Long-Term Water Transfers

Environmental Impact Statement/

Environmental Impact Report

Public Scoping Report

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Reclamation

Mid-Pacifi c Region

Sacramento, California

San Luis and Delta Mendota

Water Authority

Los Banos, California

May 2011

 U.S. Department of the Interior San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority 

Bureau of Reclamation Los Banos, California 

Sacramento, California May 2011

Long-Term Water Transfers 

Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental 

Impact Report

Scoping Report 

Prepared by 

United States Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Mid Pacific Region 

San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority 

Los Banos, CA 
Mission Statements 

The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and 

provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and 

honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our 

commitments to island communities. 

The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, 

and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and 

economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. 
Contents 

Contents 

Page 

Chapter 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Scoping Purpose and Process.............................................................................................. 1-2

1.2 Applicable Regulations ....................................................................................................... 1-3

1.2.1 National Environmental Policy Act ........................................................................ 1-3

1.2.2 California Environmental Quality Act .................................................................... 1-4

1.3 Scoping Meeting Notification ............................................................................................. 1-5

1.4 Scoping Meeting Format..................................................................................................... 1-6

Chapter 2 Public Comments Received through Scoping .............................................. 2-1

2.1 Misunderstanding the Project Description .......................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 2-2

2.3 CEQA Lead Agency ........................................................................................................... 2-2

2.4 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................ 2-2

2.5 Economic Impacts ............................................................................................................... 2-3

2.6 Groundwater Impacts .......................................................................................................... 2-3

2.7 Opposition to the Program .................................................................................................. 2-4

2.8 Other Resource Impacts ...................................................................................................... 2-4

2.9 Outreach and Involvement .................................................................................................. 2-5

2.10 Project Description/Purpose and Need ............................................................................. 2-5

2.11 Third Party Impacts........................................................................................................... 2-5

2.12 Water Rights Issues ........................................................................................................... 2-6

Chapter 3 Commenters .................................................................................................... 3-1

i – May 2011 
Long-Term Water Transfers 

Scoping Report 

Tables 

Table 3-1. Written Comments Received ...................................................................................... 3-1

Table 3-2. Verbal Comments Received ....................................................................................... 3-2

Figures 

Figure 1. NEPA and CEQA Process ............................................................................................ 1-2

Appendices 

Appendix A. Public Notification Materials 

Appendix B. Scoping Meeting Materials 

Appendix C. Scoping Comments Received

ii – May 2011 
Contents 

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act 

CVP Central Valley Project 

Delta Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 

DWR California Department of Water Resources 

EIS/EIR Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact 

Report 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NOP Notice of Preparation 

Reclamation United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Reclamation 

SLDMWA San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority 

SWP State Water Project 

iii – May 2011 
Long-Term Water Transfers 

Scoping Report 

iv – May 2011 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Chapter 1 

Introduction 

The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation and the San Luis & 

Delta-Mendota Water Authority (SLDMWA) are preparing a joint 

Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) to 

analyze the effects of water transfers from entities in northern California to 

entities south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) and in the San 

Francisco Bay Area. The EIS/EIR will address transfers of Central Valley 

Project (CVP) water supplies that require use of CVP or State Water Project 

(SWP) facilities and transfers of non-CVP water supplies that require use of 

CVP facilities. Reclamation is the lead agency under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Pursuant to Federal and State law and 

subject to separate written agreement, Reclamation would facilitate water 

transfers involving CVP contract water supplies and facilities. SLDMWA is 

serving as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA) and would be one of the purchasing agencies of water transfers from 

agencies north of the Delta. 

Buyers and sellers would be responsible for negotiating the terms of the 

transfers, including amount of water for transfer, method to make water 

available, and price. Reclamation is not initiating transfers or managing a bank 

or program to solicit sellers and buyers. Transfers of CVP supplies and transfers 

of non-CVP supplies that require use of CVP facilities are subject to review by 

Reclamation in accordance with the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 

1992, Reclamation’s current water transfer guidelines, and California State law. 

The proposed Long-Term Water Transfers EIS/EIR would include individual 

and multiyear transfers from 2012 through 2022. The EIS/EIR will analyze 

impacts of making water available in the sellers’ service areas, conveying water, 

and using water in the buyers’ service areas. Water transfers would occur 

through various methods, including, but not limited to, groundwater substitution 

and cropland idling. 

As part of the NEPA and CEQA process, Reclamation and SLDMWA 

conducted public scoping to allow the opportunity for public input in 

development of the EIS/EIR. The Long-Term Water Transfers EIS/EIR also 

requires input and involvement of multiple stakeholders, including potential 

buyers, sellers, and regulatory agencies that will be involved in the transfer 

process. This report describes all elements of the scoping process conducted and 

provides a summary of comments. 

1-1 – May 2011 
Long-Term Water Transfers 

Scoping Report 

1.1 Scoping Purpose and Process 

Scoping is generally defined as “early public consultation,” and is one of the 

first steps of the NEPA and CEQA environmental review process (see 

Figure 1). The purpose of scoping is to involve the public, stakeholders, Indian 

tribes, and other interested entities early on in the environmental compliance 

process to help determine the range of alternatives, the environmental effects, 

and the mitigation measures to be considered in an environmental document. 

The results of scoping help to guide a lead agency’s environmental review of a 

project. 

 Figure 1. NEPA and CEQA Process 

1-2 – May 2011 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

As part of the scoping process, lead agencies often conduct public meetings. 

Scoping is not limited to public meetings; however, public meetings allow 

interested persons to listen to information about a proposed project or action and 

express their concerns and viewpoints to the implementing agencies. During 

scoping meetings, the lead agencies generally outline the proposed project, 

define the area of analysis, propose issues to be addressed in the environmental 

compliance document, and solicit public comments. Agencies also establish a 

scoping comment period to accept scoping comments submitted in writing. 

Scoping comments are considered by the agencies during the formulation of 

alternatives and are used to determine the scope of the environmental issues to 

be addressed in the environmental document. 

1.2 Applicable Regulations 

Scoping is required by Federal and State regulations. The scoping requirements 

for NEPA and CEQA are outlined below. 

1.2.1 National Environmental Policy Act 

NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1501.7) require scoping to determine the scope of 

the issues to be addressed in the environmental review and to identify 

significant issues. Scoping helps focus the NEPA analysis on the potentially 

significant issues and deemphasize insignificant issues (40 CFR 1500.4(g)). 

According to NEPA, scoping should occur early on in the environmental review 

process and should involve the participation of the affected parties. Information 

gathered either identifies or can be used to identify: 

• Significant resource issues 

• Study participants 

• The potentially affected geographical area 

• Resources available for the study 

• Study constraints 

• Alternatives to be considered 

• Cumulative impacts 

The lead Federal agency of the proposed action is required to: 

1. “Invite the participation of affected Federal, State, and local agencies, 

any affected Indian tribe, the proponent of the action, and other 

interested persons (including those who might not be in accord with 

the action on environmental grounds); 

2. Determine the scope and the significant issues to be analyzed in depth 

in the Environmental Impact Statement; 

1-3 – May 2011 
Long-Term Water Transfers 

Scoping Report 

3. Identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not 

significant or which have been covered by prior environmental 

review narrowing the discussion of these issues in the statement to a 

brief presentation of why they will not have a significant effect on the 

human environment or providing a reference to their coverage 

elsewhere; 

4. Allocate assignments for preparation of the Environmental Impact 

Statement among the lead and cooperating agencies, with the lead 

agency retaining responsibility for the Statement; 

5. Indicate any public Environmental Assessments and other 

Environmental Impact Statements which are being or will be prepared 

that are related to but are not part of the scope of the Impact 

Statement under consideration; 

6. Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements so 

the lead and cooperating agencies may prepare other required 

analyses and studies concurrently with, and integrated with, the 

Environmental Impact Statement; and 

7. Indicate the relationship between the timing of the preparation of 

environmental analyses and the agency’s tentative planning and 

decision making schedule” (40 CFR 1501.7). 

Public involvement activities are required by Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) regulations that state, “Agencies shall: Make diligent efforts to involve 

the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures” (40 CFR 

1506.6(a)). Public scoping meetings help to satisfy this requirement. 

CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.22) require the implementing agency to notify 

the public that it is preparing an EIS for a project under consideration. 

Reclamation published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register on 

Tuesday, December 28, 2010. Appendix A of this scoping report includes a 

copy of the NOI. 

Scoping includes all types of information-gathering activities and is not limited 

only to a public meeting forum. Information can be obtained in a variety of 

manners and forms: contacts with other agency personnel, water districts, 

citizens groups, and other interested individuals and parties are all scoping 

activities. 

1.2.2 California Environmental Quality Act 

CEQA encourages early public consultation with affected parties. This early 

consultation can often identify and help to resolve potential problems before 

they turn into more serious problems further on in the process. CEQA describes 

two other benefits for early consultation: 

1-4 – May 2011 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

a) “Scoping has been helpful to agencies in identifying the range of 

actions, alternatives, mitigation measures, and significant impacts to 

be analyzed in depth in an Environmental Impact Report and in 

eliminating from detailed study issues found not to be important. 

b) Scoping has been found to be an effective way to bring together and 

resolve the concerns of affected Federal, State, and local agencies, the 

proponent of the action, and other interested persons including those 

who might not be in accord with the action on environmental 

grounds” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15083). 

According to Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, a State lead agency must 

conduct at least one scoping meeting for a project of statewide, regional, or 

area-wide significance. A scoping meeting held pursuant to NEPA in the city or 

county in which the project is located satisfies this CEQA requirement as long 

as notification of the scoping meetings has been carried out according to CEQA 

requirements. 

Parallel to the process of the NOI for NEPA, CEQA requires public notification 

of the initiation of an EIR through a Notice of Preparation (NOP) (CEQA 

Guidelines Section 15082) that is submitted to the State Clearinghouse through 

the Office of Planning and Research. SLDMWA submitted the NOP to the State 

Clearinghouse on January 4, 2011. A copy of the NOP can be found in 

Appendix A of this scoping report. 

1.3 Scoping Meeting Notification 

Reclamation and SLDMWA noticed groups and individuals about the scoping 

meetings through a variety of methods: 

• Posting in the Federal Register (NOI) 

• Submittal to the State Clearinghouse (NOP) 

• Paid advertisements in the main sections of the following newspapers: 

• Sacramento Bee 

• Chico Enterprise Record 

• Redding Record Searchlight 

• Merced-Sun Star 

• Los Banos Enterprise 

• Patterson Irrigator 

• Distribution of a press release to Reclamation’s media lists for the 

Sacramento and San Joaquin areas that included all of the 

aforementioned newspapers. 

1-5 – May 2011 
Long-Term Water Transfers 

Scoping Report 

1-6 – May 2011 

• Information regarding the scoping meetings on Reclamation’s public 

website 

Copies of paid advertisements, press releases, and meeting notice materials are 

included in Appendix A. 

1.4 Scoping Meeting Format 

Reclamation and SLDMWA convened three public meetings, one each in Chico 

(January 11, 2011), Sacramento (January 12, 2011), and Los Banos (January 13, 

2011), to inform the public and interested stakeholders about Long-Term Water 

Transfers and solicit comments and input on the scope of the EIS/EIR. 

Each scoping meeting began with a presentation by Reclamation. The 

presentation explained the purpose and format of the meeting, provided an 

overview of the proposed project and described the public comment process. 

During the presentation Reclamation and SLDMWA staff answered questions 

as they arose from meeting participants. Reclamation and SLDMWA also 

prepared information for stations that meeting participants could visit after the 

presentation for more information: 

• Station 1: Overview 

• Station 2: Transfer Types and Resources to be Analyzed 

• Station 3: Process, Schedule, and Comments 

Copies of meeting materials including the display boards for each station, 

comment card, and the presentation are included in Appendix B. 

During the scoping meetings, participants were invited to provide verbal 

comments to a court reporter or written comments using comment cards. 

Appendix C includes a transcription of verbal comments and questions received 

during the meetings. (No verbal comments were received at the Los Banos 

scoping meeting.) Appendix C also includes all written comments received. 
Chapter 2 

Public Comments Received 

Chapter 2 

Public Comments Received through Scoping 

The public scoping period was from December 28, 2010 to February 28, 2011. 

The public was provided opportunities to comment in writing or orally at public 

scoping meetings or they could submit comments in writing via email, fax, or 

mail. Reclamation and SLDMWA distributed comment cards at the scoping 

meetings to facilitate return of written comments either at the scoping meetings 

and or via mail later during the project comment period. Email comments could 

be sent to representatives of Reclamation and SLDMWA. Of the 110 

comments received, 71 were written comments and 39 were verbal comments. 

This section summarizes the range of scoping comments received through the 

scoping period. These comments raised issues for Reclamation and SLDMWA 

to consider during the environmental process. These comments are included 

both in summary form and in their entirety in Appendix C. 

The summary of comments presented in this section is organized by topic area 

and arranged in alphabetical order. This organization does not represent a 

relative importance among comments or topic areas, but rather is intended to 

facilitate presentation of comments in an orderly manner. The summary below 

does not include the complete text of each comment. If a similar comment was 

received from multiple participants, the comments were combined and reported 

as one comment. For the complete record of all comments received please see 

Appendix C. 

2.1 Misunderstanding the Project Description 

Some comments received did not pertain to the project description or reflected 

misinterpreted information. These comments included, but were not limited to, 

these common misconceptions: 

• Commenters expressed concerns about impacts related to transfers 

from Butte County; however, the project description does not include 

transfers from Butte County. The project description for this EIS/EIR 

includes CVP-related transfers, and entities in Butte County are either 

not CVP contractors or would not use CVP facilities for transfers. 

• Commenters were concerned that transfers may include up to 600,000 

acre-feet of water annually; however, this EIS/EIR will include a much 

smaller transfer volume (approximately 100,000 to 150,000 acre-feet). 

2-1 – May 2011 
Long-Term Water Transfers 

Scoping Report 

• Commenters discussed impacts related to transfers from the Trinity 

River watershed; however, the Trinity River is outside of the area of 

analysis for this EIS/EIR. 

2.2 Alternatives 

• Alternatives should include: conserve water, retire land in the San 

Joaquin Valley, modify CVP and SWP contracts, exclude groundwater 

substitution transfers, use transfers only within the basin of delivery, 

improve recapture and reuse, change crop patterns in San Joaquin 

Valley to less water intensive crops, limit dairy and cattle ranches south 

of the Delta, enforce seniority system to manage deliveries, desalinate 

water, pipe water from northern states, and create a policy of no net 

increase in water availability for urban or agricultural expansion. 

• Cropland idling and groundwater substitution of pasture lands should 

be analyzed as possible transfer mechanisms. 

• The EIS/EIR should include a No Action Alternative. 

• The EIS/EIR should not only include transfers from water agencies, but 

from individuals and other entities as well. 

• The EIS/EIR should incorporate information from the 2011 Technical 

Information Paper. 

2.3 CEQA Lead Agency 

• The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) should be the 

lead agency instead of SLDMWA. 

• DWR has a statutory duty to serve as lead agency. 

• Why has Reclamation partnered with SLDMWA in what otherwise 

seemed to be a commercial operation? 

• Documentations should show how SLDMWA will profit from this 

project moving forward. 

2.4 Cumulative Impacts 

• The cumulative impacts analysis must include non-CVP water 

transfers, other potential water transfers, water exchanges, and other 

existing water transfer programs. 

2-2 – May 2011 
Chapter 2 

Public Comments Received 

• Cumulative project impacts should be analyzed. 

• Modeling may not fully capture groundwater-related impacts. 

• The EIS/EIR should identify and consider Delta criteria proposed by 

the State Water Resources Control Board; these criteria represent the 

best available science and what is needed for a healthy Delta. 

2.5 Economic Impacts 

• Crop idling causes economic impacts to local farmers and farm-related 

industries. 

• Transfer documentation tends to rely on the RAND Corporation report 

related to economic third party effects from the 1991 Drought Water 

Bank, but this study does not adequately assess economic impacts from 

transfers. 

2.6 Groundwater Impacts 

• The groundwater impact analysis needs a baseline for domestic wells, 

which should include groundwater level monitoring that starts 

immediately. 

• Additional studies and surveys should be conducted to understand how 

the Tuscan Aquifer recharges. 

• Potential groundwater quality impacts should be closely monitored and 

water quality regulations should be strictly enforced. 

• Water transfers could cause long-term impacts to local groundwater 

resources and impair the long-term health of the aquifer. 

• Declining groundwater levels could affect users that depend on local 

groundwater sources and oak trees and other vegetation that rely on 

groundwater. 

• Groundwater overdraft could affect flows in Butte Creek. 

• How will Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Conjunctive Management 

Study be used in this EIS/EIR? 

• The EIS/EIR must analyze impacts to localized groundwater conditions 

over the ten year time period and an analysis of whether the long-term 

2-3 – May 2011 
Long-Term Water Transfers 

Scoping Report 

nature of the project establishes a permanent reliance on water from 

this program. 

• The project must adhere to local groundwater ordinances and follow 

Basin Management Objectives. 

• Groundwater should be monitored for potential migration of 

contaminated groundwater caused by groundwater substitution 

pumping. 

• The foothill water table has dropped significantly in the past 25 years; 

groundwater substitution pumping could further affect wells in this 

area. 

• Adequate groundwater modeling cannot be completed in the timeframe 

outlined for this study. 

2.7 Opposition to the Program 

• Multiple commenters were generally opposed to the project and 

suggested organized protests. 

• No one should profit from the sale of water. 

• Profits from the sale of water should go to the county of origin. 

2.8 Other Resource Impacts 

• The EIS/EIR must analyze the potential impact to migratory waterfowl 

associated with idling rice, potential loss of wetlands, and impact of 

delivery to wetlands south of the Delta. 

• Crop idling can benefit wildlife if land is allowed to have seasonal, 

non-irrigated vegetation grow on it. 

• The EIS/EIR should analyze the impacts of delivery to wetlands south 

of the Delta. 

• The EIS/EIR must assess whether the project will have an adverse 

impact on historical resources within the area of project effect. 

• The EIS/EIR should include analysis of how water transfers may affect 

the San Luis Reservoir State Recreation Area. 

2-4 – May 2011 
Chapter 2 

Public Comments Received 

• Analysis must include water quality effects related to degraded water 

bodies, particularly issues related to mercury and dissolved oxygen. 

• The analysis must consider whether exporting water from the 

Sacramento watershed to irrigate selenium-laden lands on the Westside 

of the San Joaquin Valley will result in runoff that could degrade 

surface water and groundwater bodies. 

• Drainage from lands in transfer area could violate the state’s antidegradation policy. 

2.9 Outreach and Involvement 

• Commenters would like for water transfers to be on the ballot so 

everyone in the region has a chance to vote on it. 

• Commenters would like additional meetings in the North Valley region. 

2.10 Project Description/Purpose and Need 

• The project description needs more definition. The EIS/EIR should 

analyze all proposed SWP transfers. The groundwater system is 

fragile; transfers could affect more groundwater users and the system is 

already in overdraft. 

• The project is not cost effective because shifting water from one area of 

scarcity to another is just a waste of energy and money. 

• Several commenters were generally supportive and indicated that they 

understand the project purpose and need. 

• The baseline should include existing environmental program 

requirements. 

2.11 Third Party Impacts 

• Groundwater substitution would affect more than just buyers and 

sellers; groundwater substitution could affect third parties and impacts 

must be analyzed. 

• The Durham region experienced severe impacts to wells in the mid1990s caused by DWR water transfers. 

• The EIS/EIR must evaluate third party impacts. 

2-5 – May 2011 
Long-Term Water Transfers 

Scoping Report 

2-6 – May 2011 

• The EIS/EIR must include a clear plan to monitor and mitigate third 

party impacts. 

• Any mitigation must be funded to prevent third party financial impacts. 

2.12 Water Rights Issues 

• The EIS/EIR must include information about water rights of 

transferring parties. 

• The EIS/EIR needs to clarify legal rights for riparian water rights 

owners. 

• Commenters were concerned that transfers could cause farmers to lose 

water rights because of lost rights associated with another Northern 

California water transfer project. 
Chapter 3 

Commenters 

Chapter 3 

Commenters 

Agencies, organizations and individuals providing written scoping comments 

are listed below in Table 3-1. Agencies, organizations and individuals 

providing verbal comments at the meeting are listed below in Table 3-2. A 

summary of written comments and verbal comments as well as full written 

comments and the transcriptions of verbal comments are included in 

Appendix C. 

Table 3-1. Written Comments Received 

Name Affiliation/Organization 

Randy Abbott Public 

Tony St. Amant Public 

Mike Ashlock Public 

Jerry Bruns California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Julie Butler Public 

Steve Lambert Butte County 

Greg Martin Department of Parks and Recreation-Four 

Rivers Sector 

Linda Calbreath Public 

Evon Parvaneh Chambers Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the 

River, Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman's, 

Crab Boat Owners Assoc., Winnemem Wintu 

Tribe, Planning and Conservation League, 

Southern CA Watershed Alliance, Friends of 

Trinity River, North Coast Rivers Alliance, 

Salmon Water Now 

RuthAnn Christensen Public 

Victoria Coots Public 

Brad Corkin Public 

Carl Wilcox, Paul Forsberg California Department of Fish and Game 

Marty Dunlap Public 

Gail Goodyear Public 

Steven Hammond Public 

Desiree’ Hatton Public 

Stephanie Henderson Public 

Robin Huffman Butte Environmental Council 

Sarah Jensen Public 

Karen Laslo Public 

Ira & Teresita Latour Public 

Ann M. Vander Linden Public 

John MacTavish Public 

Danny Margoles Public 

Daniel McDaniel Central Delta Water Agency 

O. J. McMillan Public 

Dale Melville Dudley Ridge Water District 

Dale Melville Dudley Ridge Water District 

Bruce Meyer Public 

Richard Meyers Public 

3-1 – May 2011 
Long-Term Water Transfers 

Scoping Report 

Name Affiliation/Organization 

Eric Miller Public 

Jan Mountjoy Public 

Katy Sanchez Native American Heritage Commission 

Gordy Ohliger Public 

Carole S. Oles Public 

Steve Owen Public 

Rod Butler City of Patterson 

Amber Pierce Public 

Brenda Rogers Public 

Angus Saint-Evens Orland California 

Ann Schuenemann Public 

Greg and Laurie Schwaller Public 

John Scott Public 

Grace Marvin Sierra Club, Yahi Group 

Jim Metropulos Sierra Club California 

Robert Stanley Public 

Robert Stanley Public 

Robert Stanley Public 

Robert Stanley Public 

Robert Stanley Public 

Robert Stanley Public 

Robert Stanley Public 

Jeffery Swanson Public 

Jeffery Swanson Public 

Paul R. Switzer Public 

Nora Todenhagen Public 

Judy Morris Trinity County Board of Supervisors 

John Merz Sacramento River Preservation Trust 

Barbara Vlamis, 

Bill Jennings, 

Carolee Krieger 

Aqualliance, California Water Impact Network, 

California Sportfishing Protection Alliance 

Elicia Whittlesey Public 

Greg Yarris California Waterfowl Association 

Table 3-2. Verbal Comments Received 

Name Affiliation/Organization 

Jessica Allen 

Joshua Basofin Defenders of Wildlife 

Wally Bird Chico resident 

Brenda Calvert Chico resident 

Johnny Casper Concow resident 

Evon Chambers Planning and Conservation League 

Linda Cole Citizen 

John Dominguez Chico resident 

Marty Dunlap Citizen 

Robert Eberhart Durham farmer 

Jim Edwards Tehama County farmer 

Nanette Engelbrite Northern California Power Agency 

Jerry Toenyes Northern California Power Agency 

Paul Forsberg Department of Fish and Game 

Michael Garabedian 

Bob Hennigan Retired Chico farmer 

Barbara Hennigan 

Mark Herrera 

3-2 – May 2011 
Chapter 3 

Commenters 

3-3 – May 2011 

Name Affiliation/Organization 

John Hollister Paradise resident 

David Janinis 

Caroline Kittrell Chico resident 

Burt Levy Citizen 

John McCavish Chico resident 

Robert McCollin Chico resident 

Richard Meyers Oroville resident 

Eric Miller Chico resident 

Robert Montgomery Small farmer in Durham 

Grace Morgan Conservation Chair of the Sierra Club 

Gordon Ohliger 

Rick Ortega Vice President, Quail Ridge Estates, 

Cottonwood, CA 

Carol Perkins Citizen of Butte County and water resource 

advocate for Butte Environmental Council 

Trish Saint-Evens Member of Save Our Water Resource 

John Scott Butte Valley Coalition and resident 

Caroyl (sp?) Smth 

Rick Switzer Resident of Butte Creek 

Susan Tatayon Nature Conservancy 

Jerry Toenyes Northern California Power Agency 

Jim Townsend Retired from farming industry 

Bob Vanella 

Barbara Vlamis Aqualliance