Group items tagged

AquAlliance, a water advocacy group in Butte County, has vowed to file a lawsuit to try and stop Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District's plan to drill five new wells in eastern Glenn County. Speakers at a public forum last week in Ord Bend called GCID's plans to pump more groundwater in times of drought "excessively greedy" and potentially harmful to area groundwater levels already taxed to the point that residential wells are running dry.

"Glenn County needs to enact an emergency ordinance just as Colusa County did," said Orland farmer Sharron Ellis, of Save our Water Resources. "Oversight of our resources is the responsibility of our county to protect the public trust."

The project calls for five additional deep-water wells to be drilled along the Glenn-Colusa canal on sites east of Orland and Artois, which would yield 28,500 acre-feet of water taken over approximately eight months during critically dry years, GCID officials said.

Butte County is working with other water leaders in the county toward the state-mandated Sustainable Groundwater Management planning effort, http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/sgm. This involves agencies that manage water creating plans that maintain water supply and water quality.

So far, several water agencies that provide surface water within the county have attended meetings, with a goal of identifying who will govern which areas of the groundwater basins. Mapping out jurisdictions needs to be finished by June of next year.

What will happen with private pumpers in Butte County is still up for discussion. At a recent GSA meeting, Carol Perkins from the Butte Environmental Council, told the Enterprise-Record that her groups hoped private pumpers would be given an active role.

The rainy season is here, however, California is long from being clear of the drought. It would need to rain for 150 days before the state has recovered from the past several years of drought, said Debbie Davis, rural affairs adviser and drought liaison with Gov. Jerry Brown’s Office of Planning and Research.Davis shared an update at a forum about groundwater last week in Chico, held by the Butte Environmental Council.

The groundwater plans for the future won’t do anything to help with the current drought, said Paul Gosselin, Butte County’s executive director of Water and Resource Conservation.

Groundwater has been the state’s water bank, which is appropriate in times of drought, she said. However, there are problems when there is not enough water put back into the ground.O

Letter writer Garry Cooper is right. Facts must guide when considering a moratorium on fracking in Butte County. Here are 12: 1. We are now blessed with deep, fresh, clean groundwater aquifers in our valley. 2. Our groundwater is invaluable as drinking water for people and animals and for irrigation water for our food. 3. Butte County has old wells drilled to collect gas, which lies below and separated by protective impervious layers from our groundwater. 4. Fracking wells would drill completely through our groundwater and its protective impervious layers. 5. Fracking injects, under extreme pressures, huge quantities of many highly toxic chemicals down the drill hole and its horizontal extensions, reaching miles out around the well. Fracking also creates vast quantities of toxic waste liquids.

Support the Citizens Action Network's proposed moratorium on fracking in Butte County. — Doug Fogel, Chico

Oroville >> People are wearing raincoats and watching water run down the gutter. However, the recent rains do not mean the end of California’s four-year drought.Butte County’s water resources scientist Christina Buck said the local rainfall is still only at about 89 percent of average for this time of year. That’s based on rain through last week and beginning Oct. 1, which is the start of the “water year.”

Carol Perkins, a water advocate for Butte Environmental Council, told the members of the Water Commission that she hopes when those groundwater jurisdictions are established, they will consider watersheds, rather than existing water use boundaries. Some examples of watersheds are Butte Creek, Big Chico Creek and the Feather River, she said. “This might give groundwater dependent farmers a more prominent voice in this process,” Perkins said.“As it stands right now, our only voice is the county for those areas.”

John Scott was recently appointed to the nine-member Butte County Water Commission. He'll take the seat of Mark Kimmelshue, who served on the commission for the past 16 years, including serving as commission chair. The decision was made at the most recent meeting of the Board of Supervisors, with supervisors Doug Teeter, Maureen Kirk and Bill Connelly voting for the change.

Scott has been a regular attendee of the meetings of the Water Commission and has championed the cause of groundwater protection for Butte Valley, near Butte College. He has been a member of the board of directors of the Butte Environmental Council since 2009: www.becnet.org/board-directors. Of the nine seats on the Water Commission, five are appointed by members of the Board of Supervisors. Four seats are "at large," including two that are filled by people who use groundwater. Scott will take over a four-year term for an "at large" groundwater position.

he crowd at the Ord Community Hall Wednesday night was decidedly against the idea of five new wells for Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District. The agency provides water to about 1,000 farmers in four counties, and plans the new wells for use when surface water supplies are tight.

Ord Bend >> The consistent and clear message Wednesday night was that people do not like Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District’s plans to drill five new wells. Members of the crowd were also not fans of five existing wells the district drilled previously and is including in the current environmental review.Speakers at a public comment meeting called the plans greedy, unnecessary and potentially harmful to groundwater levels in the area.

Some citizens in Glenn County have started a petition calling for a moratorium on new production wells. Sharron Ellis, who passed a clipboard through the crowds, said a moratorium could stop new wells including those being discussed Wednesday night. So many wells are currently being drilled in the county that a moratorium would only slow down drilling, she said.

To her consternation, Strachan’s colleagues had declined to consider a resolution put forth by the Butte Environmental Council for the county to recognize BEC as a representative of groundwater interests. Supervisors previously passed a comparable resolution for an agricultural group.

Natalie Carter, BEC’s executive director, echoed Strachan’s perspective on equal representation. “Farmers say, ‘We represent domestic users—we have domestic wells,’ and they do, and they absolutely have a shared perspective in that,” Carter said. “They don’t want their domestic wells to go dry. “That’s not to say we shouldn’t have a voice for someone who is only a domestic well user and doesn’t have ties to the agricultural interests in this community, which are so valuable, but shouldn’t be the only voice at the table.” In seeking recognition from the county, BEC wants to become a—not the— representative for users of groundwater from shallow depths. That’s the connection BEC sees between advocacy for groundwater-dependent ecosystems and homeowners who depend on wells—and why Carter says it’s important for the county to recognize multiple constituencies. “[SGMA conveys] a 50-year horizon to sustainability,” she added. “The whole design is local control, and our local voices include a wide variety.”

This article was published on 02.21.13.

A panel of six local water experts speaking at Chico State Tuesday evening (Feb. 19) discussed everything you ever wanted to know about local groundwater issues. Well, everything but the controversial stuff. Chico State’s Book In Common panel discussion “The Tuscan Aquifer—How It’s Used and What We Know About Our Groundwater Resource” educated the audience on Butte County water sources and practices, but didn’t wade into more controversial matters such as shipping North State water south. That was disappointing to some in attendance because the book in common, Unquenchable: America’s Water Crisis and What to Do About It, by Robert Glennon, examines the issue of piping water from relatively wet regions to drier ones.

John Scott, a local water advocate and board member of the Butte Environmental Council, said he enjoyed the talk overall but felt “it didn’t go deep enough.” He said he wanted more emphasis on the best economic uses of local water, whether that be keeping it local or transferring it south. “In Northern California it takes one unit of water to make one unit of food,” he said. “Whereas south of the Delta, it takes eight units of water to make one unit of food.”

But in the northern half of the Central Valley, most people want the tunnels stopped. They say it will suck the Delta dry, destroy farming business in the Delta and the Sacramento Valley, devastate the river’s ecosystem and lead to overuse of groundwater supplies. “This is one of the rare times when farmers and environmentalists can agree that a project is going to be devastating for both their interests,” said Robyn DiFalco, executive director of the Butte Environmental Council. DiFalco notes that the tunnels will not only increase Southern California’s dependence on Northern California’s water, but “they will also make it easier for [Southern California] to get it.”

Many critics of the BDCP have described the tunnels as a means of transferring away the wealth of Northern California to powerful water agencies to the south, which will be paying for a great deal of their enormous cost.

John Merz, executive director of the Chico-based Sacramento River Preservation Trust, says he has little faith in the components of the BDCP intended to restore the Delta’s health. He recognizes that there will be legal limits to how much water the tunnels can remove from the river. “But we don’t think those limits will be enough to protect the river,” Merz said. He added, “Frankly, when it comes to restoring the health of the Sacramento River, we just don’t trust the Brown administration to do the right thing.”

A discussion about water issues, including statewide plans for groundwater sustainability, will be presented by the Butte Environmental Council tonight, 6-7:30 p.m. at the Chico Grange.The grange is located at 2775 Old Nord Ave. To get there, take East Avenue west toward the railroad tracks. Before crossing the tracks, take a right at Old Nord Avenue. Speakers include Debbie Davis, community and rural affairs adviser from Gov. Jerry Brown’s Office of Planning and Research. Marty Dunlap is local attorney and water issues mediator. Paul Gosselin in the executive director of the Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation.

Local environmental groups, including the Butte Environmental Council, AquAlliance, the Sacramento River Preservation Trust, Chico Conservation Voters and Friends of Butte Creek have come out against the proposition. So, too, have fishing groups and others worried about the impacts on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the state’s fishery.

BEC officials note Prop. 1 includes some worthwhile components, such as water conservation and funding for restoring watersheds, but the bond promotes north-to-south water transfers via purchase at a time when existing water rights exceed the actual supply of water by a 5-to-1 ratio. The bond, as BEC points out, does not create more water.

Perkins studied the potential impacts the proposition, including the construction of Sites Reservoir, would have on Northern California groundwater resources.

There’s an easier, cheaper, less destructive way to meet the state’s water needs This article was published on 02.07.13.

Most of the proposals Gov. Jerry Brown put forth in his State of the State speech Jan. 24 were welcomed by most of the lawmakers in his audience. Only one item ran into serious opposition in the hours and days following the speech: the proposal to construct two huge—and hugely expensive—35-mile-long “peripheral tunnels” under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to ship Northern California water south. Different entities—Bay Area water districts, environmentalists, Delta counties, fishing groups—have different reasons for opposing the tunnels. Residents of Northern California, those of us who live where the water is generated, fear that it will divert so much Sacramento River water south that farmers will be forced to use more and more groundwater for irrigation, sucking dry the Tuscan aquifer.

Carter, executive director of the Butte Environmental Council, and Cecil, executive director of the Butte County Farm Bureau, had asked the commission to allow their respective constituents a greater voice in governing local water resources.

BEC took the lead in a coalition of 15 groups and individuals seeking a water advisory committee representing environmentalists and private pumpers.

“I think we’re coming closer to having common ground on this issue and coming together as a county to defend groundwater users that aren’t represented by [an agency] and also those environmental concerns, those beneficial uses of our water in our county,” Carter said after the meeting.

North State water supplies under pressure as drought parches California

This article was published on 02.13.14.

A thousand feet beneath the city of Chico, in the pitch-black waters of the Tuscan Aquifer, time has proceeded for ages without sound or sunlight, mostly unaffected by the world above. But in recent years, an increasing tug of upward force has been moving the Tuscan Aquifer’s water toward the surface of the Earth—drawn, ultimately, by the thirst of fruit trees and vegetable fields hundreds of miles away.

The northern Sacramento Valley faces a serious threat. Gov. Jerry Brown continues to push his twin tunnels project, under the guise of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. The plan proposes a pair of massive tunnels with design capacity sufficient to drain the Sacramento River in a dry year.

As Butte Environmental Council’s (BEC) water policy analyst representing North State communities, I reviewed and analyzed more than 40,000 pages of the plan’s description and environmental review documents. An increased, uncompromised water supply for south of Delta interests is the desire. Big Ag and Big Oil will get more water, you get the bill.

Proponents failed to disclose the true source of water (the Sacramento Valley), but water transfers are written all over this plan. In fact, 34 separate documents reference water transfers. Proponents failed to acknowledge the potential for environmental and social impacts to the areas of origin, but removing up to 1 million acre-feet of water surely would have significant impacts. And, proponents failed to disclose the amount of groundwater that will increase water flow through the tunnels.

Stop shale oil trains along Feather River watershedLake Oroville provides water for 25,000,000 people and 750,000 acres of farmland in California.When a railroad tank car laden with toxic Bakken shale crude oil derails, ending up in the Feather River, all of the water in Lake Oroville will be poisoned.Bakken fracking oil is contaminated with hundreds of highly carcinogenic, toxic and poisonous chemicals that would instantly mix with the water in Lake Oroville, rendering all of the Lake Oroville water unfit for consumption by people or irrigating crops. The longer this contaminated water is in Lake Oroville the more of it will seep into and destroy our groundwater. If contaminated water in Lake Oroville reaches the Thermalito Afterbay it would seep into the shallow aquifer west of the afterbay. The afterbay actually leaks big time underground into the farmland west of the afterbay.

The oil industry will not allow this highly explosive Bakken oil in their pipelines because it would blow up their pipelines. That is why Bakken oil is being shipped by train. Also, the new reinforced Bakken oil railcars have already been involved in oil spills. The liability from this catastrophic event would bankrupt Union Pacific and force its operation into government receivership. There are alternatives to energy. There are no alternatives for water.Demand that toxic Bakken shale oil trains are not allowed along the Feather River watershed, because your economic future is actually over with the first Bakken shale oil spill into the Lake Oroville watershed.— John Scott, Butte Valley

Last week, the Concerned Citizens of Glenn County and a number of other individuals, largely from the Hamilton City area, made known their opposition to the Glenn County Solid Waste Conversion Facility project, overseen by KVB Inc. and at a proposed site along Stony Creek.

Becky Holden and Lindsey Wood, both employees of the Butte Environmental Council and Glenn County residents, both expressed their displeasure with the project in its proposed location and cited the Stony Creek waterway and the groundwater table as reasons for concern. "We're following this issue," Holden, a resident of Ord Bend, said. "We believe this project has submitted an inadequate EIR, and I realize that is still being worked on. The KVB project is the wrong project for Glenn County, and it is especially at the wrong site."

Putting environmentalists and residential well-users on equal footing with farmers, the Butte County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a resolution Tuesday (June 26) supporting the Butte Environmental Council’s involvement in groundwater management.

Butte Environmental Council said that groundwater contamination will likely not happen right away, but they do recommend getting it tested.