County objects to water plan

The Butte County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday, Nov. 18, to send a six-page letter to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation sharply criticizing the timing and scope of a proposed water transfer program that would allow willing sellers in the North State to divert water to thirsty buyers south of the Delta over the next 10 years.

Paul Gosselin, director of the Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation, told the board the proposal would allow the development of transfer programs without adequate environmental review. The program was first launched in 2010 with a scoping document, but the bureau didn’t release the draft environmental impact statement and report (EIR) until Sept. 30 of this year, thereby allowing only 60 days, or until Dec. 1, for public review, analysis and comment.

“There is a pressing need south of the Delta for water,” Gosselin said, “but it needs to be done right.”

He said the EIR contains “glaring errors,” fails to use available data and underestimates the impact the sales would have on the region. He called the proposed mitigation to those impacts “pretty vague and pretty weak.”

The transfers would have an impact on streams and creeks and private wells, Gosselin said. The EIR, he charged, does not reflect that. “There are tens of thousands in this region who rely on private wells, and yet the report says there will be no impact,” he said.

He also described the report as being too vague because it mentions only potential water sellers—none of whom have stepped forward or been named. “They should identify the buyers and sellers up front and use specific analysis instead of relying on potential activity,” Gosselin told the board.

The EIR does not mention Chapter 33 of the Butte County Code—also known as the Groundwater Conservation Ordinance—which is designed to monitor and report on the status of the county’s groundwater. That section of the code should be acknowledged by the bureau, Gosselin argued.

“Hopefully, they will pull [the EIR] back and allow sufficient time to make changes and recirculate the report,” he said.

County Counsel Bruce Alpert told the board that the county may offer the bureau additional suggestions for the EIR, including proper legal language.

Supervisor Bill Connelly called the report a “blanket EIR so they can come up and get as much water as they want.”

The county’s letter to the Bureau of Reclamation says the EIR underestimates the impacts the transfer program would have on groundwater quality and recharge. It also says the report “fails to take into account that the reduction in stream flows and the lowering of Lake Oroville … will harm the local economy. In addition to underestimating these impacts, the mitigation measures in the EIR are not viable and will not mitigate the significant impacts.”

Supervisor Doug Teeter asked if the bureau has a history of reopening public comment periods.

“I don’t know,” Gosselin answered. “This is a pretty daunting enterprise they undertook and they should get credit for at least attempting to put the program out in a transparent way. They were looking to have it in place for 2015.”

Gosselin also said he was unaware of how other North State counties were responding to the EIR.

When the matter was opened to the public, Durham-area almond and walnut farmer Robert Eberhardt referred to an episode of 60 Minutes that had aired a few days earlier. He said a scientist declared that groundwater depletion was a worldwide problem that was not going away anytime soon. Eberhardt also said the Central Valley may very well “turn into a desert,” adding, “That’s what it used to be.”

He also said some North State farmers are currently “double-dipping” by selling surface water while pumping groundwater.

In the end, Supervisor Maureen Kirk made a motion to approve sending the letter, allowing county counsel to add any needed “legalese” to make it more effective. The motion passed 5-0.