Document Sample

             PUBLIC HEARING



            December 4, 2007

       800 South Victoria Avenue
       Lower Plaza Assembly Room
              Ventura, CA
 1        MS. QUAN:     Welcome to the California Department

 2   of Water Resources Public Hearing for the Draft EIR on

 3   the Monterey Amendment to the State Water Project

 4   Contracts.

 5        I'd like to thank you for coming tonight.       We

 6   appreciate your taking the time to attend.

 7        I am Nancy Quan, Chief of the State Water Project

 8   Water Rights Program in the State Water Project
 9   Analysis Office.

10        Next to me is Barbara McDonnell, Chief of DWR's

11   Division of Environmental Services.

12        And on the end of the table is Delores Brown,

13   Chief of the Office of Environmental Compliance within

14   the Division of Environmental Services.

15        This public hearing is conducting as part of the

16   CEQA record and is intended to facilitate DWR's

17   receipt of comments on the Monterey Plus DEIR.

18        The purpose of this meeting is to receive public
19   comments.    And we have a tape recorder tonight.    We

20   originally had scheduled a court reporter, which was

21   unable to attend.    So your comments are being taped

22   tonight.

23        We also will be having another meeting tomorrow

24   night in Bakersfield which you could attend, which we

25   will have a court reporter in that meeting.    But

 1   tonight's meeting is being taped.

 2           Please register to comment by filling out a

 3   speaker card, which you can pick up at the

 4   registration table.     And you submit the card to a

 5   staff member sitting up front here, or to us.

 6           Delores, do you want to begin?

 7           MS. BROWN:   Good evening.   And once again,

 8   welcome.    We want to go through a few slides here to
 9   set the stage for the project.       I'm going to go to the

10   first half, and Barbara will take the second half.

11           The Department prepared the Draft EIR for the

12   Monterey Plus project to satisfy the requirements of

13   CEQA.    This Draft is a disclosure document that

14   evaluates the potential environmental effects of the

15   proposed project and its alternatives, identifies

16   potential significant environmental effects, and

17   proposes mitigation measures.

18           Once again, we are here today to allow the public
19   an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR.      The

20   transcript or the tape recording of this meeting will

21   become a part of the final EIR.      Next slide, please.

22           The principle State Water Project facilities

23   potentially affected by the project are Lake Oroville

24   on the Feather River, the Banks Pumping Plant in the

25   Delta, the California Aqueduct, San Luis Reservoir,

 1   and the two terminal reservoirs, Castaic Lake and Lake

 2   Perris.

 3        The State Water Project supplies 24 million --

 4   supplies water to over 24 million Californians, and

 5   irrigates 750,000 acre feet -- acres of land in the

 6   SWP service areas from Plumas to San Diego.   The SWP

 7   is primarily paid for by water agencies.

 8        In the late 1960s 29 public water agencies signed
 9   contracts to receive State Water Project water.   The

10   original contract specified how much water contractors

11   would receive, their Table A amounts in any given year

12   based on hydrology.

13        The contract specified that agriculture would

14   encounter the first cutbacks during a drought, and

15   that contractors would pay certain costs whether they

16   received deliver or not.   Next slide, please.

17        The Monterey Amendment is a result of several

18   discussions between the agriculture and M&I
19   contractors that began during extended dry periods in

20   the late 1980s and early 1990s.   Some farmers received

21   on SWP water in some years, and reduced supplies in

22   others, while still paying for the project, while M&I

23   contractors argue that cutbacks should be based on

24   full contractual Table A amounts and not requested

25   amounts.

 1        Contractors' discussions about the contract

 2   language interpretation continued into 1994, and

 3   eventually led to consensus of 14 principles known as

 4   the Monterey Agreement.   The agreement would be

 5   eventually used to modify the contracts.

 6        An EIR was completed and certified on the

 7   Monterey Agreement in 1995.    The resulting Monterey

 8   Amendment was made part of the long-term water supply
 9   contracts.

10        After the EIR was certified, Planning and

11   Conservation, the Citizens Planning Association of

12   Santa Barbara County and Plumas County Flood Control

13   and Water Conservation District challenged the

14   adequacy of the EIR.

15        In 2000 the court ruled that DWR should prepare a

16   new EIR, and instructed the contractors, the

17   plaintiffs and the Department to execute a Settlement

18   Agreement.   In anticipation of a Settlement Agreement
19   happening, the Department issued a Notice of

20   Preparation in January 2003.    The Settlement Agreement

21   was eventually signed in May of 2003.

