Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-19 Packet - Specialo o c~ 0 0 ~. Z 0 0 0 Z._~ OU-- mmmm 0 O~ 0 I 0 0 E ~ 0 t-- ~ 0~ EE T T · '~- 0 ! ! T T 14') 0 ~ o 0 Z c- O ~) o 0 0 · Z 0 ","' o ZL~ I--0 0 ~=~ z~ On F_..o (..1© <1:~ 0 (:::) C) 0 0 LU Z 0 0 0 0 0 ~ kO 0'~ ~.- b.O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 CD · · · · · · · · 0 O'3 I 0 C~ '~'~ 8 CD C~ I 0 · I 0 0 > 0 West Fork Russian River Ukiah Mendocino Groundwater Exchange Rainfall Cloverdale Legend USGS Gaging Station Groundwater Exchange Mendocino Co. Sonoma Co. ITEM NO. 2b. DATE' . April 19, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING PENDING PETITIONS FOR AMENDMENTS TO CITY'S WATER RIGHTS PERMIT Attached for Council's review and consideration is the City Attorney's report in memorandum form that addresses the pending petitions to amend the City's water rights permit. It also discusses the related issues and basis for staff's recommendation to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate the environmental impacts of these amendments. The City Manager has also provided a memorandum regarding the Flood District contract and annexation policy. Accompanying the City Manager's memorandum are attachments numbered 1 through 3. Attachments A. through T. are also submitted for Council's review that supports the City Attorney's discussion. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and Discuss Report ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Do not receive report and provide alternative direction to Staff. Citizen Advised' Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A City Council David Rapport, City Attorney and Candace Horsley, City Manager Gary Weatherford, Water Attorney A. through T. and two related court cases APPROVED: Candace Horsley, City~nager Law Offices Of RAPPORT AND MARSTON An Association of Sole Practitioners 405 w. Perkins Street P.O. Box 488 Ukiah, California 95482 e-mail: drapport@pacbell.net David J. Rapport Lester J. Marston Scott Johnson Mary Jane Sheppard M E M O R A N D U M (707) 462-6846 FAX 462-4.235 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor a~y Council members David J. Rapporj4 (~ April 14, 2005 ~ ' Water workshop This memorandum addresses the pending petitions to amend the City's water rights permit and the issues related to those amendments. It will first describe the pertinent facts and then the issues which have been raised concerning those amendments, including the basis for the staff's recommendation to prepare an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") under the California Environmental Policy Act ("CEQA") to evaluate thc environmental impacts of these amendments. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1. Petition to extend term of water rights permit. The City's permit to appropriate water from Russian River underflow, which was originally approved by the State Water Resources Control Board ("Board") in 1961, was due to expire on December 1, 2000. On November 15, 2000, the City filed an application to extend the permit for an additional 10 years, l The only timely protest to that application was filed by the then National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS"), now called NOAA Fisheries, regarding the impact of the time extension on endangered sahnon and steelhead trout in the Russian River. (See below.) On January 11, 2002, the Envirom'nental Review Uhit of the Board's Division of Water Rights ("Division") notified the City that the Division regarded the City's petition to extend the term of its See attached Exhibit A. Memorandum to Mayor and Council members Subject: Amendments to Water Rights Permit Date: April 14, 2005 Page 2 permit as a reauthorization to divert an additional 14.76 cubic feet per second ("cfs"), the difference between the City's reported maximum diversion2 prior to December 1, 2000, when its permit was due to expire, and 20 cfs, the maximum rate of diversion authorized by the permit.~ Based on this view of the City's petition to extend the term of the permit, the Division stated that the City, as the lead agency under CEQA, must assess the cumulative environmental impacts of increasing by this amount the direct diversion from the Russian River on "sensitive plant and animal species and their habitat .... " On February 13, 2002, NMFS wrote to the City, agreeing with the state that the petition for a time extension represented a reauthorization to appropriate additional water which could have a potentially "adverse effect on federally listed anadromous species in the Russian River.''4 NMFS stated that the impact to endangered species required evaluation under CEQA and the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") listing may require additional terms and conditions. In order to obtain clarification of the Division's direction regarding studies needed to support a CEQA document, a meeting was held on February 15, 2002, at the SWRCB in Sacramento attended by Division Management Legal Counsel and Staff, and Wagnor & Bonsignore, Consulting Engineers ("W & B") (Bob Wagner and Paula Whealen), Gary Weatherford and Dan Taaffe outside water counsel, and Darryl Barnes, the then Public Utilities Director, and David Rapport. The Division re-stated its position that the petition for time extension was a reauthorization of the original permit and would require preparation of an EIR. Andy Sawyer, Division Legal Counsel, emphasized this point by saying that if the City prepared a Negative Declaration that was inadequate in the eyes of the SWRCB, the Board could sue the City. Subsequent to receiving the letter from NMFS, W & B staff met with NMFS and confirmed the results of that meeting in a letter, dated June 4, 2002.s In that letter Paula Whealan confirmed clarifications of the scope of environmental review that would be required for the time extension petition as a result of the ESA. First, she clarified that the maximum diversion rate achieved by the City prior to December 1, 2000, was 8 cfs, not 5.4 cfs as stated in the Division's January 11, 2002, letter. St'~ond,, she¢larified that the environmental analysis should address impacts that may result if the storage elevation in Lake Mendocino change~ due to an increase in the City's diversion rate. Finally, she established that the City is not required to include a cumulative impacts analysis on 2 The Division actually mistook an average annual, rate for the maximum rate. This error was subsequently corrected. See footnote 3 below. ~ See attached Exhibit D. See also attached Exhibit H, in which Paula Whealen pointed out to the Division staff that the 5.24 cfs was not a maximum diversion but rather an average annual rate of diversion. 4 See Exhibit I. 5 See Exhibit J. Memorandum to Mayor and Council members Subject: Amendments to Water Rights Permit Date: April 14, 2005 Page 3 anadromous fishery resources in the entire main stem Russian River, because this will be addressed as a result of the Section 7 consultation required by the ESA. On June 21, 2002, NMFS responded to the letter from Whealan.6 In the letter NMFS agreed that it was concerned with the effect of additional diversions on Lake Mendocino. However, it said its primary concern was with the effects of such diversions on water temperature and water quality in the lake, if the increased diversion in the summer could result in additional releases from the lake. 2. Petition to change points of diversion and place of use. On August 8,2001, the staff of the Division conducted an inspection of the City's water system to determine its overall compliance with the terms and conditions of its permit.? The Division noted that City Wells 5 and 6 were not included under the permit as authorized "points of diversion," ("POD") and that service to Millview County Water District ("Millview") and Willow County Water District ("Willow") under Emergency Interconnection Agreements ("EIAs") resulted in the City serving areas not included in the "allowed place of use" ("POU") under the permit. The Division stated that if the City did not contest these facts, it should petition 8 to change the points of diversion and the allowed place of use. On behalf of the City, Whealan responded on January 4, 2002, that the City would petition to add Wells 5 and 6 as additional points of diversion, but proposed coordinating the City's petition to change the place of use with petitions which Millview and Willow were required to file as a result of similar compliance inspections.9 In response to.the City's January 4, 2002, letter, the Division gave the City until July 1,2002, to file the petition for a change to the place of use, to allow for coordination with the petitions from Millview and Willow. That letter also recommended that the City consider "a single comprehensive environmental document covering changes to the POD and POU and its petition for an extension of time...,,10 Prior to filing the petition for change in POU, the City negotiated revisions and extensions to the EIAs between the City and Willow and the City and Millview. l~ During those negotiations LAFCO was asked whether it would be required to approve the agreements under a provision of See Exhibit L. See attached Exhibit B. 8/d. at p. 2. See attached Exhibit C. ~0 See Exhibit E. See Exhibit K. Memorandum to Mayor and Council members Subject: Amendments to Water Rights Permit Date: April 14, 2005 Page 5 On December 23, 2002, the Division published a Renotice of the Petition. ~s In the Renotice, the Division amended the above-quoted statement to read as follows: On occasion, the City supplies water to Millview and Willow County Water Districts through Emergency Interconnection Agreements (EIA) which are instituted whenever an emergency situation such as fire, contamination or equipment failure occurs. Millview County Water District, in addition to its own needs, also supplies a portion of its water to Calpella County Water District. Unfortunately, there are no provisions within the City of Ukiah's water rights to allow them to transfer EIA water outside of the authorized place of use. The City of Ukiah has thus filed to expand its Place of Use to incorporate the service areas of Millview, Willow, and Calpella County Water Districts within its permit.19 Between December 10 and 13, 2002, three protests were timely filed in response to the petitions to change the POD and POU. They were filed bv the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation hnprovement District ("Flood Control District"), Sonoma County Water Agency ("SCWA") and Lee Howard? Subsequently, the Flood Control District withdrew its protest.2~ The SCWA protest primarily sought the addition of two conditions: (1) that the Board retains jurisdiction over the permit to change the season of diversion upon a finding concerning the availability of water and (2) that the permit is subject to prior rights.22 The Howard protest was directed at the statement in the November 15, 2002, notice of the City's petition that the City sought to remove the EIA and provide a more predictable water supply? Based on that statement, Howard argued that LAFCO would have to approve of the change. The statement was superceded by the Renotice, which removed that statement from the original notice to make clear that the City was seeking to amend the POU in the permit in order to serve Millview and Willow pursuant to the EIA; not to eliminate the EIA. This made Howard's objections moot. 15 See Exhibit O. 19 Exhibit O, p. 3. 20 See Exhibit M. 2~ See Exhibit M-4. 2~ See Exhibit M-1. 23 See Exhibit M-2. Memorandum to Mayor and Council members Subject: Amendments to Water Rights Permit Date: April 14, 2005 Page 4 the District Reorganization Act which requires LAFCO to approve agreements to provide services outside the boundaries of a local government such as a city or water district. 12 On May 29, 2002, the City Attorney prepared a letter opinion addressed to the LAFCO Executive Director, stating that in his opinion LAFCO approval was not required.~3 Copies of this opinion were furnished to County Counsel. LAFCO ultimately concluded that its approval was not required. In addition to the EIAs, Millview is interconnected with Calpella County Water District ("Calpella") and furnishes it with water in the summer to help Calpella satisfy its summertime demand. The revised and extended agreement contained a definition of"urgent or emergency condition" and a proviso that none of the City's water furnished to Millview under the agreement could be delivered by Millview to Calpella. ~4 The definition of urgent or emergency condition stated: "'Urgent or emergency conditions'.., means a sudden or unexpected occurrence or combination of occurrences causing domestic water supply to be temporarily interrupted or lessened, and does not include inadequate water rights to meet peak demand." Based on conversations between W & B and Division staff; it was W&B's understanding that the Division sought the petitions to change the POU for Millview, Ukiah and Willow primarily because of the physical interties between their respective water systems. Based on this understanding, the City's petition for a change in POU, filed July 1, 2002, included Calpella as well as Millview and Willow, because of its physical interconnection with Millview.~S On November 15, 2002, the Division published notice of the City's petition to change the POD and POU under its permit. In that notice, the Division stated: "Seeking to remove the EIA completely and provide a more predictable water supply, the City of Ukiah has filed a petition to expand its Place of Use to incorporate the service areas of Millview, Willow and Calpella County Water District's within its permit. ~6 The statement about seeking to remove the EIA completely was not contained in the City's petition. When the City brought that discrepancy to the Division's attention, the Division staff offered to issue a Renotice correcting that error in the notice.~7 ~2 See Government Code §56133. 13 See Exhibit P. " ~4 See Exhibit K, at Recitals, para. 4, p. 1. 15 See Exhibit G. See also Exhibit F which accompanied the March 13, 2002, petition to change the POD. 16 See Exhibit N, p. 7. ~7 See Exhibit S. Memorandum to Mayor and Council members Subject: Amendments to Water Rights Permit Date: April 14, 2005 Page 6 On November 22, 2004, the City filed a request to amend its Petition for Change in Place of Use to exclude the Willow service area from the petition.24 Willow decided not to participate in the preparation of an EIR. To avoid the necessity of preparing an EIR, it has elected not to petition to change the POU under its permits to include Ukiah or Millview and has requested Ukiah to exclude Willow from its petition. To satisfy the Division's concern about the physical intertie and threatened unauthorized diversions, Willow will be required to propose installing a plug to prevent water from being conveyed between the two water systems. The Scope of Services proposed by Leonard Charles in the agreement for his services to prepare the EIR recognizes that the combined use area will include Calpella, Millview and Ukiah, but not Willow.25 In the event of an emergency, Willow will be required to file a petition for a temporary urgency change to its place of use under Water COde Section 1435, which the Division staff must approve before Willow temporarily removes the plug from the interconnection. It would be required to replace the plug upon expiration of the temporary approval. ISSUES 1. Should Calpella be included in the petition to change the POU? Based on the physical interconnection between all tbur water systems, Calpella has been included in the City's petition to expand its PON, since the petition was originally filed in July 2002. Based on the August 8, 2002, inspection report, its experience, and Water Code Section 1052, W & B believes that it is prudent to include Calpella in the City's petition. In its compliance report on Millview, the Division required Millview to add Calpella to its place of use. Water Code Section 1052 prohibits unauthorized diversions of water and authorizes administrative sanctions and court action for a threatened as well as an actual unauthorized diversion. In W & B's past experience, the Division has treated a physical interconnection of water systems as a threatened diversion. In its Report of Compliance Inspection, the Division focuses on the physical inter-ties between the City, on the one hand, and Willow and Millview, on the other.26 W & B maintains that because of the physical intertie between Millview and Calpella, it is prudent to include the Calpella service area in the City's POU to avoid any possibility that the City could be found in actual or threatened violation of its permit in the event some of its water were determined to have been delivered to 24 See Exhibit Q. 2s See Exhibit T. 26 See Exhibit R, p. 4. Memorandum to Mayor and Council members Subject: Amendments to Water Rights Permit Date: April 14, 2005 Page 7 Calpella. This could happen at any time that Millview was delivering water to Calpella, when an emergency requiring service from the City occurred. It is also true, however, that the EIA between the City and Millview prohibits such deliveries and it is unlikely that the City will ever annex territory within Calpella's service area. Based on the advice from W & B, staff continues to recommend including Calpella in the petition. 2. Should the City, jointly with Milh, iew, prepare an EIR to evaluate the environmental impacts of the petitions to extend the permit term and to change the POD and POU? CEQA requires one of two types of environmental review of a project: (1) a negative declaration, where the project as mitigated will not have any adverse environmental impact or (2) an EIR, where a project could have impacts which cannot be mitigated to the level of insignificance. An EIR is preferred under CEQA over a negative declaration, and any doubts as to which should be prepared are resolved in favor of preparing an EIR.27 For that reason, the courts defer to a decision to prepare an EIR but not to a decision to prepare a negative declaration. As a consequence, a law suit challenging an EIR is easier to defend than a law suit challenging a negative declaration. If the administrative record contains substantial evidence on the basis of which a "fair argument" can be made that the project may have an unmitigated adverse environmental impact, a court is required to set aside the negative declaration.2s A negative declaration will be overturned, if the record contains any substantial evidence that an adverse impact may occur, even if other substantial evidence in the record would support the conclusion that no adverse impacts will occur. An EIR, on the other hand, is presumed valid and the existence of substantial evidence in the record will sustain an EIR, even if other substantial evidence in the record would support an opposite conclusion. All the City has to show is a reasonable, good faith effort at compliance. The petition to extend the permit term must be treated as a reauthorization to increase the rate of diversion by 12 cfs, from 8 cfs to 20 cfs. That evaluation must consider the impact on the releases from Lake Mendocino and the impact of the changed releases on water temperature and water quality in the Lake. Endangered species are involved. 27 Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1316-1317. 28No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 68, 75; Friends of"B" Street v. City of Hayward(lst Dist. 1980) 106 Cal. App. 3d 988, 1000-1003. Memorandum to Mayor and Council members Subject: Amendments to Water Rights Permit Date: April 14, 2005 Page 8 In addition, the petition to change the POU will authorize the City under its water rights permit to use its water anywhere in the expanded use area, even though the EIAs currently limit that use to emergencies, as defined in the agreements. Because CEQA compliance is required before the Division can approve the City's petitions, the environmental review must consider the potential environmental impact of making City water available ~vithout the emergency restriction in that expanded area. Given the scope of the environmental review required for both petitions and the willingness of Millview to pay half the cost, the staff determined to solicit proposals for an EIR. Staff continues to believe that an EIR is the prudent way to proceed. 