Author Archives: Francine

Comments on 2 Revised Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plans

In April 2024, AquAlliance submitted comments for the Colusa & Corning Revised Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plans.

  • The Colusa Subbasin covers the majority of valley portion Glenn and Colusa counties.
  • The Corning Subbasin covers southern Tehama County and northeastern Glenn County.
  • View Groundwater Subbasin Boundaries map

Two excerpts from our comments are highlighted below to catch your attention. Click these links for the full comments.

Highlights:

1) “Sadly, the energy and commitment to address the known challenges [in the Colusa Subbasin] are lacking… The Revised GSP may contend that “The GSAs have expressed a clear and firm commitment to develop and implement these Programs on a clear and specific timeline to address and prevent overdraft, groundwater level decline, and subsidence and to mitigate potential undesirable results for drinking water well users during the GSP implementation period,” but will delay domestic well mitigation until it writes a plan by January 2026 and  demand management implementation until January 2027 if it is still needed and they have a program in place. The ‘clear and firm commitment’ is just big talk for a Subbasin with people and the environment in deep trouble as AquAlliance demonstrates in these comments. Future plans, programs, monitoring, reporting, ‘preparing to implement,’ ‘evaluation of groundwater conditions,’ ‘overdraft concerns,’ mean nothing when “In particular, the GSAs have identified declining groundwater levels over the past 15 to 20 years in the Orland-Artois and Arbuckle- College City areas.” (p. 6-3) Who do the GSAs, power brokers in the Subbasin, local government, and the State of California think they are fooling?!”

2) ‘The [Colusa] Plan assumes that groundwater sustainability of the Subbasin will be achieved in part because Central Valley Project and other surface waters will be available for recharge. It fails to note that groundwater recharge alters the rights to groundwater[1] and may not be a solution acceptable to Subbasin users. It also fails to demonstrate that creating the space for recharge harms groundwater dependent farms and residential property as well as streams and habitat for myriad species. Conjunctive use with recharge has long been the plan of Glenn Colusa Irrigation District and the Bureau of Reclamation – to take over the basin and manipulate it for the benefit of moneyed interests, not the local people or environment.”

[1] Los Angeles v. Glendale (1943) 23 Cal.2d 68, 76-78; Los Angeles v. San Fernando (1975) 14 Cal.3d 199, 258-60; Stevens v. Oakdale Irrigation District (1939) 13 Cal.2d 343, 352-43; Crane v. Stevinson (1936) 5 Cal. 2d 387, 398.

IN THE NEWS: Glenn and Colusa groundwater agencies finalize new sustainability plan

Concerns persist about agriculture, domestic wells, and subsidence


By Todd Bishop for the Valley Mirror

AquAlliance is grateful that the Sacramento Valley Mirror newspaper remains interested in reporting on local water issues, so that our efforts on behalf of the public are noticed.

Read the April 24, 2024 article below. To download the two pages of the article, click the DOWNLOAD link following.

Note:

  • The Corning Subbasin covers southern Tehama County and northeastern Glenn County.
  • The Colusa Subbasin covers the majority of valley portion Glenn and Colusa counties.
  • View Groundwater Subbasin Boundaries map.

BishopRevisedColusaGSPApprovedSacValleyMirror042424Download

To subscribe to the Sacramento Valley Mirror: https://www.patreon.com/valleymirror

Remembering Kim

by Barbara Vlamis

Kyran “Kim” Daniel Mish was born in 1952 and escaped the confines of human life in 2023.

His professional experience was mostly concentrated in the development and deployment of large-scale computational models for engineered and natural systems (see more below). My first really clear memory of Kim was at the Barris’ Durham home in the 1990s, where he almost danced around the living room as he explained how aquifers work. Part of the drama was a glass with stones in it to illustrate pores. The energy and enthusiasm were a little overwhelming at first, but contagious. Not long after that, Kim described the form of science used by California water agencies as “put your finger in an electrical outlet to see what happens!” (See footnote for later elaboration. [1])

Kim’s humor was endlessly available and entertaining in the depths of very serious discussions together about challenging local, state, and federal agencies. “Their approach is to make a laundry list of assertions … that sound technical, but that really have no substance. It’s the environmental version of what… [Stephen] Colbert refers to as ‘truthiness,’ i.e., something that is intended to sound correct, but not to be correct.”

In December 1995, Kim presented material to help the public and policy makers grasp the issues with the Butte Basin Water Users Association groundwater model (lucky to have it on video). The audience was filled with skeptics, farmers, and county government folks who thought their first steps to understand the groundwater basin were unassailable. He dazzled them into silence.

