Document By6yqYBgQ9ErgX4Vmp1mx0knJ

DownloadSearchable PDFRandom document
To: Eric T. Schneiderman[nysag@ag.ny.gov]; Tips At The New York Times[tips@nytimes.com]; tips@nypost.com[tips@nypost.com]; piu@doj.ca.gov[piu@doj.ca.gov]; Amanda Hopper[ahopper@co.sutter.ca.us]; Pruitt, Scott[Pruitt.Scott@epa.gov]; laura.nicholson@sen.ca.gov[laura.nicholson@sen.ca.gov]; sectyrodriquez@calepa.ca.gov[sectyrodriquez@calepa.ca.gov]; secretary@resources.ca.gov[secretary@resources.ca.gov]; Harold Kruger[hkruger@appealdemocrat.com]; Wampler, David[Wampler.David@epa.gov]; OIG Hotline[OIG_Hotline@epa.gov]; Bowles, Jack[Bowles.Jack@epa.gov]; Minoli, Kevin[Minoli.Kevin@epa.gov]; Davis, Patrick[davis.patrick@epa.gov]; Hope, BrianfHope.Brian@epa.gov]; Rodriguez, RobertofRodriguez.Roberto@epa.gov]; Richardson, RobinH[Richardson.RobinH@epa.gov]; Wagner, Kenneth[wagner.kenneth@epa.gov]; Jackson, Ryan[jackson.ryan@epa.gov]; dissmith@sacbee.com[dissmith@sacbee.com]; Sutter Buttes Tea Party[sbtp@syix.com]; maureen.leary@ag.ny.gov[maureen.Ieary@ag.ny.gov]; Estrada, Fabiola[Estrada.Fabiola@epa.gov]; Reed Sato[reed.sato@doj.ca.gov]; Dale Kasler[dkasler@sacbee.com]; Ryan Sabalow[rsabalow@sacbee.com]; brian.Ieahy@cdpr.ca.gov[brian.Ieahy@cdpr.ca.gov]; Bryan@Waterboards Elderfbryan.elder@waterboards.ca.gov]; Caldwell Brian (OAG)[brian.caldwell@dc.gov]; Martinez Michael C. (ENRD)[michael.c.martinez@usdoj.gov]; Chuck and Pat Miller[chucknpat@comcast.net]; Rick Libby[liveoakrick@gmail.com]; Ron Sullenger[rsullenger@co.sutter.ca.us]; whistleblowers@mccaskill.senate.gov[whistleblowers@mccaskill.senate.gov]; Goldberg Andy (AGO)[andy.goldberg@state.ma.us]; andrew.altevogt@waterboards.ca.gov[andrew.altevogt@waterboards.ca.gov]; pamela.creedon@waterboards.ca.gov[pamela.creedon@waterboards.ca.gov]; Buffleben, Matthew@Waterboards[Matthew.Buffleben@waterboards.ca.gov]; Brendan. Thompson@waterboards.ca.gov[brendan. thompson@waterboards.ca.gov]; Nathan. Jacobsen@waterboards.ca.gov[nathan.jacobsen@waterboards.ca.gov]; NorthCoast[northcoast@waterboards.ca.gov]; maryann.archuleta@water.ca.gov[maryann.archuleta@water.ca.gov]; shin- roei.lee@waterboards.ca.gov[shin-roei.Iee@waterboards.ca.gov]; elizabeth.beryt@waterboards.ca.gov[elizabeth. beryt@waterboards.ca.gov]; julia.hooten@waterboards.ca.gov[julia.hooten@waterboards.ca.gov]; matt.st.john@waterboards.ca.gov[matt.st.john@waterboards.ca.gov]; sarmstrong@waterboards.ca.gov[sarmstrong@waterboards.ca.gov]; george.Iow@waterboards.ca.gov[george.Iow@waterboards.ca.gov]; Wendy Wyels[wendy.wyels@waterboards.ca.gov] From: will rogers Sent: Fri 10/6/2017 9:54:17 AM Subject: Fw: EPA response to your Feb. 25, 2017 email Unreasonable and Wasteful Water Use SWRCB T Howard.pdf SWRCB Thomas Howard Livestock Feed Corp.pdf BrownsDirtyHands.pdf Dear Assistant US Attorney Hallie Hoffman.docx Dear Officials, I am not going to attach the Regional Water Board Reports (Sent to SWRCB Bryan Elder) and all the photos I videos (Sent to SWRCB Bryan Elder) that help prove that Morris Property on Krehe Rd where the PG&E facility I discharge (Approved by the Regional Water Board) was located and was also being used for a cattle operation I livestock feed crop which the SWRCB are against because they have stated that they are a unreasonable and wasteful use of water which violate the California Constitution and are partially to blame for Global Warming I Climate Change. Which for some reason he Regional Water Board and SWRCB both ignored which is very odd since they claim to be protectors of water and the climate. Why approve a to facility I discharge to a site I operations which SWRCB claims is a unreasonable and wasteful use of water and which is causing Global Warming / Climate if you are trying to fight against them ? 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_O01523_00002441-00001 Unless you are corrupt and dishonest like PG&E, Gov. Brown, his staff and California Regulators like is mentioned in the attached report entitled: Brown's Dirty Hands. Which mentions some of the information I brought up to SWRCB Bryan Elder but he basically ignored and instead basically accused me of attacking PG&E and Morris character for no reason when I was actually bringing up their history which he should have used when investigating and reporting on them but instead he lied and authored a false I misleading report which has helped them get away with violations and crimes such as obstructing justice which is basically what he did by lying in his report and not inspecting the facility and site while the facility was still located on Morris Property. If SWRCB Bryan Elder and the EPA I Scott Pruitt were honest then his report and a EPA Report would have sounded or looked more like the letter that I attached which I wrote and sent to US Hollie Hoffman. May be EPA Scott Pruitt doesn't want to thorough investigation and address the PG&E., Gov. Brown, the Regional Water and SWRCB because its similar to his connections with big energy and other incidents related to them and / or he has also taken campaign donations from them just like Gov. Brown has even though he attacks I accusing them for causing Global Warming I Climate Change. Secretary Pruitt its time for you to have some integrity and step up as a Christian and EPA Secretary and honestly address this incident to the public regarding the Regional Water Board , SWRCB, Morris, PG&E and Gov. Brown. The Regional Water Boards, SWRCB, PG&E and Gov. Browns actions contradict their statements and actions on WOTUS and Global Warming / Climate Change. Sincerely- Will Rogers -- Forwarded Message -- From: "Wampler, David" <Wampler.David@epa.gov> To: "willgrogers@yahoo.com" <willgrogers@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 9:15 PM Subject: EPA response to your Feb. 25, 2017 email Dear Mr. Rogers, Thank you for contacting EPA's Administrator, Mr. Scott Pruitt, regarding your concerns from the PG&E activities in Live Oak, California, during the spring of 2016. I have been asked to provide a response to your email to Administrator Pruitt, dated February 25, 2017. EPA takes your request for additional investigation into the PG&E activities very seriously. We have thoroughly read your email, reviewed the State's water discharge permit issued to PG&E, talked with the State's investigator, and thoroughly read the State's May 20, 2016 investigation report. Based on the information from you and from those who conducted the investigation, we do not have reason to believe there were unauthorized discharges in the winter/spring of 2016 associated with the PG&E project in your area during the spring of 2016. We believe the State completed a timely and thorough investigation of the concerns you raised and we have no reason to believe their investigation was inadequate. Lastly, EPA has no information supporting your claims of governmental fraud in the State of California. Sincerely, David Wampler Manager, Water Enforcement Section II US EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street (ENF 3-2) 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00002441-00002 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 972-3975 wampler.david@epa.gov 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00002441-00003 Thomas Howard, Executive Director Members of the Board State Water Resources Control Board Clerk to the Board, (916) 341-5600 10011 Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Sent via email to Rich.Satkowski@waterboards.ca.gov RE: Livestock Feed Crop Production in the San Joaquin Valley, 2014 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the important issue of livestock feed crop-related agricultural water use in the San Joaquin Valley. To start, we wish to formally incorporate into this comment, by reference, the 6 July 2015 comment to the SWRCB titled "June 8, 2015 Temporary Urgency Change Petition Concerning SWP/CVP and Water Deliveries, in relation to the April 6, 2015 TUCO," submitted by Ara Marderosian (Sequoia ForestKeeper), Guy Saperstein, Alexandra Paul, Jon Marvel, Connie Hanson, Mike Hudak, Lorelei Plotczyk, Lorin