News Worth Noting: A detailed comparison of water bond proposals, enviro goups request extension on BDCP, Friends of the River decries lack of BDCP Implementing Agreement, proposed groundwater regs for pesticides, high concentrations of nitrate in some groundwater basins

moneyDetailed comparison of water bond proposals: The Assembly Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife has posted a detailed comparison of four water bond proposals: AB 1331 (Rendon), AB 2686 (Perea), SB 848 (Wolk), and SB 1250 (Hueso). The chart compares the proposed spending of each bond in the areas of water quality, watershed protection, regional water reliability, Delta sustainability, water storage, and other parameters. For a copy of the comparison, go here: Detailed Comparison of Water Bond Proposals (in billions)

letter mailboxEnviro groups request 60-day extension on the BDCP review period:  American Rivers, Defenders of Wildlife, the NRDC, the Bay Institute, and the Nature Conservancy have written state and federal officials requesting a 60-day extension of the comment deadline for the BDCP.  They say that the extension is warranted because the drought has created tremendous management challenges that have limited the time people can devote to reviewing the documents; key information such as the Implementation Agreement has not yet been made available; and just the overall complexity and length of the document.  “The proposed project is immensely complicated, the analysis exceedingly lengthy, and the topic vitally important to every Californian. By this request, we seek the time needed to review it carefully and provide thoughtful input,” they write.  Read the letter here:  Request for 60-day extension

for logoFriends of the River also requests an extension, says lack of availability of an Implementing Agreement violates NEPA, ESA, CEQA, and NCCPA: Counsel Bob Wright writes: ” … This absence of the critical information for public review and review by the decision-makers that would be found in the missing Implementing Agreement, Biological Assessments, and Biological Opinions makes a mockery of the environmentally informed public and decision-maker review provisions and purposes of NEPA, CEQA, and the ESA. In addition, the absence of the essential information that would be furnished by the draft Implementing Agreement, Biological Assessments, and Biological Opinions unlawfully segments and postpones the review of those documents from the current review of the Draft BDCP Plan and Draft EIR/EIS. … ”  Read the letter here:  5 15 14 BDCP ext comment ltr (2)

DPRNew regulations proposed for protection of groundwater from pesticides: The Department of Pesticide Regulation is proposing to amend section 6800(b) of Title 3, California Code of Regulations, which lists pesticides and chemicals that can contaminate groundwater basins. The proposed regulations would update the list of pesticides by adding 27 additional chemicals to the list, while removing 30 chemicals that no longer need to be included. Adoption of this regulation will benefit the health and welfare of California residents and the environment by preventing pesticide pollution of California’s ground water that is used to supply drinking water. Comments are due by June 16. Go here for the proposed regulations: DPR 14-001 Groundwater Protection List

usgs logoHigh Concentrations of Nitrate more Prevalent in Livermore, Gilroy-Hollister, and Cuyama Valleys than Statewide:Nitrate was detected at high concentrations in about 14 percent of untreated groundwater sources used for public water supply in the Livermore, Gilroy-Hollister, and Cuyama valleys of the Southern Coast Ranges, according to an ongoing U.S. Geological Survey study of the state’s groundwater quality. In comparison, elsewhere in California high concentrations of nitrate have generally been found in less than one to eight percent of the groundwater sources used for public supply. For the study, U.S. Geological Survey scientists analyzed untreated groundwater sources from wells, not treated tap water. Federal and California regulatory benchmarks, established for drinking water, were used to provide context for evaluating the quality of the groundwater. “High” concentrations are defined as above the Environmental Protection Agency’s or California Department of Public Health’s established Maximum Contaminant Levels or other non-regulatory health-based levels for chemical constituents or elements not having MCLs. … ” Read more here:  High Concentrations of Nitrate more Prevalent in Livermore, Gilroy-Hollister, and Cuyama Valleys than Statewide
———————

About News Worth Noting:  News Worth Noting is a collection of press releases, media statements, and other materials produced by federal, state, and local government agencies, water agencies, and academic institutions, as well as non-profit and advocacy organizations.  News Worth Noting also includes relevant legislator statements and environmental policy and legal analyses that are publicly released by law firms.  If your agency or organization has an item you would like included here, please email it to Maven.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: