northern sacramento valley - butte county, california...eric wedemeyer dan peterson gary antone...

1 n\c\377\00-11-02\e\TACmtg\2013TACmtg\071813mtg\071813agenda

Northern Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting

July 18, 2013, 9:00 am Willows City Hall, 201 N. Lassen Street, Willows, CA

Agenda

1. *Open meeting/pledge of allegiance/introductions – Vickie Newlin

2. *Consent Items – Vickie Newlin

a. Approve Meeting Minutes of May 16th b. Review/approve agenda

3. *Discussion and possible action regarding Project Review Subcommittee’s Review of

Received Written Public Comments on Draft IRWMP (Jim Connell) a. Discussions regarding the received, written public comments and approach taken by

Board Subcommittee to respond. b. Roll out of Draft 2 of the IRWM Plan c. Review Updated Project Schedule/Timeline d. Possible action to recommend consideration by Board

4. TAC member comments and updates – Vickie Newlin

a. General comments and updates b. Suggested future agenda items c. Upcoming meeting reminders

5. Public wishing to address the TAC on items not listed on the agenda. (The NSV IRWM

TAC is prohibited by State law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda. Comments will be limited to three minutes per person.)

6. *Correspondence: communications and correspondence received

7. Action: Next meeting scheduled for August 15, 2013 – Vickie Newlin

8. Adjourn *Backup materials included Public Comments: The public comment period designated under Agenda Item 5 is a time set aside for members of the public to address the TAC on matters not included on the Regular Agenda. Each speaker is limited to three (3) minutes to speak. Speakers may not cede their time. Speakers must address the TAC, not the audience. Comments should be limited to matters within the jurisdiction of the TAC. If members of the audience have documents to present to the TAC to review, they should provide a minimum of twenty copies.

1

NSVIRWM TAC Members 6-Mar-13

Name Designation County Organization Contact InformationGary Antone staff Tehama Tehama Co PW [email protected]

Ken Babbitt landowner Tehama [email protected]

Jim Cornelius at-large Sutter Sutter Co RCD [email protected]

Gerry Cupp landowner Shasta [email protected]

Thomas Edgar at-large Butte [email protected]

Mary Fahey staff Colusa Colusa Co RCD [email protected]

David Guy regional Regional NCWA [email protected]

Mark Kimmelshue landowner Butte Armco [email protected]

Dan McManus regional Regional DWR [email protected]

Lester Messina staff Glenn Glenn Co Ag [email protected]

Vickie Newlin staff Butte Butte County Water [email protected]

Daniel Peterson staff Sutter Sutter Co PW [email protected]

Luke Reimers landowner Glenn Wells Fargo Bank [email protected]

Oscar Serrano at-large Colusa Colusa Indian Council [email protected]

Jeff Sutton landowner Colusa TCCA [email protected]

Eric Wedemeyer staff Shasta Shasta Co WA [email protected]

James (Dick) Akin landowner Sutter Farmer, SMWC BOD [email protected]

2

mailto:[email protected]
















cencelan

Typewritten Text

Agenda Item 1

cencelan

Rectangle

1 n\c\377\00-11-02\e\TACmtgs\2013\062013\051613TACdraftmtgminutes

MINUTES

NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) MEETING

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Meeting Location: Willows City Council Chambers, 201 N. Lassen Street, Willows, CA

Facilitator: Chair Vickie Newlin

TAC Members Present : Butte County Colusa County Glenn County

Vickie Newlin Mary Fahey Lester Messina Mark Kimmelshue Jeff Sutton Luke Reimers

Shasta County Sutter County Tehama Co

Eric Wedemeyer Dan Peterson Gary Antone Gerry Cupp Dick Akin Ken Babbitt

At Large Others

Jim Cornelius, Sutter County Dan McManus, DWR Thomas Edgar, Butte County Mary Randall, DWR Oscar Serrano, Colusa County David Guy, NCWA

= Alternate Technical Advisory Committee Member

Agenda Item 1: Open meeting/pledge of allegiance/introductions – Chair Vickie Newlin A. The meeting was convened at 9:06 AM, beginning with the pledge of

allegiance.

[Agenda Item 3 preceded Agenda Item 2 because a quorum had not been reached at the time. A quorum was reached during the discussion of Agenda Item 3, prior to the vote on Agenda Item 3.] Agenda Item 3: Discussion and Possible Action regarding Board’s Project Review Subcommittee’s Review of Current Scoring System for Assessing Tribal Benefit Points (Oscar Serrano and Gerry Nakano)

A. Mr. Serrano indicated that 17 projects checked the box on the on-line project proposal form indicating that their project would provide a benefit to a Tribe, and were hence awarded the full ten points for that category. Upon review of the DWR definition of Tribal Benefit, the Project Review Subcommittee is recommending that only those projects which primarily benefit a Tribe should be awarded the ten points. The recommended definition of Tribal Benefit is,

Points shall be awarded to projects of which the Primary Beneficiary is a Tribe if the project meets the criteria as defined in the California Department of Water Resources 2012 IRWM Grant Program Guidelines – Propositions 84 and 1E, page 47, Bullet E. To receive points under this category, projects must specifically address the water needs of Native American Tribal communities per the goals and objectives identified in Chapter 2 of this IRWM plan.