Lindner, Marcia Hanscom, Robert Roy van de Hoek, and Todd M. Shuman (Wasteful UnReasonable Use), as well as the Objection/Protest respectfully submitted to the SWRCB by Sequoia ForestKeeper (SFK) and Wasteful UnReasonable Use (WURU) regarding the 8 June 2015 Notice of Request Filed by the California Department of Water Resources and the United States Bureau of Reclamation to modify and renew a Temporary Urgency Change Order regarding permits and license of the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project (filed initially on May 21, 2015). We wish to formally incorporate into this comment, by reference, the 16 August 2015 comment to the SWRCB titled "Unreasonable and Wasteful Water Use: Rice Cultivation, Livestock Feed Crop Production, the Sacramento River Settlement Contractors, and the July 3, 2015 TUCO", submitted by Ara Marderosian (Sequoia ForestKeeper), Todd M. Shuman (Wasteful UnReasonable Use), Mike Hudak (Ph.D., author), and Megan E. Gallagher, Esq. (Attorney at Law). We wish to formally incorporate into this comment, by reference, the 16 October 2015 comment to the SWRCB titled "Five Counties, Five Numbers: Livestock Feed Crop Production in the S. San Joaquin Valley, 2014", submitted by Ara Marderosian (Sequoia ForestKeeper), Todd M. Shuman (Wasteful UnReasonable Use), Mike Hudak (Ph.D., author), and Megan E. Gallagher, Esq. (Attorney at Law). LFC Production and California Law Livestock feed crop (LFC) production in California sustains cattle-related commodity production in California. As we have argued previously, global climate change and drought conditions in California have likely been exacerbated and intensified by the methane that is emitted when livestock feed crops are consumed and digested by dairy cows and other cattle. 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00002444-00001 We have also argued previously that livestock (especially cattle) are notoriously inefficient at converting water and other natural resources into protein available for human consumption, relative to plant-based sources of protein. We, therefore, again argue that the use of water drawn from surface flows and extracted from increasingly-depleted groundwater aquifers in the San Joaquin Valley to irrigate acreage that results in livestock feed crop production is unreasonable and wasteful in California. Use of water drawn from surface flows and groundwater extracted from increasingly depleted aquifers to irrigate acreage that results in livestock feed crop production in California conflicts with the "waste or unreasonable use" section of the California Constitution. (See Article 10, Section 2, which declares that "the waste or unreasonable use ... of water be prevented ... The right to water or to the use or flow of water ... does not and shall not extend to the waste or unreasonable use ... of water.") Moreover, the continued extraction of groundwater from increasingly-depleted San Joaquin Valley aquifers to irrigate acreage d\aX results in livestock feed crop production appears inconsistent with legal requirements that have been incorporated into The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014. In Section 10720.1, it is stated that "it is the intent of the Legislature to do all of the following ... (b) To enhance local management of groundwater consistent with ... Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution." In Section 10720.5, it is stated that "(a) Groundwater management pursuant to this part shall be consistent with Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution." LFC Production in SJV 2014 The counties of Kern, Tulare, Kings, Fresno, Madera, Merced, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin released 2014 Annual Crop reports during the second half of 2015. Based on the information within these reports, in combination with other sources (including information from Mariposa, Tuolumne, and Calaveras counties), we have compiled and calculated a set of numbers that constitutes the basis for a concise narrative concerning water, livestock feed crop production, and methane gas emission in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) during 2014. In short, approximately 2.4 million acres were devoted to (or resulted in) livestock feed crop (LFC) production in these counties in 2014. Approximately 7.5 million acre-feet (MAF) of water was used to cultivate acreage that resulted in LFC production in 2014. Approximately 28 million tons of livestock feed crop forage were produced from the application of this amount of water to the acreage cultivated in 2014.1 (See Appendix A and attached spreadsheet set, LFC SJV 2014 sprdsht.) 1. Twenty eight million tons of forage could have theoretically fed approximately three million lactating cows for a full year, and three million lactating cows would have likely emitted (through the process of enteric fermentation) an annual quantity of methane that is equivalent to approximately 62 billion pounds of carbon dioxide trapping heat in the atmosphere over the next 20 years. See spreadsheet set, LFC SJV 2014 sprdsht.] 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00002444-00002 This large amount of forage would have been primarily used to feed the cumulative California beef, dairy, heifer, bull, and steer populations in 2014. The cumulative 2014 California cattle population was 5.1 million, with the beef, dairy, heifer, bull, and steer populations cumulatively accounting for approximately 4.03 million, while calves accounted for the remaining 1.07 million. (See Appendix A.) As we noted in earlier comments to the SWRCB, livestock feed crops consumed by cows are partially converted (through enteric fermentation) into significant direct atmospheric methane emissions. Cattle manure channeled into anaerobic manure lagoons and liquefied slurry storage constitutes a second major source of atmospheric methane emission. Cumulative cattle-associated methane emission values for California during 2013 have been released by the California Air Resources Control Board. Approximately 1,911,000,000 pounds of cattle-associated methane were released into the atmosphere in 2013--997,000,000 pounds by way of enteric emissions and 914,000,000 pounds by way of manure-related emissions. Using an IPCC AR5th 20-year interval methane GWP, the caibon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) value associated with this mass of methane is comparable to an amount of carbon dioxide that would be annually released by 19.1 coal-fired electricity generation (CFEG) plants that would then trap heat in the atmosphere for 20 years before being sequestered. Using an IPCC AR5th 100-year interval methane GWP, the CO2e value associated this mass of methane is comparable to an amount of carbon dioxide that would be annually released by 6.36 CFEG plants that would then trap heat in the atmosphere for 100 years before being sequestered. (See Appendix A and spreadsheet set, LFC SJV 2014 sprdsht.) LFC Production, Methane Emission, and Extreme Weather It is likely that livestock-associated methane emissions generated in California in 2014 have already contributed to the further warming of our planet. It is also likely that such livestockassociated methane-related atmospheric heat trapping has increased the probability that certain types of extreme weather-related events will become even more likely to occur in California and the U.S. in the future. It is also likely that these types of extreme weather-related events (triggered in part by livestock-related methane emission) will generate significant adverse impacts on human health, essential infrastructure, and vulnerable coastal populations. A number of recently published studies over the last eight months provide evidentiary support for the latter two claims: 1: A recent peer-reviewed study has directly linked human-caused global warming to the catastrophic flooding in Texas and Oklahoma in spring of 2015. (In May, more than35 trillion gallons of water fell on Texas--enough to cover the entire state in eight inches of water. More than two dozen people were killed, and it was the wettest single month on record in both Texas and Oklahoma.) The new peer-reviewed study from Utah State and Taiwanese researchers concluded, "There was a detectable effect of anthropogenic [manmade] global warming in the physical processes that caused the persistent precipitation in May of 2015 over the southern 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00002444-00003 Great Plains."2 (See Simon Wang, S.