By Amy Joi O’Donoghue, Deseret News

Published: Tuesday, May 14 2013 6:35 p.m. MDT

SALT LAKE CITY — A legislative commission wants Utah Gov. Gary Herbert to reconsider his decision to shun signing a controversial water sharing agreement with Nevada, with one member describing his action as a “colossal mistake.”

The State Water Development Commission voted Tuesday to send a letter to Herbert asking him to reconsider on the Snake Valley agreement, and members want a response from the governor in time for the commission’s next meeting.

Sen. Scott Jenkins, R-Plain City, said he viewed the agreement as a logical one that would have protected Utah interests. For Herbert not to sign, “it appears to be, in my humble opinion, a colossal mistake. … I do not see the downside in this,” he said.

Commission members received a detailed anthology on the water controversy from Warren Peterson, one of a trio of water law attorneys consulted by Herbert about the merits of the agreement. In their report to the governor, the attorneys said the agreement, while not perfect, protected Utah interests and would keep it out of a lawsuit with Nevada.

In the meeting Tuesday, Peterson blamed the news media for distorting the facts about the provisions of the agreement and whipping up a frenzy of opposition by failing to do its homework.

“Public dialogue was ill-founded and driven by the media,” he said.

What everyone missed, Peterson stressed, is that the first tier of the agreement gave a bow to the existing water use and protected it by precluding any withdrawals by Nevada if those uses were impaired in any way.

“Frankly, I did not agree with (Herbert’s) decision,” he said.

In April, the governor announced he would not sign the agreement, surprising critics who feared he would sacrifice Utah interests at the altar of Nevada’s threats. Herbert said he could not impose a solution from Salt Lake City that the residents most affected did not support.

The proposed water withdrawals in Snake Valley — a basin that dissects the border of the two states — are part of a larger groundwater pumping plan by the Southern Nevada Water Authority.

The agency in charge of delivering water to Las Vegas and its outlying communities wants to build a 300-mile pipeline as a way to shore up its water supply in the face of a dwindling Lake Mead.

Fed by the Colorado River, Lake Mead’s water levels have drastically shrunk in the face of drought, forcing the authority to embark on expensive and elaborate ways to keep water flowing to its users.

MORE -

 http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865580042/Group-of-Utah-legislators-wants-Herbert-to-reconsider-Snake-Valley-decision.html

May 6, 2013

U.C. Davis News and Information

A team of University of California, Davis, scientists is developing a groundwater management tool that could lead to better streamflow conditions for salmon and steelhead in northern California’s Scott River Valley, which provides critical fish habitat within the Klamath Basin.

This mountain valley also supports an agricultural economy composed of small family farms and ranches, raising alfalfa hay, pasture, and cattle. Regulatory agencies, farmers, ranchers and the local community are working to find win-win solutions for both fish habitat and agriculture.

“For most other rivers in California, summer and fall water flows are entirely dictated by dams that have water behind them,” said Thomas Harter, a Cooperative Extension groundwater hydrologist in the Department of Land, Air and Water Resources who led the study. “Scott River is very dependent on the groundwater system.”

The 57-mile-long, undammed Scott River is a tributary of the Klamath River, and portions of it are designated as a federal and state Wild and Scenic River. A combination of irrigated agriculture in Scott River Valley, a lack of streamside shade on the river, and climate change has led to warmer river temperatures and reduced late summer and fall stream flows on the river, particularly in dry years, Harter said.

In a recent report to the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, the researchers summarized the hydrology of the Scott Valley, gathering data about rainfall, climate, soils, land use, irrigation and groundwater flows distributed across the basin for the past 21 years. Harter will combine this information into an integrated hydrologic model, expected to be complete in early 2014.

Read it:

 http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10576

PNP comment: This article looks extremely biased with Greenie groups weighing-in, but no one from the cattle or land side given a chance to share information. So I the National Cattlemen’s Public Lands Council for its opinion. — Editor Liz Bowen

By Amy Joi O’Donoghue, Deseret News

   http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865576823/Groups-urge-Herbert-to-hold-off-on-Snake-Valley-water-agreement.html

Published: Wednesday, March 27 2013 11:14 a.m. MDT

SALT LAKE CITY — A coalition of at least two dozen groups has launched an aggressive campaign to urge Utah Gov. Gary Herbert to refrain from signing a controversial water sharing agreement with Nevada until the public has a chance to weigh in.