22        The proposed project for the new EIR is an

23   analysis of the Monterey Amendment and a Settlement

24   Agreement.   As part of the Settlement Agreement, the

25   Department was allowed to continue to operate the

 1   project under the Monterey Amendment while preparing

 2   the new EIR.

 3           The Monterey Amendment has six objectives that

 4   were defined in the EIR, the Draft EIR.    The key

 5   provisions of the Monterey Amendment are:

 6           The transfer of 130,000 acre feet of Table A

 7   amount from agriculture to cities;

 8           The permanent retirement of 45,000 acre feet of
 9   Table A amount;

10           The transfer of the Kern Water Bank to local

11   agencies;

12           The removal of the permanent water shortage

13   provision, article 18(b), from the contracts;

14           Facilitation of water supply management

15   practices, including storage outside the Delta.

16   Excuse me, storage outside the contractors' service

17   area;

18           Carryover storage in San Luis Reservoir;
19           Provisions for flexible storage in Castaic Lake

20   and Lake Perris for Metropolitan Water District,

21   Ventura Flood Control and Water Conservation District,

22   and Castaic Lake Water Agency;

23           And the establishment of a turn back pool.

24           The Settlement Agreement has five objectives.

25   The primary provisions of the Settlement Agreement

 1   are:

 2          Improved dissemination of information of SWP

 3   reliability;

 4          More public review of proposed contract

 5   amendments;

 6          Funding for a watershed forum;

 7          And watershed restoration in Plumas County.

 8          The proposed project eliminated the initial
 9   agricultural use cutbacks.    It specified that all

10   project water would now be allocated in proportion to

11   annual Table A amounts.    It provided more unscheduled

12   water to M&I contractors in wet years.     It added water

13   supply management practices that improved delivery

14   reliability.   And it allowed the development of

15   locally owned Kern Water Bank.

16          At this point Barbara will take over and describe

17   the alternatives and impacts.

18          MS. O'DONNELL:   Next slide.   Thank you.   Okay.
19   In this EIR we have evaluated five alternatives in

20   addition to the proposed project.     We have four of

21   them are variations of a no project alternative, and

22   then we have an alternative five.

23          The no project alternative one, in no project

24   alternative one, none of the provisions of the

25   Monterey Agreement or the Settlement Agreement are

 1   implemented.   DWR would continue to work with the Kern

 2   County water agencies to develop and use the Kern fed

 3   element to increase State Water Project reliability.

 4   None of the significant impacts of the proposed

 5   project would occur, and none of the objectives would

 6   be met.

 7        Under no project alternative two, between the

 8   years 1996 and 2003, all Table A transfers and
 9   retirements under the proposed project would have

10   occurred and would not be undone.   Water would be

11   allocated in accordance with Monterey Amendment

12   allocation, all water supply practices carried out

13   between 1996 and 2003 would be included.

14        After 2003 no further Monterey-related transfers

15   or retirements of Table A would be approved.   Water

16   would be allocated in accordance with pre-Monterey

17   Amendment long-term water supply contracts.    Water

18   supply management practices would be discontinued, but
19   outside service area storage would continue using

20   facilities that were in place in 2003.

21        No new Monterey-related outside service area

22   storage would occur.   And between 1996 and 2003 this

23   no project alternative would have the same

24   environmental effects as the proposed project, but in

25   the future it would have environmental impacts similar

 1   to but less than those of the proposed project.

 2        The next two alternatives are variations of the

 3   court-ordered no project alternative.    Under both of

 4   them DWR would continue to administer State Water

 5   Project water allocations in accordance with the pre-

 6   Monterey Amendment longer-term water supply contracts.

 7   None of the elements of the proposed project would be

 8   implemented.
 9        A permanent water shortage may have been declared

10   and article 18(b) of the long-term water supply

11   contracts may have been invoked.    None of the

12   environmental impacts of the proposed project would

13   have occurred under the two court-ordered no project

14   alternatives.

15        They may have met some of the proposed project

16   objectives with regards to disputes over allocations

17   between agriculture and M&I contractors.

