BEC's response to the E-R's Sept. 3, 2005 article "Group behind aquifer study proposal explains idea"

The E-R article

The article "Group behind aquifer study proposal explains idea" is posted below. BEC's response to this piece follows.

An environmental advocacy group that submitted a grant proposal to study the Lower Tuscan groundwater aquifer has some people in the northern Sacramento Valley worried there isn't enough research yet on how the groundwater is recharged.

The Lower Tuscan is an aquifer that mostly lies 800-1,000 feet underground. But in some areas, such as near Butte College and in the foothills, the aquifer is close to the surface.

It is unknown how much water can be pumped out of the aquifer each year, but numbers of about 200,000 acre-feet a year have been theorized. It is believed the aquifer currently holds about 30 million acre-feet of water.

One acre-foot equals 325,851 gallons of water, or about the amount of water for one to two households per year.

In other areas of the state and country, aquifers have been tapped and the land has sunk. In other areas, the water is salty because there is a layer of salt water that lies underneath the fresh water.

Natural Heritage Institute, which has offices in San Francisco and Sacramento, partnered with Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, Orland/Artois Water district and Orland Water Users Association to come up with a proposal for Proposition 50 funds — "Regional Integration of the Lower Tuscan Formation Using Conjunctive Water Management in the Sacramento Valley."

Isabelle Fauconnier, senior planner and economist for the Natural Heritage Institute, said if funded, the grant will not lead directly to water transfers from Northern California. Rather, the grant would help build knowledge and help come up with a regional plan for how to manage future water resources.

"We are of the school that we need more knowledge and we need to build more planning decisions, to avoid harm to existing users," Fauconnier said.

"If the alternative is to have no knowledge and have people continue to use this resource without any alternative planning, we don't see that as an attractive alternative."

She added, "We are hoping that all of the interested parties, including counties, water districts, independent groundwater users, residential communities, environmental organizations and community organizations, will come to the table and join in constructive planning process."

She explained that NHI is a nonprofit conservation organization that has technical expertise in hydrology in law and restoration ecology among other themes related to water resource conservation.

"We are working to develop a tool kit for environmental problem solving, with recognition that in economic environment where economic activity happens and there are economic needs that need to be met, we want to bring about new environmental benefits while respecting economic activities," she said.

"We don't have a predetermined position on water transfers, whether they will be a good idea will come out of planning effort we're proposing."

She said NHI's goals include restoring habitat and protecting habitat,

"The broad objective is to learn how to manage this resource sustainably. The assumption is that if the resource can be managed sustainably, then there are opportunities to increase local reliability, and new net environmental benefits.

"Then, once local and environmental needs are met, then perhaps statewide reliability can be improved. That's only if that's a logical conclusion that comes out of scientific and technical aspects of the planning process.

"Here's an opportunity to enhance tools to increase local reliability and get new net environmental benefits at the same time."

Susan Strachan, watershed coordinator for the Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance, said she and others have written in protest over the grant proposal because they believe not enough research has been done on groundwater recharge.

BEC’s response

The Glenn Colusa Irrigation District-Natural Heritage Institute Prop.50 grant proposal mentioned in Heather Hacking’s article promotes the idea of exporting surface-water entitlements and replacing them with aggressively pumped Lower-Tuscan aquifer water. While NHI claims they have no predetermined position on water transfers the primary objective is to, “improve Central Valley system-wide water supply reliability through participation in the emerging water transfer markets; [This] objective will be achieved by using groundwater from the Lower Tuscan Formation in lieu of surface water entitlements that would otherwise be used, thereby freeing surface water for transfer.”

GCID stands to profit greatly from marketing their surface-water entitlements to willing buyers south of the Delta.

“The Lower Tuscan Formation, if integrated into California’s water supply system, could provide major water supply reliability benefits.”

GCID wants to ramp up exploitation of the Tuscan now and study the impacts later: “It will take decades before we know enough about the aquifer dynamics to devise such a risk- free regime, and yet it would be foolish to require that the aquifer remain an underperforming asset in the interim.”

GCID recognizes that exploitation of the Tuscan in Glenn County may impact Butte County wells and creeks near the recharge area. No mitigation for dewatered creeks is mentioned but,“providing current Lower Tuscan groundwater users a risk-free water supply alternative in the form of a supplemental surface water supply...The substitute surface water might be made available by DWR through operating Oroville reservoir more aggressively.”

Butte County should lead the study of Tuscan hydrology, not GCID!

Posted September 7, 2005