To whom it may concern:

Butte County Supervisors:

us Bu re~v

Kec I0\ rno,t)O

January 30, 2011 o-P

My name is Robert C. Eberhardt. I am a local x-ray technologist an

farmer. I live in the Dayton four corners a~ea. I have several concerns whicr~;;:~+,"~ --~>'=:F~- ~__~-

~~I

addressed prior to any decisions made regarding transfers of water south.

,:',

SURF-AU OF AECLAMATION

O~r'j::tN. rtt...E OOPV

AE::·;:"V~:O

1. My biggest concern is the fact that there has not been an adequate long t.m-n-1- ---t----I

environmental impact report on recharge rate, contamination, and long ter

our aquifer.

2. If you know anything about hydraulics you would know you can-not compress water

The water in the aquifer holds the valley floor up and over pumping the aquifer would

eventually cause the valley to sink, along with the levees. Who is going to build up the

levies, (say 10 years from now, if that happens?)

3. Water companies in the past have suggested infusing the aquifer with surface water in

exchange for allowing them to pump the aquifer in dry years. The problem with this is,

by doing so, you risk contaminating the water in the aquifer, The water company that

infused it can lay-claim to it. (All of it!) Not only will the farmers have to pay pg&e to

pump the water, they would also have to pay the water company who infused it.

(Say good-by to our god given water rights under our farms!)

4. Wells dug deeper than the existing surrounding wells could cause a collapse of the

system, resulting in dry wells. Deeper wells would take the water from the farmer who

utilizes the water nearer the surface.

On site farmers basically just recycles their water. What doesn't evaporate goes back into

the aquifer through percolation. If you put that same amount of water in a ditch and ship

it south, none of it goes back to recharge the aquifer. The math is different.

5.We need accountability of how much water is currently being sent south and by whom.

We also need to have the names' of all standing in line. We need names of individuals

,ranches or corporations involved in selling our water and meters put on all wells

pumping for export. There are meters on the other end, its only fair that meters are on our

side too.
- ~.-

water levels or excessive water drops we need to pull the plug immediately on all water

exports until the problem is solved. (local farmers need assurances in writing.)

7.The water under our feet belongs to everyone in the origin in which it is located. No

one person, farm, company or corporation should be allowed to lay claim to it. As it

seems to stand now anyone who owns property next to a ditch ,river, canal or creek

simply takes it, pumps it and sells to the highest bidder.(or so they would like) We need

to pass a county ordinance requiring any water sold off site goes directly to county

coffers and

nothing is sold below what the homeowners in the south state are paying for water.

I am against transferring water south. It is bad for the local farmer, it is bad for the local

economy. I would prefer to keep it here for our children and our children's children.

Buying water in small plastic bottles in grocery stores will cost you about 10 dollars a

gallon, so why are we in such a hurry to give it away. Water is the foundation of all living

things and the big water companies and their attorneys are working 2417 under the cover

of silence, quietly trying to pass laws and long term contracts to further quench their

greedy thirst.

I don't mind sharing things with people in need so long as it doesn't jeopardize my

livelihood and the our entire way of life we so enjoy in the north state If water must be

sold let butte county profit and balance their books. Not line the pockets of (out of

town) big water and their cronies.

Robert C Eberhardt

Chico

g 24
1

Greene, Alicia M.

From: Veronese, Gina

Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 9:28 AM

To: Greene, Alicia M.

Subject: FW: Comments on water transfer from northern CA to Delta and SFBA

From: Hubbard, Bradley C [mailto:BHubbard@usbr.gov] 

Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 8:19 AM 

To: Buckman, Carolyn; Veronese, Gina; Hatleberg, Shelly 

Subject: FW: Comments on water transfer from northern CA to Delta and SFBA 

Comments for record.

From: Gail Goodyear [mailto:ggoodyear@hotmail.com] 

Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 4:23 PM 

To: Hubbard, Bradley C 

Subject: Comments on water transfer from northern CA to Delta and SFBA 

Brad Hubbard 

Bureau of Reclamation 

2800 Cottage Way, MP 410 

Sacramento CA 95825 

Dear Brad, 

I request notification of all future meetings and opportunities to comment on any proposed project that will 

transfer water from water agencies in northern California to water agencies south of the Sacramento-San 

Joaquin Delta (Delta) and in the San Francisco Bay Area. 

These are my preliminary comments regarding the proposal by The Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Reclamation (Reclamation) and the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority 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 announcement of the proposed EIS/EIR assumes it is legal in California (1) to sell water as a commodity, 

(2) to sell water from the Central Valley Project (CVP), (3) to declare that an annual allotment is excessive and 

can be made available for sale, (4) to avoid returning water declared excess to the county of origin, but rather 

sell it to another entity, (5) to engage in water transfer between agencies and (6) that water from Trinity County 

may be used in ways other than originally presented when Trinity Dam was constructed. 

1. Limiting preparation of this EIS/EIR to the two agencies mentioned above is unacceptable. Landowners 

living in the counties from which the water originates must be represented. The Trinity Public Utilities District, 

the Trinity County Board of Supervisors, as well as private landowners shall have direct involvement in 

preparation of this document. 

2. In proposing such an EIS/EIR, water is treated as a commodity. Ownership of water for sale must include 

those with land over which the water would flow if no man-made effort to move the water was made. The 

EIS/EIR needs to include payment to landowners in counties of origin. 
2

3. Use of natural resources from one area in another geographic area must result in compensation for those 

resources to the area of origin. If water agencies in northern California believe they have excess water to sell, 

the sale of that water will benefit those in the counties from which the water originated. The water agency may 

only retain overhead costs. 

4. No water transfer from a northern California water agency may occur if surface water available to 

landowners whose land adjoins the Trinity River and the South Fork of the Trinity are limited in any way. 

5. No water transfer from a northern California water agency may occur until enough water flows in the Trinity 

River to wash all gravel, infused mechanically by the Trinity River Restoration Program, from the deep river 

holes. 

6. No water transfer from a northern California water agency may occur unless all landowners owning river 

front property along the Trinity and the South Fork of the Trinity are allowed to pump water from the Trinity 

River. No local, State or Federal agency may restrict pumping of water because there is not enough water (for 

fisheries or any other reason). 

7. No water transferred from a northern California water agency may be used to for nonessential uses such 

watering landscapes, swimming pools or recreation. Also, any household which wishes to use northern 

California water away from its origin or natural flow must employ all available water conservation methods and 

limit water use to a strict per person/per day allotment. 

8. Water (in liquid, solid, or vapor form) is difficult to quantify. The tools used to declare there is excess need to 

be reviewed in the EIS/EIR. 

9. Transfer of water through the CVP and away from the county of origin has a detrimental effect on the amount 

of surface and ground water available for the Trinity River, for its fisheries, vegetation and wildlife, special 

status species, as well its geology and soils. Some of these data of these might be available from the Trinity 

River Restoration Program; however, it is unlikely they have all the data needed to prepare the proposed 

EIR/EIS. Please do not submit the proposed EIR/EIS for certification until these impacts have been fully 

analyzed. 

10. Transfer of water away from its origin and natural flow changes the climate, water quality, and creates 

economic benefit for people not in the area of water origin and natural flow. Decreasing the environmental 

quality and socioeconomic benefits to the area where the water originates and naturally flows, to create benefit 

in another area of California is not acceptable. 

11. Transporting water through the CVP and away from the Trinity River was decided prior to EIS/EIR and 

valuation of environmental justice. Now is the time conduct the examination fully. The EIS/EIR need not be 

certified if long-term water transfer continues to degrade the county of water origin in any way. 

12. The County of Trinity needs legal and academic representation in California water discussions, and for the 

proposed long-term water transfer program. Environmental Justice will be achieved, in part, when this County 

is able to expend the same amount of money on water issues, as do other counties in the State of California. 

 

Sincerely, 

Gail Goodyear 

Gail Goodyear
3

P.O. Box 1120

Weaverville, CA 96093
1

Greene, Alicia M.

From: Veronese, Gina

Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 8:21 AM

To: Greene, Alicia M.

Subject: FW: Comments on: Proposed North to South water transfers

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Hubbard, Bradley C [mailto:BHubbard@usbr.gov]  

Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 5:57 PM

To: Buckman, Carolyn; Veronese, Gina; Hatleberg, Shelly

Subject: Fw: Comments on: Proposed North to South water transfers

Comment for record.

‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Steven Hammond <schammond@earthlink.net>

To: Hubbard, Bradley C

Sent: Sun Feb 27 10:48:33 2011

Subject: Comments on: Proposed North to South water transfers

Following are my comments about the proposed North to South water transfers.

I am a homeowner and long‐time resident of Chico, CA, in Butte County. I am extremely

concerned and against the proposed water transfers that would result in tapping the aquifer

in this area, with the potential to have devastating effects all over this region.

A previous water transfer in 1994 moved ONE‐SIXTH the annual amount proposed ‐ and both deep

and shallow agricultural wells in this area ran dry. Farmers and families affected were

essentially told that they had no proof that the tapping the aquifer for water transfer was

the cause ‐ even though common sense reveals the obvious answer. This is only one example

that illustrates why the current proposal is terribly flawed.

* No comprehensive environmental impact review has been done ‐ which violates the National

Environmental Protection Act.

In order to even consider any North‐South transfers like those in the current proposal, a

longitudinal study over multiple years needs to be completed, in order to provide scientific

data and analysis of groundwater quantity, recharge rates, natural recharge locations and

amounts, conditions, comprehensive monitoring, and disclosure of impacts.

* Another key problem with the proposal is that alternatives for those desiring this water

have not been adequately utilized. The idea that the taking of this water out of our area

would be to fulfill a "need," and therefore justified, is merely a perception that needs

careful examination.

Alternatives should include more serious conservation efforts, for example fallowing of

contaminated farmlands in the Central/South Valley,and all forms of water rationing and

efficient usage. Also, "outside the box" thinking about water provision through new

technologies (such as de‐salinization, etc.), should be taken seriously.

* My concerns as a local citizen include items that would have a direct impact on my life:

Fluctuating groundwater in Chico and Butte County could seriously impact domestic wells via

heavy metals and non‐aqueous fluids contamination ‐ there are numerous hazardous waste plumes
2

in Butte County that would very likely migrate more rapidly and move the pollutants into

different strata.

Chico is a city known for it's lovely canopy of mature trees. It is not at all outside the

realm of possibility that if groundwater levels were to drop catastrophically, that there

could be a massive "die‐off" of these beautiful old trees which are in many ways at the heart

of this community. Those who talk of mitigation need to be reminded that there is no way to

"mitigate" such an outcome.

At the Public Scoping Meeting I attended in Chico January 11, 2011, there were at least 150

local people in attendance ‐ many of whom spoke passionately against these proposed transfers

which would result in sucking large amounts of water out of our local aquifer.  I urge you to

the right thing ‐ either withdraw the proposal entirely, or plan for the kind of careful

longitudinal environmental review which will surely reveal that the potential negative

impacts in this area are too great to continue with this idea. Any plan that could ruin this

region's water supply is just plain wrong!

Steven Hammond

Chico, California

   
Brad Hubbard,

Bureau of Reclamation,

2800 Cottage Way, MP-410

Sacramento CA 95825,

bhubbard@usbr.gov

fax 916-978-5290

Dear Brad Hubbard,

The following is my scoping comments for the Long-Term North to South Water Transfers.

There are many concerns about transferring such large amounts of water. The conditions of

the area of origin for any “transferred” water should be taken into account. Examples include;

General Plans are being developed anticipating growth in the northern areas that are cited in

the scoping presentation as potential areas that the transfers could originate from. How will

transfers affect this anticipated growth in these areas and the health of the aquifer and surface

water system? Sound scientific data and analysis of the Sacramento Valley aquifer quantity,

and recharge areas should be examined. This should be cross-referenced with areas plans for

future growth and development. Will General Plan build outs over the next 20 years be affecting

those recharge areas? What are the current cone of depressions in the aquifer under northern

areas dependant on ground water? Natural recharge areas and amounts need to be identified,

monitored, and made available to the public.

With the environmental review, when impacts are identified they should be accompanied

with mitigation and monitoring plans, that can also be commented on by the public during the

comment period. There should be a clear project definition as well as an explanation for what

the project is needed and will be used for. The willing buyers should be completely honest with

what exactly the water will be used for. When and if any water transfers do occur, they should

only be for the uses of drinking water, sustainable agriculture, and restoration of water ways in

these dry, arid regions. I’ve recently read that water from the California State Water project is

being used for oil production in West Kern’s Water District’s water and that as much as 83% of it

is being used for oil production. There is no reason that the state should ruin the northern water

systems for short term gain by a select few.

The long term impacts on public health and safety must be analyzed as well as the effects

on the places of origin. For the record, during the drought in the summer of 2009, the Mua

family, who farms here at the GRUB Cooperatives well went dry. There is a 30-35 foot well

that is fed by an underground spring. We had to hook them up to the other well on the land

to ensure that their crops did not die and that they could make a living that summer. (Hacking,

Heather. “Well-wishers”. Enterprise Record [Chico, CA] 08,09,2009 (A1, A6.) This March

the GRUB Cooperative will be installing a private well monitoring system to learn more and

to be actively engaged. There are 3 full-time farmers who operate a 80 member C.S.A.

program at GRUB and the Cooperative also strives to have relationships with local farmers

and food producers and to be an educational resource for the community. Chico residents are

completely dependent on groundwater for our drinking water, agricultural, and urban operations.
It is extremely important that independent well monitoring systems be included in the monitoring

of the health of northern water systems. We are extremely concerned for our communities

health and economic well being.

Please let me know if you have questions, or correspondence and answers to my questions.

Thank you.

Desiree’ Hatton

Assitant Advocacy Director

Butte Environmental Council

GRUB Cooperative
February 26, 2011 

Brad Hubbard 

Bureau of Reclamation 

2800 Cottage Way, MP-410 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

Dear Mr. Hubbard: 

We are writing in regards to your request for comments on the scope of the Long-Term Water 

Transfer Program. 

We are graduate students in the Professional Science Master’s Program for Environmental 

Science at California State University, Chico. 

We are concerned that the Long-Term Water Transfer Program will significantly attenuate the 

ecological health of watersheds in the North Sacramento Valley. Specifically, we are concerned that the 

continued and prolonged groundwater substitution practices will overdraft the Tuscan Aquifer. There is 

great uncertainty as to the amount and rate at which water can be extracted from the aquifer without 

negatively impacting its functionality and persistence—which are crucial factors in maintaining 

watershed health. We urge the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and San Luis & Delta-Mendota 

Water Authority (SLDMWA) to include in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) scientific data 

assessing the groundwater quantity, recharge rates, natural recharge locations and amounts, and 

hydrologic conditions of the Sacramento Valley. We are especially interested in data that demonstrates 

the Tuscan Aquifer is not presently overdrawn and not threatened to be overdrawn given the current and 

projected population’s water needs. Unbiased environmental monitoring results will provide the 

information necessary to make educated and constructive decisions regarding the risks and benefits of 

long-term water transfers. 

We are also concerned that the changing climate may rapidly alter water needs as well as 

hydrological processes across the state. We strongly encourage a significant portion of the EIR to 

consider the potential and various impacts climate change may have on the North State watershed’s 

hydrologic processes, including groundwater recharge rates and recharge locations. The Long-Term 

Water Transfer Program Plan must contain a sustained monitoring strategy to assess changes in real-time 

and contingency plans supported by scientific data for various scenarios that may arise throughout the 

project’s lifespan. 

Lastly, we urge Reclamation and SLDMWA to thoroughly explain and evaluate the need for the 

project in the EIR. We seek a comprehensive and broad range of alternatives. Our understanding of 

California’s watersheds, ecological health, and public water needs led to our conclusion that any longterm water transfer program is unnecessary. The proposed water transfer program is inherently harmful 

to watersheds in the North State. We would like to see Reclamation and SLDMWA go forward with 

water conservation plans, such as water reuse and water capture, before considering extreme large-scale 

water transfers. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. 
Sincerely, 
1

Greene, Alicia M.

From: Buckman, Carolyn

Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 1:15 PM

To: Greene, Alicia M.

Subject: FW: North-to-South Long Term Water Transfers

From: Hubbard, Bradley C [mailto:BHubbard@usbr.gov] 

Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 9:51 AM 

To: Buckman, Carolyn; Veronese, Gina 

Cc: Hatleberg, Shelly 

Subject: FW: North-to-South Long Term Water Transfers 

More scoping comments...

From: Robin Huffman [mailto:rafh@comcast.net] 

Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 11:08 AM 

To: Hubbard, Bradley C 

Cc: Paul Gosselin; Vickie Newlin 

Subject: North-to-South Long Term Water Transfers 

Please accept this entire e‐mail as a re‐submission for the record. I’ve made a few corrections below from the note I sent

a few minutes ago.  

How will the transfer program protect the North Valley from desertification and from other impacts from “willing

sellers” transferring too much water? The incentive to profit from water sales is a disincentive to protect the

environment and the relatively shallow wells that so many North Valley residents depend on for their water.

Another consideration is the serious over‐allocation of water rights (i.e., the paper water that doesn’t necessarily exist).

How does the transfer program address this issue?

I would appreciate receiving a reply at your earliest convenience. BEC appreciates that the Bureau has done an EIS/EIR

and surely wishes for everyone to have sufficient water via this proposed program. A viable program is certainly needed

over what we have now, and while BEC is taking a strong line, we want the most sustainable balance possible –

economically, environmentally, energy and social equity wise – for California’s water resources.

To: 'bhubbard@usbr.gov' 

Subject: North-to-South Long Term Water Transfers 

Mr. Hubbard,

This is a short note for inclusion in the record with the environmental document, the EIS/EIR on the proposed water

transfers from the North Valley of California from 2012 through 2022.

Butte Environmental Council is very concerned about the proposed long‐term North‐to‐South Water Transfers,

particularly the allowance for groundwater substitution in the plan.

Using deep wells, such as private irrigation districts have, for North‐South transfers is very disturbing. The connections of

the upper and lower aquifers are not well known, and yet intuitively all know that they are connected. Transferring too
2

much water will create two deserts. Rather than alleviating the Southern California desert, the transfers will negatively

affect the ecosystems in Northern California.  

The alternative is for Southern California to change the way they do agriculture and the way they manage their current

water supply. Northern California is also growing, and there is not enough water to share more with Southern California.

The only reason our aquifers in the North Valley are not already depleted is because of the use of surface water,

traditionally from the Sacramento River (now dammed) and the Feather Rivers (now dammed).

Taking more water from Northern California will not solve Southern California’s problems; instead, it will desertify the

Sacramento Valley and further aggravate the biology of rivers and streams that feed the rivers. Find other solutions,

such as Southern California living within the watershed of the San Joaquin Valley. This is the only solution given the

rising populations everywhere and the fact that we need to be self‐sufficient with our food supply as we head into the

near future.

The long term North‐South water transfer program is a very bad idea for everyone in California. Allowing groundwater

substitution in the program is especially egregious and should be eliminated.

What protections are built into the water transfer plan to protect North State farmers, the agricultural industry,

residents, and the environment from “willing sellers” transferring too much water?

Robin Huffman

Advocacy Director

Butte Environmental Council

(530) 891‐6424

rhuffman@becprotects.org

1

Greene, Alicia M.

From: Veronese, Gina

Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 6:01 PM

To: Greene, Alicia M.

Subject: FW: Water Transfers from Northern Calif. to Southern Calif.

From: Hubbard, Bradley C [mailto:BHubbard@usbr.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 4:17 PM 

To: Buckman, Carolyn; Veronese, Gina; Hatleberg, Shelly 

Subject: FW: Water Transfers from Northern Calif. to Southern Calif. 

Comment for record.

From: Karen Laslo [mailto:Laz@chiconet.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 11:46 AM 

To: Hubbard, Bradley C 

Subject: Water Transfers from Northern Calif. to Southern Calif. 

February 23, 2011

 To: Mr. Brad Hubbard

Bureau of Reclamation

2800 Cottage Way, MP-410

Sacramento, CA 95825

From:Karen Laslo

468 E. Sacramento Ave.

Chico, CA 95926

laz@chiconet.com

530-896-1168

Dear Mr. Hubbard,

I am writing to you because I wish to comment on the proposed water transfers from northern California, and 

specifically the Sacramento Valley where I live, to southern California.

As I understand it, the amount of water proposed for transferring is 600,00 acre-feet of water, per year, for ten years. 

That is a lot of water and, therefore, much thought and consideration about how water transfers will affect our region 
2

should go into a plan before any water sales are allowed to occur. I assume you will have a detailed mitigation and 

monitoring plan, along with an environmental review. I would like to see this plan made available to the public so 

that we may comment on it. We who will be affected by water transfers have the right to know who is willing to sell 

their water, for how much money and to whom it was sold. 

In advance of any water sales, I ask the Bureau of Reclamation to provide us with real scientific statistics and 

analysis of the Sacramento Valley’s groundwater quantity, recharge rates, locations of natural recharge, the amounts 

of recharge, how the monitoring will be done and monitoring results.

I am greatly concerned about the safety of our drinking water. I want you to thoroughly analyze the risks to the 

public’s health and safety. It’s well known that there are many hazardous plumes in Chico’s groundwater and in 

Butte County, overall. These toxic plumes have the potential to move more rapidly and become more concentrated 

if increased groundwater pumping occurs. These dangerous chemicals will undoubtedly contaminate peoples’ 

drinking water from their domestic wells and Chico’s city wells too.

The beautiful and valuable environment of the Sacramento Valley (along with public health) is of primary concern to 

me. I want to know exactly how these water transfers will affect our watersheds, streams and rivers before any water 

sales are allowed to occur. I want to know exactly how the loss of surface and groundwater will affect our Valley 

Oaks. I’ve seen the impacts of subsidence on other lands where groundwater has been excessively pumped and I 

don’t want that to happen here. How will fish and other aquatic species, that need adequate amounts of fresh, clean 

water for their existence, fare if the groundwater is lowered so much that our above ground streams disappear? I 

want to know exactly how these sales will affect the small family farmers in our valley who don’t have the deep 

wells that agribusinesses have. How will they survive, economically, if the groundwater is lowered so much that 

their shallower wells cannot reach the water? In Chico, the “buy local” movement is quite strong and we fully 

support our small family farmers who grow our food for us. We do not want them to have their wells run dry like so 

many did during the last water sales.

 I want a thorough analysis of why this project is needed in the first place. And have you investigated alternatives to 

water sales for meeting southern California’s needs? Stricter conservation of the water they already have in the 

south should be expanded before taking more from the north. Planting more trees helps to conserve groundwater 

and cleanses the air.

 Using valuable irrigation water on polluted lands in the San Joaquin Valley must stop. And I heard the following 

appalling information on KCHO’s program, Living On Earth, (February 2011, 

loe.org/shows/shows.htm?programID-P13-00006#feature5)

“. . . About 83 percent of the West Kern Water District’s water,” which is about 31,000 acre-feet. So, in this parched, 

dry region, about 83 percent of the water being delivered through the California aqueduct, through one water district 

alone, is being given to oil companies for steam-flooding operations.”

I think that if the average Californian knew how greedy oil companies are using one of our most precious natural 

resources to steam oil from tar sands in the San Joaquin Valley they would be as outraged as I am. These wasteful 

practices must be stopped immediately. 

Lastly, water is needed by all living things, not just we humans. It should not be used as a commodity, to be bought 

and sold. As a Zen Buddhist I believe that we humans must not use more than our share of the Earth’s natural 

resources. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to use 

the water that we have wisely and not waste a drop of it.

Sincerely,
3

Karen Laslo

 “Preserve well, for you now have, this is all.” Tozan Ryokai, Zen teacher

Ann Vander linden 

P.O. Box 503 

Magalia, CA 95954 

530.873.4154 

ann.v@att.net 

Tuesday, March 01, 2011 

Long-Term North to South Water Transfers EIS/EIR 

Brad Hubbard 

Bureau of Reclamation 

2800 Cottage Way, MP-410 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

Dear Mr. Hubbard: 

The Bureau of Reclamation’s aggressive 10-year plan does not take into consideration the 

consequences the damage such a project will cause. Such as: the decrease of flow of our rivers 

and streams, increased water temperatures associated with increased ground water pumping, 

refer to data at Butte Creek Watershed Conservancy at: www.buttecreekwatershed.org,

increased contamination of our ground water with potential hazards to public health and safety, 

impacts on all ground water users, as well as wildlife - especially salmon and other dependent 

animal species. 

This project is unreasonable and disproportionate for Northern California. It threatens land 

owners and appears biased. An explanation for the need of the Project should be provided by the 

Bureau of Reclamation, and should include scientific data and analysis of Sacramento Valley 

groundwater quantity, recharge rates, natural recharge locations and amounts, conditions, 

monitoring, and monitoring results. Mitigation and monitoring plans should be provided with 

the environmental review, so it is available for public review and comment. 

The potential buyers in the south [San Joaquin Valley] have already demonstrated waterwasteful practices; and the bureau should thoroughly analyze the potential impacts where the 

water originates [in Northern California]. The proposed fluctuation of groundwater may 

seriously impact domestic well purity; concentrating heavy metals and non-aqueous fluids 

contamination. Additionally, with increased groundwater pumping, there are numerous 

hazardous waste plumes in Butte County that would migrate more rapidly and potentially move 

the pollutants into deeper strata. Refer to information from Butte Environmental Council at 

www.becet.org. 

I strongly object to the proposed water-transfer of 600,000 acre feet of water per year that the 

Project could deliver, and will stand with my neighbors and fellow citizens who are determined 

to defend the region’s water supplies. 

Sincerely, 

Ann M. Vander Linden 
1

Greene, Alicia M.

From: Veronese, Gina

Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 11:19 AM

To: Greene, Alicia M.

Subject: FW: Water Sale/Transfer

From: Hubbard, Bradley C [mailto:BHubbard@usbr.gov] 

Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 9:55 AM 

To: Buckman, Carolyn; Veronese, Gina; Hatleberg, Shelly 

Subject: Fw: Water Sale/Transfer 

Comment for record.

From: John MacTavish <john.mactavish@lpl.com> 

To: Hubbard, Bradley C 

Sent: Fri Feb 25 10:46:02 2011 

Subject: Water Sale/Transfer 

I have real concerns over the wisdom of sending surface water south and drawing more groundwater to replace what is 

sold. 

How will the impact on Northern California groundwater be calculated or determined if the transfer results in the need to 

replace sold water with groundwater. Is there valid proof of the process being used to calculate the impact? If so would 

you please site the source? 

How much water in dollar terms is Mendota water district willing to spend to buy this water? What has been bought and at 

what cost over the past twenty years? Who are the ultimate sellers and the buyers? If the water districts sell their water 

use rights and pull groundwater (everyone’s water rights) how much do they profit? 

Thank you for your response. 

John MacTavish 

3307 Kennedy Ave 

Chico CA 95973 
1

Greene, Alicia M.

From: Veronese, Gina

Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 8:21 AM

To: Greene, Alicia M.

Subject: FW: Water transfer scoping comments

From: Hubbard, Bradley C [mailto:BHubbard@usbr.gov] 

Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 5:59 PM 

To: Buckman, Carolyn; Veronese, Gina; Hatleberg, Shelly 

Subject: Fw: Water transfer scoping comments 

Comment for record.

From: Danny Margoles <dannymargoles@gmail.com> 

To: Hubbard, Bradley C 

Sent: Sun Feb 27 13:25:19 2011 

Subject: Water transfer scoping comments 

Dear Brad Hubbard, 

Roughly a month ago I attended the meeting in Chico about water transfers and was thoroughly impressed. 

You skillfully presented one of the most incoherent, manipulative, deceitful, and boring presentations I have 

ever attended. I had no clue about any of the specifics on the project (no), plant (no), program (no), collusion. I 

think the scheme to rid northern California of its excessive(?) water supply makes a lot of sense for agribusiness 

in southern CA. I am not from the area, but found my way into the meeting with a friend who is. The 

presentation that I observed really made me wonder whether Brad or any of the others knew any more about 

what they were talking about than I did. Seriously, how do you plan to complete an EIS/R without being able to 

explicitly describe the scheme. 

Why was the issue of climate change never brought up? Please explicitly describe how a changed future 

climate could influence water resources in both northern and southern California. How will these transfers 

affect groundwater levels? Your response to this question should be based on a rigorous and sound assessment 

of long-term groundwater data, millennial-length historic climate patterns, and future demand and climate 

forecasts. The EIS/R should explicitly address the potential benefit of putting southern CA cropland out of 

production instead of doing these water transfers. I understand that the scoping process occurs prior to 

developing some of the scheme's specifics, yet I was truly shocked at the lack of basic information both 

presented and apparently understood by the panel. Please be honest about the science. It was obvious that the 

vast majority of people in the scoping meeting in Chico were against the scheme; the people had important 

questions that need to be truthfully answered. It is sad to me that I have very little confidence that the final 

decision will be based on good ecological and social ideals. 

Sincerely, 

Danny Margoles 
1

Greene, Alicia M.

From: Veronese, Gina

Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 8:21 AM

To: Greene, Alicia M.

Subject: FW: Long-Term North to South Water Transfers

From: Hubbard, Bradley C [mailto:BHubbard@usbr.gov] 

Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 6:00 PM 

To: Buckman, Carolyn; Veronese, Gina; Hatleberg, Shelly 

Subject: Fw: Long-Term North to South Water Transfers 

Comment for record.

From: O. J. McMillan <ojgamc@pacbell.net> 

To: Hubbard, Bradley C 

Cc: info@aqualliance.net <info@aqualliance.net> 

Sent: Sun Feb 27 14:30:20 2011 

Subject: Long-Term North to South Water Transfers 

Although there is no detail yet available on the proposed “Project,” I am submitting a formal Comment to express my 

alarm about what I understand that Project to be. I am a citizen of Chico: 

 

O. J. McMillan 

2040 Vallombrosa Ave 

Chico, CA 95926 

530.345.7003 

 

My wife and I moved to Chico about seven and a half years ago, lured here in no small part by the natural beauty of the 

area. Our outdoor activities are very important to us, including hiking and bird watching, and they invariably involve the 

rivers, creeks, and streams which are so integral to that natural beauty and which interact in a fundamental way with the 

aquifer(s). Our drinking water comes from the California Water Service Company via pumping from the aquifer. So it is 

natural for us to be concerned about a Project which could impact in a major negative way our groundwater supply. Over 

the years, we have attended many informational meetings on groundwater issues put on by Glenn-Colusa Irrigation 

District, the Bureau, Butte Environmental Council, the League of Women Voters, and others, so we understand how 

poorly the aquifer is understood and how important its maintenance is to us. 

 

We also understand there are powerful economic forces at work to secure more of the water from the Northstate to 

support the population and agriculture of the southern parts of California. The population of Southern California is a 

presumably immutable fact, and it is also a fact that they need water – it is fortunate that impressive water conservation 

measures have been undertaken there to mitigate somewhat the impact of that population. A bigger factor as far as water 

is concerned is the factory agriculture in Southern California, which in many cases involves crops which are largely 

inappropriate for the climate there. The clamor for more water from the north to support this agriculture would, in a rational 

world, be turned towards a focus on helping transition our culture to consumption of locally produced crops and towards 

growing crops that better fit the local climate. 

 

But as for the proposed Project to transfer surface water over 10 years and “make that up” by increasing pumping from 

the aquifer: The environmental review for the Project must include a comprehensive monitoring and mitigation plan for the 

inevitable adverse impacts of increased groundwater removal, and it must be available for public review and comment in a 

timely manner. Prior to proceeding, the Bureau should also explain how the Project will not cause irreversible subsidence, 

will not adversely impact existing wells by lowering the water table and introducing contaminants, will not adversely affect 

flows in rivers, streams, and creeks, will not be harmful to fish and other aquatic species, and why instead of enabling this 

water transfer, the Project shouldn’t involve something that would actually improve the water situation. 

 
2

The Bureau is seemingly trying to defuse potential Northstate public outrage by emphasizing that it is merely trying to 

facilitate voluntary water transfers from “willing sellers” to willing buyers. The notion that current holders of water rights 

own Northstate water and can pillage the aquifer to make a profit on surface water just beggars belief. A Federal Project 

should rather be facilitating a future where sustainable practices were the rule, rather than a distant dream.