18        Okay.     In alternative five, we would implement
19   all the provisions of the Monterey Amendment and the

20   Settlement Agreement with the exception of the water

21   supply management practices.    Alternative five would

22   avoid potential significant adverse effects of the

23   proposed project's groundwater banks in Central

24   Valley, potential significant effects on Delta

25   outflow, and on environmental resources at Castaic

 1   Lake and Lake Perris.

 2        Although alternative five would meet some of the

 3   proposed project objectives, it would not meet other

 4   objectives, and would leave a significant number of

 5   M&I users with less water and no additional benefits.

 6        Okay.    Next slide.   Now I'm going to briefly go

 7   over the environmental impacts of the proposed

 8   project.    And I'm going to do this by geographic area
 9   starting in Plumas County, where the watershed forum

10   is investigating several watershed restoration

11   projects.

12        Overall the effects are beneficial

13   environmentally, with minor and mitigable adverse

14   environmental impacts related to construction.

15   However, overall the projects would have a less than

16   significant residual adverse impact.

17        In the southern San Joaquin Valley, mitigation

18   for impacts when constructing and operating the Kern
19   Water Bank were detailed in a Kern Water Bank

20   Authority Habitat Conservation Plan.    And these are

21   summarized in appendix E of this Draft EIR.

22        The impacts result from construction of the

23   percolation ponds and other groundwater facilities,

24   and there are potentially adverse effects on

25   terrestrial biological resources and cultural

 1   resources and some other minor construction impacts.

 2   Mitigation measures were included in the Habitat

 3   Conservation Plan which minimized adverse effects to

 4   less than significant levels.

 5        In addition, the water supply management

 6   practices would encourage the construction of new

 7   percolation ponds and other groundwater facilities in

 8   Kern County, and could result in minor short-term
 9   adverse construction impacts.   Again, these could be

10   potential adverse impacts on terrestrial biological

11   resources and cultural resources.   Any new groundwater

12   banks would be subject to CEQA review and development

13   of appropriate mitigation measures.

14        Other potential impacts in Kern and Kings County

15   relate to a trend toward replacing annual crops with

16   permanent crops, which the project might accelerate.

17   This could have an effect on available foraging

18   habitat for Swainson's Hawk, which is a state-
19   protected species.   However, we evaluated this impact

20   in great detail and determined that it was a less than

21   significant impact on the Swainson Hawk.

22        At Castaic Lake and Lake Perris, right here in

23   your neighborhood, we determined that flexible storage

24   practices may lower water levels beyond the levels

25   that occurred pre-Monterey Amendment, and this results

 1   in potentially significant and unavoidable impacts on

 2   terrestrial resources, soils, air quality, and

 3   recreation.

 4        In the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta, the proposed

 5   project would result in increased diversions from the

 6   Delta in certain months of certain years.    Between

 7   2003 and 2020 we estimate that there is a potential to

 8   increase on average 50,000 acre feet per year of
 9   diversions from the Delta.   Of this 50,000, we

10   estimate 38,000 could be diverted when sensitive fish

11   species would be at risk.

12        The environmental water account has provided

13   mitigation for these adverse effects since 2008 and

14   well on through 2008.   However, this could still be a

15   potentially significant impact on fisheries.

16        Operations of the State Water Project are

17   currently the subject of a court remedy, and that's

18   designed to prevent harm to Delta smelt.    Also, the
19   Department is involved as an applicant in an ongoing

20   re-consultation on our operations with the Fish and

21   Wildlife Services and NOAA Fisheries to address

22   impacts of project operations in the Delta and

23   upstream.

24        The Draft EIR proposes mitigation for Delta

25   fisheries impacts and that is by extending the

 1   environmental water account or an environmental water

 2   account-like program within the context of the

 3   operational court order or future biological opinions.

 4        The environmental water account enables pumping

 5   curtailment at times to reduce impacts to sensitive

 6   fish species, and compensates the contractors for

 7   losses of water due to these fish actions.   We have

 8   evaluated that this would result in a less than
 9   significant residual impact on Delta fisheries.

10        We have also evaluated growth-inducing impacts of

11   the proposed project.   The water transfer between

12   agricultural contractors and urban contractors could

13   support at a maximum an additional 360 to 560,000

14   urban residents in the Bay Area and Southern

15   California.   There may be secondary environmental

16   impacts of this growth.   These impacts were addressed

17   in individual CEQA documents related to permanent

18   water transfers and to local growth plans.
19        And again, the next steps are proposed.     The

20   comment period is January 14th, at which time we will

21   then respond to comments and prepare and certify a

22   Final EIR by July of 2008.

23        MS. QUAN:   Right now we are looking for comments/

24   concerns about the environmental impacts,

25   alternatives, and proposed mitigation measures.    So

 1   far we have three cards here for three speakers.     Are

 2   there any elected officials or representatives here

 3   tonight to speak?   If not, then we'll start with the

 4   speakers.   Carolee Kreger, please.    And you can speak

 5   at the podium over there.