-Y, W.-R. Huang, H.-H. Hsu, andR. R. Gillies (2015), Role of the strengthened El Nino teleconnection in the May 2015 floods over the southern Great Plains, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 8140-8146, Jo/: 10.1002 >01IGI > , M L) 2: A recently-published study by Swain, Horton, Singh, and Diffenbaugh (2016) has documented that the number of very dry atmospheric patterns in California has increased in recent decades, while the number of "average" moisture atmospheric patterns has declined. Swain noted: "We're seeing an increase in certain atmospheric patterns that have historically resulted in extremely dry conditions.. .What seems to be happening is that we're having fewer 'average' years, and instead we're seeing more extremes on both sides. This means that California is indeed experiencing more warm and dry periods, punctuated by wet conditions." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases /04/160401144457.htm) While the authors of this study have deployed careful and highly technical language in their study, they have, nonetheless, written a crucially important statement concerning an apparent positive statistical relationship between global greenhouse gas forcing and the specific extreme atmospheric configurations that have been manifest in the northeastern Pacific over the last 65 years: "The results presented in the current study therefore confirm that the observed pattern of the long-term GPH [geopotential height field] trend in the NPD [Northern Pacific domain] is spatially nonuniform, strongly positive in the mean, driven by the specific pattern of lower tropospheric warming, and characterized by an amplification of the West Coast mean ridge highly reminiscent of that which occurred during historical dry and warm years i n California. These empirical findings demonstrate a complex evolution over the northeastern Pacific between 1949 and 2015, with 500-mb GPH and SLP [sea level pressure] trends of generally the same sign occurring "in-phase" with the mean West Coast cool-season ridge (Fig. 1, A to C, and fig. SI) and the largest trends occurring just east of the terminus of the East Pacific storm track (33). This is especially interesting in light of recent investigations into the physical structure of anthropogenically forced trends in regional atmospheric circulation, which have suggested that changes in mean flow (via momentum/energy fluxes driven by embedded transient cyclones) may reinforce planetary -scale stationary waves in the upper atmosphere under certain conditions (37, 45, 54, 56)." 2: A recently released National Academies of Science study notes the high confidence level of extreme event attribution modelling studies that are clearly related to heat and temperature, such as the Wang et al. study summarized above: "Confidence in attribution findings of anthropogenic influence is greatest for those extreme events that are related to an aspect of temperature, such as the observed long-term warming of the regional or global climate, where there is little doubt that human activities have caused an observed change For example, a warmer atmosphere is associated with higher evapotranspiration rates and heavier precipitation events through changes in the air's capacityto absorb moisture. . .Confidence in attribution analyses of specific extreme events is highest forextreme heat and cold events, followed by hydrological drought and heavy precipitation." (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Attribution ofExtreme Weather Events in the Context ofClimate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, doi: 10.17226/21852. Page 106.)] 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00002444-00004 "Additionally, because the location and amplitude of atmospheric stationary waves are dictated by the rel ative placement and orography of global landmasses, the observed alignment of the nonuniform spatial pattern of thermal dilation with the North American continent (Fig. IB) supports the notion that at least some ofthe observed trend in GPH--and thus specific extreme atmospheric configurations--may be due to increasing land -sea thermal contrasts. Enhanced warming over the continents is a predicted (and observed) response to global greenhouse forcing and has the potential to influence broader circulation regim es (57, 58)." [emphasis added, see Daniel L. Swain, Daniel E. Horton, Deepti Singh, and Noah S. Diffenbaugh. Trends in atmospheric patterns conducive to seasonal precipitation and temperature extremes in California. Science Advances, March 2016, page 9 DOI: 10,1126/sciadv.l501344 ] 3: A comprehensive meta-study recently released by the Federal Government (U.S. Global Change Research Program, April 2016) has documented numerous significant adverse impacts associated with "Extreme Events" driven by anthropogenic forcing (greenhouse gas emissions). The key findings of this study, summarized on page 100, are provided below: "Increased Exposure to Extreme Events - Key Finding 1: Health impacts associated with climate-related changes in exposure to extreme events include death, injury, or illness; exacerbation of underlying medical conditions; and adverse effects on mental health [High Confidence], Climate change will increase exposure risk in some regions of the United States due to projected increases in the frequency and/or intensity of drought, wildfires, and flooding related to extreme precipitation and hurricanes [Medium Confidence], . . Key Finding 2: Many types of extreme events related to climate change cause disruption of infrastructure, including power, water, transportation, and communication systems, that are essential to maintaining access to health care and emergency response services and safeguarding human health [High Confidence], .. Key Finding 3: Coastal populations with greater vulnerability to health impacts from coastal flooding include persons with disabilities or other access and functional needs, certain populations of color, older adults, pregnant women and children, low-income populations, and some occupational groups [High Confidence], Climate change will increase exposure risk to coastal flooding due to increases in extreme precipitation and in hurricane intensity and rainfall rates, as well as sea level rise and the resulting increases in storm surge [High Confidence]." (See Bell, J.E., S.C. Herring, L. Jantarasami, C. Adrianopoli, K. Benedict, K. Conlon, V. Escobar, J. Hess, J. Luvall, C.P. Garcia-Pando, D. Quattrochi, J. Runkle, and C.J. Schreck, III, 2016: Ch. 4: Impacts ofExtreme Events on Human Health. The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 99-128. http://dx.doi.org/10.7930/J0BZ63ZV.) 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00002444-00005 Unreasonable Water Use and Extreme Weather On the basis of all of the studies that we have summarized and cited in all of our SWRCB comments since June 19, 2015, we re-assert our previous claim: it is profoundly unreasonable-- indeed, intensely irrational--for the SWRCB to continue to allow California water to be used for activities that are likely to promote an increased frequency of drought events in California's future, and hence, further water scarcity in California. We add to our assertion that it is unreasonable for the SWRCB to continue to allow California water to be used for activities that are likely to promote extreme weather conditions throughout California, the United States, and the rest of the planet. Given the severe adverse impacts that have been, and will likely be, partially generated by anthropogenically-forced extreme weather events, we assert that it is unreasonable (and hence unconstitutional) for California water to be used for agricultural production when such production is likely to result in livestock feed crops -- even when drought conditions in California are absent. Wasteful, Unreasonable Use: Groundwater Depletion As we stated in previous comments to the SWRCB, we view the use of water to irrigate acreage that results in livestock feed crop production as wasteful and unreasonable due to its association with the depletion of scarce groundwater in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV). Again, it is likely that much of the water used to irrigate acreage that resulted in livestock feed crop production in 2014 came from local groundwater sources, as the San Joaquin Valley received little precipitation in 2014. Groundwater depletion in the Southern San Joaquin Valley was likely extensive in 2014, as the area received almost no surface water allocation from the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project in 2014. In addition, groundwater depletion was also likely significant in the central San Joaquin Valley, in part due to resale of CVP/SWP surface water quantities from senior water rights holders to junior water rights holders further south that had received minimal or no CVP/SWP surface water quantities in 2014. Acreage in these midSJV areas was then likely partially irrigated through utilization of increasingly overdrawn local groundwater sources. (For more on "groundwater substitution transfers" involving the SJRECWA, see San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority 25-Year Water Transfer Program Water Resources Analysis, Prepared for San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority, by DanielB. Steiner, Consulting Engineer March 2012, page 10) While groundwater depletion in Tulare County tends to get most of the public attention, serious groundwater depletion and accompanying land subsidence has also occurred in the central and northern parts of the San Joaquin Valley, well to the north of Tulare County. (See http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article2594798.html, and httr wodnoibetcom.o'bHhe- ntide H Hdnl) 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00002444-00006 Conclusion The use of pumped groundwater from already-depleted groundwater aquifers to irrigate acreage that results in livestock feed crop production is a wasteful, unreasonable use of water. A small fraction of that water could have been used to grow drought-tolerant beans that humans could have directly consumed. It was not. Water was, instead, wasted on irrigation of crops (especially alfalfa and irrigated pasture) that will be partially converted into significant amounts of methane and then emitted by livestock into the atmosphere. Such emissions will likely contribute to an increased frequency of extreme weather events that will impose significant adverse social and economic impacts on California, the U.S., and beyond. Sincerely, Mr. Ara Marderosian, Sequoia ForestKeeper P.O. Box 2134 Kernville, CA 93238 (760) 376-4434, (760) 382-1534, ara@sequoiaforestkeeper, org Todd M. Shuman, Wasteful UnReasonable Use Camarillo, CA, (805) 987-8203, (805) 236-1422 (cell), tshublu@yahoo.com Jan Dietrick, MPH, Steering Committee, Ventura County Climate Hub, Ventura, CA (805) 746-5365, idietrick9@gmail.com Mike Hudak, BA (Math), PhD (Advanced Technology/Computer Science) 38 Oliver Street Binghamton, NY 13904 (607) 240-5225 m ike.hudak@gmail.com http://mikehudak.com/ Submitted April 13, 2016 Appendix A Notes for LFC categories by county are in column N of LFC SJV 2014 sprdsht. LFC - Livestock Feed Crop AWC - Applied Water Constants taken from 2010 DWR spreadsheet TAF - Thousand Acre Feet MAF - Million Acre Feet 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00002444-00007 2014 Kern LFC Alm Hull Shr Alfalfa, Hay Hay, Grain Hay, Other Pasture, Irr Sriage. Forage Mise Subtotal Acres Alm Meats Alm Hulls Aim ShellSAImAcresBrg 87,560 201000 T 109,000 9210 7400 7000 85000 16700 321,870 329000 T 214000 T 199000 Tulare LFC Alm Hull Shr iAIfalfa, Hay i Alfalfa. Silage Corn (Gr) Com (Silage) j Hay, Other Pasture, Irr iSilage Sm Gr I |Sudan Grass i Subtotal 24453 60000 0 947 117000 14400 93000 75100 168 385068 48700 T 97500 T n/a 46400 Kings LFC Alm Hull Shr Alfalfa, Hay Alfalfa Silage Alf Silage All Yr Alf Stubble Corn Silage Oat Hay Oat Silage Sorghum Silage i Sudan Hay 11 iticale Silage | Wheat Hay Wheat Silage i Other Subtotal 11098 21558T 36597 6432 1927 9149 51121 1085 593 13064 274 3037 549 44684 38391 218001 43116T 10779 T 19422 Fresno LFC Alm Hull Shr 89965 184000 T 326000 T n/a Alfalfa, Hay 52200 Hay, Wheat 9190 Hay, Other 10600 Corn, Silage 28100 Wheat. Silagei 8960 Other 33390 Subtotal 232405 170711 Madera LFC Alm Hull Shr 55862 99640 T 195294 T n/a Alfalfa, Hay 16,000 iAIfalfa, Silage | 0 Corn, Grain 600 Corn, Silage 18,300 Oat, Hay 800 Pasture, Irr 1,500 iWheat, Silage i 18,200 Winter Forage 3,300 Mise i 2,300 Subtotal 116,862 106000 AWC 4.54 5.08 1.86 2.87 4.61 3.39 2.87 A:re Feet RF 397522.4 553720 17130.6 21238 32270 288150 47929 1357960 397.52 553.72 17.13 21.23 32.27 288.15 47.92 1357.94 3.89 95122.17 95.12 5.13 307800 307.79 3.16 3.16 2.81 4.96 1.86 2.81 2992.52 369720 40464 461280 139686 472.08 1417536.77 2.99 369.72 40.46 461.28 139.68 0.47 1417.51 3.88 4.95 4.95 4.95 4.95 2.98 1.47 1.47 2.49 2.49 1.47 1.47 1.47 2.49 43060.24 181155.15 9538.65 45287.55 152340.58 1594.95 871.71 32529.36 682.26 4464.39 807.03 65685.48 95593.59 633610.94 43.06 181.15 31.83 9.53 45.28 152.34 1.59 0.87 32.52 0.68 4.46 0.79 65.68 95.59 665.37 3.52 4.59 1.26 2.54 2.74 1.26 2.54 316676.8 239598 11579.4 26924 76994 11289.6 84810.6 767872.4 316.67 239.59 11.57 26.92 76.99 11.28 84.81 767.83 3.34 4.32 0 2.55 2.55 1.03 4.21 1.03 1.03 2.52 186579.08 69120 0 1530 46665 824 6315 18746 3399 5796 338974.08 186.57 69.12 0 1.53 46.66 0.8 6.31 18.74 3.39 5.79 338.91 Kern LFC Tulare LFC Kings LFC Fresno LFC Madera LFC Total KTKFM 321870 385068 218001 232405 116862 1274206 LFC - 5 cty 1,274,206 acres 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA 1357960 1417536.77 665449.34 767872.4 338974.08 4547792.59 1357.96 1417.53 665.44 767.87 338.97 4547.77 4.54777MAF iLFCUnitValue! in dollars $ : 170/ton 247/ton 212/ton 192/ton 140/acre 49.8/ton 178.9/ton Tonnage 329000 922000 47800 25200 14000 1632000 64640 3034640 152/ton 222/ton 64/ton 276/ton 63.4/ton 90/ton 193/acre 51/ton 173/ton 97500 612000 492000 4920 2948000 39900 186000 1232000 675 5612995 150/ton 252/ton 55.3/ton 54.2/ton 25/ton 65.2/ton 188/ton 42.2/ton 49.4/ton 162/ton 49.5/ton 216/ton 51,3/ton 538.9/acre 43116 298997 16916 68197 9160 1309209 4058 8545 211637 1474 46861 2212 769905 76782 2867069 163/ton 238/ton 209/ton 169/ton 62/ton 55/ton 527/acre 326000 338000 37400 21300 649000 163000 66780 1601480 145/ton 231/ton 70/ton 230/ton 59/ton 185/ton 150/acre 38/ton 48/ton 1559/acre 195294 108800 20287 4530 473238 2824 3000 270452 57618 4600 1140643 3034640 5612995 2867069 1601480 1140643 14256827 14,256,827tons of LFC ED_001523_00002444-00008 2014 Merced LFC Alm Hull Shr Alfalfa, Hay Alfalfa, Silage Hay, Grain Hay, Sudan Corn, Grain Corn, Silage Silage, Other Pasture, Irr Pasture, Stubble i Subtotal Acres Alm MeatsAlm Hulls Alm Shells Aim AcresBrg 55910 84731 0 39220 11478 14175 100394 8551 1 25030 0 416449 98598T 205013T 67939T ....... F ' ' 2^.. 101327 AWC Acre Feet TAF 3.24 181148.4 181.15 4.65 393999.2 393.99 0 0 0.97 38043.4 38.04 2.58 29613.24 29.61 2.56 36288 36.29 2.56 257008.6 257.01 ........0.97 . 82945 67........82.95......... 4.57 114387.1 0 1133434 114.39 0 1133.43 iLFCUnitValue Tonnage in dollars $ i 151/ton 205013 251/ton 597195 65/ton 34740 236/ton 123770 135/ton 45848 300/ton 85047 61/ton 43/ton 2712645 ... 