began with greater fanfare
than the water policy,unveiled last dards- The order has been ready
April.It was designed to end Cali-
fornia's interminable water wars byV,
Peds eat to ad
striking a balance among urban, But board member John Caf-
agricultural and environmental in- .
terests in the disposition and de- fray.a former Department of Wa-
velopment of water resources. ' ter Resources executive, isn't
ready, evidently sharing the.de-
partment's reservations about the
plan, y well as those of the agri-
business community.
The issue, under active board
study since 1986, has become ury
gent not only because of Wilson's
initiative,but because the U.S..En-
[See WATER,B-5
.L� Sao
,.. O �m c��, �..Gi °.1��' em« ems+• of�0 �p 11'°° � �'•�/� � -
'3 �•C O m *'d� A i O O r• D f4 '.'S � M• `eT�
..,g'sL �' A �•' S on C 'C $ r•A S VG
-�i. •o �S �-� �+A a *d G rt `9 �, ?m �'•
A Fo" `$.� m .�+.y c r• y�7'r a' o ., o r•g .+*.r A �o �'!
A O " '�..• r,•,� �. A •�'►BOO,.•n fl•".r', A �, A *�
`eqy " G e• S m r► a Q, '3.n m es r. Q m 4 O cr O Q C!
"'.�'` o% S �' � A 'oGA �, A
,,..� cp .S.��•
�S tff'�'AG"LT Ow"""'.'"f,m.A.�n`"¢:i 1»A�pA �!r��`�'"+! OtQ• dm "A� g�q re+• me."�q A�='.�"t.�•�°+p 7A SR►•3 OC,� �Aer�►Ac.'G4�AA
?. 0i� pp,p► mOpFG,1Dr4
orA � -s ° " m m 5»0.y
•. ��yqC✓Oa�9 " a O
i
at
r g O+o aha » a e"� CtaP.r•?_ ..?» " a• A o m m sQ A x' o o► N
m O �o ¢•*�.'S A O t+C
tC �r+•`.3' 2D e+' a ". 5F 0► cb° C
Oafi "� rm f ." A cia-
A K : m W^
,�"'•
to to 114 vw
C: Vlo
v.
14164 t2."I
CSS' '09 ,r. ¢"m ? tC o 9 A r•m » A Oy R a
Al * A.�r A `.9' r+ 'a "�.�, A �0.y 7A aA G m 0Ps O00 A G
A •C S m Us g A A o•� m�e A 1. m A g m A
db�pp rsioa r. ° mom m b mCA2O t�! m r, m
SS.A.. ►m 7•�" O O r• C e« r• a4 , S ;S• .O•A A m, A i•
�,. m A '+ Am A C7`¢. m A ?o g = Qr » .A9 7' �;rA�. a O„
G � o 0 Amo, A o ID 'OA � .,� A � e`ag7• M O» M gb 14 �, r� y S g ° an S o tot i' 1- ss.°"o ►. S o+ S
:: m G•d O a+S•C r. :�4±• o•S m A 7 G ° :; a* m :
H A .�.•M A� .� O C W O � A � IY fC .� g A ?' tD ."'{Y m 04 O+ C�^•'+;f � �G ."�.•
��•m'D»5.0
•0a"pi mo`�r•A po 4 A"'� O�.l.9{ eA+�s•�'�tirs pA°A r AW`'f�eo+g R�-dAOqCS•mm•rw5s»oAR�m 4Q�9�R�,Am_a"'m��"pO•W�' ACA"Ja
mr OO" OA�v"• ` �A vS�»A �L_+7,wefm'►mM�ea' omnOm•p, r,t ���A•','.rt?og�
� tA, 'P
GA'y•,`��`.1S
"
aD
A W
nTv Qm O
r
,fl t° g '�+ rs 9�
-c• .,,, m �,,.G ., , m 0 d O r. G �p ••s Ova �+
{6�,r G• ey G a° A , ff"� 1"=° b tiCr S.D Fo .• KG 9� :w m
..w A �� �G � A �` !�9 � O. � ° G'�+�� :3• A e► F+`.1 m K + O '.'� Qr D "� A i•�:
O a '� r O ►+f'3 (1 tn tow
m r 04 rn�" •.+„ �..g O",,,.�•4 A �, ° r
04
, '? yA 5•><O m ti rRs A � S�a'`" �°° A, �►A
�`e* p..°i ?� "� 04 �q '�- rF4, W + �' '3 10 "t A% �•1 O+O C". gz
Ur 0 ms
�rt k Fr wy
"0•,•,� ° !► �'K � � � "'•Y� O *�'° O O � " ��r iw��'
•�. :•A��► tLdbv�o24y °$'ar
rA4 "�,,.Q+ �..°*►m tO �t0 :S � O t _..-p � _. � r'��*, � -�� QI m "A�• y W
¢+ .. �.r y +�nyi'!
�.G•O d .:. A " 'r•N 4�4 3 - '•S t►Gcvq.'� • m 'dpi. wf
'n- �, ` O �._;-:.: ..:.:~- ir rA � ..:1 ►'..�r• �t.� � qi".S'�e 01 �p V Q ��G ° r
am+-.. �'. _- 4' � GS '.�• "d � g mem ¢,c,� DA m 41
o �f1g'm !7nS � ,�tsl � c� 765' `" S•��`�i �" 5� A
14
!1 G Q'�App•'Q 9 n1 O Ay .4
A+aW',•Q��A.0A's���+ �C' •Ai{�+��p�v�p°�.�c�O'� G�.+�A m G�LOS• O$ '3��.1•ar.m1PO�•sd'�e`'Ao T�S�1�`O• S^AZ.a•',m A"Zi%g CPct`43�+��.`. ma"�,"N ay/AOrc••��,e a° ,SAV°'�3s��0 all 41e.
�•.cam?{`••m��eGbg o-4`
�I � M �
e ''o 0� � G
° M.
140 is m
S 5�$. ga
`y�tr 11 L• " s0too
0 ' is 4 O
A lox,
C..+++,f`�t�•r�P
mmmfi
r
WI er' G
10 O
0.0
�' �• ��o,*xy't �9 � � �� � ptt�WATf' �� w 0
10
r• es'
4 � e+ �y�'r 7S �.► ��ij � "bhp_
H
`ap'e� wGy � �,��•O N
A O N e9a„q ��p aq A:S
'the$sch"emo Bei R1net • Sswrdev.Match 90.tars '►* .
'EnIrons �w._ 1/+.. i1i Sr
S
rules
Wilson o
By Jim Mayer `^ : w.�$$tion is whether the governor Is
Bee sun Welter ^�: °- to srs�nd behind his policy or sat{..
-.vmid Fullerton,ehairman of the 9ier.
Environmentalists threatened Fri,' `: watar committee."If the g+o-veraor
block the search for a long-tri:m solut:cn f�: c�-', -•,; ;lard decisions on 1630,hoer do
the Delta if Gov. Pete Wilson interfar'�s ;w if he will snake the hard decisions
with proceedings setting emergency wtta:- dtw-42v line?It is a matter of credibility.'
quality standard:for the estuary. C_.`Hi r-ia Farm Bureau President lib
The environmentalists are eoncera;:d V-:-. a T4:,,nber of the commission, Urged
about rumors that Wilson is acting bo?,AM tae n-dironmentabsts to keep the tMeTWO
the scenes to weaken or dela the proposed :.a- :.:ds separate from the couunmis"
standards to appease Baa Joaquin Valley
farmers,who fear the plan,will reduce•weir be a mistak%to let other pmts
water supply Change�L"resolve,"Vice said.
The standards, known as Decision-1R80, T;a ^o=ission decided to take no as
are bein considered by the State Water uo- t!m,assurnirg the governor will hear about
sources Control Board as a way to step t t tz..orcerne of its mnnbers.
rapid darline of Ish and wildlife in the See- ^_.4 -� ,dards were to be in place byJaut-
ramento•6anJoaquin River Delta L y. =artier this month, under intense
The govrnorjja�year..P- ti mom, the board
to, the, ri:..l 40M.4a .:.c f pis a G60i320i3.
BayDelta Oversight Commission to recoup- ....pan spokesman Franz Wis" said:"1
mend a permanent solution that would ai- till__r tis:a us an overabundance of hearsay
tow southern farms and cities to divan :. e The governor has notasked for
flesh water without doing environmenta er-T r:terat:onz or postponements.*
harm. sources say the �vr�n ! `
The environmental representatives on. I,.-e, %vhich.also has been lob ib ed hardby
the commission-attempting to courtar the furl:a:i, -y x=coding whether'it should get
political pressure of agriculture-wa;ted to ,�•'.;.-d. Among the options are ancourag-
suspend future meetings of the gra::;zti? it .'r� Surd to delay a decision or relax
the water board adapt: the ernar.
standards +'?:". "-L bard's proceedings follow rubs i
'This affects'my children and it -�'_ �: ,_-„ .. c:arts. Walt Pettit, the board's
the stat%and I will have a problem if:L::3 z rector,said it would be inappro-
is just pushed off to the side," said =ill ;-:-^a the governor to make recom•
yeates, who represents fisHrg grc.- .�wr.;es because the bearing pro.
The Board of Supervisors Contra Cerrkl ftthehBoard
and
County Administration Building Costa County Administrator
651 Pine St., Room 106 (510)646-2371
Martinez, California 94553 County
Tom Powers,1st District
Jeff Smith,2nd District ae
Gayle Bishop,3rd District _
Sunne Wright McPeak 4th District
Tom Tortakson,5th District
I _ .�
April 20, 1993
Governor Pete Wilson
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Governor Wilson:
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors authorized this letter in order to convey our major
disappointment with your decision to retreat.from your commitment to set interim water quality
standards for the Bay-Delta Estuary.
Your capitulation on this very important issue has a number of serious consequences. The State's
continued inability to adopt even interim standards signals the Federal Government that the State
cannot and will not handle management of our resources, and indeed invites EPA control over this
very important process. Lack of interim standards has the added effect of confusing and perhaps
derailing the tenuous 3-way long-term planning process recently going forward by the Bay Delta
Oversight Council (BDOC), at your direction. Without interim standards, there is no basis from
which to develop long term standards, and resultant instability will result through reluctance to
compromise as a result of your decision not to set interim standards. How can you expect BDOC
to attempt to set standards for the long-term when you cannot even commit to adoption of standards
on an interim basis?
The Board is very concerned that setting aside interim standards will be a giant step backward, rather
than the present course of further contemplation of a program that would perhaps achieve a long-term
compromise plan. The State has a vested interest in preparation of a workable plan which will
preserve and manage our resources, rather than dependence on the federal government to do it for
us, through a program which would be largely out of our control.
If you have questions, please contact Roberta Goulart, our staff, at (510) 646-2071.
Sincerely,
Tom Torlakson, Chair
RGA Board of Supervisors
ws2:Bay-Delr_Gov
cc: Mr. John Caffrey, Vice-Chairman
State Water Resources Control Board
The Board of SupervisorsCpntl'a Phil Batchelor
Clerk of the Board
Costa and
County Administration Building T` County Administrator
651 Pine St., Room 106 (510)646-2371
Martinez, California 94553-1290 County
Tom Powers, 1st District
Jeff Smith,2nd District
Gayle Bishop,3rd District
Sunne Wright McPeak,4th District
Tom Torfakson,5th District •; ';.
April 6, 1993
a coi�t'
Mr. John Caffrey, Vice-Chairman
State Water Resources Control Board
901 "P" Street
P. 0. Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Mr. Caffrey:
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors offers its qualified support for D-1630. This long
awaited decision directly addresses the public trust issue of protection for the Delta, and assigns
responsibilities of afar reaching nature to those parties deriving beneficial use from our invaluable Delta
resource.
It is in the area of assigned responsibilities that the Board has identified potential shortcomings relative
to equity in the proposed fee structure and to the diversion restrictions of the pulse flow requirements.
The Board is hopeful that the upcoming hearings relative to these two parts of the decision will result
in a more sensitive and equitable sharing of these burdens.
The Board of Supervisors supports a tiered approach in both the imposition of mitigation and the
diversion restrictions of the pulse flow requirements. The Board nevertheless has reason to believe
that the categories of in-basin and out-of-basin diverters, while a significant step in the right direction
may be too general to reflect important historical and location-based differences.
Some distinction should be made for diverters whose diversions began long before the state and federal
projects so dramatically altered the Delta. In addition, the current decision should also consider the
myriad of diverters whose diversion is less than 100 cfs, but whose total diversion may amount to a
significant impact.
The impact of tidal flows, strongly affecting some in-Delta diverters because of their location, should
also be factored into a schedule of diversion restrictions of the pulse flow requirements, if possible.
Your attention to these additional considerations is appreciated. If you have questions, please contact
Roberta Goulart of our staff at (510) 646-2071.
Sincerely,
Tom Torlakson
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
resffrey.ltr