“It is a huge, huge issue,” said Zach Frankel, executive director of the Utah Rivers Council. “It has been a long, long time since the governor of the state of Utah has had to make such a pivotal decision. Why the rush? Why not wait just a few months?”

Frankel and other representatives of the groups say they have heard Herbert has a self-imposed deadline of April 1 to decide if Utah will sign the groundwater sharing agreement involving Snake Valley that was negotiated by the two states almost four years ago.

Critics of the agreement assert it unfairly tips the balance in favor of Nevada, divvying up 18,000 acre feet of new, unallocated water to Nevada compared to Utah’s 36,000 acre-feet of water. Nevada, they say, also wins out in the category of “reserve” water — water no one is quite sure is there — with Utah’s neighbor getting 12,000 more acre-feet of water than Utah.

Agreement proponents say that overall — because Utah has already developed substantially more water than Nevada in that valley — the document evenly splits 132,000 acre-feet of water between the two states.

Herbert and others have said that the agreement puts in place environmental protections and safeguards for Utah water users in contrast to litigation that could result in a court ruling that does not. Herbert has also stressed that signing the agreement does not equate to an endorsement of the pipeline, which could be built regardless of any formal agreement in place.

Skeptics, however, say such a water sharing agreement would be monumentally disastrous for Utah and there is no rush to sign off on that destiny.

“This is a decision that will touch all generations to come,” said Lynn de Frietas, executive director of Friends of the Great Salt Lake. “At the very least, the people of Utah should be given the opportunity to be heard and the governor should have the wisdom to listen before making a decision.”

The groups are hosting a Thursday rally at 7 p.m. in Salt Lake City at 2240 S. 900 East and plan to deliver a letter of concern to Herbert’s office on Friday.

IN THE NEWS

 Liberty Scene

Liberty and Property Rights Coalition

EPA’s Secret Deals with Environmentalists

The EPA is under investigation for a practice called Sue and Settle. Environmentalists in government and private organizations have found ways to create new regulations by fashioning lawsuits tailored to have courts institute policy changes. Both parties involved in the lawsuits secretly decide in advance what the outcome will be and how much taxpayer money will be transferred to the environmental group in the settlement. In other words, they are exploiting the courts to change laws, and in the process, helping to fund radical environmental groups without legislative or taxpayer consent. Millions of taxpayer dollars have been given to these groups.

(You Tube)

Pacific Legal Foundation asks Supreme Court to Protect Western Water Rights

Recently, PLF attorneys filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the estates of Nevada ranchers, E. Wayne and Jane Hage. The Hages, and their children, have been fighting for over twenty years to preserve their water rights from federal agencies.

Water rights, like those owned by the Hages, are essential to ranching and other natural resource industries throughout the western United States. In their case, a federal agency interfered with the Hages’ rights to access and maintain the flow of water to their ranch. The U.S. Claims Court determined that the agency’s actions resulted in physical and regulatory takings of their water rights. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, however, reversed the trial court’s conclusion without addressing the merits of their claims. The court held that the Hages’ case—which arose nearly a quarter century ago—is premature!

(Pacific Legal Foundation)

Is Corporate Funding of Environmental Groups a Form of Hush Money and Necessary Cost of Business?

IDAHO FALLS, Idaho – The Sierra Club, a group with a documented history of shilling for cash accused via Twitter this morning the oil and gas lobby of buying support for the Keystone XL pipeline.

The Sierra Club took a shot at the American Petroleum Institute, a pro-oil and gas development group, with this tweet: (See article)

(Watchdog.org)

A New Spotted Owl?

The western sage grouse is just the latest in the long list of endangered species which have been successfully used by their environmental proponents as economic weapons of destruction in the West.  After the spotted owl was listed as an endangered species in the 1990’s the western timber industry was eradicated from our nation’s forests, leaving the timber to rot from disease and be consumed by catastrophic fires.

Thirty Clark County, Nevada ranchers went broke as a result of the ESA listing of the desert tortoise.  Tortoise eggs were determined to be in danger of cows stepping on them.  Despite the fact that cattle, sheep and tortoises had cohabitated in the southern Nevada desert for more than a century, ranchers were forced to abandon their vested water rights and forage rights for the tortoise.  Once the lands were cleared of ranchers then Nevada BLM Chief, Bob Abby pursued a public land selling spree to Las Vegas developers armed with excavators and paving equipment.  (Emails Link Former Chief of the BLM’s Ex BLM Chief Bob Abbey to Henderson, NV Land Scandal) Environmentalists and bureaucrats were suddenly mute on the subject of the desert tortoise.

History shows that endangered species listings have less to do with saving the lives of animals and more to do with taking property and water rights by circumventing that pesky provision in the Constitution—just compensation.  See this special report in Range Magazine about the new spotted owl, “The Sage Grouse”.

(Range Magazine)

Ron Arnold: A Journalism Nonprofit’s Nonagenda Agenda

Among the standout names of outfits recently whacking the Donors Trust is the nonprofit investigative journalism organization known as the Center for Public Integrity. To many, the group’s name seems presumptuous and agenda-laden, despite its insistence that it is “nonpartisan and does no advocacy work.”

(Washington Examiner)

The Liberty and Property Rights Coalition is committed to promoting and preserving Constitutional rights to liberty and property in public policy and the law.

For more information or to be removed from this list email rhmorrison@sbcglobal.net.

A service of Liberty and Property Rights Coalition 2013

Issue Date: February 20, 2013

By Kate Campbell

Ag. Alert

California Farm Bureau Federation

Curtailed water transfers from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta have so far translated into an estimated loss of more than 700,000 acre-feet of water that otherwise would have been stored for future use by California farms and families. State and federal officials said last week cutting back the pumps to protect delta smelt, which in past weeks have been drawn into the water transfer equipment, underscores the need for extensive habitat improvements and a new water conveyance system around the delta.

They conceded that immediate fixes and interim measures to address the current conflict are few, although they did ease the pumping restrictions later in the week.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation said it is joining state agencies in discussions about potential alternatives to help simultaneously meet the needs of fish and water users during what is shaping up to be a dry year. The federal agency also re-emphasized its commitment to move forward with the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, a 50-year, multi-species habitat conservation plan.

Calling last week’s curtailment a “crisis,” officials said about 75 percent of the year’s “incidental take” of adult delta smelt allowed under the Endangered Species Act has already occurred, with nearly two months left before the period of concern for the fish ends.

“These ongoing crises will continue to reveal themselves until we fundamentally change the way we manage the delta,” Mark Cowin of the California Department of Water Resources told reporters during a media briefing last week. “We need to be looking at this (around-delta conveyance system and habitat restoration) as a long-term solution so six years from now, somebody is not looking back at today’s headlines and asking, ‘Why didn’t they do anything?’”

Because hydrologic conditions since mid-January have been dry and the water transfer pumps have been cut back, the Fresno-based Westlands Water District advised farmers on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley to anticipate no more than a 20 percent contract-water allocation for the upcoming crop season.

“This notice is not intended to suggest that a 20 percent allocation is either reasonable or acceptable,” Westlands officials said.

During the past several weeks, water from the delta originally destined for farms, homes and businesses has instead flowed to the ocean in an effort to comply with the ESA. The cutback at the pumps is intended to avoid hitting the incidental take limit for delta smelt. By last week, more than 228 adult fish had been lost. Exceeding the incidental take limit of 305 delta smelt would trigger a full shutdown of the pumps until the fish have moved to other locations.

The California Farm Water Coalition said the loss of water for storage in recent weeks represented about 13,000 lost farm jobs, $873 million in lost crop production and a potential economic loss to the state of about $2.2 billion this year.

“This redirection of water could last through March, with water losses escalating every day,” said coalition Executive Director Mike Wade. “Sadly, these regulations aren’t working to protect the fish they were intended to help. It’s time we take a sensible look at how we provide for the ecosystem while at the same time supporting California farms, jobs and people, and our nation’s food supply.”

Experts say the most recent cutbacks in water transfers from the delta to storage in San Luis Reservoir were prompted when delta smelt made an early appearance near the pumps at a traditional time of active pumping, most likely because heavy December storms sent a pulse of turbid runoff down the Sacramento River, signaling the fish to migrate for spawning.

Danny Merkley, California Farm Bureau Federation director of water resources, noted that chronic interruptions in securing water supplies are the “exact reason new and increased water storage is needed in California. Without new storage, agriculture, and California’s economy, get caught in the laws and the science.”

With warmer, more unpredictable precipitation and increasing species protections, none of which were envisioned when the Central Valley Project and State Water Project were built, Merkley said greater storage capacity would build much-needed flexibility into the water supply system.

“The dry weather we’ve had this winter shows that we cannot continue to miss out on opportunities to store water when it’s available,” he said.

(Kate Campbell is an assistant editor of Ag Alert. She may be contacted at kcampbell@cfbf.com.)

Permission for use is granted, however, credit must be made to the California Farm Bureau Federation when reprinting this item.

http://www.agalert.com/story/?id=5170

REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2013 AT 7:00PM

Location: BUSINESS RESOURCE/DISTRICT OFFICE

11236 N. Highway 3, Fort Jones, CA (next to Chevron)

AGENDA

Call To Order                                                                                                                                      7:00

            Establish Quorum

            Introductions

            Agenda Adjustments and Approval

            Approval of Minutes: January 23, 2013 Regular Meeting

Closed Session                                                                                                                                     7:05

Conference with legal counsel, anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9, initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(c), one case.

Return to Open Session and report on Closed Session                                                                           7:20

Public Comment concerning items within the jurisdiction of the Board–limit to 5 minutes                   7:25

Communications                                                                                                                                  7:30    

Old Business (possible action items)                                                                                                     7:35

• Update to GEI’s 2012 watermaster      report to the District.

• Update on Grenada Irrigation District’s      repayment agreement for 2011-12 watermaster service fees.

• Discussion and possible decision      regarding The Nature Conservancy’s Petition to dedicate      water for the preservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources      for Shasta River Decree No. 7035 and related implementation plan.

• Status of the verification of water rights and      report on results.

• Status of request by Montague      Water Conservation District to reduce annual service fee – update      regarding the discussion of ad-hoc committee and participating Board      members (no action at this time).

• Review and approval of sales      campaign material for the Watermaster Database.

• Review and approval of the      Request for Waiver of the Watermaster Service Fee, process and document.

New Business   (possible action items)                                                                                                  8:05

• There is no new business

Financial                                                                                                                                              8:05

• Payment of bills and financial report

Reports                                                                                                                                                8:10

• Deputy Watermaster – GEI Consultants,      Inc.

• District Administrator – Business      Resource

• Counsel – Siskiyou County Counsel

• Board of Directors

Next regular meeting – Wednesday, March 27, 2013 in Yreka, CA

Adjournment                                                                                                                                       8:15

–

Rhonda Muse, District Administrator

Scott Valley & Shasta Valley Watermaster District

(530) 468-2802

sswatermaster@gmail.com

11236 N. Highway 3 / PO Box 158

Fort Jones, CA 96032

Office Hours:  To keep overhead costs down, this office is not regularly attended.

                       Please call for appointment.

                       Email and voice mail messages are retrieved every business day.

Meeting Announcement – Agenda

8:30 A.M., Thursday, March 14, 2013

Regional Water Quality Control Board

David C. Joseph Room
5550 Skylane Blvd., Ste A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403

View/Download PDF version

View/Download PDF spanish version

Supporting documents for agenda items are posted on our website at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting.  To view or download documents, go to www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast.

Comments on individual agenda items are welcome.  A set of draft materials for each agenda item that will be considered by the Regional Water Board is mailed to each person on the interested parties list.  If you wish to be added to our interested parties list for a specific agenda item, please contact the staff person listed with the item in this agenda notice.

For comments on an agenda item to be considered by the Regional Water Board, they must be submitted on or before the due date listed in the associated hearing notice, which is mailed to interested parties, and posted on the Regional Water Board’s website.

For any item for which there is no due date specified by a specific hearing notice, all written submittals shall be due no later than 12:00 noon the Friday before the board meeting or workshop.  Timely submittal of comments gives the Regional Water Board staff and the Regional Water Board members sufficient time to familiarize themselves with your concerns and for staff to address them.

The Regional Water Board may refuse to accept written comments submitted after the due date in the applicable hearing notice.  Pursuant to title 23, California Code of Regulations, section 648.4, the Regional Water Board may refuse to admit written testimony or evidence into the administrative record if it is not submitted to the Regional Water Board in a timely manner, unless the proponent can demonstrate why he or she was unable to submit the material on time or that compliance with the deadline would create an unreasonable hardship.  Agenda items are subject to postponement.  You may contact the designated staff contact person in advance of the meeting day for information on the status of any agenda item.

It is the policy of the State and Regional Water Boards to provide a work environment that is free from threats or acts of violence.  Threats or acts of violence committed by, or directed at, any employee will not be tolerated.  The Board will not tolerate derogatory conduct directed toward any person based on their race, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or similar characteristics.

Any person who appears before the Board has an obligation to represent their interest in a professional manner.  The Board requests that all persons in or near a Board meeting refrain from engaging in inappropriate conduct.  Inappropriate conduct may include disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior, breach of peace, boisterous conduct, violent disturbance or other unlawful interference in the Board’s proceedings.  Such conduct could subject you to contempt sanctions by the superior court (Gov. Code, §11455.10.).

The North Coast Water Board considers items which may result in Board action or direction to staff.  We encourage input from all people interested in a given item or issue, so that when we act, our decision is based on all available information.  We expect all statements made before this Board to be truthful, with no attempts to mislead this Board by false statements, deceptive presentation, or failure to include essential information.

All persons desiring to address the Board are required to fill out a speaker card.   The Chair may then determine the number of persons who wish to speak on any one item.  Cards are normally provided near the entrance to the meeting room.

Except for items designated as time certain, there are no set times for agenda items.  Items may be taken out of order at the discretion of the Chair.

i. Pledge of Allegiance

ii. Roll Call and Introductions

iii. Board Member Ex Parte Communication Disclosure – Board Members will identify any discussions they may have had requiring disclosure pursuant to Government Code section 11430.50.

iv. State Board Liaison’s, Board Chair’s, Board Members’, and Executive Officer’s Reports: These items are for Board discussion only. No public testimony will be allowed, and the Board will take no formal action.

v. Public Forum: Time will be reserved for the general public to address the Board on any matter within the Board’s jurisdiction, excluding those items on the agenda.  The Board Chair may limit the public forum to thirty (30) minutes initially, and continue any remaining appearances beyond the thirty (30) minutes at the end of the regularly scheduled business of the day.  The Board Chair requests that each person addressing the Board limit their presentation to three (3) minutes.

1. Approval of Meeting Minutes: January 24, 2013

2. Resolution for Dr. Brad Lundborg  (Matt St. John)

3. Legislative Update- Informational Item on SB 965 and AB 685

• Changes in Ex Parte Rule for General Orders – Implementation of SB 965

• Human Right to Water Act – Implementation of AB 685

(Lori Okun, State Water Board, Office of Chief Counsel)

Uncontested Items

4. Public Hearing on Order No. R1-2013-0006 to consider adoption of proposed Waste Discharge Requirements for Humboldt State University Telonicher Marine Lab, WDID No. 1B12187NHUM, NPDES No. CA0025151  (Charles Reed)

5. Consideration of a Resolution Requesting the State Water Resources Control Board to Nominate Several Sites for the Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund, Emergency, Abandoned, Recalcitrant (EAR) Account, Fiscal Year 13-14.  (Kasey Ashley)

Action Items

6. Public Hearing on Order No. R1-2013-0013 to consider the matter of an Extension of Limited Term Amendment Order No. R1-2011-0038, to NTMP Provisions of Order No. R1-2009-0038, Categorical Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges Related to Timber Harvest Activities on Non-Federal Lands in the North Coast Region.  (Jim Burke)

7. Public Hearing to consider adoption of Order No. R1-2013-0003, Waste Discharge Requirements for Operation, Corrective Actions, New Construction and Closure of the County of Sonoma Department of Transportation and Public Works Sonoma County Central Disposal Site, WDID Nos. 1B801490SON and 1B99011RSON  (Diana Henrioulle)

8. Public Hearing on Order No. R1-2013-0001, to consider adoption of Waste Discharge Requirements for City of Santa Rosa Subregional Water Reclamation System, NPDES No. CA0022764, WDID No. 1B83099OSON, Sonoma County  (Charles Reed)

Workshops

No workshops at this time

Information Items

9. Russian River Watershed Association Update (Mona Dougherty & Jake Mackenzie)

10. Executive Officer’s Report (Matt St. John)

11. Board Member Requests for Future Agenda Items (Matt St. John)

12. Other Items of Interest (Matt St. John)

Closed Session

13. The Board may meet in closed session to:

a. Consider evidence received in an adjudicatory hearing and deliberate on a decision to be reached based on that evidence (Gov. Code, §11126, subd.(c)(3));
b. Consider the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, or dismissal of a public employee or to hear complaints or charges brought against a public employee (Gov. Code, § 11126, subd.(a)(1));
c. Discuss significant exposure to litigation (Gov. Code, §11126, subd.(e)(2)(B)(i));
d. Discuss whether to initiate litigation (Gov. Code, § 11126, subd.(e)(2)(C)(i)); and
e. Discuss initiated litigation in the following matters (Gov. Code, § 11126, subd.(e)):

14. Arrangements for Next Meeting and Adjournment

February 17, 2013  By Steven Greenhut

Georgia pols ramp up campaign to shift Tennessee border, siphon water supply

Georgia residents are thirsty for Tennessee water. And state lawmakers are willing to try and move the border in order to get it.

Lawmakers in Atlanta, at the start of a new legislative session, are quickly moving to renew efforts to tap into Tennessee’s water supply by contesting the state’s border with its northern neighbor. The Georgia House of Representatives voted 171-2 this week to adopt a resolution seeking a thin strip of land leading to the Tennessee River.

That would give drought-parched Georgia a slice of the water rights. Tennessee lawmakers say Georgia can keep dreaming — and they are ready to do whatever it takes to protect their water from Peach State poachers.

“I don’t think anyone’s taking it seriously,” Tennessee House Majority Leader Gerald McCormick said.

That’s news to Georgia Rep. Harry Geisinger, who is leading the charge to reclaim the water rights he feels belong to the state.

Geisinger said getting Georgia “the water it’s owed” is a priority. He adds that while the state’s water supply is “fine” now, it won’t stay that way in 15 years.

“We need to look ahead,” he said.

Geisinger believes the state has a right to tap the Tennessee River which has long been recognized as an underused water source.

Atlanta’s population has skyrocketed in the past two decades and, with it, so has its need for water. Many believe the best way to deal with the demand is to take water from the river across the state line. That doesn’t sit well with Tennessee officials but Geisinger says they need to get over it because the water doesn’t belong to them anyway.

Geisinger said the northern border of Georgia and the southern border of Tennessee were “established at the 35^th parallel of north latitude and would have been located on the northernmost bank of the Tennessee River at Nickajack.” Nickajack is a lake connected to the river. He argues that two representatives – one from each state – put in charge of creating the border in 1818 got it wrong.

Geisinger theorizes that “unfriendly Indians” could have been behind the messed-up marking, which he says is more than a mile from where it should rightfully be.

He also alleges that the 30,000 Tennessee residents near Chattanooga who could become Georgians if the border were redrawn are purposely holding up the process because they don’t want to pay Georgia’s 6 percent income tax. Tennessee does not have one.

The water wars between Georgia and Alabama aren’t new, but as each legislative session passes the chip on some Georgia lawmakers’ shoulders gets a little bit bigger, one Tennessee legislative aide told FoxNews.com.

Read more:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/14/water-wars-georgia-wants-slice-tennessee-river/#ixzz2Ku6b5tpG