 6        MS. O'DONNELL:     Yeah.   I think that mic is on.

 7        MS. QUAN:   Yeah, that mic is on already.

 8        MS. KREGER:    Good evening.    And thank you for the
 9   opportunity to express our concerns regarding the

10   project.

11        The amendments change the contracts in several

12   fundamental ways, all of them bad for the environment

13   and bad for the State's ability to manage our water

14   resources in the public interest.

15        If this new Draft EIR is formally approved by

16   DWR, it would eliminate the requirement that

17   agriculture take the first hit during times of drought

18   before urban areas, leaving urban areas vulnerable.
19        It would hand over the State-owned Kern Water

20   Bank, the largest groundwater storage facility in

21   California, to a coalition of interests dominated by

22   private corporations, despite state laws that prohibit

23   just such a transfer.    This would effectively

24   privatize the major storage facility and make the

25   State Water Project less reliable for everyone else.

 1        It would eliminate the original contract

 2   requirement that DWR must determine the realistic

 3   yield of the State Water Project and limit contract

 4   deliveries to that amount.   This is article 18(b).

 5   Instead, the proposed contract amount would allow DWR

 6   to continue promising to deliver water that does not

 7   exist, paper water which has been used to fuel unwise

 8   development all over California.
 9        It would allow DWR to continue over-pumping from

10   the Delta in the winter and spring months, which has

11   already under the provision use of the Monterey

12   Amendments contributed to the near extinction of the

13   Delta smelt and other Bay Delta fish populations.

14        It would allow new transfer -- the new transfer

15   rules allow contractors to sell water outside their

16   service areas.   This begins the privatization of the

17   State Water Project.

18        The sum total of the amendments means a loss of
19   accountability to the State.   Changing the so-called

20   surplus article 221 -- excuse me.   Changing the so-

21   called surplus article 21 water to interruptable water

22   is allowing water marketing, where contractors and

23   developers are counting on this non-permanent water

24   for building homes and businesses, not a sustainable

25   practice.   The amendments remove the clause that

 1   specifically states that permanent economics like new

 2   houses are not supposed to be founded on article 21

 3   surplus water.

 4        CWN is preparing extensive comments on this Draft

 5   EIR to be submitted to DWR I guess now in mid-January

 6   pointing out its many problems.   However, given past

 7   experience, we have every reason to believe that our

 8   concerns will be largely ignored, and that DWR will
 9   adopt a final EIR that is very close to the original.

10        At this time I would like to incorporate the

11   Declaration of John Lehigh in support of the

12   California Department of Water Resources proposed

13   interim remedy dated August 21st, 2007.   Mr. Lehigh

14   concludes that:

15        "To meet the requirements of the State Water

16   Resources Control Board decision D1641, the State

17   Water Project and the Central Valley Project would

18   have to reduce pumping exports considerably."
19        I have an attachment here to hand to you.

20        Mr. Lehigh assumed that both the State Water

21   Project and the Central Valley Project are equally

22   responsible for meeting the objectives of D1641.     If

23   this is taken literally, the State Water Project would

24   have to reduce exports by 220 to 440,000 acre feet a

25   year in dry years, and by 825,000 acre feet up to 1.16

 1   million acre feet in average years.

 2           This is very significant since the average actual

 3   deliveries of the State Water Project from 1990

 4   through 2004 was just 2.0 million acre feet.       So the

 5   State Water -- we are very much -- you know, very

 6   doubtful that the State Water Project reliability is

 7   going to be anywhere close, given the court order by

 8   Judge Wanger, and given the fact of global warming,
 9   you know, given all of the factors.       So we're very

10   concerned about that.

11           I would also like to include in the record here

12   my letter to DWR Director Lester Snow of May 31st,

13   2007.    It's attachment two.     And it comes with all the

14   attachments that I sent to Director Snow.

