theSheetNews.com

By Addie Gottwald

On Wednesday July 11, the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board knocked its gavel and the cowboy hats were shed from the audience.

The workshop, held in South Lake Tahoe, brought together not only ranchers from the Bridgeport Valley but also members of various organizations including the US Forest Service, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the California Rangeland Trust, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, and the California Cattlemen’s Association.

The public workshop allowed any interested parties to fill out speaker cards and address the board with concerns involving the bacteria standards for Bridgeport Valley and the potential renewal of a 2007 General Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements. The consensus of the contributors and the Board was that a certain proposed bacterial count (20 fecal coliform colonies per 100 mL of water) was too restrictive and with the renewal of the waiver, cattle should be permitted to continue grazing the valley.

Previously Bridgeport Valley’s water was subjected to a 20 fecal coliform colonies (FCU) per 100 mL standard. This standard was later seen as unreasonable and in 2006 the county was given an interim objective of 200 FCU per 100 mL. Even though the 20 FCU objective was never enforced, the Board was given power to possibly reinstate the lower FCU standard.

Many ranchers have taken action to modify their graze lands in order to improve their water quality prior to this week’s meeting. Changes in cattle management including increased fencing, enhanced vegetation fielding, and improved water crossings, have improved fecal levels in the area. Board member, Dr. Amy Horne, offered “kudos” to Centennial Ranches and others who made such efforts. Ranchers described spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for this project, yet there was still no hope that the cattle would be permitted to graze any longer if the 20 FCU standard were secured.

Bill Thomas of Centennial Ranches reported that water coming off the slopes, having just arrived in the valley, often exceeds the 20 FCU, and even some water is more than 200 FCU. Once the water has left the Bridgeport Reservoir, its bacterial level is under federal standards. Only the water sampled on private lands below the slopes and above the reservoir are above the federal standard of 200 FCU, but since these lands are private and cannot be lawfully used for recreation by the public, Thomas and other ranchers such as John Lacey saw no need for these waters to be subjected to a standard that is ten times more restrictive than the standards for the rest of California’s water.

George Milovich, the Inyo/Mono Agriculture Commissioner, stressed his worries that if the 20 FCU standard were enforced, the 140-year history of grazing in Bridgeport County would be extinguished, devastating the county’s economy and discontinuing business of the multiple generations.

Kevin Kester of the California Cattlemen’s Association described the standard of 20 FCU/100 mL as “physically and financially unattainable,” and it wasn’t long after Kester’s and others’ appeals to the Board that Board member Dr. Horne stated, “We know that this 20 standard will change,” expressing her belief that the valley should not be held to this strict objective.

Board member Peter Pumphrey stated, “Clearly it’s poor policy to have a standard that is generally agreed to be unreasonable.”

While the Board agreed that the valley should be subjected to the regional bacterial standard of 200 FCU opposed to the original 20 FCU, the Board encouraged cooperation between the ranchers and staff of the Water Board to continue in order to manage bacterial levels and increase communication.

Margo Parks of the California Cattlemen’s Association spoke about her concern that even with the renewal of the waiver that lasts five years, there would be no guarantee that the valley would be forever exempt from the impossible 20 FCU standard. She stressed a “push for an amendment in the basin plan” that would allow the ranchers to secure the 200 FCU standard in the future.

Few other changes were made in the renewal of the waiver, including adjustments in required water samples each month and certain phrasing of the waiver, but overall the concerns of the public were well-heard by the Board in this workshop.

A Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control, Board workshop on Livestock Grazing and Water Quality affecting the Bridgeport Valley will be held on July 11-12 in South Lake Tahoe.

According to the workshop description, “Staff will present information on recent efforts to modify grazing activities to protect or improve water quality, including grant support to install and evaluate grazing management practices.”

The agenda bill goes on to say that “Nearly 100 water quality impairments identified on the 2010 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list (impaired water bodies list) in California are located on lands with active grazing operations; these grazing operations are likely contributing to many of these water quality impairments and associated impacts. Some of these impairments are due to bacteria or pathogens. In the Lahontan region, thirteen of the 43 water body segments listed as impaired are for violations of pathogen water quality objectives. This is 30% of the Region’s listed waters. The total mileage of pathogen-listed streams is 87 miles. Because many of these water bodies are located in the Bridgeport Valley of Mono County, the Water Board began focusing actions to address the impairments in this watershed … “

“During the 2011 field season, staff collected water samples from several streams in the Eastern Sierra. Samples were analyzed for two bacterial indicators (fecal coliform and E. coli). The results show that the highest concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria occurred at sites where rangeland livestock grazing was the predominant land use.”

So what does this all mean?

That there is a process to revise water quality standards going forward, and although a completed plan is not expected until 2019, further data is being collected now.

In the interim, the Lahontan Board will discuss possible renewal of the 2007 General Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Grazing Operations in the East Walker River Watershed. The staff report indicates that “grazing management practice implementation aided in meeting the interim standard in most waters at most sampling events, but have not yet resulted in full compliance.”

The agenda item is expected to be addressed during Wednesday’s afternoon meeting session.

The meeting is scheduled to begin at 1:30 p.m. in the Lahontan Board Room located at 971 Silver Dollar Ave. in South Lake Tahoe.

Various watershed stakeholders, water districts and four Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) groups sent more than 50 representatives to the Department of Water Resources’ South Lahontan Regional Forum on Wednesday, May 23. Held both in Bishop and Palmdale, the interlinked conference was a brainstorming session for water managers and planners to draft the region’s chapter of a larger water narrative that will be part of California’s 2013 Water Plan, which is updated every five years.

During the four-hour session, attendees discussed priorities, case studies, local IRWM efforts, conditions, challenges and planning with diversity, given the region’s wide variety of locations, all with an emphasis on how to increase influence on state water policy.

According to DWR’s Water Plan Project Manager Lewis Moeller, the downside of any single regional report is that it’s not necessarily a document that local governments and agencies consult when making specific policy decisions. It does, however, influence grant writing and cross-pollination of disciplines, especially helpful considering many agencies and districts frequently find themselves bridging multiple IRWMs and other boundaries. As a research tool, though, it can link users to case studies, pilot projects, etc., illustrating successes and failures that can aid water planners.

One significant topic: water rights. Moeller pointed out that federal authorities are likely to have different objectives that lead to conflicts with state and local agencies. “It’s how you deal with them,” he noted. “There are things federal agencies [i.e. the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, et al] are allowed and not allowed to do.” He cited, as an example, fears of too many ski areas wanting to build in a certain area. “You won’t see a plethora of industries coming in that aren’t part of allowed use.”

Concerns were expressed about protecting so-called “enviro-water,” or water that’s set aside to remain in the environment and not allowed to be diverted, and water that’s exported to the LADWP, Crystal Geyser water and other outlets, and those impacts on everything from fish hatcheries, to Mono Lake and Owens Lake, which are both undergoing restoration and rehydration. “Water is directly tied to the economic livelihood of the region, especially fishing and skiing,” observed CalTrout’s Mark Drew, who was also there as Executive Director of Inyo-Mono’s IWRM organization, which in terms of geography is the second largest IRWM in the state’s network.

As one attendee opined, “LADWP likes to say they only take half the water, which is a little like saying they’re only taking half your blood from your body.” Speaking of LADWP, the behemoth water agency was asked to participate, but reportedly declined in favor of forwarding notes, observations and comments. “We’re going to have to reconcile their views with others,” Moeller said.

Not just broad topics were covered. Flood management, invasive species (an issue that impacts many regions) and alternative energy production that relies on water as a source, such as the expansion of ORMAT’s Casa Diablo power plant near Mammoth Lakes were also discussed.

Climate change, as it affects the state water planning, made its formal debut in the 2009 update, and has since generated a handbook for use by water agencies. In a recent IRWM survey, the topic emerged as the top statewide priority. Temperature, snowpack and precipitation, as well as salinity in the state’s Delta are all expected to change, impacting the state’s water supply, which is already strained to meet current needs.

The Climate Change Handbook publication isn’t a requirement for water management — yet, but could be viewed as a pre-emptive, “easy in” anticipating future state green water management mandates.

A draft of the South Lahontan Region’s report is expected later this summer.