Water

State Water Board Adopts Emergency Curtailment Regulation for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Watershed

August 9, 2021

Citing water levels in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta at “alarming lows,” the State Water Resources Control Board (Board) voted on August 3 to approve an emergency curtailment regulation to protect drinking water supplies for public health and safety, prevent salinity intrusion in the Delta and minimize impacts to fisheries and the environment.

Under the regulation, about 5,700 water right holders in the Delta watershed could be ordered to curtail diversions beginning mid-August. Those with riparian or older water rights could also be subject to curtailments if drought conditions worsen.

“It is imperative that we move urgently to better manage the water we still have and prepare for the continuation of drought conditions,” Board Chair E. Joaquin Esquivel said. “The Delta watershed is a resource shared by agriculture, urban areas, rural towns and fish and wildlife, among many others. This decision is not about prioritizing one group over the other, but about preserving the watershed for all, implementing our water rights priority system, and ensuring we manage through this drought, especially for critical health and safety needs.”

The Board was directed to consider emergency regulations authorizing curtailments under Governor Gavin Newsom’s May 10 declaration of a drought state of emergency, which presently encompasses 50 counties.

Ag Council joined with California Farm Bureau and other agricultural groups to provide written comments to the Board expressing concern regarding the very short timeline to review and comment on the regulation, among other issues. Should the drought become more severe, the letter asks for stronger transparency and participation to allow for greater stakeholder engagement to develop solutions. In addition, where feasible, we ask that the Board allow voluntary or cooperative measures and alternative compliance options to comply with the curtailment regulations. The letter also requests triggers to remove curtailments if water becomes available this winter and drought conditions cease.

Ag Council understands that in a time of water scarcity it becomes difficult to meet competing demands for water and recognizes the extreme challenges facing the Board. However, we implore the state to use its authority narrowly to focus on minimal health and safety water needs, Delta salinity control and other extraordinary exceptions detailed in the regulation.

With California facing climate change and drought, Ag Council urges the governor’s administration to prioritize both above and below ground water storage projects moving forward to help our state better prepare for times water scarcity.

California’s current water system was designed for less than 20 million people and was built for the 20th Century, not the 21st. Meanwhile, California has grown to about 40 million residents today.

Ag Council President Emily Rooney said, “Simply put, our current water infrastructure system does not fit the needs of our state. Couple a deficient water system with extreme weather, and the problem is exacerbated. Our droughts are becoming more and more routine and should be considered as part of our normal weather patterns. However, this state continues to act like each drought is a surprise, and we have seen no new meaningful movement on water storage or conveyance projects, even as we experience record budget surpluses. Not only is this approach senseless – it is negligent.”

Ag Council appreciates funds in the state budget for repairs to restore the capacity of the Friant-Kern Canal, the Delta-Mendota Canal, and the California Aqueduct, in addition to funds for crucial groundwater recharge efforts. These are positive steps to improve conveyance and boost water supplies. However, much more must be done. This means investing in projects that would make a major difference to build climate and drought resilience, such as Sites Reservoir, which was approved by the California Water Commission, but it has not moved forward toward completion.

Ag Council looks forward to working with state leaders to help address the challenges before us in the coming months.

The curtailment regulation is awaiting approval at the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) before it becomes effective. Curtailment orders cannot begin until OAL approves the regulation, and it is filed with the Secretary of State. Once finalized, water curtailments could start by mid-August.

Click HERE to read the Board’s statement about the emergency curtailment regulation.  For a copy of the comment letter to the Board, click HERE.

Ag Council Urges Timely Drinking Water Solutions

February 3, 2020

Jeanine Townsend, Clerk to the Board
State Water Resources Control Board
1001 I Street, 24th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814

Subject: Comment Letter – Draft Policy for Developing the Fund Expenditure Plan for the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund

Dear Ms. Townsend:

Agricultural Council of California (“Ag Council”) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Expenditure Plan for the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund (“Draft Plan”). Ag Council represents approximately 15,000 farmers across California, ranging from small, farmer-owned businesses to some of the world’s best known brands. Many of our member companies reside in communities with drinking water concerns and therefore we have been engaged on this issue for the last few years. Our work with the environmental justice community ultimately resulted in SB 200, which is the basis for this fund. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Through the pending Needs Assessment, the State Water Resources Control Board (“SWRCB”) should be able to fully quantify the scope of the drinking water crisis in California. In our discussions prior to SB 200, we were able to estimate the total cost and population of those in the impacted areas through existing studies, so we are confident that rough estimates could be developed at this time. For that reason, we urge SWRCB to add measurable goals and timelines to achieve and resolve the drinking water problem in the Draft Plan. This will keep the underlying goal of resolving the problem at the heart of all of our work and ensure funds are utilized in the most efficient and expeditious way possible.