In 2008 he returned and spoke about the importance of working together on science that would shape the future. Before he moved into natural and engineered systems, Kim provided one of his favorite quotes from author William Gibson: “The future is already here. It’s just unevenly distributed.” In other words, “if you know where to look, you can see the future,” he added. He complimented the foresight of the Bidwells who made decisions about land use planning, parks, and education from which the current population benefits and lauded local organizations that “want to make things better for everybody.”

Years later, although he lived many states away, Kim was still interested in our efforts in northern California. “There are several pithy retorts here, including the all-too-obvious realization that these statements ignore the fact that subsidence is by definition nonlinear (hence the ‘small disturbances can’t produce the problem’ — according to that view, then climate change cannot occur, either, nor can ANY irreversible phenomenon!), and the equally obvious problem that the absence of short-term evidence of subsidence doesn’t imply that it’s not happening, because the cause and the effect of subsidence in clays can be widely separated in time… just ask the folks in the San Joaquin Valley!” (2013)

Kim confided that his attachment to northern California started in his young adult years when he lived in the Salmon Mountains west of Mount Shasta. At that time, his background was in biology, so he loved hiking in the conifers and worked on the effort to stop a paved road for logging that would have devastated lands used for sacred purposes by the Karuk, Tolowa, and Yurok Indian tribes. [2]

In 2014, Kim put his talents to work to benefit the public and California during the State’s effort to construct the Twin Tunnels that planned to syphon massive amounts of water from the Sacramento River for points south of the Delta. He also evaluated the One Tunnel proposal in 2022. Of course we communicated many times during the near collapse of Oroville Dam in February 2017. “I’ve been really worried about the safety of the reservoir since the main spillway blew out last week. We’ve seen this movie before: it’s eerily similar to the decisions (and engineering gaffes) that almost took out Glen Canyon Dam about 30 years ago.”

One of his college-aged sons asked him some time ago why he worked with me so long. He replied, “I worked with you because you and I were both on the same side in these various debates. He asked me what side we were on, and my answer was ‘the side of reality.’ I told him that you wanted accurate science and engineering in these water projects, and so did I, so we found ourselves working together.” (2008)

There was a period where our friendship became more personal as we explored the pain and distress of losing loved people. It finally felt like I could contribute to this dear man during a time when great intellect was not sufficient. In closing, here is what I placed on the obituary web site: “Dear Kim, Your absence from Earth brings waves of wishes: to hear your voice, to engage with your tremendous energy and mind, to plan how to stop the next insidious water plan, to hear about your love of places and people. You are greatly missed!”

Professional Background (written by Kim Mish in 2022 with critique of the One Tunnel project):

Kyran Daniel Mish has long provided pro bono independent technical assessments about topics of relevance to California resource allocation practices. His service in these roles has been motivated by the desire to include the public interest in resource allocation decisions, and his work has involved collaborations with various environmental organizations in California.

Mish has served on the Engineering and Applied Mathematics faculty of the University of California, Davis, and in the faculty ranks of the School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science at the University of Oklahoma. He served as the founding director of the Center for Computational Engineering at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, and although he no longer lives in California, he continues to find opportunities to contribute to public discussions on topics in engineering and science in the Golden State. Mish’s educational background is from the University of California, Davis, where he earned a B.S. in applied mathematics, and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Civil Engineering.

[1] Mish, Kyran D. 2008. Commentary on Ken Loy GCID Memorandum. p. 7.
“Towards a Better Plan for Characterizing Aquifer Response

“The GCID [Glenn Colusa Irrigation District] plan is not scientific research in any recognizable form. It is more akin to Russian Roulette, in that “the experiment” amounts to acting out a proposed plan of action without due regard for the risks inherent in that plan. If we want to know what happens when we stick our finger in an electric outlet, we can either (a) just stick our finger in the outlet and thus “do the experiment” or we could instead (b) learn more about the physics of fingers and outlets and thus construct a good model for the action, but with a more realistic assessment of the risks involved. Note that only the latter approach ‘does no harm.’

“Learning how an aquifer responds to large-scale groundwater extraction by simply pumping water out of it without due attention to the risks and uncertainties involved does not constitute science, any more than jamming a finger into a wall outlet is science. The aquifer deserves better science that this, and so do the people of Northern California.”

[2] For a comprehensive history of this proposed road project, see material by Professor Emeritus JeDon Emenhiser, Department of Politics, Cal Poly Humboldt: https://politics.humboldt.edu/g-o-road-controversy-american-indian-religion-and-public-land.

