California Water Alliance: SWRCB Water

SUMMARY

California State Water Resources Control Board

Water Rights Prioritization Proposal

March 2014

SUMMARY

California State Water Resources Control Board (“SWRCB”), in response to a Temporary Urgency Change Petition filed by the CVP and SWP operators, issued an order that had the effect of undermining water rights and contracts, regardless of historic priority, under SWCRB control for “health & safety” purposes. The current proposal would cause State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP) agricultural surface water deliveries to cease until 2015. Areas in need of “health & safety” water for the next year are undefined and not one evidentiary hearing has occurred.

Further, an official SWRCB decision was scheduled for March 12, 2014. A formal request for a delay of decision until March 21, 2014 was submitted by Senator Feinstein, Senator Boxer, Congressman Garamendi, and Congressman Costa on March 5, 2014. SWRCB’s response was received on March 10, 2014, but with no clarity as to when they will implement further orders or hold hearings.

STATE WATER RESOURCE CONTROL BOARD

The State Water Board’s mission is to preserve, enhance and restore the quality of California’s water resources, and ensure their proper allocation and efficient use for the benefit of present and future generations. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Boards) protect water quality and administers surface water rights.

  • Felecia Marcus; Chair – Appointed in May 2012 by Gov. Jerry Brown
  • Frances Spivy-Weber; Vice-Chair – Reappointed in March 2013 by Gov. Jerry Brown
  • Steven Moore; Member – Appointed in May 2012 by Gov. Jerry Brown
  • Tam M. Doduc; Member – Reappointed in March 2013 by Gov. Jerry Brown
  • Dorene D’Adamo; Member – Appointed in March 2013 by Gov. Jerry Brown
  • Tom Howard; Executive Director – Appointed in August 2010 by Gov. Arnold SchwarzeneggerNo Water Logo

 

AREA of IMPACT

  • Area of impact includes 3,750,000 irrigated acres.
  • State Water Project Service Area includes Greater Los Angeles Area, Greater San Diego Area, Greater San Francisco Area, Santa Clara Valley, Inland Empire, Central Coast, Sacramento Valley, and San Joaquin Valley.
  • Central Valley Project Service Area spans 400 miles from the Cascade Mountains near Redding to the Tehachapi Mountains near Los Angeles. CVP manages 9 million acre feet of water for California cities, businesses, farms, and wildlife refuges. Including 1 million households daily water needs, 1/3 California’s farmland, 11 power generating facilities, and over 420,000 acres of fish & wildlife refuge annually.
  • Impacted Counties: Contra Costa, San Joaquin, Fresno, Kern, Kings, San Joaquin, Merced, Madera, Stanislaus, Alameda, Santa Clara, Tulare, Shasta, Trinity, Tehama, Colusa, Butte, Glenn, Sutter, Yuba, Yolo, Sacramento, Mariposa.

 

PROJECTED ECONOMIC IMPACTS

  • 40-80% unemployment in impacted SWP & CVP service areas.
  • 700,000-800,000 acres of farmland fallowed. Equivalent of 1,100 square miles or the Greater Los Angeles & San Diego areas combined.
  • Estimated $2.5 billion direct loss to California farm economy.
  • Estimated additional $5 billion loss to state economy from reduced related economic activity. Related industries include, but are not limited to, processing, transportation, wholesale, retail, cargo shipping via ports of Oakland, Stockton, Los Angeles, & Long Beach.
  • Increased consumer level food and milk prices estimated at $10 – $15 per trip to the market, and 10% – 15% increase in fruit, vegetables, beef and poultry prices in the short-term.
  • Increased utility costs, including energy & water. Projections based on 2007-2009 drought data where consumers paid $1.7 billion more in energy bills.

 

ECOLOGICAL IMPACT

  • Habitat for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds will be reduced by up to 550,000 acres.
  • Water for refuges are expected to be reduced or eliminated impacting up to 230 species of wildlife.
  • Depleted aquifers due to over reliance on groundwater, and inability to annually recharge aquifers with surface water.

 

LEGAL IMPACT

  • Water rights within impacted SWP & CVP service areas, including historic pre-1914, are being undermined, fundamentally changing California state law.
  • Reassessment of all property values with effected water rights, changing all tax assessment & revenues in all impacted counties.  Estimated reduction of property values, on average, by approximately 50%.

 

SOURCES

http://www.news10.net/story/news/local/california/2014/02/22/drought-will-impact-food-prices/5723079/

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/54502245#54502245

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/the-costs-of-californias_b_4747043.html

http://m.westernfarmpress.com/markets/average-california-farm-real-estate-value-7200-acre

 

2016-05-31T19:38:51-07:00March 12th, 2014|

State Failed to Analyze Effects of Kern Water Bank

Source: Bettina Boxall; LA Times

resnick-stewart_pic

Stewart Resnick

A court ruling issued Wednesday could throw obstacles to the operation of a Kern County groundwater bank that has helped billionaire Stewart Resnick build a nut empire in the southern San Joaquin Valley.

In the latest development in a two-decade legal fight, a Sacramento County Superior Court judge found that the state Department of Water Resources didn’t properly analyze the environmental impacts of the Kern Water Bank, which is partly controlled by Resnick’s Paramount Farms enterprise.

Judge Timothy Frawley will hold a hearing to determine the next step in the case. Environmental groups intend to argue that the water bank should be shut down while the state prepares a new environmental report.

“These guys have spent 16 years avoiding this moment. It’s always been a possibility that a court would come in and shut it down,” said Adam Keats, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, which represented plaintiffs in one of two related lawsuits that Frawley decided.

Representatives of Resnick and his wife, Lynda, who also own Fiji Water and POM Wonderful pomegranate juice, referred requests for comment to the water bank, whose attorney could not be reached.

The legal challenges sought to undo changes to the State Water Project that were made as part of a 1994 deal, known as the Monterey Agreement, between the Department of Water Resources and agencies supplied by the project. An earlier round of lawsuits forced the state to issue a new environmental review of the pact, which opponents argued was again insufficient.

Frawley ruled against them on all but one issue involving the water bank.

On that count, the judge concluded that the state’s environmental report failed to adequately assess the effects of the bank’s operation, particularly on groundwater and water quality.

Some neighboring water districts and environmental groups contend that the bank — originally developed by the state, but later ceded to private control — is harming the aquifer.

They also argue that because the groundwater bank is replenished with supplies from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, the operation is increasing demand for water from the environmentally fragile delta.

The Monterey Agreements, made behind closed doors, were intended to settle disputes between contractors of the State Water Project, which supplies Southern California cities and some irrigation districts in the southern San Joaquin Valley.

The deal has been controversial since its inception and opponents have spent years trying to overturn its provisions.

In his decision, Frawley rejected most of their most recent claims, finding that except for the water bank, the state’s review met legal requirements.

Next, he has to decide what happens to the bank while the state launches yet another environmental evaluation. “That’s the big question we’re all going to be fighting over,” Keats said.

Paramount Farms is the world’s largest grower and processor of almonds and pistachios; in tandem with their Grower Partners, they farm 125,000 acres that deliver 450 million pounds of nuts.

2016-05-31T19:38:52-07:00March 6th, 2014|

STATE WATER BOARD POSTS QUESTIONS, AGENDA FOR FEB. 18- 19 DROUGHT WORKSHOP

DROUGHT WORKSHOP AGENDA

Public Workshop Regarding the Temporary Urgency Change Petition for the

Central Valley and State Water Projects and

State Water Board Water Availability Actions

February 18 & 19, 2014

 

 

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) is holding a workshop to receive input on its drought-related activities affecting water rights holders.

 

The State Water Board will receive input on the January 31, 2014 State Water Board Order, modified on February 7, 2014, approving a Temporary Urgency Change Petition (TUCP) filed by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) (collectively referred to as Petitioners) on January 29, 2014, regarding Delta water quality. The Board will also receive input related to Board drought-related water curtailment actions.

 

On February 26, the State Water Board will receive input on other actions that it is, or should be taking in response to continuing drought conditions. Input may address both water right and water quality related programs. See meeting information at the end of this posting.

 

These will be informational workshops only and no State Water Board action will be taken.

 

To assist workshop participants, below are some of the issues that the State Water Board is interested in receiving input on: 

 

Temporary Urgency Change Order (TUCP) (“Order) for the Central Valley Project and State Water Project

 

Is there additional information the Board should consider related to the following findings?

 

1) Is there an urgent need for the changes? Are the changes necessary to maximize the beneficial use of water? Are there any modifications to the Order that should be made to maximize the beneficial use of water?

 

2) Will the changes injure any other lawful user of water?

 

3) Will the changes have an unreasonable effects on fish, wildlife, or other instream beneficial uses?

 

4) Are the changes in the public interest?

 

In particular, the State Water Board is interested in the following questions:

 

5) Are there any additional modifications that should be made to the Order?

 

6) Is there additional information not provided in the TUCP that would better inform the State Water Board’s findings?

 

7) What “triggers” (such as Delta salinity) would support opening the Delta Cross Channel Gates?

 

8) Should the method used to calculate Net Delta Outflow be adjusted during extended dry periods to better inform measures needed to protect Delta salinity (such as opening the Delta Cross Channel gates)? Specifically, should methods used to estimate in-Delta consumptive use during extended dry periods be adjusted?

 

9) How should the quantity of water conserved through changes authorized by the Order be calculated? How should the water be used?

 

10) Based on current reservoir storage and forecasted snowmelt, how much water will be available for Sacramento River temperature control, north of Delta settlement contractor deliveries, and carryover storage in the event of another dry year?

 

11) What other measures, such as barriers in the Delta, may be needed to protect health and safety and maximize the protection of beneficial uses?

 

Curtailment Notices

 

12) How should the Board prioritize its analysis of watersheds to determine whether to issue curtailment notices, and any subsequent enforcement activities?

 

13) How should the State Water Board determine, measure, and enforce Health and Safety limits for junior domestic water rights holders?

 

14) Are there other reasonable use exceptions that should be made in the application of the water rights priority system?

 

15) What minimum flows and reservoir levels are needed for health and safety throughout the summer months, and should this be factored into determinations on whether to curtail?

 

16) Should all water right holders in some watersheds be required to limit diversions to protect instream beneficial uses under the reasonable use and public trust doctrines? If so, how should the State Water Board determine what flows are necessary?

 

Agenda

 

Tuesday, February 18, 2014 – 9:00 a.m.

 

  • Opening Remarks by State Water Board Chair and Board Members

 

  • Opening Remarks by Gordon Burns, Undersecretary for California Environmental Protection Agency, and Janelle Beland, Undersecretary for California Natural Resources Agency

 

  • State Water Board Staff Introduction (Staff Panel)

 

      • Temporary Urgency Change Petition (TUCP) for the Central Valley Project and State Water Project

 

      • Curtailment Notices

 

      • Other Requests for Transfers and Change Petitions (Russian River TUCP)

 

      • FERC Hydropower Project Flows

 

 

  • Department of Water Resources and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Presentation (Panel)

 

      • Statewide Hydrologic Conditions

 

      •  TUCP for the Central Valley Project and State Water Project

 

      • Transfers

 

  • Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Presentation (Panel)

 

      • Statewide Issues

 

      • TUCP for the Central Valley Project and State Water Projects

 

  • Real Time Drought Operations Team

 

  • Comments from the Public (parties with similar interests are encouraged to form panels)

 

 

Wednesday, February 19, 2014 – 9:00 a.m.

 

  • Comments from the Public to be continued, if necessary

 

 

State Water Board Actions to Increase Water Conservation, Reuse, 

Recycling and other Drought Related Measures 

Wednesday, February 26, 2014 – 9:00 a.m. 

Joe Serna Jr. – Cal/EPA Headquarters Building

Coastal Hearing Room

1001 I Street, Second Floor

Sacramento, CA 95814

2016-05-31T19:38:58-07:00February 13th, 2014|
Go to Top