15           This letter goes into great detail about our

16   above-stated concerns.       Related to this letter is a

17   press release that CWN put out in conjunction with

18   this letter to Director Snow, and this is attachment
19   three.    I hereby incorporate all other comments

20   opposing this Draft EIR in its present form.

21           Thank you very much for this opportunity to

22   comment.    Here's all the documents.

23           MS. QUAN:    Thank you.   Next speaker is Dorothy

24   Green.

25           MS. GREEN:    Yes.   Good evening everybody.   We're

 1   delighted that you've come to hear comments on this

 2   EIR.   I am here representing just myself.   I belong to

 3   several organizations, but I'm not representing any of

 4   them tonight.

 5          The State Water Project has a very interesting

 6   history.   It was originally designed to deliver over

 7   4.2 million acre feet of water, but yet it was never

 8   built out.    And only half of it has been built.    But
 9   yet, the push is on to deliver all of it, whether or

10   not the Delta can withstand it, whether the

11   environment or the state can withstand that much water

12   removal from our ecosystems.    It clearly cannot.

13          And with the promise of delivering all of that

14   water that came with the original contracts, there

15   were also promises that the very big problems of

16   groundwater overdraft in the Central Valley were to be

17   dealt with.   That a good part of that water was

18   supposed to originally go to correct the big
19   groundwater overdrafts in the San Joaquin Valley and

20   have never been done.    Which leads you to question all

21   kinds of promises that have been made by the State.

22          We've got a project that can deliver on average

23   only half, or has been historically been able to

24   deliver only half of the contracts.    And a good chunk

25   of what the State Water Project was supposed to have

 1   been done has never been accomplished.

 2        I find it very interesting that it has taken like

 3   five years for DWR to write this new EIR.   And I

 4   appreciate the difficulty with which you're dealing

 5   with the political pressures that have been placed

 6   upon you.   Because it is clear that when you look at

 7   this whole proposal of what the changes to the

 8   contracts are going to do is essentially to give
 9   control of the whole State Water Project to the giant

10   agribusiness and development interests in the state,

11   to the detriment of the existing population, and to

12   the detriment of the environment.   There just isn't

13   enough water to go around.

14        And now with the Judge Wanger decision reducing

15   even further the amount of water that can be pumped

16   out of the Delta, it's clear a whole new tack on

17   meeting the state's water needs has to be taken, which

18   I'll talk about a little bit further.
19        The Kern Water Bank is an obscenity.   It should

20   never have been given away by the State to private

21   businesses.   Paramount Farming is now managing this.

22   It's a private big giant agriculture -- I think the

23   biggest grower in the state.   This should have stayed

24   in public ownership, should have remained in public

25   hands.

 1        Any kind of mitigation to the Delta that does not

 2   include leaving more water in it is not going to work.

 3   The Delta is crashing because so much water is already

 4   taken out of it.    And yet, this whole proposal is only

 5   to figure out ways of taking even more water out, and

 6   converting what water can be taken out of the system

 7   into the free market so that people can profit,

 8   individuals, especially the big agribusiness
 9   interests, can profit from marketing that water.

10        And the push to privatize our water resources is

11   unconscionable.    Water belongs to all of us.   It is in

12   the public trust that water has to remain managed and

13   controlled by the public, by the State.

14        The best way to meet our water needs is spelled

15   out in the book that I've written and that I've just

16   published called "Managing Water:    Avoiding Crisis in

17   California".   And what needs to happen is we just

18   really have to learn how to use the water that we've
19   got a lot more efficiently.    A lot more efficiently.

20        The City of Los Angeles has grown by a million

21   people over the last 25, 30 years, and yet, its water

22   use has remained essentially the same.    The rest of

23   the state has got to begin to emulate that.

24        There are water agencies in Southern California,

25   county sanitation districts, for example, LA County

 1   Sanitation District, that has been reclaiming and

 2   reusing a tremendous amount of wastewater.    The State

 3   has just begun really to emulate what's happening, or

 4   what county sanitation districts has been doing since

 5   1929.

 6           Tertiary-treated water has been spread and

 7   allowed to soak into the groundwater and is pumped up

 8   down aquifer into the drinking water supply thoroughly
 9   cleansed by the soil finishing that cleansing job.

10   It's a tremendous amount of water that can be reused.

11           We've just begun to really look at conservation,

12   and especially landscaping, to revert back to the kind

13   of landscape materials that are native to California.

14   And there's growing interest in doing so, certainly

15   here in Southern California, in looking toward totally

16   changing, totally reforming our landscape materials

17   and reverting back to our native plants.

18           You know, the history of farming -- excuse me.
19   The history of gardening in California is really very

20   strange.    It consists of finding the most exotic

21   plants from the farthest corners of the world and

22   importing them to Southern California and growing them

23   because you can grow almost anything here if you add

24   water.    And there is a growing movement now to change

25   that whole philosophy and to look again toward natives

 1   and to other plants that have grown in Mediterranean

 2   climates similar to our own.

 3          And there's also a growing movement in Southern

 4   California now to capture storm water and get it into

 5   the ground where it falls so that it can be added to

 6   our drinking water supply.   The Los Angeles and

 7   San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council has been leading

 8   a study, first of all, to determine that if we're
 9   going to take urban runoff, urban slobber as some

10   people like to call it, and put it into the ground, if

11   we're going to wash the skies clear of the smog and

12   put that into the ground, what is going to be the

13   impact on groundwater quality.

14          That question has now been pretty well answered.

15   Water quality really does improve as it goes through

16   the soil.   The water, by the time it gets to the

17   aquifer, is a lot cleaner than when it falls from the

18   sky.
19          And now the Watershed Council is looking to

20   figure out how to retrofit whole neighborhoods so that

21   when there is a storm, there is no runoff.   All the

22   water is captured and gotten into the ground in one

23   way or another.

24          These are just some of the kinds of things that

25   need to happen in the state of California to really

 1   make a difference so that we don't have to draw on the

 2   Delta anywhere near as much.

 3          There's a water agency in the Chino area, the --

 4   I'll think of the name of it in a minute.

 5          FROM THE AUDIENCE:   Inland Empire Utility Agency.

 6          MS. KREGER:    Thank you.   Inland Empire Utility

 7   Agency that is working now to be able to go as many as

 8   four years of dry years without a drop of imported
 9   water.   These are just some of the things that are

10   happening here in Southern California to use our

11   existing resources much more efficiently and

12   effectively.

13          This is the future of California water.    Not

14   pulling more water out of the Delta, not privatizing

15   what water we have, and not giving it over to big ag

16   and the developers to manage on our behalf.      Thank

17   you.

18          MS. QUAN:   Thank you.   Next speaker, Dan Masnada.
19          MR. MASNADA:   Good evening.   Dan Masnada.   I'm

20   the General Manager of the Castaic Lake Water Agency.

21   We're one of the 29 State Water Project Contractors.

22   I've also had the privilege to be the Executive

23   Director of the Central Coast Water Authority

24   representing Santa Barbara as a State water

25   contractor.    And my successor, Bill Brennan, is here

 1   as well.

 2        First of all, I'd like to mention that the

 3   Monterey Amendments to the State water contracts

 4   simply provide greater flexibility in managing a

 5   limited supply, one that in total is less than the

 6   amount that the State Water Project contractors signed

 7   up for back in the early '60s.

 8        And what I'd like to do is just speak to some of
 9   the benefits of Monterey, using specific examples that

10   I've -- specific examples from Central Coast Water

11   Authority and from Castaic Lake Water Agency.

12        At CCWA, I was there when the Department

13   constructed the coastal branch project, and we at CCWA

14   constructed the facilities that treated and delivered

15   State Project water to San Luis Obispo and Santa

16   Barbara Counties.

17        With the implementation of Monterey -- well, at

18   that time the facilities under the contract had to be
19   sized for the Table A amount that we were taking

20   delivery of.   Regardless of whether part of it

21   included paper water, wet water, whatever the contract

22   amount was, the facilities had to be sized for that.

23        The one benefit of Monterey is that -- the one

24   example I like to cite is Goleta Water District.   Even

25   before Monterey was executed, Goleta elected to retain

 1   a Table A amount over and above the contract amount

 2   that was held for by it Central Coast Water Authority,

 3   and which was included in the sizing of the State

 4   Water Project facilities.

 5        Prior to Monterey, that 4500 acre feet, or

 6   specifically, a portion of that 4500 acre feet could

 7   not be delivered in years of less than 100 percent

 8   allocation.   Even in a 50 percent allocation year,
 9   under the then existing State Water Project contract,

10   Goleta could only take delivery of 50 percent of the

11   contract amount it held with CCWA.   It could not take

12   delivery of any of the 4500 acre feet, although

13   capacity existed in the system.   Monterey allowed

14   Goleta Water District to utilize that 4500 acre feet

15   to supplement deliveries of its contract amount.

16        At Castaic Lake Water Agency, one of the benefits

17   of Monterey was the making available of 133,000 acre

18   feet of Table A amount from the agricultural entities
19   to the municipal entities, or the M&I entities, as

20   part of balancing the elimination of article 18(b).

21        Castaic Lake -- well, and as you well know,

22   transfers are touted by the environmental community as

23   being the most environmentally benign way of meeting

24   new demand, or one of the most environmentally --


 1        MR. MASNADA:   Excuse me.   I didn't interrupt you.

 2   Let me finish my statement.

 3        But in any event, as you may know, Castaic Lake

 4   serves a high growth area.    And we were able, again,

 5   under Monterey to acquire 41,000 acre feet of the

 6   133,000 acre feet to meet demands in our system

 7   without having to expand the State Water Project,

 8   without having to add any additional facilities other
 9   than local facilities.

10        Flex storage was mentioned earlier.    Castaic Lake

11   Water Agency is a beneficiary of flex storage.      This

12   coming year, in spite of a 25 percent allocation, flex

13   storage will assist us in meeting demands during 2008.

14        Groundwater banking, also another practice that's

15   touted by the environmental community, would not have

16   been possible in a number of instances, at last with

17   respect to State Water, outside of our service area

18   without Monterey.
19        Castaic has banked over 100,000 acre feet of

20   water, which will allow it to meet demands in future

21   dry years when there are shortages in the project.

22        Also, one thing I do want to correct.       It was

23   mentioned earlier that selling water outside of one's

24   service area was not allowed under the original

25   contracts.   That's incorrect.   I believe the

 1   Department would agree that it was allowed under the

 2   original contracts.    Monterey did facilitate in

 3   certain respects.    But Castaic Lake Water Agency was

 4   the first entity to acquire state water outside of its

 5   service area and deliver it to -- and expand its Table

 6   A amount in the acquisition of Devil's Den Water

 7   District.

 8           Oh, the Wanger court ruling was mentioned
 9   earlier.    Actually, Monterey helps address the impacts

10   of the recent Wanger court ruling and the Alameda

11   County Court ruling.    As bad as those rulings were,

12   they would have been much worse absent Monterey being

13   in place.

14           Our world has changed significantly since the

15   '60s.    The State Water contracts were 75-year

16   contracts executed in the early '60s.    They predated

17   CEQA.    This effort here is, as I believe the original

18   EIR was intended, to address the requirements under
19   CEQA.

20           But in any event, the Monterey Agreements were

21   the first major overhaul of the State Water contract

22   in the then 35-year life.    Essentially at the midpoint

23   of the State Water contracts.    They were an attempt --

24   the Monterey Amendments were an attempt to recognize

25   the realities of today's world to better serve us as

 1   customers of the State Water Project.   Undoing

 2   Monterey would have disastrous water supply, economic

 3   and environmental consequences.   Thank you.

 4        MS. QUAN:   Mary Lou Cotton, please.

 5        MS. COTTON:   My name is Mary Lou Cotton, and I'm

 6   tonight representing the State Water Contractors, 27

 7   public agencies that have contracts for State Water

 8   Project Table A amount, and whose residents, farmers
 9   and customers pay all of the capital and O&M costs of

10   the State Water Project.

11        The State Water Contractors support the Monterey

12   Amendment for many reasons, among which are the

13   following:

14        The Monterey Amendment makes the State Water

15   Project more flexible in managing limited supplies.

16   The amended water management provisions permit banking

17   of water and underground water storage during wet

18   periods for later years during dry times, and improve
19   opportunities to get more use out of existing SWP

20   facilities.

21        The added flexibility provided by the Monterey

22   Amendment has allowed the SWP contractors to weather

23   the most recent drought without enduring the

24   substantial hardships of the drought that occurred in

25   the early 1990s despite increased water demands since

 1   that time.

 2        The State Water Contractors feel that the

 3   Monterey Amendment DEIR which was drafted with the

 4   advisory collaboration of DWR, the State Water

 5   Contractors, Planning and Conservation League,

 6   Citizens Planning Association of Santa Barbara, and

 7   Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation

 8   District, adequately describes the environmental
 9   effects of the amendment.

10        The exhaustive analysis in the EIR shows that

11   there have been no significant environmental impacts

12   resulting from the Monterey Amendments from 1996

13   through today.

14        Moving into the future, the EIR shows that future

15   environmental impacts from the Monterey Amendments in

16   almost all resource categories are at less than

17   significant levels.

18        Thank you for accepting these comments.
19        MS. QUAN:     Thank you.    Are there any other

20   speakers tonight?    Okay.   I want to emphasize that

21   written comments are due to DWR by close of business

22   on Monday, January 14th, 2008.      This completes the

23   official public hearing.     Thank you for coming.

24                (Off the record.)

25        MS. PLAMBECK:     Is there a time limit?

 1           MS. QUAN:   Since there are no speakers after you,

 2   you could speak a few minutes longer than the other

 3   speakers.

 4           MS. PLAMBECK:   Okay.   All right.

 5           MS. QUAN:   The next speaker is Lynn Plambeck.

 6           MS. PLAMBECK:   Okay.   I'm here representing Santa

 7   Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment.

 8   And I would first like to put on the record that there
 9   are no signs directing anyone to this being a public

10   meeting.    There's a very dark parking lot out there,

11   and it was very difficult to find.

12           And I'm discouraged to have arrived 6:40, having

13   to leave work early tonight to arrive even at this

14   time, and find that the meeting was going to be closed

15   down.    It concerns me that a public hearing doesn't

16   remain open for the full time period in case other

17   people would not be able to get off of work right away

18   to come and make comments.
19           We will be submitting extensive written comments

20   on this issue.      But I would like to express my concern

21   in the change of the amendments.      It's really

22   important that the EIR look more closely at the

23   changes in article A and B, particularly in light of

24   the drought that we are currently experiencing, and

25   the Wanger decision in the Delta.      I don't think the

 1   EIR really considered the Wanger decision.

 2           I also don't think the EIR has considered to the

 3   fullest extent possible the changes that will result

 4   from global warming.    And it's maybe time, just as the

 5   Colorado River water law was looked at again, it's

 6   maybe time to look at this again.

 7           And I would like to suggest that possibly you

 8   reevaluate, in the EIR have an alternative that puts
 9   the urban preference back in.    The reason is, I'm from

10   an area that's relying almost entire -- well, about 50

11   percent on State Water.    And most new development in

12   the future will have to rely on State Water.

13           So if we are going to be building on State Water,

14   then we can't really -- we have to have the urban

15   preference back.    Either that or it has to be

16   reflected in your reliability report that there may be

17   severe cutbacks.

18           I think in my area where we're looking at
19   projects like the New Whole Ranch Project, 21,000

20   units, and about 30,000 units in addition to that, all

21   basically relying on imported water supply, not having

22   an urban preference could be really a disaster for the

23   area.    And I think that the growth section of the EIR

24   did not really address the amount of massive growth.

25           I was interested to go to the San Gabriel Valley

 1   and see a report that they are only relying on 30,000

 2   acre feet in the San Gabriel Valley, to my

 3   understanding of what was presented there.     And yet,

 4   in Santa Clarita we're looking at an entitlement of

 5   95,000, which is far in excess of what our local

 6   supplies could provide as a backup.

 7        So, in addition, the EIR should address the

 8   article 21 water that is being transferred to the Kern
 9   area because the difference in when that water is

10   taken is what may have caused impacts to the Delta

11   smelt.

12        If you look at the charts of water production

13   since 2000, where much of that water was transferred

14   into the Kern area to be stored, there was massive

15   amounts of water removed from the Delta at a time when

16   the Delta smelt were probably near the pumps.

17        And if that's the scenario that we're going to be

18   using in the future, you really have to address those
19   impacts.   And I didn't see that in the EIR.   And maybe

20   it's -- maybe I haven't reviewed everything thoroughly

21   enough, the biology section.    But I didn't see that in

22   there currently.

23        Also -- well, I guess that's all.    Anyway, thank

24   you for letting me speak.

25        MS. QUAN:     Thank you.


                    )   ss.

          This is to certify that I transcribed the

foregoing pages 1 through 33, consisting of the public

meeting for Monterey Plus Project Draft EIR held in

Ventura, California, on December 4, 2007, to the best

of my ability from a cassette tape.

          I have subscribed this certificate at Dixon,

California, this 17th of December, 2007.

                               Leisa M. Miller


Shared By: