Channelkeeper and Ventura Settlement Agreement

from the press release of August 24, 2020:

 Channelkeeper and the City of Ventura Amend Settlement Agreement 

The City of San Buenaventura and Santa Barbara Channelkeeper, a local environmental group, have announced an amendment to their settlement agreement in the lawsuit regarding the pumping and diversion of water from the Ventura River Watershed. Both Channelkeeper and the City remain committed to ensuring the protection of this local water source and the species that rely on it. The ongoing collaboration enables dialogue toward a locally developed solution to continue moving forward.

Under the modified terms, the City will continue the Pilot Program it implemented in 2019 to reduce its pumping and diversion of water from the Ventura River when flows drop during dry times, in order to help protect wildlife that depend on the river. The Pilot Program was originally set to expire in March of 2020, however, the City continues to honor the flow regime set in place. The most notable change with the amendment is that the City will shut down most of its pumping facilities at Foster Park when flows drop below 4 cubic feet per second (CFS), and stop all production when flows drop below 3 CFS instead of 2 CFS. The City will also use its two new gauges at Foster Park to monitor the impacts, if any, its pumping has on flow in the river at these levels.

Additionally, the City and Channelkeeper have agreed to keep a dialogue open to identify additional ways to work collaboratively on other Watershed and habitat-related public relations efforts.

“We are pleased to continue this important dialogue with Channelkeeper, and I believe this amendment strikes a balance of addressing our concerns for the species and habitat while also meeting the needs of serving our customers,” said Susan Rungren, Ventura Water’s General Manager.

“This is a meaningful commitment to preserve river flows until a long-term solution is finalized, and we are glad to have been able to reach it through dialogue with the City,” said Ben Pitterle, Channelkeeper’s Science and Policy Director. The original agreement and this amendment provide added assurance to Channelkeeper for the better protection of steelhead during the dry season while the City works with other parties to propose a long-term framework that protects the Ventura River for steelhead and other instream uses and for the needs of water users, recreation, and the local economy.

In the news:

VENTURA, CHANNELKEEPER ANNOUNCE SETTLEMENT | CITY TO MONITOR FLOWS AND CONTROL PUMPING, VC Reporter, Sep 2, 2020

Ventura, Channelkeeper modify settlement agreement, Ojai Valley News, Aug 24, 2020

UPDATE:

During the month of November were flows dropped to low levels at Foster Park.  The City-installed gages were reading over 4 cfs, while the USGS Ventura River gage located just downstream was reading less than 2 cfs.   Stream flow measurements were taken at Foster Park to try to groundtruth the discrepancies between the City gages and USGS.  These measurements were closer to the USGS numbers. 

measuring flows at Foster Park 11-19-2020

In response, the City arranged to meet in the field with their consultant who installed and manages their two gages.  These field measurements confirmed that the gages were reading high.   The City gages were re-staged and pumping was discontinued the next day.  The gages subsequently showed a slow increase in flows downstream from the wellfield in response to decreased pumping and diversion. 

Ventura gage V2 upstream of Foster Park wellfield
(the sharp drop reflects gage restaging)

Ventura gage V1 below Foster Park wellfield
(the sharp drop reflects gage restaging)

USGS gage 11118500 below Foster Park
shows rebound after pump shutoff

On this blog:

ChannelKeeper sues to save a drying river

ChannelKeeper settlement on City's pumping

Ventura Initiates Adjudication 

Restoring Flows to the Ventura River - Webinar

On June 11, Ben Pitterle provided an excellent overview and update on Santa Barbara ChannelKeeper's actions to restore flows to the Ventura River.  The webinar is now on YouTube:

 

More information and videos are on the Santa Barbara ChannelKeeper website.

On this blog:  Santa Barbara ChannelKeeper

Lower Ventura River - a decade of cleanup

Almost a decade after the initial cleanup in the lower Ventura River, nonprofits and volunteers continue to take on the endless role as "Trash man" to those who leave their waste in the river bottom.

This video illustrates the dirty job undertaken by Dan Hulst, Preserve Director with the Ventura Land Trust.  It is still a full time job...



Looking back to 2011, Santa Barbara Channelkeeper, seeking to bring attention to a growing problem,  performed surveys of the area and estimated over 200 people living in the river bottom with no trash or sanitary facilities.  The sheer volume of toxic and human waste poised to flush into the ocean was overwhelming.

In 2012, the Ventura Hillsides Conservancy, now Ventura Land Trust, acquired the property downstream of the Main Street bridge.  Working through a process set up through a Trash TMDL, local authorities served eviction notices to the camps, and the Conservancy was able to come in and clean up the mess.


Eviction Day (2012) from Matt Linkin on Vimeo.




Ventura Land Trust continues to monitor and maintain the area, working with law enforcement and organizing volunteer workdays to clean up the never-ending mess.  A long term solution has yet to be developed, but social service agencies and nonprofits continue to make progress on improving access to shelters and transitional housing for those who desire.


For more information and to volunteer, contact:

Dan Hulst, Preserve Director, Ventura Land Trust: dan@venturalandtrust.org

Ben Pitterle, Santa Barbara Channelkeeper: ben@sbck.org


On this blog:

2011:
Stream Team Trash Survey
Salmon Run focuses on trash issue

2012:
VHC River Cleanup
More River Cleanups

2013:
Ventura River Cleanup short film

Ventura River Adjudication – Remembering the Past

Mission San Buenaventura
founded March 31, 1782
water supply through aqueduct
from the Ventura River
 at what is now Foster Park

The current controversy surrounding the adjudication of water rights to the Ventura River has focused on the most recent efforts by the City of Ventura to secure its water rights to the Ventura River.  Many may not know that this effort has deep roots in the past.

The City of Ventura was incorporated in 1886, but it claim to the waters of the Ventura River extend back to the establishment of Mission San Buenaventura in 1782.  In addition to the Missions, the Spanish and Mexican governments also established a series of Pueblos and Ranchos between 1769 and 1835 in what later became the state of California. Despite its not being a successor to one of the eight original Spanish or Mexican Pueblos, the City has periodically asserted its claim to the waters of the Ventura River based on a Pueblo water right.

In 1976 the City of Ventura attempted to assert a Pueblo water right against the Casitas Municipal Water District.  The appropriative water rights granted to Casitas in the 1950’s required them to bypass the first 20 cubic feet per second of flow at the Robles Diversion to protect downstream water rights.  The City claimed, however, that this provision did not fully protect its Pueblo water rights.


















Conjunctive Use

Ojai Valley News, Feb 18, 1979

To resolve this dispute, without formally asserting and establishing the City’s Pueblo water right, the City and Casitas proposed to enter into a Conjunctive Use Agreement. This agreement would have allowed Casitas to divert all of the low flow of the Ventura River at its Robles Diversion (up to 500 cubic feet per second) to Lake Casitas.  In exchange Casitas would guarantee the City up to 6,000 acre-feet of water annually from Lake Casitas.

In 1978, the Friends of the Ventura River filed a lawsuit challenging the Environmental Impact Report’s conclusion that the Conjunctive Use Agreement would not adversely affect the Ventura River.  In 1984, after losing in the lower courts, the California Supreme Court rejected the City’s appeal, effectively terminating the Conjunctive Use Agreement.




Endangered Species and Clean Water

In 1997, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed steelhead trout in southern California as an endangered species. Rather than comply with new regulatory requirements, the City decided to forego surface diversion and instead rely on its wells at Foster Park.

In 1998, the State of California formally recognized that the Ventura River was impaired by excessive pumping and diversions pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act.

In 2003 NMFS sent a letter notifying the City that the continued operation of the Foster Park wells posed a serious threat to steelhead. In 2007 NMFS issued a “draft jeopardy biological opinion” that specified a minimum flow to protect steelhead at Foster Park.  In response, the City chose to postpone repairs and enlargement of its well field, and recommenced the operation of its other existing wells in the Foster Park area.

A Dry River

In 2013, the City’s hydrology consultants concluded that their pumping was detrimental to critical habitat for endangered steelhead in the Ventura River. The City continued to pump unabated, and from 2014 to 2016 the Ventura River was pumped completely dry at Foster Park for a significant portion of the year.

In 2014, after many years of monitoring water quality in the Ventura River under a program certified by the State, Santa Barbara Channelkeeper filed a lawsuit asking the State to compel the City to reduce its pumping at Foster Park consistent with NMFS requirements. The City responded by petitioning to have the lawsuit dismissed and also simultaneously filed cross-complaints against all other water right holders in the watershed.  The Court rejected the City’s petition.

In 2018, the Appellate Court allowed the City’s cross-complaint against all water right holders to proceed. In 2019, the City signed an interim agreement with Santa Barbara Channelkeeper, based on the NMFS 2007 jeopardy biological opinion, and entered into a court-sponsored settlement agreement process with major water purveyors and several major agricultural landowners.


Adjudication

In January 2020, the City of Ventura commenced adjudication by serving legal summons to over 10,000 individual water rights holders in the Ventura River watershed.

(note: Adjudication is just a fancy word for suing everybody in the basin, and to resolve groundwater rights, you have to bring in all the users.)

Ventura Assistant City Manager, Akbar Alikhan, responding to questions about the Ventura River adjudication, claimed “…this is not a water grab. We are trying to find a solution that balances the needs of the local habitat while still providing the valuable water to our local residences.” 

Given the City’s long history of claiming unlimited, and unrestricted rights to the waters of the Ventura River, is it reasonable to ask what that balance will be?

Residents who use the watershed, whether as water supply or outdoor recreation, have a stake in the outcome of this latest chapter in the long history of exploitation of the Ventura River.



In the press:

Ventura River adjudication: Remembering the past, Ojai Valley News,  Friday, 14 February 2020

POWER TO SPEAK | VENTURA RIVER ADJUDICATION: REMEMBERING THE PAST, VC Reporter,  Feb 26, 2020

References:

The Friends of the Ventura River maintains a library of documents:  http://friendsofventurariver.org/document/

Ventura River 1978 Conjunctive Use Agreement & DEIR (Part 1), Casitas MWD & City of SanBuenaventura, June 1978

Ventura River 1978 Conjunctive Use Agreement & DEIR (Part 2) Casitas MWD & City of SanBuenaventura, June 1978

Friends Prevents River Untimely Death, Ojai Valley News, Feb 1979

It's Your River Too!, Ojai Valley News, March 1979


100 Trout Lead Court to Reject Plan to Tap Ventura Water, LA Times, June 1988


2013 Comprehensive Water Resources Report (Ventura), City of Ventura, 2013

Santa Barbara Channelkeeper Complaint v. State Water Resources Control Board and the City of San Buenaventura, Sep 2014

Ventura River Watershed Adjudication Website, City of Ventura, 2020

Ventura Initiates Adjudication

January, 2020 - Over 10,000 residents in the Ventura River watershed were formally served with a legal notice of water rights adjudication.  The City of Ventura initiated this adjudication in response to Santa Barbara ChannelKeeper's legal action to compel the city to leave water in the Ventura River.  Pumping at the City's Foster Park well field has dried up the river for months at a time during the recent drought.  The City's cross complaint contends that upstream pumping and diversion are part of the problem.

This action, taken without any advanced notice, has created confusion and community backlash against the City.

Perhaps most confusing is how this legal action will affect ongoing efforts by local water agencies to comply with the State Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).  This state law was enacted in 2014 to develop sustainable management of groundwater basins throughout California.


"the SGMA process offers a lot of promise in bringing local groups together to devise groundwater management solutions that are tailored to local conditions.  When stakeholders come together and agree, they have good leadership, then the path forward is going to be a lot smoother.  

... the Las Posas and City of Ventura adjudications will be the first under the new law, so it will be interesting to see how these cases lay the foundation for how the SGMA process in these streamlined adjudications will play out on the ground.  

Even with the new legislation, adjudications are going to remain expensive, time consuming, and take a lot of resources...

...in advancing the SGMA process, if people can’t come together to come to an agreement, there are probably ways to use those streamlined adjudications to establish clear deadlines in how to move forward while also creating certainty around pumping rights."

- Christina Babbitt, Environmental Defense Fund
            (see CA WATER LAW SYMPOSIUM: Groundwater adjudication under SGMA)

And they say imitation is the highest form of flattery: the City of Ventura buys VenturaRiver.com domain for their delayed PR campaign: https://venturariver.com



Below are links to news and information that help explain the complexities surrounding this issue:


Adjudication and SGMA:

Ventura River Watershed Adjudication Website, City of Ventura

 Restoring Flows in the Ventura River, Santa Barbara ChannelKeeper

Introduction to SGMA, The Groundwater Exchange

CA WATER LAW SYMPOSIUM: Groundwater adjudication under SGMA, Maven's Notebook, March 21, 2019

Groundwater Pumping Allocations under California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, Environmental Defense Fund, July 2018

 Handbook for Water Budget Development: With or Without Models, California Department of Water Resources (DWR), draft Feb 2020

SGMA IMPLEMENTATION: BORREGO VALLEY’S STRATEGY FOR A NEGOTIATED RESOLUTION UNDER SGMA, Maven  March 11, 2020



Local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies:

Upper Ventura River Groundwater Agency 

Ojai Basin Groundwater Management Agency



In the news:

Ventura vs. Ojai: Water war escalates — Certified letters with legal notices and summonses flood Ojai Valley, Ojai Valley News, Thursday, 09 January 2020

Watershed adjudication is the nuclear option VC Star Opinion by Alasdair Coyne, Jan 25, 2020                                                                                                  

Watershed Moment - Petrochem sold as water war looms in the Ventura River Watershed, VC Reporter, Jan 15, 2020

City of Ventura faces calls to drop legal action, water adjudication, VC Star Feb 1, 2020

Thousands served, noticed in Ventura's water lawsuit may get reprieve, VC Star, Feb 4, 2020

POWER TO SPEAK | CLARIFYING CHANNELKEEPER’S ROLE IN VENTURA RIVER WATERSHED ADJUDICATION, VC Reporter, Feb 12, 2020

Casitas backs extension for 14000 or so people served, noticed in Ventura's water lawsuit, VC Star, Feb 17, 2020

Court expected to decide this week on extension for those noticed in Ventura River lawsuit, VC Star, Feb 24, 2020

Court Grants Extension in Ventura River Lawsuit, VC Star, Feb 27, 2020

Guest columnist: Water lawsuit is about more than a fish, Ben Pitterle, Your Turn, VC Star, March 7, 2020

On this blog:

ChannelKeeper sues to save a drying river

ChannelKeeper settlement on City's pumping

https://www.venturariver.org/search/label/SBCK

ChannelKeeper settlement on City's pumping

Ventura River at Foster Park; City wells can pump the river dry

Santa Barbara ChannelKeeper and the City of Ventura announced an interim settlement in a lawsuit over pumping and diversion from the Ventura River.  Text below adapted from the press release:

Ventura, California – The City of San Buenaventura and Santa Barbara Channelkeeper are pleased to announce an interim settlement in the lawsuit regarding the pumping and diversion of water from the Ventura River Watershed. Both Channelkeeper and the City are dedicated to ensuring the protection of this finite water source and the habitat and species that rely on it while providing water now and for the future. This collaborative agreement brings us another step closer towards this goal. 

As part of the interim settlement, the City agreed to:

• begin a Pilot Program to reduce its pumping and diversion of water from the river when flows drop during dry times to help protect species that depend on the river
• The City will also address two low-flow fish passage barriers at its Foster Park facilities and install two monitoring gauges to help better evaluate water levels in the river. 

These interim measures will provide temporary assurance that some water remains in the river until scientific studies are completed to establish appropriate permanent safeguards for steelhead while also meeting the community’s water needs.

In the News:  Who gets Ventura River water? Ventura agrees to track, potentially reduce its usage, VC Star, Sept 30, 2019

The agreement reached between the city and the Santa Barbara Channelkeeper, which lasts 164 days and covers essentially Foster Park to the estuary, includes the following key elements: 

• Flow monitoring. When the instream flow measures 4 cubic feet per second, the equivalent of just under 30 gallons, the city will shut off one of its three wells. Once it hits 3 cubic feet per second, the city will shut a second well and at 2 cubic feet per second, it will shut down all Foster Park facilities. If it's after business hours, the change will take effect by 8 a.m. Pumping will be restored after 72 consecutive hours of flow above those thresholds.
• Fish barriers. The city will "take action" on two areas along the river at Foster Park that serve as potential barriers to fish passage during dry times. One is a 36-inch water line that comes up over the water surface during certain times of the year; the other is the top of a subsurface dam that again comes up over the water under certain conditions.
• An equipment check. The city will work to repair or install a new gauge at the Casitas Vista Road Bridge if the U.S. Geological Survey finds it working improperly. 
• Attorney costs and fees. The city will pay Channelkeeper's attorney $850,000 toward legal costs. That covers most, but not all, of the nonprofit's bill.

On this blog:  ChannelKeeper sues to save a drying river

More info:  

https://www.sbck.org/news/city-of-ventura-and-sb-channelkeeper-sign-interim-settlement-on-ventura-river-litigation/

https://www.sbck.org/current-issues/ventura-river/ventura-river-lawsuit-resurrecttheriver/

more #ResurrectTheRiver

Read more to learn more about Channelkeeper’s efforts to protect the Ventura River from over-pumping, and sign the petition to show your support:  RESTORING FLOWS IN THE RIVER

#ResurrectTheRiver

Santa Barbara ChannelKeeper recently initiated a campaign to #ResurrectTheRiver

The campaign aims to shine some light on their effort to restore flows in the Ventura River, which is often a complex issue to understand.

This video takes a creative look at the issues:




Visit the website to understand why;

 "Channelkeeper has filed a lawsuit to compel the State Water Board to scientifically analyze the “reasonableness” of the City’s use of the river and to find a workable balance between the competing demands for water and the need and legal responsibility to keep the river alive and flowing."

Sign the petition to show your support for #ResurrectTheRiver

On this blog:

ChannelKeeper sues to save a drying river

 

 

..

ChannelKeeper sues to save a drying river

"The city of Ventura for decades has overpumped and diverted Ventura River water, threatening wildlife and water quality, and the agency responsible for protecting it is doing nothing, says a lawsuit filed September 22, 2014 against the State Water Resources Control Board."
                -   VCStar: Santa Barbara Channelkeeper sues for study of Ventura River water use

Ventura River at Foster Park - July 2013

According to ChannelKeeper;

“For 16 years, the State Water Board has recognized the Ventura River as impaired by pumping and diversion of water, yet has never conducted a Reasonable Use Analysis of the City’s pumping,” said Ben Pitterle, Channelkeeper’s Watershed and Marine Program Director. “The recent drought has brought water supply concerns to the forefront, but this unreasonable use has been occurring for decades. We feel the river can't wait any longer."

Some stretches of the river that once flowed year-round now frequently go dry for months at a time, and surface flows in other stretches have been reduced to the point that water quality is severely degraded. Where flow is insufficient, water temperatures rise, algae proliferate and suck oxygen out of the river, and fish and other aquatic species that depend on a clean, flowing river suffer. At the same time, those who pump water from the river, particularly the City of Ventura, continue to do so at an unreasonable and unsustainable rate. This situation is heading toward a crisis, especially as the City discusses plans for significant growth, which would exacerbate the problem.

“This is an issue that really needs to be resolved by the City developing a truly integrated water management system to ensure that our limited resources are not wasted and to ensure the future sustainability of the community,” said Paul Jenkin, Environmental Director with Surfrider Foundation, Ventura chapter, and longtime river advocate.

Critical Victory in Santa Barbara Channelkeeper’s Lawsuit to Restore Flows in the Ventura River

At a hearing in California Superior Court in San Francisco on Thursday April 23, 2015, Santa Barbara Channelkeeper won a critical victory in its lawsuit to restore flows in the Ventura River.  The Court affirmed that the SWRCB does indeed have a mandatory duty to prevent unreasonable use of California’s water and that Channelkeeper can seek to compel them to analyze the City of Ventura’s use of the Ventura River. The SWRCB is required to respond to Channelkeeper’s lawsuit within 21 days.

On May 14, the City of Ventura filed a cross complaint against the other water districts in the watershed (Casita Municipal, Meiners Oaks, Ventura River, Rio Manor Mutual, Senior Canyon, as well as Wood-Claeyssens Foundation (Taylor Ranch) alleging whereas the City's water use IS reasonable and beneficial, the other water districts are not.  Within this cross complaint the "City seeks a physical solution among City and all Cross-Defendants regarding their respective uses of surface and/or subsurface water and groundwater affecting the Ventura River."  In legal terms, "physical solution" refers to an a SWRCB adjudication or court proceeding which typically result in an enforceable order allocating the water (and the water rights) in the adjudicated stream system, groundwater basin or combined water source. According to Sawyers (see below), "Adjudications typically take years (or even decades) to complete because of the often complex legal and factual issues involved." 

UPDATE Nov 2015:

SB Channelkeeper scored another big victory on August 26, 2015 in a ground-breaking lawsuit to restore flows to the Ventura River.

The City of Ventura pumps hundreds of millions of gallons of water from the river each year, often completely dewatering parts of the river during critical dry weather periods and causing harm to habitat, endangered species, water quality, and recreation. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has officially designated the Ventura River as impaired by excessive pumping and diversions, and it has a constitutional duty to prevent the unreasonable use of the state's waters. Despite this, the City continues to pump, and the SWRCB has done nothing, putting the health of the river in serious jeopardy.

 As a result, Channelkeeper filed a lawsuit in September 2014 seeking to compel the SWRCB to analyze the reasonableness of the City's use of the Ventura River. At a hearing in April, the California Superior Court overruled the City's and SWRCB's objections and affirmed that the SWRCB has a mandatory duty to prevent unreasonable use of state waters.

In response, the City attempted to burden the case by filing cross-complaints against every other water rights holder in the watershed, arguing that everyone's uses must be considered together. At our second hearing on August 26th, the Court again sided with Channelkeeper by forcing the City to drop its cross-complaints.

Channelkeeper’s hope is that the SWRCB will now agree to analyze the City's use of the river, and that ultimately that analysis will force the City to better balance its pumping to meet residential and municipal demand with the need to preserve in-stream flows for nature, fish and recreation.

The progress of the lawsuit may be followed on the San Francisco Superior Court Case Lookup website (case# CPF14513875). Be ready to prove you are not a robot.


References:

 ChannelKeeper's writ complaint: SBCK2014.09.19.Writ_Complaint.pdf

 City of Ventura cross complaint:  2015 05 14 SBCK Writ_SBV Xcomplaint v. Casitas et al.pdf

…

More information on the complexities of California water law pertaining to this  legal situation may be found in A PRIMER ON CALIFORNIA WATER RIGHTS, Prepared by Gary W. Sawyers, Esq. 
The following are excerpts from this paper:

Beneficial Use and the Public Trust Doctrine
Regardless of the nature of the water right in question, two very important principles will always apply. First, under the California Constitution, water must be put to reasonable and beneficial use. No water right grants any party the right to waste or make unreasonable use of water, a nd any water right can be curtailed or revoked if it is determined that the holder of that right has engaged in a wasteful or unreasonable use of water.
Second, no water user in the State "owns" any water. Instead, a water right grants the hol der thereof only the right to use water (called a "usufructuary right"). The owner of "legal title" to all water is the State in its capacity as a trustee for the benefit of the public. The so-called "public trust doctrine" requires the State, as a trustee, to manage its public trust resources (including water) so as to derive the maximum benefit for its citizenry. The benefits to be considered and balanced include economic, recreational, aesthetic and environmental; if at any time the trustee determines that a use of water other than the then current use would better serve the public trust, the State has the power and the obligation to reallocate that water in accordance with the public's interest. Even if the water at issue has been put to beneficial use (and relied upon) for decades, it can be taken from one user in favor of another need or use. The public trust doctrine therefore means that no water rights in California are truly "vested" in the traditional sense of property rights.

Adjudicated Water Rights
Many "water rights" in California are not quantified, but are simply claimed and/or exercised without objection by other parties. However, when competing demands for a common water supply--whether surface water, groundwater or both--become too great, formal adjudications are sometimes commenced by one or more of the competing claimants. Both the SWRCB and the courts can conduct adjudications under appropriate circumstances, which typically result in an enforceable order allocating the water (and the water rights) in the adjudicated stream system, groundwater basin or combined water source. Adjudications typically take years (or even decades) to complete because of the often complex legal and factual issues involved.

Frequently, the result of an adjudication is an equitable apportionment of water that does not "track" with a technical application of water law principles. For example, in a recently completed adjudication in the Mojave Basin, the court noted that strict adherence to priority of rights a nd correlative rights among water users of equal status created uncertainty and potential economic consequences. Therefore, the court applied a "physical solution" requiring all users of the common water source to share equitably both in the water and in the reduction in use necessary to reduce extractions to safe yield. As is commonly the case in judicial adjudications, the court also retained continuing jurisdiction over the implementation of the adjudication order, making the court an ongoing "player" in the administration of the basin.
Such physical solutions may produce the most appropriate allocation of the water resource, but they also create a number of issues. The adjudication order effectively supersedes water rights law, and any interested party must become familiar with the order's impacts on existing and future involvement with impacted water users. Depending on the adjudication order, a watermaster may be in place with jurisdiction over the affected water, and special procedures may be imposed on parties dealing with the water and water rights involved. Even more vexing is the relatively common situation in which the adjudication order effectively severs the water rights from the land, making them freely transferable separate from the land on which those rights originally arose. Adjudicated water rights therefore can fall into a category distinct from more traditional water rights. 

Ojai Quarry approved

On April 17, just a few days after an April 12 hearing, the Ventura County Planning Department approved the Ojai Quarry's operations.  This followed months of wrangling over repeated violations of the County's Conditional Use Permit and the State Mining and Reclamation Act.

The renewed permit approves the reclamation plan, expansion of the mining operations to include the use of a rock crusher, and expanded hours of operation.  The 1995 Environmental Impact Report was amended to accommodate these changes, stating that there is no impact to the endangered steelhead due to silt basins that have been installed as mitigation.  The southern steelhead was added to the endangered species list in 1997.

The County received comment letters from Santa Barbara Channelkeeper, Casitas Municipal Water District (CMWD), the Environmental Coalition, and Ojai Stop the Trucks! Coalition.

Despite the relatively dry winter, Santa Barbara ChannelKeeper continues to document impacts to North Fork Matilija Creek.  These impacts are clearly illustrated in this video:







In the news:

November 18, 2010
Quarry owner fails to get violations overturned

April 11, 2011
Ojai Quarry owner drops appeal

October 27, 2011:      
County proposes to shut Ojai mine after owner refuses to pay up 

December 13, 2011:  
Mosler quarry heads for showdown before county Planning Commission

December 15, 2011:  
Ventura County Planning Commission delays decision on quarry near Ojai

January 10, 2012:      
State deals business blow to Ojai Quarry

February 20, 2012:  
 Regulators, quarry operator moving toward deal 

February 23, 2012:  
In Ojai, quarry owner expects to be back in business

April 12, 2012:
Ojai Quarry owner presents cleanup plans

More info:  http://www.venturariver.org/search/label/Ojai%20Quarry
Stop the Trucks Coalition:  http://www.ojaipost.com/tag/stop_the_trucks/

Ojai Quarry to be shut down

Santa Barbara ChannelKeeper has been documenting the impacts of the Ojai Quarry for many years.  Despite the intervention of numerous public agencies, the quarry continues to impact the endangered steelhead trout and  downstream water quality.

Now, according to the VCStar, "Ventura County officials are moving to shut down an Ojai quarry over what they say is the owner's refusal to follow an approved cleanup plan and provide a financial assurance payment that he says would cost close to $3 million."

A public hearing on the Ventura County Planning Department's "Notice of Revocation" of the Mosler Rock Ojai Quarry's Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) has been postponed to December 15th.