As a member of the Safe and Affordable Funding for Equity and Resilience (“SAFER”) Advisory Group, at the January meeting, we were asked how the funds should be prioritized. We urge the funds be granted in the following order (based on readiness of the projects): interim water; planning for long-term solutions; operation and maintenance for systems serving small populations in disadvantaged communities; capital costs; and lastly, technical assistance. Again, this order will keep the funds focused on getting water to communities in need. We also recommend that the Draft Plan expand upon when, or what types of systems would eligible to receive Operations and Maintenance (“O & M”) funding. O & M is an integral part of the funding needs, and more clarification needs to be provided around this issue.

There are a number of Key Terms and Definitions in the Draft Plan that are unclear but vital to the execution of the Expenditure Plan:

• “Administrators,” (Page 3; Purpose and Objective; Page 6; Key Terms and Definitions): The ability to act as an administrator may be too broad. We urge SWRCB to highlight thresholds for qualifications or leadership experience to determine who acts as an Administrator for failing systems.

• “Affordability Threshold,” (Page 6; Key Terms and Definitions; Page 10; Funding Terms and Conditions): How does SWRCB plan to develop the affordability threshold? Is it going to be an ongoing factor in the prospective of project funding? The Draft Plan addresses O & M costs, and should continue to do so. How is affordability different than O & M? Is this a number or an equation that will be updated periodically by SWRCB? When is this key term going to be developed?

• “Consistently Fails,” (Page 6; Key Terms and Definitions): We urge SWRCB to offer more clarity regarding this definition. As currently defined, a single exceedance could fall within this definition. We do not believe that this is uniform with what most would associate with consistently failing.

The remainder of our comments support the issues highlighted by the Central Valley Salinity Coalition (“CVSC”) leadership surrounding “responsible parties,” and associated funding obligations:

The Draft Policy proposes that the Fund Solution List should also identify systems/projects for which other parties have an obligation to provide funding support. Other parties may include responsible parties or dischargers pursuing alternative compliance pathways. The language as written is problematic in two respects: 1) the language does not define what constitutes a responsible party, and 2) the funding obligation language implies liability rather than funding responsibilities as identified as part of an alternative compliance pathway.

With respect to defining “responsible party,” we are concerned that as proposed, a “responsible party” could mean anyone for which an allegation has been made as being a responsible party. For the Fund Solution List, responsible parties should only be listed if the State Water Board has gone through a full adjudicatory process that finds that a person is a responsible party under the law. Allegations, suggestions, or general presumptions are not adequate to identify a person as a responsible party on the Fund Solution List.

For the second issue, as it pertains to alternative compliance pathways, the term “funding obligation” implies that there is a certain level of liability. In the context of the Central Valley’s Nitrate Control Program, dischargers are required to identify funding to implement nitrate drinking water projects, which may include local, state, and federal funds. Ultimately, the lack of funding from other sources is not an excuse for compliance with a management zone plan. Unfortunately, the funding obligation language in the Draft Policy turns this backstop language into responsibility in the first instance. This is inconsistent with the Nitrate Control Program and with SB 200 as expressed by the Senate’s Pro Tem, Senator Atkins. After the passage of SB 200, Senator Atkins stated as follows:

Solving California’s water crisis has been one of our top priorities. It’s also been one of our toughest challenges. We had to look at how to provide ongoing funding for the safe water communities need without any burdensome taxes or charges on working Californians or on our farming community. And we had to make sure we prevented any special breaks for those who pollute our drinking water. This week we passed SB 200, which allocates $130 million in ongoing funding to ensure communities throughout our state that suffer from groundwater pollution and a lack of municipal water supplies have safe and affordable drinking water.

To address these concerns, but still maintain the general intent of the language, we support the recommended language from CVSC that this section of the Draft Policy language be replaced with the following paragraph:

The Fund Solution List should also identify systems and projects for which other entities may be addressing drinking water needs as a responsible party, or through efforts associated with compliance pathways. When evaluating these systems for funding, the State Water Board will consider whether it is appropriate to fund the project and seek full or partial reimbursement, fund all the project due to the circumstances involved and not seek reimbursement, or fund part of the project in cooperation with the other entities.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Plan. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at (916) 443-4887.

Sincerely,
Emily Rooney

State Budget to Address Safe Drinking Water Needs in California

June 12, 2019

Governor Gavin Newsom and legislative leadership negotiated a mechanism to address safe drinking water for all Californians, and it is included in the state budget.  A continuous appropriation to ensure safe drinking water in future years is also provided within a budget trailer bill.  Legislators are set to vote on the state budget this week in order to meet the June 15 constitutional deadline to pass a budget.

The budget agreement utilizes both Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF – funded via cap and trade) dollars and General Fund dollars to guarantee $130 million to provide clean drinking water for all Californians.

As an ardent advocate of a solution to address the safe drinking water crisis in California, Ag Council appreciates the governor’s commitment and the efforts of legislators to put together a budget package tackling this crucial issue plaguing low income and disadvantaged communities.

We urge legislators to pass the budget bill and the budget trailer bill because this is real money to address the lack of safe drinking water throughout the state.

Though the agreement does not include all of the elements Ag Council sought, we thank the governor and legislative leadership for working to ensure safe water for Californians who are desperately in need of a solution now.

The 2019-2020 budget bill contains the following: 

• $100 million from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) for Safe Drinking Water;
• $30 million General Fund for Safe Drinking Water; and
• $3.4 million General Fund for the State Water Resources Control Board for administrative costs.

Trailer bill accompanying the budget includes:

• 5 percent GGRF continuous appropriation beginning 2020-21 for Safe Drinking Water;
• Cap of $130 million for Safe Drinking Water;
• If 5 percent of GGRF falls below $130 million in a future budget year, a General Fund backstop is provided to safeguard the Safe Drinking Water Fund beginning in 2023-2024 with a 2030 sunset; and
• Creates the administrative framework of the Safe Drinking Water Program and Fund.

Implementation of the Unimpaired Flows Plan Delayed

November 7, 2018

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) voted to delay implementation of the unimpaired flows plan for another 30 days at the request of Governor Brown and Governor-Elect Newsom.  Late yesterday, the Governor ​and Governor-Elect sent a joint written request to SWRCB members asking for a delay to allow the process of the voluntary settlement agreements to proceed.

After much deliberation and split public comment, the Board ultimately voted in support of the delay.  The vote was not unanimous — there were three votes in support and two abstentions.  The item will come back for consideration on December 11th, with no further delays.

The letter from Governor Brown and Governor-Elect Newsom can be found by clicking HERE.  ​​

Speaker Rendon Statement on the Legislature’s Commitment to Safe, Clean Drinking Water

SACRAMENTO — Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood) released the following statement on the Legislature’s ongoing commitment to safe and clean drinking water:

“The Assembly is committed to identifying a sustainable funding source to ensure safe drinking water for all Californians. That’s why we put Proposition 68 on the ballot, which included $540 million for water projects. In the budget this year, we also included over $25 million for emergency drinking water projects, lead testing and remediation, and other water projects.

“But much more needs to be done, and a piecemeal funding approach won’t work. Building on the hard work of Senator Bill Monning and others in this area, Assemblymembers Eduardo Garcia and Heath Flora have agreed to lead our house’s safe water efforts.

“Working together, the Legislature will ensure that all Californians have access to this fundamental human need.”

Website of Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon: https://speaker.asmdc.org/

Backers of Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund Applaud Reintroduction of Safe Drinking Water Legislation and Urge Swift Vote

SACRAMENTO — Governor Brown and lawmakers have introduced bipartisan consensus legislation–SB 844 and SB 845 authored by Senator Monning (D-Carmel) with Senator Vidak (R-Hanford) as principal coauthor–to solve California’s longstanding drinking water crisis. The legislation builds upon the original proposal for a Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund, with changes made to ensure broad support and effective implementation – because California families with toxic water cannot afford to wait any longer.

The bill has been amended in two key ways:

Changes the mandatory safe drinking water fee to a voluntary program, giving Californians the ability to opt out if they so choose, similar to other existing models such as community choice aggregators. Funding will be used to help disadvantaged communities afford to create, operate and maintain critical drinking water treatment. The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) will also work with stakeholders to develop best practices and other measures deemed necessary to meet the unique needs of low-income Californians as part of the voluntary program.

Preserves the mandatory fees and regulatory implementation provisions on agricultural operations and dairies, while increasing the fertilizer mill fee from the original proposal. Fees are set to collect a fair amount of revenue in proportion to the costs to treat water impacted by nitrate.

Taken together, this safe drinking water legislation represents a major step forward towards finally achieving the California promise of safe, clean, and affordable drinking water for all.

Below is a joint statement from supporters of the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund:

“California is on the verge of a historic step forward to provide safe and affordable drinking water for the estimated one million Californians with toxic tap water. After extensive deliberations with lawmakers and stakeholders, Governor Brown and Senator Monning have introduced a consensus proposal in SB 844 and SB 845 that builds upon the original Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund. We remain in strong support and appreciate the thoughtfulness and deliberation that informed this revised legislation. We also appreciate the bipartisan champions who are leading this effort. And we believe the diversity of strong support from environmental justice, environmental, public health, business, agricultural, labor, local government and water leaders speaks to the strength and urgency of this proposal. We urge a swift vote so that we can finally achieve the California promise of safe, clean, affordable and accessible water for all.”

For more information, please visit fundsafewaterca.org.

Below are individual statements from just some of the many supporters of the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund.

Agricultural Council of California: Emily Rooney, President

“We are wholeheartedly committed to solving this crucial drinking water issue this year. We remain dedicated, along Governor Brown and over 140 other groups and community partners, to solving this ongoing problem for low-income and disadvantaged communities throughout the state. As the Sac Bee Editorial Board said on June 4, ‘This is 21st century California. There is simply no excuse for water that isn’t safe.’”​

Community Water Center: Laurel Firestone, Co-Founder & Co-Executive Director

“For decades, our communities have been given the unacceptable choice of drinking contaminated water from the tap or purchasing costly alternatives. Now, for the first time, we are within reach of a real solution in California and our Legislature must act by passing the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund. This Fund will provide critical resources for drinking water solutions urgently needed in our state. Local community leaders impacted by unsafe water continue to lead the way of an unprecedented group of stakeholders supporting this solution including environmental justice, public health, business, and agriculture. We can’t let this opportunity pass — our families are depending on it.”

Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability: Phoebe Seaton, Co-Director

“California is so close to rectifying this decades-long wrong, this chasm in our image of health, well-being, and equity. We stand this week with the million Californians who still live each day without safe drinking water and ask that the Legislature — north and south, urban and rural, blue and red — make safe drinking water a reality.“

Dolores Huerta

“I support the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund. More than a million Californians are being forced to take a risk each time they drink water from the faucet. This is an injustice and a disgrace in the richest state in the nation. I’m calling on the Legislature to join me in supporting Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund!”

Clean Water Action: Dan Howells, California State Director

“It is unconscionable that nearly one million California residents must risk their health just by drinking from their own faucet. In the next two weeks, the State Legislature will be able to change that, by approving SB 844 and SB 845, authored by Senator Monning.”

Water Foundation: Wade Crowfoot, CEO

“Right now, one in 40 Californians risks exposure to arsenic, nitrate and other dangerous chemicals every time they turn on the tap. We have the laws and tools to fix this. We just need the political will. I applaud Governor Brown and the many legislative and community leaders that have developed a bipartisan solution to our longstanding drinking water pollution problem, and urge lawmakers to approve the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund this year so every family in the state can count on clean water in their homes, schools and workplaces.”

NextGen America: Arnie Sowell, Vice President of California Policy

“Access to clean and affordable drinking water is a universal human right — and California has the responsibility to deliver on that right for everyone in our state. The people of California are watching, and as a progressive leader, California needs to do more to live up to that standard. This month, our representatives have an opportunity to show their commitment to environmental justice and equality by passing SB 844 and SB 845.”

California Environmental Justice Alliance: Gladys Limon, Executive Director

“Safe and affordable drinking water is a human right. Today, however, more than 1 million Californians cannot drink or cook with water from their taps. We are proud to be part of a broad coalition demanding healthy water for all in California, which is a cornerstone of a just society. We urge the Legislature to fulfill this promise by taking swift action to create the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund.”

Silicon Valley Leadership Group: Mike Mielke, Senior Vice President

“Far too many Californians lack access to safe, clean drinking water. This is a shameful problem, especially for the 5th largest economy in the world. California law recognizes the right to “safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes.” After years of deliberation and with fair and workable compromise at the heart of the legislative package, we are finally on the cusp of making this human right to water a reality for all Californians. We must make the most of this opportunity and pass SB 844 and SB 845.”

California Water Service: Justin Skarb, Director of Community Affairs and Government Relations

“It is long past time for every Californian to have access to safe, reliable, and affordable drinking water.  As one of California’s largest water utilities, we believe we must all accept responsibility to address the current divide between those who have safe drinking water and those that do not. The creation of the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund is an important step toward achieving that goal.”

Environmental Defense Fund: Pablo Garza, California Political Director, Ecosystems

“Passing this legislation will ensure that all Californians have access to clean and affordable drinking water. It is unconscionable to delay any longer. Clean water is a fundamental right and key element to making all California communities more resilient in the face of climate change.”

Western Growers: Dave Puglia, Executive Vice-President

“By passing these measures, the Legislature can deliver on the promise of clean drinking water for all Californians and provide a measure of certainty to the family farmers who sustain the economies of the regions most affected by these challenges.”

American Heart Association: Dr. Sanchez-Mata, American Heart Association

“To improve cardiovascular health, a key priority for the American Heart Association is to encourage populations to replace their sugar-sweetened beverage consumption with healthier beverage choices like water. Creating a system that provides safe and affordable water is an important strategy to increase consumption of water and decrease consumption of unhealthy sugary drinks. We are proud to support these bills to ensure safe and affordable drinking water for children and families in order to safeguard the health of our communities.”

Western United Dairymen: Lucas Deniz, President of Western United Dairymen

“California dairy families are committed to being an engaged partner for the communities we work in and serve. Providing the citizens of the state with certainty to drinking water access is a fundamental responsibility we all have.”

Ag & Business Stakeholders Join Together to Urge State Water Board to Reject Proposed Flow Amendments

Letter drafted by the legal team at California Farm Bureau Federation and signed by numerous organizations.  Please see the full list at the end of the letter below. 

Ag Organizations Urge Water Commission to Implement 2014 Water Bond without Bias against Surface Water Storage Projects

Mr. Armando Quintero, Chair
Carol Baker, Vice Chair
Andrew Ball, Member
Joseph Byrne, Member
Daniel Curtin, Member
Joe Del Bosque, Member
Maria Herrera, Member
Catherine Keig, Member
David Orth, Member

California Water Commission
P.O. Box 942836
Sacramento, CA 94236-0001

RE: Water Storage Investment Program

Dear Commission Members:

The organizations listed below were on the front line of securing legislative passage and public approval of Proposition 1 in 2014.  We thereafter engaged in the administrative process to ensure the intent of this measure is fully implemented.  Based on the alarming recent comments by staff of the California Water Commission (Commission), which are inconsistent with the language and intent of Proposition 1, we are now writing to express our objection and disappointment.

Chapter 8 of Proposition 1 was intentionally designed to provide funding for large surface water storage projects, such as Sites Reservoir and Temperance Flat Reservoir.  This has now been undercut by staff assertions that the projects do not provide sufficient public benefits.  Water Code 79751(a) clearly calls out the CALFED Record of Decision Projects as eligible for bond funds and these large surface water storage projects are an integral piece of the success of Proposition 1.  They will provide a new and reliable surface water supply that will be used to enhance environmental habitat, promote watershed health and restoration, improve regional self-reliance, and enable communities to bring their groundwater basins into balance under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.

Chapter 8 specifies that the Commission must select projects through a competitive public process that ranks projects “based on the expected return for public investment as measured by the magnitude of public benefits provided” (Wat. Code § 79750(c).)  The public benefits that may be funded are defined in Water Code section 79753(a)(1)-(5):

1. Ecosystem improvements, including changing the timing of water diversions, improvement in flow conditions, temperature, or other benefits that contribute to restoration of aquatic ecosystems and native fish and wildlife;

2. Water quality improvements in the Delta, or in other river systems, that provide significant public trust resources, or that clean up and restore groundwater resources;

3. Flood control benefits, including, but not limited to, increases in flood reservation space in existing reservoirs by exchange for existing or increased water storage capacity in response to the effects of changing hydrology and decreasing snow pack on California’s water and flood management system;

4. Emergency response;

5. Recreational purposes.

Numerous storage projects can provide some of these public benefits, but none can provide all and to the magnitude as Sites Reservoir and Temperance Flat Reservoir can.

All of the foregoing was known to the Legislature and to the Governor when AB 1471 (Rendon) was approved by a near unanimous vote of the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor.  The public then added its stamp of approval with passage of Proposition 1 in 2014, with 67% of the voters supporting the measure.

After all this, imagine our alarm when staff concluded, contrary to the input of highly regarded engineering and other technical professionals, that Sites Reservoir and Temperance Flat Reservoir did not provide adequate public benefits to justify funding under Chapter 8.  Additionally, the barring of applicants from asking staff for clarification of their findings because of the appeals process shows a clear departure of the Commission from the language of Chapter 8 and the will of the voters.

The Governor made it clear in his State of the State Address on January 25, 2018, that surface storage would be built.  As to Proposition 1 he stated, “In addition, you passed — and more than two-thirds of voters approved — a water bond that invests in safe drinking water, conservation and storage.  As a result, we will soon begin expending funds on some of the storage we’ve needed for decades.”  Further, “Difficulties challenge us but they can’t discourage or stop us. Whether it’s roads or trains or dams or renewable energy installations or zero-emission cars, California is setting the pace for America.  Yes, there are critics, there are lawsuits and there are countless obstacles.  But California was built on dreams and perseverance and the bolder path is still our way forward.”

The Commission needs to ensure project applicants are able to provide the information required for proper scoring of public benefits, without prejudice against large surface storage projects the voters supported and expect.  We ask the Commission to immediately correct this abuse of discretion and implement the language and intent of Chapter 8 as it was meant to be.

Sincerely,

Will Scott, Jr., African American Farmers of California
Tricia Geringer, Agricultural Council of California
Nat DiBuduo, Allied Grape Growers
Andrea Harvey-York, Almond Alliance
Bill Ferriera, Apricot Producers of California
Debbie Murdock, Association of California Egg Farmers
Carl Hoff, Butte County Rice Growers Association
Bob Brown, CALAMCO
Terry Gage, California Agricultural Aircraft Association
Chris Zanobini, California Association of Nurseries and Garden Centers
Michael Miiller, California Association of Winegrape Growers
Jane Townsend, California Bean Shippers Association
Joel Nelsen, California Citrus Mutual
Roger Isom, California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association
Darrin Monteiro, California Dairies, Inc.
Chris Valadez, California Fresh Fruit Association
Chris Zanobini, California Grain and Feed Association
Karli Quinn, California Pear Growers Association
Tim Johnson, California Rice Commission
Chris Zanobini, California Seed Association
Ann Quinn, California State Floral Association
Mike Montna, California Tomato Growers Association
Laura Brown, California Women for Agriculture
Michael Kelley, Central California Almond Growers Association
Case Van Steyn, Dairy Farmers of America
Brandon Harder, Farmers’ Rice Cooperative
Kirk Squire, Horizon Nut Company
Manuel Cunha, Nisei Farmers League
Barry Powell, North Valley Ag Services
Dan Vincent, Pacific Coast Producers
Roger Isom, Western Agricultural Processors Association
Dave Puglia, Western Growers
Tyler Blackney, Wine Institute

Cc: The Honorable Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor, State of California
John Laird, Secretary, California Natural Resources Agency
Nancy McFadden, Executive Secretary, Office of the Governor
Kim Craig, Deputy Cabinet Secretary, Office of the Governor

Ag Council Provides Comments to DWR on Draft Groundwater Regulations

California Department of Water Resources
Attn: Lauren Bisnett, Public Affairs Office
P.O. Box 942836
Sacramento, CA 94236

Submitted Electronically

RE: Draft Groundwater Sustainability Plan Emergency Regulations

Dear Ms. Bisnett:

Agricultural Council of California (Ag Council) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) Draft Groundwater Sustainability Plan Emergency Regulations (Draft Regulations). Ag Council represents approximately 15,000 farmers across California, ranging from small, farmer-owned businesses to some of the world’s best-known brands. As such, many of our member companies and their farmer owners will be regulated under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Ag Council has been engaged in discussions over SGMA since its inception and also currently participates in DWR’s Agricultural Advisory Group.

