Appendix C 

Scoping Comments Received 

 

 1

 1

 2 

 3 

 4 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

 5 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

 6 SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY 

 7 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 

 8 

 9 LONG-TERM WATER TRANSFERS EIS/EIR 

10 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING 

11 

12 Tuesday, January 11, 2011 

13 Chico Masonic Family Center 

14 110 West East Avenue 

15 Chico, CA 95926 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 REPORTED BY: FREDDIE REPPOND, STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER
 2

 1 Tuesday, January 11, 2011 6:11 o'clock p.m. 

 2 [Questions and comments from the 

 3 public began at 6:45 p.m.] 

 4 FRANCES MIZUNO: My name is Frances Mizuno. 

 5 I'm with the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority. 

 6 The Water Authority is a joint powers authority. We 

 7 actually consist of 32 member agencies, all of which are 

 8 Central Valley project water contractors south of the 

 9 Delta. Most of our contractors are ag districts. So 

10 we're the ones that are south of the Delta that in 

11 certain years that we're looking to purchase water to 

12 supplement the water supply because of either drought 

13 conditions or regulatory constraints that prevent us 

14 from getting our supply. So hopefully that answers who 

15 the Authority is. 

16 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: [inaudible]

17 MS. MIZUNO: Yes. We are member agencies,

18 primarily -- like I said, primarily ag districts. We

19 cover from the city of Tracy, just south of the Delta,

20 all the way to Westlands Water District to Kettleman

21 City. We do also include San Benito County Water

22 District as well as Santa Clara Valley Water District.

23 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: San Diego?

24 MS. MIZUNO: Did I say that? I didn't mean to

25 say that. San Benito. San Benito Water District, which
 3

 1 is primarily an ag water district; and Santa Clara

 2 Valley Water District. They are primarily a

 3 municipal/industrial district. 

 4 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: How large is

 5 your legal defense fund?

 6 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: I'd like to

 7 know what [inaudible] may be on the groundwater levels

 8 would be up here. And if it -- how is the need

 9 determined what's deleterious? And who is going to

10 decide how to slow down or to stop the process if it is,

11 in fact, deleterious? I'm afraid that once this thing

12 gets started, like Westlands, water contractors will

13 just keep wanting more product. And how do we shut you

14 off?

15 MS. MIZUNO: That is the reason that we're

16 doing this process. We're doing this ten-year

17 environmental review process to analyze what available

18 groundwater there may be available for transfers that is

19 within the state's yield. And that's why we don't

20 really have a project description, because we're wanting

21 to hear what is possible. The whole process here is to

22 analyze what is possible, what environmental impact

23 there may be, and what mitigation we would have to take

24 care of to get to do that.

25 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: What is
 4

 1 possible according to whom? You know, who's making that

 2 determination?

 3 MS. MIZUNO: Well, this is going to be a

 4 public process. Reclamation has hired a consulting

 5 firm, CDM. And they are here tonight and they're

 6 evaluating what types of groundwater models that we're

 7 using. And through this whole process it will be --

 8 that's what we're trying to find now.

 9 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: Westside has

10 a history of reselling their water to Southern

11 California. They had the federal law changed. When

12 land went fallow, the government didn't get it back.

13 They had it changed where if the land went fallow the

14 owner got to keep the water. And, from what I've read

15 in my farm magazines, they turned around and sold it to

16 Southern California. So Westlands [sic] has a history

17 of taking it, changing the federal law, and selling it. 

18 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: Who would be

19 the potential sellers?

20 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: And would

21 their names be published in the newspapers?

22 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: Who are

23 these people?

24 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: It needs to

25 be published. 
 5

 1 MS. MIZUNO: The environmental document will

 2 identify all the potential sellers and they will be

 3 listed out by name as well as all the potential buyers.

 4 One of the things that is ongoing right now is

 5 identifying those sellers that want to be included as

 6 part of this analysis. If they're not included as part

 7 of this analysis, once the document is completed, they

 8 would not be able to sell water utilizing this

 9 environmental document. 

10 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: [inaudible]

11 MS. MIZUNO: They are going to be mostly water

12 districts. At this point I guess an individual can, but

13 most likely they will be water districts. And they are

14 most likely going to be the Central Valley project

15 contractors district. 

16 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: [inaudible]

17 is that one district, or Westside, says we'll take

18 sixteen farms or public families and we'll pick six out

19 of those to buy their water from them and sell it so

20 they get part of the profits. So is this going to be a

21 lottery system for you guys in your area for the farms?

22 I mean what's going down here? I mean -- I'm sorry.

23 It's a red flag. It really stinks. I mean we really

24 stick a big straw and do like Crystal Geyser did over

25 across at Orland and sold out on them.
 6

 1 MS. MIZUNO: Well, whatever transfers that we

 2 propose would have to pass environmental muster and

 3 making sure there is no environmental impact. And if

 4 there are, then we would have to have mitigation.

 5 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: Okay. Are

 6 all your meetings open to the public?

 7 MS. MIZUNO: Which meetings?

 8 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: All

 9 meetings.

10 MS. MIZUNO: Yes.

11 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: That's the

12 irrigation districts?

13 MS. MIZUNO: Yeah. We're all public agencies

14 and we're -- we have open meetings.

15 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: So how are

16 you going to notify everybody? What medias are you

17 going to use?

18 MS. MIZUNO: Well, when we propose -- the way

19 that I've been involved in water transfers is, when we

20 indicate that we -- the Authority on behalf of a member

21 agency, what we do is we go out and get the purchases

22 and then we make that water available to the water buyer

23 through our member agencies. We go out to folks up

24 north and indicate that we're interested in the water;

25 and those districts that are interested in selling some
 7

 1 to us, then we will have some discussions on potentially

 2 the quantity of water they have available and how much

 3 we are wanting to purchase. In the past, we've had to

 4 do that on an annual basis; and we've had an annual

 5 environmental review of environmental documents. We're

 6 trying to avoid doing annual-type of transfers and want

 7 to do a little more of a comprehensive analysis on water

 8 transferring. That's what this is all about. So we can

 9 do a long-term comprehensive analysis on all potential

10 transfers that occurs from north of the Delta to the

11 contractors -- to CVP contractors south of the Delta.

12 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: I have -- my

13 concern is that, representing the City of Chico on the

14 drought task force [unintelligible] City Council member.

15 I'm no longer there. I'm a citizen now. The problem

16 was that they held their meetings with the task force in

17 Southern California -- Ontario -- and in Sacramento,

18 where people from Northern California talk about the

19 water transfers, water programs, et cetera, in terms of

20 utilizing our aquifers, is that they have these meetings

21 far enough away knowing that we can't afford to come

22 down there because of the fact of trying to get to an

23 airport, et cetera. So if this is going to go through,

24 are you going to have meetings here in Chico? Are you

25 going to have meetings in Redding, Red Bluff, Tehama?
 8

 1 Because you're affecting those aquifers.

 2 MS. MIZUNO: That's why we're here. 

 3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: That's why

 4 we're here. 

 5 MS. MIZUNO: I'm really pleased to see

 6 everybody here, because, really, what Brad emphasized

 7 earlier, is that we are here to hear your concerns; what

 8 you think is viable projects; what you think are not

 9 viable projects; so that we can include that in the

10 analysis of the --

11 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: Put it in

12 writing. Don't say [inaudible].

13 [Several people talking at once] 

14 MS. MIZUNO: Thank you. I think putting your

15 comment in writing is very important, because all those

16 will be kept. They will be part of the whole document

17 on this whole process. It will be included in the

18 documents. So it would be much more effective if you

19 put it in writing. Or if you want to go back and talk

20 to the court reporter --

21 [Several people talking at once] 

22 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: [inaudible]

23 -- but what I'm interested in is the use of groundwater

24 in this transfer process. How do you envision the use

25 of the aquifers in this area, in the Northern California
 9

 1 region? How do you envision these aquifers being used

 2 in order to create these transfers? To many of us here,

 3 that's the central question.

 4 MS. MIZUNO: In general, how groundwater is

 5 transferred is through groundwater substitution. So an

 6 example is a grower would pump groundwater to use for

 7 their irrigation and then provide their service water

 8 that they would otherwise have used -- to make that

 9 available for transfer sellers.

10 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: [inaudible]

11 the use of the surface water, because we normally have

12 here; and we're using the groundwater. And then we're

13 also losing the water that would have infiltrated if we

14 had used that surface water instead. So we're losing

15 more than two times the amount of water. 

16 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: [inaudible]

17 and in a drought situation basically sell what is the

18 water right by ownership. So you're going to go out and

19 basically do this [inaudible]. It's a water right.

20 It's not ownership. And to deplete the aquifer. Our

21 aquifers have been going down steadily since we've

22 developed this area. And it's not going any other

23 direction. And eventually we may end up with a collapse

24 of the aquifer, which is exactly what happened to you

25 folks down there, which is why you have to bring water
 10

 1 in now. 

 2 And the misuse of water down there and then

 3 the scam that is going on, like the sales to Southern

 4 California. They took up there in the Owens Valley and

 5 found a rancher and took -- and bought the whole damned

 6 creek so that they could bottle sodas in L.A.

 7 This kind of stuff is ridiculous. That water

 8 belongs in that aquifer.

 9 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: [inaudible]

10 And I'm from Cottonwood, California, in Butte County.

11 Our neighborhood is right next to 4,800 homes that they

12 want to put in. We don't have much water as it is up

13 where I live; and I just don't see where it's going to

14 end. I mean they got that through. There was a lot of

15 grief about that. But it's there -- 4,800 homes. Del

16 Webb. It's called [unintelligible] Village. It's all

17 in there. You know, we got [unintelligible]. We've got

18 other issues going on. And, for the life of me, I don't

19 understand why they can't go to desalination plants --

20 [Several people talking at once] 

21 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: [inaudible]

22 if we don't stop. And I've been told by a member of --

23 that works there -- that nobody showed up at the

24 meeting, so they figured they could do whatever they

25 please. Nobody goes and votes against it. So it's
 11

 1 going to happen. I don't -- some farmer told him the

 2 other day, Oh, they won't do that. But they will do

 3 that. [unintelligible] I grew up there and I know what

 4 goes on and I know what their politics are. I listened

 5 to my dad and my mother for years. So it's not like --

 6 it's political and they're after money and it's all they

 7 care about. Nobody cares about us.

 8 MS. MIZUNO: But these transfers that we're

 9 looking at is not going to Southern California, though

10 -- 

11 [Several people talking at once] 

12 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: [inaudible]

13 -- the community kind of stands together. And we don't

14 want to get involved in this. What process does the

15 community take just to politely say that we're not

16 interesting in getting --

17 [Several people talking at once] 

18 MS. MIZUNO: I'm not quite sure how to answer

19 that. I'm a buyer. 

20 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: My question

21 is there's apparently monitoring of the groundwater.

22 Does the State of California monitor groundwater now?

23 Does the Bureau monitor groundwater? Is anyone

24 monitoring groundwater? 

25 MS. MIZUNO: Yes. The Department of Water
 12

 1 Resources monitors groundwater. I know many of the

 2 water districts themselves monitor the groundwater.

 3 There are different agencies doing that around the

 4 state. 

 5 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: Going

 6 against what you said about earlier, farming with your

 7 well water and just selling the surface, my good friends

 8 down in Ridgedale a few years ago were going to irrigate

 9 with their surface, turn on all their pumps, and sell it

10 to the people down south. It was figured out thousands

11 of shallow wells in Butte County would go dry, including

12 three of mine, [unintelligible]. Who's going to

13 mitigate redrilling the well? A 200-foot well from

14 scratch with all the new mandated tests is now $30,000.

15 Now, who's going to give me that when, despite what you

16 say, irrigating with the ground and selling the surface,

17 everybody wants to do just the opposite.

18 MS. MIZUNO: Well, that is the reason that

19 we're going through this process is to do the analysis

20 on what is the safe way of doing groundwater

21 substitution transfers.

22 [Several people talking at once] 

23 MS. MIZUNO: Well, the contract -- our water

24 contract is with the federal government not with the

25 state.
 13

 1 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: I have a

 2 question for the Bureau. Who are these various water

 3 agencies that are requesting to facilitate this

 4 transfer? 

 5 TIM RUST: Let me first introduce myself. My

 6 name is Tim Rust. I am with the Bureau of Reclamation;

 7 and I work very closely with Brad and the consulting

 8 team on this project.

 9 I'm hearing a lot of concerns about the

10 impacts to the community, the groundwater, the surface

11 water. I want to emphasize this is not Reclamation or

12 DWR or the Authority, who is going to be the sellers in

13 this program. The program, if you want to call it that,

14 even though we don't want to call it that, is strictly a

15 willing seller/willing buyer effort. What that simply

16 means is that no water will get transferred if there's

17 not a willing seller that exists to want to sell their

18 water.

19 [Several people talking at once] 

20 MR. RUST: Okay. No, I'm not -- no, listen.

21 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: [inaudible]

22 MR. RUST: Not necessarily, because -- and

23 I'll tell you why -- is because Reclamation and DWR have

24 to approve those transfers; and we have to approve those

25 transfers in accordance with environmental laws, state
 14

 1 laws. And one of the key things is consumptive use. We

 2 will not transfer water that has not been consumptively

 3 used. That is a downright no-no.

 4 [Several people talking at once] 

 5 MR. RUST: I will explain to you what I mean

 6 by consumptive use. And consumptive use is the amount

 7 of water that the crop uses.

 8 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: What about

 9 the groundwater?

10 MR. RUST: The groundwater is a one-to-one

11 transaction between surface water and groundwater.

12 That's where you pump the groundwater and the district

13 uses that water to irrigate their lands and then make

14 their like amount of surface water available for

15 transfer. That --

16 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: How far are

17 you going to allow the groundwater to go down?

18 MR. RUST: That's what the environmental

19 analysis will look at. We will not -- we will not

20 transfer water that impacts safe yield.

21 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: You actually

22 expect me to believe that [inaudible] coming down from

23 all those different side canyons? I don't think you're

24 going to be able to know that, so how in the world can

25 you mitigate that impact?
 15

 1 [Several people talking at once] 

 2 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: Don't say

 3 you can do what you can't do.

 4 MR. RUST: Okay. Let me explain this one more

 5 step further, if I could, please. All right? 

 6 Again, I want to emphasize that when

 7 Reclamation, DWR, post their process of approving a

 8 transfer, we have to do so in accordance with very

 9 strict mitigation and conservation measures. And those

10 are the measures that are put in place to protect other

11 users of that water. We don't know exactly what those

12 mitigation measures are right now, because that's what

13 the analysis will show us what we would need to do to

14 protect other users, to protect the groundwater

15 resources.

16 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: In 1994

17 there was no protection. So would you speak to that?

18 In 1994 there was a big transfer. People were injured.

19 The environment was injured. What were the mitigations

20 and what were the protective measures?

21 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: They were

22 told to go get an attorney.

23 MR. RUST: No, that -- what you're saying is

24 true, but that is no longer the case. There's been very

25 strict ordinances put in place.
 16

 1 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: By whom?

 2 MR. RUST: By the counties, by the cities, by

 3 the state. 

 4 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: But they're

 5 not enforceable.

 6 [Several people speaking at once] 

 7 PATTI RANSDELL: Excuse me. Just one moment,

 8 please. 

 9 We're not getting the actual comments. We've

10 got people talking over each other. And if we're going

11 to use this as a comment period, we need the court

12 reporter to be able to hear. So if people could please

13 speak for two minutes and one at a time, we would really

14 appreciate it. Thank you. 

15 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: I have an

16 observation. You're only talking about the user as far

17 as farmer [inaudible] digging the wells. But what about

18 the environment? If you drop the groundwater down, you

19 become a desert. [inaudible]. And that's what we -- we

20 don't want to live in a desert. We don't want to live

21 in San Joaquin Valley. It's a desert.

22 MR. RUST: Okay. We are -- our court reporter

23 is unfortunately not able to hear everybody's comment.

24 So we're -- there would be -- what my suggestion is, if

25 you have a comment that you'd like recorded, to come up
 17

 1 and use this mike, because I think this is the only mike

 2 we have in the room right now. So I can turn this thing

 3 around. But there's a two-minute time limit. If you

 4 would like to have your comment recorded, then please

 5 use the mike here.

 6 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: Are you

 7 going to answer any questions? 

 8 MR. RUST: Pardon me? 

 9 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: Are you

10 going to answer any questions? 

11 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: What about

12 that environmental question? 

13 MR. RUST: Let me address -- can you repeat

14 your question one more time, sir?

15 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: You've

16 concentrated on human uses and mitigation. But if the

17 groundwater drops far enough, which it will, the trees

18 and everything are going to die. We're going to become

19 a desert, just like the San Joaquin Valley, and you

20 can't mitigate that. 

21 MR. RUST: Your point is very well taken, sir.

22 And we -- again, I emphasize, when we do -- when we go

23 about looking at the analysis, there will be mitigation

24 and conservations put in place to avoid what you're just

25 saying. I know the fish and wildlife service is on top
 18

 1 of this. They will not be happy if we do anything like

 2 that. I can tell you that right now. So we have to

 3 build in those conservation measures to protect other

 4 environmental sources that could be affected.

 5 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: But you kill

 6 the San Joaquin --

 7 [Several people talking at once] 

 8 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: Let's line

 9 up. Folks, look, let's be respectful. They're doing

10 what we asked. Let's line up. Everybody speaks at the

11 mike. The reporter can hear it. I want to hear all of

12 you too.

13 MR. RUST: If you have a comment that you want

14 recorded, this is the place to do it, up here.

15 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: May I make a

16 suggestion? Instead of all us rampaging, why don't you

17 repeat the question? That's how it's normally done.

18 [Several people speaking at once] 

19 [At this point the public began 

20 making their comments through the 

21 microphone.] 

22 RICK ORTEGA: Rick Ortega, vice president,

23 Quail Ridge Estates, Cottonwood, California.

24 We are concerned about our water level. We

25 are concerned about our wells. Is there going to be
 19

 1 some well-level testing? And what do we look for? Is

 2 somebody going to help us establish that baseline? We

 3 are next to a 4,800-home project that is going to go in.

 4 We are concerned about our wells, our water quality.

 5 My home phone number is 530-347-2126. Thank

 6 you.

 7 BOB HENNIGAN: I'm Bob Hennigan, retired

 8 farmer. I live in Chico, California. 

 9 Let me explain a -- little background perhaps

10 would help you understand better. The issue is that of

11 third-party impacts. We are basically third parties.

12 And in the contracts that the DWR has written over the

13 past 20 years for similar water transfers, they have

14 inserted what we call the "Pontius Pilate clause." They

15 say that it's not DWR's responsibility to mitigate

16 third-party impacts, but that's the responsibility of

17 the seller.

18 So what you've done is -- and this is what

19 happened in the '90s. And this is -- this clause was in

20 the contracts they were offering a little more than a

21 year ago. So it's a long-term problem.

22 The farmers whose wells were dry in the area

23 south of Durham had no income. Their crops were drying

24 up, turning brown. So where were they going to get the

25 financing to campaign a legal task of hiring a
 20

 1 hydrologist to prove that the actions of the water

 2 district had harmed them and an attorney to take the

 3 case to court? So we as third parties have no practical

 4 redress. So you're setting up a situation that's

 5 designed to fail and then denying responsibility for it. 

