GRASS VALLEY, Calif. Nov. 21, 2009 - After hearing eleven residents voice concerns about impacts to wells, groundwater sources, septic systems, riparian and wildlife habitat, and property values -- and with numerous other concerned citizens present at the Nov. 18 board meeting -- Nevada Irrigation District's directors agreed to send the proposed Newtown Canal project back to staff for further review. "We need to review all this material that came subsequent to this meeting," President John Drew advised, referring not only to comments heard during the public hearing but also to numerous letters previously received by NID but not provided to board members until the morning of the hearing. "I can see the possibility through continued communication that this issue could be resolved," he added. CEQA documents on the proposed project indicate a mitigated negative declaration is being recommended.
Drew pointed out that virtually all public concern over the project would be moot if NID decides to leave water in the canal. He also noted that abandoning the canal could have impacts on septic tanks relative to nearby wells and that this would be unacceptable to the Nevada County Department of Environmental Health. At the same time, he stated that keeping water in the canal requires a level of maintenance that impedes NID from doing an adequate job for its customers. "I want to make sure that people understand that continued wetting of this canal places requirements on NID, the environment, and possibly homeowners to take care of their appropriate section of the ditch," Drew reinforced.
According to NID, the Newtown Canal is at capacity and "does not meet the current and future demand for reliable water in this service area." A freeze currently exists on hookups for future irrigation and treated water customers within the service area. The proposed project would re-route a 1900-foot portion of the canal within a pipe under Newtown Road and abandon the existing segment of the canal.
So far, there are seven parties interested in obtaining irrigation water through the system. On the treated water side, while there is no current number, growth studies indicate there will be future treated water demand, according to Adrian Schneider, senior associate engineer on the proposed project.
A review of the project CEQA documents shows only two alternatives offered under the "Project Description." Alternative 1 calls for the creation of a submerged pipeline (encasement of flow) within or along Newtown Road and dewatering of the canal while well data can be collected. Proposed mitigation measures state well monitoring would be conducted over a two-year period. If, at the end of two years, data indicates wells would not be affected by dewatering of the canal, the ditch would be filled in to grade level.
Alternative 2 would include maintaining some level of water in the canal while proceeding with the encasement pipeline. This scenario would also call for the formation by adjacent property owners of a Mutual Water Company which would be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the canal.
While none of the speakers expressed opposition to the project, all raised concerns about the safety of their wells should NID decide to abandon the canal. Resident Jacquie Bucknell pointed to the historical presence of ditches in the Newtown area. "I've been to the local historical library and these ditches are documented over 141 years," Bucknell said. She also spoke to a belief held by many residents that an aquifer exists in the area of their wells. "We are concerned, we hear there is a test to see if our wells are recharged off Washington Ridge Springs, or from the aquifer we feel is there. Or, is recharge only caused by seepage from this ditch that is over 150 years old," Bucknell told the board.
Third-generation resident Dave Russo wanted to hear what NID would do if his wells were impacted. Specifically, Russo asked if NID would charge him for water if he could no longer use his own wells for irrigation. "I want you to say on the record if my well is affected I will be charged for water," he asked Adrian Schneider. "In the CEQA document it says extra irrigation water would be provided but would be charged at the normal rate," said Schneider.
Russo also brought up the subject of canal maintenance. "One of the things you've stressed to us as your reason for not keeping the ditch open is continued maintenance," Russo said. "I want to say I've done as much if not more than NID." Russo further asked if NID has conducted a study comparing the cost of maintaining the canal versus encasement.
According to Maintenance Manager John Kirk, providing a realistic cost analysis of maintenance along the canal in the proposed project zone is difficult for several reasons. Kirk claims that access issues have impeded NID's ability to perform most maintenance. And while he says the district has conducted some work, coming up with accurate figures is problematic because maintenance costs in any given area of the canal are charged to one general account.
Resident Chris Olander clearly wasn't happy with NID's response to Russo on how the district would remedy property owners for potential losses in well production. He reiterated Russo's concerns about being charged for replacement water. "If I'm irrigating my property with my own well and after 2 years the water recharge drops, this means I will need irrigation water," Olander began. "Will NID guarantee me the amount of water in my well without charge? Or will NID charge me for extra water I'm not getting in my well?"
Citing the abundance of water in the area as the reason she bought her property, Lorraine Webb emphasized the importance of the series of ponds and wetlands that dot the landscape adjacent to the canal. These ponds and wetlands, Webb asserted, are supported by NID irrigation water. "There is a whole chain of ponds that have created Audubon wetlands," Webb said. "After 150 years of recharge, you can see why it's a water reserve. There is wetland throughout much of the area."
