Stealing Ground Water

By Jim Brobeck

NOTE: As this issue of the Environmental News was going to press, the Department of Water Resources released their draft funding recommendations for Integrated Water Management Plans across the state, and the Sacramento Valley Implementation Plan (see below) was NOT included in the list. We are guardedly optimistic that this decision will stick, however, a public comment period is opening and the final determination of grants will take place in December. BEC is sending a representative to the next DWR hearing on this issue in November to advocate for local stakeholders. We must remain vigilant and educated about plans such as this one that target the Tuscan aquifer, as they will no doubt continue to surface.
–Editor

At a May 10, 2005 meeting, the Butte County Board of Supervisors approved a letter of support for the Northern California Water Association’s (NCWA) leadership in the development of the Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (SVIRWMP). BEC warned the Supervisors that NCWA represents the interests of water districts that have a history of selling their surface water entitlements. We were concerned that NCWA would push for programs that would integrate Butte County’s groundwater into the districts’ supply of water available for sales. The Supervisors promised that they were not abdicating local control of our groundwater through the submittal of this letter of support.

Who participated in the formulation of the SVIRWMP? NCWA includes 32 attorneys representing Sacramento Valley water purveyors, and 38 representatives from engineering and consulting firms working with Sacramento Valley water purveyors. Butte County has not been represented by its county council, county water commission, or supervisors.

Now that NCWA has presented its plan it is clear that their clients expect to sell their surface water entitlements and bolster their water rights by developing 12 massive production wells that pierce the precious lower Tuscan Aquifer. Groups actively opposing the NCWA plan as it is currently written include the Sacramento Valley Environmental Wa te r shed Caucus (SVEWC), the state Environmental Water Caucus (EWC), Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance (BCCWA), the Butte Sutter Basin Area Groundwater Users (BSBAGU) and the Northern California Council Federation of Fly Fishers.

SVEWC notes that NCWA has created a veneer of public meetings to present drafts of their SVIRWMP. The plan they are proposing was created without consulting the environmental groups that have consistently expressed interest in preserving the quality of life of the Sacramento Valley and shaping water management policies that improve creek, river and groundwater related environments.

The EWC explains that “Groundwater transfers may overdraft groundwater resources and lower the water table that may produce significant environmental effects.”

The Federation of Fly Fishers wrote that the use of the Tuscan water could be used for environmental and fishery support “downstream” through the Environmental Water Account (EWA). They feel that the EWA has become a vehicle for water users to increase water diversions, and has not benefited the environment as intended. To justify use of Tuscan water as a way to help the environment would simply be a distortion of current fact. The fisheries the EWA was intended to help have gone downhill faster since it’s inception than before the EWA existed.

The BSBGUA wrote that there is no aquifer protection, there is no guarantee of funding for methods to catch overdraft, no triggers to halt pumping if overdraft is occurring, and no mitigation (or funding) for those who are harmed by excessive lowering of the water table. This situation is analogous to having the fox guard the chickens, with the added feature of the fox being the individual tasked with reporting on how well the chickens are doing. This Plan is a declaration of war on every domestic well owner and every farmer dependent on groundwater in the Northern Sacramento Valley.

BCCWA wrote, “The proposed groundwater wells in the Plan present potential for significant environmental, social and economic impact resulting from groundwater level drawdown.”

On the evening of October 2, NCWA presented the plan to about 130 citizens in the Durham Library. The standing-room only crowd was nearly unanimous in their impatience with NCWA’s well worn PowerPoint presentation and demanded some answers. Bob Hennigan, a Butte County orchardist who is totally dependent on groundwater, insisted that NCWA provide the names of the individuals and agencies who are on their technical groundwater advisory group. NCWA’s director refused to identify the statewide power brokers who are attempting to usurp Butte County’s oversight of the lower Tuscan aquifer.

NCWA refused the invitation from BEC to convene a meeting in Chico explaining that, “at the last several meetings, rather than providing input on how to make the plan better, you made personal and insolent attacks against the people that have been working to protect and manage Northern California water rights and supplies. We are therefore not confident that another forum with personal attacks will serve to provide any meaningful input to further the plan.”

In spite of the very vocal public opposition, Butte County staff continue to push the Supervisors to adopt the plan. The Assistant Director of the Butte Department of Water tried several times to get the water commission to forward a recommendation of support to the Board, but the commission was deadlocked with deep concerns about the plan and the process. Several commissioners were upset that staff had forwarded an implementation grant request with NCWA to the state without informing the commission of the wide range of projects that included the publicly funded Tuscan production wells.

On October 24 county staff asked the Supervisors to overlook the water commission’s controversial lack of consensus, to ignore the furious public opposition to the plan, and to accept the assistant director’s recommendation to approve the resolution in support of the NCWA plan.

While four out of five of the supervisors seemed to join the public in their skepticism of the benefits afforded to Butte County citizens by the plan, they failed to reject it outright, or to move forward with a plan of their own. The supervisors approved a list of modest modifications to the wording of the NCWA plan and delayed overall approval until the November 21 meeting.

It remains to be seen if the Supervisors will live up to their 5/10/2005 promise not to abdicate local control of the aquifer system to water purveyors.