Meeting Notes

Feb 26, 2005
    Stakeholders met  representatives appointed  to WAC, Roger Ledderer( Vina), Jim Brobeck (Foothill & Mountain).  Drafts of Vina Groundwater Basin BMO Stakeholder's Operating Principles (click to retrieve MSWord document) were discussed and revised; and came to a concensus on the intent of the group participating in the groundwater management process for the Vina Sub-Basin.  They also established how the group would be organized and make decisions.  Roger will be attending the WAC meeting called for March 3.

Jan 10, 2005
Introduction of candidates for CUA and Vina WAC. Discussion of principles for establishing objectives, map of recharge zones explained by Toccoy Dudley, questionnaires handed out, some returned.

Oct. 4, 2004
This was a general informational meeting bringing new people up-to-date on issues.

Aug. 2, 2004
Vina and CUA Stakeholders meet to consider the first step of the Groundwater Level Objective planning as described in the technical guide. E-mail notification from the list of people who gave addresses at previous meetings.
An overview of the BMO Ordinance and process to-date was given. Meeting was to determine what groundwater issues were of concern to the stakeholders as outlined in the development packets from CDM leading to a statement of what the local management objective is designed to achieve.
General Issues: BMO’s were too re-active, constraints to pumping kick in after a problem, group wants to be pro-active in protecting the aquifer. Need to identify recharge zones and get protective overlay status into the General Plan and Zoning, need to quantify recharge to determine what “fair share” of groundwater is available for overlying land, need to identify different levels of aquifer so that people cannot be penalized for over-pumping of an aquifer layer from which they do not pump. These were in addition to the ordinance issues of lowered groundwater levels, subsidence, and salt water intrusion. There was also considerable interest in protecting wells from contamination
Vina Specific issues: Rock Creek drainage is only 19.5 square miles with drainage of about 5000 acre feet according to the USGS. This is a much smaller drainage than Big Chico or Butte Creek. Because Vina watershed is lower in altitude than these other drainages, there is no snow pack to capture and store water for runoff.
Historic evidence: freshwater clam middens at Indian Village along Rock Creek show that at one time the creek flowed year round. Older residents have stories about standing in the creek to pitchfork salmon onto the bank for canning. How much has the aquifer already been over-drafted and how much actual recharge occurs?
Problems may be caused for individual governed by this ordinance by sharing a hydrological basin (as identified by DWR) with other entities pumping groundwater that are not governed by this ordinance. For example, DWR is pumping in Tehama County to improve stream flows in Deer Creek and CalWater also pumps from the Vina basin. Co-ordination with those who have a straw in the same water source is essential.
CUA specific issues: Need to protect the residential well owner from overdraft, possible conflicts with CalWater which is governed by the Public Utilities Commission and not by Butte County.
Need more research on contaminated sites and plumes. For example: under Chico Municipal Airport—left from when it was Chico Army Airbase. Try to assure that future pumping does not move contamination towards domestic wells.

June 16, 2004
BMO Workshop by Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation sponsored by the Butte Basin Water Users Association. The purpose of the meeting was to roll-out the technical guides created by CDM Consultants for the sub-inventory units. These packets describe how BMO groups may develop BMOs. The guides were available on CD and also available in pdf format on the County web site: www.buttecounty.net/waterandresource/
Though many BMO sub-inventory units are already organized around an existing water district, or in one case a single entity (M&T Ranch), the groups whose members are groundwater users are at a disadvantage as Butte County has no money or staff time to help them organize or advertise. Several people who attended the May 22 meeting attended and picked up materials for our stakeholders meetings.

May 22, 2004
An informational meeting was facilitated by BCCWA at Shasta School. The public was alerted by two display ads in E-R and two news articles in advance of the meeting. The ads and the costs of room rental were paid for by individual Board Members of BCCWA, also several attendee’s donated toward costs. However, this is too expensive to do for each meeting, so e-mail addresses were collected for further contacts. The BCCWA coordinator will handle sending out the e-mail notices.
Approximately 50 people attended. Local residents were introduced to the BMO Ordinance and the implications for the groundwater, flyers for the June workshop were handed out, maps of watersheds, hydrogeology of the Sacramento basin, and areas of sub-inventory units were displayed and discussed.