VENTURA
COUNTY CHAPTER NEWSLETTER
April - 2003
Ventura
County Chapter
239 W. Main Street
Ventura,CA, 93001
(805) 667-2222
Water experts say allotting supply for farms, homes could be difficult
Ventura Hillsides Conservancy Sponsors Inaugural Open Space Lecture Series
Press Conference Will Launch Ventura Hillsides Conservancy
Sand mining impacts on the Santa Clara watershed
Project to renourish Outer Banks beaches set to begin
Coalition to Save Goleta's Beaches
Casitas board reluctantly OKs fish ladder
Water experts say allotting supply for farms, homes could be difficult
The article below, "Water experts say allotting supply for farms, homes could be difficult", raises several good points that relate to current efforts to preserve and restore the environment in Ventura County. For
instance:1) The city of Ventura is currently updating it's Comprehensive Plan, a document that will dictate how much the city will grow in the future, and where. Although water supply has been discussed in the CPAC process, city water managers have stated that our water supply will provide for only 15 years growth at the current growth rate. The Comprehensive Plan aims to continue to grow for 20 years, at a potentially accelerated rate. The city aims to expand city boundaries and build on SOAR agricultural land in order to do this, regardless of water supply limitations.
2) Meanwhile, the Casitas Municipal Water District recently announced a moratorium on new customers in the Ojai Valley. This in response to the requirement that they allow enough water to flow in the Ventura River for fish to survive (6" depth). They say they will actively seek new sources of water, including conservation and state water supply. (Note that part of the city of Ventura's supply comes from Casitas)
Nowhere in the discussion is the mention of sustainability. It is clear that water is the ultimate limiting factor in the population growth of California, but will it be too late?
- Paul
http://ojaivalleynews.com/issues2003/04-April2003/04-11-03/04-11-03editorials.html
Water experts say allotting supply for farms, homes could be difficult
http://www.insidevc.com/vcs/county_news/article/0,1375,VCS_226_1966033,00.html
By John Krist, [ MAILTO:krist@insidevc.com ]krist@insidevc.com May 16, 2003
As California's population grows by a projected 15 million people over the next two decades, thirsty cities will increasingly turn to agriculture as a source of water, possibly jeopardizing one of the state's most important industries, experts warned farmers and irrigation district managers Thursday.
"Agriculture, in our view, is becoming the new water storage facility for the state," said Mike Wade, executive director of the Farm Water Coalition, a lobbying and education group.
Wade, one of several speakers during a symposium sponsored by the Association of Water Agencies of Ventura County, said that if water transfers between farms and urban agencies are not planned carefully, they could end up devastating California agriculture and the communities that depend on it for their economic health.
More than 80 percent of California's developed water supply is used by agriculture, and urban agencies are increasingly seeking to negotiate deals to buy some of that water for homes and businesses, believing it a cheaper and politically more realistic alternative than building new dams.
Another panelist suggested it is possible to arrange for farmers to sell some of their water to cities without causing hardship. Recently negotiated deals between the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and Sacramento Valley rice growers provided an economic boost for farmers, secured a low-cost supply of water for MWD customers, minimized environmental harm and provided benefits for small agricultural communities, said Timothy Quinn, MWD's vice president for state water resources.
"The role of agricultural water transfers is not to go up and bleed ag dry," Quinn said. "We have no interest in talking to farmers who want to sell the farm, take the money and head to Hawaii."
MWD provides water through its 27 member agencies to about 17 million people in six Southern California counties. Two-thirds of Ventura County residents receive MWD water through the Calleguas Municipal Water District. About half of MWD's water comes from the State Water Project, and the rest is pumped across the desert from the Colorado River.
Both of those sources have been tapped out. The SWP has contracts to deliver more water than it can reliably supply each year, and the federal government recently reduced California's diversion of Colorado River water by 620,000 acre-feet. (An acre-foot, 325,900 gallons, is enough to supply two average Southern California households for a year.)
At the start of the year, with much of the West still gripped by drought, the Department of Water Resources notified state water contractors that they could count on receiving only 45 percent of their allocations. Quinn said MWD then decided to execute contracts it had negotiated earlier with several irrigation districts serving primarily rice farmers in the Sacramento Valley, calling for 97,200 acre-feet Feb. 14, and another 50,000 acre-feet on March 1.
The agency considered buying another 20,000 acre-feet on May 1 but decided not to when DWR increased its estimate of summer deliveries after the Sierra Nevada snowpack suddenly was boosted by what state hydrologists are referring to as an "awesome April" of heavy precipitation. On April 24, DWR said contractors would get 70 percent of their entitlements, and as of this week, Quinn said, the estimate had risen to 90 percent.
MWD paid $105 an acre-foot for the rice farmers' water, which is about a sixth of the price urban agencies pay for state water. To free up water for sale to MWD, farmers agreed to idle some of their cropland. To minimize economic harm to the local economy, the irrigation districts agreed to allow no more than 20 percent of their farm acreage to go fallow, and the price paid by MWD includes a $5-per-acre-foot fee those communities can use for assistance programs.
Quinn said the reason MWD was able to overcome the usual suspicion rural water users have toward urban dwellers -- particularly when one of those groups is from Northern California and the other is from the south -- was that MWD has invested more than $30 million over the past decade in environmental restoration programs in the Sacramento Valley. When Interior Secretary Gale Norton on Jan. 1 cut off California's access to Colorado River water, the trust MWD had cultivated during its long partnership with n¾orthern irrigation districts paid off.
"If you just go to them and say, 'Do it because the big city needs it,' well, I haven't seen that work anywhere in California," Quinn said.
Ventura Hillsides Conservancy Sponsors Inaugural Open Space Lecture Series
Ventura, CA The Ventura Hillsides Conservancy is kicking off a series of lectures designed to educate the community on the possibilities and options of open space preservation in Ventura. The series will kick off with an inaugural lecture featuring stories and images from two California success stories the Ojai Valley Land Conservancy and the Conejo Open Space District.
Jim Engel, Executive Director of the Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, will educate the audience on OVLCs efforts to date and share insights into the preservation process. Julia Osborn-Gourley, President of the Conejo Open Space Foundation, will give details on the open space district that was founded in 1995 and explain how permanent protection of many of the mountains and ridges surrounding the Conejo Valley have been achieved. Both speakers will share techniques and methods that the Ventura community can learn from and apply.
The Ventura Hillsides Conservancy is a non-profit land trust dedicated to permanently preserving the hillsides, canyons and open space that contribute to the natural environment and unique character of the City of San Buenaventura.
The lecture will be from 7:30 to 9:00 PM. on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 at the Church of Religious Science, 101 Laurel Street in downtown Ventura. Admission is free. The lecture is the first in a series planned by the Conservancy. The date of the next lecture in the series will be September 10, 2003. For more information on the Ventura Hillsides Conservancy, please visit their web site at:www.venturahillsides.org or call 643-8044
CONTACT: Martha Zeiher, Secretary/Ventura Hillsides Conservancy
tel. (805) 659-0294 or 218-2452
email: Martha@hills4ventura.com
To Go For The River And Ranch
Over 160 donors have helped push the Conservancy closer to realizing their $4 million fundraising goal for the 1,566-acre Ventura River Property. Less than $290,000 in gifts and pledges or 7% of the total goal remain to be raised. Donors have included members of the equestrian community, Rancho Matilija, first time donors and long time Conservancy supporters. Fourteen donors have made second gifts to the campaign and many people are using the pledge program, which allows donors to stretch their gift over sleveral years. Naming rights are also available to honor or memorialize family, friends or other loved ones. Namings are available for trails, trailheads, geographic features and a historic plaque. Call Jim Engel at 646-7930, if you have any questions or would like to discuss naming right opportunities. All conversations are confidential.
Press Conference Will Launch Ventura Hillsides ConservancyThe Ventura Hillsides Conservancy, a newly incorporated non-profit land trust, is holding a press conference on Friday, April 25 to announce its intent to acquire hillside and open space property surrounding Ventura.
Introducing the speakers at the event will be Bill Fulton, one of the Conservancy s founding board members. Scheduled speakers include Conservancy President Brooke Ashworth, County Supervisor Steve Bennett, Ventura Vice Mayor Brian Brennan, and Jeremy Tiddle, a representative from the office of Congresswoman Lois Capps. Please join us for this momentous occasion!
Ventura Hillsides Conservancy
PO Box 1284, Ventura, California 93002
(805) 643-8044
Reporting Illicit Discharges
4/19/03 - So I was out at Surfer's Point this morning and the water smelled like sewage right by the pipe. Nasty. I want to know what it is, where its coming from...Who should I call?
The local phone number to report illicit discharges is (805) 677-4136.
Recent blockages may be from sand and gravel accumulating in the drain so the water sits and stagnates. It was about this time last year there was the same problem.
Tthere are 3 agencies responsible: Ventura County, City, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The website you can visit to check latest beach/water quality conditions is: http://www.ventura.org/envhealth/programs/ocean/beachpost.htm
We have been trying to pressure the city to deal with this issue for years. They have supposedly started an investigation, and last Monday was the presentation of the NPDES permit etc and the consultants were halfway through the study of the storm drain system and its deficiencies with a report due perhaps next quarter.
Bottom line: surfers point is always polluted when it rains, and it's not the river. The tests this week were taken before the rain - I'm sure it was really bad later in the week...
Sand mining impacts on the Santa Clara watershed
The long-term effects of sand mining in the Santa Clara watershed on coastal sediment supply need to be addressed - the increased development in Santa Clarita combined with the proposed Newhall Ranch could already have a devastating impact to the brand new multi-million dollar concrete box dwellings recently and currently being constructed at Oxnard Shores. This area experienced erosion damage and a moratorium on new developments during the 70's, but the return of wet cycles in the 90's generated the perc mining will compound the future deficit from urbanization within the upper watershed resulting in disaster for Oxnard beaches. ...cumulative impacts, etc etc.
Project to renourish Outer Banks beaches set to begin
"The three-phase initial $72 million berm construction will be followed by 50 years of beach renourishment occurring about once every three years, increasing the cost to an estimated $1.6 billion in federal, state and local dollars over the life of the project, adjusted for inflation."
Is "stabilizing" a naturally migrating shoreline wise use of taxpayer money? Projects like this put the Matilija Dam removal project in perspective... -pj
Project to renourish Outer Banks beaches set to begin
By CATHERINE KOZAK, The Virginian-Pilot
© April 12, 2003With funds from Congress finally in hand to prime the pump, a project to widen sections of beach from Kitty Hawk to South Nags Head is about to be launched.
``We are thankful and quite surprised at the $500,000,'' said Col. Charles R. Alexander Jr., commander of the Army Corps of Engineers' Wilmington district on Friday. ``That's a good sign. We have our foot in the door for further work.''
Increase the Value of Your Home- Spray on Siding of Virginia. At an informal question-and-answer session in Kill Devil Hills, Alexander told local officials that keeping Dare County's beaches nourished would require an extraordinary long-term commitment among the county, the towns and the Corps.
It was Alexander's first visit to Dare County since he was named district commander 10 months ago.
The three-phase initial $72 million berm construction will be followed by 50 years of beach renourishment occurring about once every three years, increasing the cost to an estimated $1.6 billion in federal, state and local dollars over the life of the project, adjusted for inflation.
``That's why I say, once we kick off, we're partners in this for 53 years,'' Alexander said.
The construction project is expected to begin in November 2004 on a 4-mile portion of beach in Kitty Hawk and Kill Devil Hills and a 3-mile portion in Nags Head. The project then will begin on a 3.5-mile stretch in Nags Head in 2005 and on a 3.5-mile stretch in South Nags Head in 2006. Weather permitting, the construction will be completed in 2007.
Erosion on Kitty Hawk and Kill Devil Hills beaches ranges from 4 to 8 feet per year. At South Nags Head, the beaches erode at a rate of 11 to 14 feet per year.
Ray Sturza, Dare County Planning Department Director, said that the project has now made the significant transition from study to construction. It was authorized by Congress in 2000 with the passage of the Water Resources Development Act, but no funding was provided until the 2003 Omnibus Spending Bill, passed in March, appropriated the half-million dollars under general construction. Sturza said the project was one of only four in the country to receive new construction money in the bill.
``We're past the `if,' and now we're into the `when' with the money,'' he said.
The county has requested an additional $2.9 million in the 2004 supplemental federal budget. Until construction begins, the county is paying its share with in-kind services. The state will pay 75 percent of the non-federal share.
The county and its municipal partners will be expected to pay $7 million for the initial nourishment. Much of the continued maintenance will be paid for with funds collected from a one-cent occupancy tax.
The legislation also included a requirement to conduct environmental monitoring of the project area before work starts. Sturza said the monitoring will start in November and will incorporate a plan to study shoreline movement.
Dare County recently began seeking a consultant to provide acquisition services, including surveying, mapping and appraisals, for property along the beachfront area. The acquisition will involve about 14 miles of beachfront.
The Corps is also studying expansion of the current project area in Kitty Hawk north to the pier. As it is now, the work would start less than a mile north of the Kill Devil Hills line and move south. The original calculation was made when the state Department of Transportation intended to abandon the northern section of N.C. 12 in Kitty Hawk. Now that the DOT has repaired the road, the cost-benefit ratio of the project in northern Kitty Hawk may have changed.
Under a state law that was passed last year, the county has the power of eminent domain, Sturza said, but he said he hopes it won't be necessary to use it.
The public beach is currently considered the wet sand. But as part of the beach building project, the Corps will establish, literally, a line in the sand that will not vary with the tide. The property within that new delineation will be the subject of the acquisitions, Sturza said.
``Some people are going to donate to us in lieu of taxes,'' he said. ``Some people are going to force us to buy it. Some might refuse, but it's doubtful, given the level of protection they're going to receive.''
Before other methods of shoreline protection, like bulkheading, sandbagging and jettying, were banned, more people resisted giving up any of their property for sand nourishment purposes. But now, Sturza said, most people cooperate.
Sturza said he expects that an acquisition service firm will be retained within six weeks and that the work will be completed about nine months later.
When the project begins, about 1,000 feet of beach at a time will be fenced, said Corps Project Manager Sharon Haggett. As one section is completed, the fence will be moved down the beach.
``The public will see pipeline,'' she said. ``They will see big plumes of water coming out of the pipeline. It will look like dirty water, but it will have sand coming out of it. Construction equipment will be there 24-7. There will be 'dozers on the beach.''
The sand will be piped from an area offshore from Kitty Hawk in the vicinity of milepost 3 and from an area offshore from South Nags Head.
Initially, the berm -- the flat beach -- will be built up to between 100 and 150 feet. The plans project that without a bad storm, after three years about 50 feet of beach will remain. At that point, between November and April, more sand will be pumped onto the beach to widen it again.
Reach Catherine Kozak at (252) 441-1711 or ckozak@pilotonline.com
Coalition to Save Goleta's Beaches
UPDATESThe December 2002 revetment is required to be removed May 15, 2002 (NEXT MONTH!). The county will be requesting an extension of two more years. The CSGB requests that the temporary revetment be removed and the unpermitted revetments placed in 1983 go through adequate and comprehensive environmental review.
The Surfrider Foundation Santa Barbara chapter will be hiring the Environmental Defense Center for their work on the permitting process.
COASTAL COMMISSION HEARING
Although Goleta Beach was not on the agenda, five Coalition members attended the Coastal Commission hearing today and had an opportunity to address the item during public comment period. We gave a comprehensive (but short) powerpoint presentation and followed up with our positions, concerns and future directions by others. The Executive Director Peter Douglas thanked us for the presentation, and the coastal commissioners TOOK NOTE of this issue. This was only an informative testimony and there was no action taken by the CCC. We assume the item will be on the agenda next month when the county asked for the temporary revetments to be left in.
OFFICIAL MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS
Santa Barbara Audubon Society
Community Environmental Council
Environmental Defense Center
Santa Barbara Chapter Surfrider Foundation
Sierra Club Santa Barbara Chapter
Santa Barbara Urban Creeks Council
Isla Vista Chapter Surfrider Foundation
UCSB A.S. Environmental Affairs Board
Santa Barbara ChannelKeeper
Ventura Chapter Surfrider FoundationJust thought that I would update everyone on what's happening with this project. Joe Power, our EIR consultant, and Paul Calderwood from City Planning are putting the finishing touches on the final EIR that will be taken to the City Council for certification. This will likely be done in early to mid-May. I will email everyone with the exact date once it is determined.
I also have been working with our City Economic Development staff who have secured an EPA grant for site assessments and site remediation plans for any contaminated property in the Westside of the City. They have indicated that these funds would be available for us to use to do some site investigation and any needed remediation plan, for the area under the damaged Surfers Point parking lot where the cobble and sand dunes will be eventually placed. I have cleared this with Ed Barlow and will look at developing a scope of work with the City's selected consultant (Padre Consultants). This will like require some field work to drill down under the parking lot to determine the type and quantity of any contaminated material or debris. We will need this information to be able to determine what we will run into during construction of the project and how much it will cost to remove the material. I don't expect this work to begin until late summer or fall (to be coordinated with Fairgrounds after fair time and peak summer season). I will provide more details the next time the Working Group gets together.
I am in the process of finalizing the final design contract with RRM. It is a two phase contract to first develop the design details, renderings of what it will look like, and meetings with the permitting agencies. We probably won't be able to move forward on the final phase of the contract, to prepare construction plans for Shoreline Dr., until the Fair master plan is further along. Some of the Working Group attended the Fair's Master Plan consultant's special meeting last Friday. We discussed this project in detail and other environmental issues. I will try and take the RRM design agreement to the City Council at the same May meeting that the Council will consider the EIR. I am still waiting for Caltrans to finish their audit of the agreement before we can move forward.
Tomorrow afternoon at the Gov. Center I will be providing a brief presentation to Coastal Conservancy staff and others regarding their interest in including our project on the Wetlands Recovery Project list. They will be providing me suggestions on what to include in the project submittal application which is due in mid-May. If it gets accepted as a project, the Conservancy will help get grant funding for the project.
That's about all for now. I would think that the Working Group should meet again to kickoff the first phase of the RRM design development contract after the City Council approves the agreement in May. I will get copies of any city council staff reports to you all along with the exact dates for city council action on the EIR and RRM contract. If there are any concerns about finalizing the EIR or starting the RRM contract, then we should get together before this stuff goes to Council.
Critical to the success of the Matilija Dam removal project is the construction of a fish ladder at the Robles Diversion Dam, located about 2 miles downstream of Matilija Dam. Yesterday afternoon, the Casitas Water Board accepted the terms and conditions laid out by the National Marine Fisheries Service in their "biological opinion" for the fish ladder.
The NMFS conditions dictate that construction shall begin this summer and be completed within 2 years. Once constructed, operational criteria are specified such that adequate water shall be released during fish migration in order that fish may swim upstream up to and over the diversion dam.
The success of this facility will be closely monitored for at least the first 5 years.While the water district paints a doomsday scenario associated with these increased water releases, the quantity required is equivalent to the annual evaporation losses from the man-made Casitas reservoir. The board faced a losing legal battle under the endangered species act if they did not adopt this resolution...
more info on NMFS at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/overview/es.html
Casitas board reluctantly OKs fish ladder
http://www.staronline.com/vcs/ve/article/0,1375,VCS_251_1877977,00.html
Water district calls flow requirement threat to supply, plans April 23 hearing on rate increase.
By David Montero, dmontero@insidevc.com
April 10, 2003The Casitas Municipal Water District Board of Directors grudgingly approved a resolution Wednesday authorizing construction of a fish ladder at the Ventura River's Robles Diversion on a 4-1 vote.
For the record, James Coultas cast a "hell no" vote, but it was hard to tell the difference between his feelings and the ones of those who supported the resolution.
"I feel like an Iraqi soldier," member Bill Hicks said. "Yeah, we can fight, but we're going to lose."
The board has complained for years that the federal government is forcing them to build a fish ladder for endangered steelhead trout at the Robles Diversion in the Ventura River to the tune of $6 million.More importantly to the district, however, is the dispute over how much water needs to run through the fish ladder to aid the trout in migrating up and down the river to spawn and boost their diminished population. Steelhead trout have been listed as an endangered species since 1997.
The federal government believes the district's assessment of moving 489 million gallons of water a year through the ladder is too little to help the fish. Instead, National Marine Fisheries Service biologists think 652 million gallons is needed.
Fish ladders aren't really ladders, but instead are staggered boxes filled with flowing water that allow fish to jump from box to box, essentially climbing a wet stairway to get past a blockage. In this case, it's the Robles Diversion.
Chuck Bennett, the board's director, said that by approving the fish ladder resolution, it will likely lead to the drying of Lake Casitas and higher water rates for the district's 3,000 direct-service customers.
To prepare customers, the board also proposed a public hearing April 23 to discuss rate increases.
"The only choice we have is lose and lose," Bennett said, "and it will mean more expensive water for you."
About a dozen people were on hand for the board's decision and most sympathized with the dilemma. Essentially, if the board hadn't approved the fish ladder resolution, it would have been in violation of the Endangered Species Act and would be subject to federal lawsuits.
However, several Casitas Municipal Water District customers said a class-action lawsuit could be filed against the board for taking water away from them.
Bennett acknowledged as much before the vote was cast.
"If we don't pass this today, there will be a lawsuit," he said. "If we pass it today, there will be a lawsuit."
Not everyone agrees with the district's dire predictions of a limited water supply during drought years.
Russ Baggerly, president of Environmental Coalition of Ventura County, said the board is trying to frighten its customers with such doomsday predictions.
"This is a five-year plan, not the end of the world," Baggerly said. "The lake will not go dry."
