Water Board to vote 6/21 - make your voices heard!
The State Water Resources Control Board will be voting on re-adoption of the Emergency Drought Regulations for Scott and Shasta valleys this coming Tuesday, June 21. The Board members will hear verbal public comments at that meeting. Those affected by the Regulation should make their voices heard at the June 21 online meeting. There’s a process to get signed up to speak. Go to Remote Meeting | California State Water Resources Control Board or contact Theo (theo@scottvalleyagwa.org) for more info.
It’s easy to get bogged down in the 24-page Regulation. Our primary concerns remain, although SWB staff has shown a willingness to listen to us and has made some small language changes that could make the Regulation more manageable. What Scott Valley farmers and ranchers need to know:
The unattainable minimum flow objectives for the Scott River remain, with one small change in June. The flow objectives (e.g., 50 cfs in July and 30 cfs in August) will not be met in a drought year, setting us up for a curtailment. The new Regulation covers a year (probably from around July 1, 2022 to July 1, 2023), after which it will have to be re-adopted if the Governor’s drought proclamation isn’t lifted.
AgWA has communicated consistently with SWB that our fish populations do not require the minimum flows the agency is calling for. Our coho populations are strong and increasing. Steelhead aren’t monitored by CDFW enough to get an accurate population estimate. Chinook need fall flows, which can only come when Mother Nature decides.
Instead of asking for a certain flow level way down at river mile 21 (the gage below Ft. Jones), the agencies would do more for fish by working with landowners on individual tributaries to figure out where the fish are spawning, what their minimum needs are in those areas, and what the timing of those needs is.
Local cooperative solutions (LCS) will remain largely the same for groundwater (the 30%-reduction plans) and if you have one approved for this year, it doesn’t need to be re-approved when this new Regulation kicks in this July.
However, most people have only agreed to a year-long LCS and may have to go through the process again for next year, if they so desire.
Per AgWA’s request, SWB removed language that could have required an additional 30% reduction next year.
Another improvement: the irrigator can adjust the timing of irrigation agreed to in his LCS by one week “as an adaptive response to precipitation or cool weather, if the shift in timing does not reduce the total irrigation season water savings.”
There is an option for including surface water diversions in an LCS, referred to as a “tributary-wide” LCS. This option was available in the first Regulation, but no one attempted it. (Note: a “watershed-wide” LCS is also included in the Regulation, which presumably means the whole valley would have to come to some agreement outside the decrees. We haven’t explored this option.)
As for tributary-wide LCSs: In the new Regulation, surface water for both irrigation and non-irrigation season livestock watering can be included in a tributary-wide LCS.
Diverters on a tributary would work with Ca. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to come up with a plan that CDFW determines will provide benefits to fish that are “equal to or greater than” meeting the SWB’s minimum flow objectives for the Scott.
Every diverter that would want to continue to divert water during a curtailment would need to be part of an LCS for their respective tributary or ditch.
AgWA has been pushing to make sure that Farmers Ditch and Scott Valley Irrigation District (which are not tributaries) get included in this “tributary-wide” LCS scheme. So far, that language hasn’t been included.
We have reservations about how these tributary LCSs will actually come about. Making agreements outside of the decrees will not be an easy task. Not only that, the Regulation calls for considerable monitoring of fish and flows in the given tributary, which could prove to be beyond CDFW’s capabilities. We continue to argue that the Regulation puts the burden of proof on landowners to prove we’re not harming fish, rather than on the agencies to show where we are. If CDFW runs out of resources to approve LCSs or to monitor them, diverters will presumably lose their water, with no recourse and through no fault of their own.
If not included in a tributary-wide LCS, “Inefficient Livestock Watering” (non-irrigation season livestock watering) is severely limited but there can be exceptions based on the discretion of SWB (explained below.)
Non-irrigation season livestock watering is still referred to as “Inefficient Livestock Watering,” despite our protests. Using our ditches in the non-growing season doesn’t just give us a reliable source of water for our livestock, it recharges our aquifer, too.
“Inefficient Livestock Watering” is defined as diversions of more than 10 times the minimum amount of allowable water per head (15 gal for cows and 1.5 for sheep). Between September and March 31, anything above this amount (see exceptions below) is not allowed. This small amount is not likely to get to the point of use in most instances.
March 31 is an extension from the previous Regulation (which was Jan 31). We pushed back on this but didn’t win.
SWB can lift this prohibition on a watershed-wide, if there’s no active curtailment--if SWB determines lifting the suspension won’t harm fish or trigger a curtailment. This is good, but there’s no guarantee SWB will make this determination.
SWB can lift the prohibition on particular tributaries, too, but not during fall-run salmon migration. We are arguing that fall-run migration won’t be harmed as long as flows are adequate, and this “exception to the exception” should be removed.
There is still a requirement to limit livestock water intake during a curtailment, and to self-certify, under penalty of perjury, that you are limiting their intake (cows get 15 gal/day and sheep get 1.5 gal/day during a curtailment.)
We have repeatedly told SWB: this limitation is unreasonable and doesn’t comport with what UC Cooperative Extension livestock specialists have told AgWA. They told us that it’s extremely difficult to predict how much an animal will need to drink on a given day, and that animals should be offered MORE than the minimum amount. Lactating cows will drink up to 26 gallons/day, and sheep need between 1-8 gallons per day.
SWB staff told us that if you’ve already reported your livestock water consumption, you don’t need to do it again.
Curtailment order reporting: If a curtailment has been ordered, diverters are still required to report their compliance.
However, if you’ve done this once already, we’re told by SWB staff that you don’t have to do it again (because we’re technically under the same curtailment that happened last September).
During a suspended curtailment, or if you’re diverting for minimum livestock use, you may have to report that you’re diverting, but that’s at the discretion of SWB. So presumably you’ll be notified if you need to report further.
Penalties: We keep pushing for an arbitration process or something to replace the onerous $500/day fines. Multiple producers have run into trouble trying to fill out forms correctly and keep up with the rigorous reporting requirements. The threat of civil liability and fine of $500 per day for violations (which are often unintentional) is excessive.
Please feel free to contact Theo Johnson at theo@scottvalleyagwa.org or 530.598.3081 with media inquiries, to become an AgWA member, or with questions relevant to the Regulation.