 6 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: Do you have

 7 an answer for that? Is that not in there? Is that in

 8 the contracts like you said? Is he lying or telling the

 9 truth?

10 [Several persons speaking at once] 

11 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The Federal Register

12 talks about priority rights. Can you please explain

13 that briefly? It's in the Federal Register. I know you

14 guys wrote that, so what is it you guys meant by that?

15 MR. RUST: I have to be honest with you. I'm

16 going to need to go back and see why that's there.

17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: Seriously?

18 MR. RUST: Yes, I do. I'm not sure exactly

19 what that's referring to. And I will go back and take

20 that comment and research it myself and find out what

21 the intent of that comment -- what that was in there

22 for. 

23 [Several persons speaking at once] 

24 MR. RUST: Like Brad mentioned earlier, there

25 is a Website that's been developed, I think, on our --
 21

 1 on USBR's Website -- for this particular water transfer,

 2 the EIS/EIR effort. And I will be happy to post that on

 3 that Website once I find out the information. 

 4 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: What is the

 5 Website again? 

 6 [Several persons speaking at once] 

 7 ROBERT MONTGOMERY: While they try to get it

 8 together here with the Website, I'm a small farmer in

 9 Durham. I was here during the last real -- I'm Robert

10 Montgomery, Rob Montgomery. I have a small farm. 

11 Our well went dry when the last transfers went

12 on during the last drought. And I also lived in Owens

13 Valley; and I saw one of their wildlife mitigation

14 projects where they sunk wells every few hundred feet

15 right next to the aquifer and sucked out thousands of

16 gallons of water and did a wildlife mitigation where

17 they allowed the dried-up Owens River Valley to go like

18 a mud slough and extend an extra 20 miles. So they took

19 gallons and gallons and gave back a drop. That's the

20 type of water mitigation that I've seen.

21 Now, the biggest concern now is these mega

22 wells that are going into the Tuscan aquifer. And they

23 were supposed to do some recharge surveys to see how

24 much water they could pull out of the groundwater

25 without -- giant mega wells -- we're talking like they
 22

 1 pump a million and a half gallons a day. It's like a

 2 stream -- giant stream. Trout stream, you know. 

 3 And they're pumping this out. And they figure

 4 they can pump it for six months and tell what the

 5 cumulative effect is on the aquifer. And then, hey,

 6 well, it wasn't so bad, so let's go to town. And this

 7 is the stuff that caused the collapse of the southern

 8 aquifer down there. And here we are now transferring

 9 water to the desert down there because they did not

10 properly manage their water. And we are trusting that

11 they're going to properly manage our water now with a

12 plan like that? They totally left out of the equation

13 they're going to pump the water. And they took time out

14 of it. They said we're going to pump out of the

15 aquifer. It's going through gravel. They're going to

16 pump that water out and then they're going to go way up

17 here and measure it. But that pressure of water takes

18 years for it to reach. It's based on flawed science. 

19 BARBARA VLAMIS: My name is Barbara Vlamis.

20 And I represent Aqualliance, an organization that was

21 formed to try to stop this from happening. Many

22 lawsuits that I have filed with some -- the support of

23 good people in this room have helped slow it down. But

24 this is actually the moment we have waited for. They

25 have tried for years to do these serial water transfers.
 23

 1 Year after year, claiming there were no impacts;

 2 nothing's going to happen. Check the box. We're done

 3 this year.

 4 We are currently in litigation against the

 5 Bureau of Reclamation, the agency that's here, because

 6 they tried this again -- they tried to do a two-year

 7 transfer. Same check boxes, though. No impact.

 8 Nothing's going to happen. We defer all responsibility

 9 to the irrigation districts up here, our neighbors, our

10 neighborhoods who in '94 told their neighbors to go hire

11 an attorney when they had impacts to their domestic

12 wells and their irrigation wells and the wells in

13 Durham.

14 The only thing that we can do -- our anger is

15 well-founded in this room. But these people, as nice as

16 they may be as human beings, are representing a

17 destructive process and you're all very aware of it.

18 You're all sharp. You got it. But the only way to

19 fight back in our society, as you have seen through the

20 last couple of years of the economic meltdown, BP's oil

21 disaster in the Gulf, is you have to organize. You have

22 to have either political clout, financial clout, legal

23 clout, or some mix of all of them. Up here we don't

24 have a very large population. So we better be damned

25 well organized.
 24

 1 Number two is we have to be willing to work

 2 together to try to stop this in the courts. We want

 3 them to produce this infamous EIS/EIR that they claim

 4 they were going to create in 2003 and couldn't do it,

 5 because the science -- as Mr. Montgomery pointed out,

 6 it's not just flawed, they don't have it. There is no

 7 science. They don't know what would happen up here. So

 8 we have to be prepared to look at their documents. 

 9 We can hope for the best and I will submit

10 formal comments on the scoping and we will wait for

11 their environmental impact statement and environmental

12 impact report to submit formal comments that would hold

13 up in a court of law, because all the anger in the

14 world, while it means a lot to us, it doesn't to a

15 judge. It doesn't -- you know, when you have to get in

16 the door. So if you want to organize, we are willing to

17 work with anybody here that wants to try to protect this

18 region.

19 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: What's your

20 phone number?

21 MS. VLAMIS: 895-9420. There's sign-up sheets

22 going around the room. And our Web address is

23 aqualliance, all one word, one "a" in the middle. 

24 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: Write it on

25 the board. 
 25

 1 JESSICA ALLEN: My name is Jessica Allen. And

 2 I would just like to state at this point of your

 3 deciding on the -- how you're going to go about doing

 4 the environmental impact report, that I don't believe

 5 that you can, as was stated. 

 6 And going back to the purpose and need of this

 7 entire project, I don't believe that preparing for water

 8 shortages caused by droughts, pumping our water down in

 9 advance of that is a very good strategy at all, because

10 obviously water conservation would be a much better

11 strategy to do where you're already at and to conserve

12 water, because all you're going to do is you're going to

13 look at our water and say, oh, look they have enough.

14 And until we don't have enough, that we go, wait, look,

15 there's not enough water, well, it's too late. And you

16 guys are out the door anyway and you got a lot of money.

17 So we don't really want that. And I don't think that

18 you can prevent that from happening at all by continuing

19 with this. 

20 So I would just say go ahead and cut it out

21 now, because you're not going to be able to mitigate

22 that at all, because it is going to damage the

23 environment. And there's no way that you can put the

24 water back, because my neighbor said you couldn't make

25 it. It's not like money. You just can't print more.
 26

 1 ROBERT EBERHART: Good afternoon, everybody.

 2 My name is Robert Eberhart. 

 3 I'm really nervous right now. I normally

 4 wouldn't fight for something or talk in front of a crowd

 5 like this. But, you know, water in my opinion is like

 6 the most important thing in the whole world. It's the

 7 essence of life. You know, it's the foundation for

 8 life. And people take water for granted.

 9 They talk about willing sellers, you know.

10 They want to find willing sellers and willing buyers.

11 Well, we all own the water. Nobody owns the water. God

12 gave us all the water. Okay.

13 There are a few things they don't want to tell

14 you. For one, they say that on wet years they will

15 inject water into the aquifer. Okay. If they put one

16 drop of water in the aquifer, that's not God's water;

17 it's their water. Therefore, not only do we have to pay

18 to pump it out of the ground for our crops, but we have

19 to pay the water company for that water in addition.

20 They don't tell you that.

21 Another thing is they talk about how much

22 water that they use on the crops, they're not going to

23 take any more water than they put on the crops. Well,

24 when you take the water, the same amount of water, you

25 put it in a ditch, none of it goes back into the ground.
 27

 1 We, as farmers, we take it out of the ground; we spread

 2 it around; it goes back into the aquifer. We are just

 3 recycling it. They don't talk about that either.

 4 The problem with south of the Delta isn't so

 5 much the crops. It's the permanent crops, you know.

 6 They all decided to put permanent crops in instead of

 7 row crops. And on dry years they have to have the water

 8 now because they have got trees instead of lettuce or

 9 whatever, you know. They got to stop this permanent

10 crop stuff, you know. 

11 To put it in a nutshell, you know, the

12 swimming pool analogy: We have ten wells. We can't

13 afford to pump. We can't afford to dig ten wells if

14 they go dry. Us, as farmers, we're on the shallow end

15 of the pool. The water companies are going to dig deep,

16 deep wells. They're going to be sucking out of the deep

17 side of the pool. Well, all the farmers are on the

18 shallow side. Whose wells are going to go dry first?

19 It's going to be the shallow end of the pool. 

20 You know, Mark Twain said, "Whiskey's for

21 drinking. water's for fighting for." We need to fight

22 for this water. It's our children's future. It's our

23 future. It's the entire Valley's future. And, you

24 know, in my opinion -- and this is just my opinion

25 only -- but, you know, water companies and their
 28

 1 attorneys they will fight to the end for water. They

 2 are like termites eating at our foundations. They will

 3 eat 24/7 and they will not stop. Once they take it,

 4 they will never give it back. 

 5 BURT LEVY: My name is Burt Levy, a citizen. 

 6 I did have a couple of questions that you can

 7 answer in a bit. What does your district do for

 8 conserving water so you have more water to use, like

 9 reclaiming water and maybe working with your

10 municipalities to put in more drought-resistant

11 landscapes so you've got more groundwater for

12 yourselves? 

13 And have you guys ever thought about -- and

14 this is a state thing -- putting in desalination plants

15 along the coast so that water being used by the Bay Area

16 could be diverted, because they use desalinated water?

17 And then, you know, that seems like more of a long-term

18 solution -- desalination for the whole state, for

19 everybody. 

20 And, again, reiterating my point, by the time

21 you guys figure out that you drew the water --

22 groundwater -- down too low and the trees are dying, you

23 can't mitigate 500-year-old dead oak trees. And that's

24 what will happen. Before you guys realize that you drew

25 the groundwater down too far, all these ancient oak
 29

 1 tress and all this other vegetation is going to be dead.

 2 And you can't mitigate that.

 3 So that's what I got to say. 

 4 CAROL PERKINS: Hello again. Carol Perkins,

 5 citizen, Butte County, as well as the water resource

 6 advocate for Butte Environmental Council.

 7 The state and federal government has paid

 8 Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District $1.2 million to study

 9 this process. This process is called conjunctive

10 management. It's where we utilize groundwater instead

11 of surface water.

12 I'm wondering -- that report or that study --

13 that five-year study -- has shown that Butte Creek will

14 be impacted by pumping. They also found that the

15 process is not profitable. So I'd like to have somebody

16 from the Bureau talk to that issue. I'd also like to

17 hear what you're going to do with that report. Is that

18 report going to be fed in? Is it going to be a

19 reference to the EIS? And, hopefully, you're pressuring

20 GCID to complete that report so it's public and part of

21 the process.

22 Thank you.

23 JOHN HOLLISTER: My name is John Hollister. 

24 And first I'd like to follow up on a point

25 that Oren made. And that is that we don't have the
 30

 1 science. Butte County and a number of people have done

 2 lots of little tiny studies about the Tuscan aquifer,

 3 but no one has done a thorough study showing how much

 4 water goes in, where it goes in, how much water is in

 5 the aquifer, and how soon would different areas lose

 6 their water, like, you know, go down to 200 to 300 feet

 7 to whatever. So there is no model. And we have got a

 8 company here who's going to develop probably some

 9 elaborate mathematical model. But it's bogus right from

10 the beginning because they don't know. 

11 Certainly, the opportunity has been there to

12 study this. Everyone has known. The federal government

13 and state government and a lot of the citizenry has

14 known that we are going to ship water to Southern

15 California and to Kettleman City and the desert down

16 there in the San Joaquin, that we could have somewhere

17 between Corning and Chico in a couple of years. So we

18 really might be trading one desert for another if this

19 goes through.

20 Anyway, my main point is that they plan to

21 have the EIR/EIS done in one year, February 2012. You

22 cannot develop the kind of information we're talking

23 about in one year. They've had many years to know that

24 they need this information, but they haven't looked for

25 it. They haven't tried.
 31

 1 The other thing I'd like to say just real

 2 quickly is that already the reduction of salmon in the

 3 California waters is down by over 90 percent.

 4 Steelhead, even worse than that. Other fish, highly

 5 endangered. That's primarily because of us fussing

 6 around with the Delta water or pumping all the water out

 7 of the San Joaquin Valley -- San Joaquin River -- and

 8 its tributaries. Well, what's going to happen if we,

 9 you know, take another -- okay -- another 150,000 to

10 600,000 acre-feet of water out of our aquifers? 

11 Thank you.

12 MARK HERRERA: Hi there. My name is Mark

13 Herrera. And I really appreciate your taking the time

14 to come and speak to our community and give the public

15 an opportunity which was made by your executive decision

16 to let us come up and speak publicly to you.

17 That aside, how about a shout-out for this

18 project? Okay. I think that's an overwhelming no to

19 you guys' being here and taking the water. I do not

20 call it "our water" because that implies ownership. 

21 What the gentleman said earlier really rang

22 true to me. The moment we associate ownership over the

23 resources here, that's when the problems start and

24 that's when profits get in the way of the future. And

25 that's nothing that we can afford to lose. So I'd
 32

 1 really appreciate if you discontinued any transaction of

 2 water. 

 3 And you can hang out if you want, but please

 4 don't transfer the water.

 5 RICK SWITZER: My name is Rick Switzer. I

 6 live up in Butte Creek, unfortunately not long enough. 

 7 But I know that several of my upstream

 8 neighbors had their wells run dry already in August and

 9 September. There's no way that pumping out any

10 additional water is going to mitigate that problem. It

11 will only make that problem worse, because water runs

12 downhill. It seems inherently obvious. 

13 I don't believe that you have the capacity in

14 a year or even three years to anticipate what you say

15 you can anticipate in terms of being able to evaluate

16 what the problems are going to be. You can't do it.

17 It's physically impossible. So to stand up here and

18 pretend that you can and that this is somehow a process

19 that's based on any type of logic based in the physical

20 world is not true. You can't make that presumption.

21 So how in the world you can say, well -- not

22 to mention, I haven't heard anything that says, well,

23 this is how we're going to put the brakes in place.

24 This is how we're going to anticipate problems. I'm

25 sorry. I don't think you can do that in a year. I
 33

 1 don't think you can do it.

 2 So, frankly, this whole presumption is a

 3 misapprehension based on money, pure and simple. And,

 4 frankly, if you can justify it -- and I think that

 5 there's things like the water will get leapfrogged down

 6 further and further south. And so to talk about what

 7 has happened in the last two years, as you did, as some

 8 type of perfunctory overview, that is a smoke screen.

 9 That is nothing more. It's what has happened in the

10 last eighty or a hundred years that is pertinent to the

11 water issues. 

12 Thank you.

13 MARTY DUNLAP: My name is Marty Dunlap. I am

14 a citizen who has been involved with water for a number

15 of years.

16 My comments are probably more to both the

17 Bureau and the Authority here. And that has to do

18 with -- like Barbara said, we would be very excited to

19 see an EIR or an EIS. This binder that I brought has to

20 do with the Sacramento Valley Water Management

21 agreement. These are the short-term plans that were

22 developed to facilitate moving the water to meet this

23 settlement agreement that was decided in 2001 -- 180,000

24 acre-feet of water.

25 I was part of two people who were part of a
 34

 1 public representation on the Lower Tuscan coordinating

 2 group. And we were trying to identify how this aquifer

 3 could be used in a safe manner. We kept waiting for DWR

 4 to come out with the environmental review for years.

 5 This was written in 2001. I just happened to go to my

 6 files and pulled out from the Federal Registry [sic]

 7 2003, the Department of the Interior, Bureau of

 8 Reclamation and DWR proposed to prepare a programmatic

 9 EIS/EIR to analyze the potential effects of the

10 short-term phase of the Sacramento Valley water

11 management program. Ten-year program. And it's going

12 to have all this information.

13 We never saw that information. We never saw

14 any data that was part of an EIR/EIS. If you can do it,

15 that would be phenomenal. We want science. We want

16 bona fide science. We want the public to be able to

17 participate in the research designs. We want to have

18 objective technical people, not the same old people that

19 have been used year after year for all these different

20 types of endeavors.

21 And the most important thing is we want the

22 cumulative impact analyzed. If you said you're going to

23 do 600,000 feet, we don't want you to be measuring 100

24 or 200. We want you to be looking at what you really

25 are proposing. And we want to have good science. We're
 35

 1 not unwilling to share our water, but we want to know

 2 what's overdraft, what's a safe yield, how do we

 3 recharge, and how do we mitigate the damages when they

 4 start.

 5 LINDA COLE: This is a request for clarity in

 6 your document, having them -- Linda Cole -- having

 7 looked at documents for a water bank in the past and

 8 being aware that a federal project requires that you

 9 consider economic impacts as well as, including to the

10 community. I -- when I look at these documents,

11 frequently the use of "significant impact" is in the

12 literature. What is significant to farmers in the San

13 Joaquin that may have orchards would be different from

14 someone who is farming up here on a shallow well. So I

15 hope your document actually quantifies what you consider

16 significant impact, because that is a sliding scale --

17 has been a sliding scale in every project. And it's not

18 acceptable. 

19 Also, I hope your project clarifies legal

20 rights for riparian water right owners, because in the

21 past riparian water rights were -- you could divert

22 water to land that abutted the stream and whatever your

23 crop didn't use -- what you didn't use -- reverted back

24 to the stream for the next downstream user. And I

25 believe in these water transfers what happens is, if you
 36

 1 started diverting water from streams a year, two years,

 2 or your farm was developed 20 years before the

 3 downstream user, then you have priority rights for that

 4 diversion. And so then you have the opportunity to sell

 5 your riparian diversion -- the quantity -- to a buyer

 6 down in your district out of the area completely. It's

 7 not reverting back to the stream to be used for the next

 8 downstream user. So if that is an impact, the whole

 9 community -- everyone downstream -- it impacts people

10 that are only using groundwater that is not being

11 recharged. So those things need to be written in plain

12 English.

13 People need to know that, yes, this project is

14 going to affect my riparian water rights if I am

15 downstream. Yes, they're saying there is no significant

16 impact if the water drops ten feet.

17 And then, also, I would like you to

18 anticipate, when you're talking about economic impacts

19 and the significance and what's going to happen with

20 groundwater, I would like you to project total build-out

21 in this area. As time goes on, more land is going to be

22 developed, more communities are going to be developed.

23 They are going to need that water. How does that water

24 come back? And is the plan going to be to retire those

25 permanent water uses in your area? 
 37

 1 Thank you.

 2 JOHN SCOTT: John Scott. I live in Butte

 3 Valley. I'm on the Butte Valley Coalition. I'm also on

 4 the board of directors of the Butte Environmental

 5 Council.

 6 My firm position is local water stays local.

 7 And I think all water-miners, period -- I don't care if

 8 they're Crystal Geyser or if they're somebody down in

 9 Westlands, who is in my opinion the most infamous of all

10 the water-users, because they are just wasting our water

11 down there -- 

12 I want to bring up one point that everybody's

13 missed. And that is, I live in the foothills; and our

14 water level and our water table has dropped probably

15 25 feet in the last 25 years. And we have a very

16 limited water table where we are in Butte Valley. It

17 only goes down 200 feet and that's SOL. And if the

18 Tuscan aquifer in the Central Valley drops another 50 or

19 100 feet and you live in the foothills, you can just

20 pull the plug on your well, because you won't have any

21 water. Stop the water-miners. 

