Napa County suing state for water supply
American Canyon faces biggest issue
By KEVIN COURTNEY
Register Staff Writer
In a lawsuit with far-reaching implications for urban growth in Napa County, a coalition of four small counties and cities is suing the state Department of Water Resources to guarantee deliveries from the State Water Project.
The Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is among those challenging DWR in Sacramento County Superior Court. At stake are state supplies that Napa Valley cities depend on for half their water.
For American Canyon, the stakes are even higher. That city depends on the State Water Project for nearly all of its supplies.
The state cut State Water Project deliveries by 65 percent this year, citing drought conditions that left Sierra Nevada reservoirs below normal.
If the suit is successful, DWR would have to give Napa County and the other plaintiffs 100 percent of their allocation every year, drought or no drought.
The plaintiffs — Napa County, Butte County, Solano County Water Agency and Yuba City — argue that they are entitled to full allocations under the terms of the 1963 contracts that launched the State Water Project.
The project, the largest of its kind in the nation, supplies more than four million acre feet annually to Bay Area, Central Valley and Southern California water districts.
The plaintiffs, who receive 2 percent of this amount, say their 1963 contracts exempt them from dry-year cutbacks because they contribute water to the Sacramento River Delta, from which the State Water Project draws its supplies.
In Napa County’s case, water from the Lake Berryessa watershed finds its way through Putah Creek into the delta, making the county an “area of origin” that qualifies for special treatment, the suit says.
“It’s a contract interpretation issue,” said Felix Riesenberg, principal water resources engineer for the Napa flood district.
The cities of Napa, American Canyon, Yountville and Calistoga are putting up $200,000 as Napa County’s share of the suit, which was filed July 17 in Sacramento, Riesenberg said.
If the suit is successful, local jurisdictions could count on full delivery of each year’s state allocation. Currently, Napa County is entitled to 23,300 acre feet annually, growing to 29,025 acre feet by 2021.
“The reliability of the State Water Project for Napa County is extremely important,” Riesenberg said. “Without it, it creates the possible conflict of forcing cities into using ground water.”
Allocations have fluctuated in recent years, making it hard for cities to plan, Riesenberg said. The 2007 allocation was 60 percent of contract amounts, dropping to 35 percent this year. If the drought continues, next year’s allocation could be even less.
Local cities are making do this year, relying on local reservoirs that recharged due to periods of locally heavy rain last winter.
Napa went into this summer with more water than the year before, but arranged to buy supplemental supplies from outside the county as an insurance policy.
American Canyon, which is nearly wholly dependent on the State Water Project, arranged to buy additional water from Vallejo.
Both cities hired a consultant in June to see if additional long-term supplies can be found. This study will cost $128,000.
Cities have generally considered ground water off limits for municipal uses, leaving it for agriculture and rural dwellers. In a water emergency, underground aquifers would be tempting resource.
If the suit is successful, there should be no net impact on DWR or the environment, according to the plaintiffs’ press release. The suing agencies would get their full allocation, leaving less to be divided among the other 25 state contractors.
State Water Project supplies enter Napa County through Jamieson Canyon using the North Bay Aqueduct.
St. Helena is the only Napa Valley city without a contract for State Water Project water.
No one was available for comment Tuesday at the DWR.
The lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Jeanne Zolezzi of Herum Crabtree Brown, a law firm in Stockton, also was unavailable.
All comments will be screened and may take several hours to be posted.
• Keep comments clear, concise and focused on the topic in the story.
• Comments exceeding 300 words will not be posted.
• Refrain from personal attacks, degrading comments or remarks that do not add to a constructive dialogue.
• Comments implying suspects in crime-related stories are guilty before they have been proven so in a court of law will be deleted.
• Do not post e-mail addresses or links except for pages on Napavalleyregister.com or government Web sites.
• Comments will not be edited - they will be approved or declined.
• Comments may be used in the print edition of the newspaper.
• If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact dross@napanews.com or bkennedy@napanews.com
For further information on the comment guidelines,
click here.
marine1/1 wrote on Aug 19, 2008 2:24 PM:
Native74 wrote on Aug 19, 2008 4:15 PM:
I'm also right up there with you on all the permit approvals...offsetting credits of potable water with recycled won't help these kind of BIG picture matters! "
Cadence wrote on Aug 19, 2008 7:02 PM:
In a Register blog, musikluvr wrote that Keith Rogal told her at one of the Napa Pipe meetings that there was unlimited groundwater available for his project.
Someone is mangling the truth and I think we dummies on the ground really need to know - exactly what is true?? IS there unlimited groundwater, and if so, why this lawsuit, or do we face a shortage, and if so, why the frenzied construction and talk of thousands more residences and hotel rooms?
Can anyone shed light?? "
NapaCitizen wrote on Aug 19, 2008 7:07 PM:
Congratulations! "
asahigo wrote on Aug 20, 2008 12:55 AM:
ITSREAL wrote on Aug 20, 2008 6:31 AM:
napablogger wrote on Aug 20, 2008 10:05 AM:
musikluvr wrote on Aug 20, 2008 10:08 AM:
reason-ator wrote on Aug 20, 2008 11:26 AM:
You can't ask questions about planning if the audience can't even plan to read the questions.
Maybe they'll get the state to read them for them. "
reason-ator wrote on Aug 20, 2008 12:25 PM:
concerned citizen wrote on Aug 20, 2008 12:51 PM:
It appears to me that the fluctuation in allocations have been accepted and adjusted to in the recent past which, seems to me, sets a precedent which, now, these litigants are hoping to reverse. Having accepted the terms in 2007, and previously, I would expect that the state Dept. of Water Resources has standing that does "hold water" while the plaintiffs do not.
I have a suggestion: stop growing, stop the rampant building, stop infill and RUL adjustments, cease the endless and mindless population explosion and - voila! - it just might end up that more water and more water and more water is not required to sustain these communities, counties, cities as they presently are.
Pump groundwater? I don't think so. Sue the state for water which primarily originates from a drought effected supply in the Sierra Nevada range? Don't think so!
Stop being so selfish and control your growth; curb your desires for ever more money you hope to gain from developments.
In other words, live w/in this particular type of 'budget.'
Grow UP! "
amcanresident wrote on Aug 20, 2008 2:37 PM:
MarkMiwords wrote on Aug 20, 2008 5:02 PM:
reason-ator wrote on Aug 20, 2008 5:29 PM:
asahigo wrote on Aug 20, 2008 6:51 PM:
vocal-de-local wrote on Aug 20, 2008 11:18 PM:
I also want to say: Our resources are limited EVERYWHERE. Whatever resources we take from somewhere else ends out causing resource depletion elsewhere.
Why is Napa doing this? I suspect that they see the writing on the wall. Regulations involving water are becoming more stringent due to environmental damage of waterways. Napa County wants to make a grab for whatever they can. They visualize growth, development and increased tourism in the future, all which require water. Their grab for more water is a fairly strong sign of which direction they are headed. More water will grow more people. They are addicted to development and growth.
The water we take from some other place eventually damages another ecosystem in someone else's backyard. Ironically, we are going green with building codes yet we lack the self disipline to slow growth down, people growth that is. "
Native74 wrote on Aug 21, 2008 10:39 AM:
Invest in a nice water system from a local company...like the one Sup. Dodd use to own. Talk about a smart financier/elected official. I wonder if he's still a part owner to one place in town. ;)
I still believe our ground water HAS to be better than all the pharmaceutical tainted water supplies in the rest of the nation. I can see the next bottled water in the headlines: Prozac with a touch of Valium $0.99/16 ounce bottle!
Have we really come that far (not)?!?!?!? "
concerned citizen wrote on Aug 21, 2008 11:14 AM:
In most cases, this isn't going to happen. The case has already been made against changing the horse in the middle of the stream. I imagine somewhere, in the fine print and between the lines, it is detailed that 100% allocation will NOT always occur as water availability dwindles due to drought or other natural happenstance.
Nothing personal...just a big "in general." "