Under the Project Review Subcommittee recommendation, two projects would now receive the 10 points. Mr. Serrano indicated that the details of the evaluation are discussed in the staff report for Agenda Item 3.

Agenda Item 2

3


B. There were no public or TAC comments on the item.

C. TAC voted unanimously to recommend that the NSV Board consider adopting the proposed revised Tribal Benefit scoring at its June 3, 2013 meeting.

Agenda Item 2: Consent Items – Chair Vickie Newlin A. Minutes of the April 18, 2013 TAC meeting and the agenda for this meeting

were approved unanimously.

Agenda Item 4: Discussion and Possible Action regarding Board’s Project Review Subcommittee’s Review of New Project/Programs Submitted During Project Re-Submittal Period (Gerry Nakano)

A. Mr. Nakano discussed the project solicitation periods to date: the first project solicitation period was from July 16 to August 9, 2012; the second project solicitation period was from October 10 to October 31, 2012; and the third project solicitation period was from April 5 through May 2, 2013. The results of the most recent solicitation period are presented in the attached staff report.

B. Mr. Nakano indicated that prior to the most recent project solicitation period; there were 75 projects in the Ranked Category and 34 projects in the “Projects-to-Track” category. Twenty-four of the projects in the “Projects-to-Track” category have found local agency sponsors and are requesting to be moved to the Ranked Projects category. Three projects requested to be removed entirely from the Ranked list to be replaced by new projects, and 17 new projects for the Ranked list were received. There are now a total of 113 Ranked Projects. Of the 34 “Projects-to-Track”, 24 were moved to the Ranked Projects list, and one new project was added to the “Projects-to-Track” list, for a new total of 11 “Projects-to-Track”.

C. Mr. Serrano asked if this was the last solicitation period. Chair Newlin indicated that the Board may re-open the solicitation at their discretion, but that this is the last planned solicitation period prior to adoption of the IRWMP. Chair Newlin also indicated that following adoption of the IRWMP, the Board will likely re-open the project solicitation period on a regular, probably annual, basis. Chair Newlin reminded the TAC and public that, at this time, the actual score achieved by each individual project is not that important. The important point is to be included in the IRWMP Ranked Project list.

D. The TAC voted unanimously to recommend that the Board consider inclusion of the revised Ranked project and “Project-to-Track” lists at its June 3, 2013 Board Meeting.

Agenda Item 5: Review of Draft Plan Chapters 6 and 7; Implementation Strategy, and Plan Performance and Monitoring, respectively (Gerry Nakano)

A. Mr. Nakano reminded attendees where the draft documents are stored on the NSV website library folder (http://www.nsvwaterplan.org/app_folders/view/3).

B. Mr. Nakano introduced Draft Chapters 6 and 7 that were released at this TAC meeting, and reminded attendees that all written comments on all Draft chapters are due to Jim Connell ([email protected]) by June 7.

C. TAC member Gary Antone (Tehama County) encouraged people to review and comment on the draft chapters.

4

http://www.nsvwaterplan.org/app_folders/view/3



D. Member of Public Brette Matzke (Cortina Rancheria) commented that some project proponents may find it difficult to comply with the proposed data management plan in Draft Chapters 6 and 7 and requested that the text be revised to allow alternative documentation methods. Chair Newlin reminded Mr. Matzke to provide his comment in writing, but that alternative data management processes could be considered.

Note: Item 7 was presented prior to Item 6

Agenda Item 7: Public wishing to address the TAC on items not listed on the agenda. A. In anticipation of an NSV Board Agenda Item correspondence topic regarding

a voluntary moratorium on out-of-region water transfers requested by a member of the public, Chair Newlin encouraged the TAC and members of the public to express their thoughts and concerns, although the TAC could not vote on any item because it was not on the agenda and the TAC had not been directed by the Board to take action.

- Member of the public Tony St. Amant indicated that he is requesting that the NSV Board Joint Executive Committee put his proposed voluntary moratorium regarding water transfers on the June 3, 2013 NSV Board agenda, but that he understands that it is a policy-level topic and not one that would be brought to the TAC. Mr. St. Amant indicated that he is requesting a region-wide voluntary moratorium on out-of-region surface water transfers until such time as the NSV RWMG develops water transfer guidelines as indicated in the IRWMP Goals and Objectives.

- TAC member Tom Edgar indicated that he was concerned that pumping groundwater to facilitate out-of-region surface water transfers would damage the groundwater basin and lead to depleted water resources in the NSV region.

- TAC member Gary Antone (Tehama County) indicated that Tehama County had developed and adopted water transfer ordinances.

- Eric Wedemeyer (Shasta County) indicated that Shasta County had also adopted water transfer ordinances that were largely based on the Tehama County guidelines.

