North American Groundwater Subbasin Public Meeting – March 10

Save the Date for a virtual public meeting on March 10 (Zoom).

Please save the date for a public meeting with the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) responsible for developing a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the North American Groundwater Subbasin (NASb) on Wednesday, March 10 at 6 p.m. Representatives of the Sacramento Groundwater Authority GSA, West Placer GSA, South Sutter GSA, Sutter County GSA, and RD1001 GSA will be available to discuss the latest information about our planning efforts towards development of the NASb GSP, as required by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).

In this meeting, we will discuss the results of the basin wide groundwater model and groundwater budget. The water budget — an accounting of inflows, outflows, and changes in storage — will give us a good understanding of our subbasin, assist in long range planning, and help us know how much water can be safely pumped from the basin while remaining sustainable.

Attend these meetings to learn about these topics as well as:
– The GSP and timeline for completion
– How to engage and provide comments
– Answers to your questions
– Draft GSP sections available

Draft GSP sections 1 through 5 are available for public review at https://nasbgroundwater.org/.

Although public comment is currently closed, another public comment period will be posted later this summer when the full draft GSP is released. The GSP will then be adopted by the GSA member agencies in late 2021 and submitted to the State by the statutory due date of January 31, 2022. We want to ensure the GSP reflects both your input and sound technical studies. We encourage you to participate in this process now, as we shape and implement the plan.

How to attend the meeting

Register in advance for this webinar:
https://placer-ca-gov.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_aMKyrqKzSJSwXv9mqM3Y4g
Meeting ID: 929 6174 1711
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

About the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act

Public agencies with water management authority are required by SGMA to form GSAs, manage groundwater in the NASb, and implement activities that preserve and enhance groundwater supplies for our cities, communities, agricultural areas, and the environment. This locally-controlled effort will protect the basin from overdraft, ensure sustainable groundwater supplies, and support a stable and growing economy, including agriculture.

For additional details or more information about the GSAs involved in this effort, visit https://nasbgroundwater.org/.

ECOS statement: Racism in the Sacramento region

The Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS) laments the death of George Floyd as the result of racist policing. Recently we redoubled our efforts to improve the environment in the Sacramento region, which is usually more dangerous for our residents of color. We recognize that historic racist “red-lining” policies have led to the segregation of neighborhoods. For example, air pollution tends to be worse in under-served communities, which are often near sources such as diesel truck traffic.

We believe in equality for all regardless of race and reflect this believe in our environmental work. ECOS supports affordable, transit-oriented housing, and sues to prevent suburban sprawl such as the expansion of freeways. We have been lobbying for more funds for public transit and active transportation. We have urged local jurisdictions to provide more services for our increasingly large homeless population. We helped found “Sacramento Investment Without Displacement”, which is pushing for a “community benefits agreement” for Aggie Square: UC Davis plans to double the size of its Med Center, but not provide housing in our most gentrifying neighborhoods.

Together, we will make our region more environmentally friendly and healthy for Sacramento residence those who are most effected by inequality.

Delta Counties Assert that Single Delta Tunnel Project is No Better than Twin Tunnels Water Grab

January 15, 2020
Delta Counties Coalition

Contact:
Elisia De Bord
deborde[at]saccounty[dot]net
(916) 874-4227 (office)
(916) 533-1872 (cell)

The following is from the press release as sent by the County of Sacramento.

In response to the Notice of Preparation by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) for review of a single tunnel through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Don Nottoli, chair of the Delta Counties Coalition (DCC), made the following statement on behalf of the five jurisdictions that would be most negatively impacted including Contra Costa, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano and Yolo Counties:

“It’s been 11 years since the introduction of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan Twin Tunnels proposal, and nearly a year since Governor Newsom’s withdrawal of California WaterFix Twin Tunnels project. It appears DWR is pursuing another inadequate and scientifically flawed project with one tunnel.

For several years, the Delta Counties have participated in good faith with the Natural Resources Agency and DWR, sharing why they don’t support an economically and environmentally costly Delta tunnel project, and suggesting ways to meet state water supply needs without harming the Delta. Today’s announcement does not reflect an understanding of the Delta’s core values or concerns. Clearly, a few meetings and a constrained stakeholder committee run by the tunnel construction joint powers authority are no substitute for real collaboration.

Unfortunately, in the last year, little has been done to address major problems in the Delta, including worsening water quality, crashing fish populations and inadequate maintenance of existing local, state and federal infrastructure needed for a vibrant economy. Alternatives to protect and enhance water supply reliability and better protect fisheries are available that would avoid the devastating impacts on Delta communities, economy and wildlife that would result from the current tunnel proposal. Yet the state has not meaningfully consulted with the Delta counties to develop these alternatives, instead focusing on only a tunnel to route water around the Delta. The State’s claims regarding the probability of Delta levee breaches resulting from earthquakes fall short because comprehensive Delta-focused, peer-reviewed, scientific studies have not been completed.

The health of the Delta – both its communities and the environment – depends on freshwater flows through the Delta from the Sacramento River. The Tunnel proposal would remove a significant amount of those freshwater flows from their natural course through the Delta. A single tunnel could still divert up to nearly half of the average flow of the Sacramento River and make conditions in the Delta worse, not better. Today’s announcement is a missed opportunity to get past the old conflict-ridden rivalries and pursue different and more fruitful approaches that would actually increase statewide water supplies. Instead, it’s more of the same divisive top-down approach pursued by past administrations.”

–End–

2020-01-15 Tunnel NOP statement.pdf

County Candidate Forum – Jan 22

350 Sacramento, the Sierra Club Sacramento Group and the Environmental Council of Sacramento are co-sponsoring a Candidate Forum for the Sacramento County Supervisor District 3 Election. The open seat has led to a number of candidates interested in filling the position – come learn about how the candidates respond to our concerns regarding local district issues such as land use, public health, homelessness, transportation and the environment. The primary will be held on March 3, 2020 – you will be getting your ballot a month ahead of time – take this opportunity to meet the candidates!

Wednesday, January 22, 2020 6:00 pm – 7:30 pm, Carmichael Library, 5605 Marconi Ave.

Share Your Ideas with the Mayors’ Commission on Climate Change

If you live in the City of Sacramento or the City of West Sacramento, you have the power to voice your opinions on climate change action! It’s quick and easy, just fill out the comment form here.

Mayor Steinberg and Mayor Cabaldon are leading the Mayors’ Commission on Climate Change to develop a common vision and set of strategies for both cities to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions, referred to as Carbon Zero, by 2045. Follow this link for more information.

Galt CAP Requires EIR Analysis

December 4, 2019

The Environmental Council of Sacramento, Habitat 2020, the Sierra Club Sacramento Group and 350 Sacramento submitted a letter containing our follow up to comments on the City of Galt’s draft Climate Action Plan (CAP).

The City of Galt has prepared a draft Climate Action Plan (CAP) describing how it proposes to meet legal obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the City. Adoption of a CAP requires environmental analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City proposes to conduct abbreviated environmental review with a “Negative Declaration” (MND) instead of an “Environmental Impact Report” (EIR). ECOS and partner organizations assert that abbreviated review would not be legally acceptable, and further argue that conducting separate reviews for the CAP and two related road-building studies would be impermissible “piece-mealing” (analyzing environmental impacts of a single project as if it were several separate projects, to minimize apparent impacts).

Below are some of our key points.

Preparing an MND for the CAP would be inconsistent with CEQA requirements. Our earlier letter demonstrates with substantial evidence that the City’s draft CAP does not meet the requirements for a qualified GHG reduction plan or for mitigation enforceability, per CEQA Guidelines . . . We cited unsupported use of statewide targets, failure to meet the State’s 2050 target, non-enforceability of virtually all proposed mitigation measures, inadequate monitoring and update protocol, and lack of implementation funding.
The above would support a fair argument that adopting the draft CAP as a qualified GHG reduction plan which could streamline (i.e. diminish) CEQA review for future projects will likely have a significant effect on the environment. Pursuant to 14 CCR §15064 such a potential impact requires environmental analysis via an EIR.
The City’s grant agreement provides for concurrent development of three planning documents… [which] appear to be one whole project. The second two are clearly directly related. The CAP . . . would have, “a potential . . . reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment” by reducing or obviating future GHG analysis of the urban development made possible by extending Carillion Boulevard . . . analyzing the . . . potential environmental effects of these three plans together in one document would fall more properly within CEQA’s regulatory requirements.

Click here to read the letter.