CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
MONTEREY AMENDMENT DRAFT EIR
TO THE STATE WATER PROJECTS
December 4, 2007
800 South Victoria Avenue
Lower Plaza Assembly Room
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
2 Improved dissemination of information of SWP
4 More public review of proposed contract
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 --
25 SEVERAL VOICES FROM THE AUDIENCE: No.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SOLANO )
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