Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03062001 - C.63 :f Contra s Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - ti County FROM: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE Supervisor Donna Gerber, Chair Supervisor John Gioia, Member DATE: March 6, 2001 SUBJECT: REPORT ON AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE FROM THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY TO THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER AND DELTA SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) REITERATE the Board of Supervisors' longstanding opposition to the discharge of agricultural drainage to the. Delta via the San Luis Drain. 2) AUTHORIZE staff to list the. County as a contributor to a policy briefing book on the agricultural drainage issue explaining alternatives to the San Luis Drain. 3) AUTHORIZE the contribution of $1000 of Water Agency funds to co-sponsor a March 27 San Francisco Estuary Program conference entitled: "Beyond the Drain" FISCAL IMPACT Funds are available in the Water Agency budget to cover conference co-sponsorship. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The attached February 7 staff report to the Committee provides background information. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION O COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE ER SIGNATURE(S): S ervisor Donn erber (Chair) pervisor John Gioia ACTION OF BOARD ON 7 March=6 , 2001 APPROVED AS RPECOMMENDED X.2L OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE XAJNANIMOUS (ABSENT - - - ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: John Kopchik (925) 335-1227 ATTESTED March 6 . 2001 cc: Community Development Department (CDD) JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF County Administrator THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel, attn-. Diana Silver AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR B , DEPUTY SAConservatio n\Roberta\twicte2002a ppro p.bo.doc Revised Outline for Drainage Briefing Book December 21, 2000 I. The Agricultural Drainage Problem in the Central Valley Needs to Be Solved Quickly for Everyone's Benefit • Explain the various manifestations of the drainage problem (wildlife, people, Ag.) • Provide a brief refresher on drainage history and failed proposals from the past (in a semi-subtle way, make the case that in-valley is the only option) • Summarize where we are now: Bureau has an obligation to provide drainage service (begin here to define what drainage service is and what it isn't) • Briefly present thesis: We know a lot more now about what works and what doesn't work. Likewise, after 30 years of conflict over an un-implementable proposal to export drainage to the Delta, we now have an opportunity to work toward common solutions. We should seize this opportunity and make rapid, responsible progress on drainage for the benefit of the environment and the agricultural community. Sidebars for this section: -- More detailed history of"great moments in drainage", perhaps in timeline format (John) -- Kesterson-type photo (Angela) II. Past Studies and Recent Experience Have Shown That Drainage Can Be Managed Responsibly • Rainbow report(briefly summarize how report was written and what it says) • briefly summarize Grasslands and Red Rock innovations (maybe 2 paragraphs or 2 bulleted lists total) Sidebars for this section: -- Highlights of Rainbow report (John) -- Grasslands "innovation"photo (Angela) III. A Modest Proposal(For Reducing Drainage More Than 90% in 5 to 10 Years) • U.S. commits to providing drainage service for a"reasonable amount of water". This commitment, plus additional technical support from the Bureau, would be catalyst for soft-path improvements by farmers that can gut drainage at least 90%, but probably more, down to 0.02 acre feet per acre or less (this argument to be sold better; we will try to make the pitch that, not only are we OK w/ government dealing with a reasonable amount of water, we are also OK w/ government helping farmers do the soft path improvements necessary to reduce drainage to the reasonable level) • Explain the two categories of tools for accomplishing this 90% reduction: "drainage minimization" and "within-district drainage management" (per Terry's conversation with Mike Delamore) (important that we not repeat information from section I1 or Appendix 1) Sidebars for this section: -- Table projecting how much drainage reduction is possible in Westlands using soft path tools; based on Rainbow Report projections (Angela) -- Our proposed schedule for drainage reduction, perhaps shown with a graph or graphic (John) -- Condensed list of pots of money (and other resources) available to support soft path tools; full list is in Appendix 2 (Angela) Pagel of 2 IV. A Commitment to Deal With Remaining Drainage in a Timely Manner • Recognize that after all softpath techniques have been implemented, there will be a residual amount of drainage. • The magnitude of this residual amount is less than 10% of current drainage problem water, and probably more like 0.02 acre feet per acre per year. • Bureau should commit to a schedule for providing service for this residual drainage (Terry and Mike discussed the term "residual drainage service". We might want wish to avoid using the word "service" in this context—could give farmers a semantic opening—they could say the 9t'' circuit didn't order residual drainage service but just drainage service.) Schedule should be something like 5 years for planning and 15 years for full implementation. • Residual drainage service must be environmentally responsible—no discharge to water bodies, no attractive nuisance evaporation ponds. • Speculate a bit on some methods for dealing with residual, but do so in a non- committal way that avoids sanctioning ponds of any kind. "Treatment processes and beneficial reuse of reclaimed water and salt Sidebars for this section: , -- Table comparing benefits of our plan to benefits of old plan (e.g., "Environmentally responsible"4 our plan=yes; old plan=no; "Implementable in a timely manner"4 our Plan=yes; old plan=no (Angela) -- Graphs contrasting the cost effectiveness of soft-path techniques with bad-path techniques; and/or contrasting the cost-effectiveness of disposing of all drainage problem water vs. disposing of only residual drainage water(Angela) -- Happiness photo (Ag. Co-existing with wildlife or Terry or Gary shaking hands with a farmer(joke)) (Angela) Appendix 1: Tools to Achieve 90% Reduction in 10 years (John, based on AngelalTerry background materials) Appendix 2: Public Funds Available in California for Soft-Path Drainage Solution (Angela) Page 2 of 2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT -_� 651 Pine Street, N. Wing - 4th Floor -gin Martinez, CA 94553 Telephone: 335-1290 Fax: 335-1299 TO: Board of Supervisors Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee Supervisor Donna Gerber, Chair Supervisor John Gioia FROM: John Kopchik, Water Agency DATE: February 7, 2001 SUBJECT: Update on Two San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Drainage Issues: the San Luis Drain and the Grasslands Bypass Project This memo is intended to provide a brief update on the following two issues related to agricultural drainage in the San Joaquin Valley: 1) The Proposed San Luis Drain to the Delta, the recent court rulings on this matter, and alternative drainage solutions. 2) The Grasslands Bypass Project, a project which involves continuing use of an existing portion of the San Luis Drain. This memo is not intended to provide an update regarding the County's on-going litigation concerning the Grassland Bypass Project or proposed extension of the San Luis Drain. If desired, such additional updates could be scheduled with County Counsel for closed session. The Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee last received a report on these topics in November of 2000. I felt-the best way. to provide an update while also reviewing the background information was to simply repeat the November 2000 report and show changes in a different font. Please find below the text of the November report with updates underlined. November 111 Staff Report--Updates 1) San Luis Drain Background: The San Luis Drain is a proposed/partially constructed federal canal intended to remove the agricultural drainage from a 600,000 acre area of the western San Joaquin Valley and 1 discharge it to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta near the City of Antioch. After completing an 85 mile middle section of the San Luis Drain's planned_188 mile length, construction was halted in 1975 due to increasing environmental opposition to Delta disposal and a lack of funding. Unlike the Grasslands area(which is currently utilizing a portion of the existing San Luis Drain), most of the lands the Drain was intended to serve do not drain naturally to the San Joaquin:River or the Delta. The partially constructed Drain was used to carry drainage water beginning' in 1972. The transported drainage was discharged into a holding reservoir called the Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge. Operation of the San Luis Drain was terminated in 1985, following mounting evidence that the water in Kesterson contained enormous quantities of selenium and was responsible for the widespread death and mutation of wildlife using the reservoir. With the San Luis Drain closed and unfinished, farmers and others considered how to deal with a Worsening problem-- rising, salty groundwater beneath farms that could threaten agricultural production. A $50 million interagency drainage report concluded that the San Joaquin Valley drainage problem could be managed for at least 50 years without out-of-valley disposal by measures like improving irrigation efficiency. Despite the availability of alternatives, affected farmers sued the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in 1991 demanding that the government provide drainage service. In 1994 and 1995, a U.S. District Courtjudge surprised many by ruling for the plaintiffs in two early phases of the trial, finding that the U.S. did have an obligation to provide drainage and ordering the Bureau of Reclamation to apply for a discharge permit for the San Luis Drain. The U.S. appealed this decision, and Contra Costa County (together with its Water Agency), Contra Costa Water District, the Bay Institute, and the Natural Resources Defense Council cooperatively joined the appeal to support the contention that the Drain should not be built. The parties participated in settlement negotiations,but the case returned to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals when the negotiations failed to lead to agreement. Recent Appeals Court Ruling: The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco issued a ruling February 4, 2000 concerning construction of the San Luis Drain to the Delta. The court's ruling was mixed but is more favorable than unfavorable. The court ruled the U.S. does have an obligation to provide drainage service to the farmers ofthe San Luis Unit in the San Joaquin Valley. We, our partners, and the U.S. had argued that the 1960 Congressional authorization to build the drain did not constitute a mandate to provide a drain or drainage service. We had also argued that, by continuously ordering the Secretary of the Interior to spend no funds on the San Luis Drain for nearly all of the last 30 years,the earlier construction authorization was moot. Our arguments were partially unsuccessful on this point as the court reaffirmed an obligation, though they did narrow this obligation considerably. The appeals court ruled that the U.S. does not have a specific obligation to build the San Luis Drain, only a general obligation to provide drainage service. The court recognized that the U.S. has an array of options for providing this service without building a drain and did not want to constrain the U.S. in how it dealt with the problem.•To illustrate the extent of these options, the court referenced the"Rainbow Report", a$50 million study of in-valley solutions to the drainage problem such as better management of irrigation, land retirement, water recycling, etc. 2 The appeals court also lifted an injunction which had previously been placed on the U.S. That injunction would have forced the U.S. to apply for a discharge permit for the San Luis Drain. Events since the Appeals Court Ruling: In June of 2000,Deputy U.S. Interior Secretary David Hayes sent a letter to Congressman Miller indicating that the U.S. had no intention of pursuing the San Luis Drain in light of the Appeals Court ruling. In September, Judge Wanger held a hearing in Fresno on how to implement the Appeals Court ruling. He indicated he would order the U.S. to promptly provide drainage service, but would not tie their hands by telling them how to do it. After receiving comments, Judge Wanger issued an injunction on December 18, 2000 ordering the Department of the Interior to prepare a work plan for provision of drainage service. Interior is required to receive comments from other parties and to submit a final work plan to the court on February 26, 2001. Discussion: The Appeals Court ruling presents an opportunity to push for in-valley solutions to the drainage problem, particularly through land retirement,better irrigation management,drainage recycling, and treatment. On the other hand, the ruling doesn't entirely eliminate the threat of a completed San Luis Drain nor does it preclude other damaging solutions to the drainage problem such as export of valley-wide drainage through the completed portion of the San Luis Drain(parts of which are now referred to as the Grasslands Bypass) and the San Joaquin River UPDATE: • In December of 2000,the U.S. Geological Survey completed a study on the likely impacts of selenium discharges from the proposed San Luis Drain(and other sources)on aquatic organisms in the San Francisco Bay and Estuary. It was funded in part by the Water Agency. The study used a simulation model to predict the accumulation of selenium in the tissues of aquatic organisms at different levels of the food chain. Serious impacts were predicted for a range of different discharge scenarios. • County staff have begun to work with staff from CCWD and various environmental groups on a briefing book for federal officals and others outlining non-drain options for providing drainage service (see attached outline). • U.S. EPA and others plan to host a workshop entitled, "Beyond the Drain"on March 27, 2001. The County has been asked to co-sponsor this event. Staff believe a small contribution($1000 or less)to the conference would help demonstrate County interest in addressing the drainage problem. Recommendation: Water Agency staff recommends that the County continue to encourage in- valley solutions to the drainage problem and to oppose solutions than transport toxic drainage through the Delta and the waters of Contra Costa County. Should the Committee concur, staff recommends asking the full Board to: 1) re-state its opposition to discharge of agricultural drainage to the Delta via the San Luis Drain or other means, 2) authorize staff to list the County as an oriizinator of the drainage briefini book described above, 3) authorize Count sponsorship of the March 27 drainage conference. 2) Grassland Bypass 3 Background: The Grassland Bypass was initiated in September of 1996 to reroute agricultural drainage which historically flowed through natural channels into an existing portion of the San Luis Drain for ultimate discharge further downstream near the confluence of these natural channels with the San Joaquin River. A more detailed description of the Grassland Bypass project,its relationship to the proposed completion of the full San Luis Drain to the Delta, and its impacts and performance during the first three (almost) years of operation is provided in the attached Overview. Charts summarizing selenium discharges and comparing them with selenium targets for the first three years of the project, a chart showing proposed new load targets, and a map showing the project location are also attached (these attachments are not included in this update, please contact staff for a fresh cony). Current Developments: Other than the continued improved performance of the project with respect to reducing selenium discharges to the San Joaquin River, the primary new development with respect to the Grassland Bypass Project is the initiation of a negotiation process concerning continuation of the project beyond the originally authorized five year term which ends in 2001. These negotiation meetings involve representatives of key constituencies, including the farmers,. the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Environmental Defense Fund, Contra Costa Water District, and the County's Water Agency. Several negotiation meetings have occurred since the process was initiated by the Bureau of Reclamation in 1999. During these meetings, the focus has been on improving on the current Use Agreement which controls use of the Grasslands Bypass rather than on developing something completely different. Discussions have focused on a limited renewal term of seven or eight years. Parties generally agree that this renewal would not involve even a short 5+mile extension of the Bypass/Drain to downstream of the Merced River(this more modest proposal has been suggested as a means for improving conditions in Mud Slough, the current discharge location, which is a minor tributary to the San Joaquin River; even this extension would be problematic from a County perspective due to concern over segmentation of the environmental review for the possible completion of the original San Luis Drain to the Delta). Recommendations: The major issues still in need of resolution, and water agency staffs recommended position on each, are summarized below. These same recommendations were presented to and accepted by the prior TWI Committee in November of 1999, but are repeated here for information and any further guidance: • Selenium discharge limitations during the semen or eight year term: Staff recommends that any new Use Agreement for the project contain strict discharge limitations designed to continually reduce selenium discharges to comply with the Regional Board's water quality objectives for the San Joaquin River by the compliance deadlines approved by the Regional Board. This would require historic selenium loads to be cut in half by Water Year 2006. Dry year loads would have to be on a path toward 80% reductions from the baseline average by 201 l. At the most recent meeting in February, the farmer representatives provisionally agreed to these load numbers which are summarized in the attached chart. These load numbers are nearly finalized. The drainers have also presented a plan for adjusting the load numbers in the future by seeking approval from U.S. EPA to recalculate load limits based on updated flow data. Instead of just having wet and dry year load numbers, they would also like different load numbers for critical, dry/below normal, 4 above normal, and wet years. Though these recalculations would not be part of the new agreement, staff finds this approach acceptable and has not objected to the drainers stated intentions to pursue it. The attached chart shows the proposed loads and potential changes. • Limitations on the discharges of salt and other substances of concern: The current Use Agreement only addresses selenium discharges. County staff and staff from Contra Costa Water District have raised the issue of including other discharge limitations, particularly on salt, pesticides, and boron. The Grasslands Bypass drainage area discharges substantial amounts of these other constituents which cause water quality problems downstream (however, selenium remains the most severe problem since nearly all the selenium in the San Joaquin River originates from the drainage area). Agricultural drainage substantially increases salt loads in the San Joaquin River during the spring, interfering with operation of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir which was designed to receive diversions in the spring and other seasons when sea water intrusion in the Delta is not a problem. The farmers may resist such new restrictions, but may also be willing to address additional substances in the Use Agreement to provide regulatory certainty since independent regulation of these substances by the Regional Board may be pending. Staff from the County and the CCWD proposed a plan for limiting salt discharges which has been accepted by the drainers. The plan would include monthly and annual salt discharge limits backed by financial penalties. The plan also includes unenforceable salt discharge goals which are lower than the discharge limits and are intended to provide a symbolic measuring stick. One rationale for the salt reduction plan is to prompt the Central Valley Regional Board to take strong action on controlling salts from other Central Valley areas which discharge three times as much salt as Grasslands. They are currently studying how to address the situation, and it is hoped the Grasslands program will set a precedent. A chart showing proposed salt limits and goals is attached. • Potential limited exceptions to selenium discharge limitations: The farmers have asked for certain limited exceptions to selenium discharge limitations. For instance they would like to not be held responsible for discharges outside of their control, such as those from creeks above their drainage area and those caused by excessive rainfall. Such accommodation may be reasonable if such exceptions may be factored into the baseline data used to generate the selenium load targets. Two limited exceptions have been proposed and accepted—one to exclude selenium from the upper watershed and one to exclude selenium generated by excessive rainfall (so long as selenium levels remain at or near 2 ppb (the actual standard is 5 ppb). County staff intends to continue to participate in negotiations on continuing the Grasslands Bypass project, believing that such involvement is a constructive means for seeking improvement of severe water quality problems in the San Joaquin River and Delta. Guidance from the TWI Committee on this involvement and on the primary issues summarized above is welcome. The negotiations are nearly complete and the Draft EIS/R for the document has been circulated( see attached article from the Fresno Bei. Staff believe that the new Use Agreement will be a big improvement on the prior one. We also believe it will be a useful precedent and model for reducing drainage from other areas that currently pollute the San Joaquin River and Delta. Barring any new developments, staff are prepared to support the outcomes of the negotiations in a staff-level letter. We believe that staff level comment is probably most appropriate given the technical minutiae involved. Guidance from the TWI Committee is welcome. Likewise, we would be happy to provide a follow-up report to further explain details of the process should that be desired. 5 Should you have any questions on this report, please feel free to contact me at (925) 335-1227. cc: Diana Silver, Deputy County Counsel Attachments: • Draft outline of the drainage briefing book which suggests alternatives to the San Luis Drain • January 1, 2001 article from Fresno Bee on Grasslands Bypass Project 6WW (1AC- el) e Chart showing proposed selenium discharge targets for the second phase of the Grassland Bypass Project LVLitnC,(c.4a) • Chart showing past salt dischar es and proposed future salt limits and salt goals for the Grasslands Bypass Projecze r( J UAJohn mainlsldtwiupdn00.doc 6