Water Right Application 29408 and ... Petition WW-6 of the City ...

I
\
Water Right Application 29408 and Wastewater Change
Petition WW-6 of the City of Thousand Oaks
and
Findings Regarding Availability of Wa&r for Appropriation
under Water Right Applications 29816,29819,29829,29581,
29959,30037,30092
and 30194
hi
,.
Decision No. 1638
Arroyo Conejo, Conejs Creek
and Calleguas Creek
Ventura County
September 1997
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
.
_
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL
BOARD
In the Matter of Water Right
)
Application 29408 and Waste Water )
Change Petition WW-6,
1
CITY OF THOUSAND
Applicant
OAKS,
and Petitioner,
DECISION:
)
SOURCE:
1
)
and,
Availability of Unappropriated
Water for Applications 29816,
29819, 29829, 29581, 29959,
30037, 30092, and 30194 of
0
)
1
FITZGERALD RANCH, STANLEY AND
SANDRA GOLDBERG, B-H FARMS,
ROBERT B. LAMB, LENA M. JONES
TRUST, RICHARD ROGERS, STANLEY
AND SANDRA GOLDBERG, AND CAMROSA
WATER DISTRICT,
Respectively
Applicants,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME,
STANLEY AND SANDRA GOLDBERG,
LENA M. JONES TRUST, B-H FARMS,
ET AL., CAMROSA WATER DISTRICT
ROGERS FAMILY TRUST, ROBERT B.
LAMB, FITZGERALD RANCH,
1638
Arroyo Conejo,
Conejo Creek
and Calleguas
,i Creek
i
1
COUNTY:
Ventura
i
)
1
1
)
1
)
)
1
)
1
)
)
;
1
)
Protestants.
.
t
DECISION APPROVING, IN PART, WATER RIGHT
APPLICATION 29408 AND WASTE WATER CHANGE
PETITION WW-6 OF THE CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS
AND
FINDINGS REGARDING AVAILABILITY OF WATER FOR
APPROPRIATION UNDER WATER RIGHT APPLICATIONS
29816,
29819, 29829, 29581, 29959, 30037, 30092, AND 30194
-. __
\
a
\
TABLE
1.0
INTRODUCTION
2.0
BACKGROUND
OF CONTENTS
. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
l
%
3.0
2.1
Description
2.2
Description
of Project Proposed
by the
City of Thousand
Oaks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3
Projects
2.4
Presently
Authorized
Water Right License
PROTESTS
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
4.0
5.0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ...2
Proposed
FILED
Protest
of Fish
of Watershed.............................
in Competing
AGAINST
Applications
.......... 7
Diversion
Und&
12598............................
CITY'S
PROPOSED
PROJECT
5.1
11
. . . . . . . . . ..I-2
Filed by the California
Department
and Game....................................
12
Protests
Filed by or Assigned
to Fitzgerald
Ranch, Stanley and Sandra Goldberg,
and Robert B.. Lamb..................................
13
Protests
Filed by Pacific
Sod Farms
and B-H Farms.......................................
14
Protest
filed
by
Gloria
Petit
Longo
et al...........1
HEARING
ON WATER RIGHT, APPLICATION
AND
WASTE WATER CHANGE PETITION..
..........................
WATER
3
5
..15.
AVAILABILITY..................................~...,..17
Sources
5.1.1
5.1.2:
of Water
.......................................
18
Discharge
From Hill Canyon Waste
Water Treatment
Plant . . . . . ..__............s......
18
Runoff
Within
Use of Imported
Water
of Thousand
Oaks . . . . . . . . . . . ...~.......
22
StreamfZow
Attributable
to Precipitatioq:
Within T&e Watershed
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..._.....
23
From
City
.
5.1.3:
l
-5.1.4
Discharge
into Calleguas
Creek Stream
System from Other Waste Water Treat2nen.t:
Facilities
. . . . .._........._....._......._....~..28
_j_-
I
TABLE
5.2
OF CONTENTS,
continued
Water Needed
to Serve Prior Rights
and Other Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
l
f
5.3
5.2.1
Prior Appropriative
Right Under
License
12598 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.2.2
Riparian
5.2.3
Water
Analysis
5.3.1
5.3.2
5.4
Rights..............................
Needed
of Data
for
Instream
on Water
Water Availability
Application
29408
Flows..............
PLACE
OF USE
7.0
MAINTENANCE
8.0
ENVIRONMENTAL
35
Availability..............
35
1'
for the City's
.._.........................
38
Water Availability
for Junior
Applications
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Declaration
of Fully Appropriated
Streams
Listing.............................................
6.0
32
FOR
OF
WATER
APPROPRIATED
REGIONAL
AND
PUBLIC
GROUNDWATER
TRUST
BY CITY
BASINS
49
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
ISSUES....................
55
8.1
Compliance
8.2
Environmental
Impacts for Which Mitigation
Measures
are Proposed
in the EIR and Related
Documents...........................................
57
8.2.1
Impacts
on Water
57
8.2.2
Impacts
on Southwestern
8.3
With
CEQA..........t.....................
Quality.....................
Pond
Turtles
55
. . . . . . . . . 59
Other Issues Raised by the Department
of Fish and Game....................................
64
8.3.1
Impacts
65
8.3.2
Impacts
on Endangered
Saltmarsh
Bird's Beak at Mugu Lagoon . . . . . . . .._.........
on Riparian
_-ji_
Habitat................_.
71
TABLE
8.3.3
9.0
10.0
DEDICATION
OF FISH MD
SUMMARY
AND
OF CONTENTS,
continued
Impacts of Proposed
Flow Control
and Monitoring
Station _......................
74
OF TREATED WASTE WATER FOR PROTECTION
WILDLIFE
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
CONCLUSIONS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
ORDER.........................................................78
CERTIFICATION..........................
-iii-
. . . ..$.................
87
CITATIONS
The following notation
hearing record:
TO THE RECORD
is used to cite information
from the
Citation to Hearing Transcrla:
Citations to the hearing
transcript are indicated by a "T" followed by the volume of the
transcript, followed by the starting page and line number,
(Example:
T,
followed by the ending page and line number.
Vol. I, 136:10-136:21.)
Citations to exhibits in the record are
Citations to Exhibits:
indicated by the abbreviation for the party submitting the
exhibit, followed by the number of the party's exhibits, followed
by the page number or other location of the information in the
exhibit.
-iv-
BY THE BOARD:
I.0
INTRODUCTION
The City of Thousand
Application
proposed
Creek
Oaks
(City) submitted
29408 and Waste Water
project
that involves
in Ventura
County.
appropriate
Water
water
District
the City.
of Arroyo
Petition
WW-6 for a
diversion
of water
from Conejo
Conejo
waste water
(a tributary
water
the project
released
Change
into Arroyo
Petition
diversion
Petition
treated
proposes
a change
In addition
WW-6.
as proposed
W-6
proposes
pursuant
the availability
by the City, the proposed
the use of water by competing
explained
below,
water
this decision
29408 and Waste Water
Change
1212.
of water
changes
for
in the use of the
conditions.
-l-
in
W-6,
part,
the need
resources,
right applicants.
Petition
(cfs) of
use for fish and
and instream
approves,
for
right application,
from the Hill Canyon WTP,
environmental
waste
water available
to instream
appropriation
to protect
from the City's
feet per second
considers
for water
Fork
(Hill Canyon WWTP).
to making
that 2.0 cubic
released
to
the City filed Waste Water
to Water Code section
waste water
(Camrosa) and
in the use of treated
This decision
treated
County
into the North
Creek)
in the City's water
waste water be dedicated
wildlife
Plant
Conejo,
Valley
the City proposes
released
of Conejo
a permit
(SWRCB) to
Water District
of the water which
Hill Canyon Waste Water Treatment
Because
Board
in the Pleasant
(PVCWD), the Camrosa
is treated
29408 requests
Control
for irrigation
The majority
appropriate
Change
Application
from the State Water Resources
Water Right
and
As
Application
subject
to specified
/
This decision
also addresses
appropriation
under Applications
29959,
30092 and 31094.
30037,
appropriate
water
irrigation
by several
applicants
the applications
procedure
for "minor protested
as described
seek to
Creek for
in Section
in priority
2.3
1345 et seq.
to the City's
small quantity
of water
are subject to a separate
review
ii
applications"
However,
for the City's application
applications
makes
it appropriate
availability
for all the pending
Other
regarding
to Water'
between
and the competing
to address
the issue of water
applications
in this decision.
those applications
with the procedures
pursuant
the relationship
water availability
accordance
29581,
were filed after the City's Application
involved,
issues
29829,
These applications
Due to the relatively
Code section
for
29816, 29819,
are junior
29408 and, therefore,
application.
of water
from Conejo Creek and Calleguas
The applications
below.
the availability
will be addressed
specified
in Water
in
Code section
1345 et seq.
2.0
BACKGROUND
The Calleguas
Creek watershed,
is described
tributary,
describes
the project
describes
the projects
applicatkons.
states
of which Conejo
in Section
proposed
proposed
As discussed
applications
by the City, and Section
in the competing
in Section
present
2.2, Application
of water
availability
competing
applicants
right
29408
that would not
the right to divert any water
that may be
specified
of water
water
2.3
The other
at their respective
quantity
water
2.2
conditions.
Creek under natural
request
is a
Section
2.1 below.
that the City seeks to appropriate
have been in Conejo
Creek
points
of diversion
up to the
in the applications.
for appropriation
is addressed
-2-
_
The
by the City and the
in Sections
5.0 through
5.3.2.
V
2.1
Description
The Calleguas
miles
of Watershed
Creek watershed
in eastern
principal
Ventura
tributaries
covers
County.
Slough and Arroyo
Pacific
Ocean at Mugu Lagoon.
The Hill Canyon WWTP
Conejo,
approximately
of Calleguas
Conejo
Creek
Simi.
is located
Fork of Arroyo
of the discharge
Conejo which
0.4 miles downstream
The combined
point.
North
flows approxjmately
Conejo
Creek.
approximately
8 miles
through
Valley
joining
Calleguas
2 miles
the
Creek flows
the Santa Rosa Valley
Creek.drains
of
and
Once in the Santa Rosa Valley,
is known as Conejo
Conejo
Creek,
The South Fork of Arroyo
Fork approximately
to the Santa Rosa Valley.
Camarillo.
1, the
Creek flows into the
on the North
into Mugu Lagoon.
South Forks form Arroyo
before
Calleguas
,
the Hill Canyon WWTP discharge
watercourse
Creek are Conejo
17.5 stream miles upstream
joins the North
325 square
As shown on Figure
to Calleguas
Revolon
approximately
and Pleasant
Creek south of the City of
an area of approximately
78
square miles.
The three groundwater
are the Oxnard
Plain Basin,
Santa Rosa Basin.
is defined
basins
The upper
by the Oxnard
area has led to concerns
Vol. 2, pp. 4-34.)
in the area of the proposed
the Pleasant
aquifer
system
and Mugu aquifers.
about
seawater
Point Mugu is 40 feet below
east of the Pleasant
in the Oxnard
Plain
Overpumping
in this
intrusion.
the groundwater
sea level.
Valley
-3-
Basin and the
(City 1,
level in this area is 80 to
The groundwater
120 feet below sea level, whereas
located
Valley
project
elevation
The Santa Rosa Basin
Basin.
at
is
Place of Use - 29408
29408
\
(No. 3) Point of Diversion \
’ 25247
OXNARD
I nousano “aKS
Proposed - 29408
_.
(No. 2) Point of Measurement
29408
-
(No. 1) Hill Canyon Treatment
Plant Point of Discharge
Place of Use - 29408
Pleasant Valley County Water District
.
STATEOF CALIFORNIA
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL
DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS
BOARD
LOCATION MAP
SCALE
Conejo Creek, Calleguas Creek and
Arroyo
a
FI
i
,
w
Las Posas
x
Applications
-,
0
2.2
Description
of Project
Proposed
by
’
A__
.
diversion
~
is composed
Accretions
(1)
k
of water
I
the City.
result
of deep percolation
Water
entering
within
from Metropolitan
is surface
which
and other purposes
of treated
within
Creek and Calleguas
Natural
(4)
flow.
Application
The City requests
which
above.
released
With
The City estimates
from the
Conejo.
flows into Conejo
or divert
that it does not
natural
streamflow
under
29408.
to divert
to flow elements
the exception
of water
the City.
Fork of Arroyo
eventually
attributable
water
from Conejo
(1) through
of the measured
from the Hill Canyon WWTP,
the amount
of water
Creek.
authorization
is attributable
runoff
waste water
The City has stated
seek to appropriate
storm drainage
from the Hill Canyon
treated
Hill Canyon WWTP into the North
waste water
of lawns
is used for lawn
waste water
The City discharges
The treated
California
the creek from the City's
obtained
WWTP.
of Southern
from the
the City:'
Much of this water
Discharge
(3)
the creek as a
is used for irrigation
system.
irrigation
aquifer
of water obtained
Water District
and other purposes
(2)
groundwater
The water enters
which
Oaks
from four sources:
within
(Metropolitan)
of Thousand
I
from the adjoining
Metropolitan
the City
quantity
it is difficult
(3) described
of water
to quantify
to each of the above
that flow elements
-5-
(1) and
Creek
sources.
(2) contribute
a
(afa) in the South Fork Arroyo
total of 1,954 acre feet per annum
Conejo
and 940 afa in the North Fork Arroyo
City discharged
increase
that its discharge
a maximum
29408 proposes
r
waste water will
to divert water throughout
rate of 24 cfs up to a maximum
The proposed
17,380 af.
horsepower
pumps which
storage ponds
be transported
through
project
annual quantity
will utilize
a 36-inch
diameter
property
from other sources.
100
Water would
pipeline.
in PVCWD,
water
for
for
1,460 afa to provide
instream
flow of 2.0 cfs for fish and wildlife
pursuant
to Water
proposed
in Camrosa,
to providing
to dedicate
Code section
and the
in the City to substitute
In addition
the City proposes
The project
three
of
from the storage ponds to PVCWD, Camrosa,
Water will be used for irrigation
irrigation,
the year at
will convey the wateri'to regulatory
and on municipally-owned
water
of treated
to 15,010 afa by the year 2020.
Application
City.
In 1995, the
(af) at the Hill Canyon WWTP.
9,586 acre feet
The City estimates
Conejo.
an
maintenance
1212.
by the City would utilize
the following
facilities:
(1)
The existing
(2)
A proposed
(3)
Hill Canyon WWTP;
"flow control
and monitoring
located
within
Section
36, T2N, R20W, SBB&M; and
Proposed
station"
the SE l/4 of the NE l/4 of projected
diversion
facilities
on Conejo
-
Creek located
with the SE l/4 of the SE l/4 of projected
Section
32,
‘*
T2N, R 2OW, SBB&M.
0
-6-
i
The City's
proposed
have a maximum
the North
spill pad.
of Arroyo
The structure
miles upstream
of the City's proposed
structure,would
Conejo,
point
approximately
The water would
of
7
The
of diversion.
a channel which the City proposes
station.
across
of the confluence
divert the stream flow to one side where
small monitoring
would
to 75 feet,
would be built
Conejo just downstream
Fork and South Fork of Arroyo
pass through
station"
height of 4 feet and a length of-50
with a concrete
the channel
"flow control and monitoring
it would
to construct
then be returned
i'
and a
to
the stream.
2.3
Projects
The hearing
applications
proposed
notice
in Competing
identified
pending
by the City.
authorization
Table
Proposed
eight other water
The pending
applications
to divert water for irrigation
1.
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
0
right
before the SWRCB in the area of the project'
/,//
.
Applications
///
-7-
all request
as summarized
in
TABLE
Applications
1
Junior to Application
29408
(See Figure 1 fdr Application
Application Number
Name
and
of thg City
Locations)
(Staff
Quantity
(1) application
amount;
(2) existing
pump capacity
Source
1)
Requested
Diversion Season
2958i--Robert B. Lamb, et
al.
Conejo Creek
(1) 2.9 cfs
(2) 3.0 cfs
Jan. 1 - Dec. 31
29816--Fitzgerald Ranch
Conejo Creek
(1) 0.9 cfs
(2) 2.0 cfs
Jan. 1 - Dec. 31
29819--Sandra and Stanley
Goldberg
Conejo Creek
(1) 0.9 cfs
(2) 2.0'&fs
Jan. 1 - Dec. 31
29829--B-H Farms
Calleguas Creek
(1) 2.61 cfs
(2) 4.5 cfs
Jan. 1 - Dec. 31
29959--Lena M. Jones
Trust
Conejo Creek
(1) 0.71 cfs
(2) 0.7 cfs
Jan. 1 - Dec. 31
30037--Pacific Earth
Resources (aka Richard
Rogers, et al. or Pacific
Sod Farms)
Calleguas Creek
(1) 0.62 cfs
(2) 6.68 cfs
Jan. 1 - Dec. 31
30092--Sandra and Stanley
Goldberg
Conejo Creek
(1) 0.9 cfs &
5 af
(2) 0.9 cfs
Jan. 1 - Dec. 31
30194--Camrosa Water
District
Calleguas Creek
(1) 2.0 cfs &
200 af
(2) 1.4 cfs
Jan. 1 - Dec. 31
All of the above applications
Application
29408
applications
permits
were
filed to obtain
Creek
(Application
appropriative
is presently
for irrigation.
pumped
Water
District)
water
Creek and
The other two applications
describe
and Application
proposed
The City filed protests
are not now in operation.
right
from Conejo
29959 of the Lena M. Jones Trust
30194 of Camrosa
date than
Six of the above
filed by the City.
for water which
Calleguas
have a later filing
projects
against
which
each
P
of the applications
shown
in Table
1.
‘d
All of the pending
subject
applications,
to the separate
except
review process
-8-
for the City's,
are
for "minor protested
water
right applications"
section
pursuant
1345 et seq.
procedures,
In accordance
a field investigation
the applications
October
listed
28, 1992.l
the availability
of the staff analysis
on
and action
the SWRCB could
water
available
in the hearing
notice,
in this proceeding.
of each of the dompeting
in
until
of water to serve the applications
as an issue to be addressed
description
described
1 above was conducted
of unappropriated
As specified
appropriation.
Code
with the statutory
was held in abeyance
the quantity
of Water
of the projects
in Table
Preparation
on the applications
determine
to the provisions
for
the issue of
was included
A brief
applications
is provided
below.
Atoplication 29581 of Robert Lamb et al.
Appiication
Creek
for irrigation
Sections
14,
applicant
annual
29851 requests
15,
22,
requests
diversion
a right to divert
of a maximum
23,
27,
requested
of 652 acres within
and 28 within
a year-round
Application
29816 seeks a right to divert
and 28, T2N, Range
year-round
requested
The
SBB&M.
The maximum
Ranch
of 162 acres within
20 West,
projected
is 1,790 af.
29816 of Fitzgerald
for irrigation
T2N, R20W,
season of diversion.
Application
Creek
2.9 cfs from Conejo
SBB&M.
season of diversion.
0.9 cfs from Conejo
projected
The applicant
The maximum
annual
Sections
requests
26
a
diversion
is 650 af.
-. :
e
' The field investigation included all the applications listed in Table 1
except for Application 30194 which was filed after the field investigation
scheduled.
-9-
was
lication
Application
Creek
29819 of Stanley
and Sandra Goldberg
29819 seeks a right to divert 0.9 cfs from Conejo
for irrigation
of projected
of 125 acres within the NW l/4 of the NW l/4
Section
requests
a year-round
diversion
requested
pllcatlon
26, T20N, R26W, SBB&M.
season of diversion.
The applicant
The maximum
annual
is 650 af.
29829 of B-H Farm
Application
Creek
13,
29829 seeks a right to divert 2.6.1 cfs from Calleguas
I'
for irrigation of 200 acres within projected Sections 12,
and 14 all within
a year-round
requested
season
TlN, R21W, SBB&M.
of diversion.
The application
The maximum
29959
of
Application
29959
seeks a right to divert
Creek for irrigation
T2N, R20W,
SBB&M.
Lena
M.
Jones
Trust
The application
Application
30037 of Richard
Rogers
Application
30037 of Richard
Rogers,
Earth Resources,
Creek
annual
Section
seeks a year-round
The maximum
from Calleguas
0.71 cfs from Conejo
of 57 acres within projected
diversion.
Sections
diversion
is 1,419 af.
Application
Pacific
annual
requests
diversion
Elizabeth
reservoir.
from the stream
The application
and the maximum
annual
of 627 acres within
seeks a year-round
dra ad
Application
30092
requested
and
0.62 cfs
projected
Water
SBB&M.
regulatory
diversion
season
is 332 af.
Stanley Goldberg
seeks a right to divert
Creek for irrigation
is 513 af.
a right to divert
into an offstream
diversion
of
Davis Rogers,
15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 27 and 29, TlN, R21W,
will be pumped
season
et al.
Ltd. requests
for irrigation
requested
26,
0.9 cfs from Conejo
of 101 acres within projected
-lO-
Sections
24,
25, and 26, T2N, R20W, SBB&M.
stream
into a 5 af offstream
year-round
Water will be pumped
reservoir.
season of diversion,
from the
The application
seeks a
and the right to divert
5 afa to
.
storage.
'i
direct
The total annual quantity
diversion
of water
and storage portion
requested
under
of the application
the
is
468 af.
Application
30194 of Camrosa Water District
Application
30194 seeks a right to divert
Creek
to be used for irrigation
and 2, TlN, R21W, SBB&M.
storage
in existing
located
near Camarillo
discharged
0
300 af capacity
pipelines
treated
ponds,
the water
to direct
customers
diversion
applicationseeks
a year-round
diversion
of the application.
a season
year
of December
for diversion
diversion
portions
2.4
requested
of the application
Presently
12598
Cal-Cel
under the direct
Authorized
Marketing,
(Application
2
The
also seeks
1 of the succeeding
total annual
diversion
and the storage
is 1,445 af.
Diversion
Under
Inc. and Hiji Brothers
252.47) which authorizes
from Conej.0 Creek for irrigation.2
year-round
within
for the direct
The application
The maximum
via
Camrosa
ponds.
season of diversion
1 of each year to March
to storage.
is
located
rights,
seeks the right to store 200 af in the existing
portion
ponds
it will be rediverted
to agricultural
1
to offstream
effluent
After
State Hospital.
In addition
the District.
of 800 acres Iwithin Sections
Water will be pumped
into the effluent
distribution
2.0 cfs from Calleguas
season of diversion
Water
Right
have License
direct
diversion
The license
and a maximum
12'59c8:
of 0.82 cfs
authorizes
annual
a
diversion
License 12598 was formerly held by Gloria Petit Longo et al.
-ll-
License
of
306 af.
License
right on Conejo
3.0
PROTESTS
12598 is the only existing
Creek
notice
City's
of Water
proposed
Rights
application
initial public
CITY'S PROPOSED
PROJECT
of Water Rights originally
of the City's
Division
water
and its tributaries.
FILED AGAINST
The SWRCB Division
appropriative
project
accepted
provided
on March
11 protests
9, 1990.
of the project.
The
filed against
and waste water change petition
notice
public
the
following
the
The City subsequently
ii
revised
the proposed
describe
project
the proposed
described
2.2.
the Division
the City's Application
Petition
notice.
hearing
Several
Protest
The protest
(DFG) states
support
argues
of the protests
of wildlife
is critical
to the
The
accordingly.3
of Fish and Game
Department
of Fish and Game
Creek
and riparian
is rapidly being
and that maintenance
to the 1995
prior
Department
Creek, Calleguas
habitat
Change
below.4
filed by the California
that Conejo
of
Sod Farms was the
were dismissed
Filed by the California
that riparian
of the change
in response
were notified
are discussed
is
issued a "renotice"
Pacific
8, 1995.
to file a protest
a wide variety
California,
habitat
party
protests
receipt
to
project
29408 and Treated Waste Water
and those protestants
remaining
3.1
Following
of Water Rights
WW-6 on December
only additional
The revised
modifications.
in Section
petitions,
and filed change petitions
and Mugu Lagoon
lost in Southern
of the remaining
for fishery and wildlife
DFG
habitat.
riparian
resources.
The DFG
i
3
The reasons for dismissal of the affected protests were stated in letters
None of the parties whose protests were dismissed
to the protestants.
appeared at the hearing.
4
The protest originally filed by Carmel Camarillo Jones Estate was assumed
by Stanley, Sandra and Leroy Goldberg upon purchase of the Estate property.
-12-
protest
requests
that,
in addition
waste water which the City plans
.
the City be required
Conejo
Creek,which
groundwater
to bypass
to the 2'.0 cfs of treated
to provide
the water
is attributable
aquifer
within
the City,.storm
streamflow.
is not estimated
in the DFG protest,
instream
3.2
regarding
from Arroyo
to accretion
flow and natural
at the hearing
for instream
drainage
flows needed
of Fitzgerald
result
that approval
in disruption
seeks to appropriate
testimony
for protection
isthe
diversion
of
applications
under
in priority
On behalf
of the Lambs,
water
that a condition
the parcels
identified
and the Lambs,
be made available
diversion
Water
the protestants
insufficient
and Fitzgeralds,
be included
raised
require:
service
project
attorney
in any permit
in his clients'
for subsequent
agreements
and Fitzgeralds;
-13-
are
(1) the City to
to the three named protestants
of water by the City's
water
filed by the City.
District
in the water
Goldbergs,
the City
have also filed
the concerns
term would
to the Camrosa
farming
rights and that water
leave
29408
the Goldbergs,
The suggested
ongoing
but all the applications
water,
issued to the City to address
protests.
would
to Application
David Lamb proposed
riparian
The protestants
to appropriate
Stanley
of the City's project
same water which
for the City's project
in the stream system.
Ranch,
claim that the water which
current1.y use for irrigation
Camrosa
flows
and Sandra Goldberg,
to the protestants'
The protestants
operations.
Stanley
Ranch,
and Robert B. Lamb allege
provide
of these
return
uses.
The protests
junior
and
system
but DFG provided
Protests
Filed by or Assigned
to Fitzgerald
and Sandra Goldberg,
and Robert B. Lamb
would
Conejo
from the
The total quantity
minimum
uses,
use on
between
(2) that water
prior
to any
for use in other
areas.
The suggested
City's
project
diverted
suggested
provide
be measured
from Conejo
In response
water
term also provides
at the point where
a permit
the water
by the protestants,
term which.would:
(1) require
water
to Camrosa
for use on the parcels
service
agreements
between
measured
that the water diverted
upstream
For the reasons
control
and monitoring
be considered
proposed
a part of the project
farming
by including
City which
ensures
Camrosa
pursuant
Protests
protests
against
Application
rights.
Neither
protestant
dismissed.6
accordance
The SWRCB
(See Water
finds,
to avoid disruption
issued to the
are provided
Neither
protestant
water
by
agreements.
et al.)* and B-H Farms
presented
evidence
and, consequently,
Code section
1352.)
at the hearing
both protests
However,
in the hearing
holds an appropriative
-14-
filed
injury to riparian
water right permit
in
are
in
notice,
' As stated above, Richard Rogers et al., also filed Application
the name of Pacific Earth Resources.
6
of
and Fitzgerald
in any permit
29408 claiming
with the information
is
Sod Farms and B-H Farms
(Richard Rogers,
of their positions
the ‘flow
by the City should not
interest
to their water service
Sod Farms
support
8.3.3,
29408.
that the protestants
Pacific
be
on Conejo
for which any permit
a condition
Filed by Pacific
and
and monitoring
uses on the Lamb, Goldberg
properties
3
in the
for the City's project
"flow control
that it is in the public
the existing
identified
and the protestants;
stated in Section
station"
the City
i’
to the City on Application
however,
is
the City to
of the actual point of diversion
Creek.
issued
Camrosa
at the City's proposed
station,"
for the
Creek.
to the term suggested
(2)'provide
3.3
that water diverted
this
30037
or
under
license.
a
.
decision
Pacific
29829,
3.4
considers
the availability
of water
for appropriation
Sod Farms and B-H Farms under Applications
by
30037 and
respectively.
Protest
filed by Gloria Petit Longo et al.
1
A protest
Long0
against
the City's project
was filed by Gloria
et al. on the basis of potential
rights
held by the protestant
has been reassigned
The protest
was dismissed
any approval
Marketing,
water
12598.
License
would be subject
right under License
12598
Inc. and Hiji Brothers.
on March 27, 1996, on the basis
of the City's project
appropriative
injury to prior vested
under License
to Cal-eel
Petit
12598
that
to the prior
(Application
25274).
The City subsequently
a
modification
of the protest
that the City's
licensee
License
the protestant
dismissal
12598.
rights would be subject
However,
License
Rather
than referring
it is appropriate
Creek pursuant
to include a condition
subject
to the prior
right under License
The SWRCB conducted
evidence
a hearing
to resolve
right application
The hearing
notice
by the
right
or
is
12598.
AND WASTE WATER
issues concerning
the City's
change petition,
of water
identified
to by
CHANGE
on May 13 and 14, 1996, in order
and waste water
the availability
to
direct
in any permit
that the City's
HEARING ON WATER RIGHT APPLICATION
PETITION
regarding
right of the
to 0.912 cfs as proposed
issued to the City stating
receive
to the prior
12598 authorizes
license
a
term which would provide
of 0.82 cfs, rather than 0.912 cfs as referred
the City.
4.0
and suggested
to divert up to 0.912 cfs from Conejo
diversion
City,
contacted
for competing
and issues
applications.
15 key issues on which
-15-
water
interested
to
parties
were invited to present
quantification
from various
’
of the water
sources,
evidence.
in Conejo
'The issues
Creek and Calleguas
the effect of the City's project
legal users
of water,
the appropriate
water
among
competing
water users and applicants,
point
of measurement
potential
instream
and other public
waste
impacts of proposed
the City's proposed
water
necessary
to instream
relationship
between
local groundwater
beak)
City's
places
Thousand
of instream
trust resources,
the City's project
plant
intrusion
inflow
diverted
in
into
(saltmarsh
and consideration
of use for water
flows
the
and'seawater
the effect of freshwater
Pleasant
District
Goldbergs
of himself,
Quality
Valley
Control
bird's
of the
as part of the
of Calleguas
and Fitzgerald
The majority
the quantities
Calleguas
Creek, the proper
resources,
protection
and sources
of the evidence
on instream
the amount of instream
trust resources,
for potential
adverse
Lamb on
Water
presented
in Conejo
Creek and
among competing
and other public
flows needed
and possible
environmental
-16-
Robert
of water
Water
Lamb on behalf
Regional
of water
Water
Camrosa
David
Ranch;
distribution
of the project
of public
Municipal
attorney
DFG; and the Los Angeles
Board.
the effect
the SWRCB were the City of
County Water District,
concerned
measures
before
and the County of Ventura;
of the Lambs,
behalf
in the hearing
Oaks; representatives
District,
trust
on
project.
The participants
users,
dedication
in the area of Mugu Lagoon,
appropriate
by the City's
and monitoring
i'
of 2.0 cfs of treated
the health of an endangered
Mugu Lagoon,
the appropriate
"flow control
of public
basins,
of available
the need for and
uses, the quantity
for protection
Creek
on other
water diversions
trust resources,
of the City's proposed
station,"
distribution
for water to be diverted
project,
impacts
included:
for
mitigation
effects.
Sections
5.0 through
and the SWRCB's
5.4 below discuss
findings
and water
availability
presented
on other
groundwater
basins,
resources,
concerning
the City's
for competing
issues,
including
protection
to fish and wildlife
9.0.
The SWRCB's.conclusions
water
maintenance
are discussed
regarding
29408 and Waste Water Change Petition
Section
5.0
users.
dedication
in the record
proposed
projec't
The evidence
of the regional
of environmental
and the City's proposed
water
the evidence
and public
of treated
in Sections
approval
trust
waste
6.0 through
of Application
WW-6 are summarized
in
9.0.
WATER AVAILABILITY
Determining
the availability
City and competing
flow in Conejo
applicants
of water needed
public
trust uses.
aquifer,
City's
from the City's
waste water
groundwater
storm drainage
substantially
Metropolitan
prior
The quantity
aquifer
uses and other
Creek is composed
system,
WWTP,
Conejo
as the City's use of imported
discharge
and natural
of accretions
and the quantity
system entering
and the
groundwater
storm drainage
from the Hill Canyon
of
of the
rights,
of instream
2.2, the flow in Conejo
by the
the quantity
the sources
to the creek from the adjoining
flow from precipitation.
adjoining
examining
Creek,
for protection
in Section
water
of treated
for appropriation
and use of water under
amount
of accretions
requires
Creek and Calleguas
flow, the diversion
As discussed
of water
from the
of water
from the
Creek have increased
water
from
has increased.
The City's
application
seeks to appropriate
and return
flow from imported
water.
-17-
treated
Therefore,
waste Water
in determining
I
the amount
of water potentially
of the City's
quantity
proposed
available
project,
of flow in the stream
f.or diversion
it is helpful
attributable
as part
to examine
the
to each source.
.
Records
of water
of the historic
releases
from the Hill Canyon WWTP and records
flows can be used in evaluating
the amount
of
6
surface
flow in Conejo
from imported
Creek that is attributable
in determining
downstream
uses below
Conejo
to examine
the City's proposed
flow records
attributable
to various
satisfaction
of prior
5.1
the amount of flow available
Creek and Calleguas
Sections
5.1 through
sources
rights
point of diversion,
from several
Creek.
for
locations
The quantity
on
of water
and the quantity
and instream
it
needed
for
needs are addressed
in
5.2.3 below.
of Water
Sources
The sources
flow
water.'
Similarly,
is useful
to return
of water
applications
which are relevant
on Conejo
to the pending
Creek and Calleguas
Creek are discussed
below.
5.1.1
Discharge
From
Hill
Hill Canyon WWTP began
relatively
through
the facility
Project
7
Return
Waste
Water
waste water
in 1972 following
in treated
flows from imported
Plant
a
from 1960
of treated waste water produced
to the City by Metropolitan.
increase
Treatment
in 1960 but produced
of treated
The quantity
increased
water
The gradual
operating
small quantity
1971.
Canyon
delivery
at
of State Water
(City 6, p. 2-28.)
waste water discharges
from the
water
can enter the stream either as accretions
basin or as part of the discharge
storm drainage system.
to the stream from the adjoining groundwater
to the stream
from the City's
0
-18-
Hill Canyon WWTP over the last 15 years as reported
is shown below
by the City
in Table 2.
.
TABLE 2
2
HISTORIC
HILL
WVTP DISCHARGES
1984**
1985**
1986**
1987**
1988**
1989**
10,085
10,200
10,533
10,533
10,757
10,757
1990**
1991**
1992**
1993**
1994***
1995**'**
9,637
8,628
9,637
No Data
9,661
9,586
Table Notes:
*
Data obtained
**
Data obtained from City 31H. The graphic scale on this
exhibit is in million gallons per day (mgd). The data from the
to afa using the following conversion:
City's exhibit is converted
mgd x (3.07 af/day/l mgd) x 365 days/year.
AFA = 1tX1U
*t*
Data obtained
from City 2, p. 3-17.
**** Data obtained
from City 25, p. 136.
During
into the stream
that Conejo
Plan prepared
from the Hill
served to replenish
by Boyle Engineering
Creek was normally
However,
with continuous
1
discharges
the groundwater
A 1987 report on the San,ta Rosa Groundwater
Management
months.
pp. 2-26 and 2-27.
the early years of operation,
Canyon WWTP
basin.
from City 6,
Basin
Corporation
a dry stream during
the summer
by 1970, Conejo Creek was a perennial
flow.
(City 6, p. 2-15.)
-19-
Ventura
states
stream
County
installed
a gaging
have been recorded
Although
station
in October
since October
some of the discharge
infiltration
1968;' and year-round
1972.
(City 6, p. 2-15.)
continues
to the groundwater
basin
to be lost as
and evaporation,
1991 Final Environmental
Impact Report
approximately
of the discharge
75 percent
and enters
the Pleasant
The City's
application
appropriate
projected
output
increases
afa.
The RWQCB calculates
WWTP,
after
(City 21, NPDES permit,
prior
discharges
The Ventura
production
in Table 3.
capacity
of 15,010
of the Hill Canyon
The City will need to obtain
treatment
capacity
requires
waste water
plant
capacity
a
from
of 21.7 cfs in 1999.
that total treated
on a daily basis.
17.2 cfs, which equates
below
up to a maximum
County Public Works Agency
of treated
to
to be 14 mgd, or 21.7 cfs.
to expanding
be measured
.
downstream
water seeks a permit
the design
p. 2.)
permit
that
of the Hill Canyon WWTP and
18.6 cfs in 1995 to the projected
The City's present
(FEIR) estimates
continues
c
the City's
(City 1, Vol. 2, p. 4-17.)
in output
future expansion,
new NPDES permit
area.
to appropriate
the present
future
Valley
flows
waste water
(City 21, p. T-11.)
estimates
actual
at the facility
future
to increase
to
to 12,399 afa, by the year 2010 as shown
(City 25, Tables
4.4 and 4.5.)
I
I
TABLE
3
Hill Canyon WWTP Projected Output
Based Upon 1994 Ventura Public Works Agency
Report
All Values Converted Frbm MGD
To Either,CFS Or AFA
5
1995
Total Flow From
Domestic,
Commercial and
Industrial Uses
14.8 cfs
(10,734 afa)
2000
15.6 cfs
(11,292 afa)
2005
16.4 cfs
(11,835 afa)
2010
17.2 cfs
(12,399 afa)
’I
0
-2o-
The actual
Table
of treated waste water
2 was 9,586 af, or approximately
projected
the
amount
amount
actual
anticipated
The record
portion
of treated waste water
amount
due to water conservation
discharge
21.7 cfs future
capacity
water,
seeks to appropriate
is treated
waste
depends
upon the rate of discharge
water present
of waste water
the City's
discharge
in Application
proposes
to dedicate
wildlife
purposes
downstream
for diversion.
WTP
City
should
dedication
return
of the water which
Creek
to instream
Another
factor
criteria
any permit
The water
1212
treated
waste water
of
time
regulating
issued
WW-6,
of water
available
to account
use proposed
for fish and
Creek
be dedicated
from the HigUlL
for diversion
b,y the
for the 2.0 cfs
by the City.
for in determining
from the Hill Canyon
-21-
to the City.
the City
waste water
would
in the rate
and would not be avai.lab!Xe
the amount
to be accounted
the CiIty
at a specific
in Conejo Creek and in Calleguas
also, be adjusted
flow
The quantity
for variations
2.0 cfs of treated
is potentially
and
from the Hill Canyon WWTP.
29408 and Petition
Therefore,
which
amounts,
may be less than the
to appropriate
under
Code section
amount
plant.
when establishing
of the confluence.
to Water
from projected
to account
rate of diversion
the City.
that the actual
in Conejo
it is reasonable
Therefore,
within
waste water.
treated
X9.89,
is a significant
of the treatment
the majority
Since
3.
has been less than the
of treated waste water
the City also has applied
from imported
Canyon
less than. the
quantity
to the stream has varied
that future
pursuant
11 percent
shows that treated waste water
discharged
As stated
in 1995 from.
of lo,,734 af as shown in Table
of the flow in Conejo Creek,
Although
produced
the amount
WWTP which
is
Of
potentially
available
is the quantity
of discharge
attributable
flows downstream
the City's proposed
The City estimates
waste water
the point
Water
of diversion
l
from the
7 miles before
point of diversion
to the groundwater
the point
released
approximately
that an average
of diversion.
point
to channel losses between
and the point of diversion.
Hill Canyon WWTP
reaching
at the City's proposed
on Conejo
_
Creek.
loss of 1,370 afa of treated
basin occurs between
.
the WWTP and
(City 2, Vol. 2, pp. 24 and 25; T,
Vol. 1, 146:6-146:18.).
In addition,
the City calculates
that
i’
approximately
50 afa is lost due to evapotranspiration
the WWTP and the proposed
p. 4-22.)
equates
to an average
In summary,
rate of channel
the amount
Canyon WWTP which
of the rate of discharge
adjusted
for approximately
Runoff
Oaks
In addition
From
Use
to surface
City and deep percolation
elements
(1) and
Collectively,
imported
natural
water which
conditions.
proposed
Water
Within
water
runoff
from Conejo
and the
by the City.
City
of Thousand
Application
Creek which
from use of imported
of applied
water
can be classified
is
in the
(See flow
imported water.
in Section
is a
plant as
losses
of treated waste water,
(2) described
this water
for diversion
2.0 cfs in channel
of Imported
to diversion
from the Hill
from the treatment
to fish and wildlife
29408 seeks to appropriate
attributable
loss of 2.0 cfs.
available
function
5.1.2
1,420 afa which
of treated waste water
is potentially
2.0 cfs dedication
(City 1, Vol. 2,
point of diversion,
these losses total about
Together,
between
2.2 above).
as return
flow from
would not have been in the basin under
The return
flow from imported
water which
‘.
the City seeks to appropriate
collects
South Fork of Arroyo
The City asserts
Conejo.
-22-
in the North
Fork and
that the combined
average
rate of flow for this return
Section
404 permit
City estimates
application,
flow is 4.5 cfs.
In another
p. 5.)
that 1,954 afa is available
(City 24,
document,
the
in the South Fork
.
Arroyo
Conejo
and 940 afa in the North Fork Arroyo
this source.
(City 2, Vol. 2, Attachment
The City did not offer
stations
data.'
graphics
City Exhibit
somewhat
in April.
the City seeks to appropriate
of Arroyo
water,
Conejo
Mr. NUSS,
before
is attributable
purchased
from Metropolitan.
that the base flow present
quantity
present
to return
of return
throughout
The City's
water
the year in the North
tlcomposite data"
in its exhibits
data into evidence.
flow.
of summer
Project
in the summer months
flow from imported
and South Fork
flow from imported
planners
water
then assumed
represented
the
which would be
The City relied upon
and did not offer
In determining
flows
Fork and South Fork of
(T, Vol. I, 275:19-279:25.)
Conejo.
unappropriated
of State Water
on
"base flow" of 4 cfs
to natural
was based upon a comparison
and after importation
testifying
from the North
and none of it is attributable
This conclusion
Arroyo
based
of the City, stated that the combined
behalf
the City
upon composite
ii
the composite flows as nearly
31G depicts
increasing
constant,
for City measuring
Instead,
which were prepared
from
2, Table A.)
data
101, 102 and 103 as evidence.
submitted
which
its streamgage
Conejo
the quantity
water which may be available
its streamgage
of
for appropriation
by
.
8 In the City's Exhibit 3IA, Gary Nuss explained the method of preparation of
graphical exhibits 31D through 31H. Mr. Nuss did not, however, explain the
Consequently, the SWFXB is unable to
meaning of the term "composite data.“
ascertain whether composite data provides a true representation of the flows
from each source shown in the City's exhibits.
-23-
the City and the competing
USGS streamgage
5.1.3
Streamflow
Watershed
The record
Conejo
records
Highway
summarized
Attributable
contains
data
Creek/Calleguas
location
applicants,
The stations
101 near Camarillo
(3) Calleguas
Creek near Camarillo
Creek at Camarillo
discontinuous
record).
flow records
indicating
in Table
4.
summarized
stations
(See Figure
are:
a faulty gage.
.
Creek above
(2) Conejo
State Hospital
Creek
(USGS gage
(USGS gage 11105850);
and
‘(USGS gage 11106000,
All of the
(2) are zeros, possibly
Therefore,
The USGS streamgage
in the
2 for
(1) Conejo
(City 2, Vol. 2, p. 3-22.)
for station
_
The
(USGS gage ~1106500);
Si'mi near Simi
(5) Calleguas
monthly
Within
(USGS gage 11106400);
above Highway
(4) Arroyo
0
to Precipitation
from five USGS gaging
101 near Camarillo
the
in Table 4.
Creek watershed.
of stations).
11106550);
the SWRCB will utilize
the gage was not included
data for the other gages
is
below.
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
‘.
///
///
.
///
///
-24-
.
CONEJO CREEK ABOVE HIGRWAY 101
PERIOD OF RECORD:
1973-1983.
DRAINAGE AREA - 64 SQUARE MILES
.'
Ott
Nov
Dee
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
11
18
17
56
81
76
21
15
13
12
-t
Aug
Sept
13
15
2.
CREEK AT c~mg~Ifr~0 STATS :~OSPITAL
PERIOD' OF.RlkORD:
1969-i983
DRAINAGEA&EA
- 248 SQUARE MILES
CALLEG~AS
Ott
Nov
Dee
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July'
10
25
31
103
135
119
22
14
10
9.4
9.2
12
July
Aug
Sept
Sept
AW
3.
CALLEGTJAS CREEX AT CAMAkILLO
PERIOD OF RECORD:
1929-1958
DRAINAGE
ti.EA - 168 SQUARE MILES
Nov
Ott
0
)
0
Dee
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
1 ,0.2
1 3.3
) 4.4
) 1.7
1 8.9
June
May
1
0
)
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
ARROYO SIMI NEAKSIMI
1934-1983
PERIOD OF RECORD:
DRAINAGE
AREA - 71 SQUARE MILES
*
Ott
Nov
Dee
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
0.6
5.1
4.6
9.6
17
15
2.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.7
4.7
Data from USGS
In addition
usage,
to natural
the streamgage
water which
Staff 2.
runoff
Creek
and return flow from urban water
data in Table 4 includes
is discharged
the Calleguas
which
records,
by the waste water
stream
above
treatment
system above the specified
is not lost to diversions,
evapotranspiration
any treated
channel
the gages.
-26-
losses,
The quantity
waste
plants
into
gage and
or
of water
.
measured
by the gage does not include
presently
diverted
protestants
Conejo
Creek upstream
Ranch,
Lena M. Jones Trust, Stanley
Robert
Lamb.
The City's
farms in the vicinity
extract
City's proposed
proposed
diversion
water utilized
downstream
approximately
point.
divert
that
of the
(City 2, Vol. 1, p. 3-41.)
demands
downstream
works are 1,955 afa, totaling
of the proposed
and
the listed
1,700 afa upstream
that agricultural
for agricultural
from
Fitzgerald
(1996 FSEIR) estimates
(including
above
water
and Sandra Goldberg,
EIR
is
farmers
101 streamgage:
of Conejo Creek
diversion
FSEIR also estimates
presently
of the Highway
1996 Final Subsequent
protestants)
which
from the stream system by various
The following
the gages.
-
the quantity
purposes
diversion
of the
3,655 afa of
both upstream
works.
The
and
(City 2, Vol. 1,
P. 3-41.)
The runoff pattern
changing
land use practices
the agricultural
within
Camrosa
converted
parcels
has been subject
Water District
utilize
State Water
overlying
Project
projected
use
boundaries
has recently
systems.
(City 6, p. 2-16.)
water has increased
first became
Return
other
land use practices.
been
Basin,
available)
flow is-generated
1972
with importation
of
(the year when
to 1,300 afa in 1985, and
by runoff
-27-
Imported
over time on lands
to reach 2,400 afa by the year
27.)
Basin
(City 61, and the residential
from a low of 350 afa.in
water
Much of
water.
the Santa Rosa Groundwater
the Santa Rosa Groundwater
water ranging
imported
septic
over time due to
and use of imported
land overlying
to residential
to change
2015.
(City 6, p. 2-
from irrigation
and
Although
the record establishes
from imported
possible
water has increased
to determine
locations
which
its application
the overall
in recent years,
precipitation
flow from imported
to requesting
water.
flow at most
and that which
The City has limited
the right to divert
treated
and a "base flow" of 4.0 cfs which is attributable
return
flow from imported
appropriate
quantity
any water
of water
water.
that may be available.
SWRCB has not sought to define
5.1.4
treatment
in the Calleguas
vicinity
contribute
discharge
any water
of treated
system may contribute
waste
to
seek to
In determining
the
the
the source of the water.
facilities
System
shown below
Creek watershed,
of the City's proposed
ji
by those applicants,
Discharge
into Calleguas
Creek Stream
Waste Water Treatment
Facilities
The waste water
located
The other applications
for appropriation
flow
it is not
amount of measured
is due to in-basin
is due to return
water
that the amount of return
project
to the total quantity
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
-28-
5 are
and they do not
However,
waste water to the Calleguas
///
in Table
Other
but they are not in the
to the City's project.
for other purposes.
from
any
Creek stream
of water
available
TABLE
5
Treated
Waste Water Production
Camrosa,
Moorpark
(County Waterworks
District
No.
and Simi Valley County Sanitary
District
Per
1994
Ventura
All
to Either
Camrosa
WWTP
Agency
1
I
2.6 cfs
( 1,847 afa)
2.8 cfs
3.1 cfs
3.4 cfs
( 2,054 afa)
( 2,253 afa)
( 2,455 afa)
14.5 cfs
(10,512 afa)
15.8 cfs
(11,408 afa)
17.li'cfs
(12,357 afa)
18.4 cfs
(13,309 afa)
5.6 cfs
afa)
( 4,661 afa)
2000
4.0 cfs
4.8 cfs
into Arroyo
of Arroyo
Las Posas, thence Calleguas
discharge
is approximately
of Calleguas
2005
I
( 3,451 afa)
The Simi WWTP discharges
Simi, which
Creek.
Creek.
percolates
into the sandy stream channel.
(Staff l:WW-18,
The Moorpark
flow for a limited
distance
Creek,
of Calleguas
percolates
downstream
does not contribute
pattern
continues
and then
Flow in the Arroyo
of May through
October.
Table 4.)
of Calleguas
to late fall.
of
of the confluence
distance,
for the months
WWTP discharges
WWTP discharge
is a tributary
The discharge
as surface
Simi near Simi is minimal
6.4 cfs
The point
17.5 miles upstream
Creek and Conejo
2010
I
( 4,081
downstream
confluence
4.6)
1995
WWTP
tributary
Report
Values Converted
From MGD
CFS or AFA (City 25,Table
( 2,887 afa)
.
Works
I
Simi WWTP
Moorpark
Public
1)
into Arroyo
roughly
Las Posas, which
8.5 miles "upstream of the
Creek and Conejo Creek.
into the sandy stream
of the point of discharge.
any flow to Calleguas
The Moorpark
channel
Arroyo
a short
Los Posas
Creek from late spring
(City 1, Vol. 2, p. 4-16.)
is documented
is a
The intermittent
in the Draft EIR for the Arroyo
flow
Los Posas
I
Sediment
l:A29827,
Control
Project
and the City's
EIR.
June 1992 Draft EIR; City 1, Vol. 2, p. 4-17.)
-29-
---- .----.
1991 Final
___.-.__=_.
(Staff
Historically,
RWQCB
the Camrosa WWTP has not been authorized
to discharge
to the stream
purposes.
Water
from,the
to farmers
for irrigation
Camrosa
p. 2.)
appreciable
Therefore,
quantity
WWTP
except
either
sold
to groundwater.
1, Application
the Camrosa
of water
for emergency
is generally
use or discharged
(City 25, Vol. 2, p. 96; Staff
12-3-97,
system,
by the
30194,
letter dated
WWTP has not added any
to the instream
flows.
I’
The Camarillo
adjacent
to the Camarillo
and utilizes
12-3-93
WWTP discharges
the water
WWTP purchases
to irrigate
Camrosa
letter.)
contends
or use all of the effluent,
effluent
system,
generated
primarily
of approximately
into Conejo
by the plant
at night.
cfs to Conejo
500:15.)
which
Creek.
is generated
have submitted:
Camarillo
is discharged
Camrosa
(Staff l:A30194,
the quantity
by the treatment
(1) the actual
WWTP;' or (2) USGS streamgage
The City
average
of 3.2
and 498:4-
of unappropriated
facility,
discharge
to the creek.
letter.)
a monthly
II, 467:3-469:16
half of the
that an average
is abandoned
12-3-93
cannot take
to the stream
calculates
30194,
(T, Vol.
waste water
that the landowner
WWTP discharges
In order to verify
the treated
his lands.
2.3 cfs of effluent
the Camarillo
A landowner
and that approximately
(Staff 1, files on Application
estimates
Creek.
the parties
records
rec0rds.l'
water
could
for the
None of the
9
The Camarillo WWTP submits self-monitoring reports to the RWQCB, which are
The City provided data on monthly discharges from
available for inspection.
(City 1, Vol. 2, p. 4-18.)
the Camarillo WWTP to Conejo Creek only for 1989.
This data showed that discharges from the Camarillo WWTP varied from 1.5 cfs in
July to 4.8 cfs in December.
10
To determine the quantity of water contributed to the stream by the
Camarillo WWTP, the USGS records (Table 4) for Calleguas Creek at Camarillo
State Hospital would have to be analyzed and adjusted for the following
(1) treated waste water generated by Hill Canyon WWTP; (2) urban
factors:
runoff; and (3) existing diversions.
-3o-
‘.
I
a
parties
provided
discharged
evidence
on the quantity
by the Camarillo
WTP
which
of waste water
is lost to evaporation
and
seepage.
s
For the months
of May through October,
Table
4 documents
that the
‘,
flows
in Calleguas
Creek
are lower than flows in Conejo Creek upstream
confluence.ll
have helped
Creek downstream
of its confluence
If the flows had shown an increase,
document
the quantity
with Conejo
of the
that would
of flow contributed
by the
ii
Camarillo
there
WTP.
However,
is insufficient
of water
entering
based on the record
evidence
to determine
a
discharge
As discussed
diversion.
WTP,
Moorpark
water
to the surface
unknown
amount
of the City's
Section
habitat
,.
_.
.‘0
WTP
point of
shows that the Camrosa
contribute
flow in the stream
proposed
reaches
contributes
little or noat issue in this
a significant
the minimum
water
this proceeding,will
Camarillo.WTP,
DFG presented
from the Camarillo
flows necessary
and vegetation.
As discussed
point of diversion.
however,
discharged
unappropriated
WTP,
and the Simi WTP
in this
but
of water to Conejo Creek about one mile downstream
8.3.1 below,
that water
maintain
WTP,
quantity
WTP.
discussed
proposed
above, the record
The Camarillo
proceeding.
facilities
water above the City's
the SWRCB,
the specific
Conejo Creek from the Camarillo
None of the waste water treatment
section
before
WTP
for the applications
Moorpark
WTP,
to
of riparian
the determination
under
the output
suggesting
is needed
for protection
For these reasons,
not consider
testimony
in
consideration
of
in
from the Camrosa
or Simi WTP.
The
The Conejo Creek.Above Highway 101 drainage area is 64 square miles.
Calleguas Creek at Camarillo State Hospital drainage area is 248 square..miles',
Thus.,.the
or nearly four times as.large as the Conejo Creek drainage area.
winter runoff for these two drainage basins is not equivalent.
11
-31-
5.2
Water Needed
The amount
of water available
competing
satisfy
to Serve Prior
applicants
depends
prior water rights
and environmental
Rights
and
Other
for appropriation
Uses
by the City and
in part on the quantity
and the amount needed
purposes.-
needed
to
for public
trust
Each of these factors are discussed
below.
5.2.1
Water
Prior Appropriative
Right
License
Right Under License
12598
(Application
Marketing
and Hiji Brothers
diversion
of 0.82 cfs from Conejo
25274)" held by Cal-Cel
authorizes
year-round
diversion
permit
issued to the City should be conditioned
water
right under License
other
applicants
should
Riparian
Several
upon bypassing
any permits
of water upstream
upon protection
water
granted
to
of License
12598
of the prior right under
Rights
of the protestants
on alleged
provided
protested
injury to riparian
information
no monthly
basis,
Although
rights.
of water
"riparian
watercourses
and in waters
the protestants
they 'divert on an
water
rights exist only in natural
naturally
flowing
Chowchilla
therein."
(1933) 219 Cal. 1, 19; 25 P.2d 435, 442.
imported
from outside
imported
water
based
water use data was provided.
rule,
v. Martin
the City's application
on the quantity
As a general
Farms
3.4, any
of the prior appropriative
Similarly,
for diversion
in Section
12598.
5.2.2
annual
12598.
be conditioned
License
As discussed
for protection
direct
Creek, not to exceed a total
annual
sufficient
of 306 af.
12598
of the watershed
is not ordinarily
and return
available
-32-
Water
flow from
to riparian
diverters.
.
E. Clement
Horst
Co. v. New Blue Point Mining
Co.
(1918) 1.77 Cal.
631, 171 P. 417.
.
Although
Conejo
the Calleguas
Creek basin,
available
prior
record
for determining
had water
of water
minimal.
through
into the creek;
groundwater
Water
Waste
(2) return
The evidence
prior
to
shows that Calleguas Creek
i'
streamgage site during the months
The December
flow, however,
4, Station
Creek in recent years
(1) discharge
flows from surface
and within
(3) return
runoff
to applied
3.)
waste
imported
the boundaries
flow from groundwater
use by Camrosa
Waste water generated
customers
Santa Rosa Groundwater
and groundwater
Basin
is directed
water
of Camrosa
pumping
basins.
13
in the
from residential
pumpers
overlying
into septic
water
and
from urban water use in the City is treated
Hill Canyon WWTP.
was
is due to water
of treated
the Santa Rosa and Fox Canyon groundwater
water
the best
flow was present
Creek watershed
attributable
the City boundaries
and
Creek provide
from Metropolitan.
5.1.3 above, Table
sources:
accretions
District;
within
April.12
flow in Conejo
from the following
than the
from Metropolitan
(See Section
The continual
within
of water
in it at the Camarillo
of December
is larger
when natural
the flow in Calleguas
importation
basin
flow data for Calleguas
to the importation
regarding
0
Creek drainage
water
the
systems.
12
(See
State Water Proj.ect water has been available in this basin since 1972.
The City began discharging treated waste water into the Conejo
Section 5.1.2)
Creek stream system in 1960.
.
13
ReturnfFlow from groundwater pumping within the Pleasant Valley
Groundwater Basin is generally directed into Revolon Slough, which f.lows into
The locatkon where
Calleguas Creek a short distance upstream of Mugu Lagoon.
Revolon Slough outlets into Calleguas Creek is downstream of the water users
identified in this proceeding.
-
-33-
s
-
=
si
=
-=..
=.:
Camrosa
sewer
customers
systems
located
to dispose
elsewhere
of residential
The Santa Rosa Groundwater
water
levels prior
treated
basin began
reestablished
stable
would
rapidly
water,
Recovery
levels
Only a minimal
during
is natural
water users
discussed
the months
that the water available
quantity
diversion
imported
prior
levels were
the
flow of the
to the use of
flow.
water
Inclusion
from Conejo
by
of the
at the City's point of
to return
of these conditions
from infringing
and
Creek which
established
to a maximum
waste water available
April,
is minimal.
The conditions
plus up to 4.0 cfs attributed
by riparian
through
in December
limit the City's diversions
water.l'
the SWRCB concludes
of December
to divert
to natural
of treated
City's project
to the use of
for diversion
to riparians
The City does not propose
this decision
above,
flow available
only during
is attributable
if any,
in the City.
Based on the information
that there
was
relatively
of water,
to the surface
riparians
of
conditions
the SWRCB concludes
basin did not contribute
water
I
in
levels in the
have remained
basin prior
Consequently,
decline
of discharge
the period when groundwater
for use by the downstream
imported
to a rapid
the water
quantity
utilize
water.
to pre-overdraft
the groundwater
declining.
groundwater
stream
1970.14
have exited
imported
With initiation
by 1970 and water
since
waste
from Hill Canyon WWTP,
to recover.
the district
Basin was subject
to 1964.
waste water
within
upon riparian
flow from
will prevent
the
rights.
14 "Staff Report on the Water Supplies and Demands of Lands Within CamrOsa
Water District,"
Reports.
October
1992, page 17, Application
I.5
29408, Miscellaneous
The quantity of treated waste water available for diversion by the City
does not include the 2.0 cfs of treated waste water dedicated to fish and
wildlife pursuant to Water Code section 1212, nor does it include the amount
(Footnote continued next page)
-34-
5.2.3
Water
Needed
The environmental
affected
for Instream
and public
are discussed
2.0 cfs of treated
dedicate
in Section
trust uses.
8.3.1,
the record
minimum
bypass
diversion
In accordance
Analysis
Determining
requires
of Data
necessary
on Water
present
of water
of streamflow
determining
evidence
Creek
changes
in the Calleguas
the need for a
stream
in determining
for appropriation
for appropriation
records,
of public
and the quantity
trust values.
in water use and the sources
of water
complicate
present
of
In this
of water
the task of
for appropriation.
the sources of water
genera 1lY
data on existing
basis of right,
Creek watershed
the availability
regarding
1243 and the
Availability
for protection
extensive
instance,
is available
point of
applicants.
the availability
examination
and
and public
Code section
trust resources,
under which water
water uses under a recognized
water
proposed
of environmental
with Water
public
by the City and competing
a
of environmental
flow of 6.0 cfs must be taken into account
the conditions
5.3
will provide
in Sections 8.2.2 and
i'
proceeding establishes that a
for protection
duty to protect
to
as discussed
in the present
is needed
The
below.
the City proposes
for protection
However,
by competing
8.0 through.8.3.3
flow of 6.0 cfs at the City's
trust values.
SWRCB's
diversions
of fish and wildlife
of the water needed
public
and water
waste water which
to protection
portion
bypass
trust uses of water which could be
by the City's project
applicants
Flows
The
in the Calleguas
system and the use of water under prior
rights
is
of treated waste water lost to channel losses between the Hill Canyon WWTP and
The portion of the 4.0 cfs of water
the City's proposed point of diversion.
attributable to return flow from imported water which is available for
diversion by the City at a specific time will depend upon the amount of water
available from other sources to meet minimum bypass flow requirements.
-35-
discussed
water
in Sections
needed
Section
5.0 through
for protection
5.2.2 above.
The quantity
of instream uses is referred
5.2.3 and evaluated
in Sections
8.0 through
of
to in
8.3.2 below.
.
Appendix
water
I of this decision
in Conejo
Creek
from 1974 through
increasing
inherent
evaluation
of diversion
The calculations
gage
under
flows in Conejo
through
I is helpful
of unappropriated
assumed
in Appendix
the
and the
in
water
which
at the City's
proposed
conditions.
I begin with the monthly
Creek above Highway
The recorded
1988.
use,
serve to limit the
to be available
certain
reported
data
from past data!' Nevertheless,
quantity
be expected
in water
into the basin,
shown in Appendix
the average
can reasonably
changes
in precipitation,
of the data
of unappropriated
101 using streamflow
imported
that can be drawn
determining
point
Continuing
of water
variability
conclusions
above Highway
1988.
quantity
shows calculations
101 for the years
gage flows are then adjusted
1974
as
follows:
(1)
The measured
discharged
monthly
quantity
of treated waste water
from the Hill Canyon WWTP, minus
reflect
the average
channel
losses over that period,
measurement.
water
16
discharges
quantity
This removes
of treated waste water
is subtracted
regarding
lost to
from the gage
the effect of treated
from calculations
that may be available
2.0 cfs to
other
waste
water
for appropriation.
16
The amount of treated waste water which arrives at the point of diversion
is composed of the 2.0 cfs which the City has proposed to dedicate to instream
flow pursuant to Water Code section 1212 plus the remaining water available
for diversion by the City.
-36-
(2)
The quantity
of water needed to satisfy
0.82 cfs under
(3)
The estimated
License
After
adjusting
above three
the amount
WWTP,
of water
that would
is based
diverters
the resulting
flows to account
number provides
have been available
analysis
shown.
except
As discussed
upstream
channel
to dedicate
in Section
waste
to provide:
applicants
contracting
water
available
after accounting
for
losses and the 2.0 cfs which the City proposes
water
present
instream
(1)
at the point of diversion
flows in excess
dedication
section
(2) water which can be diverted
1212,
to its application
water,
junior
of treated waste water under Water
to appropriate
and
is available
of the 2.0 cfs provided
by the City's
applicants
5.3.2, the
to fish and wildlife.
The remaining
imported
of
and other uses
that the City, or those
at the point of diversion
for the
the Hill Canyon
for competing
with the City, will divert all the treated
for diversion
of the
an estimate
for divyrsion
of water availability
on the assumption
upstream
is added.17
from all sources,
in each of the months
SWRCB's
of water diverted
the reported monthly
factors,
right of
12598 is subtracted.
quantity
gage by unauthorized
the prior
by the City pursuant
4.0 cfs of return
(3) water which
Code
is available
flow from
for diversion
by
to the City.l'
17
.,
This decision
informs the parties diverting
water from Conejo Creek of the
SWRCB's findings
regarding
the months of the year when naturally
occurring
runoff is present
in the stream system for diversion
under riparian
rights.
The majority
of those diverters
have signed agreements
to purchase
water to be
we anticipate
that unauthorized
Therefore,
provided
by the City's project.
water use will be curtailed
and will be replaced
by use of water delivered
by
pipeline
to those diverters
under the City's water rights.
.
18
The figures
for unappropriated
water shown in Appendix
I reflect
the
assumption
that diversions
upstream
of the City‘s proposed
point of diversion
which occurred
during
the months of December
through April were pursua.nt to
Continued
diversions
by riparians
at historic
levels during
riparian
rights.
(Footnote continued next page)
-37-
Water
5.3.1
Availability
The City seeks
for
to appropriate
the City's
Application
treated waste water
discharged
the Hill Canyon WWTP and return flow from imported
quantity
of treated waste water produced
fluctuated
over the years
fluctuate
in the future.
losses
between
amount
to approximately
to dedicate
diversion
1212.
29408
The
water.
by the City has
(see Table 1) and will continue
As discussed
from
in Section
to
5.1.1, channel
the Hill Canyon WWTP and the point
of diversion
In addition,, the City proposes
II
2.0 cfs of treated waste water reaching the point of
2.0 cfs.
to fish and wildlife
Therefore,
for diversion
pursuant
to Water
Code section
the treated waste water potentially
at the City's proposed
point
available
of diversion
quantity
discharged
at the Hill Canyon WWTP minus
account
for channel
losses and the City's proposed
equals the
4.0 cfs to
dedication
to
fish and wildlife.
The City's
NPDES permit
water
discharged
water
right application
conditioned
requires
to the stream system.
upon the City limiting
to the rate of discharge
minus
a constant
divert
of treated
Any approval
and waste water change
water
Application
daily monitoring
as measured
of the City's
petition
its diversions
waste
should be
of treated
waste
at the Hill Canyon WWTP
flow of 4.0 cfs.
29408 also requests
4 .O cfslg of return
that the City receive
flow from imported
the December through April period would not be expected
estimates of unappropriated water shown in Appendix I.
19
water.
the right to
As discussed
to affect
the
The City estimates 1,954 afa is available from South Fork Arroyo Conejo and
This equals 2,894 afa
940 afa is available from North Fork Arroyo Conejo.
which
is
4.0
cfs
(2,894
afa
x
[(l
cfs/1.98 af/day x I
(241 af permonth),
year/365 day] = 4.0 cfs). The City asserts that urban return flow from use of
imported water is constant throughout the year (City 31A), but has not provided
(Footnote continued next page)
-38-
in Section
8.3.1,
requirement
*
for instream
6.0 cfs at the City's
amount,
.-)
the SWRCB concludes
to dedicate
section
1212, thereby
from other
sources.
to fully satisfy
of return
point,
flows and public
proposed
to instream
leaving
in order
request
Table
shows the percentage
water
6 below
Using
Creek over a 30-day period
reaching
the point
Code
4.0 cfs to be made up
for water
A flow of 8.0 cfs for a 30-day period
476 acre feet.
Conejo
to Water
the City
to be available
4.0 cfs
Creek at the proposed diversion
I'
waste water, must be 8.0 cfs or
for treated
approximately
is
for a right to divert
flow, the flow in Conejo
after deducting
greater.
use pursuant
flow
Of.this
waste water which
an additional
Therefore,
the City's
trust purposes
point of diversion.
2.0 cfs is made up of treated
proposes
that the total bypass
the figures
of months
equals
from Appendix
during
which
(after subtracting
of measurement)
flows in
treated
were within
I,
waste
a specified
range.
TABLE
Availability
(Not
Flow
6
of Unappropriated
Including Treated
Data From
Appendix
Water
in Conejo
Waste
Water)
I "Unappropriated
0 to 237
238 to 356
357 to
November lApril 30
18.9%
7.8%
May 1 to
October 31
37.8%
20%
Water*
,Creek
(AF)
476 to 594
>594
5.6%
6.7%
61.1%
15.5%
8.9%
17.8%
475
..
W
The SWRCB believes that it is likely that
evidence to support that conclusion.
less water is required for landscape irrigation during the winter months than
during the summer months and that it is reasonable to expect a commensurate
To some extent, however,
reduction in urban return flows during the winter.
any reduction in urban return flow reaching Conejo Creek during the winter
months would be offset by a reduction in the amount of channel losses for water
from'all sources.
-39-
As can be seen from Table
April,
monthly
exceeded
months
476 af approximately
only 27 percent
summarized
April period,
desired
bypass
requirements
bypass
approximately
Stated
water
of the time.
During
(not including
62 percent
period,
request
of water
proposed
requested
pumping
to be available
with reasonable
the November
waste water,
users.
basis,
flow requirement
through
for diversion
to reduce
groundwater
the
the City's
to diversion
of treated
to the City complying
and all other conditions
-4o-
months.
in this instance,
to approve
subject
will be
April
the remaining
Therefore,
4.0 cfs, in addition
on a year-round
with the bypass
primarily
that it is appropriate
to divert
the majority
4.0 cfs which the City requests
is intended
water
to be available
is made up of treated
two thirds of the time during
by existing
for
waste water)
however,
and there will be some water available
SWRCB concludes
request
is expected
project
only 27
appropriations
is expected
In this instance,
most of the time during
The proposed
up
flow
the 4.0 cfs needed
2.0 cfs from treated
about approving
The additional
approximately
to meet the
water to meet bypass
of water which the City seeks to appropriate
available
way,
of the time.
less than half the time.
certainty.
another
the May through
and the City's 4.0 cfs diversion
waste water which
of
and to allow the City to divert
there was sufficient
the quantity
in excess
476 af
to treated waste water diversions)
68 percent
The SWRCB is cautious
where
there was sufficient
of the time, but the flows exceeded
flows
For the
flows exceeded
of the time.
flow requirement
period,
of diversion
of the time.
the monthly
through
in Table 6 shows that, for the November
(in addition
approximately
percent
October,
62 percent
through
to 4.0 cfs
68 percent
point
of the time, but the flows were
238 af approximately
the analysis
of November
flows near the City's proposed
of May through
October
6, for the months
of this
.
decision.
sources
The SWRCB recognizes
other
that the full 4.0 cfs
than treated waste water)
for diversion
during
frequently
*
available
c
In summary,
the maximum
application
and waste water change petition
rate of diversion
allowed
under
the City's
will depend
from the Hill Canyon WWTP.
projected,capacity
for the Hill Canyon WWTP,
loss between
will not be
some months.
rate of discharge
go to channel
(from
upon the
Of the 21.7 cfs
2.0 cfs is a.ssumed to
the point of discharge
and the point of
;’
diversion.
An additional
2.0 cfs will be dedicated
by the City.
to fish and
wildlife
as proposed
capacity
of the Hill Canyon WWTP, the City will be able to divert
up to 17.7 cfs or approximately
discharge
waste
81.6 percent
from the plant, and approximately
water
reaching
the proposed
times when
there is sufficient
meet bypass
flow requirements,
to an additional
at the projected
Therefore,
of waste water
89.8 percent
point of diversion.
additional
of the
During
flow in the stream
to
the City will be able to divert
4.0 cfs attributable
to return
up
flow from imported
water.
In addition
point
to the treated waste water which
the data in Table
of diversion,
than 4.0 cfs from other sources.present
point
Adding
of diversion.
point
in a minimum
of diversion
4.0 cfs of water
it is desirable
public
from other
sources
to instream
to
use. will
proposed
under most conditions.
in Sections
to provide
8.0 through
a minimum
6.0 cfs at the City's point of diversion.
strong
is more
at the City's proposed
flow of 6.0 cfs below the City's
For the reasons-discussed
believes
the City's
6 show there usually
the 2.0 cfs of treated waste water dedicated
result
reaches
policy
considerations
-41-
8.3.2,
instream
However,
encouraging
the SWRCB
flow,of
there are-
the use of'
reclaimed
water
should be especially
reduce ground
interests
encouraged
water pumping
SWRCB concludes
water
(See Water Code section
water.
results
in allowing
cfs to account
proposes
diversion
for channel
to dedicate
to instream
of additional
balancing
water
The City's
from other sources
only when a total of 6.0 for instream
Y
its treated
WWTP
less 2.0 cfs which
uses.
the
of competing
from the Hill Canyon
losses,
it can help
In this instance,
the City to divert
at the rate of discharge
Use of reclaimed
in areas where
and overdraft.
that an appropriate
461.)
waste
less 2.0
the City
proposed
should
uses is' bypassed
be allowed
at the
City's point of diversion.
A final point regarding
the quantity
by the City concerns
appropriation
of the water
channel
proposed
point of diversion
proposes
to dedicate
to fish and wildlife.
diverted
and applied
to beneficial
City receives
point
above
for
the City's
the City
The amount
of water
use under any permit
29048 will not include
which
the
the channel
the Hill Canyon WWTP and the City's
nor will it include
of diversion,
dedicated
and the 2.0 cfs which
on Application
losses which occur between
losses
available
to fish and wildlife
the 2.0 cfs of water
under Waste Water
Change
Petition
WW-6.
Although
adjoining
the channel
groundwater
from numerous
storage
control
basin,
other streams.
supplement
Code Regs.,
losses may serve to help recharge
the
the same is true of channel
The City did not file an underground
as part of its water right application
tit. 23, § 7331, nor has it demonstrated
the quantity
losses
of water which exits the stream
-42-
(Cal.
how it could
channel
as
_
0
deep percolation.20
percolation
The quantity
of water
lost to deep
above the City's point of diversion
for appropriation
at the point of diversion
is not available
under Application
l
29408.
Similarly,
the 2.0 cfs which
to fish and wildlife
pursuant
the City proposes
to Water
Code section
to dedicate
1212 will not
I.
be considered
available
5.3.2
to be water appropriated
for appropriation
Water
The eight
Availability
located
water
of water
on Conejo
Water
below.
for
Junior
Applications
i'
filed with the SWRCB
in the vicinity
Creek and Calleguas
for appropriation
0
instream
flows and the quantity
of prior
rights.
pending
The analysis
junior applications
including
the number
locations
of proposed
of water
Conejo
involved,
points
of diversion,
and the yearly
the analysis
availability
in April,
availability
for the applications
the applications
significant
availability
evaluated
on Calleguas
additional
the different
below
considers
water
Creek separately
Creek during
applications
April,
on both streams
Counsel for the City specifically acknowleded that there is no [ground
(T, Vol._ 1, 150:5-150:6.)
water] recharge component to this project.
-43-
from
of
for April.
20
in
of water
Due to the absence
flow in Calleguas
sources
flow fluctuations
the exception
on Conejo
Creek.
for all the junior
jointly
With
factors
the different
and monthly
Creek.
for
for the
by several
involved,
only
for satisfaction
availability
is complicated
of applications
Creek and Calleguas
by these applicants
of water needed
of
is addressed
the 6.0 cfs needed
of water
are
The availability
Creek.
for diversion
when the flow in the stream exceeds
for
of the City's project
by the junior applicants
is available
it be
by any other party.
junior applications
appropriation
by the City, nor will
water
is
Availability of Water for Annlications on Coneio Creek
(Applications 29581. 29816. 29819, 29959 and 30092)
The best information
the availability
applicants
of water
on Conejo
and the analysis
Section
available
to the SWRCB for use in determining
for appropriation
Creek
is provided
of May through
(beyond the treated
divert)
only 27 percent
satisfy
the City's
October,
request
of the time.
right is expected
water
available
Creek
for the period
29819,
satisfying
of May 1 through
diversion
29959,
need
available
the City's
(from sources
City).
City's
Therefore,
to satisfy
approximately
October
to
31.
under Applications
Maintaining
375 af.
29408 for 4.0 cfs
(in addition
satisfying
the
to the 2.0 cfs
to fish and wildlife
by the
flow requirements,
29408 and the need
would require
a
only after
waste water) and
for instream
applicants
to
on Conejo
take approximately
right under Application
the
for water
a total of
850 af over a 30-day period.
The data in Appendix
April
water
less than
applications
requested
flows
dedicated
accounting
the junior
that,
of 4.0 cfs of
to be available
for these applicants
other than treated
in
Since the 4.0 cfs needed
demand under Application
waste water
prior
for diversion
and 30092 is 6.31 cfs.
for 4.0 cfs for instream
of treated
there is sufficient
I
that there is insufficient
flow of 6.31 cfs for 30 days would
would-be
in Table 6 indicate
to serve later priority
The total rate of direct
As discussed
waste water which the City proposes
half the time, the SWRCB concludes
Water
by the data in Appendix
the data presented
to meet the City's
29582,' 29816,
by the junior
of that data shown in Table 6.
5.3.1 above,
for the period
water
available
0
30 period,
I show that, during
850 af is available
-44-
the November
approximately
1 to
50 percent
of
the time.*l
The unappropriated
water
figures
are calculated
using gage flows in Conejo
101.
flows reflect existing
The gage
claim by three of the applicants
Goldberg).
Thus, a portion
Applications
being
29582,
diverted
"unappropriated
April.22
Since there is no evidence
riparian
Ranch,
and
to be appropriated
and 30092
in determining
for the months
I
Creek above Highway
(Lamb, Fitzgerald
29816, 29819, 29959,
water"
in Appendix
water use under
of the water
and was subtracted
shown
of
under
is already
the amount
December
of
through
that the Lambs,
Fitzgerald
i’
Ranch,
or Goldbergs
winter
months,
applicants
on Conejo
Examination
Conejo
indicated
regarding
appropriation
explained
below
April,
claims
Applications
on Calleguas
29816,
30.
of water
to satisfy
proposed
Creek
water available
diversions
(Applications
I and the
claim on
available
29819,
However,
as
availability
under
The data
in April
under the earlier
during
downstream
demands
for
indicate
of most years
applications
29581, 29816, and 29819),
for downstream.riparian
for
29959,
Creek makes water unavailable
29959 and 30092 during April.
is sufficient
accounting
is water
for water to serve diversions
that there
Conejo
through April
1
in the discussion
the demand
riparian
29582,
the
I.
under riparian
that there
under Applications
from November
to exceed
flow data used in Appendix
indicate
and 30092
for the junior
by data from Appendix
current diversions
would
of water
Creek would be expected
of the monthly
Creek,
their water use in the
the actual availability
50th percentile
evidence
intend to increase
on
even after
on Calleguas
Creek.
.
21
.
The need for water to satisfy the prior right to 0.82 cfs under License
12598 was taken into account in determining the "unappropriated water" figures
in Appendix I.
22 Based on the quantities of water requested in their applications, the
Lambs, Fitzgerald Ranch, and the Goldbergs may have been diverting up to 4.7
cfs of the 6.31 cfs requested by the junior applicants on Conejo Creek.
-45-
Availabilitv of Water for Appllcatlons on Calleauas
(Applications 29829. 30037. and 30194)
Applications
diversion
30037, and 30194 request
29829,
rate of 5.23 cfs from Calleguas
Creek
a combined
Creek.
direct
The flow data
.
summarized
through
the average
October,
confluence
Creek
with Conejo
above Highway
higher
that, during
in Table 4 indicate
flow in Calleguas
of May
Creek below
the
Creek is less than the flow in Conejo
during
Therefore,
101.
flows that may have been present
the confluence
the months
Fhose months,
in Calleguas
any
Creek above
with Conejo Creek appear to have been diverted
upstream.
As discussed
in Section
information
Creek
indicates
through
27 percent
the City's
of the time during
almost entirely
to satisfy
the time during
the City's application
water available
on Calleguas
Creek during
indicate
exceed
that average
to approve
the months
of November
through
normally
above,
be water
of May
of May through
flows in Calleguas
the available
available
is
October.
Creek at Station
for the pending
is
applications
the data in Table
data indicate
-46-
is
that there
the junior
March,
29408
much less than half
the flows in Conejo Creek by between
discussed
in Conejo
Since water
the SWRCB concludes
those months,
flow
in Table 4, it appears
by Conejo Creek.
insufficient
For the months
the months
Creek during those months
that the flow in Calleguas
available
water
request under Application
Based on the information
October.
contributed
of the available
that there is sufficient
to fully satisfy
only about
5.3.1, our analysis
4
2
7 cfs and 54 cfs.
that there
applications
should
on
As
Conejo
Creek
for the months
of the significantly
Of the confluence
through
March,
with Cone30
under
for the months
through
flows in Calleguas
Creek during
the SWRCB concludes
for appropriation
Creek
higher
of November
the pending
of December
water
is
applications
through
Availability of Water Durincr April
Conejo Creek and Calleauas Creek
Creek downstream
the months
that there
In view
March.23
of November
available
on Calleguas
March.
for Junior Applications
on
I'
Due to the higher
November
through
availability
the Conejo
reported
Calleguas
March,
Creek applications
April,
monthly
Creek downstream
Creek is the primary
demands
on both Conejo
it is appropriate
applications
The flows
an average
The estimated
claims on Calleguas
riparian
for those months.
of water
4 indicates
demand
of water
water
calculations
based on evidence
the
almost
that
(or 59 af)
is 163 af.
to meet
Creek
availability
in
for
for the month of April.
can be determined
under
through
in the record.
23
from
to meet riparian
of the confluence
for appropriation
in question
1 cfs
Creek and Calleguas
jointly
applications
is provided
of about
source
to examine
on both creeks
The availability
that during April,
Table
of
water
separately
Creek inflow.
Creek contributes
Since Conejo
to evaluate
Creek below the confluence
from Conejo
the months
Creek applications
indicate
in Table 4, however,
during April.
Creek during
it was possible
of the Calleguas
flow in Calleguas
entirely
flows in Calleguas
the
a series
of
The calculations
The additional
flow in Calleguas
Creek during
the months of November
through March is more than sufficient
to meet the 5.23 combined
direct
During
December
diversion
rate under Applications
29829, 30037 and 30194.
Creek is also more than sufficient
to
through March, the flow in Calleguas
meet an estimated
demand
of 163 af per month for identified
diversions-under
riparian
claim.
-47-
begin with the unappropriated
Appendix
The unappropriated
I.
Appendix. I are then adjusted
the City's
demand
inflow
The quantity
factors
water
of water
available
is used to determine
of the calculations
is expected
indicate
April.
20 percent
The analysis
water
described
applicants
requesting
available
in diversions
appropriations,
rights.
the SWRCB concludes
for diversion
29819,should
include
30092 would
to conclude
30092,
on Applications
that
during April
29581,
The
29816,
and
for the
claim and the proposed
that the season of water
under Applications
the month of April.
-48-
30194
and 30194.
After accounting
under riparian
availability
only
of the time.
for appropriation
29959, 30037,
permits
29819 also claim riparian
overlap
of the years
of the time; and Application
only 7 percent
29829,
29581,
29959 and 30037 would be
above leads the SWRCB
is not ordinarily
under Applications
47 percent
of the time; Application
13 percent
be fully satisfied
the month of April.
29829 would be fully satisfied
of the time; Applications
for
that Applications
during
would
to be available
during
and 29819 would be fully satisfied
be fully satisfied
for the pending
the
under each application
fully satisfied
for those
for each year to determine
29816,
27 percent
59 af.
The
that water
Application
and the
by date of,,filing.
are performed
The results
to meet
flow
demands,
water availability
calculations
appropriation
riparian
after accounting
in order of priority
of years
shown in
for water needed
Creek of approximately
applications
percentage
shown in
for April
29408, instream
downstream
from Calleguas
for April
figures
to account
under Application
estimated
requirements,
additional
water numbers
29581,
29816,
and
Summary of Conclusions
Applications
Regarding
Based on the evidence
above,
in the record
the SWRCB concludes
permits
granted
include
the period
diversion
30037,
on Applications
March
right permit
In this instance,
29829, 29959,
the evidence
intending
on the pending
applications.
The SWRCB's
pending
Applications
SWRCB
29408,
evaluated
all available
of Mugu Lagoon
the next revision
reason
that there is
the applications
of
this decision
October
The record
flow requirements
through
31 from the
-49-
before
establishes
specified
existing
the
thtit,
in this
rights and the
ordinarily
Creek stream
will consume
system upstream
October.
in this decision,
of the Declaration
issued
Listing
for the applications
in this decision
for caution
under any permits
and 29819,
flow in the Calleguas
Based on our findings
in flow
establish
of water under
during April
wide variations
to fully satisfy
proceeding.
the instream
time.
Streams
1 through
that
at a particular
With the exception
of April
the diversion
applications
water
1
of a water
no guarantee
an additional
season of diversion
after meeting
decision,
regarding
29581, 29816,
in.the present
theiissuance
provides
in this decision
the SWRCB.
the period
authorized
the period November
instances,
to divert
water available
before
excludes
include
of Fully Appropriated
findings
insufficient
April
to the permittee
to storms provides
Declaration
29816, and 29819 should
issued on Applications
by any parties
5.4
for any
The season of
on these applications
water will be available
in response
29581,
1 through
As in other
31.
described
30.
November
for any permits
and the analysis
for Junior
that the season of diversion
30092, and 30194 should
through
Water Availability
the SWRCB concludes
of Fully Appropriated
that
Streams
should
include
of Mugu Lagoon,
should
the City,
located
include April
Creek
stream
1 through
-.
Camrosa,
authorization
about 400 feet upgradient
previously
advised
files on Application
29408,
factors,
the City has,
for diversion
There
letter dated 3-20-96.)
diversion
water
of evidence
and delivery
of use for water diverted
(SWRCB 1,
City boundaries.
and deliver
In the absence
Application
(T,
WWTP.
in the file indicates
and other
water within
City would use to divert
proposed
the City is
of the Hill Canyon
in the 'record of specific
boundaries.
water within
SWRCB staff that the City does not presently
to use project
evidence
to use project
Correspondence
I, 304:19-305:4.)
BY CITY
The land with&n
and PCVWD.
that, due to cost considerations
place
upstream
with hydraulic
during which the Calleguas
PLACE OF USE FOR WATER APPROPRIATED
intend
system
31.
The City has requested
Vol.
Creek stream
all tributaries
is fully appropriated
October
6.0
including
The period
continuity.
system
the Calleguas
facilities
of water
City
facilities
to that area,
under any permit
29408 should not include
that the
for use within
of the specific
is no
the
issued on
the land within
City
boundaries.
The City also owns land located
the boundaries
of Camrosa.
4-95 engineered
map provided
drawings
owned parcels.
indicates
(Staff 1, files on Application
and a-30-95
letter.)
(Staff 1, files on Application
The change petition
that the City plans to utilize
of the
one of the City-
29408,
4-95
filed by the City
1,440 afa to irrigate
(Staff 1, files on Application
-5o-
29408,
As shown on the
and Conejo Creek flows through
drawings.)
these lands.
of the City limits within
by the City, the land is located downgradient
Hill Canyon WWTP,
engineered
outside
29408,
6-12-95
a
change petition.)
developing
would
4
The City is exploring
a regional
include
a golf
recreational
the feasibility
of
facil ity at the site which
course and equestrian
trails.
(T, Vol.
I,
136:10-136:21.)
:-
The City has not yet determined
specific
type of diversion
proposed
regional
136:4-139:19.)
environmental
regional
the absence
diversion
In addition,
documentation
of more specific
facilities
needed
facility.
required
information
exclude
lands in Camrosa
the diversion
facilities
are available,
that the
information
to add a point
of diversion
The places
29408.
29408 approved
in this decision
Pleasant
Water District
and the Camrosa
District,
County
excluding
about
facility
of use for Application
Valley
to be
the completed
to serve the proposed
of use under Application
the
29408 should
When
and more specific
needed
evaluating
which are proposed
facility.
the City can petition
and amend its place
document
under Application
recreational
In
about the proposed
the SWRCB concludes
diverted
documentation
the
(T, Vol. I, 136:22-137:12.)
facility,
environmental
I,
under CEQA for the proposed
place of use for,water
used for the regional
to serve the
(T, Vol.
and an environmental
the City-owned
or the
the City has not,,yet produced
facility.
impacts of the proposed
a
facilities
recreational
recreational
the rate of diversion
the land owned by the City within
are the
Water
Sections
24
and 25, T2N, R20W, SBB&M.
7.0
MAINTENANCE
OF REGIONAL
GROUNDWATER
BASINS
Y
The three groundwater
Oxnard
Plain Basin,
basins within
the Pleasant
the project
Valley
area are the
Basin and the Santa Rosa
.
Basin.
As noted
overpumping
!a
occurs
in Section
is a primary
2.0, seawater
concern
in the Point Mugu area.
in this area.
-51-
from
Seawater
(City 25, p- 161.1
I
I
intrusion
intrusion
In addition
to
seawater
intrusion
issues, groundwater
pumping
overdraft
of some of the local groundwater
The upper
aquifer
Oxnard
in the Oxnard
and Mugu aquifers.
not underlie
basin
system
the Pleasant
is separated
folding
which
The confined
water-bearing
overdraft
condition.
Fox Canyon Aquifer
Basin,
existing
As discussed
was in a state of overdraft
treated
1975 groundwater
in the vicinity
in Section
until
to oversee
Canyon
Valley
pumpers
their pumpage
a 5 percent
prove
the groundwater
and North
GMA instituted
requires
reductions
of drilling
(City 9,
to be in an
reduction
Agency
may not be required.
in areas
(GMA) was
of the Oxnard
Plain,
(City 25, p. 159.)
reduction
ordinance
GMA boundaries
over the next 25 years,
efficiency
new wells
system.
the Fox Canyon
by 1992.
a
5.1.1, the Santa Rosa Basin
basins
Las Posas.
by 25 percent
levels showed
and north of the City
Management
an extraction
within
an irrigation
by
the City began discharging
waste water into the stream
Pleasant
The
is i+he most important
and it is believed
In 1982, the Fox Canyon Groundwater
formed
barriers.
do
(City 9, p. 67.)
Valley
cone of depression
of Camarillo.
(City 9, p. 67.)
act as groundwater
zone in the basin,
In the Pleasant
systems
from the Las Posas and Santa Rosa Basins
and faulting
Pm 67.)
by the
and Mugu Aquifer
Basin.
in
basins.
Plain is'defined
The Oxnard
Valley
has resulted
(City 25, p. 164.)
of 80-percent
subject
to seawater
which
to reduce
beginning
If users
efficiency,
The plan includes
The Fox
with
can
then
a prohibition
intrusion.
(City 25, p. 168.)
The record
establishes
area are subject
that the groundwater
to significant
impacts
-52-
basins
in the project
due to the levels of
ongoing
pumping.
The City's project
these groundwater
Pleasant
Conejo
Valley
basins
by affecting
and Oxnard
and Calleguas
Creeks
(City 2, Vol. 2, p. 3-40.)
primary
objective
recaptured
Camrosa
imported
to
flows are reduced.
is to utilize
Ventura
that the
reclaimed
for irrigation
water and local groundwater
in the
adjacent
The City has indicated
water
to impact
recharge
immediately
as instream
and PVCWD to help alleviate
imported
groundwater
Plain areas
of its project
foreign
has the potential
and
of lands within
County's
supplies,.
reliance
on
(City 2, Vol.
1,
P- 2-4.)
The RWQCB
staff requests
into consideration
purpose
rather
that any permit
the need to utilize
of regulating
than putting
and modifying
approval
of the City's project
a reduction
to or greater
existing
of groundwater
of water
are presently
basins.
to numerous
by an amount
1B,
Creek
equal
for
from the City's
irrigated;
(RWQCB 1,
any
manner:
and
(3) require
for the Calleguas
In this instance., water developed
the
(RWQCB 1.)
from Conejo
project
Plain groundwater
or increasing
pumping
(2) limit use of water
a water balance
pumping,
that the SWRCB condition
the City's project;
City to develop
for the
groundwater
in the following
than the diversion
lands which
water
in production.
the RWQCB staff requests
(1) require
project
new lands into production
use of water on lands currently
Therefore,
issued to the City take
the
and Oxnard
and 2.)
by the City's project
water users who will be utilizing
water
will go
from both
l
ground
water and surface
different
controls
source of supply.
agriculture
water
supplies
based on the particular
ongoing
In addition,
to urban uses affect
from the City's project
shifts
in land use from
reclaimed
Finally,
the SWRCB
is in demand.
-53-
to
place of use and the
the area where
0
I
which are subject
water
recognizes
that much of the land within
Plain groundwater
basins
is outside
of the City's
The SWRCB
agrees with the RWQCB staff's
the water
developed
alleviate
existing
overall
supply problems
and water users
in combination
project,
place
water
City's
project
Although
the number
with land use patterys
make it infeasible
of water
in the proposed
in the manner
staff,
to condition
requested
version
of Standard
it is important
Permit
by the RWQCB
that any water
Inclusion
the permittee
to develop
proposed
to consult
and implement
such further
time as may be allowed
In this instance,
conjunction
with Camrosa
diverted
adequacy
the required
under
take into consideration
appropriated
by
Term
water use.
with the Division
within
of Water
The
plan.
one year or
for good cause shown.
plan should be developed
in
and PVCWD and should cover all use of
Application
of the City's
recommended
right permit
efficient
for approval
of the
staff.
a water conservation
plan is to be submitted
of
of a modified
Term 29 in any water
to the City will help to promote
29B requires
approval
to impose the requirements
the City be used very efficiently.
water
than to increase
involved with the City's proposed
the SWRCB declines
by the RWQCB
Rights
that
of use and the City's lack of control over areas outside
City boundaries,
issued
of ensuring
is used to help
rather
However,
and Oxnard
control.
objective
by the City's project
water use in the area.
suppliers
the Calleguas
29408.
water conservation
In reviewing
the
plan, the SWRCB will
the extent to which water use within
the
E
permittee's
irrigation
place of use conforms
efficiency
standard
to the overall
applicable
80 percent
to lands within
the FOX
i
Canyon
GMA and the extent
to which the City, Camrosa,
and PVCWD
l
-54-
have adopted
efficient
8.0
and are complying
water management
ENVIRONMENTAL
In evaluating
AND PUBLIC TRUST
project,
trust
8.1
presented
issues
Under
CEQA,
preparation
(FEIR) for the proposed
EIR
(City 1 and 3A.)
(1)
of water;
compelled
impacts
responsible
documents
for the
which evaluate
of the project.
In November
and certified
it in January
project,
Subsequent
to certification
with
respect
the City to prepare
in April
allocation
for various
in the projected
a Final Subsequent
and physical
by
include:
distribution
and
of the project;
available
24
to the proposed
The changes
authorities
aspects
of the 1991
1996, which was certified
(City 2 and 38A.1
(2) shifts in financial
(3) reduction
8.3.3 below.
Impact Report
in the proposed
responsibilities
Act
a Final Environmental
(FSEIR) for the project
changes
8.1 through
environmental
of changes occurred
the City in May 1996.
Quality
21000 et seq.) and other
ii
The environmental and public
in Sections
environmental
proj.ect which
pursuant
Code section
of appropriate
FEIR, a number
prepared
CEQA
the City completed
1992.
the information
Environmental
at the hearing.
With
trust issues regarding
documents
the City is the lead agency
the potential
1991,
and public
of the California
are evaluated
Compliance
standa-rds for
ISSUES
the SWRCB reviewed
("CEQA," Public Resources
accepted
in California.24
in the City's environmental
to the provisions
evidence
practices
the environmental
the proposed
presented
with widely
supply
of treated
waste
the efforts
of the Department
of
SWRCB Resolution
No. 97-018 endorsed
Water Resources
in developing
a memorandum
of.understanding
regarding
efficient
water management
practices
by agricultural
water suppliers
(MOU).
A
relevant
,factor in the ShQCB's
review of the City's water conservation
plan
and PVCWD have agreed to abide by the water
will be whether
the City, Camrosa,
management
practices
established
in the MOU.
-55-
water;
(4) relocation
Conejo
Creek Diversion
(5) revisions
California
Project
of the Ventura
Regional
information
of the proposed
Water
(CCDP) diversion
Quality
Control
species.
into the 1996 FSEIR.
for the
structure;
County Water Management
on special-status
were incorporated
point of diversion
Plan and the
Plan; and
Portions
(6) new
of the 1991 FEIR
(City 2, Vol. 1, pp. S-l
& l-l to l-4; City 2, Vol. 2, pp. S-l; T, Vol.
II, 333:11-334:20;
and City 34A, pp. l-2.)
ii
The 1996 FSEIR recognizes
and appurtenant
further
facilities
supplemental
diversion
was circulated
had not yet been finalized
CEQA documents
of water under
& 2-3 to 2-4.)
that the design of the diversion
the project.
In February
by Camrosa
and that
prior
SWRCB takes official
1996, a draft negative
declaration
for the Conejo Creek Diversion
Camrosa
adopted
diversion
that, subsequent
notice
a final mitigated
structure
May 23, 1996 Final Mitigated
proposed
"flow control
along Arroyo
proposed
Negative
1989, the City adopted
In August
Project
Conejo approximately
stated purpose
and measurement
downstream
declaration
Declaration
for the
Camrosa
for the CCDP.)
declaration
station"
for its
to be installed
7 miles upstream
of the City's
(City 7, City 27A, p. 6; City 32A.1
for this facility
of the water
of the confluence
The
to the hearing,
(Staff 1, A29408,
a negative
and monitoring
point of diversion.
The City's
negative
on May 23, 1996.
to
(City 2, Vol. 1, pp. l-3,
(City 16; City 27A, p. 7; T, Vol. I, 54:20-55:7.)
(CCDP).
Arroyo
would be required
works
is to provide
in the stream channel
control
at a location
of the North and South Forks of
Conejo.
The SWRCB is a responsible
(Cal. Code. Regs.,
agency
for the project
tit. 14, § 15381.)
-56-
under
In this capacity,
CEQA.
the
,.
SWRCB must review
documents
d
and consider
together
the above-described
with other information
its own conclusions
(Cal. Code. Regs.,
regarding
approval
of the proposed
SWRCB must make the applicable
findings
each significant
impact
Regs.,
mitigation
those parts
decides
8.2
The SWRCB
tit. 14, § 15091.)
requiring
of significant
of the project
to approve.
subject
significant
which
environmental
the City proposes
environmental
related
impacts
impacts
various
to the diversion
required
(Cal. Code
impacts
for
of
which
it
tit. 14, § 15096(g).)
Mitigation
Documents
identify
Measures
a number
of the proposed
measures.
from Conejo
are
of
project
by the City which
of water
the
under CEQA for
is also responsible
mitigation
identified
project.
to its jurisdiction
documents
to reach
appropriate,
identified.
(Cal. Code Regs.,
environmental
Where
environmental
Environmental
Impacts
for Which
Proposed
in the EIR and Related
The City's
in the record
tit. 14, § 15098(a).)
environmental
environmental
for
The
are directly
Creek are discussed
below.
8.2.1
Impacts
on Water
Quality
Both the 1996 FSEIR and the 1996 final mitigated
for the Conejo Creek diversion
declaration
construction
"
associated
and appurtenant
facilities
adverse
on downstream
impacts
Calleguas
#
activities
Creek,
sedimentation.
According
(1) increase
in turbidity
in Conejo
due to soil erosion
include
that may exceed
for the Calleguas
Control
quality
Plan;
-57-
structure
Creek,
and
negative
the following:
water
Creek watershed
(2) physical
state that
short-term
to the 1996 final mitigated
these impacts would
Water Quality
with the diversion
water
declaration,
objectives
structure
may cause significant
and Mugu Lagoon
negative
quality
in the 1994 Regional
adverse
effects
on
beneficial
uses related
(3) reduction
in light penetration
productivity
fish;
which,
invertebrates;
and
within
Staff
which
wildlife.
which
implemented
Control
jointly
(1)
complete
construction
vegetation
removed
preparation
Water
trapped
fish and
runoff
offstream
areas where
to become
fills of nonerosive
upon completion
reestablished;
materials
of construction;
from steep erodible
potential;
and
silt catchment
to
of rock, rip-rap,
in disturbed
be expected
of temporary
District
than is necessary
(2) placement
materials
and
the following
of no more vegetation
stable areas of low erosion
Vol.
previously
Plan be developed
includes
operations;
to divert
use of temporary
wildlife
the 1996 FSEIR proposes
Municipal
which
reasonably
immediately
impacts,
and Revegetation
protection
cannot
'(3) installation
problem
for the CCDP, pp. 21-23.)
by Calleguas
removal
or other erosion
siltation
29408, Camrosa May 23, 1996 Final
Declaration
(Calleguas MWD) and Camrosa
measures:
and benthic
may be toxic to downstream
for such potential
that an Erosion
for
(City 2, Vol. 2, pp. S-3 50 S-4 & 72-73;
Negative
To mitigate
food supply
loss of saltmarsh
of pollutants
1, files on Application
Mitigated
which may reduce primary
of the existing
is causing
(6) mobilization
the sediment
aquatic
and wetlands;
of fish eggs and larvae,
(5) exacerbation
in Mugu Lagoon,
habitat
in turn, may reduce plankton
(4) smothering
habitat;
to fisheries
(4) site
surfaces
to
(5) installation
basins.
to be
and
(City 2,
2, pp. S-3 to S-4 & 72-73.)
Although
the 1996 final mitigated
diversion
structure
acknowledges
impacts of construction
negative
the potential
on downstream
include
the specific
mitigation
FSEIR.
The 1996 fina 1 mitigated
declaration
negative
-58-
significant
water quality,
measures
for the
identified
it does not
in the 1996
declarat .ion only
mentions
planned
project
4
would
construction
rerouting
CCDP,
of surface
as being sufficient
May 23, 1996 Final Mitigated
Calleguas
MWD, to develop and implement
mitigation
measures
Plan which
identified
inclusion
of this condition,
diversion
structure
significant
8.2.2
result
Creek,
in the reduction
which will eliminate
(pools and riffles)
to populations
marmorata
pallida).
southwestern
the point
significant
impact.
Species
of Special
Service
(USFWS).
amount
pond turtle
significant
The southwestern
pond
(Clemmys
losses to
are expected
FSEIR
of open water
marsh habitat
of the southwestern
The City's
diversion
flows in lower Conejo
downstream
classifies
turtle
of
this as a
is listed as a
Concern by DFG and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
(City 2, Vol. 1, pp. 3-49, 3-57 & 3-64; City 2,
2, pp. S-4, 87, 94-95 & 103; T, Vol.
356:18-356:21,
water
should not cause
project's
freshwater
pond turtle populations
of diversion.
With
Turtles
a significant
As a result,
and
quality.
of surface
and emergent
important
Vol.
Pond
a
the specific
facilities
impacts on water
for the
Erosion
of the proposed
to the 1996 FSEIR, the proposed
According
will
a satisfactory
construction
on Southwestern
with Camrosa
includes
29408,
contains
in the City's,ZL996 FSEIR.
and appurtenant
adverse
Impacts
Declaration
the City, in cooperation
requiring
and Revegetation
such impacts
this decision
condition
Control
to ensure
Negative
In view of the above,
21-23.)
flow during
(Staff 1, files on Application
not be significant.
Camrosa
:a
temporary
II, 337:16-338:6,
430:21-432:7.)
f
In the 1996 FSEIR,
the City proposes
to mitigate
for the
"
significant
impact of the project
and their habitat,
measures.
on southwestern
with two distinct
The first measure
types of mitigation
is maintenance
0
-59-
pond turtles
of minimum
surface
flows downstream
mitigation
habitat
of the point of diversion.
measure
is improvement
throughout
of the point
measures
are evaluated
.
Maintenance
.
beneficial
uses
is expected
Creek
marsh
including
mitigation
to provide
a guaranteed
(1,460 afa) which would bypass
(riparian
of this minimum
and wetland
of
be to
for instream
habitat maintenance)
a minimum
for approximately
the point of diversion
the point
flow would
level of protection
the City's proposal,
to occur
system,
These proposed
the City proposes
but minimal,
Under
downstream.
freshwater
Flow
Surface
The stated purpose
a stable,
proposed
below.
flow of 2 cfs
diversion.
provide
of diversion.
of Mlnlmum
In the 1996 FSEIR,
minimum
of emergent
the Conejo-Calleguas
upstream
The second
flow of 2 cfs
reach between
a one-mile
and the Camarillo
outfall.
WWTP discharge
(City 2, Vol. 2, pp. S-l, 57, 60, 62, 80, 90 and 91.1
At the Camarillo
discharge
WWTP discharge
of 3.2 cfs of treated
flow in the stream channel
The 1996 FSEIR considers
higher degree
outfall
is of particular
center of distribution
southwestern
because
observed
The City's
assumption
Conejo Creek
from the Camarillo
conflicts
with other
evidence
currently
sells a portion
of the
WWTP
it occurs
concentration
(City 2, Vol.
consultants.
and 89-91.)
downstream
in lower Conejo
near
the
of
Creek by the
2, pp. 62, 87
that the future
WWTP will be about
discharge
to
3.2 cfs
in the record that Camarillo
of its treated waste water
-6O-
a
uses
of the Camarillo
of the' largest
pond turtles
City's environmental
maintenance)
importance
2, p. 90.)
inflow as providing
for instream beneficial
The location
a
the minimum
(City 2, Vol.
to 5.2 cfs.
habitat
WWTP outfall.
the City expects
waste water to raise
the additional
of protection
(riparian and wetland
Camarillo
outfall,
WWTP
to a nearby
irrigator.
(See Section
5.1.4)
the Camarillo
WWTP discharge,
environmental
impacts
measures
to address
that the Camarillo
water
to Conejo
Preservation
diversion
Section
the City's
and development
those impacts
of sufficient
the instream
at the point
Although
provides
proposed
Testimony
consistent
with the conclusion
diversion
habitat.
(T, Vol.
absence
improvement
turtle
program
habitat
increase
for protection
their riparian
25
flow level
would
reduce
flows,
flows than
a minimum
is
flow of
the impact of the
pond turtles
and their
433:6-434:19.)
fully compensate
of the southwestern
In the
a habitat
for loss of
the SWRCB concludes
flow of 6.0 cfs at the City's point of diversion
provided
below the
instream
that the City has developed
at lower flows,
the DFG
instream
that providing
flow
for
of the City's witnesses
II, pp. 337:16-337:25;
that would
in
less than the current
on southwestern
of a showing
Under
the minimum
6:0 cfs at the point of diversion
proposed
of diversion
for greater
the DFG recommendation
on
that a minimum
and wildlife.
flow would
project
As discussed
testimony
by DFG is substantially
by the City.
05~the
and their habitat.
habitat
WWTP outfall.
of the point of
impacts
DFG presented
of riparian
recommended
mitigation
3.2 cfs of treated waste
flows downstream
of 6.0 cfs should be provided
Camarillo
of
are based on the assumption
to minimize
pond turtles
recommendation,
assessment
control
Creek.
8.3.1 below,
protection
the City cannot
of proposed
WWTP will discharge
is necessary
southwestern
Although
that a ,minimum
should be
pond turtles
and
habitat.25
The relationship
between
in Section
7.3.1 below.
flows
and
other
-61-
riparian
resources
is addressed
Improvement
of Open Water and Emergent
The 1996 FSEIR proposes
improvements
open water
freshwater
and emergent
for the expected
developing
and implementing
be carried
County
(pools and riffles)
areas
elsewhere
program.to
program
their habitat;
and
amount,
program
approval
It would
marsh
a net
suitable
of bullfrogs
to
new
of
which
of a
the effectiveness
loss of turtles
and implementation
such as increasing
measures,
(2)
expected
(4) implementation
in preventing
habitat
and implementation
to evaluate
(5) development
mitigation
of
and
of
the minimum
if a net loss of turtles or their habitat
(City 2, Vol. 2, pp. S-4 to S-6, 21-22,
detected.
(Ventura
of new or more open
to safer areas where
and eggs;
monitoring
the mitigation
flow bypass
District
from habitat
reduce populations
prey on turtle hatchlings
additional
with Camrosa,
Creek watershed;
(3) development
has been created;
for
improvements
freshwater
pond turtles
by the project
comprehensive
(1) creation
in the Conejo-Calleguas
be jeopardized
habitat
program
would reiceive prior
and emergent
of southwestern
an effective
A mitigation
Flood Control
elements:
water
habitat
pond turtle habitat
in cooperation
program
of
to compensate
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
the following
relocation
County
The mitigation
from DFG, USFWS,
include
and quality
the specific
out by the City,
MWD and Ventura
FCD) .
in the amount
loss of southwestern
of the point of diversion.
Calleguas
Marsh Habitat
marsh habitat
downstream
would
Freshwater
is
26, and
94-97.)
Except
plan
for the proposed
identified
City provides
above.
bullfrog
control plan,
in the 1996 FSEIR and subsequently
very little
detail
developed
assehrt that a detailed
in subsequent
adopted
on the plan elements
The 1996 FSEIR and testimony
the hearing
the mitigation
outlined
from the City's witnesses
mitigation
CEQA documents
-62-
by the
plan will be
prepared
by Camrosa
for
at
c
the CCDP.
(City 2, Vol. 2, pp. 94 and 95; T, Vol.
II, 433:1.4-
434:19.)
However,
Camrosa's
the CCDP, adopted
mitigation
1996 final mitigated
after the SWRCB hearing,
for impacts
of the point
construction
prevent
entrainment
Further,
Camrosa's
negative
declaration
offset
habitat
addressed
diversion
of the diversion
response
states
not as part of Camrosa's
intake.
on the draft
measures
to
flow should be
for the City's
construction
of the
response
C, pp. 5-10; T, Vol.
Staff 1, files on Application
May 23, 1996 Final Mitigated
to April
Negative
Declaration
22, 1996 comments
to May 16, 1996 comments
response
surface
to
'(City 2, Vol. 2, pp. S-4 to S-6, 21-22,
387:7-38a.:i1, 399:21-400:24;
CCDP, 29-31,
comments
that mitigation
87, 94-97; City 38B, p. 1 and Exhibit
Camrosa
of habitat
at the diversion
the water right process
facilities.
dealt with
facility, and measures
to the City's
clearly
impacts
disturbance
of aquatic wildlife
on
flows downstream
The only potential
with a short-term
declaration
does not address
with reduced
losses due to reduced
during
application,
associated
of diversion.
are those associated
during
negative
II,
29408,
for the
from DFG and
from CH2MHill/City
of Thousand
Oaks.)
The record
shows that both the City and Camrosa
need for additional
measures
but ne.ither appear to accept
habitat,
.
mitigation
developing
and undertaking
discussed
above, establishes
to offset
those measures.
habitat
program
this decision
construction
requires
of diversion
and
that the.
Consequently,
to the commencement
works and prior
-63-
mitigation
to ensure
will be successful.
that, prior
for
The evidence
that more specific
need to be identified
the
loss of turtle
responsibility
monitoring: measures
improvement
acknowledge
of
to any diversion
of
water at the point of diversion,
Calleguas
Camrosa,
implement
MWD and Ventura
a detailed
overall
project,
A plan,
acceptable
habitat
improvements
pond turtles
Calleguas
reduce
their habitat
8.3
Other
impacts
issues regarding
that the City has not proposed
measures
for these
Regardless
have under
consider
resources
[189 Cal.Rptr.
3461.)
v. Superior
Similarily,
interest
the water
mitigation
obligation
for the
where
Court
to
on public
trust
feasible.
(1983) 33 Cal.3d
Water Code section
as will best develop,
DFG
the City or others may
the SWRCB to allow water appropriations
and conditions
public
Society
or
of the
documents
water diversions
those resources
impacts
below,
adequate
CEQA, the SWRCB has an independent
(National Audubon
directs
potential
of any responsibility
and to protect
pond turtles
of Fish and Game
in the environmental
the effect of proposed
together
in this decision,
As discussed
trust resources.
Creek or
levels.
Issues Raised by the Department
impacts
Conejo
to southwestern
contends
project.
Conejo,
establis$ed
to less than significant
on public
above.
that proposed
of these conditions,
flow requirements
several
outlined
for no net loss of southwestern
in Arroyo
Implementation
and
plan for the
the elements
to the SWRCB, must ensure
identified
The DFG raised
project
and monitoring
will provide
with
County FCD, shall develop
incorporates
or their habitat
with the instream
should
mitigation
which
Creek.
the City, in cooperation
conserve,
under
419,
1253
such terms
and utilize
in the
sought to be appropriated.26
26
The City argues that, due to the presence of imported water in Conejo
Creek, the public trust doctrine should not be relied upon as a basis for
establishing conditions for protection of fish, wildlife and other instream
However, counsel for the City concedes that there
resources in this instance.
is independent statutory authority for protection of fish, wildlife and other
environmental resources under Water Code section 1243, Water Code section.
1253, and Fish and Game Code section 5937. Although the SWRCB does not
necessarily agree with the limitations on the public trust doctrine suggested
by the City, the SWRCB agrees that the statutes cited by the City (and other
(Footnote
continued next page)
-64-
8.3.1
Impacts
on Riparian
The DFG has consistently
that it considers
.-
downstream
DFG biologist
minimum
minimum
riparian
minimum
as being
habitat
testified
(USDI) report
by any biological
bypass
evidence.
flow of 6.0 cfs be required
and that 9.2 cfs be required
Camarillo
WWTP outfall.
WWTP.
of water
consideration
flows needed
consultant
that the proposed
from a 1980 U.S.
DFG recommends
at the point
that a
of
discharge
of 3.2 cfs from the Camarillo
it was more concerned
about
the
in the stream than the source of water.
it appears
to determining
to protect
Dawn Nilson,
environmental
documents,
to recommend
an instream
vegetation
it supports.
takes
environmental
with the project,
to
The latter- flow recommendation
1, files on Application
lengthy
insufficient
of the
29408, and WW-6; DFG 96-4,
Pa 2-4; DFG 96-5; T, Vol. II, 467:3-469:16
Despite
flow of
at the location
the DFG explained
However,
quantity
(Staff
the expected
staff
recommen,dation that was not
diversion
into account
bypass
and the wildlife
flow of 2.0 cfs was derived
of Interior
substantiated
both the City and SWRCB
of diversion
Ms. Morgan Wehtje
bypass
Department
advised
the City's proposed
2.0 cfs at the point
protect
Habitat
and wildlife
documents
and 498:4-500:15.)
prepared
in connection
that the City gave little
the appropriate
public
level of instream
Environmental
trust resources.
who supervised
testified
preparation
of the City's
that her firm was never
flow level to protect
in the project
asked
the existing
area, nor did her firm
.
*
established
statutes)
provide
sufficent
legal authority
for the conditions
and other environmental
this decision
for protection
of fish, wildlife
it is not necessary
to resolve
the dispute
over the
Therefore,
resources.
limits of public trust authority
in order for the SWRCB to allow for
appropriation
of water by the City on the conditions
established
in this
decision.
e
-65-
by
ever evaluate
minimum
Vol.
the environmental
instream
flows than what was proposed
II, 430:11-430:19.)
City consultant
that the 2.0 cfs minimum
a 1981 report
prepared
(T, Vol.
information
be achieved
from
Project
a flow of 2.0 cfs for
habitat
along Conejo
Creek.
basis
Their assignment
the proposed
bypass
habitat
contended
the environmental
that the proposed
reduction
the width
stream channel
cause a decrease
Dr. Freas
emergent
marsh
increase
in the amount
willows)
that depend
necessarily
of woody
there would be a shift
flow.
which,
freshwater
that could be
to be offset
vegetation
in available
-66-
riparian
in
by an
(dominated by
on shallow groundwater,
Dr. Freas concluded
in
in turn,
that this reduction
is expected
riparian
flow
lead to a reduction
downstream
explained
habitat
primarily
on surface
would
(dominated by cattails)
further
fish and
in surface
in the amount of nonwoody
marsh vegetation
that
II, 377:12-378:7.)
(T, Vol.
of the active
of the
levels and that she has never
of diversion
freshwater
impacts
Dr. Freas testified
to 2.0 cfs at the point
supported.
were to evaluate.
flow of 2.0 cfs would not maintain
that it would.
to
that the
consultants
flow.
at pre-project
Dr. Freas testified
was intended
of the 2.0 cfs flow was not an
was to evaluate
bypass
flow of 2.0 cfs
habitat
Dr. Freas testified
environmental
2.0 cfs minimum
instream
of riparian
for the adequacy
issue that the City's
on the scientific
the proposed
of protection
by this flow.
biological
emergent
was derived
County Water Management
was provided
used to determine
or what degree
would
(T,
I, 283:15-285:24.)
rationale
wildlife
by the City.
flow proposal
riparian
0
level of
Mr. Gary Nuss testified
The report.proposed
of maintaining
No additional
proposed
instream
on the Ventura
by the USDI.
the purpose
effects of a higher
not
that although
habitat
from the
.
-.
a
non-woody
freshwater
emergent
marsh type to the woody
type, there would be no net loss of riparian/wetland
overall.
w
She also stated that channel
storm events
of Ventura
i*
proposed
quality
and the channel
County
359:22-361:10,
and 450:11-451:18;
minimum
freshwater
diversion
vegetation
riparian/wetland
habitat
species
may be replaced
downstream
supported
habitats
387~3-388~11,
establish
(pools and riffles)
available
emergent
by Ms. Wehtje
concerned
with minimizing
water and freshwater
the 1996
freshwater
marsh
of diversion.
that DFG is particularly
marsh habitats
(T, Vol.
flow
in the amount
the type of loss of available
emergent
caused by the project.
habitat,
losses
and emergent
indicates
marsh
that the proposed
-downstream of the point
Testimony
important
of the point of
with woody riparian
testimony
that a
by that habitat.
to 2.0 cfs will cause substantial
of open water
(T, Vol. II,
to protect
open water and freshwater
FEIR and Dr. Freas'
reduction
than the
the amount and
382:6-384:8,
flow of 2.0 cfs is adequate
existing
factors
activities
by the City does not establish
or the wildlife
Although
and maintenance
available.
378:1-7,
by extreme
City 33A, pp. 4-7.)
presented
bypass
habitat
habitat
caused
in terms of determining
of riparian/wetland
The evidence
clearing
FCD may be more important
flow reduction,
351:5-356:4,
scour
riparian
which
open
could be
II, 494:22-500:15;
DFG 96-4,
PP. l-4.)
Both the City and DFG appear to agree that mitigation
.
potential
actions
.
on riparian
to prevent
existing
discussed
a
impacts
trust resources
or substantially
reduce
and freshwater
emergent
open water
in Section
City undertake
public
8.2.2 above,
specific
-67-
will require
any net loss of
marsh
this decision
mitigation
of
and monitoring
habitats.
requires
As
that the
measures
to
prevent
a net loss of southwestern
These mitigation
resources
measures
dependant
pond turtles
should also help protect
upon the same type of riparian
at this time, the specific
However,
or‘their
mitigation
habitat.
other wildlife
habitat.
measures
which
the
City or others plan to take to prevent
a net loss of open water
and freshwater
have not been identified
emergent
and the likelihood
marsh habitats
of success of those measures
0
*
".
cannot be
evaluated.
0
Neither
amount
the City nor DFG has done any detailed
of instream
riparian
flow that should be provided
and instream
diversion,
adversely
"[nlegative
for western
less water...."
DFG presented
nearby
and shorebirds.
the project
western
in the morning,
testimony
The stream
system also provide
(DFG 96-4, p. 2.)
flocks of wading
later in the day.
discussed
that the variety
area support
toad.
within
in
by dive,rting
amphibians
corridors
a movement
-68-
system
and that the area
songbirds,
After
foraging
in
and shorebirds
(DFG 96-4, p. I.)
southwestern
of instream
pond turtle,
habitats
in
such as the tree frog and
of the Calleguas
corridor
The DFG testimony
stream
and wintering
(DFG 96-4, p.1.)
to the previously
DFG presented
reduction
Creek
of wildlife
for migrating
move to the creek bottoms
In addition
fish
composition
could be minimized
that the Calleguas
for many species
important
fields
species
reduced
that
(City 2, Vol. 2, p. S-8.)
habitat
waterfowl,
flow of 2.0 cfs would
and a potential
pond turtles
testimony
is extremely
of the proposed
including
plant and animal
CreekIs],
to protect
The City acknowledges
of the project,
altered
Conejo and Calleguas
provides
downstream
those resources.
impacts
populations,
habitat
resources
but both agree that a minimum
affect
study of the
for mammalian
concludes
Creek stream
species.
that a reduction
0’
of flows to 2.0 cfs below the City's
"remove most
*
supporting
if not all functioning
SWPT
Other wildlife
96-4, p. 2.)
i*
redwing
and yellowheaded
and snipe.
Based
surrounding
point
a minimum
bypass
habitat,
instream
of comparable
In addition
include
rail
public
instream
in
flows
that the SWRCB
flow of 6.0 cfs at the City's proposed
staff of the RWQCB
dated 5-17-95
instream
recommend
beneficial
uses
providing
to DFG.
and 12-8-95.)
trust resources
of instream
in the
rip;,rian habitat
DFG recommends
to the SWRCB's duty under
consideration
resources
flows at a 'level satisfactory
(RWQCB lB, letters
provided
be displaced
trust
In order to protect
of diversion.
to protect
(DFG
the Sora rail, Virginia
of public
the point of diversion,
minimum
the public
where
feasible,
flows is subject
trust doctrine
our
to statutory
guidance
in the Fish and Game Code. Fish and Game Code section
2780 provides,
in part:
"Protection,
enhancement,
and restoration
habitat
and fisheries
quality
of life in California.
population
i
which would
habitat
and waterfowl."
and the need for continued
areas,
and wetland
.,
pond turtle]
would
(DFG 96-4, p.2.)
area, the scarcity
establish
of diversion
pool/riffle
blackbird,
on DFG's evaluation
project
below
[southwestern
point
increases,
are vital
to maintaining
the
As the state's
human
there is an urgent
protect
the rapidly disappearing
support
California's
unique
wildlife
and varied
resources.N
-69-
of wildlife
need to
habitats
wildlife
that
More specifically,
Fish and Game Code section
the owner
of a dam bypass
condition
any fish that exist or may be planted
Under
sufficient
5937 requires
Fish and Game Code section
include
wild
fish, mollusks,
water to maintain
0’
that
in good
below
the dam.
45, "fish" are .defined to
crustaceans,
invertebrates,
and
.
amphibians.
Based on the record
reasonable'to
City's
public
in Section
considerations
flows below
natural
the point
of allowing
any permits
Creek or Calleguas
should be subject
by DFG.
there are strong
the use of reclaimed
the SWRCB believes
that the City's
more than 2.0 cfs of treated
the 6.0 cfs needed
for instream
The remaining
of diversion
flow or return
exception
as recommended
supporting
of diversion.
will normally
the City's diversion
Creek
diversion
be provided
instream
by
With the
of treated
of water
issued on the pending
to a minimum
flows
4.0 cfs for instream
flow from imported water.
authorizing
that it is
flow of 6.0 cfs at the
5.3.1 above,
to provide
for meeting
the point
bypass
of diversion
not be required
waste water
water,
point
In this instance,
should
us, the SWRCB concludes
a minimum
as discussed
policy
water.
below
provide
proposed
However,
before
waste
from Conejo
applications
flow requirement
of
6.0 cfs.
Under present
diversion
will be augmented
approximately
no control
concludes
maintain
Camarillo
instream
the flow below the City's
conditions,
by flow from the Camarillo
one mile downstream.
However,
over inflow
from the Camarillo
that it would
not be reasonable
an instream
point
of
WWTP
since the City has
WWTP,
the SWRCB
to require
the City to
flow in Conejo Creek of 9.2 cfs at the
WWTP outflow
as recommended
flow requirement
established
by DFG.
The 6.0 cfs
in this decision
is based
-7o--
_.
.--
on the record
developed
before
If evidence
the SWRCB at this time.
at a future time which demonstrates
this requirement
instream
is appropriate,
flow requirement
is
that revision
the SWRCB can revise
of
the
at that time in the exercise
of its
continuing, authority.
8.3.2
Impacts
DFG biologist
on Endangered
beak
(Cordylanthus
state-listed
and federally-listed
annual
occupies
Lagoon,
germinates
through
spring
stated
plans
Ms. Meyer bases
freshwater
surface
during'the
spring
reductions
prepared
surface
or inhibit
salinity
flows from
6, 1985 recovery
by the USFWS
(1985 USFWS
flows into Mugu Lagoon
and summer growing
growth
additional
should
relationships
show there would
mitigation
such impacts.
-71-
(1) the City
showing
that such
its recovery;
be impacts,
(T, Vol.11,
in
water/groundwater
or inhibit
and monitoring
DFG 96-2; DFG 96-2A.)
recovery
be allowed
until:
to DFG, on surface
response
plan
that no reduction
period
would not harm this species
to DFG to prevent
487:2;
losses to
in groundwater
Ms. Meyer recommended
or. (2) if such studies
develops
increases
of freshwater
studies., acceptable
salinity/plant
cause
her concern on a December
Consequently,
conducts
might
Ms. Meyer
into the lagoon.
for this species,
plan).
through
about by reduction
Creek
and then grows
of this plant and its habitat,
for its recovery,
Calleguas
around Mugu
and summer until it sets seed and dies.
populations
brought
habitat
rainfall,
a
This
species.
salt marsh
diversions
Lagoon
ssp. maritimus),
maritimus
after heavy winter
at Mugu
dive;ision on the
endangered
high coastal
that the proposed
existing
Beak
that the DFG is concerned
impacts of the proposed
bird's
plant
Bird's
Ms. Mary Meyer testified
about potential
saltmarsh
Sal tmarsh
the City.
measures
acceptable
473:1-478:3,
485:3-
The 1996 FSEIR and testimony
consultants
Lagoon
conclude
habitat.
The reasons
the saltmarsh
given to support
this conclusion
bird's
species
tends to be distributed
which
habitat
tolerant
plant
Although
the plant
regular
tidal
beak is a salt-tolerant,
within a narrow
of tidal influence,
During
flows into Mugu
bird's beak or its
The saltmarsh
saltmarsh
are
dissolved
correlated
salinity
season,
is salt-tolerant,
of nonsalt-
it cannot withstand
the plant
requires
(less than 12 parts per thousand
than can be tolerated
brought
a lower
total
during
the
phase.
of saltmarsh
bird's beak appears
reduction
about by direct
not by reduction
Even if reduction
to be highly
of shallow
rainfall
during
soil
the winter
of lagoon salinity.
of lagoon salinity were a potential
in producing
favorable
germination,
the proposed
seawater
phase,
with a temporary
Mugu Lagoon
the elevation
inundation.
growth
Germination
strip above
species.
salts-TDS)
vegetative
annual plant
in /high coastal
but below the elevation
the seed germination
soil salinity
c
3.
in surface
as follows:
summarized
1.
that a reduction
not affect
should
by the City's environmental
soil-water
salinity
reduction
tidal exchange,
flow into
to the large volume
that the resultant
-72-
1
for plant
in freshwater
is so small, in,comparison
factor
salinity
of
increase
.
-.
in the lagoon
almost
(City
due to the proposed
negligible
2, Vol.
362:21-365:25,
(less than 1.5 percent).
I, 258:3-259:ZO;
testimony
the potential
Creek on saltmarsh
effects
bird's
indicate
of the existing
Creek.
presented
However,
plant populations
Dr. Freas' testimony
wetland
Creek.
near the outermost
plant
the lagoon
expected
central
edge of the western
is important
documenting
populations
39
were found
of the
away from the mouth
appear
to exist
arm of the lagoon,
over
Creek.
Creek
then populations
would
no evidence
into
be
was presented
which:
Creek; and
existing
before
of saltmarsh
in'this
populations
seeps near Mugu Lagoon
of this plant.
should not be adversely
approved
to the mouth
to the mouth of the creek along the
by Calleguas
Based on the evidence
the
the
flow from Calleguas
to this plant,
any freshwater
be influenced
populations
closer
freshwater
In addition,
basin.
which
and City Exhibit
Only a few plant populations
existing
to occur
concerns
relative
and over 1.5 miles
one mile away from the mouth of Calleguas
If maintaining
the evidence
area at least 0.5 mile northwest
arm of Mugu Lagoon
of Calleguas
by the City and DFG
in this instance
that most of the existing
in a separate
western
II, 357:21-359:8,
of flow reduyition in Calleguas
beak.
SWRCB finds most persuasive
of Calleguas
T, Vol.
and 369:5-370:16.)
There was considerable
location
would be
2, pp. 20-21, 88, 92-93 and 101; City 33A, pp. 7-
10; City 39; T, Vol.
regarding
flow reduction
(T, Vol.
(2) support
II, 365:4-369:12;
us, the SWRCB concludes
bird's
beak
affected
City 39.)
that the
in the Mugu Lagoon
by the water diversion
decision.
-73-
(1) may
areas
project
8.3.3
Impacts
of Proposed
The City proposes
Flow
to install
Control
and Monitoring
a "flow control
station"
along Arroyo
Conejo at a location
upstream
of the point
of diversion.
necessary
to accurately
of the entire
running
parallel
measured
using
a device
then be returned
(T, Vol.
Mr. Donald
operate
Nelson
testified
the "flow control
proposed
stream channel
temporary
physical
described
in the City's water
available
involve
and water would
after measurement.
station"
the water
to the project
to install and
gathers
at the location
at a point where all
(2) take
together;
of the water at the point of sale
supply agreement
with Calleguas
MWD; and
(3) provide
a means to ensure that once the City
receives
SWRCB water
right permits
appropriated,
any unauthorized
of the point of diversion
Vol.
I, 68:21-69:23,
City environmental
construction
and/or
permanent
for the water
diversion
and prevented.
Ms. Gretchen
Honan
testified
of the facility
would
cause temporary
consultant
loss of about 0.3 acres of existing
including
habitat
southwestern
pond turtles
and other
sensitive
Furthermore,
Ms. Honan
measures
in Arroyo
proposed
(1) restoring
described,
disturbed
-74-
these
habitat;
that
riparian
utilized
in general
by the City to offset
temporarily
(T,
City 27A, p_ 6.)
Conejo,
habitat
sought to be
of this water upstream
can be detected
151:12-152:4;
and operation
flume
City 27A, p. 6.)
and monitoring
available
control
the flume,
that the City needs
the water
this
The flow would be
channel.
(1) measure
in order to:
would
7 miles
into a concrete-lined
68:21-72:4;
I, 28:2-28:8,
facility
located within
to the natural
approximately
the flow potentially
streamflow
to the natural
and monitoring
The City considers
Use of this proposed
for diversion.
diversion
measure
Station
by
species.
terms,
mitigation
impacts
by:
(2) replacing
0
permanently
disturbed
downstream
.
'i
habitat with enhanced
of the facility;
and
riparian
(3) relocating
individual
southwestern
pond turtles
343:2-348:l;
City 7; City 32A, pp. 1-4; City 32C and 32D.J
biologist
Ms. Wehtje
alternative
(T, Vol. II,
stated that DFG would prefer
flow measurement
identified.impacts
Vol.
to the new habitat.
habitat,
methods
on instream
use of
to avoid causing
resources
DFG
in Arroyo
the above-
Conejo.
(T,
II, 510:13-511:8.)
i’
The only water
Application
the City will be authorized
29408
is water available
to appropriate
for diversion
of diversion.
The actual rate of diversion
upon the water
available
requirements.
The City will be required
after meeting
the amount
of water
actually
the actual
quantity
of water bypassed
The quantity
appropriative
pumped
of water diverted
water
under
at the point
will be dependent
applicable
bypass
to monitor
flow
and report
at the point of diversion
at the point of diversion.
for beneficial
right is normally
and
measured
use under an
at the point
of
diversion.
any permit
In this instance,
include
a limitation
discharge
accordance
Elimination
measurement
from the plant
System
device present
measuring
measurement
water
discharged
with the requirements
Discharge
devices
diversions
issued to the City will
on the rate of diversion
from the Hill Canyon WWTP.
waste water
required
or license
devices
needed
tied to the rate of
The quantity
is already
of treated
measured
of the City's National
(NPDES) permit.
in
Pollution
The flow
at the Hill Canyon WWTP and the
at the point
of diversion
for regulation
by the proposed
project.
-75-
are the only
and measurement
of
The fact that the City may have entered
contracts
providing
the proposed
approve
for measurement
point of diversion
construction
environmentally
into a contract
of flow 7 miles upstream
does not obligate
and use of an unnecessary
harmful
structure
water
for the proposed
SWRCB and subject
project
to any terms established
sensitive
and use
upon approval
ji
The SWRCB finds that there is no need for the proposed
control
and monitoring
evidence
station."
that the structure
southwestern
Arroyo
pond turtles
Conejo.
the adverse
Although
Consequently,
considered
and other public
OF TREATED
measured
for which
environmental
and public
entirely.
station"
a water
is not
right permit
WW-6 proposes
pursuant
OF FISH AND
to dedicate
point
use would be
of diversion.
Although
as to the need for
flows in order
trust resources,
-76-
to Water Code
to instream
among the parties
for instream
impacts
from the Hill Canyon WWTP to
The 2.0 cfs dedicated
water
some of
the SWRCB concludes
FOR PROTECTION
Petition
at the City's proposed
additional
to mitigate
and monitoring
use for fish and wildlife
there is disagreement
in
29408.
2.0 cfs of treated waste water
1212.
trust resources
structure,
WASTE WATER
The City's Waste Water Change
section
on
to avoid those adverse
a part of the project
DEDICATION
WILDLIFE
impacts
it may be possible
the "flow control
"flow
there is
will cause unnecessary
will be issued on Application
instream
To the contrary,
impacts of the proposed
it would be preferable
9.0
of the
as part of that
approval.
.o
c
and
to divert
is contingent
of
the SWRCB to
in an environmentally
Any right which the City may obtain
area.
or
to protect
no evidence
was
'"'
introduced
in opposition
to the City's proposed
dedication
of
2.0 cfs to fish and wildlife.
.
The SWRCB
finds that the dedication
for the protection
beneficial
of fish and wildlife
is a reasonable
use zf water and that the proposed
The 2.0 cfs of treated
be approved.
proposes
of 2.0 cfs to instream
to dedicate
diversion
to instream
and
dedication
waste water which
use is not available
use
should
the City
for
by other water users.
i’
SUMMARY
10.0
The SWRCB
AND CONCLUSIONS
finds that there is unappropriated
appropriation
by the City of Thousand
in the amounts and seasons
conditions
at the end of this decision.
the conditions
of water
established
Creek
to the conditions
the use of treated
operate
*
of fish and wildlife
established
uses,
finds
subject
is a beneficial
to
use
from the Hill Canyon
in Conejo
interest
Creek and
and is approved
in this decision.
waste water approved
further
The City's proposed
interest.
subject
The change
by this decision
in
will not
to the injury of any legal user of that water.
The SWRCB
finds that, based on the present
desirable
to maintain
Thousand
public
9
for the proposed
is in the public
for
by the
The SWRCB
of 2.0 cfs of treated waste water
for protection
Calleguas
established
in this decision,
and is in the public
dedication
WWTP
of water
available
Oaks and the competing
applicants
that the appropriation
water
a minimum
Oaks' proposed
trust resources.
point of diversion
The desired
uses by the City.
of the 6.0 cfs instream
it is
flow of 6.0 cfs at the City of
for protection
water dedicated
An additional
flow must be present
-77-
of
flow of 6.0 cfs will be met
in part by the 2.0 cfs of treated waste
and wildlife
record,
for fish
4.0 cfs component
before
the City may
divert any water
in excess
from the Hill Canyon
2.0 cfs in channel
WWTP
of the treated waste water
discharged
less a total of 4.0 cfs to account
losses
and the dedication
for
e
of 2.0 cfs to fish
and wildlife.
In order to mitigate
wildlife
downstream
decision
requires
and to develop
to prevent
adverse
effects
the City to consult
and undertake
proposed
concludes
and monitoring
structure
trust resources,
would
station"
authorized
in this decision.
approval
set forth below.
SWRCB's
findings
appropriation
emergent
marsh habitat.
proposed
to the environment
"flow control
Finally,
to be included
in any water
Waste Water Change
In addition,
regarding
the order below
the availability
the other pending
and Calleguas
and public
and
a part of the project
29408, and the conditions
Creek
a
by the City, that the
shall not be considered
of Treated
under
water from Conejo
pond turtle and to prevent
be harmful
monitoring
SWRCB's
and rn+tigation measures
and that the proposed
issued on Application
agencies
that there is no need for the "flow
station"
The terms and conditions
and
this
with appropriate
monitoring
net loss of open and freshwater
control
habitat
of the City's point of diversion,
harm to the southwestern
this decision
on riparian
right permit
governing
the
Petition
WW-6,
includes
the
of water
applications
are
for
to appropriate
Creek.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY
approved
1.
ORDERED
subject
that Waste Water
to the following
The City of Thousand
treated
waste water
Change Petition
WW-6
is
conditions:
Oak's dedication
discharged
-78-
of 2.0 cfs of the
from the Hill Canyon Waste
I
Water
Treatment
Plant for protection
and maintenance
wildlife,
and other instream uses in Conejo
Calleguas
Creek is recognized
dedicated
to instream uses shall be measured
Thousand
Application
Water
29408 for diversion
District
Creek and
and approved.
Oaks point of diversion
The 2.0 cfs
at the City of
under Water
of water
and Pleasant Valley
Right
to serve Camrosa
County
Water District.
The 2.0 cfs of treated waste water dedicated
by the City of Thousand
diversion
to instream
Oaks shall not be available
or appropriation
of fish,
by any other party
uses
for
for any other
purpose.
2.
The City of Thousand
City of Thousand
waste
Oaks or parties
Oaks may divert
water discharged
Treatment
permit
treated
from the Hill Canyon
stated in that permit
waste water subject
based
upon the measured
water
from the Hill Canyon Waste Water
additional
point
or license
to instream
ORDERED
subject
to the
The amount of
and use under any
on Application
29408 is
of treated
Treatment
waste
Plant minus
flows and minus
for channel
and the point
the City's water right permit
IT IS FURTHER
issued
rate of discharge
2.0 cfs to account
of discharge
29408
to diversion
right permit
of the treated
Waste Water
or license.
water
with the
by any water right
issued on Application
the 2.0 cfs dedicated
1
the remainder
Plant for the uses authorized
or license
conditions
contracting
an
losses between
of diversion
authorized
the
in
or license.
that Water Right Application
29408 is
/
approved,
order.
Permit
in part,
The permit
Terms
additional
subject to the conditions
on Application
established
29408 shall contain
in this
Standard
6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 and the following
terms:
,79-
1.
The water
appropriated
can be beneficially
shall be limited to the quantity
used for irrigation
21.7 cfs.
Permittee
year-round
basis.
any time shall not exceed
a.
The real-time
Water
between
of treated
from the Hill Canyon
at
waste water
of
for channel
2.0 cfs to account
for maintenance
Waste
for flow time
and the point
less 2.0 cfs to account
fish and wildlife
on a
rate of diversion
(adjusted to account
of discharge
less an additional
diversion
the sum of the following:
Plant
the point
diversion),
maximum
rate of discharge
Treatment
and shall not exceed
may take water by direct
Permittee's
which
losses,
for the dedication
and protection
under Waste Water Change
Petition
of
WW-6;
and
b.
An additional
4.0 cfs, by direct diversion
through
December
minimum
bypass
or more
(including
from January
1
31 of each year at all times that the
flow at the point of diversion
the 2.0 cfs dedicated
is 6.0 cfs
to fish and
wildlife).
2.
The quantity
measured
3.
of water
at the point
This permit
The authorized
SE'/4of SE%
under this permit
of diversion
is specifically
Water Right License
4.
diverted
12598.
Creek.
subject to the prior
(Application
point of diversion
of projected
from Conejo
Section
-8O-
is:
shall be
right under
25247.)
Conejo Creek within
32, T2N, R20W, SBB&M.
the
5
The point of discharge
Canyon
Waste Water Treatment
the NW'/4of projected
.
.d
6
The authorized
waste water
Plant located
Section
places
and the Pleasant
owned
of treated
is the Hill
within
the SE%
36, T2N, R20W,
SBB&M.
of use are the Camrosa
Water
Valley
County Water
lands located within
District,
Sections
of
District
excluding
City-
24 and 25, T2N, R20W,
SBB&M.
7
Permittee
under
shall keep metered
this permit
documenting
and shall submit
the quantity
To the extent
is return
9.
that water available
as giving
supply will continue.
(Term 25.)
in water
shall provide
agreements
the Lambs, Goldbergs
authorized
10.
any diversion
conforms
water
and
for use under
water,
any assurance
for delivery
this permit
this permit
that such
to the Camrosa
use upon the parcels
between
Camrosa
and Fitzgerald
which
Water
identified
District
are within
and
the
place of use.
For the protection
specific,
water
for subsequent
service
records
waste
or waste
shall not be construed
Water District
separate
diverted
under this right.
flow, imported water,
Permittee
of all water
(1) treated
of:
(2) other flows diverted
8.
records
of water quality,
facilities,
detailed
prior
the permittee
erosion
to the mitigation
control
to construction
shall prepare
and revegetation
measures
identified
of
a
plan which
in part 3.3..3
(page 3-11) of the permittee 's 1996 Final Subsequent
Environmental
0
include,
Impact Report
at a minimum,
for the project.
the following
-81-
elements:
The plan shall
a.
Removal
of no more vegetation
complete
b.
construction
Placement
cannot
C.
materials
reasonably
Construction
or other suitable
in areas where removed
be expected
of temporary
to become
erosion
vegetation
reestablished.
fills of noyerodible
and a plan for removal
where needed,
to
operations.
of rock, riprap,
protection
than is necessary
material
of any temporary
fills.
d.
Diversion
e.
Construction
stream
f.
of runoff
of a suitable
immediately
Other measures
Water Quality
below any instream
Control
control
prior
to construction
Water
Resources
ensure
11.
sites.
basin across
construction
by the California
the
areas.
Regional
Board to comply with the Basin
Plan
Creek watershed.
and revegetation
to the Chief of the Division
any reasonable,
silt catchment
as required
for the Calleguas
The erosion
around all construction
plan shall be submitted
of Water Rights
of any diversion
Control
Board reserves
necessary
amendments
that it will accomplish
for approval
facilities.
authority
The State
to require
to the plan necessary
the stated goal.
.
to
Upon written
approval
of the Plan, the Plan shall be implemented.
r
No water
shall be diverted
A
has installed
Resources
device(s),
Control
Board,
under this permit
satisfactory
capable
-82-
until permittee
to the State Water
of measuring
the bypass
flows
required
by conditions
shall be properly
of this permit.
maintained.
Said measuring
devices
(Term 62.)
.
12.
For the protection
turtles,
.
and riparian
shall bypass
habitat
the following
diversion:
shall be bypassed
cfs shall be bypassed
(Application
when the holder
flow of 6.0 cfs
water dedicated
of treated
channel
to the portion
for diversion
diversion;
(2) quantity
streamgage
or other records
bypass
flow requirements
To mitigate
implement
a specific,
or Calleguas
detailed
Creek.
to the mitigation
water
released
Plant which
is
for 2.0 cfs for
to fish and wildlife.
Report
diverted;
by Permittee,
of the dates of
and,
(3) daily
compliance
for southwestern
permittee
pallida),
with the
plan,
Rights,
in Arroyo
-83-
and
satisfactory
to achieve
Conejo,
The compensation
measure
pond turtle
shall prepare
compensation
of Water
net loss of pond turtle habitat
conform
waste
is not
of this permit.
to the Chief of the Division
Creek,
any water which
documenting
for loss of habitat
(Clemrnys marmorata
shall be bypassed
Treatment
of water
Creek; and
2.0 cfs of treated
a listing
(1)
0.82
12598
from Conejo
after accounting
information:
to
Petition
of License
shall submit, with the Progress
the following
dedicated
Change
losses and the 2.0 cfs dedicated
Permittee
at the point of
to fish and wildlife)
attributable
the permittee
water
(including
diverts
pond
(2)i,
an additional
water
at all times that permittee
available
14.
waste
at all times;
from the Hill Canyon Waste Water
13.
of water
to Waste Water
25247) is diverting
(3) a minimum
waste
amounts
pursuant
southwestern
and vegetation,
(1) 2.0 cfs of treated
fish and wildlife
WW-6,
of fish, wildlife,
no
Conejo
plan shall
for Terrestial
Vegetation
and Wildlife,
permittee's
identified
1996 Final Subsequent
for the project.
with
Camarillo,
environmental
Camrosa
Ventura
Fish and Game
Environmental
The plan shall be prepared
appropriate
District,
on pages S-4 and S-5 of the
consultants,
Water District,
Municipal
County Flood Control District,
and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
specific
in consultation
the City of
Calleguas
.(DFG), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
details
covering
Impact Report
Water
Department
Service
of
(USFWS)
The plan shall provide
the following
eifements, at a
minimum:
a.
A comprehensive,
existing
quantitative
southwestern
available
marsh habitat
located both upstream
of diversion.
by a qualified
recognized
Creation
freshwater
of diversion
developed
the expected
provision)
downstream
be permanently
Relocation
jeopardized
where
assessment
acceptable
assessment
of turtles
suitable
to DFG,
areas upstream
The new
(no net loss
and shall
by the permittee.
from habitat expected
-84-
of
shall equal or exceed
of the point of diversion,
new habitat
and
techniques
for the turtle.
loss of habitat
by diversions
suitable
shall be made
(pools and riffles)
marsh habitat
maintained
of the
by DFG and USFWS.
by the permittee
or actual
freshwater
and downstream
of new or larger open water
the point
C.
utilizing
as appropriate
and emergent
habitat
biologist,
of
and
open water and emergent
The baseline
wildlife
shall be conducted
assessment
pond turtle populations
corresponding
point
b.
baseline
under this permit
has been created.
to be
to safer
areas
.
d.
Development
control
and implementation
program,
satisfactory
reduce populations
hatchlings
e.
of bullfrogs
of additional
permit,
in minimum
including
generated
Development
assessment
15 *
Permittee
develop
WWTP
and reporting
this
waste
water
Plant
into Conejo
and their habitat,
program
and listing
no net
additional
the forthcoming
shall include
evaluated
in (a) above.
the results,of
to
year to
with the no net loss provision.
of conditions
listed
during
program
plan is achieving
the compensation
to be implemented
reevaluation
Permittee
treated
from the Camarillo
full compliance
Division
may include
in the future.
whether
The monitoring
submit
net loss of
requi,rements under
bypass of additional
of a monitoring
loss of turtles
attain
These measures
to
by the Hill Canyon Waste Water Treatment
Creek decrease
measures
as necessary,
plan will. prevent
flow bypass
(WWTP) if discharges
document
which prey on turtle
measures,
and their habitat.
increase
f.
to DFG, to permanently
that the compensation
turtles
bullfrog
and eggs.
Development
ensure
of an effective
the annual
a schedule
for
in the baseline
The permittee
reporting
of Water Rights with the Progress
shall
program
Report
to the
by
and to DFG.
shall consult
and implement
with the Division
a water
conservation
of Water
Rights
plan or actions.
The proposed
plan or actions
for approval
within
such further
time as, for good cause shown, may be allowed
the Board.
shall be presented
to the SWRCB
one year from the date of this permit
A progress
report on the development
-85-
and
or
of a water
by
I
conservation
within
program
this period.
plan developed
extent
In evaluating
by permittee,
to the 80 percent
Management
Area and the extent
district's
receiving
accepted
practices.
All cost-effective
with
the schedule
The
"flow control
Application
authorized
IT IS FURTHER
efficiency
standards
this permit
for efficient
measures
standard
are complying
for implementation
and monitoring
management
water
identified
found
station"
in the
in accordance
shall be implemented
29408 is not considered
therein .
in
proposed
a part of the project
by this permit.
ORDERED
for appropriation
29829,
place of use
to which the City and
water under
program
the
the Fox Canyon Groundwater
with widely
conservation
conservation
permittee's
irrigation
to lands within
29819,
the water
at any time
the Board will consider
applicable
water
by the Board
to which water use throughout
conforms
16.
may be required
that the season
of availability
under Water Right Applications
29959,
30037, 30092, and 30194
of water
29581,
29816,
is as specified
below:
1.
The season
permit(s)
2.
of availability
of water
issued on Applications
shall
include
April
30 of the succeeding
The season
the period
of availability
29816,
under
any
and 29819
1 of each year through
year.
of water
issued on Applications
and 30194
shall include
March
29581,
of November
permit(s)
through
for diversion
29829, 29959,
the period
31 of the succeeding
-86-
for diversion
of November
year.
under
30037,
any
30092,
1 of each year
3.
Inclusion
of a period
permit(s)
issued on Applications
29959,
.
30037,
availability
Any permits
subject
prior
within
the season of diversion
29581, 29816,
29819,
30092, and '30194 does not guarantee
of water
for diversion
issued on the specified
to the standard
during
regarding
trust resources
of instream
at any time that water
the
shall be
protection
rights and shall be subject to maintenance
flow of 6.0 cfs for protection
298,29,
that time period.
applications
restrictions
for any
of
of a bypass
uses and public
is/diverted
under
the
permit(s).
CERTIFICATION
The undersigned, Administrative Assistant to the Board, does
hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct
copy of an order duly and regularly adopted at a meeting of the
State Water Resources Control Board held on September 18, 1997.
AYE:
John Caffrey
James M. Stubchaer
Marc Del Piero
Mary Jane Forster
John W. Brown
NO:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
Administrative
-87-
Assistant
to the Board
APPENDIX
I
STREAMGAGE
FLOWS
l
.*
I
CONEJO CREEK ABOVE HIGHWAY
101
(City l, Vol. 2, Appendix
B), TREATED
AND
CALCULATION
OF UNAPPROPRIATED
WATER
WATER
VOLUME
Note:
The unappropriated
water identified
in this table is the quantity
of
water in ~acre-feet remaining
after assignment
of treated waste water
(minus
channel
losses and dedication
of 2.0 cfs to instream
uses) to Application
29408 of the City.
October
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
523.5
491.2
495.0
566.0
,511.o
1
\
I&
WASTE
Water
USGS
Year
Flow
.I
Subtract
368.0
373.0
428.9
414.7
4b3.9
Subtract
50.3
50.3
50.3
50.3
50.3
Add
142.0
142.0
142.0
142.0
142.0
Unauthorized
Diversions
Total
247.2
209.9
157.8
243.0
198.8
Unappropriated
Water
November.
707.6
412.3
480.6
591.6
532.5
Subtract
372.0
377.0
432.9
418.7
407.9
Subtract
48.7
48.7
48.7
48.7
48.7
Add
142.0
142.0
142.0
142.0
142.0
Unauthorized
Diversions
Total
508.9
128.6
141.0
266.2
217.9
Unappropriated
Water
December.
575.1
1,695.8
522.8
657.1
1,215.3
Effluent Minus
2 cfs Losses
License
USGS
12598
Flow
Effluent Minus
2 cfs Losses
License
USGS
12598
Flow
1
373.0
428.9
Subtract
368.0
Subtract
50.3
50.3
50.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
156.8
1,272.5
Add
Total
43.6
Unauthorized
Diversions
192.1
761.1
Unappropriated
Water
APPENDIX
I, continued
1
4,487.5
510.6
498.0
2,605.O
4,354.4
USGS Flow
Subtract
373.0
428.9
414.7
403.9
469.7
Effluent Minus
2 cfs Losses
Subtract
50.3
50.3
50.3
50.3
50.3
License 12598
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Unauthorized
Diversions
January
Add
4,064.2
31.4
February
500.1
1,270.g
Subtract
384.9
Subtract
Total
33.0
2,150.8
3,834.4
Unappropriated
Water
1,202.2
521.1
USGS Flow
440.8
426.6
415.8
11,843.4
i
4b1.6
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
License 12598
0.0
0.0
0 ;o
0.0
0.0
Unauthorized
Diversions
784.6
730.1
11,316.3
Unappropriated
Water
1,764.7
759.2
14,395.0
USGS Flow
469.7
Effluent Minus
2 cfs Losses
License 12598
I
Add
Total
69.7
March
1,043.7
59.8
871.9
403.9
414.7
Subtract
373.0
Subtract
50.3
50.3
50.3
50.3
50.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Add
Total
620.4
428.9
1,285.5
294.2
Effluent Minus
2 cfs Losses
Unauthorized
Diversions
417.7
13,875.0
Unappropriated
Water
April
501.8
~Z8.5
662.8
504.4
1,693.e
USGS Flow
Subtract
377.0
432.9
418.7
407.9
473.7
Effluent Minus
2 cfs Losses
Subtract
48.7
48.7
48.7
48.7
48.7
License 12598
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Unauthorized
Diversions
76.1
336.9
Add
Total
47.8
195.4
-2-
1,171.4
Unappropriated
Water
APPENDIX
May
I, continued
1
Subtract
463.2
1
373.0
564.6
/
428.9
USGS Flow
537.8
1
858.0
1
940.4
1
414.7
1
403.9
1
469.7
j
50.3
I
License 12598
142.0
(
u&&;;;;d
Subtract
I
50.3
I
50.3
I
50.3
I
50.3
Add
(
142.0
j
142.0
j
142.0
1
142.0
1
E','Icufesnt.k'~ln&s
Total
181.9
227.4
214.8
545.8
562.4
Unappropriated
Water
June
465.1
525.6
482.0
460.1
807.2
USGS .Flow
Subtract
377.0
432.9
418.7
407.9
4q3.7
Effluent Minus
2 cfs Losses
Subtract
1
48.7
1
48.7
1
1
48.7
48.7
]
48.7
1
License 12598
Add
142.0
142.0
142.0
142.0
142.0
Unauthorized
Diversions
Total
181.4
186.0
156.6
145.5
426.8
Unappropriated
Water
July
414.6
482.5
519.4
406.5
596.7
Subtract
373.0
428.9
414.7
403.9
469.7
Effluent Minus
2 cfs Losses
Subtract
50.3
50.3
50.3
50.3
50.3
License 12598
Add
142.0
142.0
142.0
142.0
142.0
Unauthorized
Diversions
Total
133.3
145.3
94.3
218.7
Unappropriated
Water
August
444.4
490.8
488.2
678.5
787.4
USGS Flow
Subtract
373.0
428.9
414.7
403.9
469.7
Effluent Minus
2 cfs Losses
Subtract
I
50.3
I
50Y3~ -I
196.4
I
P~~r3
50.3
I
50.3
USGSFlo&
I
License 12598
Add
142.0
142 .O
142.0
142.0
142.0
Unauthorized
Diversions
Total
163.1
153.6
165.2
366.3
409.4
Unappropriated
Water
-3-
-.
APPENDIX
Sept.
I, continued
I
458.3
I
479.2
1 1,135.s 1
394.5
Subtract
I
995.6
USGS Flow
473.7
Effluent Minus
2 cfs Losses
48.7
License 12598
Unauthorized
Diversions
377.0
I
432.g
Subtract -1
48.7
I
48.7
Add
142.0
142.0
142.0
142.0
142.0
Total
174.6
139.6
810.1
79.9
615.2
I
1979
1980
1981
1
1982
I
1
1983
Unappropriated
Water
1
Water
Year
I
October
733.6 :
986.0
950.3
978.0
923.9
Subtract
469.7
593.0
616.4
658.9
651.4
Effluent Minus
2 cfs Losses
Subtract
50.3
50.3
50.3
50.3
50.3
License 12598
142.0
142.0
142.0
142.0
Unauthorized
Diversions
355.6
484.7
425.6
410.8
364.2
Unappropriated
Water
November
1,446.8
1,370.s
983.7
1,600.6
2,889.7
USGS Flow
Subtract
473.7
597.0
620.4
662.9
655.4
Effluent Minus
2 cfs Losses
Add
142.0
Total
1
48.7
I-
48.7
1 -48.7
:
USGS Flow
a,
8
c
I- License 12598
~ 1
Subtract
48.7 _-I
48.7
Add
142.0
142.0
142.0
142.0
142.0
Unauthorized
Diversions
1,066.4
866.8
456.6
1,031.o
2,327.6
Unappropriated
Water
December
1,491.g
1,247.3
1,226.O
1‘142.7
1,539..5
USGS Flow.
Subtract
469.7
593.0
616.4
658.9
651.4
Effluent Minus
2 cfs Losses
Subtract
50.3
50.3
50.3
50.3
50.3
License 12598
Total
/
I
Add
Total
0.0
971.9
0.0
6d'4.0
0.0
0.0
559.3
433.5
0.0
837.8
Unauthorized
Diversions
i
Unappropriated
Water
r
-4-
APPENDIX
I, continued
c
2 cfs Losses
Diversions
Water
2 cfs Losses
-5-
APPENDIX
I, continued
May
1 1,150.6 j 1,426.4
1
890.8
1
990.0
1 1,862.g
1
Subtract
1
593.0
1
616.4
j
658.9
/
651.4
j
729.7
j
Subtract
1
50.3
1
50.3
1
50.3
1
50.3
1
50.3
USGS Flow
E'z"c"f'fe~~.i_n~~
(- --License 12598
Add
142.0
142.0
142.0
142.0
142.0
Unauthorized
Diversions
Total
649.3
901.7
323.6
430.3
1,224.g
Unappropriated
Water
Jllk
1,031.3
1,168.2
890.5
973.8
1,499.4
USGS Flow
597.0
620.4
662.9
655.4
733.7
Effluent Minus
2 cfs Losses
48.7
License 12598
Subtract
Subtract
I
40.7
I
40.7
I
48.7
I
48.7
I
Add
142.0
142.0
142.0
142.0
142.0
Unauthorized
Diversions
Total
527.6
641.1
320.9
411.7
859.0
Unappropriated
Water
.July
1,107.o
1,114.g
863.0
910.6
1,208.2
USGS Flow
Subtract
593.0
616.4
658.9
651.4
729.7
Effluent Minus
2 cfs Losses
Subtract
50.3
50.3
50 :3
50.3
50.3
License 12598
Add
142.0
142.0
142.0
142.0
142.0
Unauthorized
Diversions
Total
605.7
590.2
295.8
350.9
570.2
Unappropriated
Water
1,180.4
1,039.5
878.9
737.6
1,408.S
USGS Flow
Subtract
593.0
616.4
658.9
651.4
729.7
Effluent Minus
2 cfs Losses
Subtract
50.3
50.3
50.3
50.3
50.3
License 12598
Add
142.0
142.0
142.0
142.0
142.0
Unauthorized
Diversions
Total
679.1
514.8
311.7
177.9
770.5
Unappropriated
Water
August
-6-
APPENDIX
I,
continued
0
Sept.
l
.*
Subtract
1,168.Z 1
977.8
I
620.4
597.0
797.3
1
662.9
864.7
1,927.E
655.4
USGS FLOW
733.7
Effluent Minus
2 cfs Losses
Subtract
48.7
License 12598
Add
142.0
Unauthorized
Diversions
1,287.4
Unappropriated
Water
142.0
142.0
Unauthorized
Diversions
357.0
1,698.3
Unappropriated
Water
1,572.g
Recorded Flow
Total
I
October
Subtract
1,,945.8
729.7
Subtract
48.7
Add
142.0
Total
c1
1
/
1,309.4
961.8
1.019.5
717.6
727.2
755.0
48.7
48.7
48.7
142.0
1
613.4
I
November
1,812.g
I
1,237.7
1
142.0
327.9
I
1,876.4
I
I
2,642.0
1,929.g.
Subtract
733.7
/
721.6
j
731.2
/
759.0
Subtract
48.7
I
48.7
1
48.7
1
48.7
Add
142.0
142.0
142.0
142.0
Total
1,172.5
1,248.l
2,004.l
1,264.2
December
2,681.7
3,530.6
1,315.l
890.6
3,483.0
Recorded Flow
Subtract
729.7
717.6
727.2
755.0
755.0
Effluent Minus
2 cfs Losses
Subtract
48.7
48.7
Add
0.0
0.0
-1
1
48.7
0.0
48.7
0.0
1
48.7
1,903.3
2‘764.3
539.2
-7-
86.9
1
142.0
907.2
I
48.7
0.0
.
Total
Effluent Minus
2 cfs Losses
759.0
2,679.3
License 12598
Unauthorized
Diversions
I
1
Unappropriated
Water
License 12598
Unauthorized
Diversions
Unappropriated
Water
APPENDIX
I, continued
,
January
1,336.g
1,485.6
3,020.g
1,576.g
2,719.4
Recorded Flow
Subtract
717.6
727.2
755.0
755.0
773.6
Effluent Minus
2 cfs Losses
Subtract
48.7
48.7
48.7
48.7
48.7
License 12598
Add
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Unauthorized
Diversions
2 cfs Losses
Unauthorized
.--Record&d.FLow.
Effluent Minus
Unapproprla
Diversions
-8-
APPENDIX
I, continued
ME&
930.3
866.8
1,309.l
920.3
914.2
Subtract
717.6
727.2
755.0
755.0
773.6
Subtract
I
48.7
I
48.7
(
1
48.7
48.7
1
48.7
Recorded
Flow
Effluent Minus
2 cfs Losses
I
License
12598
Add
142.0
142.0
142.0
142.0
142.0
Unauthorized
Diversions
Total
306.0
232.9
647.4
258.6
233.9
Unappropriated
Water
1,118.7
837.0
9+.2
I
&me
1,qz1.5
761.'.
3
Recorded
Flow
Subtract
721.6
731.2
759.0
759.0
7'47.6
Subtract
48.7
48.7
48.7
48.7
48.7
Add
142.0
142.0
142.0
142.0
142.0
Unauthorized
Diversions
Total
393.2
123.4
453.0
171.3
247.9
Unappropriated
Water
July.
852.9
866.8
liO31.4
870.8
Subtract
717.6
727.2
755.0
755.0
:
876.7
773.6
Effluent Minus
2 cfs Losses
License
Recorded
12598
Flow
Effluent Minus
2 cfs Losses
Unauthorized
Effluent
Subtract
-9-
Minus
APPENDIX
.Sept.
I, continued
1, 071.1 :'
... B78.7
1,194.l
799.4
971.9
Recorded Flow
Subtract
717.6
727.2
755.0
755.0
773.6
Effluent Minus
2 cfs Losses
Subtract
48.7
48.7
48.7
48.7
48.7
License 12598
Add
142.0
142.0
142.0
142.0
142.0
Unauthorized
Diversions
Total
446.8
244.8
532.4
137.7
291.6
Unappropriated
Water
Treated waste water volumes
Table Notes:
USGS gage records from Staff, 2.
Recorded Flows from City 18.
-lO-
from Tzjple 1.