Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso. 1989-099 - Reclamation's central valley project water marketing 411 411 RESOLUTION NO. • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION' S CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT WATER MARKETING PROGRAM DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. I; A WHEREAS, the United States Bureau of Reclamation issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement concerning its intention to sell an additional 1 . 5 million acre feet of water from the Central Valley Project; and WHEREAS, the presumed source of the 1. 5 million acre feet of water is stored behind Shasta Dam in Shasta Lake; and WHEREAS, Shasta Dam, Whiskeytown Reservoir, and the Sacramento 1111 River are crucial ingredients in the environmental and economic support systems for the City of Redding; and WHEREAS, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors has commis- sioned a Water Task Force chaired by Supervisor Molly Wilson; and WHEREAS, that Task Force and its various subcommittees have examined the Draft Environmental Impact Statement in detail; and „ WHEREAS, the subcommittees and the full Water Task Forcehave concluded that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is wholly inadequate in its failure to assess the environmental, economic, social, recreational, and cultural impacts on the City of Redding and its residents; and WHEREAS, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors has adopted the attached Statement regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report, which Statement is attached hereto as Exhibit A, IT IS, THEREFORE, resolved that the City Council of the City of Redding supports the position taken by the Shasta County Board of 11'1 1., HI 411 Supervisors and implores the United States Bureau of Reclamation to withdraw the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, revise it to meet the requirements of Federal law, and reissue a new Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement which adequately assesses the environmental, economic, social, recreational and cultural impacts of its proposed action. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was introduced /a.dio.Uropd and read at anfeydla-r meeting of the City Council of the City of Redding on the 28th day of March, 1989, and was duly adopted at said meeting by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS Buffum, Carter, Dahl , Fulton, and Johannessen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS None ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS None V ,MAURTCE7jOHANNESSEN, Mayor City of Redding ATTEST: FORM APPROVED: /0111" 72z,a,e, (4‘ ETHEL A. NICHOLS, City Clerk RA ',ALL A. AYS, City Attorney 1 • •‘ • • • • -2- ul EXHIBIT "A" 411 STATEMENT BY THE SHASTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DRAFT EIS FOR THE CVP WATER MARKETING PROPOSAL Presented by Supervisor Molly Wilson March 28 , 1989 I ' Redding , California LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: Good Evening! My name is Molly Wilson, Supervisor from li District 4 here in Shasta County . Shasta Lake, the water II wonderland of Superior California and the primary focus of your proposal for increased water sales , is located in my district. I 'm aware that your purpose here tonight is to recieve brief, formal statements and comments on your water marketing proposal and the draft EIS. I 'm also aware that many other concerned citizens want to tell you what they think of your proposal . Therefore, my remarks are designed to serve as a brief it overview of the approach we used to review your proposal and of 11 the many concerns that we in Shasta County have relative to your draft EIS and the plan it presents. Finally, I ' ll list several specific actions that we in Shasta County recommend you take before you proceed further with this program. Because of time limitations and the technical nature of the material , we 've II decided to present our detailed comments on the DEIS and the proposed action as a written supplement to my oral comments here. First, I ' d like to thank you for being here tonight and for adding this meeting and the February 28th workshop to your schedule . As was noted in the many letters you received requesting this change, there is a keen interest in this part of I I 1 'Il 4 the state in your marketing proposal and its impacts on our communities. It was a little disappointing to us to discover, when the first schedule of meetings was released, that you didn ' t feel there was enough interest to warrant meetings in the area to be most directly impacted by your proposal . I 'm confident that the letters you received plus the tone of the questions and P comments you received at the workshop and those you receive here 1' tonight will allay any doubts as to the interest level here! 1�f I ' The people of Shasta County have many serious concerns about your new water marketing proposal . Because of these concerns, we've organized a task force of approximately two dozen community leaders in the water resources , environmental , economic , and recreation fields to review and evaluate the draft EIS and the ji program it addresses. I 'm serving as chairman of that group. The task force was organized into six committees to address the principal areas of concern to the County . Those committees were the Technical Evaluation committee , the Water Supply committee, the Lake Recreation Committee , the River Recreation committee, tl the Fish and Wildlife committee, and the Cultural Resources committee . Comments provided by each of those committees are attached to written copies of my comments and incorporated by reference . My following comments are summaries of the concerns raised by those committees in their particular areas of interest: j TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Our Technical Evaluation committee focused its efforts on 2 is • • the technical aspects of your water marketing proposal . Their comments are attached and address eight specific subjects related to water sales and project operations . Their findings generally are that the proposed action: (1) is an overcommitment of a water supply that the Bureau may have no right to market, (2) deprives the counties of origin of the water priorities established in state water law and acknowledged by the Bureau, (3) is devoid of proposed mitigation measures to overcome the very significant impacts described in the DEIS. (4) is not consistent with the program objectives set forth in the DEIS and recent policy statements made by the Commissioner of Reclamation relative to increased recreational uses of Bureau facilities , and (5) is not adequately addressed in the DEIS . It is the recommendation of this committee that the DEIS should jai I be withdrawn and rewritten to comply with NEPA and that the proposed action should be modified to be fully consistent with the dependable project yield and with county of origin priorities. LOCAL WATER SUPPLY The findings of the local water supply committee were that the procedures used by the Bureau to establish its list of future contractors was severely flawed in that it required what proved 3 I I to be an unnecessary commitment of financial support by contractors in return for inclusion in the marketing program. As a result of this requirement, only one of the 15 existing Shasta County water supply entities with CVP contracts was included in the final marketing plan. Even though the financial requirement was dropped, these entities were never asked to participate in subsquent studies . The conclusion of the committee is that the ;I. proposed action does not adequately address the water supply needs of Shasta County. LAKE RECREATION The lake recreation committee concluded that there were nine basic flaws in the DEIS with respect to the recreation issues. These inadequacies involved the monetary values used for lake recreation, the relative worth of different types of lake recreation, the lack of attention to tourism, an economic ii recreation model that is indefensible , a lack of mitigation measures for the $34 million loss in recreation benefits, and other deficiencies related to the studies used to establish the impacts of the proposed action on lake recreation . The committee has recommended that the DEIS be withdrawn and totally revised to include defensible analyses relative to the impacts on the 1 t recreation industry and to include specific, workable mitigation measures to protect that industry. We find it appalling and totally unacceptable that your agency would propose a program 1 which would have such a devastating impact on a local economy 4 111 without making any effort to offset those impacts . i I' RIVER RECREATION AND FISH AND WILDLIFE Due to the nature of these subjects , the two committees which worked on these areas produced a consolidated statement. II I , 1 The committees ' findings are that: (1) the proposed action is not addressed in the DEIS as a separate alternative as is required by NEPA , (2) the recreation economic model significantly underestimates river recreation values, (3) the river recreation use data was out—of—date, (4) the reduced boating values associated with higher water levels in the river were not addressed, (5) the water temperature analysis using montihy means is ' I inadequate under NEPA, (6) impacts on the resident trout fishery and the offshore commercial salmon industry are not adequately addressed, and (7) the potential impacts on Whiskeytown Lake are not identified. The committee concluded that the DEIS should only be considered acceptable as a predraft EIS and that the DEIS should be rewritten for circulation as a complete DEIS under NEPA . CULTURAL RESOURCES The cultural resources committee focused its attention on the DEIS ' s discussion of the archaeological and historical 5 i ' ' • • I ' resources of Shasta and Trinity Lakes. The committee concluded that the lack of detailed field reconnaissance in both lakes was inconsistent with the requirements of NEPA and has resulted in a DEIS that is inadequate for issuance as a final document. CONCLUSIONS Let me close by summarizing some of the very serious concerns that we have about your proposal . Our concerns range across the full gamut of impacts that are addressed in the DEIS . We are extremely distressed by the potentially devastating impact that increased water sales will have on the recreational uses of Shasta Lake and the Sacramento River. Tourism is one of our } , major industries and a decline in that industry would be a crushing blow to an economy already crippled by a weak timber industry . As I stated earlier in my comments, we find your position relative to these economic impacts to be appalling and insensitive. It appears to us that your agency has taken the position that it is willing to sacrifice an existing, local 1 economy which is dependent upon the CVP water supply to create a new local economy in a different part of the state. We simply cannot accept your position! The local economic impacts associated with losses in lake recreation would be further aggravated by your agencies decision not to include water sales to local agencies who initially would not agree to pay for the DEIS, even though that requirement was later dropped. Without increased water supplies, we will not be able to accomodate the growth that isvital to a healthy economy. 6 4 1 , �If • • ' I We are also fearful of the impacts lower lake levels and higher export flows might have on the fish and wildlife resources of our area. These resources , coupled with the lakes of our area, are vital to the economic and environmental well being of our community . I ' It is imperative that you understand that your proposal to 'I) I market additional water is perceived as a very serious threat to J � the stability of this area . We intend to do everything in our I � power to make sure that your desire to generate more revenue for the Federal treasury does not result in the destruction of our economy and communities. It is the conclusion of the Shasta County Water Task Force ill and the Shasta County Board of Supervisors that your proposed water marketing plan and the DEIS are unacceptable as presently constituted and must be revised. The water marketing plan must be revised to provide for the full water supply needs of the counties of origin and to minimize or fully mitigate any adverse impacts associated with the final allocation plan. Furthermore, we believe that the marketing plan must be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board for an independent determination of I;; the availability of water for marketing. Finally, the DEIS must be withdrawn from the decision making process and revised to I ' I provide a document which meets all the requirements of NEPA. That document,-should then be the subject of additional public ! ! review and comment before the final EIS is produced. • Thank you very much for coming to Redding and providing us with the opportunity to comment on your proposed action,. I hope that you fully understand the seriousness of this matter to us and that you appreciate our resolve to protect the economic well {being of this community from the threat that you have created! i y1r9Uwsrrryhak*alryrytylr**tih**9lr****** cvpstate ii 3/22/89 lgp li 8