Today, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) will hear challenges to Davis’ and Woodland’s water applications.
According to the record, the SWRCB “intends to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the pending water right applications” in which they will “receive evidence relevant to determining whether the State Water Board should approve, subject to terms and conditions, water right Applications 30358A, for the City of Davis (Davis) and University of California at Davis (UCD), and Application 30358B, for the City of Woodland (Woodland).”
The Sacramento Bee reported on Monday morning that the plan “could have implications far beyond the two Yolo County cities. It could also set a precedent for all future diversions from the already-stressed Sacramento River.”
The Bee reports that the hearing could extend a second day, until Wednesday. It will be held at 9 am at the Cal-EPA Building on 1001 I St in Sacramento. A decision would not be expected until several weeks later.
Officials with the City of Davis expect this to be a mere formality, as the water rights and right “area-of-origin diversions” has been well-established.
Others have argued that mew criteria for Delta inflow and outflow appear to severely limit the potential for any further claims on upstream river water.
Public officials throughout the county have lined up their support for the application. Former Davis Mayor and current County Supervisor Don Saylor wrote the agency stating, “The City of Davis has always depended solely upon groundwater wells for municipal water use. Unfortunately, the concentrations of constituents in the water from our aquifers are higher than the levels that are judged to be safe for discharge to the water-courses leading to the Sacramento River. These high concentrations require us to improve the quality of our water supplies. Moreover, the long-term reliability of the water supply from these aquifers has been suspect.”
He continued, “We established early on that the best way to secure long-term water supply and quality was to obtain access to surface water from the Sacramento River.”
Councilmember Stephen Souza wrote similarly, “The quality of the groundwater has degraded over time and can no longer be relied upon to meet municipal needs. In recent years, the City has been forced to drill deeper wells to meet increasingly stringent drinking water standards.”
He cited regulatory requirements on discharge into the Yolo Bypass and the Delta have become more restrictive.
“Current concentrations of selenium in our groundwater will not meet the regulatory requirements of our wastewater discharge permit that will go into effect in 2017,” he writes.
He runs through a lengthy discussion of Davis’ environmental legacy and then argues, “Gaining access to surface water from the Sacramento River is yet another step in the responsible stewardship of our natural resources.”
He continues, “The surface water project will eliminate a large unscreened intake facility, reducing the impact on fisheries and habitat. It will improve the quality of our source water, in turn improving the quality of our discharge into the Yolo Bypass and Bay Delta. And as analyzed in the EIR [Environmental Impact Report], it represents the lowest cost and most environmentally sensitive solution to our water supply and wastewater discharge issues.”
However, considerable concerns remain over the impact of siphoning off more water from the river, even during the more reliable wetter months.
On August 16, the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance filed a protest arguing that “According to the Delta Flow Criteria Report, we need to reduce the total annual diversions on the Sacramento River by, roughly speaking, 5,000,000 acre-feet per year in average years to “halt population decline and increase populations of certain species.”
Thus, “Under such circumstances, the Board needs to explain exactly where it will find 44,000 acre-feet per year of water available to service Davis, Woodland, and U.C. Davis’s Applications 30358A and 30358B, or, for that matter, any available water to service these diversions”
Citing the Delta Flow Criteria Report, the CSPA argues that “recent Delta flows are insufficient to support native Delta fishes for today’s habitats.” Moreover, “In order to preserve the attributes of a natural variable system to which native fish species are adapted, many of the criteria developed by the State Water Board are crafted as percentages of natural or unimpaired flows.”
These criteria are as follows: 75% of unimpaired Delta outflow from January through June; 75% of unimpaired Sacramento River inflow from November through June; and 60% of unimpaired San Joaquin River inflow from February through June.
Writes the CSPA, “75% of the unimpaired November through June inflow on the Sacramento needs to be passed through the Delta as outflow to “preserve the attributes of a natural variable system.” At present, the number is as low as 30%, and the April through June period averages 50% of the unimpaired Sacramento River flow.”
The letter continues, “CSPA agrees with your letter of July 16 that the proposed new diversions by Davis, Woodland and U.C. Davis would be area-of-origin diversions. However, there is no evidence that this provides protection to fish and wildlife resources any more than would the standard permit terms. You state on page 2 of your letter: “If there is insufficient water to satisfy all demands, the DWR [Department of Water Resources] and USBR [U.S. Bureau of Reclamation] must either reduce its [sic] 1 exports or increase releases of previously stored SWP [State Water Project] and CVP [Central Valley Project] water over and above the amount required to maintain instream flows in order to support its exports.”
However, sources familiar with the issue argue that if the state begins modifying the unimpaired outflow into the Delta it will have very serious policy implications far beyond the scope of this project.
Delta Stewards such as Senator Lois Wolk and Assemblymember Mariko Yamada have come out strongly in favor of the proposal.
Senator Wolk writes, “I am quite familiar with the decades long effort of this region to improve water quality and water supply reliability while protecting the ecosystem values of the Yolo Bypass, the Sacramento River, and the fragile Delta.”
Most significantly she writes, “I believe that the project before you today is a well thought out solution to the challenging need to improve the quality of water that the region discharges to the Sacramento River. Further, it is my view that this project is consistent with state water policies, and is beneficial to efforts to improve conditions in the Delta.”
“These applications will allow the region to meet looming SWRCB discharge requirements by improving the quality of water coming into treatment facilities; benefiting the water quality in the Sacramento River. This project also provides benefit to the fisheries that depend on the Sacramento River by facilitating the screening of one of the largest unscreened intakes remaining on the Sacramento River,” she continues.
Assemblymember Yamada adds her support as well.
The Assemblymember writes, “The applicants must develop an additional supply of drinking water to remain good stewards of their aquifers. The cities’ applications for water rights will allow diversions from the Sacramento River of 30,000 acre-feet per year (ac-ft/yr) for the City of Davis and UCD, and 15,000 ac-ft/yr for the City of Woodland. This additional water will allow Davis and Woodland to better manage their water supply and maintain water quality standards.”
We will see what the Water Resources Board does here. The project will likely be approved and the board will have to set new policies under the Delta Flow Report. In the short term, Davis will likely have its water supply. The long term may be more problematic.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I consider myself as a pretty “well-informed” environmentalist… the objection to the water diversion seems to be in contradiction to why we are seeking it… to improve compliance with wastewater discharge requirements… so, it appears that those who oppose the diversion would rather we continue to mine groundwater, use it, then distill it to be perfect H2O, at whatever energy/economic cost (including disposal of the ‘remnants” of distillation)… I hope we don’t “go there”… economic costs will be enormous…
There are two separate issues. One is the quality of the discharge. One is the impact of the delta having taken more and more water from the river. People supporting this plan, are looking at the former issue. People opposing this plan, are looking at the latter issue in part.
Depending on time of year, it’s a zero sum game, in large part. Domestic use is much less intensive than AG, as most of the water “consumed” is returned to the system… let the science determine, instead of the rhetoric… too many people trying to male gold from lead.
Forgot a point… well water extraction, and its effluent, actually increases “historical” flows downstream… not ‘natural’…
The Conway Ranch plan is supposed to aid the proposed Delta plan to get more water to Southern CA. It is being argued that this Conway Ranch plan mitigates the negative effects on Sacramento fisheries although the argument that supports this concept does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Ultimately, Yolo County loses agricultural activity/income to further the Delta plan,the result of Southern CA’s political dominance of Northern CA in the legislature. Politics trumps science.
Cal SPA has appealed almost every wastewater discharge and water rights application pending before RWQCB5 or the SWRCB for the past few years. The validity of their complaints are sometimes genuine, but most of the time they are not. Check the record for other cities/district in the Central Valley for recent Cal SPA appeals and you’ll find they not the most reputable source for information about water rights and wastewater discharge permits. Most of their comments are dismissed by the RWQCB and SWRCB in the responses to comments.
Regardless of what people think about the proposed water project, having multiple and varied water supplies increases water reliability, which is a good thing. Whether we want to pay for that increased level of reliability is the question to ask, as you alluded to at the end of your post.
From an article in Dec 21, 2010 Sac Bee: “…Via the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency, the cities have acquired their own rights to water in the Sacramento River. But much of that would likely be available only in the winter and spring. To meet their needs the rest of the year, the cities need to buy water from somebody else. That could be Conaway Ranch. Tonight, the cities will consider a deal to buy 10,000 acre-feet annually from a new Tsakopoulos-led Conaway partnership, at a cost of $79 million over 30 years.”
From an op-ed piece in the same issue of Sac Bee: “Here’s where it gets tricky: Despite his wealth, Tsakopoulos apparently needs extra cash to purchase the 17,300-acre [Conaway] ranch. To secure these funds, he’s struck a deal to sell water to the Metropolitan Water District for an upfront amount of cash. How much water? About 80,000 acre-feet over 25 to 30 years, ramping down as Davis and Woodland tap into the river. And how much cash? No one is saying, but if it’s a comparable price to what Woodland and Davis are paying, it could top $20 million for Tsakopoulos. Some Yolo residents are angry that details of this water transfer became public shortly before supervisors voted 3-2 to endorse it. We share those misgivings. No matter the timelines on Tsakopoulos’ real estate dealings, there’s no excuse for anything less than a full public airing of this complex transaction. That said, the water arrangements with Woodland and Davis have been public for nearly a week, and no one disputes that the two cities face a budding crisis and could shore up their environmental standing by reducing their reliance on groundwater. There are other conservation opportunities at Conaway Ranch. Biologists have found that salmon get fat and happy in years the Yolo Bypass floods, and are advocating for more seasonal flooding there, which Tsakopoulos supports. Such a plan, of course, could affect farming, which is why Yolo will need to be closely involved and compensated for lost tax revenue. Yet there’s a chance for mutual gain and an environmental win-win with this arrangement. Conspiracy theorists should at least acknowledge that.”
It seems to me that there are many complications in this water deal, and we are not going in with our eyes wide open. As usual, I have grave misgivings about the process.
“Biologists have found that salmon get fat and happy in years the Yolo Bypass floods, and are advocating for more seasonal flooding there….”
This may well be but it is not going to improve the salmon upriver migration and spawning which is the critical factor for the natural salmon population.
[img]http://graphics.ink19.com/columns/treadmill/timConway.jpeg[/img]
D2: [i]”The [b]Conway[/b] Ranch plan is supposed to aid the proposed Delta plan to get more water to Southern CA. It is being argued that this [b]Conway[/b] Ranch …”[/i]
I’m not sure if it is a typo or you just don’t know, but it is Conaway, not Conway. I notice you spelling it wrong in every one of your posts on this topic.
You are not alone. The Vanguard misspells Conaway here ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3948:deal-with-tsakopoulos-goes-through-by-a-3-2-vote&catid=76:land-useopen-space&Itemid=99[/url]) and here ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3062:no-stopping-water-project-now&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86[/url]) and here ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3000:whos-serious-about-delta-solutions&catid=82:land-useopen-space&Itemid=107[/url]) and here ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2806:davis-shown-a-way-forward-on-water-but-will-they-take-it&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86[/url]) and here ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2735:water-projects-continue-to-move-forward-with-only-modest-cost-reductions&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86[/url]) and here ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=903:davis-democratic-club-hosts-candidates-forum-for-assembly-and-city-council&catid=50:elections&Itemid=83[/url]) and here ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=612:interview-with-8th-assembly-district-candidate-mariko-yamada&catid=84:elections&Itemid=106[/url]).
I don’t know too much of the history of Conaway Ranch. I only know that the man for whom it is named, B.F. Conaway, was a Yolo County pioneer who came here before the U.S. Civil War. A local amateur historian, Howard Plank, who is 80 years old, has written some about the Conaway Ranch. His father farmed on Conaway Ranch for many years, and Howard also was a farmer in Yolo County.
Looking at the large picture,regarding removal of water from the Sac.River, and then addition of water by effluent, does anybody know what percentage of current ground water consumption in Davis ends up in the Sac. River during a typical year?
The amount of water that ends up in the Sacramento River that we can readily calculate is the amount of wastewater we discharge from the City of Davis WWTP. Of course, there is some groundwater that may migrate to/from the River and/or it’s tributaries, but that’s not readily quantifiable.
I think we the City uses around 16,500 acre feet per year of groundwater (a little less than 15 MGD). I think City wastewater flows are between 6 and 7 MGD on average. The difference between water supply and wastewater generation is the water that is consumed, unaccounted for, not returned to the sanitary sewer, or used for irrigation.
According to Council member Souza, the hearing at the SWRCB continued all day yesterday, and is continuing into today. Souza, as I understand it, has been and will continue to be in attendance.
“Souza, as I understand it, has been and will continue to be in attendance.”
Actually, he’s in an airplane going somewhere right now, according to what he’s posted on Facebook.
DS: “Actually, he’s in an airplane going somewhere right now, according to what he’s posted on Facebook.”
He did mention a planned trip to a beach somewhere, but I had the impression he would attend today’s meeting, but it was only an impression, so I could be wrong. He did say however that the hearing could be heard/seen on streaming video on a computer, so perhaps he plans to view it that way. Don’t know…