Ag Council values DWR’s transparency in its regulatory development process. DWR’s collaboration with stakeholders and other state agencies is prevalent throughout the draft regulations. Additionally, we thank DWR for allowing local control and jurisdiction over development of their groundwater plans. DWR has provided flexibility in many areas for localities to determine their future course with SGMA, and we support this draft regulation in this regard.

Ag Council has concerns with some areas in which DWR requires further obligations of localities than what was deemed necessary by SGMA. Many of these additional requirements will increase costs and draw out timelines of the regulation. Ag Council is hopeful that DWR will take the following issues into consideration when finalizing its regulations.

Cost

Ag Council urges DWR to minimize the cost of this regulation to the greatest extent possible. Reporting requirements of the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSA) are outlined in great detail, and it is evident that local agencies will need to hire technical experts and consultants to complete the paperwork in order to comply with the regulation. DWR should allow GSAs to use existing data and measurement tools to create and comply with their Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSP). Requiring the development of new information or monitoring tools will significantly add to the cost of the regulation in an unnecessary way.

Furthermore, the draft regulations create a possible “Coordinating Agency,” as a sole point of contact with DWR for the purposes of SGMA. While it is not clear whether or not this is a requirement, it potentially creates an additional governmental agency in addition to the GSAs. DWR should grant flexibility to the localities to self-appoint a member or board to interact with DWR. There is no need for another agency to be created for the sole purpose of communicating with DWR when this could be handled by the GSAs.

Timing

Implementation of SGMA is on a very aggressive timeline. Ag Council understands the constraints DWR and localities are under to comply with the regulation. In the regulation, DWR requires GSPs to be submitted with an open, public comment period of 60 days, however, DWR has two years to approve the plans. If DWR does not approve the GSP and notifies a GSA at the end of two years, it could run into the timeframe in which the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has the obligation to intervene, by the time any corrective action is taken. Ag Council urges DWR to either notify GSAs earlier of potential noncompliance or create another notification process that does not conflict with SWRCB intervention. The ambitious timelines of SGMA may require tighter turn-around times for each of the regulatory agencies as well.

Additionally, Ag Council is concerned with the ability of GSPs to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If there are projects within various GSPs that require getting through the CEQA process, timing of completion of these projects could conflict with the SWRCB intervention plans. Going through CEQA is not an expeditious process. Furthermore, the act of going through CEQA will greatly add to the cost of each of the plans.

Ag Council urges DWR to consider implications to local governments and minimize these issues as much as possible. Ag Council also encourages DWR to consider the following matters specific to the proposed regulations as it finalizes them.

352.4 Best Management Practices

SGMA does not require GSAs to adopt best management practices. If an agency chooses to do so, that should be within the discretion of that agency. So long as the GSA is meeting the requirements of SGMA through the development of its plans, meeting its milestones and eventually achieving sustainability within the required timeframes, the GSA should not be required to take on additional, potentially redundant, steps in order to fulfill its duties under SGMA. Best Management Practices should not be required as part of a GSP.

354.10 Notice and Communication

Ag Council urges DWR to request that measures be taken by local GSAs to conduct specific outreach to all groundwater users potentially impacted by SGMA within their GSP. These outreach efforts can be included in subsection (e) and implemented into the GSA’s communication plan.

 354.18 Water Budget

SGMA only requires water budgets for the use of coordination agreements between multiple GSAs. The draft regulations proposed by DWR require water budgets for each GSP. This is beyond the scope of SGMA and will greatly add to the overall cost and regulatory burden for each GSA. Furthermore, subsection (b) requires historical data and trends outlining the demand for surface water supply and how historical conditions impacted the basins. While historical information will be useful, it may not be available within all basins at this time.

354.22-§354.30 Introduction to Sustainable Management Criteria, Sustainability Goal, Undesirable Results, Minimum Thresholds, Measureable Objectives

Ag Council supports DWR’s allowance of GSAs to define terms and goals such as “undesirable results,” “minimum thresholds,” “sustainability goal,” and “measureable objectives” for each sustainable management plan. This allows the GSAs to have some flexibility to acknowledge differences in hydrology, land use plans and other regional conditions, while DWR provides parameters so that the terms are not too loosely defined.

354.44 Projects and Management Actions

This section outlines the items to be included in the description of the projects and management actions adopted to meet measurable objectives and prevent undesirable results. GSPs must outline plans and relevant timetables for completion. Contingency plans also must be developed in the event that groundwater basins do not adequately respond. However, nothing describes the process or what to expect should a project fail to get the permitting approved in a reasonable timeframe to ensure it is consistent with the requirements of the GSP.

If a certain project exceeds the regulatory timetable due to permitting issues, does this automatically trigger SWRCB intervention? Ag Council urges DWR to highlight steps GSAs should take if permitting projects becomes an issue within implementation of GSPs.

355.2 Department Review of Initial Adopted Plan

Subsection (e) states that DWR has two years to determine whether or not an initial GSP is adequate, conditionally adequate or inadequate. Ag Council is concerned that if DWR exercises its authority and waits the full two years to make this determination, the timetable is significantly shortened for SWRCB intervention. Therefore, a GSA could be operating under a GSP it thinks is adequate, but then learns the GSP is inadequate at a time when it may be too late to avoid SWRCB intervention. DWR should allow for a right to cure timeframe so GSAs have time to incorporate potential changes and resubmit the GSP for approval prior to SWRCB intervention.

354.34 Monitoring Network

Ag Council agrees that a GSP should not adversely impact a neighboring basin. However, a GSA should not have to speculate as to whether or not an adjacent basin will be able to meet a sustainability goal as highlighted in subsection (a)(5). There are likely too many factors beyond a neighboring GSAs understanding in order to make an adequate determination. If negative impacts are underway, the basins should coordinate to minimize or mitigate those impacts and provide notice to DWR of their plans.

355.4 Criteria for Plan Evaluation

This section highlights the parameter that will dictate whether or not a plan is adequate as well as DWR’s assessment criteria in determining whether the GSP is likely to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin. The terms in this section are not egregious, but there is significant information lacking. The draft regulations do not highlight the steps taken that lead to SWRCB intervention.

Ag Council requests that DWR highlight some of the following information in this section:

• What specific actions will be taken to indicate that SWRCB is going to exercise its authority to intervene?
• What type of notification will a GSA receive prior to SWRCB intervention?
• How long is the SWRCB intervention process?
• What are the estimated costs of SWRCB intervention?
• What specific actions are needed in order to complete the SWRCB intervention process and allow GSA management of a regional area again?

Ag Council would welcome information on the SWRCB intervention process within the draft regulations. This would provide additional clarity to GSAs as to how DWR and SWRCB will interact and outline expectations relating to the intervention process so that localities can take the necessary steps to comply with SGMA and prevent SWRCB intervention.

Thank you for your time and consideration of our comments. If you have any specific questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (916) 443-4887.

Sincerely,

Emily Rooney

President

Ag Council Comments on Safeguarding California Draft Plan

November 30, 2015

JR DeLaRosa
Assistant Secretary for Climate Change and Energy
California Natural Resources Agency
1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311
Sacramento, CA 95814

Subject: Draft Report, Safeguarding California: Implementing Action Plans

Dear Mr. DeLaRosa:

Thank you for the opportunity for Agricultural Council of California (Ag Council) to comment on the Draft Report entitled Safeguarding California: Implementing Actions Plans. As background, Ag Council is a member-supported organization advocating for more than 15,000 farmers across California, ranging from farmer-owned businesses to the world’s best-known brands.

Ag Council appreciates the sections included in the agricultural chapter of the Draft Report released in October 2015. The plan to help agriculture adapt to a changing climate and the disruptions farmers may experience is a positive first step toward understanding our vulnerabilities and boosting our resiliency.

The Draft Report states, “One of the most practical and cost effective methods for ensuring aquifers are sustainable into the future is utilizing on-farm groundwater recharge during months of heavy precipitation.” Ag Council agrees that groundwater recharge on agricultural lands is critical to ensuring long-term use of groundwater for multiple purposes and for future needs. However, we stress the importance of finding ways to incentivize this activity through streamlined permitting and/or cost recovery for famers who have to forgo crops for recharge projects.

The Draft Report also discusses the state’s responsibility under Prop 1 to fund the public benefits of water storage projects through the Water Storage Investment Plan. We support and look forward to the implementation of this effort, particularly as it relates to surface water projects, which have multiple benefits and provide flexibility to our water management system.

We appreciate your consideration and the opportunity to comment. Should you have any questions or need anything further from us, please feel contact Rachael O’Brien at (916) 443-4887 or via email at rachael@agcouncil.org.

Respectfully,

Emily Rooney
President

Ag Council Opposes Bill To Publicly Shame Commercial & Industrial Water & Energy Use