Comments Submitted on Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan

1.18.24: AquAlliance spent significant time submitting comments on the draft Staff Report/Supplemental Environmental Document (“SED”) for the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (“Plan”).

The State Water Resources Control Board’s plan seeks to curtail some water diversions from streams and rivers to help struggling fish and water quality (the plan has been delayed for 20 years). The SWRCB is at fault for the water quality and fish mess because over the decades they approved water diversions five times over what could ever be available.1 They finally produced this EIR equivalent that at least opines that surface water curtailment could affect groundwater use, but they have no mitigation prepared to stop groundwater damage as required by CEQA. This is where AquAlliance comes in, pointing out the plan’s failures to encourage corrections.

1 The unimpaired runoff of the Sacramento River basin is 21.6 MAF, but the consumptive use claims are an extraordinary 120.6 MAF – 5.6 times more claims than there is available water.

Lawsuit Filed Against DWR 

1.19.24: As we continue to fight the One Tunnel project, AquAlliance joined five other NGOs on January 19, 2024, to challenge the Environmental Impact Report in court. Our role starts with our expertise to tear into the EIR’s failure to acknowledge how it would impact groundwater in the Sacramento Valley and foothills and facilitate destructive water transfers. This particular EIR is very vulnerable to litigation since DWR didn’t even analyze the impacts from operating a tunnel – they just looked at construction impacts, which is illegal under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 

“One Tunnel” Court Victory!

1.17.24: AquAlliance, other NGOs, and a few local governments succeeded in a challenge to the funding of the Newsom Administration’s One Tunnel project. This is a huge victory. The California Dept. of Water Resources (DWR) tried to issue bonds to fund the One Tunnel to avoid having the voters or legislature agree to fund it. The effort failed! 

You will recall that no matter what these massive diversion projects are called – Peripheral Canal, Bay Delta Conservation Plan, Twin Tunnels, Delta Conveyance, One Tunnel – the goal has been and is to have an easier time siphoning more water out of the Sacramento Valley and River, mostly for desert agriculture.

AquAlliance has been involved in fighting each effort since we were formed in 2009 – with significant success. Because we represent the watershed under threat and operate out of the county where the State Water Project starts (Oroville Dam), we have unique standing for court cases. Additionally, AquAlliance is the only activist NGO in California that has groundwater protection as its primary focus and is a leader in challenging water transfers.  

To read more, go to Maven’s Notebook:
COURTHOUSE NEWS: California judge rules state can’t issue bonds to finance Delta tunnel project

AquAlliance Speaks Out on Tuscan Water District ‘Water Grab’

AquAlliance Executive Director Barbara Vlamis
was quoted in the Los Angeles Times (Dec. 2, 2023):

See the full article by Staff Writer Ian James in the Los Angeles Times

“You put in the infrastructure, you start taking over the groundwater basin for private profit, and it changes everything… It becomes this economic engine for these people that want to take over ownership.”

Vlamis argued the area’s current overuse of groundwater, which is not as severe as other parts of the Central Valley, could easily be addressed through conservation, estimating that if growers would save about 5%, that would be enough.

Vlamis said banking water would require a drawdown of the aquifer to create storage space, which would diminish the flow of streams, threaten groundwater-dependent trees and put shallow domestic wells at risk of running dry.

“I think it is a damaging effort that could potentially destroy this region as we know it.”

Even though Tuscan Water District supporters say they do not intend to transfer water out of the area and have restrictions in place to insure that the water stays local, Vlamis said the district’s bylaws could easily be changed to allow for water to be moved out of the area, and the county ordinance simply outlines a procedure that would have to be followed. 

“Even if that’s not their intention, to transfer water out of here, all it takes is an emergency proclamation by the governor, and all local ordinances and everything are thrown out,” Vlamis said. “You may have honorable intentions, but once the state wants more water, and you’ve put in the infrastructure to facilitate this, all bets are off.”

Vlamis said she’s convinced there is a longstanding interest among state and federal water officials to “integrate” the county’s groundwater into the state’s supplies, allowing for water to be transferred out of the area.

See the full article by Staff Writer Ian James in the Los Angeles Times

Tuscan Water District a Trojan Horse for Water Marketeers

Long History of Planning to Manipulate Tuscan Aquifer for Profit

 

 

Chico Enterprise-  Record, 12.3.23

In 2011 the Glenn Colusa Irrigation District’s study (funded by DWR and USBR) described how the Tuscan Aquifer should be exercised aggressively to meet California-wide water demand through water transfer markets. The report envisions groundwater recharge in Butte County and extraction in Glenn and Colusa Counties.

The report promises that the Tuscan, if integrated into California’s water supply system, would provide major water supply reliability benefits. BUT, “it will take decades before we know enough about the aquifer dynamics to devise … a risk- free regime, and yet it would be foolish to require that the aquifer remain an underperforming asset in the interim. Fortunately, there is an approach that can permit more aggressive use of the Lower Tuscan Formation while we improve our understanding of how best to manage it. We can do that by providing current Tuscan groundwater users a risk-free water supply alternative in the form of a supplemental surface water supply.”

The Tuscan Water District is instrumental in the water grab by “Formation of a new water district with the primary purpose, power to import, transfer and recharge water within the Vina and a portion of the Butte Sub-basins.” Senior water diverters in the Sacramento Valley are using Sustainable Groundwater Management Plans (GSPs) as a Trojan Horse to conduct experimental recharge/extraction projects, capturing ownership of Valley aquifers, entrenching their participation in the California water market. AquAlliance.net has mounted a legal challenge to the Vina/Butte/Colusa GSPs which provide the roadmap for water marketers to privatized groundwater banks.

– Jim Brobeck
AquAlliance Water Policy Analyst

We Beat Westlands Again!

A state appeals court just ruled in favor of AquAlliance and partners against Westlands Water District. The court denied Westlands’ attempt to move forward with a permanent contract as opposed to its renewable contracts that reflect the district’s junior status in the water seniority system. The proposed 2019 contract was a biased attempt by a former Westlands’ lawyer and lobbyist, Interior Secretary David Bernhard, to require the federal government to provide unreasonable, unsustainable, and unattainable amounts of water to the district.

The contract would also have cut monies owed to the federal government by over $200,000,000 and subverted obligations held by Westlands to implement drainage studies and solutions for the pollution caused by irrigation in certain parts of its service area. The LA Times reported at the time of the contract proposal that “The size of Westlands’ water contract has long been controversial in light of the soil problems that plague the 600,000-acre district. Much of it sits atop a clay layer, which prevents water from draining easily and concentrates toxic metals, including naturally occurring selenium.” By making permanent the delivery of Delta water to Westlands through the Central Valley Project (CVP), the contract would have placed unreasonable pressure on the federal government to provide water in perpetuity that the CVP cannot sustainably or responsibly deliver, violating numerous laws including the Public Trust Doctrine.

AquAlliance is thrilled at the victory.

Remembering Barbara Castro

by B. Vlamis

Barb Castro on Mother’s Day 2022. She shared this photo with one of her valuable medical updates she would e-mail many friends.

A lovely spirit, sweet friend, dedicated colleague, and environmentalist took flight on December 4, 2022 in Chico. Barbara Castro’s tenacious attempts to beat back cancer once again, reached an end with family and friends around her.

I knew Barb first as a colleague who was part of the vernal pool committee formed in the early 2000s. She worked for the Red Bluff office of the California Department of Water Resources, at the time, using her botanical skills and education.

Barb brought an unequaled enthusiasm to every meeting, field trip, conference, and stroll. 

She was an instrumental part of four vernal pool conferences held in Sierra Nevada Brewing Company’s Big Room and the field trips that followed. Barb and Rob Schlising’s 2018 conference presentation, The Vernal Pool Landscape At The Nature Conservancy’s Vina Plans Preserve, was a marvelous history of the work done at The Nature Conservancy’s Vina Plains Preserve over 35 years.

Our vernal pool committee was later named the vernal pool landscapes committee, which then added a Vernal Pool Recovery Implementation Working Group designation to its tasks and planning. Barb took this new responsibility to heart and brought her GIS skills to the discussion about preserving valuable vernal pool landscapes.

In March 2022, Barb and I took a vernal pool field trip. She was juggling health challenges, but we both were determined to make our trip happen. We wandered around Stilson Canyon Road looking for late signs of Butte County meadowfoam, which we found. It was such a dry and warm start to 2022 that plants came and went quickly. We looked at the Schmidbauer land in southeast Chico from the fence, also home to BCM, and discussed the planned litigation to protect the habitat and species there. It was a treasured time.

I am grateful for the many ways that Barb and I shared time together. What a joy and a privilege.

I love this photo of the vernal pool conference team in 2006 at the Vina preserve. Happy times and a job well done. From L to R: Barb Castro, Rob Schlising, Doug Alexander, Betty Warne, Jenny Marr, Joe Silveira, and Barbara Vlamis