According to the Ojai "Stop the Trucks" coalition, even as the State of California issues a "30 Day Notice to Delist" the Ojai Quarry as an acceptable supplier to government agencies and the Ventura County Planning Department files a "Notice of Revocation" of the quarry's Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.), another County agency, the Ventura County Watershed Protection District continues to not only receive deliveries of rock from the mine for a project in Camarillo, it has allegedly been accepting loads that far, far surpass the C.U.P.'s allowable daily loads. 

The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Ojai Quarry was approved by Ventura County in 1995  under a 'statement of overriding considerations.' The document states that although the quarry will have significant environmental impacts, the Ventura County Flood Control District (now the 'Watershed Protection District') needs the rock for 'rip rap' levee construction.  Today the environmental impacts have been realized:


Impact to Scenic Highway - Highway 33 in the Los Padres National Forest is designated as a scenic highway.  The quarry impacts the viewshed along Highway 33, and the bare hillside is now visible for miles down the Ventura River valley.

Impact to Steelhead Trout - the Southern Steelhead was listed in 1997, two years after the EIR was certified.  The quarry sits above North Fork Matilija Creek, which is now critical habitat and the last remnant of headwater habitat for this endangered species.

• Fish Passage: Large boulders block fish passage, and will be an ongoing problem.  The existing creek needs to be restored for fish passage and to stabilize the slope to minimize future impacts.  Because Matilija Dam, Casitas Dam, and agriculture and urbanization block fish passage to the headwaters, N Fork is the only accessible tributary potentially available to the endangered steelhead.  With passage blocked at the quarry, and downstream habitat impacted by the quarry (see water quality below), steelhead viability is limited in the Ventura River.
• Water Quality:  Santa Barbara ChannelKeeper has documented impacts from fine sediment both to water quality during storm events, and to downstream habitat.  Fine sediment smothers spawning gravels, and can prevent fish eggs from hatching and kill fry, smolt, and juvenile steelhead.  

Impact to Water Supply:  Erosion of fine sediment also impacts water supply, as this sediment is diverted at Robles into Casitas Reservoir impacting storage capacity and water quality for municipal supplies.  In a recent news article, The New York Times listed the Mosler Rock Ojai Quarry as one of the top “toxic waters / polluters” in the Ojai Valley as part of a national review of compliance with the Clean Water Act.

Legacy Impact:  These impacts will continue without remediation and restoration of the site.  Without the bond for remediation, who will pay?  Does the taxpayer bear the burden for decades of impact?  

In the news:  http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/oct/27/county-proposes-to-shut-ojai-mine-after-owner-to/

Stop the Trucks: http://www.ojaipost.com/tag/stop_the_trucks/
                           http://www.stoptruck.dalyroad.com/

More on Ojai Quarry: http://www.venturariver.org/search/label/Ojai%20Quarry

The hearing before the Ventura County Planning Commission  in support of Ventura County Planning Department’s “Notice of Revocation” of the Mosler Rock Ojai Quarry’s Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.), is now scheduled for 8:30 am on December 15th, at the Government Center on Victoria Avenue in the Chamber of the Board of Supervisor’s on the ground floor.

The hearing is expect to last most of the morning, if not most of the day.  Please attend for at least part of the day to show your support of the move to revoke the quarry’s Conditional Use Permit.  

...

Why is the ocean brown?

Every time it rains, runoff from the land impacts the river and coast.  And although we have accepted the 'chocolate milk' surf as normal after it rains, it has not always been this way.  This is what is known as a 'Shifting Baseline.'  (See Shifting Baselines in the Surf)

Rainfall this weekend was equivalent to what is known as the 'design storm' - we received approximately one inch over a 12 hour period.  For regulatory and engineering purposes, this quantity of rainfall can and should be retained on site.  This requirement is in the Ventura Countywide 'MS4'  (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) Permit, as a standard that all new development will be held to.

The problem, however, is that over the past 100 years our development patterns have directed rainfall off the land, into storm drains, and directly into the river and ocean.

URBAN RUNOFF:

Here's what Ventura Avenue looked like during the rain: the parking shoulder was flowing like a creek.  This is an example of Urban Runoff, and the water here is carrying everything from 'dog poop' and trash, to brake fluid and pesticides, into the storm drains and out to sea.

INDUSTRIAL RUNOFF:

A little further up the Avenue are the oil fields.  Here the runoff changes to a muddy brown.  Here erosion of soil from miles of oilfield roads in the hills and large impervious work yards flushes into the street...

...into the storm drains, and out to the ocean.  Any chemicals that have spilled or absorbed into the ground are flushed off the land along with this soil.

Santa Barbara ChannelKeeper Stream Team volunteers have been sampling this site for a couple of years, and although oil and gas is generally exempt from clean water rules, Santa Barbara ChannelKeeper has been successful in forcing Aera Energy to enroll in the industrial stormwater permit program.  

This video, starting around 3:20, describes ChannelKeeper's work and illustrates the runoff from this area, and also shows how security guards harass watchdogs, even though this is a public street.  

AGRICULTURAL RUNOFF: 

As the video illustrates, another major source of pollution agriculture.  Both livestock and irrigated crops contribute to water quality problems.  

One area we have been watching is the recent expansion of orchards and row crops at Taylor Ranch on the west side of the Ventura River.  This strawberry field was sprayed with chemicals on Friday, despite the storm bearing down on the region.  Because conventional strawberry growers use plastic to cover the ground, these fields generate significant runoff when it rains. 

Here a Santa Barbara ChannelKeeper volunteer is collecting a water sample from under the Main St bridge, just downstream of these fields.    Note the color of the river water. This sample will be analyzed for pesticides...  although a full-suite analysis would likely turn up a variety of pollutants.

Under the bridge is one of dozens of campsites in the floodplain - another issue of concern documented here: Salmon Run focuses on trash issue

We also went to look at the runoff onto Emma Wood State Beach from the strawberry fields up on the hill at Taylor Ranch.  This is a problem we first documented in 2007  when the fields were first developed.  We continue to received numerous reports from beach users, and this photo confirms that runoff still directly enters the ocean from these fields every time it rains.

The combination of all these sources, known as 'Non-Point Source Pollution' has a significant impact on our coastal water quality and health of the ecosystem.  The fine sediments that enter the river and ocean linger for months, and this is why the water at Surfers' Point often appears muddy, long after the rains have stopped.

This diagram summarizes the issues outlined here.  This is just a small part of the big picture...


...

Salmon Run focuses on trash issue

This year's Salmon Run, the 18th annual event organized by Patagonia, sold out at 400 registered runners.  This is the one time every year when the lower Ventura River is open to the public for this fundraiser event.  (One reason why you should sign our petition for the Ventura River Parkway)

Santa Barbara ChannelKeeper placed signs along the course to tell the story of trash and human waste in the lower Ventura River.  "It is estimated that 150-200 people live in the riverbottom throughout the year without garbage or sanitary services" 

 

Santa Barbara ChannelKeeper has been working to address this problem,  currently one of the most serious threats to water quality in the Ventura River watershed.  Last year Stream Team volunteers mapped the extent of camping in the estuary area: http://www.venturariver.org/2011/04/stream-team-trash-survey.html

Watch this video as ChannelKeeper's Ben Pitterle documents the extent of the problem:

More photos from the Salmon Run:

Watch dogs

Santa Barbara ChannelKeeper's "Watchdog Diaries"

These videos show ChannelKeeper's ongoing efforts to document sources of water pollution in the Ventura River:



YouTube: http://youtu.be/GeIUD5VyrCo



YouTube: http://youtu.be/oBFHrS1nKOI


About Santa barbara ChannelKeeper:  http://sbck.org/

Stream Team Trash Survey

On March 5th 2011, Ventura River Stream Team volunteers spent a Saturday morning mapping trash in the Ventura River estuary. The estimated 200 people living in the river-bottom generate a tremendous amount of waste - both 'trash' and human waste.

It is clear that this is a severe problem that directly impacts water quality in the estuary and the heavily used beaches near the rivermouth (i.e. Surfers' Point)










On April 5, 2011, Santa Barbara ChannelKeeper sent a letter to the City of Ventura and responsible agencies documenting the results.

The letter says:

During this event, thirteen volunteers inspected public lands on the eastern floodplain of the Ventura River from the Highway 101 bridge to the Pacific Ocean. Over the course of only two hours, volunteers located and documented over 35 dump sites containing human waste, garbage, chemicals, and active and abandoned campsites. Channelkeeper has compiled the results of this survey in a photographic report that is available on our website (www.sbck.org) .

Most of the waste identified during our survey has accumulated since the same area was targeted by City cleanup efforts last August. In fact, according to the City of Ventura, over 55 tons of garbage have already been removed from the Ventura River over the past three years. As our report demonstrates, however, waste continues to be generated at an alarming rate.
We note that the condition of these sites has likely changed dramatically since these observations were recorded. On the weekend of March 19th and 20th, a significant rainfall event occurred during which the river’s elevation rose dramatically, enough to flood the occupied stream banks, stranding homeless residents and requiring emergency helicopter evacuations. Neither Channelkeeper staff nor Stream Team volunteers have re‐visited these sites since these observations were recorded, but waste from many of these sites likely washed downstream onto the beach and into the ocean.


...We also believe that without an additional focus on long‐term preventative solutions, that the Responsible Parties participating in the Ventura River Trash Total Maximum Daily Load program will continue to be unable to meet mandatory limits established to protect water quality.


The complete report, including dozens of photos like those shown here, may be downloaded from the SBCK website here: http://sbck.org/


In the news: http://www.kclu.org/news/local/story.php?story_id=914