Our Mission:

“To manage and

conserve water and

other resources for

the citizens of Butte

County”

Water and Resource

Conservation Staff

Paul Gosselin,

Director

Vickie Newlin,

Assistant Director

Christina Buck,

Water Resources

Scientist

Autum Kirk,

Administrative

Assistant, Senior

Butte County Water

Commission

George Barber, Chair

DC Jones, Vice-Chair

Larry Grundmann

John Lane

Brad Mattson

Ryan Schohr

John Scott

David Skinner

Ernie Washington

Butte County

Department of

Water and Resource

Conservation

308 Nelson Avenue

Oroville, CA 95965

Phone (530)538-4343

Fax (530)538-3807

Email: bcwater@

buttecounty.net

Website: http://

www.buttecounty.net/

waterandresource/

February 2015

WaterSolutions

In November 2014, California voters over-

whelmingly supported Proposition 1, the Wa-

ter Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Im-

provement Act of 2014. This bond measure

was backed by Governor Jerry Brown, Sena-

tors Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer as

well as both the Republican and Democratic

Parties of the state. Its advocates included the

California Association of Water Agencies, the

California Chamber of Commerce, the Califor-

nia State Association of Counties, the Farm

Bureau and the Audubon Society. Geez, even

Sean Parker, co-founder of Napster, came out

with a nod of approval for this bond.

The authorized spending for this measure to-

tals $7.545 billion. Yes, that’s with a “B”.

Included categories authorized to receive fund-

ing include Safe Drinking Water and

Wastewater Management ($520 M); Water-

shed Protection ($1.495 B); Integrated Region-

al Water Management, Water Conservation

and Stormwater Capture ($810 M); Storage

($2.70 B); Recycling ($725 M); Groundwater

Cleanup & Sustainable Groundwater Manage-

ment ($900 M); and Flood Management ($395

M).

The real question is how will this impact the

North state? And the answer that we generally

have for 2015 is not that much that we can

identify right now. There is only 7-8% of

available bond funds included in the Gover-

nor’s budget, which was just recently released.

Certainly, this can change through input from

the legislature and various agencies by the

time the May budget revise is revealed, but the

Administration is choosing to move slowly

and anticipates a five-year implementation of

the bond funds. So, unless the legislature gets

involved to increase the appropriations, it

might be a while before these monies become

available to the public through grant or loan

programs.

In addition, there are other barriers to getting

this money on the street. With regard to po-

tential grant programs, each agency has to

prepare and publically circulate draft guide-

lines on how their programs will be rolled out.

This exercise takes time to complete, but is

necessary so that everyone competing for this

funding has equal access through a fair pro-

cess.

Another reason that the Administration is

dragging their feet is that there is still bond

funding left to be used from Propositions 1E

and 84 which were passed by the electorate in

2006. We are keeping our eye on the use of

this bond funding, but at this point, it may be

too soon to tell what may become available to

the North state in the near future. The good

news related to that statement is that the bonds

won’t be sold until these issues are resolved

and that means that the repayment schedule

will be further out as well.

The Governor has budgeted monies for imple-

mentation of his Water Action Plan. For fur-

ther information regarding this program please

turn to page 2 of this newsletter.

Proposition 1

Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of

2014 By Vickie Newlin

Page 2

In January 2014, the Governor finalized the California

Water Action Plan, which will guide state efforts to

enhance water supply reliability, restore damaged eco-

systems, and improve the resilience of water infrastruc-

ture over the next five years. The Governor has pro-

posed for the 2015-16 budget to implement portions of

the California Water Action Plan. Although the final

state budget will undergo changes over the next six

months, the Governor’s proposed funding for the Cali-

fornia Water Action Plan shows the Administration’s

policy and fiscal priorities.

A primary source of funding for the California Water

Action Plan will come from the Water Bond (Water

Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act

of 2014) that was passed by voters in the November

2014 election. The Water Bond includes $7.5 billion

in general obligation bonds for water storage, water

quality, flood protection, and watershed protection and

restoration projects. The Governor’s budget proposed

spending an initial $532.5 million to begin the first

year of a multiyear Water Bond expenditure plan. The

expenditure plan describes three policy areas and the

justification for the expenditure of Water Bond funds.

The first policy area is “restoration”. Economic

growth in California’s early years drove large-scale

land use changes. Further urban and rural development

drove local, regional, and system-wide water manage-

ment projects unaided by the current understanding of

ecological process. Consequently, California’s native

fisheries and watersheds have been negatively affected

for decades. The Governor proposes to use Water

Bond funds to support projects that restore California’s

ecosystems for the benefit of fish, wildlife, communi-

ties, and water management systems. The second poli-

cy area is “resilience”. On-going and future changes to

the climate will drive rising sea levels, salinity en-

croachment, altered precipitation patterns, reduced Si-

erra snowpack, and numerous other changes to Califor-

nia’s hydrology. Every aspect of the water manage-

ment system will be affected. Increased severity of

Central Valley flood events, for example, requires the

state to increase the capacity of its flood system (most

notably within the flood bypass facilities) to better pro-

tect urban and rural communities. The Governor pro-

poses to use Water Bond funds to increase the state’s

resilience to anticipated and currently unknown im-

pacts of a changing global climate. The third water

policy area is “reliability”. A significant portion of the

state’s economy depends on a strong agricultural sector

that in turn depends on water supplies from various

sources. Other sectors of the economy also depend on

precious water supplies. Strengthening the reliability of

water supplies, with an emphasis on efficient use and

integrated management strategies, is the key to provid-

ing affordable and safe drinking water, continuing agri-

cultural supplies, and growing the state’s economy.

The Governor proposes to use Water Bond funds for

projects such as water storage, groundwater sustaina-

bility, safe drinking water, and regional water manage-

ment projects.

One of the early achievements of the California Water

Action Plan was the enactment of the Sustainable

Groundwater Management Act. The Sustainable

Groundwater Management Act, signed into law in Sep-

tember 2014, establishes a new structure for improved

local management of groundwater basins. As stated in

the Governor’s signing message, “a central feature of

these bills is the recognition that groundwater manage-

ment in California is best accomplished locally. Local

agencies will now have the power to assess the condi-

tions of their local groundwater basins and take the

necessary steps to bring those basins in the state of

chronic long-term overdraft into balance”. The State’s

WATER ACTION PLAN—page 4

Funding Proposed to Implement the California Water Action Plan By Paul Gosselin

Page 3

Water Year 2014 Groundwater Status Report By Christina Buck

Water year 2014 was one to remember, unfortunately not for its

fine attributes but for its many drought induced challenges and

costs. Each February the Groundwater Status Report is submit-

ted to the Board of Supervisors. This report provides an over-

view of the previous water year’s (October 2013-September

2014) hydrologic conditions, surface water deliveries, and

groundwater conditions. As appendices, it also compiles maps

of the current monitoring network, results from the summer’s

water quality monitoring, and data summary spreadsheets for

spring, summer, and fall groundwater levels. In addition, the

report contains individual Basin Management Objectives

(BMO) reports for each of the 16 sub-inventory units. These

reports describe land and water use, geology, current conditions,

and management objectives from a local perspective. BMO

wells for groundwater level monitoring are identified and their

spring and fall hydrographs included. The hydrographs plot

groundwater elevation and depth to groundwater over time.

Some of these wells have data going back to the 1940s. Others,

more recently installed or added to the network, have only a few

data points. Nonetheless, this data provides a sense for how

groundwater levels vary and have changed over time and in dif-

ferent parts of the county. The reports are prepared by the De-

partment in consultation with Water Advisory Committee mem-

bers from each area.

Here are some highlights from the main report related to hydro-

logic conditions, groundwater levels, water quality, and subsid-

ence.

The 2014 water year was characterized by one of the worst

drought conditions in California history. On January 17, 2014,

Governor Brown declared a statewide drought emergency and

issued an executive order. It was tracking to be the worst water

year on record until a series of storms arrived in February and

March. However, by the end of the water year on September

30, 2014, conditions resulted in

a critical year classification. The

carryover storage in the reser-

voirs was largely used during

2014 without replenishment. As

a result, reservoir storage in the

State Water Project’s Lake

Oroville began the 2015 water

year at 49% of historic average

and 30% of capacity. The over-

all dry conditions in the Sacra-

mento Valley (based on precipi-

tation and runoff in 2014) and

the increased demand on

groundwater for irrigation result-

ed in decreased groundwater levels in many monitored wells

throughout Butte County. Providing drought related outreach

education and information was a major activity of the County in

2014. This included responding to reports of water supply relia-

bility problems particularly with private domestic wells.

The Department, in cooperation with the Department of Water

Resources Northern Region, conducts four (spring, July, Au-

gust, fall) groundwater level measurements annually. To better

track drought conditions, the frequency of groundwater level

monitoring was increased to a monthly basis from March to

October in 2014. Due to dry conditions and increased ground-

water demand, groundwater levels in the spring and fall were

generally lower in 2014 compared to 2013. The spring 2014

groundwater level measurements showed that of the 77 wells

with assigned alert levels, 45 wells did not meet their BMO and

reached an Alert Stage. In the fall of 2014, groundwater level

data showed that 40 wells reached an alert level. This indicates

that levels are near or below previously recorded lows in these

wells.

The Department conducted its thirteenth year of groundwater

quality trend monitoring for evidence of saline intrusion during

the week of August 6-11, 2014. All samples from the 10 moni-

tored wells fell within the acceptable range of water quality val-

ues as set forth by State and Federal agencies and alert stages

defined in Chapter 33A for electrical conductivity and tempera-

ture. However, two of the samples, Esquon and Western Canal

(East), had low pH values that did not meet the secondary water

quality standard and reached a BMO alert stage. Secondary

Standards established by the US Environmental Protection

Agency (US EPA) are based on taste, odor, color, corrosivity,

foaming, and staining properties of water whereas primary

standards are based on health considerations. The cause of the

observed low pH is uncertain. Water quality parameters have

naturally occurring variability, so year to year changes are ex-

pected, however, the Department will closely evaluate water

quality data in 2015. If measurements again fall outside of the

acceptable range for pH and/or a trend emerges indicating deg-

radation of water quality, further investigation is advisable.

No land subsidence was detected in Butte County from an eval-

uation of the extensometer records in the Western Canal, Rich-

vale, and Biggs-West Gridley sub-inventory units.

The Groundwater Status Report was reviewed by the Technical

Advisory Committee at their January meeting and will be pre-

sented to the Water Commission on February 4th. It will be

submitted to the Board of Supervisors by the end of the month.

The draft report is available online from

http://www.buttecounty.net/waterresourceconservation/Ground

waterStatusReports/2014GroundwaterStatusReport. Contact

Butte County Water

Commission

3/4/2015, 1:30 p.m.

Board of Supervisors

Chambers

25 County Center Dr.

4/1/2015, 1:30 p.m.

Board of Supervisors

Chambers

25 County Center Dr.

Butte County Board

of Supervisors

2/10/2015, 9:00 a.m.

Board of Supervisors

Chambers

2/24/2015, 9:00 a.m.

Board of Supervisors

Chambers

Page 4

Meeting

Schedules

primary role is to provide guidance and

technical support to local groundwater

agencies. The Governor proposes $21.3

million in Water Bond funds for grants for

projects that develop and implement local

groundwater plans. Additionally, the

Governor proposes $6 million in General

Funds for the Department of Water Re-

sources to provide additional technical

assistance to local agencies on the devel-

opment of the groundwater sustainability

plans, as well as to implement specific

requirements of the groundwater legisla-

tion such as the adoption of basin bounda-

ries and regulations on best groundwater

management practices.

The Governor’s proposed 2015-16 budget

includes funds for addressing in stream

flows. According to the Governor’s Of-

fice, increased water demand in California

has led to stream modifications in water-

sheds throughout the state. Consequently,

many streams do not have a flow regime

or habitat that supports a healthy aquatic

environment. The decline in salmon popu-

lations have been attributed to the limited

quantity of stream flow available for fish

during key life stages. Flow requirements

can improve many of the degraded stream

systems in California by restoring a more

natural flow pattern and increasing aquat-

ic habitat quality. The Budget provides

$2.2 million General Fund and $1.8 mil-

lion from the Water Rights Fund for the

State Water Resources Control Board and

the Department of Fish and Wildlife to

enhance flows in at least five stream sys-

tems that support critical habitat for anad-

romous fish. It is not clear which stream

systems will be covered by the proposed

funding.

The budget priorities of the Governor

must be kept in context that California’s

2015-16 budget has a long path forward

and will be subject change based on com-

peting priorities. However, the priority to

fund the actions of the California Water

Action Plan are instructive. For more in-

formation on the local implications of the

California Water Action Plan and the Sus-

tainable Groundwater Management Act

please visit the Sustainable Groundwater

Management Act webpage under

“Planning” at the Department’s webpage:

http://www.buttecounty.net/

waterresourceconservation/Home.aspx

WATER ACTION PLAN—page 2