|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Several people in the audience at a Thursday League of Women Voters forum on groundwater management questioned the link between surface water transfers and the effect on groundwater. Butte County passed a law, called Chapter 33, which does not allow transfer of groundwater out of the county unless a permit is issued. Monitoring would be required for overdraft, lowering of ground elevation and salt content in the water. Since passage in 1996, no one has attempted to get a groundwater transfer permit in the county. However, speakers at the forum Thursday wondered aloud how plans by Northern California irrigation districts to sell 205,000 acre-feet of water to Metropolitan Water District of Southern California could affect local groundwater. Sharon Wallace, president of the League of Women Voters, said she spoke on her own behalf when she expressed worries during a later interview about proposed water deals. Wallace's family works in agriculture and she formerly worked for the Sacramento River Preservation Trust. She said she does not believe groundwater pumping and surface water sales should be viewed independently. When surface water is applied, water percolates into the soil and recharges groundwater, she said. "If we fallow land," which would be the case with the current surface water transfer plan, "that is one less recharge area." She said she also would like to see more focus on the effects water sales have on the local economy, such as ag-related businesses. Wallace said she is very concerned with private property rights, but any water transfer needs to consider subterranean water, local economics and ecology. The current deal on the table would pay farmers irrigation districts, mostly which plant rice, $100 an acre-foot for a water transfer. Ten dollars of that amount would be paid to the growers even if the sale doesn't go through, as an option payment. There is an additional $5 an acre-foot that Metropolitan Water District would pay irrigation districts to address third-party economic impacts. "I feel like they're selling water too cheaply," she said. She said the mitigation fee component of water sales should be very significant, to offset the loss of use of the water on the local community. "I want them to do what's right by our own community." Chico Enterprise Record - Copyright Policy
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||||