"None of us want to see people in Lake Wildwood go without water, but we don't want to see our water rights and wells impacted," Webb added, further asking for isotope testing on wells. Simply put, this form of testing can determine sources of well water by tracking water molecules common to a specific body of water, like the Newtown Canal.
Janet Berryman agreed with Webb's call for isotope testing. In addition, Berryman and several other residents asked for a longer well-monitoring period. "I agree with the idea of monitoring but feel two years is not enough," she said. "I've heard it takes four years for a normal aquifer to receive surface water." Chris Olander asked for an even longer monitoring period, calling for a guarantee of ten years.
As a property owner with 10 acres in the overall project area that could potentially be affected, Mary Bennett-Meyer has major concerns about impacts to wildlife habitat. "I have a waterway property. It is a migratory place, it is riparian," Bennett-Meyer emphasized. "I have dual ponds on my property and buy year-round from NID to maintain this environment."
Bob Vitavec bought his property on White Oak Way with the intention of creating a small permaculture farm. He also let neighbor Jacquie Bucknell drill a well on his property because her wells were coming up dry. "By the time I closed escrow you changed the rules that there could be no new hookups," Vitavec pointed out. "The ditch goes through my property. I made this investment with that intention but my pond is now dry and I need to fill it."
In response to the question by Don Rivenes and other speakers about a possible long-term plan to encase the entire canal, Schneider responded. "If we can't get up to capacity, we might need to."
Included among 18 public comment letters received by the district was one from local Nevada City attorney Allan S. Haley. "The projects that NID is currently undertaking in the Nevada City-Grass Valley area have raised all kinds of questions and concerns, and not only those relating to CEQA," Haley's letter reads. "Perhaps beginning with the Newtown Canal project, NID's Board and management could consider establishing a policy that allows these concerns to be raised by local property owners and addressed before the formal CEQA deadlines kick in."
As Haley's letter makes reference to NID projects that have come under public scrutiny, one of these projects has recently become embroiled in a lawsuit. On November 4, documents were filed in Nevada County Superior Court challenging NID and its board on their decision to approve the DS Canal Flume Replacement Project.
Director Weber voiced similar concerns in a letter written on behalf of her district constituents along the Newtown Canal. "It grieves and angers me that in 11 years with multiple efforts to work with NID staff and sometimes environmental consultants, I've been unsuccessful in influencing decision-makers in developing a protocol for NID projects that honestly looks at project impacts and treats those along the project route fairly," Weber's states in her written comments. "Treating local residents respectfully, ensuring their water supply either through adequate measures to support wells or by offering a pipeline to provide potable water would go a long way toward shorter transmission line project completions. They are all NID taxpayers. And they all need water."
At the hearing, Weber reiterated her issues with the process. "These are all taxpayers," Weber said of the residents who spoke up during the board meeting. "Let's not provide service for some without taking care of our existing customers." She further stated that current NID policy for determining the effect on wells from canal seepage needs to be revised.
Director Jim Bachman, while admitting he was not familiar with the project, leaned toward the idea of maintaining some water in the ditch. "It seems there should be some way around this," he said. "Dump water down the ditch and pick it up at the other end. Seems like we could eliminate lots of problems and expense that way."
Questioning if the district has considered isotope testing, Director Nick Wilcox also voiced concerns about the well-monitoring program in the mitigated negative declaration. "I've looked at the monitoring and I'm not comfortable that information obtained particularly on the timeframe allowed will be reliable," Wilcox told the board and district staff. "I think data you would obtain would be somewhat questionable in nature," he said, referring specifically to pump tests. "My experience with county pump tests is the information is not reliable."
Wilcox also pointed to the lack of static well water data. "There is one thing missing, that is, any data on static water levels," he stated. "This is a real fault in the monitoring program. We have no idea what the groundwater hydrograph is in this case." "I think we need to rethink the monitoring program," Wilcox continued. "We need to refine it and bring people on to do these studies. I agree with Director Drew, we can't go forward at this time with all this new information received today. It is difficult to move forward to make a credible case with an injury/no injury determination. I'm not sure we can make this case with the current monitoring program," he concluded.
General Manager Ron Nelson advised the board that staff must be allowed to review the CEQA documents in light of the public comments and information received. "We also need to see if any additional letters have come in," Nelson noted, adding he doubted that staff could conduct an adequate review and forward a recommendation by the December 9 board meeting.
Totaling 16 miles in length, the Newtown canal originates on Deer Creek and provides water to the Newtown service area, which includes the Lake Wildwood Water Treatment Plant and terminates northwest of the plant. The canal serves over 140 raw water customers and 3200 treated water customers.
By submitting a comment you consent to our rules. Please use your real first and last name, not a nickname or alias. Thank you.