B. Member of the public Brette Matzke indicated that, in his discussions with DWR, it appears that Tribes can receive “Treatment in the Same Manner as a State” under Proposition 84, and he would therefore like the IRWMP to address “Counties, Districts, and Tribes” instead of just “Counties and Districts”. Chair Newlin reminded Mr. Matzke to provide his written comments for consideration.

Agenda Item 6: TAC Member Announcements and Suggested Future Agenda Items A. TAC Member Eric Wedemeyer mentioned that he had attended a workshop

on the Vision and Goal setting for the Strategic Plan for the Future of IRWM in California. Workshop attendees engaged in some visioning exercises. One of the facilitators commented that workshop attendees in water source areas think and act differently than workshop attendees in water receiving areas. Water source area attendees were thought to be more protective of their water and more aware of where water comes from.

5


B. Chair Newlin mentioned that there will be a Butte County Tuscan Aquifer Study Final Workshop in Chico on May 23, flyers are on the table at the back of the room. The project received cooperation from Sutter County, Glenn County, and Tehama County.

Agenda Item 8: Correspondence A. No discussion.

Agenda Item 9: Next meeting is scheduled for June 20, 2013.

Agenda Item 10. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 a.m.

____________________________________ Vickie Newlin, Chair

ATTEST: BY: ____________________________________ James P. Connell, West Yost Associates

In accordance with Federal law and U.S. Department of Agriculture policy, this institution is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, religion, sex, and familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs).To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD).

6

n\c\377\00-11-02\e\TACmtg\2013TACmtg\071813mtg\3_StaffReport_IRWMPEdits

STAFF REPORT

TO: Northern Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Board (Board) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

FROM: NSV Board’s Project Review Subcommittee

SUBJECT: Discussion and possible action regarding Project Review Subcommittee’s Review of Received Written Public Comments on Draft IRWMP.

DATE: July 18, 2013

BACKGROUND

The project team has been working to prepare the Northern Sacramento Valley (NSV) Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) document per the request of DWR, and based on the decisions of the NSV IRWM Board as guided by the Technical Advisory Committee (NSV TAC).

Individual Draft Chapters of the IRWMP have been released to the NSV TAC and NSV Board, and available for public review and comment, since February 2013.

All seven draft chapters have been completed and posted to the NSV IRWMP website library (http://www.nsvwaterplan.org/app_folders/view/284) along with the draft review schedule. The seven draft chapters were:

• Draft Chapter 1 Governance and Region Description: Released to the TAC at the March 21, 2013 TAC Meeting and to the Board at the April 8, 2013 Special Board Meeting

• Draft Chapter 2 Objectives: Released to the TAC at the February 21, 2013 TAC meeting and to the Board at the March 3, 2013 Board Meeting.

• Draft Chapter 3 Plan Development Process: Released to the TAC at the March 21, 2013 TAC Meeting and to the Board at the April 8, 2013 Special Board Meeting

• Draft Chapter 4 Resource Management Strategies: Released to the TAC at the April 18, 2013 TAC Meeting, and to the Board at the June 3, 2013 Board Meeting.

• Draft Chapter 5 Potential Projects and Prioritization: Released to the TAC at the February 21, 2013 TAC meeting and to the Board at the March 3, 2013 Board Meeting.

• Draft Chapter 6 Implementation Strategy: Released to the TAC at the May 16, 2013 TAC Meeting, and to the Board at the June 3, 2013 Board Meeting.

Agenda Item 3

7


Staff Report – NSV IRWM Board TAC July 18, 2013 Page 2

n\c\377\00-11-02\e\TACmtg\2013TACmtg\071813mtg\3_StaffReportEdits

• Draft Chapter 7 Plan Performance and Monitoring: Released to the TAC at the May 16, 2013 TAC Meeting, and to the Board at the June 3, 2013 Board Meeting.

Written public comments were submitted either directly to West Yost Associates (West Yost) or to the IRWMP website comment page. All comments were logged by West Yost and separated into Substantive Comments, for which West Yost solicited input and direction from the Board’s Project Review Subcommittee, and Grammatical Comments and Corrections, which West Yost was asked to address and incorporate into the document as appropriate.

On May 30, 2013, the Board’s Project Review Subcommittee met via conference call with the consultant team to review the substantive comments received from the public, and discuss and determine appropriate responses. No additional public comments have been received from the time of the Project Review Subcommittee Meeting up to the June 7, 2013 cut-off for written comments on the Draft 1 IRWM Plan chapters.

DISCUSSION

The Project Review Subcommittee reviewed each substantive comment and discussed the comment and possible ways to address it. After due consideration, proposed edits to the IRWMP document were developed. In some cases, the Project Review Subcommittee determined that the comment was either too broad or general of a comment to be able to specifically address, or did not require a change to the IRWMP document. The IRWMP Substantive Comment Log, which includes the Project Review Subcommittee’s recommended edits to the IRWMP document, is provided in Attachment 3A.

These recommended edits and the Grammatical Comments and Corrections have been incorporated into the second draft IRWMP document (Draft 2 IRWMP). The text of the Draft 2 IRWMP, in Tracked Changes mode, was forwarded to the Project Review Subcommittee for comment on June 28, 2013. Comments received by July 5, 2013 were also incorporated into the Draft 2 IRWMP. The Draft 2 IRWMP is posted to the NSV website library folder at the following address:


One of the edits to the draft IRWMP was to combine Chapters 6 and 7 into one chapter. Therefore, there are now six chapters in the Draft 2 IRWMP.

The text of the IRWMP, in Tracked Changes mode, is also posted in the same library folder.

As indicated on the Working Draft Review Schedule, at the September 9, 2013 Board Meeting, the NSV Board will considered releasing the Draft 2 IRWMP for the “official” 30-day public review period. The working draft review schedule/timeline is included as Attachment 3B.

8


Staff Report – NSV IRWM Board TAC July 18, 2013 Page 3

n\c\377\00-11-02\e\TACmtg\2013TACmtg\071813mtg\3_StaffReportEdits

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Project Review Subcommittee recommends that:

The NSV TAC review and discuss the Project Review Subcommittee’s recommended substantive edits to the draft IRWMP document.

The NSV TAC recommend that the NSV Board also review and discuss the Project Review Subcommittee’s recommended substantive edits to the IRWMP document and consider releasing the Draft 2 IRWMP for a 30-day public comment period.

Attachments

9

No.Comment

Date Name Subject Comment Subcommittee Recommended Approach

1 3/20/2013 Robert Matzke Chapter 1

Section 1.2.5.6 on page 1-31 (imported water/desalination) may be appropriate for most of the NSV area, but must be kept in mind for development of areas in the foothills within the boundaries of NSV. I am talking about Cortina Rancheria where Quantity and Quality are the issue, if it take Desalination or finding ways to import water to our area itneeds to be made a tool in the tool box. Cutting it off as to be considered which I feel this section does is not right.

Reword text to mention that imported water and desalination might be applicable in certain instances within the NSV Region that have poor groundwater quality and have no other supply options, such as the Cortina Rancheria. Also mention the high cost and difficulties with brine disposal, but that a cost/benefit analysis was not part of the project screening criteria..

2 4/18/2013 Ken Babbitt Chapter 1 Mention southern CA and why their needs must be subordinate to northern CA's interests

Add language to Chapter 1 that acknowledges the pressures to export water due to growing demands and limited supplies outside the NSV Region, and "link" that to the language from the goals and objectives re: "efficient management of water supplies that recognize the NSV Region as having the first priority for use."

3 4/18/2013 Ken Babbitt Chapter 1

1-17: Variability in supply.1-39 Mini storage as in Black Butte1-45 Climate change Skeptical is an understatement. There is no measurable mechanism to address a problem that does not exist 1-47 Area of origin. Are we that safe from the feds and state? Stronger language needed to stress this concern. Needed water supplies by the south state Agricultural efficiency at only 33 projected political muscle to "take" our resource is not addressed. 1-55 Watershed management with 55 projects and ecosystem restoration at 52 projects? Agricultural efficiency at only 33 projects? Out of balance 1-65 Ag generates considerable economic activity. This has to receive a higher level of focus 1-67 Implementation strategies: We need a singular focus of we, the North Valley IS the number 1 focus at the expense of all other subordinate issues. 1-67 Priority number 1 is storage of our commodity (water) here in storage facilities 1-69 Storage capacity and increasing storage 1-70 Define 'must' and 'should' Which way is it?1-72 No mention of south state interests and how they must be subordinated to our interests

1-17 No change recommended

1-39 add " Small storage projects, in response to local water shortages, may be developed."

1-45 No change recommended

1-47 Note: The phrase "Agricultural efficiency at only 33 projected" was struck from the comment by West Yost as it seems to be refering to the comment referencing page 1-55.

1-47 Add sentence stating that current area of origin, County of origin, and watershed of origin sections of the water code must be upheld, and add reference to the appropriate Goal and Objective.

1-55 Comment on RMS covered by projects submitted by project applicants. NSV Board did not have control over types of projects submitted, or the RMS indicated. No change recommended.

1-65 General comment, no change to text is recommended.

1-67 and 1-69 no change recommended.

1-70. Re-word sentence "...what an IRWMP must contain, and what it should contain."

1-72 No change recommended.

IRWMP Document Public Substantive Comment Log

n\c\377\00-11-02\e\irwmpdocument\publiccomments\IRWMPDocumentPublicCommentLogLast Revised: 06-12-13 Page 1 of 5

Northern Sacramento ValleyIRWMP

10

cencelan

Typewritten Text

Attachment 3A

cencelan

Rectangle

No.Comment


4 3/19/2013 Brett Matzke Chapter 2

page 2-12 # 2.6.1 listed as Critical. Small communities of 25 people meeting the Federal EPA standard for a small system do not have funds available to up-grade systems. Ours has 6 hook-ups and serves 25 people. We barley meet Federal standards and do not meet State Standards. We can use the water for washing and laundry but still can not drink the water, that needs to be hauled in for cooking and drinking. 2.6.5 (3-5) The ranking of Medium may be fine for most of the NSV, but it should be rated either high or Critical depending on where you are. Cattle grazing from trespass cattle can contaminate our re-charge on the limited Tehema formation seams in the ground where we can get water from. How do we account for this?

page 2-12, paragraph 2.6.1: Consider adding Cortina Rancheria as an example of why Objective 3.1 "2.6.1 (3-1) Develop and improve infrastructure to meet state and federal standards for drinking water quality. (Critical)" is critical. Sentence to read, "State and Federal drinking water standards may be unattainable for some local water supply systems, such as Cortina Rancheria that has poor groundwater quality, without improved infrastructure."

Paragraph 2.6.5 (Objective 3-5): No change recommended


2-3 page 14, “People should come before the environment.” This may not be true all the time. If it is an area of Cultural or Spiritual importance than the Tribes would have some difficulty living with this statement. 2-7 page 18, Water transfer guidelines. This may work with Federal transfers in the use of a Cannel, or a state or county transfer, but Tribes face a difficult task here. If a tribe is given Treatment as a State (TAS) by EPA it gets even more complicated. This is a point that needs discussion at the next TAC meeting or full Board meeting. 2-8 page 19. Again, difficulties may occur with TAS for tribes. This can be completely different than the State of California’s rules and standards. TAS allows for groundwater regulation on quantity and quality as well as giving the tribes the right to list as a beneficial use cultural and spiritual uses. Same comment is in the next section same page about “area-of-origin status.”

2-3: Suggest adding text to the end of section 2.2, quoted below, suggested addition in bold: "In short, through an iterative process with stakeholder input, consultant team input, TAC and Board input, the Subcommittee identified and refined objectives so that the most important watershed objectives were made clear. These rankings are for general objectives; individual projects may rise in importance based on specific funding criteria and/or additional considerations in the future, particular to the project, e.g. a project that addresses an area of Tribal cultural significance, or a DAC."

2-7: Refers to Objective 1-5 on page 2-7. "2.4.5 (1-5) Develop regional water transfer guidelines to facilitate efficient management of water supplies that recognize the NSV Region as having the first priority for use. (Foundational)" No change recommended.

2-8: Refers to Objectives 1-6 and 1-7, "2.4.6 (1-6) Protect existing and established surface water rights. (Foundational). No change recommended.

2-8" and "2.4.7 (1-7) Honor and preserve area-of-origin statutory protections. (Foundational)" No change recommended.



11

cencelan

Rectangle

cencelan

Typewritten Text

Attachment 3A

cencelan

Typewritten Text

cencelan

Typewritten Text

cencelan

Typewritten Text

cencelan

Typewritten Text

cencelan

Typewritten Text

No.Comment


6 2/15/2013 Tony St. Amant Chapter 2

The 2nd measurement listed for Objective 1-5 (Para. 2.4.5) does not support the objective as adopted and inappropriately expands the scope of the objective.

The proposed measurement: “2) evaluating whether or not water transfers that keep water rights whole, through maintaining beneficial use, have been facilitated. The measure would be first by county and then at the regional level.” is inappropriate. The objective is to develop regional guidelines, not to evaluate transfers or transfer proposals. There is no need for the measurement to restate the objective’s already stated priority for first use in the NSV Region.

Recommendation:Change the measurement to directly support the adopted objective:

“Measurement of this objective will be through: 1) development of NSV water transfer guidelines; 2) documentation of whether each county has adopted water transfer guidelines that are compatible with the NSV guidelines; and 3) for counties that do not have water transfer guidelines or whose water transfer guidelines are not compatible NSV guidelines, seek voluntary compatibility.”

No change recommended.


Table of contents must be revised to show storage to be number 1, FOUNDATIONAL 2.4.9 moved to 2.4.52-4 ONLY mention of NSV being number 1Why not more? 2-7, 2.4.5 Bureau of Reclamation SHALL Participate........ Show good faith 2-9 we first Foundational No exceptions 2-10, 2.5.1Develop systems of collecting flood runoff for ground recharge 2.5.2 Again impoundment systems

No change recommended.


The largest agricultural water district within the boundaries of the NSV IRWMP, the Glenn Colusa Irrigation District (GCID), is not a part of this otherwise unified collaboration to protect and enhance the water resources of the Northern Sacramento Valley.

Chapter 3 should be revised to describe the relationship between the NSV IRWMP planning effort and GCID if there is a relationship, or discuss the reason why no relationship exists.

If one participating agency is singled out, we would have to name them all. No change recommended.

9 4/18/2013 Ken Babbitt Chapter 3 3-1 Stakeholders are individual land owners and residents of the NSV: The various government agencies are NOT the only stake holders and the actually hold a subordinate position to the will of the land owners.

3-1 Stakeholder already defined as any individual or organization with an interest in, or who would be impacted by, the work of the IRWM Board. No change recommended.

10 3/19/2013 Brett Matzke

Chapter 3 page 30 Map of

Disadvantaged Communities Income levels.

Cortina Rancheria is 17 miles SW of Williams and 9 miles West of Arbuckle. According to a study we developed it states that our median household income of about 52% ($21,2480) of the median household income for the county ($41,500). I believe in the rating system a community that meets the requirement for disadvantaged gets points and extra points for the deeper in debt so to speak or less advantaged. Please correct the map and show Cortina as less advantaged than our rich farming neighbors.

Recommend including a footnote on the DAC map to say: "There are communities smaller than a census block that qualify as DACs even though their census block overall is not a DAC, and therefore small DAC communities are not always reflected on the map. These communities may identify themselves as DACs when proposing projects."



12

cencelan

Rectangle

cencelan

Typewritten Text

Attachment 3A

No.Comment



Page 4-4, line 3: “Conveyance through the Delta does not apply to this IRWM region, which is upstream from the Delta." This line must be removed as the Delta IS a major and direct concern to the North Valley and must be dealt with directly and with no ambiguous terms. The Delta is specifically identified in Table 4-1 as a 'must consider' point. The item is identified as Conveyance- Delta. Table 4-3 fails to give weight to 'Conveyance- Delta' and that must change, with appropriate language to specifically address the issue. Page 4-4: Objectives of the RWMG goals. Water supply reliability: No mention of enhanced storage; Flood planning:To include recharge abilities?; Item 6 should be item 3; Item 3 should be item 5; Item 5 should be Item 6. Page 4-5:Last paragraph of section 4.2: Relates to the significance of water resources in the NSV IRWM and the fact{?) that we must rely on the fed and state operators to offset impacts of climate change. Really? With uncertainty of /climate change' we cannot afford to set a policy in stone that cannot predict, protect or enhance our reliability of water resources and bind the NSV to un attainable goals and constraints that will affect all of our cultural, economic and environmental basis of our existence. Certainly, we must not let fed and state operators put us at risk.

Page 4-4, line 3: Recommend adding text, "While Delta Conveyance is an issue with potential to greatly impact the NSV Region, this region is upstream of the Delta and will not be including projects that address Conveyance through the Delta in this IRWM Plan."

4-4 Objectives - order of Goals and Objectives already adopted by NSV Board. No change recommended.

4-5 Recommend editing text to say, "As the surface water resources in the NSV IRWM region are significant supply elements of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project, water users in the IRWM region adjacent to or receiving water from their facilities will are compelled to rely on federal and State operators to offset many of the potential impacts of climate change. In addition to potential impacts on water supply, some climate change models also predict a potential for more severe flooding. To address this, 30 of the NSV proposed projects address Flood Risk Management. Given the uncertainty of the climate change models, the effectiveness of the RMSs in mitigating the impacts of climate change may not be known for decades. "


Page 4-5: Section 4.3 Resource Integration: 'Man made water resource infrastructure integration'. Does this mean storage? Say so. Page 4-8: “area of origin": Cannot be overstated. last part of paragraph,indicating our abundant water resources and major supplier to the CWP and CVP. BUT we cannot be held accountable to a mandatory and rigid draw on a resource that may have an effect on the NSV. (AKA:Owens Valley) Define shall and should: Shall: As used in statutes, contracts, or the like, this word is generally imperative or mandatory. (Third Judicial District Glossary of terms) Should: Should signifies something you ought to do or something that is a good idea or that something that may happen. (verb) 1. An example of should is when someone tells you that you ought to go to bed. 2. An example of should is when you believe you must obey the law 3. An example of should is when someone says they will do something if they might happen to win the lottery. The verb 'should' is not defined in Blacks law or the Third JD Glossary. Generally, it comes down to a nice way of saying 'this would be nice', but carries no mandatory requirements.

4-5 sentence refers to all water system infrastructure, including storage , conveyance, etc. Adjust text to be clearer.

Shall and Should - Make sure the language throughout is consistent.

13 4/23/2013 Oscar Serrano Chapter 4 and 5

1. Table 4-2, more of a comment: I question the integrity of the table since people received points for just checking a box and no one checked whether these projects actually meet each RMS. For example Project ID’s 29 and 30 are both wastewater projects yet they claim RMS points for CALFED surface storage. I’m sure there’s many more.2. Chapter 5 needs a matrix similar to Table 4-2 that shows how points were awarded to each project. Chapter 5 only has the total score awarded not the breakdown so the reader can’t verify if points were totaled correctly.

1. Modify text to be more explicit that Table 4-2 is only as accurate as the information provided to us by the project proponents.

2. Recommendation is to not include the entire score card in the IRWMP because it's not really about the score but about being included in the Plan. Scorecards will be uploaded to the NSV website.



13

cencelan

Rectangle

cencelan

Typewritten Text

Attachment 3A

No.Comment


14 2/5/2013Joint

Executive Committee

Chapter 5Put the Chapter 5 projects in an appendix and change the wording in the text to allow changes to the project list (through a public process), but not requiring re-adoption of the RWMG Goals and Objectives, Proposed future governance, and other portions of the IRWMP.

Recommend implementing this proposed change, and adding text to introduction of Chapter 5, such as, "The project list is a preliminary inventory of projects and proposed projects in the NSV area, some of which are more highly developed than others. The project list will be modified periodically by the Board at open public meetings as projects may be added, dropped, integrated, or improved by their sponsors as they progress through permitting and local approval processes. Board modification of the project list does not require re-adoption of the IRWM Plan."


5-4 and 5-5 Seems that we are a bit early in the project solicitation as we are still trying to define our first and most significant goal: Protection ofthe NSV resource: WATER and our economic survival.5.7 5-7 No mention of water rights: Shouldn't item E and F be combined with G? Item H no mention of NSV Needs being first

These comments are related to the initial project solicitation process, which has taken place three times and is now closed. No change recommended.


The project, In-lieu Recharge in North Eastern Glenn County (ID 9), submitted by Glenn County, requests $9.2 million for a project found to be cost prohibitive by its initial feasibility study. Support for an economically unfeasible proposal undercuts NSV IRWMP credibility. Recommendation: Delete Project ID 9.

Economic feasibility was not a criterion used to evaluate projects for inclusion in the IRWMP. We believe the recommended text addition to Chapter 5 to respond to Comment 14, will also address this comment. No change recommended.

17 2/22/2013 Martha Slack Chapter 5 Project Classification Asking why their project is classified as "New Programs, etc." instead of "Planning Project". Generally agree with comment and recommend reclassifying to

Planning Project.


The plan is to give equal billing to Counties, Utilities and I would like you to add "Tribes." This is because if a tribe is given the authority to regulate its own water quality standards it is given what is called Treatment as a State, TAS. Thisis done through US EPA and gives Tribes as sovereign nations the same authority as California to set standards for their water.I also believe the section on web pages to post your reference materials is going to be hard for both Tribes and DSC's. Cortina does not have a web page, and we have lots of space needed to post all the documents you are requesting to validate our project. One document alone is over 670 pages. So we need to find a way to either have a free service to post our information to or some way to join into a "Cloud" based program for project participants.

1. Add "Tribes" where appropriate throughout IRWMP.

2. Revise language in Chapter 6 to make it more clear that alternative data management processes will be considered, and that project proponents can contact their County representative for more information.



14

cencelan

Rectangle

cencelan

Typewritten Text

Attachment 3A

Butte County | Northern Sacramento Valley IRWMP | Revised Approach Flow Chart | July 2013

NSV IRWM BoardCommunity Needs/Aspirations, Goals/Objectives/Draft/Final IRWMP

Outreach Plan Project Evaluation Criteria

Data ManagementStakeholders/Public

NSV Technical Advisory CommitteeeLege

nd

June Board Meeting ■ Consider Revised Project List ■ Consider Draft 1 Chapters 4, 6, 7

June 7 - Cut-Off for Receipt of Written Public Comments on Draft 1 of IRWM Plan

August 16 - Written public comments due on Project Review Subcommittee recommended responses to written substantive public comments

April 5, Announce Re-Opening of Project Submit Process

Project Review Subcommittee Considers / Proposes Revisions to Draft Plan and Revised Project List

■ Initial Discussion of Draft 2 of IRWM Plan

■ Continue Discussion of IRWM Plan

■ Recommend Revised IRWM Plan to Board for Consideration

September Board Meeting ■ Consider Draft 2 Plan for Public Comment

■ Discussion of Final Revised Draft 3 Plan

■ Recommend Revised Draft 3 Plan to Board for Consideration

December Board Meeting ■ Consider Adoption of NSV IRWM Plan with Possible Update to integrate Regional Flood Management Plan

March Board Meeting ■ Update NSV IRWM Plan

■ Consider integration of new information from Regional Flood Management Plan

May Board Meeting

If Required

If Required

WORKING DRAFTLast revised 7/10/13

■ Consider Revised Project List

■ Consider Draft 1 Chapters 6, 7

■ (Cancelled)

■ Consider Draft 1 Chapter 4

2013 2014

One Month “Official” Public Comment Period on Full Draft (Written Public Comments due October 9, 2013)

Project Review Committee Responds to Received Written Comments

AprilMarchFebruaryJanuaryDecemberNovemberOctoberSeptemberAugustJulyJuneMay May

Integration of Available Draft Regional Flood Management Plan

Public Outreach Meetings to Solicit Comments on Draft 2 IRWM Plan

April

May 2, Close Project Resubmittal Process

Project Proponent Letters of Support for NSV IRWMP due to NSV Board

15

cencelan

Typewritten Text

Attachment 3B

cencelan

Rectangle

From: Tony St. Amant [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 11:55 AM To: NSV IRWMP; Council Member Farr; Council Member Gill; Council Member McArthur; Council Member Schwab; Mr. Bair; Mr. Cole; Mr. Enos; Mr. Erickson; Mr. Harper; Mr. Johnson; Mr. Sale; Mr. Sherrill; Mr. Wangberg; Ms. Phillips; Supervisor Baugh; Supervisor Cleveland; Supervisor Connelly; Supervisor Evans; Supervisor Gallagher; Supervisor McDaniel; Supervisor Moty; Supervisor Williams Cc: Paul Gosselin; Vickie Newlin; Commissioner Barber; Dan McManus; Daniel Peterson; David Guy (NCWA); Dick Akin; Eric Wedemeyer; Gary Antone; Gerry Cupp; Jeff Sutton; Jim Cornelius; Lester Messina; Luke Reimers; Mark Kimmelshue; Mary Fahey; Oscar Serrano; Tom Edgar Subject: Voluntary moratorium on out-of-region water transfers Tony St. Amant 27 Garden Park Drive Chico, CA 95973 June 3, 2013 To: Board of Directors, Northern Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Subject: Voluntary moratorium on out-of-region water transfers Board members, I am disappointed that you declined to agendize a voluntary moratorium on out-of-region water transfers pending development of the regional water transfer guidelines you have committed to in your draft plan. I respect your concern for preserving the autonomy of local governments and water districts, but nothing in the proposal would have undercut that autonomy—and certainly not simply placing it on your agenda for public discussion and a publicly accountable vote. I think you have dodged one of the greatest contributions you could have made to North State water sustainability. For those who take a strident position on local autonomy or the Constitution, I would remind you that our Constitution was one of the greatest compromises in the political history of the world. Thirteen states voluntarily relinquished a portion of their sovereignty in order to be strong enough to survive—and thrive—in a world dominated by European kingdoms. Had they not done so, it would have been only a matter of time before they were individually carved off by the European powers. The water world of California is not so different today. It is a world massively dominated by south-of-the-Delta water interests, and with the water transfers proposed for 2013, they have begun the process of carving off the water resources of the Northern Sacramento Valley. The opportunity to mount a collaborative defense against the south is before us now, but it will pass. If there is no expression of regional concern over the current, relatively trivial, transfer proposals, there will be precedents set that may defeat later opposition to hugely increased transfers. In any event, the call for a discussion of a voluntary moratorium was precisely in deference to county and district autonomy. Failure to act early and collaboratively against water

Agenda Item 6

16


transfers will inexorably lead to lawyers, courts, and water regulation by judicial fiat. When that happens, you will owe yourselves a great deal of the blame for not having had the courage to step up to the plate when the umpire hollered “batter up” in the spring of 2013. In five years you will find it difficult to look back and justify your hesitation to assert yourselves now. The most likely excuse will be that, “the organization was just too fragile to take on such a daunting task.” But you are the organization. If your alliance is too fragile to even discuss a voluntary moratorium as an agenda item, it’s because you have chosen to make it so. Those founding fathers who drafted our Constitution had no assurance of acceptance within the states they represented, but each of them risked all he had in responding to the profound wisdom of Ben Franklin’s warning, that “We must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” I submit to you that’s where we are in the California water world today. If your only reason for supporting the NSV IRWMP is eligibility for state grants, you are betraying your children and grandchildren. It will be they and their children who will pay the price for your failure to protect your plan’s overarching objective which—may I remind you—is, “ensuring an affordable, sustainable water supply that supports agricultural, business, environmental, recreational, and domestic needs of the Northern Sacramento Valley.” Exceptional circumstances require exceptional people. I’m deeply saddened that you could not find the courage to rise to the occasion. Sincerely, //s// Tony St. Amant Cc: Board of Supervisors, Butte County, 25 County Center Dr., Oroville, CA 95965 Board of Supervisors, Colusa County, 547 Market St., Colusa, CA 95932 Board of Supervisors, Glenn County, 525 West Sycamore St., Willows, CA 95988 Board of Supervisors, Shasta County, 1450 Court St., Redding, CA 96001 Board of Supervisors, Sutter County, 1160 Civic Center Blvd., Yuba City, CA 95993 Board of Supervisors, Tehama County, 727 Oak St., Red Bluff, CA 96080 From: Joni Stellar [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 2:34 PM To: Tony St. Amant Cc: NSV IRWMP; Council Member Farr; Council Member Gill; Council Member McArthur; Council Member Schwab; Mr. Bair; Mr. Cole; Mr. Enos; Mr. Erickson; Mr. Harper; Mr. Johnson; Mr. Sale; Mr. Sherrill; Mr. Wangberg; Ms. Phillips; Supervisor Baugh; Supervisor Cleveland; Supervisor Connelly; Supervisor Evans; Supervisor Gallagher; Supervisor McDaniel; Supervisor Moty; Supervisor Williams; Paul Gosselin; Vickie Newlin; Commissioner Barber; Dan McManus; Daniel Peterson; David Guy (NCWA); Dick Akin; Eric Wedemeyer; Gary Antone; Gerry Cupp; Jeff Sutton; Jim Cornelius; Lester Messina; Luke Reimers; Mark Kimmelshue; Mary Fahey; Oscar Serrano; Tom Edgar Subject: Re: Voluntary moratorium on out-of-region water transfers

17


I concur with this well-written position. Water transfers should be reviewed and this Board should request such review. A moratorium in a drought year, after many prior drought years, is reasonable to allow some review time. Joni Clark Stellar Sent from my iPad Note: Mr. St. Amant’s letter (first e-mail) was attached to Ms. Stellar’s e-mail.

18

northern sacramento valley - butte county, california...eric wedemeyer dan peterson gary antone...

Documents