1319795 180/acre 50060 12/ton 718 5174831 Mariposa LFC Pasture, Irr Hay, misc Subtotal 500 702 1202 3.72 2.09 1860 1467.18 3327.18 1.86 1.47 3.33 120/acre 611/acre 1000 1404 2404 Stanislaus LFC Almond Hull Shr / Alfalfa, Hay Hay, Oat Hay,Other Corn,Silage Silage,Other Silage,Sudan Pasture, Irr Misc Subtotal 82157 173000T 346000 T 173000 T 29197 30011 12406 90890 53390 4625 32500 2076 337252 164314 3.38 277690.7 4.57 133430.3 0.93 27910.23 2.5 31015 2.52 229042.8 2.5 133475 2.5 11562.5 4.52 146900 0.93 1930.68 992957.2 277.69 133.43 27.91 31.01 229.04 133.48 11.56 146.89 1.93 992.94 150/ton 264/ton 205/ton 204/ton 64/ton 45/ton 46/ton 213/acre 978/acre 346000 207000 132000 52100 2487000 985000 58700 65000 4152 4336952 Tuolumne LFC Pasture, Irr Hay Subtotal 1121 360 1481 3.82 4282.22 2.09 752.4 5034.62 4.28 0.75 5.03 130/acre 185/acre 2242 936 3178 SanJoaquinLFC Almond Hull Shr i Alfalfa, Hay Hay, Other Corn,Silage Corn, Grain Pasture, Irr Silage,Other Subtotal 33814 57700 7700 50200 53000 14500 112000 328914 68100T 136000T 34000 T 59200 3.49 118010.9 5.28 304656 3.26 25102 2.66 133532 2.66 140980 5.14 74530 0.72 80640 877450.9 118.01 304.66 25.1 133.53 140.98 74.53 80.64 877.45 145/ton 254/ton 221/ton 49/ton 200/ton 165/acre 41/ton 136000 421000 28500 1367000 248000 29000 1537000 3766500 Calaveras LFC Pasture, Irr Grain-Hay Subtotal 2000 200 2200 Merced LFC Mariposa LFC Stanislaus LFC i Tuolomne LFC: SanJoaquin LFCi Calaveras LFC / Total MMSTSC 416449 1202 337252 1481 328914 2200 1087498 LFC - 6 Cty 1,087,498 acres Approximately 1.1 million acres 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA 3.48 0.26 6960 52 7012 6.96 0.05 7.01 1133434 3327.18 992957.2 5034.62 877450.9 7012 3019215 1133.43 3.33 992.94 5.03 877.45 7.01 3019.19 3.01919 MAF 3 MAF 130/acre 165/ton 4000 600 4600 5174831 2404 4336952 3178 3766500 4600 13288465 13,288,465tons of LFC 13.3 milliontons of LFC ED_001523_00002444-00009 2014 SJV LFC LFCAcres Kern LFC Tulare LFC Kings LFC Fresno LFC Madera LFC Total KTKFM 321870 385068 218001 232405 116862 1274206 LFC - 5 cty 1,274,206 acres Approximately 1.275 million acres Merced LFC 416449 Mariposa LFC 1202 Stanislaus LFC 337252 ; i TuolomneLFC 1481 j i SanJoaquin LFC 328914 i Calaveras LFC 2200 i i Total MMSTSC 1087498 LFC-6 Cty 1,087,498 acres Approximately 1.1 million acres SJVCounties LFC Acres LFC - ktkfm 1,274,206 acres LFC - mmstsc 1,087,498 acres Total 2,361,704 acres Approximately Approximately ApproxTotai 1.275 million acres 1.1 million acres 2.375 million acres RoughTotal 2.4 million acres # of Milking Cows ThatCou/d Be Fed/Yr CO2e Emission-20yr (1.56239 million dairy cows) (1.45627 million dairy cows) (3.01866 million dairy cows) 32.22 billion lbs 30.03 billion lbs 62.25 billion lbs Acre Feei: T\F 1357960 1417537 665449.3 767872.4 338974.1 4547793 1357.96 1417.53 665.44 767.87 338.97 4547.77 4.54777MAF 4.55 MAF 1133434 3327.18 992957.2 5034.62 877450.9 7012 3019215 1133.43 3.33 992.94 5.03 877.45 7.01 3019.19 3.01919 MAF 3 MAF Water Applied 4.54777MAF 3.01919MAF 7.56696MAF 4.55 MAF 3 MAF 7.55 MAF 7.5 MAF Tonnage 3034640 5612995 2867069 1601480 1140643 14256827 14,256,827tons of LFC 14.25 million tons of LFC 5174831 2404 4336952 3178 3766500 4600 13288465 13,288,465tons of LFC 13.3 milliontons of LFC LFC Tonnage 14,256,827 tons of LFC 13,288,465 tons of LFC 27,545,292 tons of LFC 14.25 million tons of LFC 13.3 million tons of LFC 27.55 million tons of LFC 28 million tons of LFC 3 million dairy cows 3 million dairy cows 62.25 billion lbs 62 billion lbs (7.39 coal plants) See Supplementary Material, Note 6 for derivation documentation of theoretical emissions table above. 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00002444-00010 Actual livestock-related methane emissions, 2013: An approximate value for total livestock-related annual methane emissions in California is presented in the CA Air Resources Board Short-lived Climate Pollutants Reduction Strategy draft document (Sept 30, 2015), page 39. The CARB 2013 estimate for total annual methane emissions in CA was 118 MMTCO2e, of which 25 percent comes from dairy manure and 29 percent comes from dairy/livestock enteric, or 54 percent from livestock altogether -- 63.72 MMTCO2e. The methane GWP used by CARB to generate the overall CO2e number is 72, or the 20 year interval methane GWP from the 2007 IPCC AR4th. (See page 6 of CARB report.) x MMTCH4 * 72 = 63.72 MMTCO2e; x= 0.885 MMTCH4 produced by livestock (both enteric and manure) in 2013. (0.885 * 106)(2.20462 * 103 Ibs./MT) = 1.9511* 109 lbs. of CH4 produced by livestock (via enteric emissions and anaerobic manure lagoons) in CA in 2013, or approximately 1.95 billion lbs. of CH4*. Using a methane GWP of 84 (IPCC AR5th, 2013 20 yr interval, without climate-carbon feedbacks incorporated) to convert pounds of emitted methane into pounds of emitted CO2e, we get: (1.9511 * 109)(8.4 * 101) = 16.39 * 1010, or 1.639 * 1011, or just under 164 billion lbs. of CO2e (20year interval). That amount is equivalent to annual CO2 emissions from just over 19 coal-fired electricity generation (CFEG) plants that will trap heat in the stratosphere for 20 years and then be almost completely sequestered by vegetation and soil in year 21. Using a methane GWP of 28 (2013 IPCC 100 year methane GWP, without climate-carbon feedbacks incorporated), all values are reduced by two-thirds, resulting in 54.576 billion pounds of CO2e emissions. That amount is equivalent to annual CO2 emissions from just over 6 coal-fired electricity generation (CFEG) plants that will trap heat in the atmosphere for 100 years and then be almost completely sequestered by vegetation and soil in year 101.* [Error note: 29 percent should be 30 percent, 54 percent should be 55 percent, 0.885 should be 0.9014, so the 1.9511 value would be slightly higher.] * The 1.9511 estimated value is for all livestock and is 2.1 percent higher (or 40 million lbs. higher) than the cumulative number for cattle alone. The cumulative cattle number is 1.911, or 1.911 billion lbs. of CH4 released. Using the 20 year GWP, the CO2e for this value is associated with 19.1 coal-fired electricity generation (CFEG) plants. Using the 100 year GWP, the CO2e for this value is associated with 6.36 CFEG plants. See summary below for adjusted values. lbs. 9.14E+08 Manure 9.97E+08 Enteric 1.91E+09 Total Cattle Cattle Cattie Derived from GHG Emission Inventory Summary [2000 - 2013] in lbs of CH4, using the CARB Inventory Query Tool 9-Mar-16 Unit abbreviations: MMT = million metric tons (tonnes); MMTCO2e = million metric tons (tonnes) of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents lbs. 9.14E+08 9.97E+08 1.91 E+09 MMT Ibs./Tonne 0.414803 2204.6 0.452022 2204.6 Million lbs. 1000000 9.14E+08 1000000 9.97E+08 1.91 E+09 Supplementary Material [1] The horizontally-displayed almond-related information (meats, hulls, shells, in tons) in Sheet 1 and Sheet2 have been included to disclose how the LFC Almond Hull Share acreage estimate was derived. This methodology was presented in the June 19 and July 6 SWRCB comments in Appendix B. If hulls constituted 50ish percent (plus or minus) of total almond commodity mass sold at the county level, 50ish percent (plus or minus) of the total listed county almond-bearing acreage value was input into the county LFC Almond Hull Share acreage spreadsheet cell. That value was then multiplied by the almond AWC in order to yield a value for estimated total applied water that resulted in almond hull production. Water is applied to almond orchards with the intention of producing almond meats for sale. Almond growers make nearly all of their money by selling the almond meats, not by selling almond hulls or almond shells. However, that applied water results in three commodities that are sold each year. Roughly half of the cumulative mass of all those almond-related commodities that get sold and which result from that application of water are almond hulls, a crop almost exclusively sold to the dairy and livestock industries as a nutritional feed input. In short, half of the water applied to almond orchards results in a livestock feed crop commodity mass that is ultimately sold to dairies and 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00002444-00011 fed to dairy cows. In addition, almond shells are often/usually sold to the dairy industry as a primary component for dairy cow bedding. (Excluded, for analytic purposes, is the amount of water per year that the almond tree needs to remain a functional tree, independent of its function in producing almond meats, almond hulls and almond shells.) [2] LFC Unit values (in dollars) are included simply to provide perspective in relation to the value of different types of LFC. Almond hulls fetch a substantial price per ton relative to silage. It is, of course, marginal in comparison to almond meats. But compared to every other LFC category, it is significant - it is typically in the middle of the pack - 60 percent of the alfalfa hay/ton value but usually 4X as valuable as the silage/ton value. [3] This EPA website below documents that a 2010 coal-burning power plant produced, on average, CO2 emissions of approximately 8.4 billion [8.3965 billion] pounds of CO2 (equivalent to 3,808,651 metric tons of CO2). http://www.epa.gov/energy/ghg-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references Coal-fired power plant emissions for one year: In 2010, a total of 454 power plants used coal to generate at least 95% of their electricity (EPA 2014). These plants emitted 1,729,127,770.8 metric tons of CO2 in 2010. Carbon dioxide emissions per power plant were calculated by dividing the total emissions from power plants whose primary source of fuel was coal by the number of power plants. Note: Due to rounding, performing the calculations given in the equations below may not return the exact results shown. 1,729,127,770.8 metric tons of CO2 x 1/454 power plants = 3,808,651 metric tons CO2/power plant [3,808,651*2,204.62 = 8.396626 billion lbs CO2/power plant/yr] EPA (2014). eGRID 2010 data. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. [4] United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Pacific Region Livestock Review Released: February 26, 2016 VOL. 04 NO. 1 Cattle Inventory by Class - California: January 1, 2015 (1000 head) Cattle and calves.................................... 5,100 All cows.................................................2,370 Beef cows............................................. 590 Milk cows...........................................1,780 Heifers 500 pounds and over.................1,040 Beef cow replacement............................130 Milk cow replacement........................... 770 Other......................................................140 Steers 500 pounds and over........................550 Bulls 500 pounds and over............................ 70 Calves under 500 pounds.......................... 1,070 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00002444-00012 http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics. by..State/Califomia/Publications/Livestock/20160 llvsrv.pdf Information compiled by the California Beef Council and included in a California Foundation for Agriculture in the Classroom (CFAITC) publication: "There are approximately 583,000 beef cows on about 11,000 ranches in California. In addition, there are 1.81 million dairy cows, which also play an important role in the state's beef industry." (Yr 2014). California Beef Council 4640 Northgate Boulevard, Suite 115, Sacramento, CA 95834 California Agricultural Statistics 2013 Crop Year USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service PACIFIC REGIONAL FIELD OFFICE, CALIFORNIA California Livestock Cash Income, 2012-2013 ** Source of Income Cattle and calves Hogs and Pigs Dairy products/Milk Poultry and eggs Miscellaneous livestock 2012 (SI,000) 3,188,125 39,001 6,899,743 1,474,002 496,538 2013 ($1,000) 3,048,390 40,361 7,617,641 1,633,959 437,267 Percent Change -4 3 10 1 1 -12 Total 12,097,409 12,777,618 6 ** 2012 & 2013 sheep & lambs included in Miscellaneous Livestock [5] For lactating dairy cow annual methane output, we use the 109 KG/yr value (239.8 Ibs/yr) from K. A. Johnson and D. E. Johnson, "Methane Emissions from Cattle," Journal of Animal Science 73(8) (1995): 2483 92. [6] What follows is the estimated amount of CO2 equivalents (at the 20 year interval) that would likely result from lactating dairy cows eating 14.256827 million tons of irrigated livestock feed crop produced in 2014 in Kern, Tulare, Kings, Fresno, and Madera counties. That amount could feed over 1.56 million milking cows (1.562392 million dairy cows) for a year (50 lbs. of forage/cow/day X 365 days/yr = 18,250 lbs., or 9.125 tons/cow/yr). That number of milking cows would produce and release annual atmospheric methane emissions equivalent to 32.222 billion pounds of CO2 equivalents that trap heat for 20 years. (Lactating cows produce 239.8 lbs. of CH4/yr. Multiply by 86 and you get 20622.8 Ibs./yr of CO2 equivalents (20 year interval) released per milking cow. Multiply 20622.8 lbs. of CO2e/yr/cow by 1.562392 million cows, and you get approximately 32.22 billion lbs. of CO2e (20 yr interval) released into the atmosphere by those 1.562392 million milking cows. In short, just over 14 million tons of livestock feed crops can supply feed for just over 1.5 million milking cows for a year, over which time that number of milking cows would likely emit an amount of methane that is equivalent to just over 32 billion lbs. of CO2 that traps heat in the upper atmosphere for 20 years. 32 billion lbs. of heat-trapping CO2 is just under the amount of CO2 that is emitted by four yr2010 coal-fired electricity generation (CFEG) plants (33.6 billion lbs.) What follows is the estimated amount of CO2 equivalents (at the 20 year interval) that would likely result from 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00002444-00013 lactating dairy cows eating 13.288465 million tons of irrigated livestock feed crop produced in 2014 in Merced, Mariposa, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, San Joaquin, and Calaveras counties. That amount could feed over 1.456 million milking cows (1.45627 million dairy cows) for a year (50 lbs. of forage/cow/day X 365 days/yr = 18,250 lbs., or 9.125 tons/cow/yr). That number of milking cows would produce and release annual atmospheric methane emissions equivalent to 30.0312 billion pounds of CO2 equivalents that trap heat for 20 years. (Lactating cows produce 239.8 lbs. of CH4/yr. Multiply by 86 and you get 20622.8 Ibs./yr of CO2 equivalents (20 year interval) released per milking cow. Multiply 20622.8 lbs. of CO2e/yr/cow by 1,456,270 million cows, and you get approximately 30 billion lbs. of CO2e (20 yr interval) released into the atmosphere by those 1.45627 million milking cows. In short, just over 13 million tons of livestock feed crops can supply feed for 1.45627 million milking cows for a year, over which time that number of milking cows would likely emit an amount of methane that is equivalent to just over 30 billion lbs. of CO2 that traps heat in the upper atmosphere for 20 years. 30 billion lbs. of heat-trapping CO2 is just under the amount of CO2 that is emitted by four yr2010 coal-fired electricity generation (CFEG) plants (33.6 billion lbs.). Source for estimate of 50 Ibs./day as amount of feed consumed by a dairy cow each day: http://www.ansc.purdue.edu/faen/dairy%20facts.html [7] SLV Agricultural LFC data sources 2014 Kern County Agricultural Crop Report, August 18, 2015 2014 Tulare County Annual Crop and Livestock Report, August 2015 2014 Annual Agricultural Crop Report for the County of Kings, June 16, 2015 2014 Fresno County Agricultural Crop and Livestock Report, August, 2015 2014 Madera County Agricultural Crop and Livestock Report, August, 2015 2014 Merced County Report on Agriculture, 2015 2014 Mariposa County Agricultural Crop and Livestock Report, 2015 2014 Stanislaus County Agricultural Crop Report, 2015 2014 Tuolumne County Crop and Livestock Report, 2015 2014 San Joaquin County Agricultural Report, 2015 2014 Calaveras County Crop Report, 2015 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00002444-00014 August 16, 2015 Thomas Howard, Executive Director Members of the Board State Water Resources Control Board Clerk to the Board, (916) 341-5600 1001 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Sent via email to Rich.Satkowski@waterboards.ca.gov RE: Unreasonable and Wasteful Water Use: Rice Cultivation, Livestock Feed Crop Production, the Sacramento River Settlement Contractors, and the July 3, 2015 TUCO Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the important issue of rice-cultivation-related agricultural water use in California and livestock feed crop production in the Sacramento River Valley. To start, we wish to formally incorporate into this comment by reference the 6 July 2015 comment to the SWRCB titled "June 8, 2015 Temporary Urgency Change Petition Concerning SWP/CVP and Water Deliveries, in relation to the April 6, 2015 TUCO," submitted by Ara Marderosian (Sequoia ForestKeeper), Guy Saperstein, Alexandra Paul, Jon Marvel, Connie Hanson, Mike Hudak, Lorelei Plotczyk, Lorin Lindner, Marcia Hanscom, Robert Roy van de Hoek, and Todd M. Shuman (Wasteful UnReasonable Use), as well as the Objection/Protest respectfully submitted to the SWRCB by Sequoia ForestKeeper (SFK) and Wasteful UnReasonable Use (WURU) regarding the 8 June 2015 Notice of Request Filed by the California Department of Water Resources and the United States Bureau of Reclamation to modify and renew a Temporary Urgency Change Order regarding permits and license of the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project (filed initially on May 21,2015). We request this comment to be considered by the SWRCB as a logical extension of, and appendix to, our 6 July 2015 SWRCB Objection/Protest concerning the 3 July 2015 TUCO. The use of irrigated water for rice cultivation is unreasonable and wasteful during this time of drought in California; use of irrigated water for rice cultivation during this time of drought in California conflicts with the "waste or unreasonable use" section of the California Constitution. (See Article 10, Section 2, which declares that "the waste or unreasonable use ... of water be prevented ... The right to water or to the use or flow of water ... does not and shall not extend to the waste or unreasonable use ... of water."1) Moreover, the continued allocation of Central Valley Project Water to the Sacramento River Settlement Contractors (SRSCs) for floodirrigated rice cultivation--while endangered aquatic species native to the Delta, the Sacramento River, and associated Sacramento River tributaries drift rapidly toward extinction--constitutes a clear violation of California Public Trust Doctrine. Rice Cultivation, Methane Emissions, and Flood Irrigation A: For year 2014, we estimate that just over 800 TAF (thousand acre feet) was applied for rice cultivation in the approximated area of four of the largest SRSCs. (The four in the approximation 1 See Appendix A for more on this and beneficial uses. Page 1 of 14 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00002445-00001 area are Glenn Colusa Irrigation District, Sutter Municipal Water District (Sutter MWD), Natomas MWD, and Reclamation District 108. The approximation area also includes other smaller adjacent water districts that were difficult to exclude in map creation. See CropScape approximation map, CropScape map-associated spreadsheet, and the Sacramento Valley Water Districts map in Appendix B.) [Calculation: Water Applied to Cultivate Rice: apply the 4.2 Applied Water coefficientfor Glenn County: 192,503.5 acres x 4.2 = 808,514.7 AF. (Source of2010 A Wcoefficient: CA DWR)] B: For year 2014, we estimate the atmospheric carbon emission of the methane (converted into CO2 equivalency) associated with the rice cultivation in this approximated SRSC area at 3.16 billion pounds of CChe--3.16 billion pounds of CChe that will trap heat in the atmosphere for 20 years! [Calculation: apply a Methane GWP of 86 (IPCC, 5th, 2013) to denote a CChe that traps heat in the atmospherefor a period of20 years: 190.926 lbs CH4 per rice-acre-cultivated X 192,503.5 acres X86 equals 3,160,837,399 lbs (CChe) released in 2014, or 3.16 billion pounds of CO2 equivalency, or 3/8 of the amount of CO2 that a year 2010 coal plant would have emitted into the atmosphere in 2014. (EPA) The 190 Ibs/acre figure concerning rice cultivation comes from the conversion ofthe 2013 CARBfigure of214,000 g/ha as the annual amount ofmethane released per land unit area due to rice cultivation in California. (See htti)://www.arb.ca.zov/cc/inventorv/doc/docs3/3c7 ricecultivation ricecroi)area ch4 2013.htm --CARB is the California Air Resources Board.) To see our rationale for using the Methane GWP of86--20year interval, see Appendix C] We assert that it was unreasonable (and hence, unconstitutional) for these large SRSCs to use water for rice cultivation when such rice cultivation likely generated an additional, large, and significant emission level of CO2 equivalency (20-year interval) on an already warming planet. This use was especially unreasonable when such water use occurred at the expense of imperiled native aquatic species in the Delta and along the Sacramento River during the 2014 drought year. C: For year 2014, we estimate that nearly 356 TAF applied to rice cultivation in the approximated SRSC area was likely not used by the rice plants being cultivated. [Calculation: apply the Consumed Fraction coefficient/constant applicable for rice, Glenn County (0.56) to determine what amount ofapplied water was used by all rice plants in the approximation area. Therefore 0.44 x 808.5147 TAF represents the estimated amount of applied water not used by the rice plants in the approximation area, which equals 355.746 TAF. Source of CF constant is CA DWR] We also assert that the use of such water for rice cultivation was wasteful (and hence, unconstitutional), as smaller amounts of water could likely have been used to create alternate, lower-methane-emitting, compensatory habitat for migrating bird species. Alternate, nonmethane-emitting methods for groundwater aquifer recharge could also have been deployed. We note also that the likely method used for this wasteful rice cultivation was flood irrigation. In Page 2 of 14 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00002445-00002 our previous comments and protest submitted to the SWRCB (and in recent comments and protests submitted to the SWRCB by the California Sportsfishing Protection Alliance), we and CSPA have argued that flood irrigation during this drought period should be considered an unconstitutional violation of Article 10, Section 2 of the California Constitution. We again make this argument. Livestock Feed Crops and the SRSCs We note for the record that substantial cultivation of livestock feed crops also occurs in this SRSC-dominated approximation area. Acreage devoted to growing alfalfa, com, "other hay", oats, and sorghum amounted to approximately 28,000 acres in 2014 (see spreadsheet, Appendix B). If acreage attributed to almond hull production is included (see our 6 July 2015 comment referenced above for rationale and methodology used), irrigation of over 37,000 acres in this area produced livestock feed crops in 2014. This number increases by yet another 3,000-5,000 acres, if the irrigation of "other hay" and alfalfa in 2014 in the Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District (ACID, the other large SRSC near Redding, see Appendix D) is also included. Our conservative estimate of the water used in this SRSC-dominated approximation area in 2014 that resulted in the production of livestock feed crop commodities is approximately 94 TAF (and 97 TAF if ACID is included.) (For foil transparency, we note that this estimate used the following 2010 CA DWR Applied Water coefficients: 3.3 for alfalfa, 2.36 for almonds/almond hulls, 1.8 for com, 1.0 for Shasta County "other hay", and 0.5 for all other livestock feed crops. We also note for the record that this number does not include any water applied for rice cultivation that ultimately resulted in rice bran/rice hull-based livestock feed commodities. This exclusion imparts further conservative bias concerning our estimate of water used that ultimately resulted in the production of livestock feed commodities.) As we argued in earlier comments