Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surface Water Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends two surface'water projects for feasibility study after fatal'flaw review
Summary
After a consultant'led fatal'flaw review of four surface'water project concepts, the commission voted to recommend two options ' a Western Canal/Feather River extension to rice lands and transfers from Paradise Irrigation District ' be advanced to feasibility analysis and Board of Supervisors consideration.
The Butte County Water Commission voted April 2 to recommend two surface'water supply projects be advanced to feasibility study after a consultant presented a fatal'flaw analysis of four concepts intended to reduce groundwater pumping in the Vina Subbasin.
Assistant Director Christina Buck framed the item and said the county and Vina Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) had received $5.5 million in SGMA'related grant funding for projects. Christina said stakeholders had discussed reallocating about $800,000 to water supply and recharge work and another $300,000 to fill monitoring data gaps.
Jenny Shearer of Water and Land Solutions presented the fatal'flaw analysis for four concepts:
- Option 1 (Feather River ' Western Canal extension): wheel Table A or Western Canal water from the Feather River system into the Vina Subbasin and serve irrigated rice ground by extending existing conveyance. Jenny said she found no fatal flaw for this option and estimated it could deliver roughly 5,000 acre'feet to mapped lands in the near term.
- Option 2 (Paradise Irrigation District transfers): convey surplus supply from Paradise/Magalia Reservoir into Butte Creek (via Little Butte Creek) for users in the valley. Jenny said PID indicated roughly 1,000'2,000 acre'feet might be available now and about 5,000 acre'feet after Magalia Dam retrofit; transfers require state review but were not identified as fatal flaws.
- Option 3 (Sacramento River exchange and radial wells): a paper exchange and radial well concept could move significant water but would be more expensive and technically involved; it could require multiple radial wells to reach larger volumetric goals.
- Option 4 (Hendricks Canal / PG&E conveyance to Butte Creek): Jenny said this option had fatal flaws because PG&E would not engage to provide the necessary technical information and the Hendricks Canal appeared allocated to PG&E operations, leaving no willing partner for near'term implementation.
Commissioners discussed cost, the business case for growers (noting market uncertainty for rice and orchard economics), the potential to bring fish benefits by adding water to Butte Creek, and the need to continue exploring long'term options such as tunnel concepts or PG&E decommissioning scenarios. Public commenters and environmental groups urged review of past integrated water resources plans and cautioned about political pressures and unintended consequences.
After deliberation Commissioner Arvonen moved that the commission recommend Options 1 and 2 be advanced to feasibility study and forward that recommendation to the Board of Supervisors; the motion was seconded and passed on a roll call: Arvonen Aye; Bayless No; Giesen Tanner Yes; Montgomery Aye; Raymond Aye; Roessler Absent; Nystrom Aye; Washington Aye. Chair Montgomery said the motion included a note that other options remain under consideration pending additional information and funding.
The commission asked staff and the ad hoc committee to continue engagement with stakeholders and flagged mid'June as a reasonable time for an ad hoc check'in if the Board moves forward.