3. Should the City undertake a broader EIR to prepare for revisions to the City's sphere of influence and future annexations? It has been suggested that the City will have to request LAFCO approval for a revision of its sphere o'f influence before it can initiate annexation of additional territory into the City limits. For that reason, the question has been asked whether the proposed scope of the EIR should be revised in anticipation of that application. It is true that the City's sphere of influence as approved by LAFCO is larger than the area identified as an appropriate sphere of influence in the City's General Plan. To make the LAFCO approved sphere consistent with the City's General Plan, the City should apply to LAFCO to revise its sphere of influence. In staff's opinion, however, that revision will not require extensive environmental review, because the revised sphere of influence is already included in the larger area. As a result of the revision, the area remaining in the City's sphere will see no change. The areas removed from the City's sphere will remain in the County with their current land use designations. Moreover, the environmental impacts of the reduced sphere have already been evaluated in the City's General Plan EIR. If the City were expanding its urban influence, that would require more extensive environmental review. Attached: Exhibits MEMORANDUM Date: April 19, 2005 To: From: Subject: Mayor Ashiku and Honorable Councilmembers Candace Horsley, City Manager Water Policies and Decisions Contract with Flood District The City has contracted with the Russian River Flood Control District for 500 Acre Feet (AF) of District water per year. This decision was made by unanimous vote of the Council on October 20, 2004 after discussion with the City's water right's attorney, Gary Weatherford. The City's hydrologist consultant, Bob Wagner, had prepared an analysis of Ukiah's water right shortage during critical dry months and the expected amount needed from the Flood Control District. ]:t was estimated that under historical flow conditions in the East Fork and based on conservative hydrological assumptions, that the City would only need District water in one out of ten years on average and in the amount of 343 acre feet for the period ]une through October. This amount was based on the following assumptions: a. Pumping would be available from Wells 2-6 based on 2002 use, demand conditions are based on June-October 2002. b. When water under the City's permit is available, flow to the Ranney Collector is first satisfied by main stem Russian River flow, with the balance from East Fork Russian c. Under 'dry' conditions, the assumption is that no water under the City's permit is available to the Ranney, however City well water is still available. No return flow from water used is returned to the Russian River (both assumptions are conservative) d. Hydrological conditions for wet, normal and dry conditions include Eel River reductions. The 500 AF requested from the Flood District was made by taking the conservative number of 343 AF that would be needed by the City in 'dry' years, and then adding 157 AF to it to allow for additional growth in the City. The following points apply: ~ 1. Under contract with the Flood District, this 500 AF must be reported as Flood District water, even in years when we do not use it, which limits the amount of water that we can perfect under our own water permit. 2. The City must also pay the Flood District for the full 500 AF every year whether we use it or not. 3. The City is required to request extension of its 20 cfs water permit every ten years. If the Water Board does not allow us to extend our permit in the future, we will be licensed for 500 AF less than we are now currently using, which is around 8 cfs. If the City annexed adjacent land in the future, the additional water usage would assist in perfecting our permit. The pros and cons considered by the Council at that time were the following: PRO~ 1. ! . 6. 7. 8. Get use of Project Water for at least five years Avoids some uncertainty as to when natural flow available under City permit Gives City benefit of 1949 Flood District priority date Gives City option to purchase additional Project Water, if it becomes available $23/acre foot price relatively Iow cost Helps District perfect 8000 acre foot right Does not require waiver of independent water rights Allows City to sell Contract water for use within District CONS 1. 2. 3. City must pay for Project water when City does not need it Reduces amount of water City can perfect under its own permit Unlike water perfected under City permit, right to use water under Flood District contract can be terminated after five years 4. City waives right to challenge District ordinance requiring contracts and District resolution establishing rates for purchase of Project water 5. Compromises City's right to contest District's interpretation of 8000 acre foot permit 6. City acknowledges and agrees that District may seek to secure additional water rights and water supply facilities 7. Reduce s utility of 8000 acre foot right by counting direct diversion only, with no allowance for return flows The 500 AF figure was based on the hydrology analysis and Council's discussion of the pros and cons. The Council felt that this amount provided a level of security for the City's needs. Conversely, the City could contract for 800 AF or any other amount that the Council would feel provides an appropriate level of assurance. The City would pay for that amount whether used or not and it would reduce the amount the City could perfect under its own permit. The benefit would be that the District permit has a higher priority date under its permit and can draw from pro~ect water. However, because the District contract has a five year term, it is less secure than water perfected under the City's own permit. The City is also in the process of exploring for additional wells which would give us an even higher level of security in 'dry' year conditions. A table of water rights and priority of use for the City and water districts is attached (Attachment 1). Policy re0ardinq servinq w~ter opt. side the (;::ity limits At the September 29, 2001 Council meeting, the Council discussed the policy that was in place regarding serving water to properties outside the City limits. The policy stated that if water was served outside the City limits, the property owner would agree to file for annexation to the City when requested by the City. The City had been in discussions with the County since the early :L980's in an attempt to come to agreement on a tax sharing plan for annexation. At the September meeting, the Council discussed the policy in relation to a discussion on the Brush Street Triangle and voted on a new policy regarding serving water outside the City limits. The new policy required that property owners must annex into the City prior to receiving water service by the City. The reasons for this change are outlined in the minutes of the council meeting (Attachment 3). The one exception to this policy was the decision to serve RCHDC as Iow income housing was needed and RCHDC staff agreed to file to LAFCO for annexation into the City, which they have done. Attachments: 1. Comparison of water rights chart 2. Memo of water law definitions and concepts, major events 3. Minutes from City Council meeting 9/19/2001 Attachment # I I ! ! I I I ! I I 1 I I '1 ! I ! I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I o c~ ~ I o r~ o AN IN. TORY OF WATER USE A/~D FUTURE NEEDS IN TRERU$$IAN RIVER BASIN OF MENDOCINO COUNTY by Sari Sommarstrom, Ph.D. Water Pol£~:y and Planning Consultant Prepared for the MENDOCINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION D[STRICT September 1986 Summary of Current Water Use Summary of Future Water Needs List of Water Supply Alternatives quick ~eferenc~ Table III-T Table IV-T page 14 page 48 page 67 Attachment MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: DAVID J. RAPPORT SUBJECT: WATER RIGHTS WORKSHOP DATED: JANUARY 4, 1991 The purpose of this memorandum is to aid the Council in discussing the City's water rights at the workshop scheduled for January 9, 1990. It will first provide some basic water law concepts and definitions, then outline the major events and water rights decisions and permits that will affect the City's water rights in the Russian River and finally identify some of the issues that the City must address in analyzing its water rights position. WATER LAW DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS Pre- 1914 rights: The Water Commission Act of 1914 declared that surface waters of the state not used for useful and beneficial purposes are public waters subject to appropriation. Prior to 1914 appropriative water rights were acquired by recording a notice in the county recorder's office declaring the use of a certain quantity of water (usually expressed in miners' inches~) followed by actual and open appropriation and diversion of that water. Appropriation: The diversion of surface water, such as by pumping water from a river or lake or empounding water behind a dam, for use on land not riparian to the water source or for storage and later use on riparian or other land. Appropriative right: After 1914 a right granted by the state through a permitting process. In the event that insufficient water exists priority among rights is established by the date when the application for the permit to appropriate water was first filed with the state agency. "First in time is first in right." Appropriative rights permit: The permit issued by the Division of Water Rights of the Water Resources Control Board to use a prescribed amount of water (expressed in acre feet (afa)2 or cubic feet per second (cfs)) during a prescribed time period, such as from November 1 to July 1. The permit issued by the state authorizes the diversion of water, but is not permenant until the appropriator is actually using the water. For example, an apropriator may receive a permit authorizing the appropriation of 20 cfs throughout the year and the permit may give the appropriator until a certain date to make beneficial use of the water. If the appropriator is only using 10 cfs by the deadline, its permit may be changed to authorize the diversion of only 10 cfs. 50 miners' inches equals approximately 1 cfs. An acre foot is the amount of water covering an acre of land to a depth of one foot. Pre-1949 rights: Rights recognized in Decision D 1030 as superior to permits issued to SCWA and MFC & WCID by that decision, which have a priority date of Jan. 28, 1949. Riparian land: A legal parcel of land that lies adjacent to a surface water source, such as a river, creek, stream or lake. Riparian right: The fight to divert surface water for immediate use on riparian land. After the adoption of Article X, section 2 of the State Constitution in 1928, a riparian right is superior to appropriative rights and downstream riparian rights as to the amount of water that can be beneficially used on the riparian land without undue waste. Surface water: Water present on the surface of land or subsurface water flowing in a definite water course. In the Russian River surface water is present both above and below the streambed. Water percolating from the river through the gravels below or adjacent to the fiver are considered surface water. This subsurface water is referred to as "the underflow" of the river. Groundwater: Subsurface water that does not flow in a definite water course. In the Ukiah Valley groundwater is water accessible through wells that is hydrologically separate from the Russian River; that is, water that collects beneath the valley directly from rain and run-off. Project Water: The water available for diverison from the Russian River that would not exist but for the construction of Coyote Dam and Lake Mendocino. "Project" refers to the Army Corps of Engineers Flood Control Project for which the dam was constructed. CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS, DECISIONS AND PERMITS 1872- Ukiah Water Company incorporated 1884- recordation of use of 60 miners inches from Orrs Creek in name of Ukiah Water Company. 1885- recordation for use of 1000 miners inches from Cold Creek for City of Ukiah. 1885- recordation for City of Ukiah of 500 miners inches from Carr's Canyon. 1886- Ukiah Water Company began contracting with City to provide water to City. 1892- Ukiah Water and Improvement Company formed with franchise to build, equip and operate water works in City, included the establishment of wells near present location, pumping from underflow of Russian River. Facilities expanded in 1899. 1896- Ukiah Water and Improvement District recordation of 1000 miners inches from Orr Creek. 1908- Eel River diversion at Van Arsdale Resevoir completed and water diverted through Cape Horn Dam from Eel River into East Fork Russian River to drive hydroelectric generators for Snow Mountain Water and Power Company, later acquired by PG & E. 1921. Lake Pillsbury on Eel River completed with capacity to store 9~,700 afa. Through siltation that capacity is now reduced to approximately 80,700 afa. 1922- City purchased all water rights and facilities of Ukiah Water and Improvement Company. 1949- California Department of Finance filed application for permit to divert 200,000 afa for storage and to directly divert from East Fork Russian River 550 cfs. (Application numbers 12919, 12920.) This application was to allow the construction of the Coyote Dam and Lake Mendocino by the Army Corps of Engineers. 1949-1954- Dept. of Finance assigns 122,500 afa and 335 cfs to Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) on condition that SCWA reassign 8000 afa to an entity in Mendocino County to be formed for that purpose. (Application numbers 12919A, 12920A.) 1950- capacity of Eel River diversion tunnel increased to 350 cfs and PG & E abandons right to all water ~n excess of the 50 cfs which it is contractually obligated to provide to Potter Valley Irrigation District. January 25, 1954- Ukiah applies for permit to appropriate 20 cfs from underflow of Russian River year round for municipal purposes. (Application 15704.)3 1956- SCWA assigns 8000 acre feet under Application 12919A to Mendocino Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District (MFC & WCID). 1957- Coyote Dam and Lake Mendocino constructed with storage capacity of 122,500 afa, 70,000 afa reserved for water storage, 48,000 afa reserved for flood control and 4,500 afa for silt storage. August 17, 1961- State Water Rights Board adopts Decision D 1030. Decision assigned permit numbers 12947 and 12948 to application numbers 12919A and 12920A, respectively. 12947 divided into 12947A for SCWA and 12947B for MFC & WCID. Permits approved as follows: 12947A, 12949, 12950 authorize SCWA to divert for storage, divert and redivert 92 cfs and 37,544 afa for storage in Lake Mendocino and diversion and rediversion at Wohler Intake and Mirabel Park Intake in Sonoma County. 12947B authorize MFC & WCID to store, divert and redivert 8000 afa at Lake Mendocino and at vahous points along Russian River between Coyote Dam and Mendocino-Sonoma County line. Approved City of Ukiah application 15704 for 20 cfs to be diverted between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31 with priority date of Jan. 25, 1954. Under the decision, the rights under permits approved in Decision D 1030 are inferior to rights acquired or to be acquired by application based on the continuous beneficial use of water since prior to Jan. 28, 1949 (the date the Dept. of Finance filed applications 12919 and 12920). April 17, 1986- Division of Water Rights issues Decision 1610, which amends SCWA permits 12947A, 12949, 12950, 16596 to permit diversion 3 A list of Appropriative Water Rights for Local Water Purveyors is attached as Exhibit 1. for storage, diversion and rediversion of 180 cfs and 75,000 afa. This in- cludes water stored at Lake Sonoma. The permit also adds as a place of use under 12947A Redwood Valley County Water District, subject to a maximum withdrawal from storage at Lake Mendocino of 7,500 afa and to curtailment, if water inadequate for senior uses. This memorandum contains a simplified overview for the City Council's use. It does not pretend to include all significant water fights principles, information or issues. Affachmenf # concerns specifically in terms of issues they may have with the contract that may'b"'h uctly the City's intent, which is to properly amortize this project and spread the burden not only on City residents, but also on all the users or potential users. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES' Councilmembers Larson, Smith, Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES' None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN. None. Recessed: 7:55 p.m. Reconvened. 8:04 p.m, 10. NEW BUSINESS 10b. Discussion of City Policy Regardin_cl Annexation and Delivery of Water Outside th~: City Limits City Manager Horsley advised that the City Council directed staff to meet with Mendocino County representatives regarding the Brush Street Triangle (Triangle) mitigations contained in the EIR that was performed by the City's consultants. During the meeting, the (Chief Administrative Officer CAO) raised a very pertinent issue and that was "If we're going to be participating in the cost'for mitigations and other expenses, we really aren't interested in putting a lot of time, effort, or money forward if the City is going to require that the property owners annex before they receive City water, that is if it turns out that City water is the only water that's available." She felt this is something that needs to be discussed because of current policy, and that in the past the City has provided water to the Brush Street Triangle area and have asked the property owners to sign an agreement that if the City ever asked them to annex, they would annex. There are several hurdles to annexation that include not only that the property owners agree, but also LAFCO requires that we have a tax sharing agreement with the County. The City hopes the bridge will be in place by next year linking Orchard Avenue to Brush Street, and so the potential for development in that area is very high. Water is something that will be needed in this area. She has notified property owners, Dan Thomas, as well as Jim Anderson, CAO for the County, and discussed this issue. The issues revolve around development in the area and not only the mitigations but also what discretionary review would be required as well as the types of requirements that would be imposed on developers within the Triangle. As a result of discussions with the County, she thought that the County has agreed to pass an ordinance that would require discretionary review and the implementation of the mitigations as proposed in the EIR. It was their understanding in the meeting that discretionary review would not be required. Planning Director Stump stated that in terms of future development and discretionary review, the County does not require discretionary review in the Triangle for many types of development. This has concerned City staff and led to staff's discussions to obtain some assurance of mitigation measures. The County had indicated tha{'they would be prepared to perhaps pursue the adoption of a resolution or ordinance that would require at least CEQA review of any ministerial or building permit. He was not sure if that would fulfill Council's concern about design review and some other things that could be achieved through a true discretionary review process. He thought staff is close to finding the mechanisms that would work for both the City and the County. Regular Meeting September 19, 2001 Page 7 of 16 Mayor Ashiku explained that he was told before that they could develop their own water resource and that they weren't very concerned about it. His concern about changing the policy and requiring annexation, if it was the City's desire to have such a project annexed, is that ifwe extend into that service area we're agreeing to provide water to an unknown size of project, costing our citizens opportunity in the future to utilize that resource which we've committed elsewhere without any direct reimbursement to the citizens or our treasury. He would have a hard time committing to a project of that magnitude without having control over it. Councilmember Larson stated that the traffic impacts, increased law enforcement costs, and fire protection costs that we would assume through our service agreements with the other Districts would be an impact on us that would not be addressed financially. Annexation is the logical land use policy here and water is a component of it. If we are going to allocate water to a project, he would like to see what the project is and what value it brings to the community, both in terms of City revenues and community service. He felt he would not support any water contracts that don't involve probable or necessary annexation. At the very least, discretionary review is vital to maintain our community development plan that has been worked on so hard. It was his opinion that the County needs to be participatory in this. This ceased to progress due to a committee that couldn't seem to come to some resolution about a revenue sharing agreement. He felt that's where it needs to be resumed on a government level. Counciimember Libby was of the belief that annexation is the best answer to this matter. She felt that the City has been holding these property owners hostage for them to develop this land because two jurisdictions have not been able to work out their differences. She would like to see the City and County earnestly work something out together to make this work. Considerable discussion followed concerning the issue of development in the Triangle_ and whether to require annexation prior to providing water service outside the service area. There was also discussion concerning' LAFCO's involvement in the annexation process. Councilmember Baldwin was of the opinion that we have to look after the best interest of the majority of the citizens of Ukiah and there may be immense negative impacts from full development in the Triangle. We should not give up the control we currently have and we should look toward annexation. Mayor Ashiku stated that no one is deprived of an opportunity to develop their property and owners can apply for building permits at the present time. Council has given staff direction to work out a mitigation program that would satisfy the impacts of building that bridge. Jim Andersen, Mendocino County Administrative Officer (CAO), stated that he appreciates City staff talking with the County. He came away from the meeting with something markedly different than what has been presented to Council at this meeting. The last time they were here, the direction of the Council was to look at the mitigations that would be necessary in order to consider approving the EIR that had been done for the area, to look at what is a reasonable cost sharing for those mitigations, to look at the issue of continuity of design for the Ukiah Valley, and then return to Council with that information. in the meeting with staff he thought there was an understanding by all parties that if the City Regular Meeting September 19, 2001 Page 8 of 16 were to proceed with certification of the EIR, the mitigations outlined in the EIR would have to be addressed. His comments to the City representative were that the ratio would be determined by the availability of water. But if you look at the development that's anticipated in the EIR, from a moderate to large level, development can only be supported if water is available. From the perspective of the County, when talking about the mitigations and the ratio, or the share of cost in those mitigations, water is a key variable that goes into that equation. The extent to which water is available certainly provides more options with regard to development in that area. With regard to discretionary review or CEQA, it has been the position of the County that as development occurs on the 90 acres, the County would have discretionary review and subject any of the projects to the CEQA process. Also, as development occurred, County staff would recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the cumulative impacts of development on the 90 acres would be considered when looking at the cost of the off site improvements. For the record he stated that the County is interested in intelligent and proper planning and development of the valley like the Ukiah City Council. As far as design standards, he thought that from a staff standpoint, they have discussed the fact that the City has worked on actual commercial design standards for the City of Ukiah. Looking at those design standards and possibly applying them to development in the Brush Street area is something they would be willing to consider and potentially propose to the Board of Supervisors. He was of the opinion that annexation was not discussed much when he spoke with City staff. However, the County is very open to discussions of annexation and tax sharing agreements. The Board is looking at updating its General Plan and the extent to which an annexation or tax sharing agreements may be appropriate for proper planning for Mendocino County, is something they have not ruled out at the staff level. Councilmember Larson inquired if Mr. Andersen was suggesting that the County adopt the City's Design Guidelines. Mr. Andersen stated that it has been discussed at the staff level but not with the Board of Supervisors. DiscussiOn continued with regard to a tax revenue sharing agreement and the issue of annexation. Water resources and services were addressed. Dan Thomas, representing Marino and Company, one of the property owners of the property in question, stated that his company has had an application since 1995 to annex property and nothing has been done during that time. He thought that the property owners are stuck between these two government entities. As a majority property owner in that area, he controls annexation and has been trying to get the City and the County together since 1995 to no avail. With regards to the EIR and construction in the 90 acres, he did not think anyone knows what's going to happen there in the next 10 or 15 years. He discussed the City's 20-year plan and changing zoning to meet the needs of the community. The Agenda Summary Report comes as a complete surprise to him in regards to the County's oversight in development of the 90 acres. It was his understanding that when the City approved the EIR for the bridge, they identified mitigations. The basis for that EIR was a reasonable attempt at defining what'would occur in Regular Meeting September 19, 2001 Page 9 of 16 the 90 acres. It was his belief that there was an attempt to assess what the mitigations would be for development of that land. In the original EIR, the City required that it would oversee the procedure regarding the County's review. He felt that the correct way is through CEQA. The compromise between all parties during discussions was that the County would generate a special overlaying district of 90 acres that would impose CEQA guidelines on the 90 acres and there would be discretionary review. The last he heard, everyone was happy with that concept. It's been a very frustrating experience for him to try to get the two entities together. Mayor Ashiku discussed his previous conversations with Mr. Thomas regarding construction of the bridge and the advantages of being in the City. Previously, Mr. Thomas had indicated to him that he wasn't dependent on the City's water or utilities. It now comes as a surprise to him that water is needed for this project. City Manager Horsley explained that there are two issues. One is that the bridge is going to be built and the water issue is not associated with that project. The second issue is, when we talk about discretionary review, we are not talking about the CEQA mitigation process. Planning Director Stump stated he was confused about Mr. Andersen's comments in which he indicated discretionary review would occur but it is his recollection that at the last meeting they had, it was clear the County was not contemplating an overlay zoning district or discretionary review but rather adopting some sort of resolution that would require CEQA review on building permits, which is a very unusual procedure. They were willing to listen but there was no commitment to an overlay zoning district or discretionary review. At that meeting he had asked "Don't you want to 'have control over projects through the discretionary review process?" He thought it crucial for any jurisdiction that is entertaining major development, that they have discretionary review. City Attorney Rapport discussed the confusion that might be occurring with regard to the meaning of discretionary review. He detailed the discretionary review process. City Manager Horsley stated that Director Stump specifically asked, "Are you saying you don't want discretionary review" and Ray Hall said "no". There may have been miscommunications regarding this matter. M/S Baldwin/Ashiku that property owners must annex into the City prior to receiving water service by the City. Further discussion followed concerning the motion and adhering to the current policy. Councilmember Libby was of the opinion that issues could be worked out between the City and County with further discussions. ~. City Attorney Rapport explained that the informal policy previously adopted by Council requires a majority vote of Council in order to hook up to water service outside the City limits. He continued to discuss how the LAFCO law has changed since this policy was put into place. The City has discretion as to extending its water boundaries. Regular Meeting September 19, 2001 Page 10 of 16 There was some discussion concerning Mr. Thomas' application to LAFCO in 1995 for annexation that has resulted in no action. M/S Councilmember Baldwin/Ashiku calling for the question. · Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES. Councilmembers Smith and Libby. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 10. NEW BUSINESS 10c. Presentation of Proqrams Eliqible to Utilize Money in the Public Benefits Fund Customer Service Supervisor Archibald provided Council with an updated report on the Public Benefit Fund. She explained that the report demonstrates that the Ukiah CARES program, the Electric Vehicle lease program, the Photovoltaic rebates, an Energy Conservation Program, and a one-time geothermal project expansion are possible within the projected resources of the Public Benefits Fund. She discussed various assumptions that were made by staff in developing this report. At the end of ten years, an ending fund balance of $170,670 is projected for the Public Benefits Fund. The actual amount available for additional adjustments to the programs provided will depend upon actual participation and expenses of approved programs. Up until this year, Ukiah CARES was the only substantial program within this fund. Currently the CARES program provides relief to about'532 Iow and moderate-income families for the electric charges on their City bills in the form of monthly discounts and 'Temporary Emergency Assistance. These benefits were most recently increased in March of 2001. The current participation will cost the program approximately $161,000 a year. She continued to discuss the overall results of the programs over the ten-year period that total $4.8 million. .. Public Utilities Director Barnes discussed the proposed one-time geothermal project expansion. He noted that there has been an increase in steam production and the project would provide more generation to the City. Upon questioning by Coucilmember Baldwin with regard to why staff is proposing more than five times the residential photovoltaic rebates, Mr. Barnes explained that it has to do with the potential size of the system, which is usually 3Kw for residential use. Councilmember Libby inquired as to the percentage of generation that we obtain from the Geysers. She also inquired if we did not take the money out of the reserve fund, how would we pay for the program. Director Barnes responded that the percentage of generation is about 25-30%. He explained that it would have to be paid out of generation costs and the generation cost would increase. He continued to discuss the photovoitaic rebate, noting that it could be~generation that the City would use. Discussion followed relative to the photovoltaic rebate and purchasing the power. Supervisor Archibald discussed details of each of the four scenarios presented for the CARES program. She explained that if Council wishes to include providing additional relief to Regular Meeting September 19, 2001 Page 11 of 16 ,~chotms F. BonsJgnore, P.E. Robert C. "X,~igner, RE. Paula J. Whealen MorUque Robbms. P.E. FO/an E. Stol/us Attachment Wagln_erS onsi re Consulting Civil Engineers, A Corporation November 15, 2000 Mr. Mark Stretars Division of Water Rights State Water Resources Control Board P.O. Box 2000 Sacramento, CA 95812-2000 Re: Petition for Extension of Time for the City of Ukiah Water Right Permit 12952 (Application 15704) Dear Mr. Stretars: On behalf of the City of Ukiah, we are submitting a Petition for Extension of Time for Water Right Permit 12952 (Application 15704). The Permittee has complied with the Permit requirements and requests additional time in which to fully maximize its water use. Also enclosed are the required fees, $100 payable to State Water Resources Control Board and $850 payable to the Department of Fish and Game. The enclosed Agent Assignment form authorizes Wagner & Bonsignore to act as the agent for the above referenced Permit. Please change your files accordingly. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the enclosed. Very. truly yours, Encls. ,/ cc: Darryl Barnes George Borecky Gary Weatherford COUJ005.DOC WAGNER & BONSIGNORE CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS 444 North 7~)~rd Street, Suite 325, 5acrarnemto, Californza 958140228 WATER USERS: State of California State Water Resources Control Board DMSION OF WATER RiGHTS P.O. Box 2000, Sacramento, CA 95812-2000 [ufo: (916) 657-2170, FAX: (916) 657-1485, E-mail: http://www.waterrights.swtcb, ca. gov PETITION FOR EXTENSION OF TIh/~ Application 1 5 7 0 4 Permit 1 2 9 5 2 Water Code section 1396 requires an applicant to exercise due diligence in developing a water supply for beneficial use. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), in considering requests for extension of time, will review the facts presented to determine whether there is good cause for granting an extension oft/me to complete the project. Where diligence in completing the project is not fully substantiated, the SBRCB may set the matter for hearing to determine the facts upon which to base formal action relating to the permit. Formal action may involve: 1. Revoking the permit for failure to proceed with due diligence in completing the project. 2. Issuing a license for the mount of water heretofore placed to beneficial use under the terms of the permit. 3. Granting a reasonable extension of time to complete construction work and/or full beneficial use of water. The time previously allowed in your permit within which to complete construction work and/or use of a, ater has either expired or will expire shortly. Please check below the action you wish taken on this permit. [] The project has been abandoned and I request revocation of the permit. Signature Full use of water has been made, both as to amount and season, and ][ request license be issued. Signature The project is not yet ~omplete. I request the SWRCB's consideration of the following petition for an extension of time. Complete items 1, 2, and 3. PETITION FOR EXTENSION OF TIM~ If START of construction has been delayed What has been done since permit was issued toward commencing construction? . Estimate date construction work will begin. Reasons why construction work was not begun within the time allowed by the permit. PET-EXT (11-99) Continued on next page PETITION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME If construction work is proceeding If construction work and/or use of water is proceeding but is not complete, an extension of time may be petitioned by completing items 4 through 16. Statements must be restricted to construction or use of water only under this permit. . . 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12· 13. A 15 beneficial use of water. (Indicate period of time. Must be consistent with time frame allowed in "Guidelines for considering Petitions for Extensions of Time.") Average between 1990 - 1999 How much water has been used? ----1-005,4 MGY ~ac-r~-fe~year. cfs How many acres have been irrigated? N/A How many houses or people have been served water? ~onnect±ons tn 1 999 Extent of past use of water for any other purpose, none What construction work has been completed during the last extension9 Water Treatment '~--started in 1991 Approximate amount spent on project during last exteasion period. $~ 0 0 t 00 0 Estimate date construction work will be completed. See Attachment Estimated year in which water will be fully used· See Attachment Reasons why construction and/or use of water were not completed within time previously allowed. See Attachment - year extension of time is requested to complete construction work and/or Plant If the use of water is for municipal (including industrial) and irrigation supplies and is provided or regulated by public agencies and use of the water has commenced, but additional time is needed to reach full use contemplated, the following information must be provided. 14. What water conservation measures are in effect or feasible within the place of use? See Attachment 15. How much water is being conserved or is it feasible to conserve using these conservation measures? acre-feet per annum. See Attachment t6. How much water per capita is used during the maximum 30-day period? gpm. See Attachment I (we) declare underpenalty of perjury that the above ix true and correct to the best of my (ouO knowledge and belief. Dated: //- ~ ~_~at [JJ[~ ~ _ Califo '  Telephone No. tune L $850 feet made a able to the r Resources Control Board must accompany a pe~tion fo'------~ an extensio-'--'~ 0-'7-' · P Y Department of Fish and Game must accompany all but the first petition for an extension of time. PET-EXT (11-99) -2- e x ~ i oi t ATTACHMENT 'EO PETITION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME PEI~MIT 12952 (APPLICATION 15704) OF CITY OF UKIAH Item 11, 12, 13: Water Right Permit 12952 was issued in October, 1961 to the City of Lrkiah for the purpose of serving municipal water. Permit 12952 allows lbr water to be diverted from the Russian River and its undertow at a maximum diversion rate of up to 20 cubic feet per second. While the City has steadily increased the number of water conndctions since Permit issuance, it has not reached its projected build- out and requires an extension of time in which to develop additional connections within its service area and put water to full beneficial use. The Ukiah City Council adopted a General Plan in December, 1995 which defines how the service area will be developed through the year 2015. In 1999, the City delivered municipal water to 6,848 connections for fiat and metered water users. Future water demands are based on population projections contained in the General Plan. The present poplulation served is approximately 15,030 and the projected population for the year 2015 per the General Plan is 22,739, which represents a 34 percent increase. Additionally, the City of Ukiah anticipates growth in commercial businesses as the population increases which will also increase the water demand. Per the annual Progress Reports by Permittee, the maximum amount of water diverted, at all Points of Diversion named in Permit 12952 was 5.24 cubic feet per second which occurred in 1999. Attached is a summary of the City of Ukiah's water use pursuant to Permit 12952. Item 14: The following are the conservation measures employed by the City as outlined in its "Urban Water Management Plan" prepared by Kennedy/Jenks Engineers in 1985 and additional measures implemented subsequent to 1985: · Distribution of water saving devices supplied by the State Department of Water Resources. · Education of customers regarding water conservation. · Installation of more efficient landscape irrigation of City parks and golf course. · Adoption of sewer rates for commercial customers that are based on water consumption, indirectly encouraging consumers to conserve. · Adoption of regulations that require mandatory conservation when deemed necessary by the City Council. · Requirement of low flow products for new development. Ex~lbi~ A Item 15: The City of UTdah does not have a method to measure the a~nount of water saved as a result of its conservation measures. Item 16: The maximum monthly water use as reported on the Progress Report by Permittee occurred in July 1990 with 241.90 million gallons consumed. Therefore, approximately 0.79 gpm per connection was used during the maximum 30-day period. COUA003.doc Exhibit A CITY OF UKI_~tt Water Use Itistory Year Annual Water Use~ (MGY) 1983 t029.60 1984 1173.20 1985 1086.30 1986 1049.50 1987 1163.70 1988 1118.10 1989 1094.60 Water Use (cfs) 1990 893.36 1991 703.45 1992 766.87 1993 1009.35 1994 1117.88 1995 1078.89 1996 1146.87 1997 1097.98 1998 1003.10 1999 1236.21 Average2 1005.40 4.37 4.97 4.61 4.45 4.93 4.74 4.64 3.79 2.98 3.25 4.28 4.74 4.58 4.86 4.66 4.25 5.24 No. of Connections 6225 6443 6283 6316 6316 6801 687t 6848 Estimated Population 15,050 15,050 15,050 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,030 As reported on Progress Reports by Permittee. *Includes water diverted from groundwater Well ~4 (which is not subject to appropriation per Permit 12952). Average water use between 1990 and 1999 COUA002.xls Attachment State /ater Resources Contr ,l Board Division of Water Rights Winston H. Hickox 1001 I Street, ',4m Floor · Sacramento, California 95814 - (916) 341-5363 Mailing Address: P O. Box 2000 - Sacramento, Califorma · 95812-2000 Secretary.for FAX (9161} 341-5400 · Web Site Address: http://www.wammghts.ca.gov £n vtronmentai Protecnon ]7~e ene%D2 challenge facing Califorma ts rea[. Eve~ Cahforntan needs to t,~ke tmmediate action to reduce energy consumphon. For a list of s;mple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our Web-site at http://w~a~.swrcb, ca.gov. Gray Davis ~overnor NOV 0 7 2001 Ln Reply Refer to' 363:KKW: 15704 Mr. Darryl L. Barnes Director of Public Utilities City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue L.'Tiah, CA 95482 Dear Mr. Barnes: PERMIT 12952 (.APPLICATION 15704) RUSSIAN RIVER LE'gDERFLOW, IN MENDOCINO COUNTY Division of Water Rights (Division) staff conducted an inspection on August 8,2001, of the project served by the above water right. This inspection was conducted to check the City of Ukiah's (City) overall compliance with the terms and conditions of its permit. Permit 12952 authorizes the year-round direct diversion of 20 cfs from a Ranney Collector and two wells tapping Russian River underflow. The water diverted under Permit 12952 is for municipal use within the City limits and its environs, as shown on a map filed with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The time to complete beneficial use of water under Permit 12952 elapsed on December 31, 2000. r-,:..:_: .... ='-- -~' ..... ~ ~' the '-':-' ' ' ' ' " ..... exiension of time for Permit ..... da~ed November 15, 2000. Accompanying this petition was an Agent Assignment form in which the City designated Wagner & Bonsig-nore Consulting Civil Engineers, A Corporation as its representative to deal with all matters pertaining to this water right permit. Accordingly, the Division has changed its records to show Wagner & Bonsignore as the agent for Permit 12952 and they will receive all future correspondence pertaining to Permit 12952 on the City's behalf. Our compliance inspection of the project found that the quantities diverted from the Russian River by the City are within the season and amounts author/zed by Permit 12952. However, we also found that the City is diverting water from the Russian River at two additional wells (Wells 5 and 6) not covered by the permit, and is serving property outside the place of use designated by Permit 12952. Apparently, service of water outside the place of use is made pursuant to inter-tie agreements with Millview and Willow County Water Districts. Exh bit B Mr. Darryl L. Barnes ,, NOV 0 7 2001 Based on these findings, the Division requires within 30 days from the date of this letter, that the City provide evidence either contradicting the Division findings, or supporting a fight to use the wells and serve property outside the place of use covered by Permit 12952. If there is no contest to the Division findings and no basis of fight, the City should petition to change the points of diversion and place of use under Permit 12952 at this time. The Division final recommendation depends on the City's response and corrective actions taken. Please note an unauthorized diversion of water constitutes a trespass against the State and may be subject to enforcement action pursuant to Water Code section 1052, subdivision (b). Therefore, this matter requires your immediate attention. If you have any questions regarding your water right permit or the above findings, please telephone Mr. Kelly Warren at (916) 341-5414. Sincerely, John O'Hagan, Chief Compliance and Enforcement Unit CC' Wagner & Bonsig-nore, Consulting Civil Engineers 444 North Third Street, Suite 325 Sacramento, CA 95758 Attachment # ~cholas F. Bonsignore, P.E. Robert C. Wagner, P.E_ Paula J. Wheaien Monique Robbms, P.E. Ryan E. S~olfus W agner&J3onsignore Consultin~ Ci---vl--~ Engineers------'-----~ z-~ ~orpo~ January 4, 2002 Mr. John O'Hagan State Water Resources Control Board Division of Water Rights P.O. Box 2000 Sacramento, CA 95812-2000 Re' City of Ukiah - Permit 12952 (Application 15704) Dear Mr. O'Hagan: This is in response to your November 7, 2001 letter regarding the inspection of the project served by Permit 12952 of City of Uldah. We understand that during your inspection of the facilities you identified two wells that are not named as points of diversion in the Permit and you found that occasionally water is being served to areas outside the specified place of use. The City agrees with your finding that Wells #5 and #6 are not named as points of diversion in the Permit. Well #5 was installed in 1985 and is located midway between the Ranney Collector and Well //2 (Points of Diversion //1 and #2, respectively). Well //6 was installed in 1986 and is located within 200 feet of Well #2 and discharges ttzrough the same meter. We believe the source of both Wells #5 and #6 is Russian River Underflow. Within the next _60 days, the City intends to file a Petition on Permit 12952 for Addition of Points of Diversion at Wells #5 and //6. We request that this Petition be considered and approved without public notice. California Code of Regulations Section 795 sets forth certain conditions when public notice of petitions is not required. Section 795(a)(1) states that notice will not ordinarily be required for "Petition tbr a change in point of diversion which does not change the point relative to diversion points of others and tributary sources on the same stream" · Since Wells #5 and #6 are located within the general vicinity and draw from the same source as two of the points of diversion named in Permit 12952, and since the addition of such wells do not impact any diversion points of others, the Petition should not require a public notice. The issue of the place of use is ~nore complicated. Pursuant to Interconnection Agreements that have been in place since 1993, the City serves municipal water on a temporary emergency basis to both Millview and Willow County Water Districts. The City serves water to these Districts fi.om time to time when they experience equipment failure, to allow maintenance of their systems and or for fire protection purposes. 444 North 7-bt'rd Street, Suzte 32_5, Sacramento, Cali_/ior'n~a 95814-0228 ~X~iOlt C · Mr. John O'Hagan January 4, 2002 Page 2 The place of use identified in the ,Application covered by Permit 12952 is the City of Ukiah and "environs". Our recent review of the State Water Resources Control Board files reveals that the maps submitted between 1!)54 and 1959 in connection with the Application do not appear to include the service areas of Millview and Willow County Water Districts. We understand that the Willow and Millview water right permits have been the subjects of compliance inspections by your unit. Further, we understand that those Districts will likely be required to file petitions to change their respective places of use. We would propose to coordinate with both of those Districts in the identification of a place of use consonant with the Interconnection Agreements. To allow for such coordination, the City would like to defer the filing of a petition to change the place of use. We expect that this coordination with both Districts can be accomplished so as to allow the City to file a Petition for Change in Place of Use prior to July 1, 2002. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter. Very truly yours, WAGNER & BONSIGNORE Paul~ CC: Darryl Barnes, City of Ukiah Candace Horsely, City of UMah David Rapport Gary Weatherfbrd CO bw¢015.DOC xX, b.gner&Bo i ore Ex~iDi~ C Attachment State ¥; _. ;er Resources, Contro., ,, '3oard Division of Water Rights 1001 I Street, lat~ Floor · Sacramento, California 95814 · (916) 341-5300 n H. Hickox Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2000 · Sacramento, California · 95812-2000 Secreta~.for FAX (916) .341-5400 · Web Site Address: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov Environmental Division of Water Rights: http://v, qao,v.waterrights.ca.gov Protection - '--~ ~ ~'~'~ ~' '~' Gray Davis Governor JAN 1 1_ 2002 City. of Ukiah Director of Public Utilities 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482-5400 .Dear Applicant, PETITION 15704 (PERMIT 12952) BY THE CITY OF UKIAH TO APPROPRIATE 20 CFS OF WATER FROM jANUARY i TO DECENH3ER 3 l FROM RUSSiA_N RI%'ER TRIBUTARY TO PACIFIC OCEAN IN MENDOCINO COUNTY On November 15, 2000, you filed Petition 15704P001117 for an Extension of Time to develop full beneficial use of water authorized under permit 12952. Permit 12952 authorizes direct diversion of 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) from January 1 to December 31. The City's maximum average annual rate of diversion for the years 1990 through 1999 was 5.24 cfs. The Petition for Extension of Time constitutes a reauthorization of the project for the difference of 14.76 cfs. Assessment of the potential C ~umulative impacts of increasing direct diversion from the Russian River on sensitive plant and animhi species and their habitat is pertinent to the continued processing of the subject water right petition. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires environmental review of water fight Petition 15704P001117 before approval of Petition for a Time Extension can be processed. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) staff'has reviewed the subject application, and determined the SWRCB is a Responsible Agency for this project. Moreover, it is determined that the Petitioner, the City of Ukiah, is the Lead Agency for this project. This letter is to inform you that as the Lead Agency, it is your responsibility to prepare a CEQA document for this project. SWRCB as a responsible agency will review the Lead Agency's CEQA d~ ~...o.. on t. he project. document and use the Lead ,~gency s ,..~QA document when malting a Please forward two copies of the final CEQA document to the SWRCB. Approval of the water right application cannot be finalized until the above requested information has been received, evaluated, and the CEQA process has been completed. If you have any questions, please contact MaryLisa Lynch at 916.341.5365. · Environmental Review Unit 1 cc: See next page Ex~ibi~ D -2- Linda Hanson CDFG Region 3 P.O. Box 47 Yountville, CA 94599 Bryan Freele CDFG Region 3 P.O. Box 47 Yountville, CA 94599 Dr. Stacy Li National Marine Fishery Service 777 Sonoma Ave Room 325 Santa Rosa Ca 95404-6528 Monique Robbins Wagner & Bonsignore 444 North Thirds Street, Suite 325 Sacramento, CA 95758 ExhIDI~ Winston H. Hickox .S~ecretary for '~n vironm enta! Protection Attachment # State g, ater Resources Contr . Board Division of Water Rights 1001 I Street, 14a Floor · Sacramento, California 9581,1 · (916) 341-5414 Mailing Address: PO. Box 2000 - Sacramento, California · 95812-2000 F,~X (916) 341-5400 - Web Site Address: http://www.su, Tcb.ca.gov Division of Water Rights: htlp://www.waternghts.ca.gov Gray Da,as Governor FEB 0 0 2002 In Reply Refer to 363:KKW:A015704 City of Ukiah c/o Paula J. Whealen Wagner & Bonsignore Consulting Civil Engineers 444 North Third Street, Suite 325 Sacramento, CA 95814-0228 Dear Ms. Whealen: PERMIT 12952 (APPLICATION 15704) RUSSIAN RIVER IN MENDOCINO COUNTY The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Rights (Division), received your letter dated January 4, 2002, requesting additional time to respond to the water fight issues raised in our letter to the City of Lrldah (City) dated November 7, 2001. The requested sixty-day extension to file a petition to add the City's Wells 5 and 6 as points of diversion (POD) under the permit is granted. While preparing this petition, the Division recommends that the City review its records for Well 4 to confirm that it is not diverting water from the subterranean stream of the Russian River, or tributaries. During the recent compliance inspection, Division staff'did not investigate the City's claim that Well 4 taps percolating groundwater. Therefore, the City has an opportumty to include Well 4 as a POD under Permit i 2952 during this extension, if its review concludes Well 4 taps groundwater subject to the SWRCB's permitting authority. Upon receipt of the City' s petition, the Division's Petition Unit will determine whether a public notice of the petition is necessary. Your letter requests a longer extension of time to file a petition to change the place of use (POU) authorized by the permit. Your extension request is longer than normally granted by the Division because we do not want to imply, by giving additional time, it is acceptable to divert water outside the POU during the extension period. However, due to your plan to coordinate with representatives from the City, Millview County Water District and Willow County Water District to correctly identify the POU served within those districts, the Division grants an extension until July 1, 2002. The City should proceed with diligence in resolving this matter. Satisfactory resolution of this matter will be the receipt of a petition for change to expand the POU to include all areas served by the City under Permit 12952 by July 1, 2002. The City should consider a single comprehensive environmental document coveting the changes to the POD and POU and its petition for an extension of time currently on file with the Division. California En virontn en tal Protection Agency "The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our Web-site at htrp.'//www, swrcb.ca.gov." Ex,iDlE City of LTkiah 2 FEB 0 6 The City shall submit a progress report of its efforts by March 31, 2002. Please note that the City is not immune to enforcement action during the extension period, so timely corrective action by the City is important and will be taken into consideration by the Division. If you have questions regarding this letter, please telephone Kelly Warren of my staff, at (916) 341-5414. Sincerely, John O'Hagan, Chief Compliance and Enforcement Unit cc: Darryl Barnes, Director of Public Utilities City of Ulciah 300 Seminary Avenue Ulci~, CA 95482 EX~lbi~ Attachment # K ,x,~cholns E Bonsignore, P.E. Robert C. Wagy~er' 1RE. Pauia J. Whealen Mornque Robbms. P.E. ~Ryan E. Stolfus W cr&Bo _ns_ ~o :ulting Civil Emzineers, A Corporati----~ March I3, 2002 Mr. Mark Stretars Div/sion of Water Rights State Water Resources Control Board P.O. Box 2000 Sacramento, CA 95812-2000 Re: Petition for Change in Point of Diversion Water Right Permit 12952 (Application 15704) Dear Mr. Stretars: On behalf` of the City of Uldah, we are submitting a Petition for Change m Point of Diversion for Water R/ght Permit 12952 (Application 15704). Based on a recent compliance inspection, two points of diversion were found to not be named in the ref,erenced permit. This petition requests the addition of Well #5 and #6. We request that the Petition be processed without issuing public notice pursuant to Califorma Code of Regulations Section 795 which sets forth certain conditions when public notice of petitions is not required. Specifically, Section 795(a)(1) states that notice will not ordinarily be required for "Petition for a change in point of diversion which does not change the point relative to diversion points of others and tributary sources on the same stream". Since Wells #5 and #6 are located within the general vicinity and divert from the same source as two of the points of'diversion named in Permit 12952, and since the addition of such wells do not impact any diversion points of others, the Petit/on should not require a public notice. The Compliance Inspect/on report dated September 8, 2001 supports this request. Also enclosed are the required filing fee of $100 payable to State Water Resources Control Board. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the enclosed. Very truly yours, WAGNER & BONSIGNORE CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS Encls. Darryl Barnes, City of Ukiah Candace Horsely, City of Ukiah John O'Hagan, SWRCB David Rapport Gary Weathcrford COUA020.doc 444 North Tl~'rd Street, Suite 325, .Sacramento, Californu~ 95814-0228 Pb: 91('~4414-~¢]50 Foe Exhibl% Nk~obs E Bonsignore, P.E. Robert C. Wagner, P.E. Paula J. Whcmien Monique Robbins. P.E. Ryan E. Aflachment # W_ggn_e onsi_ _ore Consultin_g Civil Engineers, A Corporati~-~ July 1, 2002 Mr. Mark Stretars Division of Water Rights State Water Resources Control Board P.O. Box 2000 Sacramento, CA 95812-2000 Re: Petition for Change in Place of Use Water Right Permit 12952 (Application 15704) On behalf of the City of Ukiah, we are submitting a Petition for Change in Place of Use for Water Right Permit 12952 (Application 15704). The Petitioner is requesting to increase the place of use to include additional lands within its service area as well as the lands w/thin Willow, Millview and Calpella County Water Districts. The required filing fee of $100 payable to State Water Resources Control Board will be submitted by the end of the month. We request that the Department of Fish and Game filing fee previously paid for the pending Petition for Extension of Time on Application 15704 also cover this petition. Please contact our office if you have any questions regarding the enclosed. Very truly yours, WAGNER & BONSIGNORE CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS Encls. ,/ cc: Darryl Barnes (w/encls.) Gary Weatherford (w/encls.) Dave Rapport (w/encls.) John O'Hagan, SWRCB (w/o encls.) COUA035.doc 444 North Third Street, Suite 325. Sacramento, California 958140228 Di'E NED L~4'gU P~l C~'I'Y rOI- UKIflH I-fl~ NU. /UFqls:Jrd~u4 I~, U~ V,'in;;tn}z IF. Itie. hox l'~,~dct:;i¢,,*, State Water Resources Control Board ....... Pob~t of Divct.~ioa, ~ Applic~do~t ___1_~_7_.0_4 .... Permit Division of Water Rights 9lli P Sm:rt. Socr:anmio. C:nljf. om/~ 95t 14 ': ~16) 657-076S Mailin~ ~&e~s: P.O fl~ ~1~'- SJc~c~fo. C~d~nia · 95g12-2~ FA X {91 ~ 6.57- i 415 - ,PETITION FOR CHANGE (WATER CODE 1700) Point ofRediven:io~t, __X___ Place of Use, ~ Pm'pose of Use 1 2 9 5 2 License Stateseent or Other l (we) hereby petition for dmnge(O noted above and shown al lhe ~conlpmxying map and der, cai~ ~ follows: Gcay Davis Govee.nar proposed t:'la~e of Itt (ifirdgatian Ihen state re,tuber off'res tn be irrigated within each 40-acre tract.) Pres~mt .q~o. Attaehmant Pcaposcd ..... Do,:~ tim prol×~ed use serve to rn'e~rvt: or c,shmce wctl~ l,~iLa~ fi~ and wildli~ m~s, or r~r~ M or on ~..) To accurately describe how th~ project · G[~ REASON FOR P~OPOSED ~{~GE:_o~erate~.b~ch i~cludes possible emergencv pT~%[suant to existing A ~otential emergency Interconnec'tion A~reements. ;' WILL-TI.IE OL~PO~' (.W* D~ERSION OR ~CE-O~'U~BE ~A~D~ No - WATEI~ ~ll.l. ~a U~ED FO~ ~unielpal PURPOSE~. I(Wc) Jrtvc ac~as to file pm~<d [~int of~vc~ioll or c~l~l flit ~oposed pl~ of~ ~ v~ of 7~_ri tten A~e~cqnts (0~. ~a m~ ~ A ~'e ~-~e any pe~:o,~ t~tg wa~r fi~gm ~xe ~;~'emn ~tw~n g~ old point of r~ flow ~ ~ n~ poh~ of~ ~w? Ye ~) If by k<a';c Or agr~cnt, aa~ d~c n~a ~d ~dr~ 0fp~(s) ~om whm a~s ~ bm MiJ. lvj_cw Cou]tty Water District Willow County Water District -q/.Q__'J'j. PL_~-Ddley~. Ge~.~..._~g.r. c/o David Readin9 3081 North State Street 151 Laws Avenue -i3-~{'A }i';'"-C~'-)'5-~ 2 ~lR'i'ah, CA 95'48 2'- 6655 G;w n:~,,.: and ~s~ ofa~ P~:m'(0 raking ~l~r fi~ lhg ~:~ b~c, ~z ~t p0~t of~v~ m rodiv~ ~d pcopo~ed po;n{ ofdiwrsion ~ rcdivaslon, ~ weft ~ a~ 0a~v ~0a(s) ~ ~ y~ ~ my ~ ~d b~ ~: pro~scd ch~g~ ......................... a~, 11'HIS CllAIN'G}: lIOl~f NOT ~()I,~ g INCRE~RE ~ 'r~ ~O~T O.F ~116 APPROPRIATION OR SgAS~ OF II.'.;E. ..... .................. ATTACHMENT TO ACCOMPANY PETITION FOR CHANGE BY CITY OF UIOAII PERMIT 12952 (A.PPI, ICATION 15704) EXIS'I'INC4 PI,ACE OF USE Withi, thc City ofUki~h servico area being within the tbllowing projected Sections 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 29, 30, 32 of T15N, R12W, MDB&M. (As slmwn on thc map on filo with thc g\VRCI~). PROPOSEi) PLACE OF USE City ofl. Jkiah Millvicw Cnm'~t¥ Water District ..W. ilk)w C(mnt~y.W,,. a~.9_r_!_)j.~(~.ri_' .c_t ?d[~ ~])ikQg. t'~J'~ ty_Water Distfic~ Withia lhe boundaries ofCily ofI~iah, Millview, Willow ~d Calpella Comity Water ]}ist6cts being xvil)fin the following pmjectcd S~tions 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 ofT16N, R12W, MDB&M; S~tions 1 ~d 12, T15N, RI3W, MDB&M; S~tions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 of T15N, RI2W, ~'.)B&M; aml p~jectcd Scctions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16 ofT14N, R12W. (As shown on the cnclos(.d real)). COU,\t330 dot: Exhibit Nichoins E Bonsignore, P.E. Rr)bert C. Wagmer, P.E. Paula J. Whealen Montque Roblmns, P.E. ayan E. Stolfus Affachment # er o i gnore C-onsulti_L~~ kiv--;i u-h-~i-;~e:-s---~ ~ Corpo~Tti-~-n March 25, 2002 Mr. John O'Hagan State Water Resources Control Board Division of Water Rights P.O. Box 2000 Sacramento, CA 95812-2000 Re.' City of Ukiah - Permit 12952 (Application 15704) Dear Mr. O'Hagan: In response to your February 6, 2002 letter, tkis is to provide you wit~, a progress report of the City of Ukiah's efforts to address items associated with its referenced water right permit. Earlier this month, we submitted a petition to add Points of Diversion #5 and #6 to its permit. The City's position is that the addition of these wells is an insignificant change. The City also is monitoring your Board's review and deliberations concerning the legal classification of subterranean streams in order to evaluate the appropriateness of continuing to exclude Well/1-4 as a point of diversion under its permit. As requested, we are in the process of preparing a petition to change the place of use and will submit the petition and the appropriate maps prior to July 1, 2002. In that regard, the City is consulting and coordinating closely with the Millview and Willow County Water Districts. The City will take the appropriate actions required by the California Environmental Quality Act in connection with the foregoing. Additionally, references in the Division's previous correspondence that the City's maximum rate of diversion was 5.24 cubic feet per second are in error. The 5.24 cfs represented an average annual rate. The City is reviewing its daily diversion information to determine its maximum diversion rate. Please contact me if you have further questions. Very truly yours, cc: Darryl Barnes, City of Ukiah David Rapport Gary Weatherford COUW026.DOC 444 Nort~ Third Street, Suite 325, Sacramento, California 958140228 Pt.. 91(->~i41-0¢ 50 ~c. WAGNER & BONSIGNO1LE CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS Exhio~t Attachment # ~ UIMITED ~TATE~ r~I~I~ARTMENT Oi-' ~OMMEI:iI~ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MAP, iNE FISHE,~IES SEP, VICE Southwest Region 777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325 Santa Rosa, California 95404 In Response Refer To: February 13, 2002 151416-SWR-02-SR-6196:SKL City of Ukiah Director of Public Utilities 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482-5400 Dear Director of Public Works ' We received a copy of a letter, dated January 11, 2002, from Mr. Steven Herrera of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requesting that the City of Ukiah prepare a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)document in relation to Petition 15704P000117, a request for an Extension of Time to fully develop beneficial use of water authorized under permit 12952. Permit 12952 authorizes direct diversion of 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) from January 1 to December 31. However, the City's maximum average annual rate of diversion for the years 1990 through 1999 was 5.24 cfs. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) agrees with SWRCB that the Petition for Extension of Time constitutes a reauthorization of the project for the difference of 14.76 cfs. Granting the petition would result in more water being used than was used prior to the Petition for Change, and therefore, would potentially have an adverse effect on federally listed anadromous species in the Russian River. The federal listing and the development of protective measures for steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) occurred after the issuance of this permit and they, therefore, constitute new and substantial information and an issue that needs to be addressed in the CEQA review of this project. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing may require additional terms and conditions since extensive diversions from rivers have contributed to the listing of these species. We would be happy to assist you in avoiding ad'verse impacts to steelhead that would facilitate a more effective and efficient review of your CEQA document. If you have any questions or comments concerning the contents of this letter please contact Dr. Stacy K. Li at (707) 575-6082. Sincerely, cc: S. Herrera, SWRCB, Sacrament© R. Floerke, CDFG, Yountville Northern California Supervisor Habitat Conservation Division ~' x t'q N~cholas E Bonsignore, P.E. Robert C. ',X~gmer, P.E. Paula J. Whealen Monique Robbu-ks, P.E. Ryan E. Stolfus June 4, 2002 Attachment # ,.,,.,. Mr. William E. Hearn National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Region 777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325 Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Re; City of Ukiah - Water Right Permit 12952 (Application 15704) Dear Mr. Hearn: This is to respond to the February 13, 2002 letter (copy attached) from James Bybee regarding the City of Ukiah's Petition for Extension of Time for Permit 12952 pending at the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and to confirm my understanding of our discussion at the May 8, 2002 meeting in your office. The City of Ukiah (City) holds Permit 12952 for the diversion of up to 20 cubic feet per second from the Russian River. Its Permit expired on December 1, 2000 and a Petition for Extension of Time was filed before then with the SWRCB to request additional time in which to put water to beneficial use. The City's present peak diversion is about 8 cubic feet per second. In it's January 11, 2002 letter (copy attached), the SWRCB staff requested that the City prepare a cumulative impacts analysis on biological resources and their habitat to address the City's potential increase in direct diversion. Mr. Bybee stated in his letter that the City should also consider any potential impacts to federally listed anadromous species. Subsequently at a meeting on February 15, 2002, the SWRCB staff suggested that we confer with your office as to the scope of the analysis that the City should undertake. My understanding from our conversation is that to address the concerns raised by NMFS, the City's environmental analysis should identify the impacts that may result if the storage elevation of Lake Mendocino changes due to the City's potential increase in water use. It is also my understanding that you do not believe the City's environmental analysis n~eds to include a cumulative impacts analysis of anadromous fishery resources in the main stem of the Russian River since the SWRCB, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and NMFS are jointly working on a detailed study and analysis of the main stem resources in compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 444 ?~brth Third Street, Suite 325, Sacramento, California 95814-0228 Pr: 916-441-6850 Fx.. 916-448-3866 Mr. William E. Heam June 4, 2002 Page 2 Accordingly, the City will be preparing the appropriate environmental document for its pending Petition for Extension of Time and will circulate it for comment to the NMFS and SWRCB as required. Please notify me as soon as possible if your understanding of our conversation is different from that described above. Very truly yours, Encl. WAGNER & BONSIGNORE  NSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS ea~ cc w/attach: Darryl Barnes COUW032.DOC Wagner& ons gnore UCC' Gary Weatherford David Rapport Attachment EMERGENCY INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT This Agreement is made and entered in Ukiah, California, on ~Z~ / 2002, by and between the City of Ukiah ("Ukiah"), a general law municipal ~6rpo~ti0n and Millview County Water District ("Millview"), a county water district formed under the provisions of Water Code sections 30000 et seq. RECITALS: 1. Millview and Ukiah operate water systems that serve contiguous territory. Water mains belonging to the two agencies lie in close proximity to each other. 2. Urgent or emergency conditions can from time to time interrupt the water service Millview and Ukiah provide their customers."Urgent or emergency condition~' in this Agreement means a sudden or unexpected occurrence or combination of occurrences causing the domestic water supply to be temporarily interrupted or lessened, and does not include inadequate water rights to meet peak demand. 3. It would improve the reliability of water service Millview and Ukiah provide to their customers, if the water mains of both systems were physically connected but separated by valves that could be opened during urgent or emergency conditions. 4. The purpose of this agreement is to establish the terms and conditions under which the systems can be physically connected and the water made available to the neighboring system during urgent or emergency conditions; provided, howler, that none ~J' the quantity of water provided by Ukiah to Millview under the agreement is to be delivered by MiIlview to the Calpella County Water District. AGREEMENT: Wherefore, in consideration of the above-recited facts and on the terms and conditions as further stated herein the parties hereby agree as follows. 1. Interconnection. On and after the effective date of this Agreement the Ukiah and Millview water systems interconnections are in operation using Iockable valves that can only be operated by Millview and Ukiah and a water meter of sufficient capacity for the connection size. 2. Ukiah's Provision of water service to Miilview. Upon written or verbal request from Millview's General Manager or his duly authorized delegate, including a representation that urgent or emergency conditions exist, Ukiah's City Manager or his duly authorized delegate shall open the valve allowing water to flow from Ukiah's water system to Millview's water system under the following terms and conditions: ~ a. if practicable, Millview shall give Ukiah at least 24 hours advance notice to open the valve. In its request for service Millview shall indicate the time when it wants the temporary service to begin and the time when it wants that service to end. Unless earlier notified of a different termination date, Ukiah shall end service on the date s:\u~agrmtso2\millview June 26, 2002 indicated in the notice from Millview. In any event, Ukiah may, but need not, end service when the limits of service imposed by subparagraph b have been reached. b. Ukiah shall not be required to furnish water service for longer than fourteen continuous calendar days or for more than twenty total calendar days in any calendar quarter (Jan. I to March 31, April I tO June 30, July I to September 30, October 1 to December 31). c. Ukiah shall only be required to furnish water service to Millview for the following reasons: (1) An emergency and/or equipment failure affecting Millview's capacity to deliver water to its customers; area; (2) TO combat a fire within or without the Millview service (3) TO allow for necessary maintenance or repair of Millview equipment not practicably achievable without that water service; or (4) Contamination of Millview's water source. 3. Payment for service provided by Ukiah. Millview shall pay Ukiah $1.00 per 1000 gallons for water furnished under this Agreement. Ukiah shall bill Millview for requested service within fifteen days after said service ends, or within 30 days of beginning service, whichever comes first, and each 30 days thereafter until the charges for service have been paid in full. Payment of each bill shall be due no later than thirty days from the billing date. The parties shall confer in good faith at least once every two years after the effective date of this Agreement to negotiate rate adjustments, taking into consideration changes in the cost of operations and other factors affecting the cost of supplying water under the terms of this Agreement. In the event of future mutually agreed upon changes in the rate, Millview understands that Ukiah may charge a higher rate for water service outside city limits than it charges for water service within city limits. If it agrees to such higher charges, it shall also release and waive any legal or other objections it might otherwise have to paying such higher rates and agrees to fully defend, indemnify and hold Ukiah harmless from and against any claim by any Millview customer against Ukiah or its officers, agents or employees arising out of such rate differences, if any. 4. Provision of water service to Ukiah from Millview. Upon written or verbal request from Ukiah's City Manager or his duly aul:horized delegate, including a representation that urgent or emergency conditions exist, Millview's General Manager or his duly authorized delegate shall open the valve allowing water to flow from Millview water system to Ukiah's water system under the following terms and conditions: a. If practicable, Ukiah shall give Millview at least 24 hours advance notice to open the valve. In its request for service Ukiah shall indicate the time when it wants the s:\u~agrmts02\rnillview June 26, 2002 temporary service to begin and the time it wants that service to end. Unless earlier notified of a different end date, Millview shall end service on the date indicated in the notice from Ukiah. In any event, Millview may, but need not, end service when the limits of service imposed by subparagraph b have been reached. b. Millview shall not be required to furnish water service for longer than fourteen continuous calendar days or for more than twenty total calendar days in any calendar quarter (Jan. 1 to March 31, Al:ril I to June 30, July I to September 30, October 1 to December 31). c. Millview shall only be required to furnish water service to Ukiah for the following reasons: (1) An emergency and/or equipment failure affecting Ukiah's capacity to deliver water to its customers; (2) To combat a fire within or without the Ukiah service area; (3) To allow for necessary maintenance or repair of Ukiah equipment not practicably achievable without that water service; or (4) Contamination of Ukiah's water source. 5. Payment for service provided by Miilview. Ukiah shall pay Millview $1.00 per 1000 gallons for water furnished under this Agreement. Millview shall bill Ukiah for each requested service within fifteen days after said service ends, or withh 30 days of beginning service whichever occurs first, and each 30 days thereafter until all charges are paid in full. Payment of each bill shall be due no later than thirty days from the billing date. The parties shall confer in good faith at least once every two years after the effective date of this Agreement to negotiate rate adjustments, taking into consideration changes in the cost of operations and other factors affecting the cost of supplying water under the terms of this Agreement. In the event of future mutually agreed upon changes in the rate for water service under this Agreement, Ukiah understands that Millview may charge a higher rate for water service outside its district boundaries than it charges for water service within those boundaries. If it agrees to such higher charges, it shall release and waive any legal or other objections it might otherwise have to paying such higher rates and agrees to fully defend, indemnify and hold Millview harmless from and against any claim by. any Ukiah customer against Millview or its officers, agents or employees arising out of such rate differences, if any. 6. Waiver. Failure to enforce any breach of a provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or a dfferent provision of the Agreement. 7. Compliance with law. This Agreement shall not obligate either party to furnish water to the other, if the provision of such water would violate any provision of state or federal law or any term or condition of any permit, license or other approval s:\u~agrmtsO2\millview June 26, 2002 held bY either party in connection with its public water system. As of the date this Agreement was executed Ukiah and Millview had each been informed by the State Water Resources Control Board that relevant places of use WOUld have to have been approved by the Board before interconnected water service could be provided under this Agreement. 8. Limits on flow. Ukiah and Millview mutually agree to limit the transfer of water under this Agreement to a rate of flow that will not adversely affect the distribution system or customer service levels of either system. If the City Manager of Ukiah or the General Manager of Millview determines that such an adverse impact will occur, the manager or authorized representative of the affected system may without prior notice discontinue or reduce flow to the other system. 10. Entire agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties concerning its subject matter and supersedes any prior statements, agreements or understandings between the parties concerning the same subject matter. Any such prior statements, agreements or understandings are hereby declared null and void and of no further force or effect. The parties may amend this Agreement or enter new or additional agreements to, among other things, transfer or sell water to each other, Provided any such amendments or agreements are contained in a writing approved by the legislative bodies and executed by duly authorized officials of both parties. 11. Notice. Whenever written notice is required or allowed under the terms of this Agreement it shall be deemed given when personally delivered or when received by certified mail, return receipt requested, and addressed as follows: City Manager City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 General Manager Millview Water District 3081 North State Street Ukiah, California 95482 13. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be five (5) years from its effective date. The term may be extended on such terms as the parties shall agree. No such extension shall be binding unless contained in a writing signed by both parties. 14. Third party beneficiaries. This Agreement is for the exclusive benefit of Ukiah and Millview and confers no rights or benefits on any persons or entities not a signatory to this Agreement. No third party beneficiaries are intended or established by this Agreement. 15. Duplicate originals. This Agreement may be executed in one or more duplicate originals and when so executed each duplicate original bearing the original s:\u~agrrnts02\millview June 26, 2002 4 signatures of the parties shall be admissible in any administrative or legal proceeding as evidence of the terms of this Agreement. WHEREFORE, the parties have entered this Agreement on the date first written above. A,TTEST: , City Clerk CITY OF UKIAH ATTEST: secretay MILLVIEW COUNTY WATER DISTRICT irma~"o'~ ~Board s:\uXagrmtsO2\millview June 26, 2002 · · Affachment # UNITEn STATES OEPARTMENT Oi= COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325 . Santa Rosa, California 95404 In Response Refer to: June 21, 2002 151416-SWR-02-SR-6196:WEH Ms. Paula Whealen Wagner & Bonsignore Consulting Engineers 444 North Third Street Suite 325 Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Ms. Whealen: I have reviewed your June 4, 2002 letter concerning issues to be addressed in the City of Ukiah's environmental assessment for Water Right Permit 12952 (Application No. 15704). You are correct that the assessment should be focused on the cumulative effects of diversions on conditions in Lake Mendocino. However, the principal question to be answered is what effect the additional diversion by Ukiah would have on the water temperature of reservoir releases from Lake Mendocino. Another question concerns the cumulative effects of Ukiah's additional diversion on water quality within Lake Mendocino (e.g., what is the level of dissolved oxygen (D.O.) released from Lake Mendocino during late summer under existing, legal water releases, and how would the increased diversion by Ukiah effect those levels?). Allowing the additional diversion would place an increasing demand on Russian River water supply. Minimum flows in the Russian River are currently maintained at levels specified under State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Decision 1610. In its staff report on the Russian River, SWRCB (1997) states: In 1986 the SWRCB adopted Decision 1610 that established conditions relating to SCWA's.[Sonoma County Water Agency] water right permits for the operation of the Russian River Project. The decision established instream flows to be maintained by SCWA in the Russian River and Dry Creek through the coordina'ted operation of Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma. In that decision, the SWRCB also evaluated water availability and stated: "Because of the projected shortage, we have in effect allocated the remaining available water under Permits 12947A, 12949, and 12950 first to instream environmental uses including the fishery, and then to SCWA at its diversion facilities, to the extent that downstream minimum flow requirements are met. Substantially higher m/n/mum flows likely would cause the system to go dry in less than normal years, to the detriment of all beneficial uses dependent on it, and would in other years lower Lake Mendocino enough to impair its recreational and environmental uses and reduce its reliability as a water supply." SWRCB (1997) also states that, "approval of aPPlications on the main stem could result in increased diversions from Lake Mendocino and/or Lake Sonoma which, in turn, could deplete the amount of cold water stored in the lakes. This could result in an increase in water temperature, both in the lakes and downstream, which could have an adverse impact to fishery resources." The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) recognizes that instream flows in the highly regulated Russian River is a complex issue that is currently governed by SWRCB Decision 1610. Stream flows in the Russian River are also the subject of ongoing analysis and discussions between the Army Corps of Engineers, Sonoma County Water Agency, and NMFS, through an Endangered.Species Act, Section 7 consultation pertaining to operations of Coyote Dam and Warm Springs Dam. Therefore, Ukiah's project would have little effect on the actual flow levels within the Russian River. However, the quality of water released from Coyote Dam could be affected if the drawdown of Lake Mendocino.is increased or accelerated to meet the 'needs of Ukiah. It is the cumulative effect of that additional drawdown on water quality (i.e., temperature and D.O.) that should be quantitatively evaluated in the environmental assessment conducted for the City of Ukiah. If you have questions about this letter, please call me at 707-575-6062. Contact Dr. Stacy Li at 707-575-6082 for technical and water right related questions pertaining to this project. Sincerely, William E. Hearn, Ph.D. Team Leader Habitat Conservation Division Scientific & Technical Support R. FIoerke, DFG - Yountville S. Herrera, SWRCB- Sacramento Atfachment # Wagner & Bonsignore Consulting Civil Engineers A Corporation 444 North Third Street, Suite 325 Sacramento, CA 95814-0228 (916) 441-6850phone (916) 448-3866fax January 21, 2003 Candace Horsley City Of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 RE: City of Ukiah - Application 15704 (Permit 12952) Transmitted: Copies of protests filed against the City of Ukiah's petition for change in place of use from: © Sonoma County Water Agency o Lee Howard o Russian River Flood Control & Water Conservation Irrigation District Remarks: Please find the attached protests we have received regarding the City of Ukiah's petition for change in place of use. Due to the re-notice sent out on 12/24/02 by the State Water Resources Control Beard (SWRCB), the Depa_rtment offish & Game and the National Marine Fisheries Services have until January 24, 2003 to file their protests. We will forward those when received. The SWRCB has not yet accepted any of the protests yet'.' When (or if) they do so, we will be directed to respond to each. Encls. x/ cc: David Rapport w/encl. Gary Weatherford w/encl. Via: US Mail By: Paula J. Whealen LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL December 13, 2002 SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY Attachment # -- / FrLE:WC\42-0-1 WATER RIGlrrs PROTESTS (ALL) VIA FAX (916-341-5400) AND US MAIL Mr. Brian Coats State Water Resources Control Board Division of Water Rights P.O. Box 2000 Sacramento, CA 95812-2000 RE: PROTEST OF PETITION TO CHANGE WATER RIGHT PERMIT 12952 APPLICATION 15704 BY THE CITY OF UKIAH - RUSSIAN RIVER MAINSTEM IN MENDOCINO COUNTY Dear Mr. Coats The Sonoma County Water Agency (Agency) has reviewed the State Water Resources Control Board's notice of the petition to change water-right Permit 12952, which was issued on Application 15704. The Agency files this protest based on potential injury to the Agency's water rights under Permits 12947A, 12949, 12950, and 16596 (Applications 12919A, 15736, 15737, and 19351). Under Water Code section 1702, the State Water Resources Control Board may not approve any change in a water-right permit or license that would operate to the injury of any legal user of the water involved. Studies performed by the Agency indicate that the supply of water in the Russian River mainstem is already insufficient in most years to supply mainstem water rights that are junior to the Agency's, and this problem will worsen in the future if Potter Valley Project impo.,-ts into the Russian River watershed are reduced. In light of these chronic shortages, the State Water Resources ContrOl. Board must include appropriate terms and conditions in any order approving the change petition, to assure that the approved changes will not reduce the supplies available to other legal users of water, and to assure that the approved changes will not otherwise adversely affect other legal users of water. At this time, the Agency does not have sufficient information about the details of the change petition to be able to determine whether or not the petition should be approved, or, if it is approved, what terms and conditions should be included in the order approving the petition to protect other legal users of water. The Agency will review any environmental document that is prepared for this change petition, and the Agency is willing to meet with the petitioner to discuss appropriate terms and conditions to protect other legal users of water. Because modeling studies indicate that there is no unappropriated water available for post-1949 appropriations dunng the dry months in over 90% of the years modeled, the State Board also should add terms to permits and licenses for post-1949 rights that notify the water right holder that the permittee's or licensee's right to divert water from the Russian River may be curtailed in thc future, unless an alternate supply of water is obtained through contracts with the Agency or from some other source. To provide this notice, the Agency requests that Mr. Brian Coats 12-13-02 Page 2 the State Board's proposed Standard Permit Terms 80(a) and 90(a) be added to all permits and licenses for post- 1949 Russian River mainstem water rights that are subject to orders approving change petitions. A copy of these Standard Permit Terms is enclosed. Because of uncertainties regarding future availability of water under both pre-1949 and post-1949 rights, these standard permit terms should be included in permits and licenses for all mainstem Russian River rights in Mendocino County. Because of the present uncertainties regarding the amounts of water that are diverted from the Russian River in Mendocino County, the Agency also requests that the State Water Resources Control Board, in any order approving the change petition, add additional terms requiring the permittee or licensee to install an accurate flow meter or meters to measure all of the pemfittee's or licensee's diversions, and requiring the permittec or licensee to submit verified annual reports of the metered diversions to the SWRCB. Further permit terms may be required to prevent unauthorized diversions of water. For the reasons discussed above, the Agency hereby files protest against the above-referenced water right applications. If you have any questions or comments, please call Chris Murray at (707) 547-1925. Sincerely, Randy D. Poole, P.E. General Manager / Chief Engineer Chris Murray - Sonoma County Water Agency Para Jeane - Sonoma County Water Agency Jill Golis - Sonoma County Counsel Steve Shupe - Sonoma County Counsel Alan Lilly - Bartkiewicz, Kronick & Shanahan Petitioner: City of Ukiah c/o Wagner and Bonsignore 444 North Third Street, Suite 325 Sacramento, CA 95758 rs3/u/clJrw/petprotstO0 2 ENCLOSURE The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Water Rights proposed standard permit terms 80(a) and 90(a) are as follows' Term 80(a~ The State Water Resources Control Board reserves jurisdiction over this permit to change the season of diversion to conform to later findings of the Board concerning availability of water and the protection of beneficial uses of water in the Russian River. Any action to change the authorized season of diversion will be taken only after notice to interested parties and opportunity for hearing. Term 90(a) This permit is subject to prior fights. Permittee is put on notice that, during some years, water will not be available for diversion during portions or all of the season authorized herein. The annual variation in demand and hydrologic conditions in the Russian River are such that, in any year of water scarcity, the season of diversion authorized herein may be reduced or completely eliminated on order of this Board made after notice to interested parties and opportunity for heating. 81/14/2883 15' 88 91634154~a December l 0, 2002 WATER RIGHTS A'Hachment # //,q ~ Z PAGE To: State Water Resources Control Board Division of Water Rights C/O Greg Wilson P.O. Box 2000 Sacramento. CA 95812-2000 Re: Protest to changes proposed in petitions for City Of Ukiah 15704, Willow County Water District 15121, 177232 and Millview County Water District 3601, 17587. It is unclear whose or what water is to be diverted, at what time it will be diverted, but no matter what water is diverted it will have an environmental impact. It xvill injure many existing water rights and w/ll affect some tisking, And the way it is being done with these petitions is contrary to the law. Mill. view County Water District was formed to serve domestic and municipal water to tile people inside its district and had no agricultural customers. In its history the district had an ordinance in place not to have agricultural customers in compliance with its water permit from the state. In the late 90's the Board of Directors at the Millview Cotmty Water District changed and saw a way to make money. They started selling ag water as late as 1997 only having three ag customers. The Mil..lview County Water District has a'very limited water .right and has no formal agreement w/th the Russian River Flood Control District. (Please note State Water Rights Board Decision DI 110 dated February 31, 1963 item ~tl0 and 11 ofpage 3). Whose water is Mill. view Cotmty Water D/strict petitions to cover? Millview County Water D/strict can't cover its water customers (domestic and municipal) right now, how can it sen'ice additional area and new use? ' The City of Ukiah seeking to remove the E.I.A. and Provide a more predictable water'" supply and expand its place of use will require more water and will induce growth. ," Willow County Water District has no permit for agri. cultural water, like Millview, and the addition of ag water will only require more water. With added use other water right water holders will be harmed along with the Fisheries. The State Water Resources Control Board should not make changes of place, of use, or consider a place of use petition, for change of place of use with regards to local government, without the local L,A.F.C.O. first approving the same and any requirements of CEQA. ' !5:D8 91~3415~0 WATER RIGHTS To comply with Legislative Intent Public Resources Code 21000, the City of Ukiah, Millview County Water District, and Willow County Water District should go to L.A.F.C.O. of Mendocino County first. Th.ere i.s substantial evidence in light of the whole record, that th/s project will have significant effects on the environment and need to address the cumulative impact. The petition will create many more problems and deplete local government services. · fragmenting the system even more, Rather than. go through the L.A.F.C.O. process, as laid out by the State Legislamre, the City of Ukiah and the two districts want the State Water Resources Control Board to give permission to add areas and change places of use without going through the correct process. With the Russian. River being fiflly appropriated for summer time uses and the adequacy of ground water tO make up the source needed to cover the system's reliability of ail three petitions it is clear that the petition lacks clarity. They should be required to address the sensitive issue of ground water versus surface water and the fact that there could be injury to existing water fights. During dry years, when natural flows in the Russian River are limited, even the City of Ukiah will depend on the water of others to meet summer demands and with the purposed petitions for change of place, of use, and of purpose' of use ninny more people will be harmed. ' . Please do not move forward with this project at this time, as there is not enough. information supplied, to make an informed deeis.ion. Sincerely, ~war d~~ 3900 Parducci Rd. Lrldah, CA 95482 Mendoclno Coun{v · Rtt sian River Flood control & Water, Cqnservation,, Im,,lJrovement District Attachment # //~q '- -~ 151 Laws Avenue, Suite D · Uldah, CA 9548? [ Phone ('/07) 462-52'/8 · Fax (/07) 462_527~ January 15, 2003 Mr. Brian Coats State Water Resources Control Board Division of Water Rights PO Box 2000 Sacramento, CA 95812-2000 RECEIVED Application 15704, Permit 12952 City of Ukiah Dear Mr. Coats, The Board of Trustees of the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District (MCRRFC) withdraws it's protest against the City of Ukiah Application 15704 and Permit 12952 only if the City of Ukiah would have in place specific language on their Application 15704 and Permit 12952 which should read, "The City of Ukiah will not use Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control & Water Conservation.Improvement District's (MC.RRFC&WCID) outside of the MCRRFC&WCID's place of use and MCRRFC&WCID's District Boundaries." Sincerely, Judy Hatch. President Cc: City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 President Judy Hatch lqce President Torn Mon Pere Trustees Tom Ashur~ Bill Townsend Robert Wood Paula Whealen Wagner & Bossignor 444 N. Third St., Ste 325 Sacramento, CA 95814-0228 01/14/2P383 12ti~3120¢2 15'e8 16'22 91634i5488 WATER RIGHTS 707-4625 NO COUNTIES EN¢ P~GE 8rate of California State Water Resources Control Board DIVISION OF WATER .RIGRTS P.O. Box 2000, Sacramento, CA 95812-,2000 Info: (916) 24I -5300. F AX: (916) 34 l-Sd00. Web: htrp://~.~-w,w~tcrrlght~-ca,guv PROTEST - APPLICATION ,, lta,~cd on Prior Flied Application er Injury to Prior Rlgh/~ :,/; --.-a ' :" APPLICATIO. L (we) Mendocino Coun¢ Russian River Flood Control & W~ter Consolation Improvement Dist. 151 Laws Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 N.~ofI'~,~stant(,) .... 1707 1 462-$278 hav~,cadr, a*:{'-ltyacopy' to ap~r,prl,t: ~om ~kiqh, CA 95482 ~.~¢i~.., ...... __ . ~t~t 707 462-5278 I. (Wc] desire to protest ag~tnst thc approval thereof botany: to the bc~t of our inaction and belief thc pmpos~ ap~pd~tlon My or oar will result in injuu tO U$ a~ ro,~: possible lniuw to Pfip_r._Bioh~ Me ~ t,~ S[~tc th~ i~j~hlcb will result Pmte, ll~! clMm~ a~ i~tere, st in thr, u~e of wat, cr~om It~c aourc¢ from which al~plic,~t prc~pose, to dizen which i.q basod upon: Water riohts ADolication #12947B ~e~ is your dlv~ion ~oi~t l~ca~d? .~ 0f__ ~. aT ~nun ,. _ . ~. . , R, ~ B&M J~ y.ur point ofdivcr~i~ do~smmm ~m ~pollc~nt point of dive. ion? Yc~, No. or nt L~mc ~int ~e ~Xtmt of~ese~t and p~st uae ofmt~ by protestant ~ bls pred~esm in interest ~m ~is ~our, c is ~ ~11o~ (1~ blank iCprot~t ba~ed olq prior filed ao~li~ation): ........ a, ~r0xhn~,c dntc first use made ./ ~--/~ .. , e. time ofy~r whm diversion i~ ~,~.d/,. J~rlusl~/ 1 rnrouan uecemoer ,~'l d, ~urpose(s)'ofu~g Undcr what conditions may thi, protest be dism~arded and distained? 8e~ Attaehocl (C~ditions sh m~id hc of ~ n,t~re l',h~tt thc applicanl ¢~lr~ sddr~e, tomb os mm/mum bl'-p~ fl~.~, mmmfing d~.vir~ mquirt~L ~cknowledgement of prior dght~, Prote~t~ must be filcd within the time ~l~ccl tic. ti in thc not'icc of upplient, io,. ~t-(~) o~ auth~;~iz~ ~'pre.~enafive ~ig~ hera T¢lephcm e- N'umbar PRO.APP (t -00) Di/!a/28~3 15' ~8 916~154[~13 1''~-,~.~,/2~ia2 16' 22 7~7-4625. ~ UATER RIGHTS COUNTIES PAG£ PAGE 03/8E, ndocino ussian River Flood Control & If ater Conservation improvement Dixtr£ct December I 1,2002 I$I Ln~ Avenue, Suite D Ukiah, CA 95482 Phone (707') 462-5278 Fax (707) 462-5279 Mr. Brian Coats State Water Resources Control Board. Divi~ioa of Water Riglxts P.O. Box 2000 Sacramento. CA 958 t 2-2000 Application 15704, Permit 12952 City of Ukiah Dear Mr, Coata' The Board of Trustees of the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Consen, ation Improvement District (MCR.R~C) hereby objects and protests the Petition Requesting Changes, Corrections, or Extension of' Time in Water Rights Permits and Licenses as described for flqe subj¢cl Water District for the following reason: ~aUSe injury to Exiat/_n_g Water .l~i_'_mhts -- MCR.RFC doea .not object to the Cit7 of U'kiah bringing ~ts pcrmit~ into compliance. MCP, RFC do~$, however, have concem~ about the City of Ukiah serving its customers water under MC.RRFC's permit out~ide of its plaee of use thereby placing the District. in a position of noncompliance of its permit. MCRRFC ha.~ a. policy in place which does not allow its water to be served outside of its place of ruse... Speaif]c language shotfld be placed in the City's permit iud/caring the City of Ukiaht .~hall not use MCRRFC's water outside of the District's place of use. Also. the City slxould be able to demonstrate they are not u~ing Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Cor~servatqo~x Improvement District water outside of the District's Place of use. The above mentioned concerns regarding use of water outside of MCR.RFC's place of use a/so includes areas in the Willow Count- Water Di,~trict, Millview County Water Distr/ct, and the Calpella County Water District which are being add. ed to.the City of Ukiah's place of use. .. There is also a specific reference to the City seeking tn rcrnove the Emergency Interconnect/on Agreement with the surrou,ding water districts. ]'his agreement must remain in place m~d be consistent with the water district contiguous to thc City of Ukiah's boundaries. There are limitations on thc use of water under these agreements and these limitations should contiuuet ¢111412~2 15'~8 17t1312~b2 16'22 S1634154~ ~gT-d62L I Mr. Brian Coat~ Dhri~ion orW~t~r Rights December 11.2-00: WATER RIGHTS PAGE P~GE PsR~ ~ 84/86 84 We assume the State Water Resource~ Control Board will perform its responsibilities required by the California Environmental Quality Act. Sincerely, Thoma~ AshursI Trustee cc::; City of Uki~ Paola Whealen -): Council Members Subject: FW: Protests For your information. Please call me if you have questions. Candace. ..... Original Message ..... From: Paula Whealen [mailto:PJWhealen@wagner-engrs.com] Sent. Wednesday, January 22, 2003 9:01 AM To: candace@cityofukiah.com Subject: RE: Protests They will likely accept the District's protest and ask whether or not we will accept the term proposed by the District. I do not expect the State to accept Lee Howard's protest. The Department of Fish & Game and National Marine Fishery Service have until January 24, 2003 to file protests (they requested an extension). I expect they will file as they did before on your previous petition. Also, the State will likely accept the Sonoma County Water Agency protest and will ask if we agree with the terms they have proposed. Copies of all of the protests are going out in today's mail to you, Dave and Gary. I will forward the Fish & Game and NMFS protests when received. ..... Original Message ..... From: Candace Horsley [mailto:candace@cityofukiah.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 5:17 PM To: 'Paula Whealen' bject: RE: Protests Will the State expect us to say if we agree to the District's request when we respond to the protests? ..... Original Message ..... From. Paula Whealen [mailto:PJWhealen@wagner-engrs.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 3:51 PM To: candace@cityofukiah.com Subjecti RE: Protests I believe we have now received copies of all of the protests filed against the Petition for Change in Place of Use. We also received a letter from the Flood Control District today that states the terms under which it would withdraw its protest (the City was copied on that letter dated January 15, 2002). I believe the terms are acceptable, but. I want to wait until the . State Water Resources Control Board accepts the protest and directs the City of Ukiah to respond on each one. We will send you copies of all of the protests that have been received. We will also send copies to Dave Rapport and Gary Weatherford. ..... Original Message ..... From: Candace Horsley [mailto:candace@cityofukiah.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 3:24 PM To: Whealen Paula (E-mail) Subject: Protests Do you know when we will be able t~ see the protests to our place of use lication? Thanks, Candace tde ndocino CounO, · Russian River Flood Control & , Water Conservation Improvemen, t District, I 151 Laws Avenne, shire D · Ukiah, CA 95482 I II I Phone {707) 462-5278 · Fax C/07) 462-$27.~ January 15, 2003 Mr. Brian Coats State Water Resources Control Board Division of Water Rights PO Box 2000 Sacramento, CA 95812-2000 Application 15704, Permit 12952 City of Ukiah Dear Mr. Coats, The Board of Trustees of the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District (MCRRFC) withdraws it's protest against the City of Ukiah Application 15704 and Permit 12952 only ifthe City of Ukiah would have in place specific language on their Application 15704 and Permit 12952 which should read, "The City of Ukiah will not use Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control & Water Conservation !mprovement District's (MCRRFC&WCID) outside of the MCRRFC&WCID's place of use and MCRRFC&WCID's District Boundaries." Sincerely, Judy Hatch President Cc.' President Judy Hatck Vice President Tom Mon Pert Trustees Tom Askurst Bill Townsend Robert Wood City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 Paula Whealen Wagner & Bossignor 444 N. Third St., Ste 325 ' Sacramento, CA 95814-0228 .nslon It. Hickox En vironmet~ta! Protection AHachment # State Water Resources Control Board Division of Water Rights 1001 I .Street, 140' Floor · Sacramento, California 95814 · (916) 341-5300 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2000 · Sacramento, Ca!ifornia · 95812-2000 FAX (916) 341-5400 · Web Site Address: http://www.swrcb.ca gov D~vision of Water Rights: http://v,~'w.waterrights.cagov Gray Davis Go v~rno r NOTICE OF PETITIONS REQUESTING CHANGES, CORRECTIONS, OR EXTENSIONS OF TIME IN WATER RIGHT PERMITS AND LICENSES Dated- November 15, 2002 NOTICE: The purpose of this notice is to advise interested persons of petitions requesting changes to water right permits and licenses. This notice provides a summary of all petitions that have been reviewed and prepared for noticing during the month by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Rights (Division). This notice provides a short summary of each petition and also provides instructions for filling a protest against the requested changes. If you would like additional information relating to a petition, or information relating to the procedure for filing a protest please call the contact person listed for the specific petition. The Division's public notices may also be viewed and printed from its web-site, www.waterrights.ca.gov. GENERAL INFORMATION: Persons diverting water from a stream must, in most cases, obtain a water right permit issued by the SWRCB, in accordance with the provisions of the California Water Code. (People can divert water from a stream under riparian rights or rights initialed prior to 1914.) A water right permit issued by the SWRCB defines the: Stream or river from which water is diverted; An~tount of water that can be diverted; Season of the year during xvhich the water can be diverted; Point of diversion from the stream; Place of use of the diverted water; and Purpose of use. In addition, the water right pern~it includes a date for applying the water to beneficial use. Any party having a water right permit must submit a petition and receive approval from the SWRCB to change the place of use, purpose of use, or point of diversion, or to request and extension of time to make full beneficial use of the water. The SWRCB must consider the potential impacts to other water users that could be affected by the proposed change and must also consider the potential environmental impacts that would result from the proposed change. The SWRCB must comply with the requirements of the Califorfiia Environmental Quality Act prior to approval of any petition. "Ifc cnct?3' cholh'nge ~cmg ('ahfo~ m, ~.~ tx'o/ £vcO' ('rlhfot /non needs lo t(/J,c ttnmcdtofc tl(,t/'o/z lo/'educe energ)' ¢on$/onlOflOt~ /"or n J/sl of .~lmpJp h'a)'s )'ou cou todttco dctt/ond ond ('~t! )'O/ir Ctlt'r.~y ¢05l$. 5¢(' O/il- B/cD-.size ot h/If)'/,/wwu'.swtcbcngov" PROCEDURES FOR FILING PROTESTS- Any person may file a protest against the changes proposed in a petition. However, protests filed in response to this notice must be postmarked or received in the Division's office at the address listed below, ~m on the 30th da_O_y_~fter the date of this notice. A protest should be submitted on the standard protest form that is available from the Division and can be printed from the Division's web-site www.waterrights.ca.gov/forms/. Due to the constraints of the noticing period, protestants may file protests, etc., by FAX. I-towever, an original copy of all materials must be received, for the SWRCB to consider your protest. The protest should be submitted to: State Water Resources Control Board Division of Water Rights c/o Greg Wilson P.O. Box 2000 Sacramento, CA 95812-2000 Additionally, a copy of the protest must also be sent to the petitioner. SWRCB will respond to all protests within 90 day of the date of this notice. A protest may be based on any of the factors listed below: Injury to existing water rights; Has an adverse environmental impact; Is not in the public interest; Is contrary to law; or Is not within the jurisdiction of the SWRCB. All protests must clearly describe the objections to approval of the petition and the factual basis for those objections. For example, if the objection is based on injury to existing water rights, the protest must describe the specific injury to the existing water fight that would result from approval of the changes proposed by the petition. In addition, the party claiming injury to prior water rights must provide specific information that describes the basis of existing right, the date the use began, the quantity of water use, the purpose of use, and the place of use. Protest based on environmental impacts, public interest, legality, or jurisdictional issues must be accompanied by a statement of facts supporting the basis of the protest. If sufficient information is not submitted, the SWRCB may reject the protest or request that the protestant submit additional information. The Divisions will not accept protests that are directed against the underlying water right, rather than the change proposed by the petition. The SWRCB may grant an extension of time to file a protest, for good cause. A request for an extension of time must be submitted in a timely manner, must specify the additional time required, and must state why additional time is needed to file the protest. A pamphlet is available that provides additional information relating to water rights and the procedures for filing protests. Please contact the person listed below ify. ou would like a copy of the pamphlet or protest forms. RESOLUTION OF PROTESTS- Thc petitioner and protestant are encouraged to meet and discuss methods that could be used to resolve the protest. If the protest can not be resolved, SX, VRCB staff may conduct a field investigation with all interested parties or may hold a water right hearing. CONTACT PERSON: Please contact the staff person designated under the petition of interest, if you would like additional information regarding the petition, protests, information pamphlets, protest forms, or to request an extension of time in which to file a protest. DESCRIPTION OF PETITIONS: The following provides a summary of all petitions for changes in water rights or extensions of time to put water to use. The petitions are listed alphabetically by County. COUNTY OWNER APPLICATION NO. LAKE Charles and James Carpenter 24482A _MENDOCINO Millview County Water District 3601 & 17587 City of Ukiah 15704 Willow County Water District 15721 & 17232 La Ribera Vineyards 20540 & 24013 _. Richard Henwood 21516 SANTA CRUZ Big Basin Water Company 24804 SItASTA John & Theresa Rotter 29685 NOTICES WITHIN THE COUNTY OF LAKE -- -- APPLICATION 24482A PERMIT 18067A ISSUED ON October 6, 1980 Permittee: Charles and James Carpenter 200 N. Main Street, Suite C Lakeport, CA 95453 Source: Unnamed Stream tributary to Scotts Creek thence Rodman Slough the Clear Lake, thence Cache Creek Point of Diversion: Purposes of Use: Storage Amount and Season of Diversion' NW¼ of SE¼ of section 11, T14N, R10W, MDB&M Irrigation, Frost Protection, Recreational, and Stockwtering 90 acre-feet from October 1 to June 30 of the succeeding year Max Annual Amount: 90 acre-feet per year Place of Use: Existing Project: Petition for Change: Extension of Time: Environmental Document: Contact Person: Recreation and Stockwatering at the Reservoir located within N½ of SE¼ of section 11, T14N, R10W, MDB&M. Frost protection and Irrigation of 45 acres located within the SE¼ and NE¼ of NW¼ of section 11, T14N, R10W, MDB&M, as shown on maps on file with the SWRCB. The existing project is permitted for the collection to storage of 90 acre-feet of water per annum to be used for recreational, stockwatering, and irrigation of 45 acres of pasture. Permittee is reconstructing the earthfill dam and installing new pumping facilities and distribution systems for development of the place of use (POU). Water will be pumped from the reservoir using two 350-gallon-per-minute pumps for overhead, drip system, and furrow irrigation of orchard, vineyard, and row crops. Permittee petitioned to add a total of 61 new acres to the existing 45-acre POU for a total of 106 acres. Of the 106 acres, 18 acres are in vineyard, 24 acres in pears, 19 acres will be in row crops, along with the permitted 45 acres in pasture all within section 11, T14N, R10W, MDB&M. Permittee requests an extension of time to develop full beneficial use of water authorized under this permit. An environmental document has not yet been prepared for the action described in this notice. Ralph Gunby at (916) 341-5334 NOTICES WITHIN THE COUNTY OF MENDOCINO APPLICATION 3601 APPLICATION 17587 LICENSE 492 PERMIT 13936 ISSUED ON March 12, 1926 ISSUED ON March 26, 1963 Applicant: Source: Points of Diversion: Millview County Water District 3081 North State Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Russian River (Underflow) tributary to Pacific Ocean Application 3601 North 32 West 2,300 feet from SE comer of projected section 5, T15N, R12W, MDB&M, being within NE¼ of SE¼ of said section 5. Application 17587 Well No. 1 - South 83o58'43'' West 3,432 feet from SE comer of projected section 33, T16N, R12W, MDB&M, being within the SE¼ of NE¼ of projected section 5, T15N, R12W, MDB&M. 4 RESOLUTION OF PROTESTS: The petitioner and protestant are encouraged to meet and discuss methods that could be used to resolve tile protest. If the protest can not be resolved, SWRCB staff ri'ray conduct a field investigation with all interested parties or may hold a water right hearing. CONTACT PERSON: Please contact the staff person designated under the petition of interest, if you would like additional information regarding the petition, protests, information pamphlets, protest forms, or to request an extension of time in which to file a protest. DESCRIPTION OF PETITIONS' The following provides a summary of all petitions for changes in water rights or extensions of time to put water to use. The petitions are listed alphabetically by County. COUNTY OWNER APPLICATION NO. LAKE Charles and James Carpenter 24482A MENDOCINO Millview County Water District 3601 & 17587 -- City of Ukiah 15704 Willow County Water District 15721 & 17232 _ La Ribera Vineyards 20540 & 24013 Richard Henwood 21516 SANTA CRUZ Big Basin Water Company 24804 SItASTA John & Theresa Rotter 29685 NOTICES WITHIN THE COUNTY OF LAKE APPLICATION 24482A PERMIT 18067A ISSUED ON October 6, 1980 Permittee: SOLIFCe2 Point of Diversion: Purposes of Use' Storage Amount and Season of Diversion: Charles and James Carpenter 200 N. Main Street, Suite C Lakeport, CA 95453 Unnamed Stream tributary to Scotts Creek thence Rodman Slough the Clear Lake, thence Cache Creek NW¼ of SE¼ of section 11, T14N, R10W, MDB&M Irrigation, Frost Protection, Recreational, and Stockwtering 90 acre-feet from October 1 to June 30 of the succeeding year Max Annual Amount: 90 acre-feet per year Place of Use' Existing ProJect: Petition for Change: Extension of Time' Environmental Document: Contact Person' Recreation and Stockwatering at the Reservoir located within N½ of SE¼ of section 11, T14N, R10W, MDB&M. Frost protection and Irrigation of 45 acres located within the SE¼ and NE¼ of NW¼ of section 11, T14N, R10W, MDB&M, as shown on maps on file with the SWRCB. The existing project is permitted for the collection to storage of 90 acre-feet of water per annum to be used for recreational, stockwatering, and irrigation of 45 acres of pasture. Permittee is reconstructing the earthfill dam and installing new pumping facilities and distribution systems for development of the place of use (POU). Water will be pumped from the reservoir using two 350-gallon-per-minute pumps for overhead, drip system, and furrow irrigation of orchard, vineyard, and row crops. Permittee petitioned to add a total of 61 new acres to the existing 45-acre POU for a total of 106 acres. Of the 106 acres, 18 acres are in vineyard, 24 acres in pears, 19 acres will be in row crops, along with the permitted 45 acres in pasture all within section 11, T14N, R10W, MDB&M. Permittee requests an extension of time to develop full beneficial use of water authorized under this permit. An environmental document has not yet been prepared for the action described in this notice. Ralph Gunby at (916) 341-5334 NOTICES WITHIN THE COUNTY OF MENDOCINO APPLICATION 3601 APPLICATION 17587 LICENSE 492 PERMIT 13936 ISSUED ON March 12, 1926 ISSUED ON March 26, 1963 Applicant: So1Arce: Points of Diversion: Millview County Water District 3081 North State Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Russian River (Underflow) tributary to Pacific Ocean Application 3601 North 32 West 2,300 feet from SE coruer of projected section 5, T15N, R12W, MDB&M, being within NE¼ of SE¼ of said section 5. Application 17587 Well No. 1 - South 83o58'43'' West 3,432 feet from SE coruer of projected section 33, T16N, R12W, MDB&M, being within the SE¼ of NE¼ of projected section 5, T15N, R12W, MDB&M. Point of Diversion -MCWD has requested the addition of two points of diversion along the Russian River and the addition to the well field defined during the recent inspection. The new points of diversion are defined as follows: ~Upper Russian River Diversion (two pum~__~ - Located North 556,508 feet and East 1,660,210 feet, California Coordinate System, Zone 2; being within the NE¼ of SE¼ of projected section 5, T15N, R12W, MDB&M. Lower Russian River Diversion (one pump_j- Located North 556,243 feet and East 1,660,217 feet, California Coordinate System, Zone 2; being within the NE¼ of SE¼ of projected section 5, T15N, R12W, MDB&M. Well Field - multiple wells within Mendocino County Assessor Parcel No. 178-03-11, consisting of 7.15 acres within the NE¼ of SE¼ of projected section 5, T15N, R12W, MDB&M, as shown on the map on file with the SWRCB. Place of Use - MCWD has petitioned to amend its place of use to include water delivery to Calpella County Water District and other neighboring communities. In addition, MCWD has an Emergency Interconnection Agreement (EIA) with the City of Ukiah for the service of water. The agreement stipulates that if the other entity requires water on an emergency basis, with proper notice, water will be provided to the said entity. The intent of the EIA is to improve the reliability of water service to each entity's customers in times of an emergency and/or equipment failure, to combat a fire, to allow for maintenance or repair, or in the case of water system contamination. The petition to expand the place of use requests that the licensed and permitted place of use be increased to include the City of Ukiah, Willow County Water District, and Calpella County Water District service areas, described as follows: Within the boundaries of the City of Ukiah, and Millview, Willow and Calpella County Water Districts being within projected sections 15-17, 20~ 22 and 27-36 ofT16N, R12W, MDB&M; Sections 1 and 12, T15N, R13W, MDB&M; sections 2-11, 16-21 and 28,33 ofT15N, R12W, MDB&M; and projected sections 3-10 and 15-16 ofT14N, R12W, MDB&M as shown on the map on file with the SWRCB. Petition ~or Change: Permittee has petitioned to change the place of use under Permit 12952 to incorporate the service areas of Millview, Willow, and Calpella County Water Districts. The proposed place of use is described as follows: Within the boundaries of the City of Ukiah, and Millview, Willow, and Calpella County Water Districts being within the following projected Sections 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36 of T16N, R12W, MDB&M; Sections 1 and 12, T15N, R13W, MDB&M; Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 ofT15N, R12W, MDB&M; and Projected SectiOns 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 16 ofT14N, R12W, MDB&M as shown on map on file with the SWRCB. Environmental Document: An environmental document has not yet been prepared for the action described in this notice. Related Applications- License 6793 (Application 15721) Willow County Water District Permit 13935 (Application 17232) Willow County Water District License 492 (Application 3601) Millview County Water District Permit 13963 (Application 17587) Millview County Water District Contact Person: Brian Coats at (916) 341-5311 APPLICATION 15721 APPLICATION 17232 LICENSE 6793 PERMIT 13935 ISSUED ON June 7, 1926 ISSUED ON March 26, 1963 Applicant' Sourcez Points of Diversion: Purposes of Use: Willow County Water District 151 Laws Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482-~655 Russian River (Underflow) tributary to Pacific Ocean Wells #3, 5 and 6 located as follows South 1,800 feet and East 4,350 feet from point Y-45 on boundary of Yokayo Rancho, being within log 71 of Yokayo Rancho and the NW¼ of projected section 33, T15N, R12W, MDB&M Municipal 8 diversion to both License 6793 and Permit 13935. The well field is located as follows: By California Coordinate System of 1927, Zone 2, North 521,015' feet and East 1,665,790 feet, being within the NE¼ of NE¼ of projected section 9, T14N, R12W, MDB&M. Place of Use - WCWD has petitioned to amend its place of use to include water delivery to neighboring communities. WCWD has an Emergency Interconnection Agreement (EIA) with the City of Ukiah for the emergency service of water. The agreement stipulates that if the other entity requires water on an emergency basis, with proper notice, water will be provided to said entity. The intent of the EIA is to improve the reliability of water service to each entity's customers in times of an emergency and/or equipment failure, to combat a fire, to allow for maintenance or repair, or in the case of water system contamination. The City of Ukiah also has an EIA with Millview County Water D/strict which provides for the same arrangement The petition requests expansion of the place of use under License 6793 and Permit 13935 to include the service areas of the City ofUkiah, Millview County Water District, and Calpella County Water District, described as follows: Within the boundaries of the City of Ukiah, and Millview, Willow, Calpella County Water Districts being within the projected Sections 15-17, 20-22 and 27-36 ofT16N, R12W, MDB&M; Sections 1 and 12, T15N, R13W, MDB&M; Sections 2-11, 16-21 and 28-33 ofT15N, R12W, MDB&M; and projected Sections 3-10 and 15-16 ofT14N, R12W, MDB&M as shown on map on file with the SWRCB. Environmental Document: An environmental document has not yet been prepared for the action described in this notice. Related Applications- License 492 (Application 3601) Millview County Water District Permit 13963 (Application 17587) Millview County Water District Permit 12952 (Application 15704) City of Ukiah Contact Person' Brian Coats at (916) 341-5311 l0 APPLICATION 20540 APPLICATION 24013 LICENSE 11989 LICENSE 13408 ISSUED ON April 30, 1986 ISSUED ON November 3, 1998 Licensee: Source2 Points of Diversion: Purposes of Use: Direct Diversion Rate and Season of Diversion' Place of Use: Existing Project: La Ribera Vineyards c/o Richard A. and Beatrice O. Robinson P.O. BOX 189 Talmage, CA 95481 Russian River tributary to Pacific Ocean (1) North 4,350 feet and West 1,150 feet from SE comer of projected section 15, T14N, R12W, MDB&M, being within NE¼ of NE¼ of said section 15 (2) North 2,800 feet and West 700 feet from SE comer of projected section 15, T14N, R12W, MDB&M, being within SE¼ of NE¼ of said section 15 (3) North 1,950 feet and West 100 feet from SE comer of projected section 15, T14N, R12W, MDB&M, being within NE¼ of SE¼ of said section 15 (4) North 300 feet and East 1,600 feet from SW comer of projected section 14, T14N, R12W, MDB&M, being within SE¼ of SW¼ of said section 14 (5) South 1,200 feet and West 2,250 feet from NE comer of projected section 23, T14N, R12W, MDB&M, being within NW¼ of NE¼ of said section 23 License 11989 - Irrigation, Heat Control, and Stockwatering License 13408 - Frost Protection License 11989 - 1.47 cubic feet per second from May 1 to November 1 of the succeeding year License 13408 - 13.4 cubic feet per second from about March 1 to May 31 of the succeeding year License 11989- 227 acres within projected section 14, 15, and 23, all within T14N, R12W, MDB&M License 13408 - 175 acres within projected section 14, 15, and 23, all within T14N, R12W, MDB&M Points #3 and #5, are currently the primary sources of water supply for the two licenses. Point/43 consists of two 2,500 gallon per minute (gpm) diesel pumps and Point #5 is an electrical centrifugal pump with a capacity of 1,020 gpm. All three pumps, according to the licensee, are operating with fish screens on the intake pipes and are in compliance with sections 1601, 1603, and/or 6100 of the Fish and Game Code. Sout'ce~ Unnamed Stream tributary to N.F. Cottonwood Creek thence Cottomvood Creek Point of Diversion' t' Purposes of Use: NE¼ of NE¼ of section 34 T30N R6W MDB&M Irrigation, Fire Protection, Recreational, and Stockwatering Storage Amount and Season of Diversion' 27 acre-feet from December 1 to March 31 of the succeeding year Place of Use: At the Reservoir located within SW¼ of SW¼ of Section 26, SE¼ of SE¼ of Section 27, NE¼ of NE¼ of Section 34, NW¼ of NW¼ of section 35 T30N R6W MDB&M. Irrigation of 6 acres located within the NE¼ of NE¼ of section 34 and NW¼ of NW¼ of section 35 T30N R6W MDB&M as shown on maps on file with the SWRCB. Existing ProJect: The permittee is authorized to collect 27 acre-feet in a reservoir located on an unnamed stream for irrigation, fire protection, recreational, and stockwatering uses. The reservoir has been constructed and has collected water to storage. Extension of Time: Permittee requests an extension of time to develop full beneficial use of water authorized under this permit. The permittee has not developed the irrigation usage to date. Environmental Document- An environmental document has not yet been prepared for the action described in this notice. Related Applications- License 12917 (Application 28799) authorizes Permittee to store 3 acre-feet per annum at the same reservoir. Contact Person: Alana L. Gibbs at (916) 341-5324 Memorandum to Mcmichaels Subject: LAFCO Approval of Interconnection Agreements Date: May 28, 2002 Page 2 physically connected but separated by valving that could be opened during temporary or emergency conditions. Paragraphs 2 and 4 of the agreements contain the provisions governing each party furnishing water to the other party. The following quote comes from paragraph 2 of the agreement between Ukiah and Mitlview but identical provisions with the parties names reversed appears in paragraph 4 and in the other agreements: 2. Ukiah's Provision of water service to Miilview. Upen written or verbal request from Millview's General Manager or his duly authorized delegate, Ukiah's City Manager or his duly authorized delegate shall open the valve allowing water to flow from Ukiah's water system to MiIIview's water system under the following terms and conditions: a. Millview shall give Ukiah at least 24 hours advance notice to open the valve, unless due to an unforeseen emergency' a 24 hour delay could result in thc loss of reliable water service to Millview customers or property damage. In such event Millview shall notify Ukiah of the nature of the emergency and of the time within which it requests interconnected service to commence. In its request for service Millview shall indicate the termination date for the service requested. Unless earlier notified of a different termination date, Ukiah shall terminate service on the date indicated in the notice from Millview, In any event, Ukiah may, but need not, terminate service when the limits of service imposed by subparagraph b have been reached. b. Ukiah shall not be required to furnish water service for longer than fourteen continuous calendar days or for more than twenty total calendar days in any calendar quarter (Jan, 1 to March 31, April 1 to June 30, July 1 to September 30, October 1 to December 31). c, Ukiah shall only be required to furnish water service to Millview for tho following reasons: (1) An emergency and/or equipment failure affecting Millview's capacity to deliver water to its customers; (2) To combat a fire within or without the Millview service area; (3) To allow for maintenance or repair of Millview equipment; or (4) Contamination of Millview's water source. As you can see, the provisions only allow a party to furnish water to the other party during a short term emergency, not to exceed 14 consecutive days or 20 total days in any calendar quarter, and only for specified reasons. The agreements do not make a greater quantity of water available to the parties than they would have under their separate water rights. Moreover, paragraph 7 of tho agreement provides: 7. Compliance with law. This A_q'reement shall not obliga.t.e__either party to furnish water to the other, if the provision of such water would violate any provision of state or federal law or any term or condition of any pffr~.m..i.t¢ license or other approval held by either parbJ_(n connection with its Memorandum to Mcmichaels Subject: LAFCO Approval of Intorconnection Agreements Date: May 28, 2002 agreements and, therefore, LAFCO does not need to approve them. hope this information is helpful, when and if LAFCO addresses this issue. cc; Can<lace Horsley, City Manager H. Peter Klein, County Counsel Page 4 Exlqlb lz P DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS REPORT OF COMPLIANCE INSPECTION APPLICATION: A015704 PERMIT: 12952 LICENSE: Point of Diversion #2: By California Coordinate system of 1927, North 546,227 feet and East 1,660,970 feet being within the SE ¼ of NE ¼ of projected Section 17, T15N, R12W, MDB&M. This POD is referenced by the City as Well 2. Point of Diversion #3: By California Coordinate system of 1927, North 543,385 feet and East 1,663,003 feet being within the SE ¼ of SW ¼ of projected Section 16, T15N, R12W, MDB&M. This POD is referenced by the City as Well 3. Well 5: By California Coordinate system of 1927, North 546,106 feet and East 1,661,959 feet being within the SW ¼ ofNW ¼ of projected Section 16, T15N, R12W, MDB&M. Tiffs POD is referenced by the City as Well 5 Well 6: By California Coordinate system of 1927, North 546,350 feet and East 1,661,072 feet being within the SE ¼ of NE ¼ of projected Section 17, T15N, R12W, MDB&M. This POD is referenced by the City as Well 6 Well 5, located southwest of the Ranney Collector (POD 1), is not identified as a POD in the permit. It is an offset well similar to wells 2, 3, and 6. Well 5 is located approximately 210 feet from the Ranney Collector at POD 1. Well 6 is approximately 160 feet from Well 2, but it discharges through the same meter. The City considers these two well sites one POD. The permitted POD is Well 2. County: Mendoc~nO POD 1, POD 2,. Well 5 and Well 6 POD 3 Parcel #: 179-01-008 Parcel #: 179-10-001 A petition adding Well No.'s 5 and 6 to Permit 12952 is recommended. Adding these points of diversion under Permit CIR2001-Pa~e 3 Attachment EXHIBIT A BID PROPOSAL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO WATER RIGHTS PERMITS FOR THE CITY OF UKIAH AND MILLVIEW COUNTY WATER DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT January 2005 Prepared for: City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue - Ukiah, California 95482-5400 Prepared by: Leonard Charles and Associates 7 Robie Court San Anselmo, California 94960 415.454.4575 INITIAL STUDY PREPARATION We propose to prepare an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (as required by CEQA) for the project. The purposes of this Initial Study would be: · To describe the project. · To inform agencies and the public that an EIR will be prepared for the project. · To present a sufficient level of analysis for the many secondary impacts so that these areas would not need to be addressed in the EIR. · To provide a description of those areas of impact that will be focused on in the EIR. The Initial Study will be attached as an appendix to theEIR. For those areas of impact that the Initial Study addresses in sufficient detail and where mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impact to a less than significant level, the EIR will not include an analysis of those areas of impact. This will reduce the length of the EIR text and allow it to focus on the more important environmental concerns. It is possible that agencies or other individuals responding to the NOP will request that additional analysis be prepared and presented in the EIR, and the EIR will include those analyses (assuming the applicants believe the request is reasonable and feasible). All potential environmental impacts will be discussed in the Initial Study. We will use the format presented in the most recent CEQA Guidelines. See the description of the tasks presented below for the EIR to determine the level of analysis that will be prepared. PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING Leonard Charles will facilitate a public scoping meeting to describe the proposed project and the scope of the EIR. He will answer questions and will record all comments and suggestions given. The City or the district will provide a space for the meeting as well as public notification of the time of the meeting. EIR SCOPE OF WORK The following section describes our proposed scope of work and methodology using the same format that will be used to present the data in the Draft EIR. The EIR and this proposal are divided into four basic sections - an overview, a summary, an environmental impact analysis, and a discussion of topical issues and impact summaries. This proposal details what work will be done Lo.complete each section of the EIR. Water Right Permits EIR Bid Proposal Leonard Charles and Associates Page 4 approve the project. It is our understanding that the project only gives the right to serve the expanded places of use and that LAFCO would only come into the picture if and when the City and or district applied to annex the areas outside their"current service areas. We will explain this interpretation, as amended by our further discussions with the applicants and their consultant. 2.0 SUMMARY In this section, we will present a summary of all the major findings and conclusions of the report. This will include a section that describes each impact and lists the recommended mitigation measures for that impact. This section will also summarize the growth-inducing impacts, cumulative impacts, and project alternatives. It will summarize those impacts identified as "significant adverse" impacts despite available mitigations. This section is intended to be an outline of major impacts, mitigations, and project alternatives for the reader who does not wish to or need to read the entire report. This section is required by CEQA. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS The EIR will focus on the growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project. These impacts are the main concern of the four agencies/individuals who protested the petition for the project. The EIR will also describe the actual wells and diversion points. However, since those improvements are already in place, the assessment of their development will not be detailed. It will be explained that these improvements are, in fact, part of the environmental setting. The site-specific effects of the past development of the wells and diversion points will be fully described to ensure that reviewing agencies and the public are informed about these existing improvements. The potentially significant impacts of the project would be the potential for new development throughout much of the Ukiah Valley both because of extending the places of use and the possible future sharing of water supplies. Each resource area assessed in the EIR will be analyzed using the following format: A. Setting This section includes a description of the existing situation on the site and in the project area. B. Potential Impacts and Mitigations This section includes a description and analysis ef, all possible constraints on development and of impacts that would result from development of the project. The section includes a discussion of cumulative impacts resulting from. other projects in the project area. The EIR will clearly list Water Right Permits EIR Bid Proposal Leonard Charles and Associates Page 6 3.2 HYDROLOGY The area is drained by the Russian River. The river provides a critical focus for the area, not only because it drains away runoff, but because it provides important biological habitat, supports listed fish species, and is a recreational and aesthetic focus for residents and visitors. We will do the following work: · Summarize existing data regarding flows, flooding, and water quality in the Russian River system. Describe existing major flooding problems, groundwater availability and use, and groundwater and surface water quality. Describe possible impacts resulting from: · placing new development within flood zones; · increasing runoff (from new development) and therefore the extent of the flood zones or duration of the flood; · increasing the amount of pollutants on streets and other paved areas which can pollute the river system and groundwater aquifers; · erosion from construction and various land uses and impacts on water quality; and Review the policies and implementation measures of the City General Plan and the Draft UVAP to determine whether they provide adequate protection for hydrologic resources and protect the public from flooding. If warranted, recommend additional mitigation measures necessary to reduce the growth-inducing impacts. 3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Using data included in the UVAP EIR supplemented by other data we have generated in preparing other area EIRs, we would do the following work: · Describe the basic vegetation communities. Describe wildlife use of the area. Describe the status of the Russian River fishery and current efforts to rehabilitate salmonid runs. Provide a list of special status and sensitive species. Describe wetlands in the area. Water Right Permits EIR Bid Proposal Leonard Charles and Associates Page 8 Based on population projections for the area, roadway daily capacity anal'ysis will be completed for these conditions. Roadways forecasted to operate below acceptable LOS thresholds will be identified. Roadway alignments and structural conditions will be compared with the appropriate functional classification standards for each facility. As warranted, roadway improvements required to improve area buildout roadway deficiencies will be identified. Levels of Service values will be reported for conditions with implementation of improvements. 3.6 AESTHETICS The aesthetic resources of the Ukiah Valley are an important reason that many people choose to live in the area. We will do the following work: · Describe the major aesthetic resources in the area, especially scenic vistas from major roadways and public places. Discuss how future development could adversely affect scenic views and resources. Discuss potential impacts to existing neighborhoods. This will include assessment of impacts of new lighting, placement of utility towers, and other special use impacts. Determine whether General Plan and Draft UVAP policies and implementation measures will adequately protect scenic views and resources. Where warranted, we would recommend additional mitigations to protect important scenic views and the character of existing neighborhoods. 3.7 NOISE Based on the noise analysis being prepared for the UVAP EIR, we will do the following: · Provide a table showing the distance from major roads to the 60, 65, and 70 Ldn contours, for both existing and future conditions for major roads. Based on this table, LCA would determine whether new development would be allowed in areas where existing or future noise levels would exceed standards established in the existing Noise Element of the City and County General Plan (since the Draft UVAP does not include a new Noise Element). Determine whether existing policies and measures of the Noise ~=lements provide adequate protection from unacceptable fixed source or traffic-generated noise. Where warranted, recommend additional mitigation measures. Water Right Permits EIR Bid Proposal Leonard Charles and Associates Page 10 Discuss how the project would benefit the applicants' ability to provide .water to existing and future residents and businesses. " Working with the applicants' engineering consultant provide a summary of the existing water rights situation in the Ukiah Valley. This will include at least the following discussions: · What existing permits and licenses are held by the applicants MCRRFC and others in the valley? ' ' · What are potentially available water in the Russian River, its under-flow and groundwater sources? · How could the project, in the future allow the City and districts to share water? ' · What would be the effect on other licensees/permitees (particularly the MCRRFC and the Sonoma County Water Agency, both entities which protested the petitions) if the City and districts were able to take the maximum amount of water allowed under the proposed project? Determine whether General Plan and Draft UVAP policies provide the framework for ensuring that adequate services are available prior to new development occurring. If the analysis indicates that adequate services may not be available, despite Plan policies and implementation measures, we will recommend additional mitigation measures needed to reduce impact to public service providers to a less than significant level. 3.10 LAND USE We will do the following: · Assess possible long-term impacts on agriculture. Assess possible impacts as regards displacement of population or housing. Assess for possible impacts of physically dividing a community. Determine whether the policies of the General Plan and Draft UVAP sufficiently address these potential impacts. ,,, Where warranted, recommend additional mitigation measures. Water Right Permits EIR Bid Proposal Leonard Charles and Associates Page 12 5.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS We will attend two public hearings on this EIR, including one hearing on the Draft EIR. We will be responsible for responding to all written comments plus verbal comments rendered atone public hearing on the Draft EIR. The comments plus our responses will become the Final EIR for the project. Water Right Permits EIR Bid Proposal Leonard Charles and Associates Page 14 ,PRICE QUOTE The Initial Study, NOP, and EIR will be prepared for a fixed cost of $47,730. breakdown is shown on the following table: , . , , . . o . . Total Preparation of Initial Study and NOP Initial Study NOP Subtotal Public Scoping Meeting Preparation of ADEIR Introduction Chapter Executive Summary Chapter Geology and Soils Hydrology and Water Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Traffic Air Quality Noise Aesthetics Public Services Land Use Hazards Cumulative Impacts Project Alternatives Graphics Writing Subtotal Preparation of Draft EIR Preparation of Administrative Final EIR Preparation of Final EIR Public Hearings (2) Printing (138 copies) Project Administration and Coordination The cost 3.900 20O 4,100 1,100 $ 1,100 950 640 850 3,400 100 1,600 450 400 640 2,800 4O0 2O0 1,900 3,7O0 1,700 4,700 28,630 500 4,200 400 2,200 2,300 4,300 $47,730 Water Right Perm/ts Ell:? Bid Proposal Leonard Charles and Associates Page 16 10. Il. · field surveys for animals or plants · assessments of biological impacts by a botanist, fisheries biologist, o'r wildlife biologist · quantification of habitat values · field sampling for air or water quality · provision of engineering design for stormwater or any other public service systems · engineering analysis of water or wastewater systems · subsurface archaeological explorations · Level 1 or higher investigations for toxic materials · quantitative air quality modeling If work is stopped or slowed by circumstances outside LCA's control, the applicants will notify LCA in writing. LCA will be reimbursed for all work completed at the time it receives the notice to stop work. If work is stopped for more than six weeks, the contract will be amended to cover the costs of having to re-start the project. The EIR is intended to be a full disclosure document and is provided solely to assist in the evaluation of the proposed project. Leonard Charles and Associates shall not be liable for costs or damages of any client or third parties caused by use of this document for any other purpose, or for such costs or damages of any client or third parties caused by delay or termination of any project due to judicial or administrative action, whether or not such action is based on the form or content of this report or portion thereof prepared by Leonard Charles and Associates. Water Right Permits EIR Bid Proposal Leonard Charles and Associates Page 18 C. DEDUCTIBLES AND SELF-INSURED RETENTIONS Do Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City of Ukiah. At the option ofthe City of Ukiah, either the insured shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City of Ukiah, its officer, offic al~;- employees and volunteers; or the CONSULTANT shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. b. C. d. 2, , OTHER INSURANCE PROVISIONS The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions' , a, General Liability and Automobile Liability Coverages The City of Ukiah, its officers,' officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured's as respects; liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the CONSULTANT, products and completed operations of the CONSULTANT premises owned, occupied or used by the CONSULTANT, or automobiles ownedl leased, hired or borrowed by the CONSULTANT. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its off cers officials employees or volunteers. The CONSULTANT=S insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Ukiah, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance of officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City of Ukiah, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the CONSULTANT=S insurance and shall not contribute with it. Any failure to comply with reporting provision so the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Ukiah, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. The CONSULTANT-S insurance shall apply separately to each insured aqainst whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits ~f the insurer=s liability. Worker Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City of Ukiah, its officers, off cials, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by the CONSULTANT for the City of Ukiah. All coverages Each Insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days= prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City of Ukiah. ", Eo ACCEPTABILITY OF INSURERS Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Best--s rating of no less than A:VII. F. VERIFICATION OF COVERAGE Go CONSULTANT shall furnish the City of Ukiah with certificates of insurance and with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificates and endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City of Ukiah. Where by statute, the City of Ukiah--s Worker=s Compensation related forms cannot be used, equivalent forms approved by the Insurance Commissioner are to be substituted. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City of Ukiah before work commences. The City of Ukiah reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. SUBCONTRACTS CONSULTANT shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein.