$350 million available to North Coast, Central Coast and San Francisco Bay

$350 million available to North Coat, Central Coast and San Francisco Bay

But first in related news....
The Mendocino County the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday 01072014, voted unanimously to declare a local emergency "and imminent threat of disaster" from drought conditions, and appointed two of its members to an ad-hoc committee to come up with a plan to keep local communities from going dry.
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/news/ci_24863571/drought-emergency-declared-mendocino-county?source=nav

The board appointed 1st District Supervisor Carrie Brown and 5th District Supervisor Dan Hamburg to the Drought Emergency Ad-Hoc Committee, and discussed inviting each of the cities to join the working group.

John Pinches with just one year left as Supervisor stated, "I've been working on trying to get people excited in this county about another water supply for my whole political career," Pinches said. "Folks, we got to come up with more water supply. It's plain and simple. Any third-grader in Mendocino County could figure it out."

No More 'aquifer exemptions'. Support County Bans on Fracking.
Sign a Statewide Ban Fracking petition.

Which leads me to think of additional language that could be added to any rural county petition, but using the local Ban Fracking In Mendocino County petition, additional language might look like this;

Whereas the Mendocino BoS declaration of a local emergency "and imminent threat of disaster" from drought conditions, coincides with the Statewide overall drop in aquifers;
and
Whereas the Aquifer Exemption clause added by DOGGR after December 24, 2013, to the SB 4 Well Stimulation Regulations seeks to remove remote basin and sub-basin aquifers as potential sources to 'public drinking water systems' by enacting the definition of 'protected water' under the SDWA, which contains the Halliburton exemption for fracking;
and
Whereas the 'additional clarification language' by DOGGR and the specific SDWA clause as cited, by it's definition of 'public water source' and subsequent historical use documentation requirements, 1) permits aquifer exemptions for oil and gas production, and 2) also permits contamination of aquifers or portions thereof for 'oil and gas field' operations in the disposal of wastewater or produced water, usually within an 'oil field or gas field lease held boundaries';
and
Whereas this 'new language' disproportionately affects rural, low density population counties in the north State regions where remote basin and sub-basin aquifers provide water sources for wells servicing the needs of families on individual properties for both drinking and irrigation; and
Whereas in this same region of the North Central Coast, North Coast and North State Interior (DOGGR District 6) local governments have no real history of legal precedents regarding oil and/or gas extraction and water issues - and given the scale of increased exploration and expansion of production projected and since the only protected aquifers in the State have been adjudicated;

It therefore seems prudent and wise to enact a MORATORIUM NOW!

A correlative piece of Legislation, The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality, and Flood Protection Act of 2014, SB 42 authored by Senator Lois Wolk addresses California water woes in ways that strive protect the rights of and needs of people and their health and safety throughout the State. It is active in The California Legislature.

I feel it can be said, that SB 42 is a Capital budget language equivalent, of numerous concerns related to the December 24, 2013 addition of clarification language to SB 4.

In it's own way, SB 42 addresses, among current neglected impacts, potential cumulative impacts in the 'protected water' and 'aquifer exemptions' clause, added to SB 4, by DOGGR, after close of comments.

EIR SCOPING CONCERNS per DOGGR notification that:
Clarification was added that an aquifer deemed exempt under the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act is not protected water.

1) What is the acre/foot price difference paid by distinct user groups, defined by specific permitted uses, under the 'new' SDWA language regarding 'protected waters and the SWDA 'Aquifer Exemption' clause under the UIC?

2) What would the future cost analysis look like of a benefits to loss spreadsheet of impacts to basin or sub-basin aquifers, or any portion thereof, due to permitted contamination or overdraft, given that such impacts diminish potential supplies of groundwater or drinking water, to the State overall, whether that end use is local, regional, or Statewide?

Incorporated by reference to be included in any EIR Scoping Comments discussion is;
The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality, and Flood Protection Act of 2014, SB 42, including the Legislative history of SB 42 and Senate Bill discussions, supporting documentation and/or substantiating evidence. Useful excerpts follow,

DIVISION 26.7. The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality, and Flood Protection Act of 2014
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB42
Under existing law, various measures have been approved by the voters to provide funds for water supply and protection facilities and programs.

This bill would enact the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality, and Flood Protection Act of 2014, which, if adopted by the voters, would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $6,475,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance a safe drinking water, water quality, and flood protection program.

79726.
Funds Of the funds available pursuant to Section 79724, one billion four hundred million ($1,400,000,000) shall be allocated to each hydrologic region regions identified for purposes of integrated regional water management planning by the department based 75 percent on population and 25 percent on geographical size of the region. in accordance with the following schedule:
(1) North Coast: $66,000,000.
(2 San Francisco Bay: $196,000,000.
(3 Central Coast: $85,000,000.

SB-42 Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality, and Flood Protection Act of 2014.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml

Introduced by Senator Lois Wolk
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 2013–2014 REGULAR SESSION
12/12/13 Set for hearing January 14.
01/08/14 Hearing postponed by committee.
Active Bill - In Committee Process
Two Thirds Vote Required

PLEASE MAKE COMMENTS on FRACKING, ACIDIZING and Well Stimulation Regulations
There are 2 parallel comment periods, ending two days apart.

DOGGR issued for public review and comment draft regulations, public comments are due by 5:00 pm January 14, 2014. Also DOC is preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) “to evaluate the impacts of existing and potential future oil and gas well stimulation treatments occurring within California.” Public comments due by 5:00 pm January 16, 2014.

Comments regarding the proposed regulations can be submitted via email to DOGGRRegulations [at] conservation.ca.gov

via FAX to (916) 324-0948; or
via regular mail to the
Department of Conservation Office of Governmental and Environmental Relations
801 K Street MS 24-02, 95814
Attention: Well Stimulation Regulations

Comments regarding the EIR can be submitted via email to
SB4EIR [at] conservation.ca.gov

Written Scoping Comments can be sent via U.S. Mail:
California Department of Conservation
Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources
801 K Street, MS 18-00
Sacramento, CA 95814-3530

Informational Resource for comments;
http://banslickwaterfracking.blogspot.com/

Relax some, watch some movies, and sign a petition! Then please read on....
Gasland 2, Fracking Hell, Split Estate, Sky Is Pink, more...
http://thoughtmaybe.com/gasland2/

Tomas DiFiore
North Coast resident