HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - March 11, 2003 SSCITY OF LODI
INFORMAL INFORMATIONAL MEETING
"SHIRTSLEEVE" SESSION
CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET
TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2003
An Informal Informational Meeting ("Shirtsleeve" Session) of the Lodi City Council was held Tuesday,
March 11, 2003, commencing at 7:00 a.m.
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Council Members — Beckman, Hansen, Howard, and Land
Absent: Council Members — Hitchcock*
Also Present: City Manager Flynn, City Attorney Hays, and City Clerk Blackston
*Absent due to attendance at the American Farmland Trust National Conference.
B. CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR UPDATE
City Clerk Blackston reviewed the weekly calendar (filed).
C. TOPIC(S)
C-1 "Woodbridge Irrigation District Water Agreement"
With the aid of overheads (filed), Public Works Director Prima presented the following
information. Documentation indicates that saline intrusion is now well into the middle of
Stockton. The intrusion is likely due to a combination of the migration of water eastward
and an upwelling of saline water from underneath. Lodi sits atop a layer of saline water.
Mr. Prima reported that at 600 feet and lower the water is brackish and not directly usable
without expensive treatment. The groundwater aquifer is replenished primarily by the
Mokelumne River and migration of water from the east. Since 1986 there has been a
cumulative loss in storage of 2.5 million acre feet. On a net basis (average annual) the
City uses more groundwater than is being replenished and the demand continues to rise.
Mr. Prima explained that as a municipal provider of water, and one that relies solely on
groundwater, Lodi is considered an appropriator. The City does not have overlying rights
to pump groundwater. He indicated that if a situation arose in the future where users
were at an impasse, the water basin would be adjudicated and a lawsuit would settle who
gets to use the groundwater. Mr. Prima believed that scenario would negatively impact
Lodi's ability to pump additional water in the future. He reported that the state has been
passing various laws recently that link development approval with water supply. In the
case of groundwater overdraft the City is required to show plans on how it will obtain
future water supplies.
Mr. Prima stated that Lodi has no direct rights on the Mokelumne River for use of surface
water. Staff received Council approval to participate in the Mokelumne River Water and
Power Authority, which is a joint powers entity that was started by San Joaquin County.
Lodi will be contributing $150,000 this year for consultant work to perfect a water rights
filing that the county has on the Mokelumne and a Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission license for power generation on the Mokelumne River. The county has had
the filing for over ten years. He stated that three alternatives were being considered: 1) a
dam at Middlebar upstream from Pardee, 2) take water from Pardee and put peak water
into Duck Creek reservoir, and 3) take water when it is available in other times at other
locations.
The City has been working with the Groundwater Banking Authority to attempt to do a
groundwater banking project. A test project with East Bay Municipal Utility District
(EBMUD) was halted when an export permit was denied by the county. Mr. Prima
reported that North San Joaquin, Stockton East, and Central Irrigation Districts have been
discussing forming their own Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) to take control of the eastern
basin including having the authority over the county in terms of the groundwater export
Continued March 11, 2003
ordinance. Stockton is pursuing a project to take Delta water, treat it, and use it in its
system. Mr. Prima stated that recycling is another potential in the long term for an
alternative water supply. A dual distribution system was considered in the wastewater
treatment master plan. In this concept, one water system would provide non -potable
water for uses such as landscape irrigation and firefighting. The cost to bring the water
from the wastewater plant into town was estimated at $8 million. The distribution system
would be an additional cost.
Mr. Prima recalled that Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) had been working for years
on a project to replace its dam. They developed a project that has state of the art fish
screens, ladder, etc. that is advantageous from an environmental standpoint. The
estimated cost of the dam is $20 million. WID has obtained the necessary permits, which
are generally active for one to two years, and now feels an urgency to move forward with
the project. WID has indicated it has 6,000 acre feet of water available annually that it
could sell. This represents one-third of Lodi's annual demand. Mr. Prima stated that
approximately 25% of the City's water use could be considered overdraft. WID wants
$1.2 million ($200 an acre foot) fixed for six years, with an escalator clause beyond that at
a minimum of 2% and a cap at 5%. Mr. Prima said that, if approved, the City would build
facilities to take the water. He commented that groundwater injection is a strong
possibility.
There are provisions in the draft agreement for additional water under various
circumstances. If a supply were obtained on the Mokelumne River, WID would charge
$20 an acre foot to wheel the water through the canal. The agreement also includes
language regarding a first right of refusal for additional water should it become available.
The agreement would be for a 40 -year term. The WID supply is subject to curtailment in
dry years, which on average occurs once in four or five years. During dry years its annual
60,000 acre feet of supply is reduced to 39,000. The agreement states that Lodi would
also be subject to curtailment in dry years. There are two circumstances for carryover
water:
1) If the agreement is started in 2003 and the City is not ready to use the water, a credit
of up to three years of water (18,000 acre feet) would be given and during future wet
years the City could draw the additional credited water over and above the 6,000 acre
feet it is entitled to.
2) During a curtailment, whether because of maintenance on the dam or from water cut
back in a dry year, the water that is not taken could be credited for use in later years.
The agreement will be enhanced to include language about being able to use the WID
right of way for a distribution system. A preliminary concept is to build a string of injection
wells running down the canal right of way. Another option is to build the outtake facilities
and assist them to send the water into town using other land. Mr. Prima stated that one of
the advantages to the water agreement is the certainty of the water supply. WID has pre -
1914 rights, which is a key factor in California water law. In addition, this agreement can
be entered into without state approval. Mr. Prima stated that there is no other way to get
surface water to Lodi that would be cheaper than taking it out of the WID canal.
Council Member Land stated that South San Joaquin is pursuing surface water delivery
through a pipeline and asked what the cost was per acre foot, to which Mr. Prima
answered approximately $500.
In answer to questions posed by Council Member Hansen, Mr. Prima reported that the
groundwater under Lodi is closest to one of the major sources of recharge from the
Mokelumne River. Before Lodi runs out of water there will be vast areas on the west side
of the county dealing with saline water, which will have a huge effect on the economy.
Groundwater contamination is another issue to be considered. There is growing concern
over nitrates in the county. Mr. Prima estimated that it would cost $15 to $20 million to
build a water treatment plant that would provide water for drinking. Another alternative is
to have a dual system where part of the City uses chlorinated water from a surface plant
and the remaining area uses groundwater.
N
Continued March 11, 2003
In response to Council Member Hansen, City Manager Flynn stated that the money could
come from the water fund enterprise. He stated that the City could recoup its costs by
selling the water to a third party until such time as the City needed the water. He
explained that water promotes growth and believed that it was important to take
advantage of this opportunity so that the City has some say in the growth of north San
Joaquin County.
Anders Christensen, Manager of Woodbridge Irrigation District, reported that WID's rights
were filed in 1886 and are not subject to State Water Board approval and would not
require any additional agreement from EBMUD. The water being offered is water that
growers have conserved through drip irrigation. He stated that the water available to Lodi
under the draft agreement must be used within the City by the City. There are three tiers
of water:
1. $200 an acre foot — for 6,000 acre feet a year;
2. $100 an acre foot —when additional water is available, over and above 6,000;
3. $20 an acre foot — to wheel other water through the canal system.
Mr. Christensen stated that the water WID is conserving is protected under the Water
Code. WID intends to use the funds for building a new dam. The dam will be operated
as a year-round facility, providing greater benefits for some of the flood flows that could
be captured on the river, as well as increasing recreation days by having Lodi Lake full
year round.
In answer to questions posed by Council Member Beckman, Mr. Christensen explained
that the price of water depends on many factors including location, term, etc. He reported
that almost every landowner within the community pays assessments in terms of standby
charges, i.e. if they have water available to them, but do not use it. In accordance with
Water Code Section 22280 WID charges a groundwater assessment charge for the
benefit of percolation that results from the District's operation of its earth -lined canal
system. In reference to parcels in the City of Lodi that are paying fees to WID,
Mr. Christensen indicated that this would be changed if the City approves the agreement.
He reported that up until about two years ago WID sold water to the few remaining
agriculture parcels within Lodi north of Kettleman Lane. Mr. Christensen stated that over
the course of the last two years WID sold water to members at $14 an acre foot. In
addition, WID has a share of the property taxes that are collected within its district,
standby charges of $2 an acre, and the recharge fee, which combined totals
approximately $25 to $30. He did not believe it was appropriate to use that to come up
with a cost comparison to the proposed agreement because WID paid for the
development of its District and infrastructure with yesterday's dollars. In reference to the
groundwater assessment fee charged to non-users of water, Mr. Christensen explained
that each year an engineer does a report on groundwater levels within the area, as well as
a calculation of the losses to percolation in the District's canal system. Hydrology maps
show that water is made higher not only because of the Mokelumne River, but by WID's
operation of its canals and the fact that it brings in 60,000 acre feet of water each year. If
that water were absent, the availability of storage within the basin would be much greater.
He justified the recharge assessment fee, whether the water was sold to Lodi or EBMUD,
because the recharge from the District's canal system would continue either way. He
reiterated that the water available for sale is water that the District has conserved. WID
could lose the water if it is not put to use. The conservation has come from the
conversion of agriculture irrigation from furrow and flood, to drip. A lot of acres that had
been using well water now use WID water and using surface water saves groundwater.
In answer to what WID has done to recharge the groundwater basin, Mr. Christensen
reported that WID has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars installing screening
equipment and structures to make full use of surface water to its growers. It is providing
water by not lining its canal system. It has been estimated that 25% of WID's water
(15,000 acre feet a year) goes into percolation. Lodi is benefited because its wells dip
into that same aquifer.
Council Member Beckman noted that it would be WID's members west of Lodi who would
be the first impacted by the saline intrusion. He stated that Lodi and North San Joaquin
3
Continued March 11, 2003
Water Conservation District have been actively trying to improve the water basin and yet it
appears that WID is trying to profit off this by charging $200 an acre foot for water.
Mr. Christensen replied that the dam WID is proposing to construct will benefit the area as
a whole.
Council Member Hansen pointed out a conflict between the statement made by the City
Manager suggesting that Lodi could sell water to a third party and Mr. Christensen's
statement that the water must be used within the City and by the City.
Mr. Prima replied that it is a difference of interpretation between the City and WID, and he
indicated that the language in the agreement needed to be refined.
Council Member Hansen asked how much authority WID had in setting the price.
Mr. Christensen indicated that it is solely up to WID, and $200 an acre foot is the price
being offered.
Mr. Prima pointed out that the debt service on the $20 million dam would be $1.2 million a
year, which equals the annual cost to the City at $200 an acre foot for the water. He
noted that the same canal that runs through Lodi runs through the county and winds up in
north Stockton. In light of the alternatives, he implied that it would not be advantageous to
start "shopping."
Council Member Hansen believed that the new dam would provide huge benefits not only
for Lodi, but for the environment.
Mr. Christensen stated that, optimistically, construction on the dam could begin in late
2003.
In answer to questions posed by Mr. Flynn, Mr. Christensen acknowledged that the dam
would benefit members of the District and that they would not be paying higher rates in
order to finance the dam. Mr. Christensen clarified that he viewed the proposed
agreement as purely a water sale, rather than the purchase of a facility.
Council Member Beckman asked if a better price could be negotiated on the water sale if
the City were to partner on building the dam.
Mr. Christensen indicated that it was not an option.
Mayor Pro Tempore Howard viewed this matter strictly as a water sale, in which the City
has been given an opportunity to purchase a commodity that is exhaustible, and therefore
very valuable. She believed that how WID spends the money is up to them. She pointed
out that as proposed, the money would stay in this area and the dam would benefit the
local community.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
• Ed Steffani, General Manager of North San Joaquin Water Conservation District
(NSJWCD), mentioned that staff in the Public Works Department have been
providing the NSJWCD with clerical assistance. He asked that Council take no action
on the WID proposed agreement until the following three NSJWCD matters have
reached a conclusion:
1. NSJWCD has petitioned the state to extend its water rights for 20,000 acre feet
annually out of the Mokelumne River for another 40 years. NSJWCD's permit
expired December 2000, at the same time that EBMUD's permit for Camanche
expired. Both agencies have asked for extensions from the state.
2. A letter signed by three assembly members, Stockton East Water District, Central
San Joaquin, South Delta, and Central Delta will soon be sent to the State Water
Resources Control Board requesting reallocation of 50,000 acre feet annually
4
Continued March 11, 2003
from EBMUD to NSJWCD in an effort to correct a past error. Mr. Steffani
explained that the state had made an error by ignoring the fact that NSJWCD's
original application was for a municipal use, i.e. water for Lodi. In addition the
state had indicated that NSJWCD would eventually get a water supply from the
Folsom South Canal, which has never materialized. Mr. Steffani stated that
additional letters on this subject will be sent by Senator Poochigian and the Farm
Bureau.
3. A mailed ballot election will be conducted in July 2003 requesting approval for
NSJWCD to impose a charge of up to $5 per acre per year. The charge would
apply to every household in the portion of the City that is within the District. A
meeting on this topic will be held at Hutchins Street Square on April 3.
Mr. Steffani objected to WID's definition of conserved water. He argued that by the
City buying 6,000 acre feet of "conserved" water it is only getting back what would
have been recharged into the basin if flood irrigation was still occurring, rather than
drip. He believed that WID has a responsibility to recharge the basin and should be
building spreading basins to get the water back into the ground. He asserted that it
was irresponsible of WID to suggest that it might sell the water out of the area.
Mr. Steffani stated that if NSJWCD's election is successful, the $5 charge would take
effect once the District is putting 12,000 acre feet of water back into the ground
annually. The District has currently been recharging 3,000 acre feet. He pointed out
that the $1.2 million annual cost in WID's proposed agreement equates to
approximately $100 per household per year and noted that NSJWCD could provide
much more benefit to the basin for significantly less money. He reported that
NSJWCD has a right to 20,000 acre feet annually out of the Mokelumne River and
has been using 3,000 acre feet. Consequently there is 17,000 acre feet of water that
could be wheeled to Lodi through WID canals at no cost and put into the ground
today.
Dennis Haugan stated that he was speaking on behalf of himself as a citizen of the
community who wants to see it continue to develop and have an assured water
supply. He reported that for 18 years he worked for Monterey County Flood Control.
He reviewed the history of Monterey County's water projects and the Salinas Valley
saline intrusion problem. He stated that the 1982 Arroyo Seco project cost $265 an
acre foot for water. Mr. Haugan voiced support for the WID proposal.
Council Member Hansen expressed concern that Mr. Steffani's request is to delay
action on this matter pending resolution of an issue dependent on the state, which
typically is a very slow process. WID's proposal presents a finite window of
opportunity for Lodi.
Mr. Steffani stated that he anticipated a reply from the state regarding NSJWCD's
water right extension request sometime in 2003.
In reference to NSJWCD's water right extension, Mr. Prima recalled that the state was
considering a reduction of its allocation. In addition, it is not a permanent water right; it is
a contracted right tied in with EBMUD. Mr. Prima believed that likely nothing would come
of the letter addressing the state's "error" and noted that the issue has been ongoing
since the 1950s.
In reply to Council Member Land, Mr. Prima anticipated having the initial report back from
Saracino Kirby Snow in two to three months, which will outline options and relative rough
costs. He reported that the Urban Water Management Plan addresses the fact that the
City is over drafting the basin and needs to come up with a plan to deal with it. The next
Water Plan is due at the end of 2004.
In response to Council Member Land, Mr. Flynn suspected that there would need to be a
water rate increase.
Continued March 11, 2003
Mr. Prima added that the City could scale back on the replacement program to help
soften the financial impact. In addition, development fees could shoulder a portion of the
cost.
Council Member Land believed that a rate increase would likely be necessary to build any
type of facility to utilize the water. Before injecting the water into the ground, it would need
to be treated first. He supported the idea of using the water for landscaping irrigation
purposes. He asked if there was a renewal provision on the 40 -year contract, and
whether it gives the City the first right to purchase the 6,000 acre feet of water.
Mr. Prima indicated that language in the agreement regarding a renewal provision needs
more work. Currently there is consideration for the City to give two years notice of its wish
to renew and begin negotiations again; this, however, would be contingent upon approval
by WID.
Council Member Land hoped that the renewal provision would be improved; noting that if
the City comes to rely on the water source it would, in a sense, become captive when the
40 -year term expired. In concept, he believed the WID proposal was a good opportunity
for the City. He pointed out that availability of water is a key consideration of the Local
Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) when annexations are being contemplated.
D. COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS
None.
E. ADJOURNMENT
No action was taken by the City Council. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 a.m.
ATTEST:
Susan J. Blackston
City Clerk
G
q - CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
AGENDA TITLE: Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) Water Agreement
MEETING DATE: March 11, 2003 (Shirtsleeve Session)
PREPARED BY: Public Works Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None — Information only.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As the City Council is well aware, Lodi's sole water supply is
groundwater that we draw from the overused (overdrafted) basin we
share with our neighbors. While the catastrophic impacts of
overdrafting the basin — mainly saline intrusion, from which the basin
cannot recover — are not an imminent threat to Lodi, this is a problem for the entire area and Lodi should
become part of the solution.
Lodi currently uses approximately 17,000 acre-feet of water per year, and our use is expected to grow to
nearly 23,000 acre-feet by 2020. Our "deficit" in terms of overdraft is difficult to quantify, however, it has
been estimated to be approximately 5,000 acre-feet under current conditions and up to 11,000 acre-feet
in the future. (See attached Tables 3-5, 3-6, 3-7 and 4-1 from our latest Urban Water Management Plan.)
The City Council has directed staff to pursue various partnerships to bring supplemental water supplies to
our area. We have participated with adjacent water districts, San Joaquin County, and the City of
Stockton in attempts to implement a groundwater -banking plan for our area. To date, these efforts have
been unsuccessful. We are in the process of joining the Mokelumne River Water and Power Authority to
obtain additional supplies from the Mokelumne River. (The Authority is currently only San Joaquin County
and will include Stockton and Lodi.) The success of this effort is many years from being known.
Staff has also had informal discussions with the Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) over the years in
conjunction with various water, drainage and Mokelumne River issues. The relationship between the City
and the District has been a good one, and when the WID recognized they have some available water due
to various conservation measures of District lands, these informal discussions led to talks about water
supply. We have recently worked with the District on a water sale agreement and wish to review the
major points of discussion with the City Council before we bring a final draft to the Council for
consideration in the near future.
The major points are:
6,000 acre-feet of water annually to the City — This represents the amount of water the District
feels it can provide under normal circumstances.
Payment to the District of $1.2 million annually — This amounts to a cost of $200 per acre-foot,
which is a reasonable and fair amount, particularly in light of the cost of our alternatives and the
fact that the delivery point for the water is at our doorstep. (For example, costs for the Mokelumne
project are upwards of $400 per acre-foot with no delivery system.)
APPROVED:
H. Dixon Flynn -- City Manager
CWIDWaterAgmt 03106/03
Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) Water Agreement
March 11, 2003 (Shirtsleeve Session)
Page 2
• City to build and pay for facilities necessary to accept and use the water — As previously approved
by the City Council, we have begun studies to determine these costs and examine alternative
methods of use (direct use, groundwater recharge, etc.).
• Provision for additional water under various circumstances — Should we obtain other rights on the
Mokelumne, we could "wheel" water via the WID at a reduced cost, or if the WID had additional
water available, we could purchase it at a lower rate.
• Price escalator provisions after six years — Linked to the CPI with'a 2% minimum and 5%
maximum.
• A 40 -year term, with renewal provisions
• Provisions for dry year curtailments — Recognizing that the WID's supply is reduced in dry years,
and that the City can fall back on groundwater, we can reduce our use of surface water in a
greater proportion than the District (see next point).
• Provisions for "carryover" or banking of water — Recognizing that we will not be able to use the
water immediately, we can "bank" the first three years for use later, as the water is available.
Similarly, during dry years when we curtail use per the preceding point, we can use additional
water in later, wet years.
• Use of the District canal and rights-of-way for delivery and distribution — In addition to eventually
building supply intake(s) within the WID canal right-of-way, we may wish to use the canal right-of-
way to transport water to portions of the City or build groundwater injection facilities.
City and District staff will be available at the shirtsleeve session to explain these points in more detail and
respond to questions.
The District wishes to pursue the construction of their new dam now that they have received the
necessary Federal and State approvals, while they are "fresh". Pending approval by the District Board,
staff is prepared to bring the agreement to the regular Council meeting on April 2 for approval.
Staff is proposing the funding for this agreement in the upcoming water utility budget.
FUNDING: Water Fund
Richard C. Prima, Jr.
Public Works Director
RCP/pmf
Attachments
cc: Randy Hays, City Attorney
Wally Sandelin, City Engineer
Fran Forkas, Water/Wastewater Superintendent
Anders Christensen — Woodbridge Irrigation District
Anthony Saracino - Saracino, Kirby, Snow
\\CVCADC01\WP\Water\CWIDWaterAgmt.doc 03/06/03
3-5
Table 3-5. Historical Water Production
Annual averse
Maximum da
Peaking
Year
ac-fU r
mod
qpm
an d
gpm
facto
1977
10,578
9.44
6,556
19.28
13,389
2.04
1978
11,478
10.25
7,118
.a
-
a
1979
12,349
11.02
7,653
22.50
15,625
2.04
1980
12,312
10.99
7,632
24.00
16,667
2.18
1981
12,487
11.15
7,743
22.34
15,514
2.00
1982
11,560
10.32
7,167
21.30
1.4,792
2.06
1983
11,539
10.30
7,153
21.67
15,049
2.10
1984
13,997
12.50
8,681
26.20
18,194
2.10
1985
14,814
13.22
9,181
• 8
--
--a
1986
15,081
13.46
9,347
26.91
18,688
2.00
1987
15,305
13.66
9,486
27.00
18,750
1.98
1988
15,360
13.71
9,521
28.40
19,722
2.07
1989
14,654
13.08
9,083
28.50
19,792
2.18
1990
15,387
13.74
9,542
24.29
16,868
1.77
1991
13,313
11.88
8,250
21.55
14,965
1.81
1992
13,985
12.48
8,667
24.00
16,667
1.92
1993
14,013
12.51
8,688
24.10
16,736
1.93
1994
14,301
12.77
8,868
22.94
15,931
1.80
1995
14,390
12.85
8,924
24.64
17,111
1.92
1996
15,102
13.48
9,361
27.93
19,396
2.07
1997
16,330
14.58
10,125
28.68
19,917
1.97
1998
14,461
12.91
8,965
29.66
20,597
2.30
1999
16,587
14.81
10,285
28.32
19,667
1.91
2000
-°
'
e
-
-a
Average 1977 - 1999
-
--
--
2.01
Average 1990 - 1999
--
-
-
--
1.94
Source: City of Lodi Public Works Department
e Data unavailable.
b Maximum day peaking factor = maximum day demand/annual average day demand.
3.2.3 Unaccounted-for Water. Unaccounted-for water use is unmetered water use such as from
fire protection and training, system and hydrant flushing, sewer cleaning, construction, system leaks,
and unauthorized connections. Unaccounted-for water can also result from meter inaccuracies.
Since the City of Lodi's system is not completely metered, data are unavailable for determining the
percent of unaccounted-for water. Unaccounted-for water is generally assumed to be appro umately
10 percent of total water production.
3.3 Unit Water Use
Historical unit water use expressed as gallons per connection per day (gpd/connection) and as
gallons per capita per day (gpd/capita) are shown in Table 3-6. These unit demands include
unaccounted-for water.
P:\NY100\211650 Lodi U\X'MP\NC'hfP\9-01 Final Repon\Chapter AChapter 3.doc
j1C'A Sep -01
3-6
Table 3-6. Connection and Population Unit Water Use
Connection unit water use I Population unit water
1996 834 1 248
1997 894 267
1998 777 232
1999 1 884 260
'Gallons per connection per day.
°Gallons per capita per day.
3.4 Projected Water Demands
Future water demands are estimated in this report based on a constant 1.5 percent annual water
demand growth rate. Demands were projected based on actual water use in 1999. These projections
are shown in Table 3-7 and illustrated on Figure 3-2. By 2020, average annual water demands are
expected to increase by 36 percent, from 14.8 mgd (16,587 ac-ft/yr) in 1999 to 20.3 mgd (22,727 ac-
ft/yr) in 2020. Reductions in water use due to conservation measures taken in the future are not
reflected in the projected water demands.
Table 3-7. Total Projected Water Demands
P:\2[wM\2063t1 Lodi UWhfP\\C'hfP\9-01 Find ReporAChaptcr AChapm 3.doc
J\\':\28SeP-91
Annual averse
Maximum da
Year
ac-tt/ r
an d
mgd
2000
16,874
15.1
29.2
2005
18,178
16.2
31.5
2010
19,583
17.5
33.9
2015
21,096
18.8
36.5
2020
22,727
20.3
39.4
P:\2[wM\2063t1 Lodi UWhfP\\C'hfP\9-01 Find ReporAChaptcr AChapm 3.doc
J\\':\28SeP-91
4-4
standard. None of the 24 Lodi wells sampled from 1997 to 2000 contained arsenic concentrations
higher than the new standard of 10 ltg/L. Therefore, the new arsenic standard is not an issue for
the City.
Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) was a chemical previously used by farmers in the Lodi area to
control nematodes in vineyards and other crops. DBCP was banned in California in 1977, but is still
present in trace levels in some groundwater supplies. The MCL for DBCP has been set at 0.2
micrograms per liter (jig/L). The year 2000 average concentration of DBCP in water delivered from
Lodi's 24 wells was 0.04 µg/L. Approximately a fourth of Lodi's wells liave granular activated
carbon (GAC) filters to remove DBCP, while the remaining wells have no detectable or trace
amounts of DBCP (City of Lodi Public Works Department, 2000).
The U.S. EPA is proposing the Ground Water Rule (GWR), which contains measures to establish
multiple barriers to further protect against bacteria and viruses in drinking water from ground water
sources. The proposed GWR will specify when corrective action (including disinfection) is required
to further protect groundwater system consumers from bacteria and viruses. -The GWR is scheduled
to be issued as a final regulation in summer 2001. The City of Lodi may be required to disinfect (i.e.
chlorinate) its groundwater sources as a result of this proposed rule.
4.3 Current and Projected Water Supplies
The projected annual sustainable water supply and demand for the Lodi system is compared and
summarized in Table 4-1. Recycled water supply is addressed in Chapter 6. As described earlier, the
groundwater basin is in an overdraft condition. Therefore, the sustainable groundwater extraction
rate for the City is likely something less than current annual pumping rates. For the purposes of this
study, the sustainable groundwater supply is assumed to be approximately equivalent to the 1980
pumping rate, or approximately 12,000 ac-ft/yr. This assumption regarding sustainable groundwater
supply is only an approximation since the safe yield of the groundwater basin underlying the City has
not been defined. As a comparison, the 1990 through 1999 groundwater use averaged 14,787 ac-
ft/yr. As shown in Table 4-1, the water supply is not adequate to meet projected demands.
Table 4-1. Water Supply and Demand Comparison, ac-ft/yr
Units of Measure: ac-fUyr
' Based on 1980 pumping rate.
b Based on current conditions. Recycling may occur in the service area within 20 years.
4.4 Water Supply Reliability
The annual quantity of groundwater available does not significantly vary up or down in relation to
wet or dry years. The estimated year 2020 water supply available in average, dry, and multiple dry
P.\20000\20650 Lodi LAVDfP\V%fP\9-01 Final Report\Chapter 4\Chapter 4.doc
\V:\27-Sep•01
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Sustainable Water supply
Surface water
0
0
0
0
0
Groundwatera
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
Recycled waterb
0
0
0
0
0
Total
12 000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
Demand
16,874
18,178
19,583
21,096
22,727
Surplus or Deficit
•4,874
-6,178
.7,583
.9,096
1 -10,727
Units of Measure: ac-fUyr
' Based on 1980 pumping rate.
b Based on current conditions. Recycling may occur in the service area within 20 years.
4.4 Water Supply Reliability
The annual quantity of groundwater available does not significantly vary up or down in relation to
wet or dry years. The estimated year 2020 water supply available in average, dry, and multiple dry
P.\20000\20650 Lodi LAVDfP\V%fP\9-01 Final Report\Chapter 4\Chapter 4.doc
\V:\27-Sep•01
CITY OF LODI
CITIZEN REQUEST TO SPEAK CARD
NOTE: Please submit card to the City Clerk prior to the opening of the meeting,
or as soon thereafter as possible.
1 request permission to speak: Ale cle P -s 6 Xv1'54e- - s;L-,
(please print)
Address: G//ood/�t� vjc e. �rri5're Lies �iSiri�!`
(optional) City Zip Code
Date: Phone:
(optional)
My comments relate to Agenda item(s) # Gy�v/s�r�%✓�r °�s�-
CITY OF LODI
CITIZEN REQUEST TO SPEAK CARD
NOTE: Please submit card to the City Clerk prior to the opening of the meeting,
or as soon thereafter as possible.
1 request permission to speak:
Name: —C�'EINNiS F /4A1.rc,A,J
(please print)
Address: t l 3 Po2Y C H&-,6>`' GOD% q S?q4
(optional) City Zip Code
Date: Jj • GT2 Phone: 33;t6--7r„c�
(optional)
My comments relate to Agenda Item(s) # J,- B Aee► M40r &-,&m
"ice
CITY OF LODI
CITIZEN REQUEST TO SPEAK CARD
NOTE: Please submit card to the City Clerk prior to the opening of the meeting,
or as soon thereafter as possible.
I request permission to speak:
Name: 6�: 40
44*W A4rappin,
Address:
(optional) City Zip Code
Date: it O 3 Phone:
(optional)
My comments relate to Agenda Items) # G j
Table 1- Summary of Alternatives
Alternative
Middle liar.
Expanded Pardee
Duck Creck Reservoir
On the Mokelumne River in the upper
New Pardee Dam would be located
On Duck Creek, a little over a mile
Location
reaches of Pardee Reservoir
approximately 1 mile downstream of
north of State Highway 26
current dam on Mokelumne River
190 -toot high, 800 feet long
New dam on Mokelumne: 400 -foot
157 -foot high
Dam size
Dam crest elevation: 684 feet
high, 1950 feet long
Dam crest elevation: 312 feet
Dam crest elevation: 614-624 feet
v
Transmission facilities to convey water
Saddle dam between the reservoir
From Pardee, a 10,300 -foot long
Necessary infrastructure
to SJC service areas, raise replace
and Jackson Valley, new intake tower,
raise or replace Highway 49 bridge,
tunnel to a 57,400 -foot long pipeline
to discharge to Duck Creek Reservoir
Highway 49 bridge
transmission facilities
Several saddle dams
Storage amount
40,000 acre-feet
Additional 173,000 acre-feet
200,000 acre-feet
Estimated average annual yield
42,100
66,200
69,800
Cost/acre-foot +
$409
$544
$379
Power generation - facility size
31 MW
20 MW
5.13 MW
Power generation -average annual
80 GWh/year
85 GWh/year
15.27 GWh/year
power generated
Annual average revenue from
$4,000,000
$4,250,000
$763,500
power generation'
Some impacts to special status plant
On -stream storage impacts riparian
communities upstream of dam, i to 10
CDFG has a conservation easement
Environmental impacts
areas and wetlands
bald eagles have been found yearly in
on property
the project area
Would inundate a portion of the
Some impacts may occur to the
Recreational resources
Electra whitewater run
Electra whitewater run, but they are
No whitewater impacts
mitigable on-site
On -stream storage reservoirs are
Landowner is not in favor of dam
Public opinion
politically unpopular
CDFG has a conservation easement
on property
Potential partners
Lodi, Stockton, EBMUD, Calaveras
Calaveras and Amador Counties
Lodi, Stockton, EBMUD
and Amador Counties
Must partner with EBMUD
Note 1: Revenue is calculated assuming a power cost of $0.05
1,000,000
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
w
V
500,000
C
m
CY' 400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
Estimated Annual Flood Releases from Camanche/Pardee
1921 1926 1931 1936 1941 1946 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991
CDM Comp Dresser&McKee Inc. San Joaquin County
(500,000)
(1,000,000)
(1,500,000)
v
Q
(2,000,000)
(2,500,000)
Cumulative Change in Storage from San Joaquin County IGSM Model
(3,000,000)
00 01 O N M d f0 1� 00 Of O r N M d Ln f0 O O O N M0)
M o M o m o m 0 O O 0 0 0 0 01 01 O m o m 0 0 M M 0 0) 0
r r � r e- � � � � � � � r a- � V- � V- � � � � r r � r r
Year
Figure 2-13
AL Cumulative Change in Storage for IGSM Model Area
IGSM Balance By &&eg.xW-Gumula 1wStor San Joaquin Water Management Plan
3 0 3 6 Miles
Source: San Joaquin County
CDM Cramp Dresser & McKee h,,-.
Figure 2-2
Fall 1993 Groundwater Table Elevation (Feet, msl)
San Joaquin County Water Management Plan
Water Demand, mgd
N N :a J -
n Ln C s
1
zl
J
1
1
1
1
N
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1988
1,987
198E
1985
199(
199•.
199;
199;
199,
199
199
199
199
198
20C
2Qf
20(
o c 0
C O NO C p O
O
O G 0
-0
c
0
7
WID Water Sale Agreement
• Need
o Declining water table due to past & current use
o Continued growth in demand
o State laws linking water supply/new development approval
• Alternatives
o Mokelumne River
o Contracts with other entities
o Recycling
• Main Points of Sale
0 6,000 acre-feet of water annually to the City
o Payment of $1.2 million annually ($200 per ac -ft.)
o City to build and pay for facilities necessary to use the water
o Provisions for additional water under various circumstances
o Price escalator provisions after six years
0 40 -year term
o Provisions for dry year curtailments
o Provisions for "carryover" or banking of water
o Use of the District canal and rights-of-way for delivery and distribution
• Pros
o Certainty
o "Delivered to our back door"
o Provisions for additional water
o WID project provides other benefits
% Cons
o Costs $ now
o Going it "alone"
o Not a permanent water right
CITY COUNCIL
SUSAN HITCHCOCK, Mayor
EMILY HOWARD
Mayor Pro Tempore
JOHN BECKMAN
LARRY D. HANSEN
KEITH LAND
CITY OF LODI
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET
P.O. BOX 3006
LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910
(209) 333-6706
FAX (209) 333-6710
EMAIL pwdept@lodi.gov
http:\\www.lodi.gov
Mr. Anders Christensen
Woodbridge Irrigation District
18777 N. Lower Sacramento Road
Woodbridge, CA 95258
March 7, 2003
Mr. Anthony Saracino
Saracino Kirby Snow
980 91h Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
SUBJECT: Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) Water Agreement
H. DIXON FLYNN
City Manager
SUSAN J. BLACKSTON
City Clerk
RANDALL A. HAYS
City Attorney
RICHARD C. PRIMA, JR.
Public Works Director
Enclosed is a copy of background information on an item on the City Council Shirtsleeve
Session agenda of Tuesday, March 11, 2003. The meeting will be held at 7 a.m. in the
City Council Chamber, Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street.
This item is being presented for information only and no action will be taken at the
Shirtsleeve Session.
If you wish to write to the City Council, please address your letter to City Council,
City of Lodi, P. O. Box 3006, Lodi, California, 95241-1910. Be sure to allow time for the
mail. Or, you may hand -deliver the letter to City Hall, 221 West Pine Street.
If you wish to address the Council at the Council Shirtsleeve Session, be sure to fill out
a speaker's card (available at the Carnegie Forum immediately prior to the start of the
meeting) and give it to the City Clerk. If you have any questions about communicating
with the Council, please contact Susan Blackston, City Clerk, at (209) 333-6702.
If you have any questions about the item itself, please call me at (209) 333-6759.
Richard C. Prima, Jr.
7U1� • Public Works Director
RCP/pnnf
Enclosure
cc: City Clerk
NCW40WATERAGMT
DIRECTORS
George A. Gillespie NORTH SAN J OAQ U I N WAT E R
Thomas Hoffman
Jerry D. Mettler CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Matthys Van Gaalen
Fred Weybret 221 W. Pine St., Lodi, CA 95240
March 18, 2003
GENERAL MANAGER
Edward M. Steffani
LEGAL COUNSEL
Stewart C. Adams, Jr.
Mayor and Councilmembers
City of Lodi
SUBJECT: Woodbridge Irrigation District Water Purchase
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
I am writing in reponse to your invitation to provide a written supplement to my remarks
of 3/11/03.
Some time ago, Richard Prima told me that he was talking to WID about using some of
the District's surplus water. I said, "more power to you" and that I had also been talking
with Andy Christensen about temporary, one year transfers of surplus water to NSJWCD
for recharge projects. The surplus water I was talking about is wet year water WID is
entitled to, but according to my knowledge, has not and probably will not ever use. I
assumed Richard Prima was thinking about the same water.
I was literally shocked a week ago when I read a newspaper article reporting that WID
proposes selling water that has been recharging our critically overdrafted basin. I was
even more shocked to read that Lodi was considering paying $1.2 million a year and
more for the right to do what WID had been doing for years at no cost to Lodi.
NSJWCD can do no more than talk about temporary transfers until it has a way to fund
recharge projects. The District has just obtained legislation authorizing an acreage
charge, subject to an election. With voter approval, the District would be able to execute
recharge projects using District water and perhaps, surplus wet year water from WID.
We have always assumed that WID would not charge for unusable water because
NSJWCD would use it for recharge for the benefit of the "community".
I asked that the City take no action on the WID proposal until NSJWCD could bring three
matters to conclusion. These are: 1) The District's letter to the State, requesting
reallocation of Mokelumne River water improperly awarded to EBMUD, 2) The District's
petition to the State for extension of its temporary, 20,000 acre feet per year (AFA) right
to water from the Mokelumne River, and 3) the above described election planned for
July 2003.
Letter Requesting Reallocation of Mokelumne River Water (copy enclosed)
It is true that NSJWCD has made other such attempts in the past. It is also true that the
current attempt is different for two major reasons.
The letter has been endorsed by local water districts and by our State Legislators. We
believe the State will pay attention this time.
LMAYOR_COUNCI LME MBERS.DOC
Mayor and Councilmembers
March 18, 2003
Page 2
This attempt includes an extremely reasonable way for EBMUD to replace water lost to
the proposed reallocation. As you know, EBMUD is about to construct the Freeport
Project to convey dry year water from the Sacramento River to the EBMUD aqueduct
near Clements. The facility would sit idle for at least 60% of the time.
San Joaquin County is currently working to move a pending American River water right
to Freeport. This water could be conveyed by the Freeport facilities when not is use by
EBMUD during dry years.
So, where reallocation could have imposed a severe hardship on EBMUD in the past,
there is a real remedy available today.
Petition To Extend Existinq 20,000 Acre -Feet Annually (AFA) Water Right
As I reported on 3/11/03, both NSJWCD and EBMUD have petitioned the State for
extension of their water rights. Neither entity has put all permit water to beneficial use,
and the State could deny extension unless valid reasons exist for non-use, and unless
use can be assured for the near future.
NSJWCD has been using only 3,000' AFA because its intermittent availability is not
attractive to growers. NSJWCD is attempting to correct this problem by using the water
for direct recharge. More about this in the section on the District's proposed acreage
charge.
The 17,000 AFA not used currently could be given to the City for City recharge as
proposed for the WID water, but as will be explained later, spreading basin recharge of
this water east of the City would be much, much more cost effective.
The 17,000 AFA is a part time supply, available only 60% of the years, for an average
annual supply of 10,200 AFA. But, this is almost double the 6,000 AFA from WID for
80% of the time, and 3,000 AFA for 20% of the years for an average of 5,400 AFA.
Agreement by the City to use the 17,000 AFA would assure State extension of the
20,000 AFA right. The water would be available at virtually no cost to the City. If the
City chooses to inject the water as it proposes for the WID water, it would face the $20
per AF wheeling charge suggested by WID, plus the same treatment costs for the WID
water. The total annual cost for City use of an average 5400 AFA of NSJWCD water
would be $1.1 million less than for WID water.
The community (WID. and NSJWCD) must find a cost-effective way to recharge the
6,000 AFA WID water and the 17,000 AFA from NSJWCD. As pointed out on 3/11,
before WID growers switched from flood to drip irrigation, the 6,000 AFA was recharging
our critically overdrafted groundwater basin. If the City were to pay $1.2 million annually
for this water, it would be paying for something that WID did for nothing.
What is cost effective recharge? It certainly is not injection, which requires expensive
treatment. The least costly is flood irrigation. The next is spreading basin recharge.
One could argue that, since WID, has the same responsibility for protecting the
groundwater basin as NSJWCD, it should provide spreading basins for the 6,000 AFA
LMAYOR_COUNCILMEMBERS,DOC
Mayor and Councilmembers
March 18, 2003
Page 3
not used by drip irrigation, at no charge to the City, to simply keep things the way they
were prior to conversion to drip.
Should the City desire to assist WID with a spreading basin project, the City costs for
recharging the 6,000 AFA would be much, much less than the $1.2 million plus
treatment costs. My very preliminary estimate of annual cost for a 6,000 AFA spreading,
basin project is less than $150,000. This assumes land rental of $800 per acre per year
for 60 acres, debt service for a capital expenditure of $200,000, and O & M costs of
$90,000. The benefit to the groundwater basin would be the same for such a spreading
basin project or for the $1.2 million plus proposal.
Any proposal to sell the previously recharged 6,000 AFA outside the overdrafted basin
would be no different than selling groundwater. The latter is prohibited by San Joaquin
County Ordinance.
As is discussed in the following section, NSJWCD proposes to construct spreading
basins easterly of the City.
NSJWCD Proposed Acreage Charge
The District will conduct a mailed ballot election this July, to seek permission to impose
an annual charge up to $5 per acre or portion of an acre, in order to construct and
operate spreading basin recharge projects. The charge can not exceed $1 per acre
unless the District uses more than 3,000 AFA. Please see the sample ballot included
with this letter.
We asked that the City defer action on the WID proposal until it has thoroughly
considered these alternative proposals. Should landowners approve the charge, the
State would be much more likely to grant an extension of the 20,000 AFA water right
because the local community would be willing to tax itself to use the water for recharge.
Conversely, should the voters not approve the charge, there would be no reason for the
State to grant an extension. With no extension, there would be no 17,000 AFA for
recharge by either the City or by NSJWCD. But, with a successful election and
extension, the 17,000 AFA would be available for the City at virtually no charge, a much
better deal than that proposed by WID.
Proposed Joint Powers Agency
Lodi, WID and NSJWCD must work together, for the good of the Community, to correct
our share of the overdraft!
Stockton East Water District (SEWD), Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District
(CSJWCD), and NSJWCD are currently working to form an Eastern San Joaquin County
Joint Powers Agency (JPA) to speak with one voice and to seek Proposition 50 grants
for recharge projects. The JPA is expected to be operating within two months. I
informed WID's Andy Christensen two or three months ago of our intent to form the JPA
and asked if WID wanted to be included. He indicated that WID was not interested. If
WID were part of the JPA, a JPA grant application could be filed for funds to construct a
new Woodbridge dam and facilities required to recharge not only the 6,000 AFA offered
for sale, but the wet year water not currently used by WID, plus the 17,000 AFA of
NWJWCD water.
LMAYOR_COUNC I LME W ERS. DOC
Mayor and Councilmcmbers
March 18, 2003
Page 4
The State is developing rules for Prop 50 grants for applications this year. If they are
anything like the recent Prop 13 grant rules, matching funds will be required. If Lodi is
prepared to spend $1.2 million per year plus treatment costs to recharge an average
5400 AFA, and to benefit from a new dam, the City should be more than willing to
contribute $1.2 million per year to recharge the 5400 AFA plus another estimated
average 12,000 AFA of WID interim wet year water, pus yet another average 10,200
AFA of NSJWCD wet year water, for a total 27,600 AFA. The JPA, including WID, could
apply for a Prop 50 grant equal to the capitalized value of the $1.2 million per year plus
another estimated $0.2 million per year from the proposed NSJWCD acreage charge.
$1.4 million capitalized at 5% would be $28 million. A $28 million grant could be sought
for up to a $56 million project. I don't think the cost would be this great. I have simply
capitalized the $1.4 million to demonstrate how much grant money might be leveraged.
The above project would include the proposed new Woodbridge dam, needed for
wintertime gravity flow through existing Woodbridge canals to spreading basins and
fields plus conveyance facilities and spreading basins, etc. for areas easterly and
northeasterly of the City.
Again, for $1.2 million per year, and without treatment costs, the City would benefit from
a new Woodbridge dam, and from recharge of the 5400 AFA currently offered, plus an
additional 22,200 AFA.
Estimates of the combined WID, NSJWCD and adjoining areas share of the overdraft
range from 30,000 AFA to 70,000 AFA. The 27,600 would certainly help correct the
overdraft but would not eliminate it. More water will be required. That, and the fact that
the WID interim and the NSJWCD water rights are temporary are the reasons why
NSJWCD is seeking reallocation of 50,000 AFA from EBMUD.
In conclusion, I again ask that the City defer action on the current proposal, not only to
allow NSJWCD to conclude the three described matters, but to allow time for the City to
work with WID and NSJWCD and the eastern County JPA to seek a Prop 50 grant for
construction of a new dam plus facilities for recharge of an average 27,600 AFA of water
) and NSJWCD.
cc: Richard Prima
Anders Christensen
Ross Farrow, Lodi News Sentinel
Jeff Hood, Stockton Record
NSJWCD Directors
Joe Petersen, Farm Bureau
LMAYOR_COU N CI LMEMBERS. DOC
DIRECTORS
George A. Gillespie NORTH SAN J OAQU I N WAT E R
Thomas Hoffman
Jerry D. Mettler CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Matthys Van Gaalen
Fred Weybret 221 W. Pine St., Lodi, CA 95240
February 28, 2003
Board Members
State Water Resources Control Board
SUBJECT: Decision 858
Dear Board Members:
GENERAL MANAGER
Edward M. Steffani
LEGAL COUNSEL
Stewart C. Adams, Jr.
We are writing to ask that you correct an injustice that has existed since 1956, when
your predecessor, the State Engineer, rendered the subject decision.
North San Joaquin Water Conservation District (NSJWCD) applied for a permanent
water supply of 100,000' acre feet per year from the Mokelumne River on 12/2/48, in
order that it might provide supplemental surface water for its 54,000 acre area,
comprising vineyards and the municipality of Lodi (current population 55,000), overlying
the critically overdrafted eastern San Joaquin County and Cosumnes Basins.
Shortly thereafter, on 6/16/49, the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) applied for
Mokelumne River water to supplement its existing right to store water in
Pardee Reservoir for diversion to the East Bay.
Although NSJWCD filed its application ahead of EBMUD, the State Engineer found that
the water should go to EBMUD because he believed the EBMUD municipal use to be a
higher priority than the proposed NSJWCD use and because NSJWCD would receive its
supply from the proposed Folsom South Canal.
It is interesting to note that the State took no action on NSJWCD's 1948 application until
July 1956, just three months after the USBR published a report outlining the "Folsom
South Unit".
We submit that the State Engineer's error with respect to the "municipal use" issue and
the failure of the Folsom South project are two valid reasons for the SWRCB to revisit
this matter.
We believe the State Engineer erred by not recognizing that continued agricultural use of
groundwater from the overdrafted basin shared by the vineyards and the City of Lodi
would negatively impact Lodi's municipal groundwater supply. He should have noted
that agricultural use of surface water would have protected the municipal supply just as
would expensive treatment of surface water for direct delivery to the urban area.
Back in the late 1950's and 1960's, everyone believed that the Folsom South Canal
would be constructed, and that NSJWCD would in fact obtain its permanent surface
water supply from that source. That is why NSJWCD did not appeal Decision 858. We
STATEWATERRESOURCESCONTROLBOAROI
Board Members
State Water Resources Control Board
February 28, 2003
Page 2
also believe that Decision 858 would have been written in NSJWCD's favor if there were
no proposal to build the Folsom South Canal.
So, here we are today, some fifty years later, with no Folsom South Canal and no plans
to construct it. In fact, the Sacramento urban area is saying that -no such canal will ever
be extended beyond its current terminus near Rancho Seco. Groundwater levels
continue to fall, as much as 75 feet since 1958, because NSJWCD has no permanent
surface water supply.
We obviously have a serious problem crying for a solution. The State, in assuming that
NSJWCD's water supply would be provided by the Folsom South Canal, not only
granted Mokelumne River water to EBMUD, but also acted upon numerous other water
rights applications without giving any consideration to what NSJWCD was to do if the
Folsom South supply were not available.
Failure of the Bureau of Reclamation's Folsom South project is not the State's fault, but
provision of water to replace the NSJWCD water granted by the State to EBMUD in
1956 is definitely the State's responsibility. NSJWCD played by the rules and has been
more than patient, waiting these many years for Folsom South. We submit that 54 years
is long enough. It is now reasonable to ask the State to find replacement water.
We would guess that SWRCB staff might correctly say that NSJWCD is not alone in
waiting for Folsom South water. What the staff should also say is that the NSJWCD
situation is unique because NSJWCD's application for Mokelumne River water was
denied because the State assumed completion of Folsom South. It is not because
NSJWCD did something wrong, but because the State made the wrong assumption, that
NSJWCD finds itself without Mokelumne water.
We submit that there is only one solution, the one that would have followed a Decision
858 written in the favor of NSJWCD. Such would have been the case had the State
Engineer assumed in 1956 that there would be no Folsom South Canal in the year 2003.
We ask that a permanent supply of 50,000 -acre feet per year from the Mokelumne River
be granted to NSJWCD.
We fully understand that EBMUD will oppose our request. EBMUD does, however, have
a way to mitigate the loss of water to NSJWCD. EBMUD is currently working on the
Freeport project, intended to divert dry -year water from the Sacramento River to the
EBMUD Aqueduct near Camanche Lake on the Mokelumne River. This facility could
convey wet -year water for EBMUD, in an amount equal to the proposed NSJWCD right.
Reallocation of 50,000 -acre feet per year would not impact EBMUD immediately. It
would take a number of years for NSJWCD to use this amount. Reallocation would
however, allow NSJWCD to plan, design, and finance facilities required for full use of the
50,000 -acre feet per year.
NSJWCD appeared before the SWRCB during the the Mokelumne River and Bay Delta
Hearings, and made formal requests for reallocation of the Mokelumne River water
rights because of changed conditions. In Decision 1641, the SWRCB stated that this
STATEWATERRESOURCESCONTROLBOARDI
Board Members
State Water Resources Control Board
February 28, 2003
Page 3
was, "...not the proper proceeding for the SWRCB to make the kind of change NSJWCD
is requesting". The Board has taken no action following the Mokelumne hearings even
though the 8/6/92 Notice of Public Hearing included the following issues for the hearing;
"What are the existing and projected water demands of EBMUD, WID, and
NSJWCD? What water rights do these agencies have to satisfy their current and
further demands?"
"How much water is available in the Mokelumne River Watershed to meet the
demands of EBMUD, WID, NSJWCD, and for the public trust uses and resources
of Camanche and Pardee Reservoirs and the lower Mokelumne River?"
Why were these questions asked unless the Board intended to make a decision in
carrying out its statutory duties to resolve these issues?
Instead of rendering a decision, the SWRCB allowed its Chief of the Division of Water
Rights to send an April 26, 2001 communication (copy enclosed).
The document states that "...issues regarding the relative priorities of competing water
rights to the Mokelumne River were addressed long ago and the statute of limitations.
regarding past decisions is long past".
I
This is truly an incredible position for the State to take. It tells NSJWCD in 1956 to wait
for the Folsom South water intended to replace the Mokelumne River water it has given
to EBMUD, and after waiting patiently for 45 years, NSJWCD is told by the State that the
statute of limitations bars it from seeking relief. At any rate, there can be no statute of
limitations with respect to reallocations.
EBMUD has not met the legal requirement to place all of the water granted to it pursuant
to Application 013156 and Permit No. 47810 to full beneficial use. On November 27,
2000, EBMUD submitted a petition for extension of time for this permit. In light of the
State Board's recent draft decision in the Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District and Yuba
County Water District that did not grant a petition for extension of time and restricts the
amount of water that may be licensed to that which was put to beneficial use, it is
appropriate at this time to institute reallocations proceedings.
Moreover, in 1984 the California Legislature amended the Water Code to provide area of
origin protections that are specifically applicable to the Mokelumne River system. Water
Code section 1216 provides that "a protected area (of which the Mokelumne River is
one) shall not be deprived directly or indirectly of the prior right to all the water
reasonably required to adequately supply the beneficial needs of the protected area ... by
a water supplier exporting... for use outside a protected area pursuant to applications to
appropriate surface water filed ... after January 1, 1985." Here, EBMUD's petition for
extension of time to put the water to beneficial use under Permit 10478 is tantamount to
filing a new application. As such, it is necessary and legally appropriate for the State
Board to revisit the issue of water allocations at this time and ensure that NSJWCD is
not deprived of water that is desperately needed to assist in remedying the critically
overdrafted groundwater basin.
STATEWATERRESOURCESCONTROLBOARDI
Board Members
State Water Resources Control Board
February 28, 2003
Page 4
Based upon the unfair treatment, NSJWCD has received, we believe the SWRCB should
initiate reallocation proceedings. Accordingly, we ask the SWRCB to schedule a
hearing, as soon as possible, to consider reallocating Mokelumne River Water to
NSJWCD.
Thank you for your consideration.
ed Weybret
President
North San Joaquin Water
Conservation District
�!.
Tom McGurk
President
Stockton East Wat istrict
rant Th mpson
President
Central San Joaquin Water
Conservation District
President
Central Delta Water Agency
President
South Delta Water Agency
STATEWATERRESOURCESCONTROLBOARDI
Gr an
Assemblyman
26th District
Barbara Matthews
Assemblywoman
171h District
Alan Nakanishi
Assemblyman
10th District
/ivy e►,da 3xfA.3
Official Ballot of-e.wf �0.
Authority to Levy Acreage Charge
North San Joaquin Water Conservation District
2003
INSTRUCTION TO VOTERS:
To vote on the measure, mark an "X" in the voting square after the word "YES" or after the word "NO".
John Jones
1 Any Street
Lodi, CA 95240
Mail or deliver this ballot to North San Joaquin Water Conservation District, City Hall, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA
95240 or hand deliver to 221 West Pine Street, CA. Ballots must be received prior to the close of Acreage Charge Ballot
Hearing which is to commence at
If you wrongly mark, tear, or deface this ballot, return it to the North San Joaquin Water Conservation District, C/O Lodi
City Hall and a new one will be issued to you. If you make changes on the face of this ballot, please initial each change.
MEASURE SUBMITTED TO VOTE OF VOTERS
The Board of Directors of North San Joaquin Water Conservation District may levy an annual acreage charge of no more than $5 per
acre or portion of an acre in accordance with the following limitations established by State law. During the years 2004, 2005, and 2006,
the District may levy no more than $1 unless the amounts of water deposited during the previous year exceed the amounts shown in
the following table:
Acreage Charge Allowed Amount of Water Deposited During the
Previous Year (acre-feet)
$1 0
$2 5,000
$3 8,000
$4 10,000
$5 12,000
For the year 2007 and each subsequent year, the District's authority to levy an acreage charge is limited as shown in the following
table:
Acreage Charge Allowed Amount of Water Deposited During the
Previous Year (acre-feet)
$1 3,000
$2 5,000
$3 8,000
$4 10,000
$5 12,000
No charge is automatic. The District Board may adopt the charge each year at a public meeting when the amount of water
deposited during the previous year will be certified, and a budget for expenditure of acreage charge revenue will be adopted.
Total number of votes entitled to cast:
YES ❑ NO
I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury that I am a landowner or representative of a landowner or proxy, and I am
entitled to vote all the votes as listed hereon.
Executed at California, this day of 2003.
Printed Name Printed Name
Signature Signature
Assessor's Parcel No.
Acreage Proposed Acreage Proposed Acreage
Charge Charge (Votes)
$1
$1
$1
Z3