22 Thank you.

23 TRISH SAINT-EVENS: Good evening. Trish

24 Saint-Evens, Orland. And I'm a member of Save Our Water

25 Resource.
 38

 1 I also agree with John Scott. No water

 2 mining. Once you start, you can't quit. 

 3 When Crystal Geyser came to Orland, they used

 4 the analogy of consumptive use. They were only going to

 5 use 160 acre-feet annually. I can guarantee you, now

 6 that they've sunk their well -- by the way, we have them

 7 in litigation, so they haven't won yet. However, if and

 8 when they do go to operation, they have their well and

 9 now it's theirs. And I can guarantee you they won't

10 stop at 160 acre-feet. No way.

11 JOHNNY CASPER: Good evening. I'm Johnny

12 Casper from Concow. 

13 First of all, I'd like to thank all you water

14 people for coming up here and explaining your proposal

15 to us. And thank you, ladies and gentlemen in the

16 audience, for just showing up and listening.

17 A lot of us in the audience are aware of what

18 the Bureau of Water Reclamation has done in the

19 northernmost California counties. We've got farmers up

20 there that have agreed to a water transfer project and

21 they no longer have water to grow their crops. They've

22 got this water project going and they have lost their

23 property rights. The water people come on their

24 property at all hours of the day and night to check

25 their wells, et cetera, et cetera. I don't believe
 39

 1 that's the American way.

 2 I personally think that we should take control

 3 of our water rights. And if we agree to sell them,

 4 that's all well and good. But my bottom line is I'd

 5 like to see it on the ballot so everybody, including

 6 those that aren't here tonight, have a chance to vote on

 7 it.

 8 Thank you very much.

 9 GORDON OHLIGER: Hi, folks. Am I speaking to

10 you or to the court reporter guy? Okay. Good. 

11 My name is Gordon Ohliger, O-h-l-i-g-e-r. My

12 phone number and address is on the little piece of paper

13 there in case you want to call me or something. 

14 And I'm just a regular guy. I'm indigenous to

15 this watershed. I've lived in this area my whole life.

16 I was born in this area and have only moved up the

17 watershed as time goes on. Myself, I live about 20

18 miles from here -- something like that. And I am one of

19 those people that you mentioned that was sunk on a well

20 a couple of years ago. And every September the well

21 goes dry for a couple of days, even though I have the

22 deepest well of any one of all my neighbors. Of nine

23 neighbors, I have the deepest well. We talk about this

24 a lot. 

25 What that means is, when you want to fix
 40

 1 dinner, you can't have -- you have to have a jug of

 2 water to fix dinner, to brush your truth. So it's a

 3 real thing. It's not just a theory that you heard

 4 somewhere. It happens constantly.

 5 And so for them -- for anyone to touch the

 6 aquifer, that affects me personally, so I want to speak

 7 that that's my personal, emotional reason I'm here. 

 8 The other thing is my sisters -- I come from a

 9 farming family south of here in Sacramento. My younger

10 sister is still living at my dad's place. That's

11 walnuts, a hundred acres of walnuts. My other sister

12 married into another walnut family the other side of the

13 river. And so basically about a thousand acres of

14 walnuts. And they use riparian out of the Sac and also

15 a lot of deep wells. Now, that is going to impact their

16 growing -- they're making not only their living, but the

17 cost of your food. When you leave this in a month you

18 go, Wow, what was that meeting all about? You go down

19 to the Safeway. Well, the cost of food -- the food

20 comes from here. This is where it comes from. And

21 that's going to impact that.

22 But, more importantly, I think probably the

23 big thing I want to say -- you had this little map. And

24 you're only having one meeting in Northern California,

25 in Chico. My sisters couldn't come here tonight and
 41

 1 drive at night and get back home. What about the people

 2 in Burney and Elk Creek and those people that are out

 3 there? They've got to get up in the morning and work.

 4 I know Gloria's got to get up, because she's got to move

 5 walnuts in the morning. They're dry and they've got to

 6 get them on the truck. And I would appreciate -- please

 7 put that on the record, sir -- that I would appreciate

 8 if there was more input from the people that live in

 9 this area. And I'm coming to the end here.

10 Also, there's more than just us. There's the

11 trees and the birds -- the greatest flyway on the planet

12 goes right through here. That's right. We need water.

13 They need the water. God made this thing, like you just

14 read in your report. They're just numbers. People like

15 numbers. But the animals and the plants, they're a part

16 of this whole; and that's not even mentioned.

17 And, also, before I leave, I would just like

18 to put in a word that I'd like to know who the heck

19 these people are that think they own the earth and water

20 and can sell it to someone else, because that's like

21 evil white man stuff; and I just don't want it. So step

22 up and let me know who the hell you think you are that

23 you can sell the earth and sell it to someone else.

24 Thank you.

25 BARBARA HENNIGAN: My name is Barbara
 42

 1 Hennigan. And I want to talk about a couple of economic

 2 issues.

 3 For all of these transfers, there's a tendency

 4 for agencies to rely on the RAND report from the 1991

 5 drought water bank for third-party impacts as a result

 6 of fallowing because of water sales. And if you look at

 7 the research, it's pretty sophomoric. They asked 99

 8 farmers who wanted to sell their water, Who do you do

 9 business with? They got about 250 responses. They

10 could actually track down about 150 of those people.

11 Well, this is the first filter. If I want to

12 sell my water and I know that someone is going to be

13 harmed by it, I'm not going to give that name. I'm

14 going to give the name of my accountant, who's going to

15 have the same amount of business no matter what I do on

16 the farm.

17 The second filter was they sent out surveys to

18 the 150 names they could find addresses for; and they

19 decided that if they didn't get a response it meant that

20 someone was not going to be harmed if they farmed or did

21 not farm. And up here we had a situation where one of

22 the newspaper reporters went to a local cropduster and

23 said, Will you be harmed if a certain number of acres

24 are fallowed? And because it costs a lot of money to

25 set up an airplane, he said yes. As a result, at least
 43

 1 two of his largest growers essentially fired him. So if

 2 you're an ag-dependent business, you're not going to

 3 create a stink, because you're going to offend your

 4 clients. 

 5 Now, for Butte, Glenn, and Colusa County,

 6 first of all, I'd like point out there's probably

 7 several hundred ag-dependent businesses represented just

 8 by the farmers in this room. But for Butte, Glenn, and

 9 Colusa County, they had seven responses that said it's

10 no big deal. That is not a legitimate third-party

11 impact research. You need to do a real third-party

12 study.

13 The second economic issue is dealing with the

14 legitimacy of comparing an acre of almonds in Butte

15 County with an acre of almonds in Kern County. In Butte

16 County we have almost two, two and a half acre-feet of

17 water that comes out of the sky as rain, which means

18 that the farmers apply another two, two and a half

19 acre-feet. In Kern County not only do the trees require

20 more water, but they only get three to six inches of

21 rain. So it takes off, at the start, twice as much

22 irrigation water to keep the same trees alive in Kern

23 County as in Butte County.

24 According to the Delta vision process, it

25 seems that somewhere between 50 and 75 percent of every
 44

 1 acre-foot that goes into the Delta goes out through the

 2 Bay. It boils down to, in order to keep one acre of

 3 almonds alive in Kern County, you have to be willing to

 4 take away the water for six acres of almonds in Butte

 5 County. Now, it makes no economic sense, never mind the

 6 immorality of transferring up to six times the economic

 7 hit to one region of the state. 

 8 And the third thing is the League of Women

 9 Voters is having a program on modeling. It's going to

10 be in this building in the big room on Thursday,

11 starting at five o'clock. And because it's a League

12 program, we do provide food, because we don't want

13 people to get too grouchy. And I think that it's -- a

14 lot of political decisions are going to be based on

15 models and we need to understand what they can do and

16 what they can't do.

17 ROBERT C. EBERHART: One more thing, you guys

18 -- just one real quick thing. I think if any water's

19 sold -- if it's --

20 Oh, Robert C. Eberhart, Durham, California;

21 and a farmer.

22 If any water's sold, no one person should

23 profit. If any water's sold, it should go to the county

24 which it is sold from; and all the money goes to the

25 county for which it comes from. We all own the water.
 45

 1 No one person owns it. 

 2 And, again, I told you back there, because I

 3 was not on the mike, and I wanted you to hear that if

 4 any farmer sells water, his name should be published and

 5 how much money he's going to profit, because I think not

 6 only the embarrassment but the money figures and stuff,

 7 I think farmers would tend not to sell their water if

 8 they knew they were selling everybody out. 

 9 RICHARD MEYERS: I have one quick request that

10 you would put up for us who haven't been involved in the

11 NEPA -- 

12 Oh, my name is Richard Meyers. I live in

13 Oroville, California.

14 You mentioned earlier about the NEPA document

15 that's on file for the 2010 and 2011 CVP transfers. I'm

16 wondering if that's a public document and I'm wondering

17 how we could get access to that.

18 [Several persons speaking at once] 

19 RICHARD MEYERS: I just think it would be

20 helpful for people who are making comments to maybe, if

21 you want to become informed before you make your

22 comments, see what the -- they said was an environmental

23 impact and a mitigation, including that one. And then

24 come -- maybe it will be -- you'll have a more informed

25 comment. 
 46

 1 And the August 2012 meetings, which are far

 2 off in the future, I'm hoping that you're planning more

 3 in this area and not just one meeting, say, in the

 4 middle of the state or something, if you know if that's

 5 true.

 6 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: [inaudible]

 7 JIM EDWARDS: I'm Jim Edwards. I'm a farmer

 8 from Tehama County. 

 9 And my point is that Tehama County doesn't

10 have surplus water to spare. I'd like to draw your

11 attention to a couple of charts I can share with you. 

12 First of all, this is from the Department of

13 Water Resources 2005 land and water use data, which

14 shows that, in 2005, 69 percent of the water that was

15 used came from groundwater in Tehama County. That is a

16 lot different than some of the other counties. Most of

17 the other counties have surface water -- higher uses of

18 surface water.

19 The other chart that I have here is the 2010

20 review of groundwater levels of key wells in Tehama

21 County. And this is, of course, monitoring of

22 groundwater in Tehama County. And they established

23 trigger levels to alert people when the levels drop.

24 And we have about eight basins nine miles square. Seven

25 of those, in 2010, raised the trigger level.
 47

 1 That's all.

 2 MS. MIZUNO: Would you like to give me that? 

 3 RICHARD MEYERS: Sure. Thank you.

 4 DAVID JANINIS: Hi. My name is David Janinis.

 5 And thank you for coming tonight. I would like my two

 6 minutes to be spent with -- for you to outline how we

 7 have to formally say no. And that is how I would like

 8 my two minutes to be answered. 

 9 Thank you.

10 CAROYL SMITH: My name is Caroyl Smith. 

11 What are your other options? That's the

12 question I have to ask you: What are your other

13 options? Is this it? Is this where you're going to get

14 the water from? You're not going to back down? 

15 And then people, obviously, say they don't

16 want you to take the water. And I know where they're

17 going to get it. There it is right there. 

18 Who has the -- what is it? According to the

19 law -- she's going to get the law on her side. They

20 have people backing her, because that's the only thing

21 they're going to say no to. The judge says, Nope, you

22 don't get the water. That's how it works. We all know

23 that's how it works. They're coming after the water,

24 period. That's it. 

25 Thank you. 
 48

 1 CAROLINE KITTRELL: My name is Caroline

 2 Kittrell. I am from Chico. And I'd like to see a copy

 3 of the minutes or the -- what's being documented

 4 tonight -- go at least to Aqualliance and Butte

 5 Environmental Council. And also encourage everybody

 6 that's here to please sign the sign-up sheet for

 7 Aqualliance so that you can get on the email list so we

 8 can keep informed about this issue.

 9 MS. MIZUNO: We're going to post comments on

10 the Website so everybody has access.

11 BRAD HUBBARD: There will be a scoping report

12 that's prepared as a result of this series of meetings,

13 so -- and we'll post that on the Website. It won't just

14 be the court reporter record of everything we have heard

15 tonight. 

16 CAROLINE KITTRELL: Can it be also be mailed

17 to the agencies that I mentioned instead of just putting

18 it on the Internet?

19 MR. HUBBARD: You mean hard copy, ma'am? We

20 can do that. If you would put that on one of the

21 sign-in sheets, we can make sure that we do that. But

22 that's a request, and put both Aqualliance and --

23 MR. RUST: Just to add to what Frances just

24 said, the scoping report will include not only the

25 verbal comments you heard tonight, but they will also
 49

 1 include all written comments that are submitted, email

 2 or otherwise. So it will be a very comprehensive

 3 document that provides the whole outcome of these

 4 scoping meetings today and tomorrow as well as on

 5 Thursday.

 6 JOHN DOMINGUEZ: John Dominguez. I'm a

 7 long-time resident of Chico; and I've served on a couple

 8 of water boards up in my district where I live. 

 9 And I just want to tell you that the most

10 important thing that we could really do is organize. I

11 mean you may go out of here and someone else comes and

12 tells you about something that's happened at the

13 football game this weekend. We live and die by water.

14 And these are fighting words when it comes to water.

15 And there are a lot of liberals here and there are a lot

16 of conservatives here. But we're united when it comes

17 to water. We will stand together. Together. And if it

18 means we will go to the ballot, we'll go to the ballot.

19 And this is something I've never thought I

20 would ever say, but I've been thinking about it a lot

21 lately. California is too big; it's governed by a lot

22 of people in the South who have a lot of money and a lot

23 of political clout. But you know what? We have clout

24 too. And don't you think we don't. We can organize

25 ourselves really, really well. And I'm willing to help
 50

 1 and do something about it. But we maybe need to

 2 separate this state. We maybe need to be the State of

 3 Northern California. 

 4 We think -- people say, well, you wouldn't

 5 want to do that. Why would I want to do that? Oroville

 6 Lake is not really our lake. It belongs to Southern

 7 California. If I want to have Porterville Lake in my

 8 state, where I live in Northern California, don't you

 9 think I ought to be paid for it or you should be paid

10 for it? 

11 But we need to think about this. It sounds

12 like that guy without a lot on top of his head is

13 telling us, State of Northern California. What I'm

14 telling you, this is our water. And we're not going to

15 let them come down here and talk to us. And the next

16 time when you do come, have all the answers when we ask

17 you the questions. 

18 TRISH SAINT-EVENS: Just briefly, not to be

19 redundant, but when Crystal Geyser --

20 I'm sorry. Trish Saint-Evens, Orland,

21 California. Sorry. 

22 Not to be redundant, but when Crystal Geyser

23 came to Orland, they did not think that they had any --

24 they thought they have every chance of just sinking a

25 well and that was it; we would roll over and die. They
 51

 1 were so wrong. We banded together as a community. We

 2 don't have a whole lot of people in Orland, but we have

 3 a lot of power. We found a water advocacy attorney

 4 group that was more than willing to fight for our rights

 5 and has -- is continuing to fight for us as a pro bono.

 6 So there are people out there that are willing to help

 7 all of us and our water. And we do really need to band

 8 together. That is the best, most important thing that

 9 Orland did. And we may not win, but at least we can

10 look back and we can say that we fought for our water.

11 ROBERT MCCOLLIN: My name is Robert McCollin

12 and I'm a Chico resident. Can you hear me now?

13 I'm trying to think how I can comment usefully

14 to your process. And I think only that I can say that

15 this is not cost-effective. The idea of shifting water

16 from one area of scarcity to another is just a waste of

17 energy and money. The real problem underlying all of

18 this is population overshoot. Without growing our

19 environment, we don't have enough water to support all

20 of our uses. And we've already registered huge impacts.

21 Ninety percent of our fish and so forth have been lost

22 to misuse of water in this state.

23 So to you folks who are all well-meaning

24 professionals, "ologists," scientists, I think you need

25 to turn your attention to yourselves and what you're
 52

 1 doing with your career. You need to do so something

 2 that is actually going to return the benefit of your

 3 education to the society that supported you, to the

 4 government that you work for [drowned out by applause].

 5 That's integrity. That's what your science is for.

 6 What you guys are doing now is just following through on

 7 a bureaucratic process. 

 8 Someone said again, Go do this again. You've

 9 been doing it over and over again. It doesn't work. It

10 will never work because you're not addressing the real

11 problem. There's not enough water for everybody who's

12 here. You have to get more water. And there's not more

13 water up here that you can send down there without

14 impacting people. There's no way. And you guys don't

15 have -- you should start off with some idea telling us

16 how you might mitigate that. But you don't have a clue

17 because, frankly, there's no way to deal with something

18 of that scale. So, bottom line, you need to make more

19 water. That is what you need to do -- [drowned out by

20 laughter] what Mother Nature already did when they

21 built -- when she created this place. 

22 What you need to do is desalinate ocean water

23 and give water to the people in NOAA and eventually

24 transport it through the same pipes back over to the

25 South Valley. There's enough energy and ways there to
 53

 1 do it. But at any rate, the real solution is to make

 2 water. If you want to take -- if you want to actually

 3 utilize your job and your position -- if you are working

 4 for an agency that has the resources to send a man to

 5 the moon, they also can desalinate water and provide

 6 water for the state of California and other places.

 7 BRENDA CALVERT: My name is Brenda Calvert.

 8 I'm a citizen here in Chico. 

 9 I think we're all on the same page that we all

10 want to prevent this from happening. And the way that

11 we need to -- we all have our reasons. I'm not a

12 farmer. I've never been negatively impacted, but I did

13 have the opportunity to go to Africa in 2001; and I had

14 people come up to me and say, is it true that in America

15 you bathe in drinking water? And it really gave me an

16 appreciation for what water means to us and what the

17 lack of it can be like. And so that's my experience.

18 But we all have our reasons that we don't want our water

19 taken away.

20 But what we need to do is we need more than

21 the number of people in this room involved. We need

22 everybody involved. We are very fortunate that we have

23 email and Facebook and Twitter and God knows what, but

24 we all need to go home tonight and get on the email and

25 spread it to everybody and tell them to tell everybody
 54

 1 to tell it to everybody. And they need to give the

 2 information that's here for Aqualliance, for Butte

 3 Environmental Council, and all the great resources that

 4 we've been given tonight. We want to pass that along,

 5 so we can all tell everybody and these guys will be

 6 history.

 7 GRACE MORGAN: Grace Morgan, conservation

 8 chair of the Sierra Club. 

 9 I just finished reading a very powerful

10 document. And I don't know if you know about it about

11 already. But everybody here should know about it, I

12 believe. And it was written by the Environmental Water

13 Caucus, of which there are about 20 different

14 organizations represented -- everything from Friends of

15 the River to the Sacramento River Preservation Trust to

16 Carol Perkins to Butte Environmental Council to

17 Aqualliance -- many statewide organizations. And the

18 major thrust of this 45-page document is that, even

19 before we consider anything like desalination -- I'm not

20 sure how to pronounce that -- tremendous water

21 efficiencies can be undertaken to conserve water that

22 will allow us, as individuals, as farmers, et cetera, et

23 cetera, to have enough water. It's a matter of changing

24 our priorities regarding to how we farm, how we

25 conserve. And if that -- this document is seriously
 55

 1 considered, we wouldn't be needing to have this

 2 discussion. You would be getting your water from your

 3 local area, which is also a major thrust of the

 4 document.

 5 Thank you.

 6 RICK ORTEGA: Rick Ortega, Cottonwood,

 7 California.

 8 Somebody mentioned earlier Facebook. Yeah,

 9 you did. Yeah. You know, I just found that the other

10 day -- Aqualliance. And I was your first friend on

11 there. I think I'm your first friend on Facebook. It

12 really does need to get going here. And I want to make

13 sure you all know that I was number one.

14 But at the same time I have to watch what I

15 say, because my wife is a judge. But I haven't spent 27

16 years in the military looking at insurgencies and

17 political and military movements. I know that State of

18 Jefferson thing is out there. So, you know -- I don't

19 know if that will ever come to fruition. But, you know,

20 where I am from in Cottonwood, there's a lot of

21 militias. I don't belong to any of them. They tried to

22 recruit me, but Ranger Rick ain't going down there. But

23 you know what? I swear you have to have that option in

24 the plan. 

25 Thank you.
 56

 1 JOHN HOLLISTER: This is John Hollister again.

 2 I'm from Paradise. You have that, I guess.

 3 One of the farmers who spoke recently said we

 4 need to unite, we need to get together. And he's

 5 absolutely right. We have two wonderful organizations

 6 here in Butte County. We have Butte Environmental

 7 Council that since the '70s, for a long time, has been

 8 providing education and outreach and various

 9 conservation things. Right now they're involved in --

10 they'd like to file suit against Butte County over their

11 -- their 30-year plan, whatever is -- their plan in

12 regards to the use of water.

13 In addition, Barbara Vlamis mentioned that

14 currently Aqualliance is already -- has filed suit

15 against the Bureau of Reclamation or -- yeah -- Bureau

16 of Reclamation over this water transfer and also has

17 another suit going against the State of California --

18 various agencies that are responsible, like fish and

19 game and other people, to monitor the quality of water

20 and make sure that those people who are screwing up the

21 water clean it up. They haven't been doing that job.

22 They haven't been doing EIR stuff they should have been

23 doing. So Barbara and Aqualliance is also suing them

24 over that. Both agencies have great histories. The

25 people working for them have done so much for Butte
 57

 1 County. And I would hope that that continue. 

 2 And if people are really looking for

 3 information or they want to have a strong impact, I

 4 would suggest getting involved with both agencies.

 5 Butte Environmental Council is more focused on the -- I

 6 think in Butte County and Glenn County and closer areas.

 7 And Aqualliance is the whole Sacramento watershed. So

 8 they're both in the phone book. And you have

 9 Aqualliance's Internet address up there. And BEC's is

10 www.becnet.org. So please contact them. They could

11 also use money to help fight these lawsuits to stop this

12 kind of nonsense or to at least force the agencies to do

13 the science that they are supposed to do.

14 Thank you.

15 JOHN MCCAVISH: Getting tired of listening to

16 everybody? I'm John McCavish. I'm from here in Chico.

17 And I have one question for -- I don't

18 remember your name. Frances. And your position with

19 the water agency down south? 

20 I'd like to know the financial benefit if this

21 were to pass for who you represent, in dollars. To know

22 the size of the battle that we're fighting, I think we

23 need to put in perspective what the financial gain is.

24 How much -- I'm sure you've got a pro forma

25 calculation -- if this passes, what it means to your
 58

 1 membership. I'd like to know if you would share that

 2 number with the group here.

 3 Thank you.

 4 MS. MIZUNO: I don't have a number for you

 5 tonight. I know you're disappointed. Our agency just

 6 represents a member agency. So we're really only buying

 7 water on their behalf. And what we're trying to do is

 8 to purchase supplemental water for our agencies that are

 9 not getting their contract supply. So the financial

10 benefit is to the individual growers so that they can

11 continue to farm. 

12 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Hi. Very briefly, I'm

13 here from Cherokee, California. 

14 And I hear an awful lot about how it's going

15 to be used. Just to rephrase, there's only been a

16 couple of decent things said that really go to the

17 point. And I'm sorry to say this. I would like a very

18 intelligent group of people just like you to get

19 together and figure how you're going to conserve water

20 and sustain yourselves. And it's not just for Southern

21 California. It's for here. If you have that in your

22 mind, you won't be standing here figuring how to take

23 something that you cannot measure. Can you measure how

24 old the water is in the Tuscan aquifer? I've heard some

25 of it is thousands of years old. Are you going to sit
 59

 1 around and wait for another thousand till it's reformed?

 2 That's point one. 

 3 Point two. This is somewhat fictitious. But

 4 my son the other day was suspended from school for

 5 cocaine and marijuana. I said, Hey, Mack, what's wrong

 6 with you? He says, Well, I am a willing buyer and he is

 7 a willing seller. And I'd like you to look at your

 8 children -- I'd like to look at those you trust

 9 sincerely and say, You're a willing buyer and a willing

10 seller and justify what you're doing.

11 JIM TOWNSEND: I'm Jim Townsend. I'm retired.

12 I came out of the farming industry. I worked for Butte

13 County Rice Growers for years.

14 To take the water from the farmers to sell it

15 breaks down the infrastructure of fertilizer and

16 ag-support companies, as the lady amply put it. That's

17 well and fine. If they're out of business and you want

18 to grow your crops, where do you get your seed? Where

19 do you store it? Or where do you dry it, in relation to

20 rice? 

21 This is a very important part of our

22 infrastructure of the northern part of the state. If we

23 give our water away, we're going to dry up. Our whole

24 infrastructure will die. If you like to support the

25 environment, if you like to support needy people, you
 60

 1 are not going to have the money. This part of the state

 2 is going to collapse.

 3 This is something else to think about: The

 4 bond that they were talking about passing, that our

 5 beloved governor that just was voted out decided to put

 6 it on hold -- $11.2 billion project for enhancing our

 7 water storage and transfer -- when I first read that,

 8 you know who it benefits? The first time I read it,

 9 they said three entities in the southern part of the

10 state. I was corrected by a gentleman that had been

11 working with the water companies. And they said, no,

12 it's not 3; it's 27. But they're all in the southern

13 part of the state. 

14 So let's not be foolish with the things that

15 are given to us as a people and let them slip by because

16 of our lethargic attitude. We have become fat and lazy

17 as Americans. And our rights are being taken away as

18 fast as we sit here. We're going to have to stand up

19 and speak up for our whole society or we're going to be

20 a third-world nation.

21 MR. HUBBARD: We want to make sure everyone

22 gets heard. So is there anybody else who wants to come

23 up and get on the court record?

24 [Several persons speaking at once] 

25 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, first of all, I'm
 61

 1 not a farmer. My name is Terri Faulkner. And I am not

 2 a farmer. However, my horses really, really do enjoy

 3 the alfalfa. And I would really hate to give up feeding

 4 them what they so enjoy. And I would really hate giving

 5 up my chocolate-covered almonds and a few other things.

 6 But that being said, I see a lot of

 7 buck-passing here. And I've heard no one named as a

 8 responsible party who will mitigate and fix the damages

 9 that are going to occur. So who do we sue? Who do we

10 get the damages from and how long will it take? 

11 And another question: Have you fixed the

12 Casterson [phonetic spelling] mess yet down there? That

13 water? Fresh water from Northern California being used

14 to dilute the harmful stuff down there? 

15 Thank you. 

16 MR. HUBBARD: Now's the time if you want to

17 come up. Final moments. Then I think there are some

18 people that want to speak directly to the court reporter

19 and not get on the mike. 

20 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: Can you

21 answer the question about what you're doing for

22 conservation? There's a lot of conservation you can be

23 doing for the Delta. 

24 MR. HUBBARD: I think we've heard from

25 everybody tonight. I think we met our primary
 62

 1 objective. Come on up here if you want to state more

 2 questions for the record.

 3 I want to make sure that everybody knows that

 4 they can write their comment cards and submit comments

 5 via email, written. The Website is up here. It's

 6 online. It's already got the NOI and the NOP posted to

 7 it. My phone number is there. 

 8 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER [OFF MIKE]: I have a

 9 question, but it's not for the record. Who is paying

10 for the EIR -- the EIS, that is? 

11 [The period for public comments on 

12 the microphone ended at 8:21 p.m.] 

13 --oOo-- 

14 COMMENTS MADE DIRECTLY TO THE COURT REPORTER 

15 ERIC MILLER: Eric Miller from Chico,

16 California.

17 In general, I appreciate the opportunity to

18 comment. I feel like I have a good overall

19 understanding of the purpose. In general, I'm

20 supportive. However, I would just like to consider some

21 of the comments I heard tonight from the other members

22 of the public: that the parties consider developing a

23 fund, a financial fund, to mitigate negative impacts

24 that may occur, whether it's to third parties or

25 environmental concerns that were expressed. So that can
 63

 1 just be kind of the cost of doing business. And then

 2 also develop, in addition to the modeling, a robust

 3 field monitoring. 

 4 But, in general, I'm supportive of and

 5 understand the need and purpose. And I'm open-minded.

 6 But those are the only two issues I have.

 7 DAVID JANINIS: So with water shortages

 8 emerging as a constraint on food production growth, the

 9 world needs an effort to raise water production similar

10 to the one that nearly tripled grainland productivity

11 during the last half of the 20th century. Land

12 productivity is typically measured in tons of grain per

13 hectare or bushels per acre. A comparable indicator for

14 irrigation water is kilograms of grain produced per ton

15 of water. Worldwide, that average is now roughly one

16 kilogram of grain per ton of water used.

17 Since it takes 1,000 tons of water to produce

18 one ton of grain, it is not surprising that 70 percent

19 of world water is used for irrigation. Thus, raising

20 irrigation water efficiency is central to raising water

21 productivity overall. Using more water-efficient

22 irrigation technologies and shifting to crops that use

23 less water can permit the expansion of irrigated area,

24 even with a fixed water supply. Eliminating water and

25 energy subsidies that encourage wasteful water use
 64

 1 allows water prices to rise to market levels. Higher

 2 water prices encourage all water users to use water more

 3 efficiently. Institutionally, local rural water users

 4 associations that directly involve those using the water

 5 in its management have raised water productivity in many

 6 countries. 

 7 BOB VANELLA: I would first like to have

 8 everything mailed to me. I do not know how to use a

 9 computer, so I have to have everything mailed to me. I

10 can't go to the Website and get the information. So I

11 am requesting that everything be mailed to me on this

12 today -- the comments and everything. And I would like

13 to also have mailed to me comments that you people were

14 not able to provide and comments that we need to know.

15 One of my questions would be: In 2010, how

16 much water was bought and transferred from the north to

17 the south? There was water transferred to the Delta. 

18 We bought the water for $35 to $50 an acre-foot; they

19 were offering as high as $800 an acre-foot to buy our

20 water.

21 The Bureau of Reclamation cannot give us a

22 water estimate of how much water we are going to get so

23 we can plant our crops in the north to this date. I

24 called our water district, the Artois Water District, a

25 week ago. They couldn't tell me how much water we were
 65

 1 going to have this year, the 2011 year. Down south, my

 2 understanding is, from farmers that I know down there,

 3 they have already gotten -- 50 to 75 percent of their

 4 water has been allocated to them so that they can plan

 5 their season. But in the north we don't know yet.

 6 In the Artois Water District, we are short on

 7 water. We had a meeting which the map was presented

 8 tonight showing groundwater depths, how it's been going

 9 down. The Artois Water District does not want us

10 pumping water anymore. They want us to use their water

11 because so many farmers in the last three years in the

12 Artois Water District had to drill wells because we were

13 only getting 30- -- and I think it went down to

14 40-percent water. Now, this year, 2010, we got a

15 hundred percent of our water. But if you go back and

16 look what a hundred percent water is from several years

17 ago, it used to be in three acre-feet per acre, now

18 they're calling 100 percent. I believe it's 2.67

19 acre-feet. But they call that 100 percent. But over

20 the long haul, if you look at the history, the acre-feet

21 they call 100 percent keeps decreasing because they

22 don't have enough water in the district from the Bureau

23 of Reclamation because they won't give it to us.

24 So I'd like to know how they're going to

25 address those concerns before they start coming up here
 66

 1 and buying more water from these people. And when you

 2 buy it from the water district, that's my water. They

 3 just lower my allocation and that gives the Artois Water

 4 District or the other districts more water they can sell

 5 because they need money to operate. We really don't

 6 have a say in it.

 7 The Artois Water District is drilling wells. 

 8 At this time they've drilled two so far. They do down

 9 to the thousand-foot level, which is called the Tuscan

10 water in the ground. I have been told -- and I'm not

11 sure how many thousands- or millions-of-years-old water

12 they call it -- it's been untouched. 

13 So what will happen -- my question is, to them

14 and to the water district, is when that water is sucked

15 out, what's going to happen to the other water which

16 continues to go on down? They said, Well, we won't be

17 around to worry about it, so don't you worry about it

18 either. It won't happen in your lifetime. So they're

19 not just looking at today. They don't really care about

20 today. They care about today. But what's going to

21 happen to my family when I pass on? They're going to

22 farm the same ground. Our wells that are now in the

23 200- and 300-foot level on the west side will have to be

24 drilled down deeper now to the 700-foot to 1000-foot

25 level to get the same water that we used to get at the
 67

 1 200-foot level. In the last five years we've lost that.

 2 How are they going to put water back into the ground to

 3 supplement the water that is taken? It is going down on

 4 the west side. 

 5 The map was presented tonight, which you can

 6 look at, that showed from the Bureau of Reclamation how

 7 it was coming down. I was shocked to see that nobody

 8 had seen that map that was in front of us tonight. They

 9 should have that seen that map already and known all

10 that information.

11 Number three, how are they going to replace

12 the water? It was suggested, I'm going to say probably

13 60 years ago, to replenish this water. They could go up

14 in some of the creeks and the high streams and drill

15 shallow wells to let some of that water go down into in

16 the aquifer. I don't think you could do that anymore

17 with the environmental -- the way the state is set up

18 today. But that's one way they might look at how to

19 replace some of this water. 

20 Would you please respond to all this

21 information from me, please, to Bob Vanella. My address

22 is 3068 Chico Avenue, Chico, California, 95928.

23 [The last public comment was 

24 received at 8:36 p.m.] 

25
 68

 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO )

 2 

 3 

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 

 4 

 5 I, FREDDIE REPPOND, a duly authorized 

 6 Shorthand Reporter and licensed Notary Public, do hereby 

 7 certify that on the date indicated herein that the above 

 8 proceedings were taken down by me in stenotype and 

 9 thereafter transcribed into typewriting and that this 

10 transcript is a true record of the said proceedings. 

11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand 

12 on this 21st day of January, 2011. 

13 

14 ___________________________

15 FREDDIE REPPOND

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
 1

 1

 2 

 3 

 4 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

 5 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

 6 SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY 

 7 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 

 8 

 9 LONG-TERM WATER TRANSFERS EIS/EIR 

10 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING 

11 

12 Wednesday, January 12, 2011 

13 Best Western Expo Inn & Suites 

14 1413 Howe Avenue 

15 Sacramento, CA 95825 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 REPORTED BY: FREDDIE REPPOND, STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER
 2

 1 Wednesday, January 12, 2011 2:06 o'clock p.m. 

 2 [Questions and comments from 

 3 the public began at 2:31 p.m.] 

 4 MICHAEL GARABEDIAN: Since we don't know what

 5 projects will be coming in before the EIS is done, I

 6 assume this contemplates additional environmental review

 7 after we know what the specific projects are?

 8 BRAD HUBBARD: That is correct. We haven't

 9 even identified all the specific transfers that may

10 occur.

11 MICHAEL GARABEDIAN: And you said San Joaquin.

12 Does that mean Fresno, Kings, Tulare could be buying

13 anywhere in California except Southern California? 

14 MR. HUBBARD: We are covering -- yeah, the

15 buyers' service area -- again, it hasn't formally been

16 defined. We have not finalized that. We can't really

17 finalize our alternatives until we complete the scoping

18 process. But it could include those counties, yes.

19 MICHAEL GARABEDIAN: So we don't know what to

20 comment on exactly except to ask for more information so

21 we can know what to comment on. Like, PCWA could do

22 it -- Placer County Water Agency -- anybody? Donner

23 Heights -- Donner Summit PUV could -- anybody could

24 apply? So the maps are not exactly accurate about where

25 people could apply or where water could go?
 3

 1 MR. HUBBARD: Well, that could be one of your

 2 comments that you could provide to us. We have the

 3 ability to expand the scope or narrow the scope.

 4 MICHAEL GARABEDIAN: So our comments would

 5 actually expand the program so we can understand what it

 6 is? 

 7 MR. HUBBARD: That could be your comment. 

 8 MICHAEL GARABEDIAN: Well, that's kind of

 9 chicken-and-egg. 

10 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's an interesting

11 comment, because I hadn't thought about that, because

12 when I see San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, I

13 think it's limited. That was going to be one of my

14 questions. 

15 MR. HUBBARD: Frances, would you like to

16 address those comments?

17 FRANCES MIZUNO: Through this scoping session,

18 one of the tasks is to identify all the potential

19 sellers, because at this point we have a list of all

20 potential sellers. What we don't know is who all wants

21 to be part of this document, to be identified as sellers

22 in this program.

23 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So we know the sink. 

24 We just don't know the sources. And I think that helps

25 then. 
 4

 1 MS. MIZUNO: We've got a huge list of

 2 potential buyers, but we need to narrow down to who

 3 actually wants to be part of this document. As far as

 4 the buyers are concerned, we know the San Luis &

 5 Delta-Mendota Water Authority is there, which includes

 6 32 member agencies that are potential buyers. East Bay

 7 MUD Contra Costa has requested to be part of this

 8 document. So that's the San Francisco Bay Area. So at

 9 least from the buyers' view, you do have kind of a

10 limitless, where the water potentially could go to.

11 MICHAEL GARABEDIAN: What are the limits?

12 MS. MIZUNO: As far geographic areas? 

13 MICHAEL GARABEDIAN: Where it could go.

14 MS. MIZUNO: I think at this point, unless

15 others want to be included, the San Luis & Delta-Mendota

16 Water Authority service area includes those CVP

17 contractors from the Tracy area --

18 MICHAEL GARABEDIAN: Well, I looked at the

19 list but I don't understand why that's the CEQA lead

20 agency or how it came to be, that they are the ones

21 doing this. 

22 MS. MIZUNO: That is a good question. The

23 CEQA lead agency was the kind of question that we needed

24 to identify. To do the joint document we needed a CEQA

25 lead. I think for ease at this point we have identified
 5

 1 the Authority as the CEQA lead because we're the largest

 2 buyers' group as part of this document. There's a

 3 question whether the Authority is the appropriate CEQA

 4 lead for Contra Costa and East Bay MUD. I think there's

 5 still some issues there we want to work through on that,

 6 but we hope to resolve all that through this whole

 7 scoping process.

 8 JOSHUA BASOFIN: Are we in a

 9 question-and-answer period? Can I ask a question? 

10 MR. HUBBARD: We prefer to have the Q&A after

11 the open house. Can you hold your question till after

12 the open house?

13 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Till 4:00 o'clock? 

14 MR. HUBBARD: Yeah.

15 MS. MIZUNO: I'm okay to go ahead with it now.

16 MR. HUBBARD: Okay. What's your question?

17 JOSHUA BASOFIN: I'd rather address it now on

18 the record.

19 MR. HUBBARD: Let me explain. We mentioned

20 that what we'd do is open it up, because there's a lot

21 of technical questions that people have that we can

22 answer. We want to get people's input on the record.

23 We have the court reporter here so if you want to come

24 up. And if you don't want to talk in front of

25 everybody, you can also come up individually to the
 6

 1 court reporter and express your comments. We had people

 2 last night that indicated they didn't want to speak in

 3 front of the whole group. So we have that option too.

 4 But if you want to put your comment on the record in

 5 front of everybody, you can do that. 

 6 MS. MIZUNO: Why don't you state your name and

 7 where you're from. 

 8 NANETTE ENGELBRITE: I've never seen a court

 9 reporter at a scoping meeting.

10 MR. HUBBARD: It's been commonly done with our

11 San Joaquin River restoration program. We have had

12 court reporters. It's very common.

13 JOSHUA BASOFIN: My name is Joshua Basofin,

14 with Defenders of Wildlife here in Sacramento. 

15 So what I heard from you was that, although

16 the Bureau will be facilitating a number of water

17 transfers within the state in the next year or ten years

18 and although you don't know which agencies will actually

19 be doing the transfer, you don't consider this to be a

20 program. And so, therefore, you won't be doing a

21 programmatic EIR; is that correct? 

22 MR. HUBBARD: Yeah, it will not be a

23 programmatic EIR/EIS.

24 JOSHUA BASOFIN: Okay. Can you explain how

25 you intend to analyze the cumulative impacts to various
 7

 1 environmental resources without doing a programmatic

 2 EIR?

 3 MR. HUBBARD: We cannot answer that question

 4 because we don't know what the project is yet. It's

 5 really going to depend on the level of the detail of the

 6 project. 

 7 CARRIE BUCHMAN: Carrie Buchman, with CDM. 

 8 The answer is generally that we're working to

 9 identify all potential people who could be involved in

10 transfers as part of this program or other cumulative

11 projects that may have impacts that come together with

12 this program. So we don't need to do a programmatic --

13 a programmatic CEQA/NEPA document is a more general

14 document. It does not describe impacts at the same

15 level of detail. And we are trying to get to a more

16 detailed level that will include cumulative impacts at a

17 very detailed level.

18 JOSHUA BASOFIN: The idea behind the NEPA

19 programmatic analysis is also, when you have an agency

20 action that facilitates multiple programs, that you

21 would have that programmatic analysis and then you could

22 tier off of that for the sort of smaller, minor

23 individual actions. So I actually think this fits

24 pretty well within the framework of the programmatic.

25 MS. BUCHMAN: It could, but it would require
 8

 1 subsequent environmental documentation. And the goal

 2 here is to try to analyze all of the impacts as part of

 3 this.

 4 MICHAEL GARABEDIAN: Michael Garabedian,

 5 Friends of the North Fork. 

 6 He just said there would be later

 7 environmental analysis for specific transfer

 8 applications.

 9 MS. BUCHMAN: Exactly. And what I'm saying is

10 that that is not the goal. If we did a programmatic

11 approach, then there would be subsequent environmental

12 documentation. Currently, the goal as part of this

13 document is to be the level of detail to a sufficient

14 point that it would not require additional environmental

15 documentation.

16 MS. MIZUNO: That's why we wanted to actually

17 identify specific sellers and specific buyers within

18 this document which would name those, so that if Seller

19 A wants to sell water to Buyer A, if they're already

20 covered under this document, we would not need to do a

21 separate document.

22 JOSHUA BASOFIN: I guess I'm having trouble

23 understanding how that would be legally defensible to

24 not doing a programmatic EIS for a ten-year program that

25 contemplates multiple individual transfers. But I'll
 9

 1 just let that be on the record.

 2 I also wanted to bring your attention to the

 3 fish and wildlife service's concurrence from last year

 4 for the water transfers program in which they discussed

 5 the potential effects to the giant garter snake. And

 6 they said, This office has consulted with Reclamation

 7 both informally and formally approximately six times

 8 over the past nine years on various forbearance

 9 agreements and proposed water transfers for which water

10 is made available for delivery south of the Delta by

11 fallowing rice and other crops or substituting other

12 crops for rice in the Sacramento valley. And that's the

13 type of water transfer that has significant impacts on

14 giant garter snake, as conceded by the Bureau and

15 concurred upon by the fish and wildlife service.

16 The concurrence further states, The need to

17 consult with some frequency on transfers involving water

18 made available from rice fallowing or crop substitution

19 suggests to us a need for programmatic environmental

20 compliance documents, including a programmatic

21 biological opinion that addresses the cumulative affects

22 on giant garter snakes of repeated fallowing over time.

23 So I just wanted to bring those suggestions

24 from the fish and wildlife service to your attention. 

25 MS. MIZUNO: The goal is to do that.
 10

 1 MR. HUBBARD: I can speak to that a little

 2 bit. Fish and wildlife is one of the agencies that has

 3 requested that we undertake a more comprehensive

 4 longer-term analysis of this, of transfers, so that

 5 we're not doing consultations every single year.

 6 They're one of the ones that have encouraged other

 7 agencies to look at transfers more comprehensively. And

 8 we think it's a good idea to look at transfers over a

 9 longer period of time and more comprehensively.

10 NANNETTE ENGELBRITE: Nannette Engelbrite with

11 the Northern California Power Agency.

12 Just had a couple of general questions. When

13 I looked at this, one is that it doesn't seem to me it's

14 just transfers, right? I mean it could be groundwater

15 storage or it could be -- 

16 MS. MIZUNO: There's different ways that the

17 water could be made available for transfers, but we are

18 talking transfers. What you're referring to is all the

19 water may be made available for transfers.

20 NANNETTE ENGELBRITE: So in the source part of

21 it, it could be done with --

22 MS. MIZUNO: It could be groundwater

23 substitution. It could be fallowing. I think we're

24 going to be looking at all those.

25 NANNETTE ENGELBRITE: Does the new
 11

 1 cross-canals pumping station help with this? Or will

 2 that be part of this? 

 3 MS. MIZUNO: The intertie?

 4 NANNETTE ENGELBRITE: Yeah, the intertie.

 5 MS. MIZUNO: The intertie probably will not

 6 help facilitate transfer, because the transfer window at

 7 this point is in the July through September period of

 8 time. Okay.

 9 NANETTE ENGELBRITE: When they're all needing

10 the water.

11 MS. MIZUNO: Yeah. 

12 NANETTE ENGELBRITE: Are we talking about both

13 M&I and IA water?

14 MS. MIZUNO: Primarily ag, but there are a

15 couple of -- well, the San Francisco Bay area. And

16 within our member agencies we do have a couple. 

17 NANETTE ENGELBRITE: And my last question was

18 the CVPI in these water transfers, there have been water

19 transfers previously. And I was just curious as to why

20 now we are doing the long-term water transfer EIS. Is

21 it -- 

22 MS. MIZUNO: We've been doing water transfers,

23 but we've just been doing annual EIS's on an annual

24 basis as we need it. Fish and wildlife service and

25 others have said in doing this one year we're not
 12

 1 looking at it more comprehensively. And the goal here

 2 is to do that so that we can have a look at a

 3 comprehensive ten-year program. And we haven't covered

 4 ten years --

 5 NANETTE ENGELBRITE: So that's why I disagree

 6 with the programmatic, particularly if the sink is so

 7 specific to your membership and then it's kind of

 8 figuring out the program specific to it. But if it was

 9 everybody in the south and everybody in the north, then

10 I would certainly think that would be programmatic.

11 MR. HUBBARD: We broadcast this out to a wider

12 range of potential buyers and sellers. And we solicited

13 based on -- this original list, I think, was developed

14 from DWR and the drought water bank. We had a pretty

15 big list to start with. We sent out -- I can't

16 remember -- when was it, Carrie, November? We sent out

17 a pretty large email solicitation to see who would be

18 interested. And not all agencies expressed interest.

19 Some agencies indicated they didn't want to be part of

20 the process or part of the environmental document. So

21 it's a willing buyer/willing seller thing, so we can't

22 force anybody --

23 NANETTE ENGELBRITE: So are you doing this as

24 part of CVPIA or is this outside of it?

25 MR. HUBBARD: The authority that we have
 13

 1 Reclamation has -- to review and approve transfers comes

 2 under CVPIA; that's correct. And we -- 

 3 MS. MIZUNO: Most likely, what the CVP

 4 transfers would have to be in compliance with CVPIA.

 5 Let me correct myself. When I said we limit

 6 it to the Authority members area south of the Delta, it

 7 really includes all CVP contractors south of the Delta,

 8 which does include some of those folks that could

 9 potentially be part of the program as well.

10 NANETTE ENGELBRITE: I guess my last comment

11 would be, looking at project use, making sure that

12 nonproject water that moves through federal facilities

13 isn't used as project use or those sorts of things,

14 making sure that it documents both sides and those

15 issues.

16 MR. HUBBARD: Okay. Good comment. 

17 We've got another hand in the back. Sir.

18 WALLY BIRD: Wally Bird from Chico. 

19 I'm hearing you say you're looking for

20 potential buyers and potential sellers. So you're

21 looking for people that want to buy water and sell water

22 also. So is this going to allow the expansion of

23 property that doesn't have water now in the Delta -- or

24 south of the Delta?

25 MS. MIZUNO: No.
 14

 1 WALLY BIRD: Okay. So you're looking for the

 2 need of existing agricultural and residential property?

 3 MS. MIZUNO: The reason that we are in it is

 4 to supplement our contractors' water supply that has

 5 been reduced either due to drought, regulatory

 6 constraints, and so forth. So for those of us south of

 7 the Delta, it's probably not likely we'll ever get a

 8 hundred-percent water supply. So there are those years

 9 that we need to supplement supplies for ag and M&I; and

10 those are those years that we're looking for the water

11 transfers.

12 WALLY BIRD: And this reduction has come over

13 how many years? 

14 MS. MIZUNO: We've had reductions since CVPI

15 was passed in about 1992.

16 WALLY BIRD: Has there been any expansion of

17 agricultural lands during that period of time?

18 MS. MIZUNO: No. There's been reduction of

19 agriculture because of the reduced water supply.

20 SUSAN TATAYON: My name is Susan Tatayon with

21 the Nature Conservancy.

22 And I'm wondering if in your analysis you're

23 going to look at past transfers. I know that most of

24 them have been annual among bureaus and CVP contractors.

25 But I think it would be a good indicator of potential
 15

 1 impacts if you looked at, for example, the transfers

 2 under forbearance agreements from 2000 to now. And I

 3 think that would be really informative.

 4 And I also think the information from the

 5 DWR's dry year water purchase program -- I think that it

 6 would help the modeling and also give you a sense of

 7 why, for example, in -- I think it was 2001, the reason

 8 there were so many willing sellers is the rice

 9 commodities tanked. So it would be nice in the analysis

10 to know incentives for selling, incentives for buying,

11 impacts over the last decade or so. And that might tell

12 you something about what might occur in the future.

13 Just a suggestion.

14 MR. HUBBARD: Thank you. I think that's a

15 good comment. I think you should probably write that

16 comment up and express that to us formally in writing.

17 PAUL FORSBERG: Paul Forsberg, Department of

18 Fish and Game. We will be supplying comments by the

19 February 28th deadline.

20 Just a couple of clarifications that I have at

21 the moment: The Federal Register talked about -- under

22 "Supplementary Information," it says that Reclamation

23 and DWR would facilitate water transfers involving CVP

24 contract water supplies with CVP and state water project

25 facilities under separate written agreement. I wonder
 16

 1 if you would shed some light on what the separate

 2 written agreements would be. 

 3 And the second part. Well, you want to go

 4 ahead take that one?

 5 MS. MIZUNO: For us to convey water using

 6 either federal or for us to convey non-CVP water using

 7 federal facilities, we have to enter into a separate

 8 Warren Act contract with Reclamation for the use of

 9 those facilities. And for us to utilize banks and the

10 state water project facilities to facilitate transfers,

11 we would have to enter into separate written contracts

12 with DWR to do that.

13 PAUL FORSBERG: And then one other question:

14 Would we assume, since we're using state water project

15 facilities -- we may be using state water project

16 facilities -- that the drought water bank 2009 program

17 criteria for mitigation would likely be the same sort of

18 mitigation we would be looking at or previous state

19 water project facilities?

20 MR. HUBBARD: Are you referring to mitigation

21 to listed species? 

22 PAUL FORSBERG: If in the drought water bank

23 program, if one was going to wheel water through the

24 state water project facilities, there was a certain set

25 of criteria you could use for mitigation purposes. It
 17

 1 was a different set than what you would use for wheeling

 2 through CVP facilities. I was wondering if you were

 3 going to use a similar approach.

 4 MR. HUBBARD: My expectation is we'll be

 5 developing our own independent mitigation criteria based

 6 on the input we receive from the resource agencies and

 7 from the public in terms of going forward with the

 8 longer-term program. So they may not be the same. We

 9 may not just adopt them. We may adopt some of them. I

10 don't know. It's difficult to answer without knowing

11 what our full project description is. But it's possible

12 we'll adopt some. We may adopt some and need to tweak

13 them based on fish and game's input or something.

14 MS. MIZUNO: Are you referring to mitigation

15 on how the water would be made available and then convey

16 using the facility? Or would the mitigation be specific

17 because of the use of the CVP facilities?

18 PAUL FORSBERG: I think some of the mitigation

19 for the drought water bank program in 2009 was picked up

20 and used for the 2010 -- 

21 MS. MIZUNO: Are you referring to the

22 technical paper?

23 PAUL FORSBERG: This was actually on the

24 Website -- the drought water bank Website. And in the

25 2010 Website it looked like they used the same criteria.
 18

 1 I was wondering if you had a baseline starting out with

 2 that criteria and then building to something -- 

 3 MS. MIZUNO: I think we'll probably start with

 4 that as a basis.

 5 MR. HUBBARD: We can update the conservation

 6 measures and the mitigation measures in line with

 7 current science. And we plan to do that so that we are

 8 following -- may be in accordance with the best-known

 9 information at the time. If there's more information

10 available than we had when DWR and Reclamation worked on

11 those measures in 2009, we would certainly consider

12 updating any measures that we decide to put in the

13 document. 

14 SUSAN TATAYON: I'm just wondering, are you

15 considering an options program, since you're looking at

16 a ten-year time period? An options program by which,

17 you know, if the water conditions change and you had

18 some folks wanting to buy but suddenly they don't

19 necessarily need to.

20 MS. MIZUNO: I guess we haven't really gotten

21 into those kinds of details. Those generally are terms

22 between the buyer and seller. We are really looking at

23 potential environmental impacts due to any transfers.

24 Those are more terms for later. 

25 JOSHUA BASOFIN: Are you intending to contract
 19

 1 with the consultant in order to do surveys for giant

 2 garter snakes in anticipation of crop-idling transfers?

 3 MR. HUBBARD: I can answer that one.

 4 Reclamation has hired a consultant -- the prime

 5 consultant, CDM, to help assist us in preparation of,

 6 not only an EIS/EIR, but also some assistance in

 7 environmental compliance. Whatever environmental

 8 compliance is needed. That could include Section VII

 9 consultation. But you got to remember we're not even

10 sure, because we don't have the project defined yet,

11 whether or not we would even have potential impacts to

12 giant garter snakes. So we don't even know if we need

13 to do any additional work with relation to giant garter

14 snakes at this point.

15 It's possible that crop idling may fall out of

16 the scope of this document. It's possible that other

17 types of drinking water may fall out of the scope of

18 this document as we get more information.

19 JOSHUA BASOFIN: I think one thing we've seen

20 in the past, particularly in 2009, was that there was a

21 pretty tight time frame in terms of when the water

22 transfers program was established and when the transfers

23 actually were implemented; like water was being wheeled,

24 instead of something like in the fall DWR and the Bureau

25 established a program and then water was being wheeled
 20

 1 as early as the spring. So I think that there's a

 2 possibility that there could be some crop idling. It's

 3 probably important to have that survey information.

 4 MR. HUBBARD: Let me further explain that

 5 Reclamation is partners with DWR on a giant garter snake

 6 study that will involve technical field work to identify

 7 habitat. We are partnered with the Department of

 8 Wildland Resources on that -- that study. We have a

 9 team that's involved with that. So we are actually

10 involved specifically with that. But we are not sure --

11 again, we're not sure if we're going to need specific

12 information for this project yet.

13 MICHAEL GARABEDIAN: Once the project is

14 defined and the EIS is finished -- pardon me for kind of

15 repeating my question -- could other projects come into

16 the scope of this project later? Could other

17 transfers -- 

18 MS. MIZUNO: I suppose it can, which would

19 then require probably an amendment to the document. But

20 I think what we are looking at is we want the document

21 to remain whole. And if there are other transfers, then

22 they probably to have to do separate environmental

23 documents in order to facilitate those transfers.

24 [Comments made to the general 

25 group ended at 2:58 p.m.] 
 21

 1 COMMENTS MADE DIRECTLY TO THE COURT REPORTER 

 2 JERRY EOENYES: My name is Jerry Eoenyes. I'm

 3 with the Northern California Power Agency, NCPA.

 4 Just two comments: Reclamation mentioned the

 5 role that they have in the water transfer. There are a

 6 couple more roles they did not mention. One, they

 7 mentioned the accounting of the water. But they also

 8 need to account for water -- for the power that's needed

 9 to pump that water. And for some of that, they have a

10 policy in place that states how the power will be

11 accounted for. But they don't have the procedures that

12 are in place that are transparent so one can easily see

13 how some water can have project use and some water,

14 especially the non-CVP water, requires power outside of

15 project use to be supplied to pump that water. And they

16 need to have a transparent accounting item so we can see

17 the different types of water that's being pumped, that

18 the power associated with that corresponds to that

19 particular type of water.

20 The second thing is the restoration fund.

21 They need, again, to have an accounting system that's

22 transparent so they can easily track the restoration

23 fund charges that's associated with the different types

24 of water that's being transferred.

25 EVON CHAMBERS: Evon Chambers. I work for the
 22

 1 Planning and Conservation League in Sacramento. I am a

 2 water policy and planning analyst.

 3 I encourage the Bureau and the San Luis &

 4 Delta-Mendota Water Authority to identify and consider

 5 the different criteria proposed by the state and adopted

 6 by the water resources control board. And although

 7 right now it's not required in any way, it is the best

 8 available science. And it identifies what is needed for

 9 a healthy Delta. And although sometimes the intentions

10 of a program are good, there are few that could abuse a

11 program. And by identifying the science available for

12 healthy flow standards, that should be considered with

13 the analysis of this document. That's the best

14 available science.

15 [The last public comment was 

16 received at 3:10 p.m.] 

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
 23

 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO )

 2 

 3 

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 

 4 

 5 I, FREDDIE REPPOND, a duly authorized 

 6 Shorthand Reporter and licensed Notary Public, do hereby 

 7 certify that on the date indicated herein that the above 

 8 proceedings were taken down by me in stenotype and 

 9 thereafter transcribed into typewriting and that this 

10 transcript is a true record of the said proceedings. 

11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand 

12 on this 21st day of January, 2011. 

13 

14 ___________________________

15 FREDDIE REPPOND

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
1

Greene, Alicia M.

From: Veronese, Gina

Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 8:22 AM

To: Greene, Alicia M.

Subject: FW: Comments Addressing Water Transfer Proposal

From: Hubbard, Bradley C [mailto:BHubbard@usbr.gov] 

Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 8:08 PM 

To: Buckman, Carolyn; Veronese, Gina; Hatleberg, Shelly 

Subject: Fw: Comments Addressing Water Transfer Proposal 

Comment for record.

From: Randy Abbott <randyxabbott@gmail.com> 

To: Hubbard, Bradley C 

Sent: Sun Feb 27 20:57:20 2011 

Subject: Comments Addressing Water Transfer Proposal 

 I want to add my voice to the objections raised at transferring Water from the Sacramento Valley bio-Region 

to other watersheds for either agricultural, industrial, or domestic purposes without a clear prioritization of 

maintaining the surface water levels and water quality of the Sacramento Valley watershed, including its 

subterranean hydrology. 

 Not only does the complex natural ecosystem - home to endangered species - rely on less than overburdened 

limits of resource extraction, the economies of various settlements within the Sacramento Valley also are hinged 

to the availability of Water, and the cost to procure and distribute Water. 

 Baseline levels of water quantity and quality must be used as a the basis for frequent monitoring. Such 

baselines must be formed at the onset of a proposed project, and remain the baseline for the project, despite any 

number of changes, or scope changes that may occur during the drafting process. 

 Baseline levels and monitoring plans should include detailed inclusion of all wells, to adequately understand 

the response of the complex hydrology of the large area affected. 

All potential alternative water sources should be explored, such as saline processing, to ensure that economic 

cost impacts to the Sacramento Valley Area if given a water transfer scenario, are not greater than investments 

in technology that might equally serve the proposed 'needs' of points south of various Sacramento Valley 

hydrological systems. 

 All potential improvements to water use efficiencies and re-processing of local waters for appropriate uses 

should be considered in the project alternatives. 

 Thank you for allowing these comments, 

Randy Abbott 

Chico, Ca 

Lower Tuscan Aquifer User 
2

 
1

Greene, Alicia M.

From: Veronese, Gina

Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 8:39 AM

To: Greene, Alicia M.

Subject: FW: Long-Term North to South Water Transfer Program

Public comment for file

From: Hubbard, Bradley C [mailto:BHubbard@usbr.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:48 AM 

To: Buckman, Carolyn; Veronese, Gina; Hatleberg, Shelly 

Subject: FW: Long-Term North to South Water Transfer Program 

Comment for file.   

From: Tony St Amant [mailto:tsainta@hotmail.com] 

Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:33 AM 

To: Hubbard, Bradley C 

Subject: Long-Term North to South Water Transfer Program 

Mr. Hubbard,

I was at the Chico meeting on the 11th.  I have two questions.  What was the web link to the transfer program on the

Bureau website?  What the actual term you used when I asked you why the Bureau was partnered with SLDMWA in

what otherwise seemed to be a commercial operation?  You told me that federal law required the Bureau to support or

facilitate such transfers, but I don't think the word you used was either support or facilitate.

Thanks,

Tony St. Amant

Chico
1    Author: Tony St. Amant

tsainta@hotmail.com

January 18, 2011

Comments on EIS/EIR Scoping for  

Bureau of Reclamation Long‐Term North to South Water Transfer Program, Sacramento County, CA

Tony St. Amant

27 Garden Park Drive

Chico, CA 95973

tsainta@hotmail.com

January 18, 2011

1.  Any north to south water transfer program must be based on good science.  If that science does

not exist, it should be incumbent on the proponents of the transfer program to develop it and include

skeptics in the process in such a way as to develop a common understanding of the hydrogeologic

dynamics.

The simple rejoinder to this suggestion is that the job of developing a robust scientific approach is much

too large and expensive for the timelines established for this EIS/EIR.  The answer to that rejoinder is

that the proponents of north‐south water transfers have had 16 years since the controversy caused by

the transfers in 1994, and they have done virtually nothing to advance the science of assessing aquifer

carrying capacity and health in the Sacramento Valley.  The risks and cost of that failure should not fall

on the shoulders of north state groundwater users and ecosystems.

2.  A recent investigation by the Glenn Colusa Irrigation District and the Natural Heritage Institute1 has

been proposed as a useful examination of conjunctive water management.  It is not.

At best, the investigation is a seriously deficient baby step in the right direction.  The shortcomings are

significant and most of them are acknowledged in the investigation itself.  See comments on the GCID‐

NHI investigation at the end of this document.

3.  The phrase “voluntary water transfers between willing sellers and willing buyers” is a misleading

over simplification of the real scope and impact of the action.

If sold and transferred surface water is to be backfilled by increased pumping of groundwater, there is a

potential for adversely affecting neighbors who may rely on groundwater for economic survival.  

Groundwater aquifers do not conform to property lines.  Consequently, increased groundwater

pumping has a potential for drawing down groundwater levels across property lines and requiring

neighbors to take on the cost of deepening their wells without compensation from the surface water

sale; the real cause of their problem and expense.

Reliable data needs to be developed on the potential depth and breadth of groundwater drawdown

over time.  Short‐term localized effects have been studied and documented, but the effect of increased

pumping over time has only been speculated.  Yet, the impact over time is by far the most dangerous

threat to aquifer and ecosystem health.

                                                           

1 Sacramento Valley Conjunctive Water Management Technical Investigation Modeling Report, prepared for the Glenn‐Colusa

Irrigation District and Natural Heritage Institute (CH2MHill & MBK Engineers), February 2010.
2    Author: Tony St. Amant

tsainta@hotmail.com

January 18, 2011

As well as the potential economic impact on distant groundwater users from increased pumping, there

is a potential for environmental impact that has received only the most cursory conceptual examination.  

Surface water sold out of the area will no longer replenish the local aquifer as it does when it is used to

water crops.  Pumping groundwater to backfill surface water sent out of the area could result in an

aquifer drawdown that could starve surface vegetation.  Moreover, an aquifer void created by the

pumping could draw off an increased amount of stream water in the recharge process, causing less

tributary flow into the Sacramento River, damaging riparian vegetation and further exacerbating salmon

spawning problems and downstream flow shortages.  These phenomena need focused and detailed

assessment before a long‐term conjunctive management project is implemented.

4.  Transferring water to dry southern areas wastes a significant amount of water that could be put to

more efficient use in its native region.

Evaporation loss in transit is not the only inefficiency of transferring surface water south.  Another

example is the amount of irrigation water required to grow orchard crops.  About twice the irrigation

water is required in the southern San Joaquin Valley compared to the Sacramento Valley.  This

relationship exists because about half the water in the Sacramento Valley comes from rain, but virtually

all of the water in the southern San Joaquin Valley must come from irrigation.

If agricultural markets need more of what is being produced in water‐short areas, maybe the state and

federal governments ought to be examining how to expand production in areas where the precious

resource of water can be used most efficiently instead of leading an effort to use it less efficiently.

5.  There is little logical rationale—except among massive water rights holders—for allowing water

rights holders to profit from the sale of water.

Water rights do not equal water ownership.  The water is owned by the people of the State of California

and is granted for beneficial use to individuals and agencies. A more appropriate alternative approach—

assuming an environmentally sound transfer program—would be to charge the receiving agencies the

estimated fair market value for transferred water, place the proceeds in a fund administered by a public

executive agency, and allow claims against the fund to reimburse actual expenses incurred as a result of

the water transfers.

In addition to claims for reimbursement of actual expenses caused by water transfers, the proceeds

should be expected to pay the cost of administering the system.  At a minimum, valid claims would

include: (1) the cost differential to surface water users of pumping replacement groundwater; and (2)

the cost differential to affected groundwater users of any expenses caused by the increased pumping.  

Public input should be solicited to ensure all potential categories of valid claims are identified before the

program is implemented. Should the proceeds from the transfers not cover the cost of claims and

program administration, the market value of the transferred water should be revised upward to cover

the actual cost.

6.  Comments on Sacramento Valley Conjunctive Water Management Technical Investigation

Modeling Report, February 2010 follow (A copy was provided to GCID January 12, 2011).
3    Author: Tony St. Amant

tsainta@hotmail.com

January 12, 2011

Comments on

Sacramento Valley Conjunctive Water Management

Technical Investigation Modeling Report, February 2010

Overview.  The subject investigation (Investigation) was prepared by CH2M HILL and MBK Engineers for

the Glenn Colusa Irrigation District (GCID) and the Natural Heritage Institute (NHI).

The primary purpose of the Investigation was to examine how to integrate the operation of surface

water and groundwater systems (conjunctive water management) for the purpose of enlarging water

supplies for local and regional benefits and creating operational flexibility to contribute to ecologically

friendly flows in the Sacramento and Feather Rivers and the Delta.2

  

By its own terms the Investigation does not present results appropriate for implementation of a

conjunctive water management program without extensive additional analysis:

Analyses described herein should be considered a planning level analysis that tests

the general viability of conjunctive water management strategies presented, and

provides a general estimate of benefits that may be realized by implementation of

these projects. However, these evaluations will need to be significantly refined, both

in specificity of infrastructure and operational protocols and response of the natural

system to these operations, before a project of this type could be carried to the

design phase.

3 (emphasis added)

Conclusion:  Based on the Investigation’s own self‐evaluation it is insufficient to validate the safe

operability of a conjunctive water management program in the Sacramento Valley.

Comments on the Surface Water Analysis

The model used for the surface water analysis was CalSim‐II, a well‐established model developed jointly

by the federal Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR).  

CalSim‐II is a water flow model used to simulate California State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley

Project (CVP) operations, and while it has been used to model the estimated effects of climate change4

,

this Investigation did not use that capability.

Without consideration of climate change, the results of this Investigation include the implicit but

unstated assumption that basic SWP/CVP water flows for the next 82 years will be as they were for the

years 1922 through 2003.5

  This is a significant shortcoming.  DWR’s position on the impact of climate

                                                           

2 Investigation Update, June 2010, which eliminated specific reference to “the Lower Tuscan Aquifer and related deep aquifers.

. . .” 3 Investigation, February 2010, p. 14‐1, Section 14, subsection 14.1, third paragraph. 4 Using Future Climate Change to Support Water Resources Decision Making in California, California Climate Change Center, CA

Department of Water Resources, May 2009. 5 The years 1922 through 2003 are the years of actual SWP/CVP water flow used by CalSim‐II.
4    Author: Tony St. Amant

tsainta@hotmail.com

January 12, 2011

change is that “Historic hydrologic patterns [like those used in this Investigation] can no longer be solely

relied upon to forecast the water future.”6 (emphasis added)

Conclusion:  Without integration of a climate change sensitivity analysis, the surface water analysis has

no utility in conjunctive water management planning or decision‐making for the Sacramento Valley.  As

currently crafted, the Investigation provides no level of confidence that the surface water analysis would

be relevant for conditions other than those experienced during the period 1922‐2003.

Comments on the Groundwater Analysis

The model used for the groundwater analysis appears to have been an adaptation of MicroFEM©

version 3.60, an integrated groundwater modeling package developed in The Netherlands.   Referred to

as SacFEM, the model is described as optimized to cover over 5,955 miles of the Sacramento Valley

Groundwater Basin.  However, there is no mention of peer review or other independent validation for

the model adaptation—an unacceptable shortcoming for a program proposal with such huge

environmental and economic implications for the Sacramento Valley.  Some critical areas of interest in a

validation process would be model fidelity in the areas of:

 Replicating the internal flow mechanics of dissimilar aquifers, such as the Tehama Formation,

the shallow unconfined Tuscan Formation, and the deeper fractured rock Tuscan Formation;  

 Replicating any flow interaction between the upper and lower Tuscan Formations;

 Replicating aquifer recharge, including postulated foothill area recharge for the Tuscan

Formation(s); and

 Revealing the potential long‐term, cumulative, wide‐area effects on aquifer levels of extended

reliance on groundwater to supplement surface water shortfalls.

The importance of such validation is emphasized by the Investigation itself:

The distribution of aquifer properties across the Sacramento Valley is poorly understood.  

In certain areas with significant levels of groundwater production, the collection of

aquifer test data, and the measurement of historic groundwater level trends in response

to known groundwater production rates have provided valuable information on aquifer

properties.  However in the majority of the valley, these data are not available.7

(emphasis added)

If the results of any investigation are to be used as a basis for a long‐term extraction commitment from

Sacramento Valley aquifers, first there must be a consensus among state and federal agencies and the

interested public that program projections are based on a reasonable representation of future

probabilities.

                                                           

6 Managing an Uncertain Future: Climate Change Adaption Strategies, CA Department of Water Resources, October 2008, p. 2. 7 Investigation, February 2010, Section 8, subsection 8.3.5, p. 8‐11, first paragraph.
5    Author: Tony St. Amant

tsainta@hotmail.com

January 12, 2011

Conclusion:  The Investigation’s groundwater analysis provides no more than an interesting starting

point for the robust analysis that would be required for a high confidence conjunctive water

management project.   

Comments on Groundwater Management and Decision Criteria

While it is arguable that conjunctive use water management and decision criteria are beyond the

technical scope of the Investigation, the subject is broached in Section 5, General Operational Scenario:

In some years, conditions in the Sacramento Valley may be so critically dry that Project

pumping would be suspended altogether. For instance, if groundwater levels were

already at levels of concern (according to county Basin Management Objectives or other

standards), Project wells would be turned off and the Project would generate no new

supplies under these conditions.8

The implications of this paragraph are profound and far reaching.  Without a public management

structure in control of the process, a conjunctive water management project would be a license for

unrestricted groundwater pumping managed only by the entity doing the extraction.  Response to

concerns of others would be voluntary unless redressed through legal action at potentially great cost to

the injured party.  Because groundwater aquifers do not necessarily conform to local government

boundaries there is no existing local public entity that could ensure aquifer safety across the

Investigation area.

An example of what could happen without a public management structure in control of the process

occurred in Butte County in 1994.  Two agricultural water districts sold surface water to Southern

California buyers and pumped groundwater to make up for it.  Nearby wells went dry with their owners

convinced that the cause was increased pumping by the water districts.  The water districts never

accepted responsibility citing the relatively low precipitation that year as the cause.9

  The controversy

remains the basis of deep distrust 16 years later.

The point here is not to imply blame, but to emphasize that a succession of similar unresolved issues

would be intolerable across the Sacramento Valley over time.  The Investigation gives the example of

county basin management objectives programs (BMO) as a solution to the management problem, but

BMO programs fail on several accounts: (1) they are limited by county boundaries, which do not

necessarily relate to aquifer hydrodynamics; (2) Glenn County exempts water districts from compliance

with its BMO ordinance; (3) Butte County’s BMO ordinance provides no binding enforcement

mechanism; and (4) neither county ordinance deals with the potential issue of long‐term aquifer

depletion.10

Conclusions:  Safe and effective conjunctive water management for the Sacramento Valley requires a

public executive authority that extends across local government boundaries.  No such authority now

exists.  

                                                           

8 Investigation, February 2010, Section 5, subsection 5.1, p. 5‐1, last paragraph. 9 At the time, Butte County had no water transfer or groundwater management ordinances in force. 10 Of Sacramento Valley counties, Butte and Glenn Counties are the only ones known by the author to have BMO programs.
    Author: Tony St. Amant

tsainta@hotmail.com

February 14, 2011

Comments on EIS/EIR Scoping for  

Bureau of Reclamation Long‐Term North to South Water Transfer Program, Sacramento County, CA

Tony St. Amant

27 Garden Park Drive

Chico, CA 95973

tsainta@hotmail.com

February 14, 2011

According to U.S. Geological Survey water use data, the proposed long‐term water transfer program

could almost double the extraction of fresh groundwater from Butte and Glenn Counties.

The data in the following table is extracted from a spreadsheet at the USGS website.1

BUTTE & GLENN CO.     

ESTIMATED WATER

USE  2005

Total Fresh

Groundwater

Total Fresh

Surface

Water

Total

Fresh

Water

Butte, Mgal/day 308.210 481.350 789.560

Glenn, Mgal/day 278.330 462.430 740.760

Total, Mgal/day 586.540 943.780 1530.320

Total  acre feet/day* 1,800 2,896 4,696

Total acre feet/year* 657,008 1,057,168 1,714,177

* Based on 325,851.385 gallons equal one acre foot.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation‐San Luis & Delta‐Mendota Water Authority Long‐Term North to South

Water Transfer Program proposes to transfer up to 600,000 acre feet of water per year during the period

2012‐2022.   The process for facilitating these transfers could be crop idling or substituting groundwater for

transferred agricultural surface water.

Widespread crop idling has a potential for significant economic impact on agribusinesses and individuals

who need active planting, growing, harvesting, maintenance, support, and supply activities for revenue and

income.  And the problem would spread quickly beyond dedicated agricultural activities to a broad range of

community businesses and services.  This impact would occur in a rural area with already chronic

underemployment problems.

In the long‐term, groundwater substitution could be as harmful or worse.  The 600,000 acre feet proposed

for transfer equals 91 percent of 657,008 acre feet of fresh groundwater extracted from Butte and Glenn

counties in 2005.  In other words, the project would almost double groundwater extractions from an

aquifer that is already under stress and is expected to be in even more difficulty if current long‐term

snowpack projections hold up.

The potential long‐term impact of such a huge increase in groundwater extraction cannot be reasonably

assessed during the time‐frame of this EIS/EIR process.  Prudence demands that the project be scrapped.

                                                           

1 http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2005/index.html, Estimated Use of Water in the United States, County‐Level

Data for 2005, caco2005.xls. (latest data available).
    Author: Tony St. Amant

tsainta@hotmail.com

February 25, 2011

Comments on EIS/EIR Scoping for  

Bureau of Reclamation Long‐Term North to South Water Transfer Program, Sacramento County, CA

Tony St. Amant

27 Garden Park Drive

Chico, CA 95973

tsainta@hotmail.com

February 25, 2011

According to U.S. Geological Survey water use data, the proposed long‐term water transfer program

could more than double the extraction of fresh groundwater from Tehama and Glenn Counties.

The data in the following table is extracted from a spreadsheet at the USGS website.1

TEHAMA & GLENN CO.    

ESTIMATED WATER USE  

2005

Total Fresh

Groundwater

Total Fresh

Surface

Water

Total Fresh

Water

Tehama, Mgal/day 205.17 333.28 538.45

Glenn, Mgal/day 278.330 462.430 740.760

Total, Mgal/day 586.540 943.780 1530.320

Total  acre feet/day* 1,484 2,442 3,926

Total acre feet/year* 541,589 891,309 1,432,898

* Based on 325,851.385 gallons equal one acre foot.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation‐San Luis & Delta‐Mendota Water Authority Long‐Term North to South

Water Transfer Program proposes to transfer up to 600,000 acre feet of water per year during the period

2012‐2022.   The process for facilitating these transfers could be crop idling or substituting groundwater for

transferred agricultural surface water.

Widespread crop idling has a potential for significant economic impact on agribusinesses and individuals

who need active planting, growing, harvesting, maintenance, support, and supply activities for revenue and

income.  And the problem would spread quickly beyond dedicated agricultural activities to a broad range of

community businesses and services.  This impact would occur in a rural area with already chronic

underemployment problems.

In the long‐term, groundwater substitution could be as harmful or worse.  The 600,000 acre feet proposed

for transfer equals 111 percent of 541,589 acre feet of fresh groundwater extracted from Tehama and

Glenn counties in 2005.   

The potential long‐term impact of such a huge increase in groundwater extraction cannot be reasonably

assessed during the time‐frame of this EIS/EIR process.  Prudence demands that the project be scrapped.

                                                           

1 http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2005/index.html, Estimated Use of Water in the United States, County‐Level

Data for 2005, caco2005.xls. (latest data available).
    Author: Tony St. Amant

tsainta@hotmail.com

February 25, 2011

Comments on EIS/EIR Scoping for  

Bureau of Reclamation Long‐Term North to South Water Transfer Program, Sacramento County, CA

Tony St. Amant

27 Garden Park Drive

Chico, CA 95973

tsainta@hotmail.com

February 25, 2011

According to U.S. Geological Survey water use data, the proposed long‐term water transfer program

could almost double the extraction of fresh groundwater from Tehama, Colusa, and Glenn Counties.

The data in the following table is extracted from a spreadsheet at the USGS website.1

TEHAMA, COLUSA &

GLENN CO.               

ESTIMATED WATER USE  

2005

Total Fresh

Groundwater

Total Fresh

Surface

Water

Total Fresh

Water

Tehama, Mgal/day 205.170 333.280 538.450

Colusa, Mgal/day 139.980 776.280 916.260

Glenn, Mgal/day 278.330 462.430 740.760

Total, Mgal/day 623 1,572 2,195

Total  acre feet/day* 1,913 4,824 6,738

Total acre feet/year* 698,386 1,760,853 2,459,239

* Based on 325,851.385 gallons equal one acre foot.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation‐San Luis & Delta‐Mendota Water Authority Long‐Term North to South

Water Transfer Program proposes to transfer up to 600,000 acre feet of water per year during the period

2012‐2022.   The process for facilitating these transfers could be crop idling or substituting groundwater for

transferred agricultural surface water.

Widespread crop idling has a potential for significant economic impact on agribusinesses and individuals

who need active planting, growing, harvesting, maintenance, support, and supply activities for revenue and

income.  And the problem would spread quickly beyond dedicated agricultural activities to a broad range of

community businesses and services.  This impact would occur in a rural area with already chronic

underemployment problems.

In the long‐term, groundwater substitution could be as harmful or worse.  The 600,000 acre feet proposed

for transfer equals 86 percent of 698,386 acre feet of fresh groundwater extracted from Butte and Glenn

counties in 2005.   

The potential long‐term impact of such a huge increase in groundwater extraction cannot be reasonably

assessed during the time‐frame of this EIS/EIR process.  Prudence demands that the project be scrapped.

                                                           

1 http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2005/index.html, Estimated Use of Water in the United States, County‐Level

Data for 2005, caco2005.xls. (latest data available).





1

Greene, Alicia M.

From: Veronese, Gina

Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 8:39 AM

To: Greene, Alicia M.

Subject: FW: North-South water transfer

Public comment for file

From: Hubbard, Bradley C [mailto:BHubbard@usbr.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 4:51 PM 

To: Buckman, Carolyn; Veronese, Gina; Hatleberg, Shelly 

Subject: FW: North-South water transfer 

Here is a comment for the record.  Thanks, Brad

From: juliegiada@gmail.com [mailto:juliegiada@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Julie Butler 

Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 3:20 PM 

To: Hubbard, Bradley C 

Subject: North-South water transfer 

Mr. Hubbard, 

I am opposed to the water transfer. Let farming practices by changed to conserve water through Permaculture 

and rainwater harvesting techniques, before we all run out of water, north and south. That is the sustainable 

method, so that our children will have a better future. 

Sincerely, 

Julie Butler 

9050 Lasell Lane 

Durham, CA 95938 






1

Greene, Alicia M.

From: Veronese, Gina

Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 8:22 AM

To: Greene, Alicia M.

Subject: FW: Fwd: Long term water transfer

From: Hubbard, Bradley C [mailto:BHubbard@usbr.gov] 

Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 6:01 PM 

To: Buckman, Carolyn; Veronese, Gina; Hatleberg, Shelly 

Subject: Fw: Fwd: Long term water transfer 

Comment for record.

From: lindzer2@aol.com <lindzer2@aol.com> 

To: Hubbard, Bradley C 

Cc: frances.mizuno@sldmwa.org <frances.mizuno@sldmwa.org> 

Sent: Sun Feb 27 17:14:13 2011 

Subject: Fwd: Long term water transfer 

 

 

2/26/11 

Linda Calbreath 

4318 Green Meadow Ln. 

Chico, CA 95973 

 

Brad Hubbard 

Bureau of Reclamation 

2800 Cottage Way MP-410 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

 

Frances Mizuno 

San Luis and Delta Mendota Water Authority 

P.O.Box 2157 

Los Banos, CA 93635 

 

I am writing to express my disapproval of the plan to transfers of water from Northern California to the Central Valley. The 

flora and fauna of the area rely upon our current water supply as do the farmers and individuals. 

We do not want to turn our area into a desert. The Central Valley was a desert before white man's arrival to California, 

and it is a shame that it cannot be farmland, but that is the climate of the area. 

I may not be able to articulate this as well as some, but I still want to go on record that I think it is a bad idea and I will be 

willing to contribute to the legal process of fighting this water transfer. 

 

Sincerely, 

 

 

Linda Calbreath 

 

 
DRECToRS

George Biag4 Jr.

Rudy Mussi

Edward Zuckerman

COUNSEL

Dante John Nome/Iin/

CE NTR A L D E LTA WATE R A G E N CV

Dante John Nomellini, Jr.

235 East Weber Avenue • P.O. Box 1461 • Stockton, CA 95201

Phone 209/465-5883 • Fax 209/465-3956

February 28, 2011

Via Email bhubbard@usbr.gov,

Facsimile No. (916) 978-5290

and First Class Mail

Brad Hubbard

Project Manager

U.S. Bureau ofReclamation

2800 Cottage Way, MP-410

Sacramento, C 95825

Re: Scoping Comments for Long-Term North to South Water Transfer Program

Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report

Dear Mr. Hubbard:

Please accept these comments ofthe Central Delta Water Agency (“CDWA”) on the

scope of the proposed Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”)/Environmental Impact Report

(“EIR”) to be prepared by the Department of the Interior, Bureau ofReclamation (“USBR”) and

the San Luis & Delta Mendota Water Authority (“SLD”) pursuant to the Notice ofIntent

published in the Federal Register, December 28, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 248, page 81642, FR Doc.

20 10-32583.

The EIS/EIR is stated to be for the purpose of analyzing the effects ofmulti-year water

transfers during the period of 2012 through 2022 from unnamed water agencies in northern

California to unnamed water agencies south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (“Delta”) and

the San Francisco Bay Area. It is stated that the EIS/EIR will address transfers of Central Valley

Project (“CVP”) and non-CVP water supplies that require use of CVP or State Water Project

(“SWP”) facilities to convey the transferred water. It is further stated that water transfers would

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

cropland idling.

It is reported that current operational parameters include the transfer of 600,000 acre feet

per year, but it is not stated that such would be the maximum for the project. It is further stated

that the USBR and DWR would facilitate water transfers involving CVP contract water supplies

and CVP and SWP facilities.
Brad Hubbard 2 February 28, 2011

Apparently the project is not clearly defined, since the EIS/EIR will identify potential

selling parties innorthern California, the methods by which water could be made available for

transfer, and maximum amounts of water available through each method. The EIS/EIR would

also identify potential purchasing agencies south ofthe Delta and the proposed use oftransfer

water.

Futher alternative transfer methods to make water available would apparently be

investigated in the EIS/EIR, including groundwater substitution and cropland idling. It is stated

that the proceeds from the water transfer typically would pay farmers to idle land that they would

have placed in production, and that rice has been the dominant crop idled in previous transfers.

Please accept these comments concerning the scoping ofthe EIS/EIR.

1. A Complete and Adequate Description of the Project Has Not Been Provided.

In order to provide a complete and adequate ability to provide scoping comments, the

project should be more fully and completely described. There should be a specific identification

and designation ofthe transferor lands as well as the transferee lands to be irrigated with the

transferred water, or other transferee water use. This would include soil characteristics and

chemical elements, existing cropping, and future cropping both with and without the project, the

characteristics of any project supplied urban water use, and without project supply and usage.

Details of location and nature of groundwater pumping also must be provided. Further, the

notice vaguely mentions current operational parameters of 600,000 acre feet annual conveyance,

and use ofthe state and federal pumps during July through September only, but fails to state

whether that will be the limit for the project. The project must be clarified to state whether the

past practices are or are not part ofthis project.

2. Full Analysis of the Impacts from Use of Groundwater as Substitute Supply

for Transferors.

With regard to the investigation and evaluation of impacts and potential impacts, one of

the critical direct and indirect impacts which the EIS/EIR should fully evaluate is the use of

groundwater pumping as an alternative supply by transferors. The potential impacts of increased

groundwater usage are widely recognized and well-established, and the short and long term

project effects should be fully evaluated. Further, the EIS/EIR should investigate, discuss,

analyze, and ultimately mitigate to the extent feasible, the potential impacts from such increased

groundwater pumping, including increased electrical demands for pumping, well-drilling

activities, and other greenhouse concerns.

Also, the EIS/EIR must evaluate potentially substantial and cumulative impacts in all of

the areas directly or indirectly affected by groundwater pumping.
Brad Hubbard 3 February28, 2011

3. Full Analysis Should Be Made of the Short and Long-Term Effects of

Cropland Idling.

Cropland idling, or fallowing, creates a whole host ofissues that must be analyzed,

including but not limited to the following:

A. Lack of groundwater recharge by percolation and return surface flows to

waterways from surface irrigation.

B. Habitat modification for species benefitting from farming, including

waterfowl.

C. Economic impacts to the communities from loss of farm employment and

adverse impacts on the local business community dependent upon actual

farming.

D. Greenhouse gas effects, including carbon sink and sequestration relative to

active farming, and effects of cropping changes in the area ofsupply and

the area of usage.

E. The impacts of having food supplies grown at other than existing

locations, including the need for rice to be grown elsewhere.

4. Full Analysis of the Drainage Impacts from Use of Transferred Water.

With regard to the investigation and evaluation ofimpacts and potential impacts, the

EIS/EIR must fully evaluate the direct and indirect impacts of the use oftransferred water in the

already drainage impaired San Joaquin Valley. The transfer of water requires in-depth study of

the drainage in the areas of delivery which directly or indirectly drain surface and subsurface

waters, and, hence, the various pollutants contained in such waters and irrigated lands, into any

waterways. Such waters directly or indirectly drain into waterways, including the San Joaquin

River and upslope areas which generate hydraulic pressure which thereby increase the drainage

of waters from the downslope lands into groundwater and the San Joaquin River. Waterlogging

of the lowlands in the CVP service areas is a substantial issue, worsened by the project. The

potential for such impacts is widely recognized and well-established.

The proposed project necessitates that the EIS/EIR investigate, discuss, analyze, and

ultimately mitigate to the fullest extent feasible, the potential impacts from water use that would

not occur absent the transfer and thereby increase impacts on the water quality ofthe San Joaquin

River.

It is well-recognized that drainage directly or indirectly into the San Joaquin River can

and does contain numerous contaminants which must be properly investigated and evaluated
Brad Hubbard 4 February28, 2011

(e.g., selenium, boron, molybdenum, other trace elements, etc.). Any increase in these

contaminants that may arise from the project must be evaluated The EIS/EIR must evaluate

potentially substantial and cumulative impacts in all ofthe areas directly or indirectly affected by

the project, including but not limited to the Delta.

5. Consideration of Federal Anti-degradation Laws.

The Federal Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) requires all states to adopt an

“antidegradation policy” similar to the State Water Resources Control Board’s (“SWRCB”)

Resolution 68-16. (40 C.F.R. 131.12.) Resolution 68-16 is intended to and implements Water

Code section 13000, requiring the SWRCB to regulate all “activities and factors which may

affect the quality ofthe waters of the state” such that they “attain the highest water quality which

is reasonable.”

The SWRCB’s Resolution 68-16 (commonly referred to as the SWRCB’s

“Anti-Degradation Policy”) provides in pertinent part:

“Whenever the existing quality ofwater is better than the quality

established in policies as ofthe date on which such policies become effective,

such existing high quality will be maintained until it has been demonstrated to the

State that any change will be consistent with maximum benefit to the people of

the State, will not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial use of

such water and will not result in water quality less than that prescribed in the

policies.”

The EIS/EIR must analyze compliance with these requirements and explain the proposed

project’s impacts upon San Joaquin River and Sacramento River water quality and water quality

in all waters into which transferred waters may drain or supply, including, but not limited to,

drainage from lands irrigated by water supplied by the project as well as water supplied by others

and other sources. The significant potential for degradation of San Joaquin River and

Sacramento River water quality and water quality elsewhere is a great concern, and the same

must be fully analyzed and evaluated. Further, it must be determined whether the project meets

the specific requirement that it be “consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State,

will not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial use ofsuch water and will not

result in water quality less than that prescribed in the policies.”

The transfer presents a number oftroubling issues due to the substantial risk of

• impairment of other waters. This needs to be thoroughly investigated and analyzed in the

EIS/EIR.

6. The San Luis Act ofJune 3, 1960, Public Law 86-488, 77 Stat. 156.

Public Law 86-48 8 specifically requires:
BradHubbard 5 February28, 2011

“Construction ofthe San Luis unit shall not be commenced until the

Secretary has.. . received satisfactory assurance from the State of California that

it will make provision for a master drainage outlet and disposal channel for the

San Joaquin Valley, as generally outlined in the California water plan, Bulletin

Numbered 3, of the California Department of Water Resources, which will

adequately serve, by connection therewith, the drainage system for the San Luis

unit, or has made provision for constructing the San Luis interceptor drain to the

delta designed to meet the drainage requirements ofthe San Luis unit as generally

outlined in the report of the Department ofthe Interior, entitled ‘San Luis Unit

Central Valley project,’ dated December 17, 1956.” (Emphasis added.)

The drain for removal ofsalts from the valley has never been constructed, yet over a

million acre feet of water per annum from the San Luis Unit was committed to use. With every

acre foot of water delivered to the San Joaquin Valley through the Delta Mendota Canal and San

Luis Unit, there is delivered a significant quantity ofsalt which is retained in the San Joaquin

Valley or returned to the Delta via the San Joaquin River. The substantial degradation ofthe San

Joaquin River from such drainage is well-understood and recognized.

The project will result in further impairment of water quality, and in doing so, will merely

increase the volume of salt in the groundwater and return flows. Moreover, in the absence ofthe

project it is reasonable to anticipate a reduction or change in cropping patterns and a reduction in

lands in transferee areas under cultivation, thereby reducing ground and surface Water quality

impairment. Of course, the EIS/EIR needs to fully investigate and analyze all ofthese issues.

Without the required drain, the EIS/EIR must evaluate the project’s impact, including

cumulative impacts, ensuing from the continued irrigation ofthe transferee area of use, and the

impacts of increasing irrigation in areas that would not otherwise be irrigated in the absence of

the project. The EIS/Ell{ should examine and explain how the proposed project as well as

existing conditions are consistent with and in compliance with PL 86-488.

7. The EIS/EIR Should Include A Range of Alternatives, including a No Project

Alternative.

The EIS/EIR should evaluate a range ofreasonable alternatives, including but not limited

to the following:

1. No Project.

2. Reducing and curtailing water supply demand, including the elimination of

the irrigation of drainage impaired lands, and alteration of farming

practices, including cropping, in the transferee area.

The EIS/ELR. should also include, in the context ofthe analysis ofsome ofthe foregoing
BradHubbard 6 February28, 2011

alternatives or otherwise, an extensive discussion of desalinization options in order to promote

regional self-sufficiency and, hence, improved water reliability that would obviate the need for

the project. Such a discussion would be in furtherance of Water Code section 12946 which

provides:

“It is hereby declared that the people ofthe state have a primary interest in

the development of economical saline water conversion processes which could

eliminate the necessity for additional facilities to transport water over long

distances, or supplement the services to be provided by such facilities, and

provide a direct and easily managed water supply to assist in meeting the future

water requirements of the state.”

Opportunities for environmentally friendly desalinization of ocean waters as well as brackish

ground waters should be thoroughly examined.

8. Full Analysis of Impacts In the Delta.

In addition to the San Joaquin River water quality issues from return flows and

accretions, hydraulic pressures, and waterlogging, other impacts outside and within the Delta

should be fully evaluated. This would include effects upon Delta water use due to the periodic

imposition of Term 91 conditions to protect the transferee water supply during transfers, thereby

depriving Delta water users ofthe ability to use water during July through September.

9. Evaluate Conditions That May Be Reasonably Anticipated to Exist in the

Future.

The EIS/EIR should include an analysis ofthe present and future water needs including

environmental water needs and the needs to offset overdraft of groundwater within the

watersheds of origin (See Water Code section 11460) and determine the availability ofsurplus

water. Water not needed by the transferors may be needed by others within the watersheds of

origin.

Even more so since no drainage solution has been implemented, the EIS/EIR should

evaluate impacts ofthe project against the background of a variety ofscenarios and outcomes,

including but not limited to, the lack of a drain ever being implemented, substantially inadequate

supplies in the transferor and transferee areas, implementation ofthe SWRCB Flow Study, the

project’s enablement of continued farming and cropping practices and urbanization that are not

otherwise supportable by adequate supplies of water, and land retirement.

10. CVPIA Analysis.

The EIS/EIR should include an analysis of how the transfers will impact water purchases

by the CVP to enable compliance with the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
Brad Hubbard 7 February28, 2011

11. Calfed Bay Delta Authorization Act.

The EIS/EIR should include an analysis of how transfers will impact CVP compliance

with the California Bay Delta Authorization Act, October 25, 2004, Public Law 108-36 1, 118

Stat. 1681, section 103 (d)(2)(D).

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scope ofthe EIS/EIR. We look forward

to the receipt of a comprehensive EIS/EIR.

Very truly yours,

LL

Attorney for Agen y

DAM:kk
2

 

WINNEMEM

WINTU TRIBE

 

 

February 28, 2011

Mr. Brad Hubbard 

United States Bureau of Reclamation 

2800 Cottage Way, MP-410 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

bhubbard@usbr.gov 

Dean Messer, Chief Water Transfers Office 

Department of Water Resources 

1416 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 

dmesser@water.ca.gov 

Ms. Frances Mizuno

Assistant Executive Director

San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority (SLDMWA)

frances.mizuno@sldmwa.org

Re: Scoping Comments Proposed Ten Year North to South Water Transfer of CVP and Non 

CVP Water Using State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Water Project (CVP) Facilities

Dear Mr. Brad Hubbard, Ms. Frances Mizuno & Dean Messer:
3

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed long term transfer of water from 

north of the Delta to areas south of the San Francisco Bay Delta using federal and state facilities 

from 2012 through 2022, from willing sellers and buyers.

1. The Department of Water Resources Not the SLMWA Joint Powers Authority Should Be 

the Lead State Agency:

The Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) and the San Luis & DeltaMendota Water Authority (SLDMWA) propose to prepare a joint EIS/EIR to analyze the effects 

of water transfers from water agencies in northern California to water agencies south of the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) and in the San Francisco Bay Area. The EIS/EIR is to

address transfers of Central Valley Project (CVP) and non-CVP water Transfers of supplies that 

require use of CVP or State Water Project (SWP) facilities to convey the transferred water.

The courts have held DWR, not a joint powers authority such as SLDWA, has the statutory duty 

to serve as lead agency in assessing the environmental consequences of projects involving the 

SWP.1 The proposed water sales from one basin to another will potentially have broad 

statewide and national impacts to groundwater supplies, State and federal San Francisco BayDelta estuary ecosystem through-flow and outflow responsibilities under the Clean Water Act 

and Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.2Any transfers or sales also could have 

significant impacts on Bay Delta flow criteria and need to be analyzed.3

Despite assurances in the scoping documents that proposed additional diversions from the 

Delta would not have an impact on federal or state endangered species, the complexity of the 

estuary ecosystem and the national and statewide importance of these public trust resources 

to the entire state demand State analysis of local, regional and statewide impacts from the

proposed water transfer project. Further the environmental review needs to analyze the local 

and statewide impacts from the proposed water transfers on energy consumption and 

greenhouse gas emissions due to increased groundwater pumping programs, transport through 

 

1

http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/cases/2000/PCLvDWR-2000.html

84 Cal.App.4th 315A, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 173, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7782, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,331

2

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/laws_regulations/docs/portercologne.pdf

3

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/deltaflow/final_rpt.shtml
4

the federal and state systems and needed energy to deliver the water some 200 to 300 miles 

away.

2. It is not clear there is a viable federal project without identified willing buyers and sellers 

given State and federal legal constraints on further diversions from the Bay-Delta estuary.

No willing sellers or buyers have been identified in the scoping documents. Without this 

information the proposed project is purely speculative, making the nature of the project and 

potential scope of its impacts indeterminable. Pursuant to the 1992 Central Valley Project 

Improvement Act (CVPIA) federal contractors are required to meet specific fish and wildlife 

restoration goals. To date these goals have not been met.

4

 Further, Tribal trust responsibilities 

and area of origin requirements on diversions of water from the Trinity River have not been 

met. Any additional transfers of water out of the Bay-Delta estuary from north to southern 

basins need to comply with these explicit provisions of law prior to transferring additional 

supplies from the estuary. Further as noted in the scoping document the CVPIA places specific 

constraints on the transfer of CVP water including requirements that water be consumptively 

used as a prior condition to its transfer in order to avoid third party impacts and to encourage 

water conservation. 

Given the highly speculative and ill-defined nature of the project it is difficult for the public to 

comment on whether the important constraints on any such project will be sufficiently 

analyzed and reviewed. In addition, with the undefined nature of the project, it is unclear that 

the Bureau has an authorized project to use federal facilities. As stated by the author of the 

federal legislation, “The purpose of the CVPIA was not to create a permanent annuity for a few 

contractors who become re-sale agents of a public resource, with the profit going into private 

pockets...The resale authority was intended for the short term, and should not be abused.”5 

 

4

The timing of required Environmental Water Account (EWA) water flows is to enhance and protect fish 

populations and the water is to flow in Delta channels to San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean to meet water 

quality requirements under federal and state law for outflows. Previous short term water transfer programs under 

the Drought Water Bank have released water from storage facilities to be exported for deliveries in the July 

through September period. Compliance with EWA provisions require water at critical time periods and year-round 

depending on the specific needs to protect fish. Potential conflicts with the proposed transfer of more water out 

of the Delta need to carefully examine the conflicts with the EWA, where water purchases are to provide instream 

flows in the Delta, rather than water to serve consumptive uses outside of the Delta.

5

http://www.fotr.org/comments/MillerReewalComnts083104.pdf
5

3. CEQA and NEPA Require An Accurate Baseline Description in order to Analyze Impacts & 

Integration with other Planning and Environmental Procedures.

According to the scoping notice, “the water transfer provisions would occur through various 

methods, including, but not limited to, groundwater substitution and cropland idling, and 

would include individual and multiyear transfers from 2012 through 2022. Further the transfer 

of these water supplies would require use of CVP or State Water Project (SWP) facilities to 

convey the transferred water.” The locations, amounts, place of use, purpose and point of 

diversion are not identified either for the sellers or buyers of the water proposed to be diverted 

from the San Francisco Bay-Delta. Without this basic information the scope of the project is 

unknowable. Extensive planning at both the State and federal levels are underway to ensure 

Bay-Delta estuary ecosystem restoration and reliable water supplies. Any long term water sale 

transfer project would need to fit into this ongoing planning effort. 

At the heart of any adequate CEQA analysis is an accurate description or baseline of the 

environment conditions such that the public and decision makers are sufficiently informed 

regarding the impacts of the project and necessary mitigation measures. Due to the complexity 

of groundwater withdrawals on surrounding wells and potential injury to other water users the 

project needs to accurately reflect the elevation, hydrology and conditions of existing 

groundwater basins from which the proposed substitutions or extractions are proposed. The 

record is replete with examples where groundwater storage projects have overestimated the 

amounts of groundwater that can be safely withdrawn without injury to domestic wells and 

other water users.6

 

6

See: Incorporated here by reference, 

http://www.aqualliance.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/coalitionwatertransfersea_fonsi_011910final.pdf

Subject: Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment and Findings of No Significant Impact for the 2010-

2011 Water Transfer Program

“The Bureau‘s 2009 DWB EA elaborated on this point regarding Natomas Central Mutual Water Company (p. 39) 

stating that, ―Shallow domestic wells would be most susceptible to adverse effects. Fifty percent of the domestic 

wells are 150 feet deep or less. Increased groundwater pumping could cause localized declines of groundwater 

levels, or cones of depression, near pumping wells, possibly causing effects to wells within the cone of depression.”

Also see: http://www.c-win.org/webfm_send/119

Rosedale Rio-Bravo Storage District complaint
6

Without identified buyers it is difficult for the public to comment on the proposed scope of 

water transfers and the potential for increased pollution and discharges of selenium, 

contaminants and salt to the San Joaquin River and Bay-Delta estuary. Westlands Water 

District (Westlands) largely controls the SLDMWA through membership and acquisition of other 

member districts. Exporting water from the Sacramento watershed to irrigate toxic selenium 

lands on the Westside of the San Joaquin Valley will result in additional polluted runoff and 

groundwater supplies. These contaminants are discharged to the San Joaquin River and BayDelta estuary causing additional impacts to endangered species, water pollution and long term 

cumulative impacts to the estuary ecosystem in terms of public health concerns, mortality and 

reproductive failure in aquatic systems and wildlife.7

Thus any environmental analysis must provide an accurate baseline so that decision-makers can 

understand one of the most important causes and effects of such water sales: Potential long 

term damage to the groundwater resources in the Sacramento Valley and the production of 

additional pollutants and contaminants from irrigating toxic soils in the western San Joaquin 

Valley, where many of the prospective buyers are likely located, with the resultant discharge of 

 

Also see: http://www.bakersfield.com/news/columnist/henry/x2120045792/LOIS-HENRY-More-wells-go-dry-inRosedale

7

The source of much of the saline discharge to the San Joaquin River is from lands on the west side of the San

Joaquin Valley which are irrigated with water provided from the Delta by the CVP, primarily through the DeltaMendota Canal and the San Luis Unit." (D-1641, p. 83 .)

See: EPA testimony http://www.cal-span.org/cgi-bin/archive.php?owner=DSC&date=2011-02-24 Testimony of 

Erin Foresman: ‘Primary sources of selenium contamination to the Delta are from oil refinery point sources and 

irrigation return flows from the Westside discharges into the San Joaquin River and Delta.’

and CVRWQCB January 2002 Technical Report, p. 11: Surface and subsurface agricultural drainage represent the 

largest sources of salt, selenium and boron loading to the Lower San Joaquin River (LSJR). The vast majority of this 

agriculturally derived salt and boron loading to the river originates from lands on the west side of the LSJR 

watershed. Soils on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley are derived from rocks of marine origin in the Coast 

Range that are high in salts, selenium and boron. Dry conditions make irrigation necessary for nearly all crops 

grown commercially in the watershed. Salt and boron are leached from these west side soils when irrigation water 

is applied. ...The discharge of subsurface drainage has resulted in elevated salt and boron concentrations in the 

Lower San Joaquin River and certain tributaries.... Groundwater accretions to the river are another significant 

source of salt and boron loading to the LSJR as ongoing irrigation practices have led to accumulation of salts and 

contaminants in the unconfined and semi-confined aquifer that underlies most of the west side of the San Joaquin 

Valley and lands on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley directly adjacent to the river.
7

these contaminants to the San Joaquin River and the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary. The 

environmental costs, economic burden of this pollution on society, and the damage to 

groundwater supplies from this chain of prospective actions must be fully disclosed and 

analyzed. 

4. The alternative analysis needs to examine intra-basin transfers that would result in less 

environmental impacts—such as water transfers from irrigated toxic soils to other 

SLDMWA water users.

Absent identified sellers and buyers, it is difficult to determine if this is a water transfer 

program designed specifically to deliver more water to Westlands or to other users with the 

SLDMWA. Millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent in loans and direct payments to assist in 

water efficiency measures, to support subsidized crops and to treat the resultant contaminated 

ground and surface drainage water in the SLDMWA districts of the authority. Flood irrigation is 

still used within some of the districts where water rates are low. Subsidized crops are also 

grown. Retiring at least 300,000 acres 8of toxic lands could result in substantial water savings 

making more water available for transfer within the SLDMWA boundaries. Prior to advancing 

additional transfers of water from the Bay-Delta estuary with the resulting polluted return 

flows, project alternatives must consider in-basin transfers resulting from water conservation 

measures and land fallowing of toxic selenium soils on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. 

This type of alternative would also provide significant energy savings that needs to be analyzed.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please include the undersigned organizations on 

the mailing list for this or similar projects.

Regards,

 

Adam Lazar Steven L. Evans

Staff Attorney Conservation Director

Center for Biological Diversity Friends of the River

alazar@biologicaldiversity.org sevans@friendsoftheriver.org

 

8

The Bureau’s Feasibility Report for the San Luis Drainage Feature Re-evaluation (SLDFRE), March 2008, makes a 

clear case that neither the technology nor the funding are available to meet the SLDMWA contractors’ desired to

handle the toxic drainage problem through a fully reimbursable program or funded by taxpayer subsidies. The 

National Economic Development (NED) Report Summary for the San Luis Drainage Feature Re-evaluation Record of 

Decision (SLDFRE ROD) concluded that any alternative with less than 300,000 acres of land retirement would be a 

net economic loss. 
8

 

Zeke Grader Larry Collins 

Executive Director President 

Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman’s Crab Boat Owners Association Inc.

Associations Inc lcollins@sfcrabboat.com

zgrader@ifrfish.org

 

Mark Franco Jonas Minton

Headman Senior Policy Advisor

WINNEMEM WINTU TRIBE Planning and Conservation League

winnemem@gmail.com jminton@pcl.org

 

Conner Everts Byron Leydecker

Executive Director Chair

Southern California Watershed Alliance Friends of Trinity River

Co-Chair Desal Response Group, bwl3@comcast.net

Environment Now-- connere@west.net

 

Fred Egger, President Bruce Tokars, Co-Founder

North Coast Rivers Alliance Salmon Water Now

fegger@pacbell.net btokars@pacbell.net 
1

Greene, Alicia M.

From: Veronese, Gina

Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 8:09 AM

To: Greene, Alicia M.

Subject: FW: Long Term Watedr Transfer

From: Hubbard, Bradley C [mailto:BHubbard@usbr.gov] 

Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 5:01 PM 

To: Buckman, Carolyn; Veronese, Gina; Hatleberg, Shelly 

Subject: FW: Long Term Watedr Transfer 

Comment for record.

From: ruthann530@comcast.net [mailto:ruthann530@comcast.net] 

Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 5:00 PM 

To: Hubbard, Bradley C 

Subject: Long Term Watedr Transfer 

Dear Sir: 

 I'm sending this email to you because I attended the meeting in Chico, CA and was impressed with 

how many people attended and how much they care about our water problems in Northern California. 

I will confess that I don't know much about the problems that were discussed that night, but I do know 

that every time I pass Lime Saddle Marina on Lake Oroville and look at the dirt where there used to 

be water, it brings to mind that we just might have a problem with water. 

 I have since done some research on this subject and I realize that I have only scratched the 

surface. One of the statistics that floored me was that thousands of acres that used to be productive 

crop land need to be cleaned. That sounds like the wasteland in the southern part of our state. How 

can this happen if we had used good agricultural planning? Obviously we didn't. Another statistic that 

got to me was that the six hundred thousand acre feet of water that would have been transferred 

could have provided water to Chico for eighteen years! Amazing. So many of the farmers who were 

present at the meeting in Chico were concerned about the water table levels and the affect that these 

levels would have on wells and aquifers. And if the water levels were to be damaged and the wells to 

go dry, who would pay for new wells? Going beyond that, why should we have to deal with dry wells 

at all? Another statistic was the best estimate that one third of California's current water use can be 

saved with existing technologies. 

 As I stated earlier, I have much to learn and also so many more questions to ask, but I found that I 

have to have some correspondence in to you by 5:00pm today, I hope to hear more about this subject 

and will definitely be watching and attending future meetings. 

Thank you. 

 

 

 

RuthAnn Christensen 

6680 Shay Lane 

Paradise, CA 95969 

(530)872-7381 


1

Greene, Alicia M.

From: Veronese, Gina

Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 10:25 AM

To: Greene, Alicia M.

Subject: FW: BUTTE COUNTY'S WATER RIGHTS

From: Hubbard, Bradley C [mailto:BHubbard@usbr.gov] 

Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 10:24 AM 

To: Buckman, Carolyn; Veronese, Gina 

Subject: FW: BUTTE COUNTY'S WATER RIGHTS 

Another comment below.  Thanks, Brad

From: Corkin, Brad [mailto:BCC6@pge.com] 

Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 10:12 AM 

To: Hubbard, Bradley C; frances.mizuno@sldmwa.org; Hatleberg, Shelly 

Subject: BUTTE COUNTY'S WATER RIGHTS 

To: U.S. Dept of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, 

I’m writing in regards to the long-term water transfer that you are planning in the northstate from 2012 

to 2022. I’m a resident of Butte country and I highly oppose any type of water transfers. You have not 

provided the documentation to show the cumulative effects that will be done to our aquifers from your 

planned water transfers. I believe taking 100,000 to 150,000 acre feet is highly detrimental to Butte 

county and all of the northstate AS EXISTING TRANSFERS HAVE ALREADY PROVEN TO BE 

HIGHLY DETRIMENTAL! The environmental as well as the economical impact could be enormous. 

Farmers, consumers, and residents, could easily have their wells dry up WHICH ALSO HAS ALREADY 

HAPPENED and a water shortage. 

Please formally file this letter as a protest to your proposed project. I would also like to be updated on 

any new developments on this project.

Sincerely, 

Brad Corkin 

bcc6@pge.com 





1

Greene, Alicia M.

From: Veronese, Gina

Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 10:45 AM

To: Greene, Alicia M.

Subject: FW: Comments on Long-Term Water Transfers EIS/EIR

From: Hubbard, Bradley C [mailto:BHubbard@usbr.gov] 

Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 9:25 AM 

To: Buckman, Carolyn; Veronese, Gina; Hatleberg, Shelly 

Subject: FW: Comments on Long-Term Water Transfers EIS/EIR 

Comment for record.

From: Marty Dunlap [mailto:dunlaplegal@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 9:04 AM 

To: Hubbard, Bradley C 

Subject: Comments on Long-Term Water Transfers EIS/EIR 

To Mr. Brad Hubbard, 

I attended the public scoping meeting in Chico on January 11, 2011. I did make verbal comments at that 

meeting and would like to expand on those at this time. 

Since you probably have received numerous comments on the deliterious effects of such a "project," I will 

direct my comments toward the preferred approach to conducting a EIR/EIS that could be satisfactory to the 

public interest. 

There have been numerous projects designed for water transfers from the north to the south. None of these have 

conducted an EIR/EIS for environmental impact. For many years, the public interest has been focused on 

maintaining a healthy and balanced ecosystem in the northern part of the state regarding water transfers and 

groundwater substitution projects. Having a bonafide scientific investigation conducted into the impacts such 

projects and compilation of concrete data would provide the public and NGOs an opportunity to realistically 

evaluate the environmental impacts from such projects. 

There are a few considerations that need to be included in providing data that would considered as bonafide by 

the public. The first is that from the outset of the project, there need to be knowledgeable representatives from 

the public sector who participate in the design of the EIR/EIS research model. The needs to be technical, 

scientific contributors working on the EIR/EIS studies who clearly are not under the "purse strings" of the water 

purveyors. These would include geologists, hydrologists, biologists and environmental scientists who can 

provide an unbiased perspective to the research design and evaluation of the data. 

The "best available science" should be the mantra of such an undertaking in generating this EIR/EIS. This is a 

process that meets the criteria of: 1) relevance, 2) inclusiveness, 3) objectivity, 4) transparency and openness, 5) 

timeliness, and 6) peer review. Reasonable care must be undertaken to identify all the available and relevant 

scientific information for the impact of long-term water transfers. 

This scientific data on the condition of the water basins in northern California is needed and those who seek to 

profit from the water are the entities that need to pursue compilation of this data. Some of the scientific 

research questions to be answered are: What are the characteristics of the impacted water basins and their 
2

related aquifers? What is a 'safe yield" of this underground water system? How and where do the aquifers 

recharge themselves? What is the length of time require to replenish the aquifers when X number of acre feet 

are pumped out? How will overdraft be determined? What is the criteria for identifying when this aquifer is in 

overdraft? 

Any EIR/EIS that is designed for a long-term water transfer project needs to include the maximum amount of 

water being considered for the project. Finally, the cumulative impacts of this project and others that are 

currently underway, or are being considered by other water purveyors, need to be incorporated into the research 

design to create a realistic understanding of the environmental impacts to the region. 

Please remember that although the public may seem to be an annoying and disruptive entity to "deal with," 

when pursuing a new approach, the public serves an important role in balancing the progressive aims of 

development with ensuring long-term health and viability to the ecosystem. 

Thank you, 

Marty Dunlap 

Attorney at Law 

Chico, CA 

(530) 520-8642 

fax (530) 345-4433