to the SWRCB, livestock feed crops are partially converted into significant atmospheric methane emissions by dairy and beef cows. Such emissions then contribute to the further warming of our planet and the related, intensified duration of the drought conditions that have afflicted California for the last four years. We assert again that water used to produce livestock feed crops is wasteful, unreasonable, and unconstitutional. Conclusion: Since CVP water delivered to SRSCs under the authority of the 2015 TUCOs has likely been used by SRSCs for flood-irrigated rice cultivation and livestock feed crop production, it is likely that the 2015 numbers concerning applied water, methane emission, unconsumed applied water, and livestock feed crop acreage will not prove to be significantly dissimilar from the 2014 numbers presented above. For that reason, the arguments concerning the unreasonable and wasteful use of water devoted to flood-irrigated rice cultivation and livestock feed crop production in 2014 are equally applicable to 2015. The use of CVP-delivered water to SRSCs to cultivate rice through flood irrigation and produce livestock feed crops in 2015 is an unconstitutional violation of Article 10, Section 2 of the California Constitution. Moreover, the 2015 allocation of CVP Water to the SRSCs for flood-irrigated rice cultivation and livestock Page 3 of 14 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00002445-00003 feed crop production--while endangered aquatic species native to the Delta, the Sacramento River, and associated Sacramento River tributaries experience yet another year of rapid drift toward extinction--constitutes yet another clear violation of California Public Trust Doctrine. Sincerely, Mr. Ara Marderosian, Sequoia ForestKeeper P.O. Box 2134 Kernville, CA 93238 (760) 376-4434 ara@sequoiaforestkeeper.org Todd M. Shuman, Wasteful UnReasonable Use Camarillo, CA, 805.987.8203, 805.236.6456 Mike Hudak, BA (Math), PhD (Advanced Technology/Computer Science) Author: Documentarian: Chair (2008-2013): Sierra Club National Grazing Team Volunteer leader of effort to strengthen Sierra Club Grazing Policy (1998-2000) 38 Oliver Street Binghamton, NY 13904 Megan E. Gallagher, Esq. Attorney at Law Adjunct Professor MeganGallagherLaw@gmail.com 916.420.5110 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA Page 4 of 14 ED_001523_00002445-00004 Appendix A California Constitution ARTICLE 10 WATER "SEC. 2. It is hereby declared that because of the conditions prevailing in this State the general welfare requires that the water resources of the State be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable, and that the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented, and that the conservation of such waters is to be exercised with a view to the beneficial use thereof in the interest of the people and for the public welfare. The right to water or to the use or flow of water in or from any natural stream or water course in this State is and shall be limited to such water as shall be reasonably required for the beneficial use to be served, and such right does not and shall not extend to the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use or unreasonable method of diversion of water. Riparian rights in a stream or water course attach to, but to no more than so much of the flow thereof as may be required or used consistently with this section, for the purposes for which such lands are, or may be made adaptable, in view of such reasonable and beneficial uses; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be construed as depriving any riparian owner of the reasonable use of water of the stream to which the owner's land is riparian under reasonable methods of diversion and use, or as depriving any appropriator of water to which the appropriator is lawfully entitled. This section shall be self-executing, and the Legislature may also enact laws in the furtherance of the policy in this section contained." SWRCB Beneficial Uses The Water Board must broadly consider how farmstead uses (Agricultural Supply [AGR]) are undermining the protection of municipal and domestic supply and human health. The Board must consider the relationship between water used to grow livestock feed crops, water freely drunk by livestock, and the climate-changing greenhouse gases generated by livestock produc tion. Recent research implicates these gases in significantly increasing the probability of Pacific Ocean high pressure ridge formation that is deeply associated with California's four-year-long drought. The SWRCB cannot effectively protect long-term human health by increasing water diversions to farmers who grow alfalfa, com, and other feed for methane-emitting livestock. Water diversions for this particular use should no longer be considered a "beneficial use" as defined by the California Constitution. "2.1.1 AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY (AGR) Uses of water for farming, horticulture, or ranching, including, but not limited to, irrigation, stock watering, or support of vegetation for range grazing. The criteria discussed under municipal and domestic water supply (MUN) also effectively protect farmstead uses. To establish water quality criteria for livestock water supply, the Water Board must consider the relationship of water to the total diet, including water freely drunk, moisture content of feed, and interactions between irrigation water quality and feed quality. The University of California Cooperative Extension has developed threshold and limiting Page 5 of 14 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00002445-00005 concentrations for livestock and irrigation water. Continued irrigation often leads to one or more of four types of hazards related to water quality and the nature of soils and crops. These hazards are (1) soluble salt accumulations, (2) chemical changes in the soil, (3) toxicity to crops, and (4) potential disease transmission to humans through reclaimed water use. Irrigation water classi fication systems, arable soil classification systems, and public health criteria related to reuse of wastewater have been developed with consideration given to these hazards." http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water. issues/programs/planningtmdls/basinplan /web/bp ch2.shtml The Water Board addresses in CHAPTER 2: BENEFICIAL USES the need for "protection of public health" (discussed under "municipal and domestic water supply (MUN)"): "The health aspects broadly relate to: direct disease transmission, toxic effects, and increased susceptibility to disease, such as links between halogenated organic compounds and cancer." Condition le of the March 5, 2015 Modified Order states: "2. DWR and Reclamation shall consult on a regular basis with designated representatives from the State Water Board, Department of Fish and Wildlife, National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (fisheries agencies) concerning current conditions and potential changes to SWP and CVP operations to meet health and safety requirements and to reasonably protect all beneficial uses of water." 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA Page 6 of 14 ED_001523_00002445-00006 Appendix B: CropScape Map, Spreadsheet, and Sacramento Valley Water Districts Map Mapped Approximation Area of Glenn Colusa Irrigation District, Sutter MWD, Natomas MWD, and Reclamation District 108 (CropScape) -SyC S CM IJ Cfe 2014 Area of Interest land Cover Categories iLy decreasing acreage; AGRICULTURE' I--I Ha r~~] >*'' ^110 CriX- g A* w m n .wk.m ... WSM Dry B-; I 1 --xIbrWft I 1 ' I H* n**yi Mee: ns I" I rKPWJt N* ON-AGRICULTURE ' f'.. ""I o A* rcpeti-c "'sensi'y `A'i' AM-*and * Ux' t y f -n n* -u* _ *u ** ' % ar i rj u- < * '= 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA Page 7 of 14 ED_001523_00002445-00007 Associated Spreadsheet Data for Approximation Map (CropScape) Value 1 2 3 4 6 13 14 21 23 24 27 28 31 33 36 37 41 42 43 44 48 49 50 53 54 57 58 Category Corn Cotton Rice Sorghum Sunflowers Pop or Orn Corn Mint Barley Spring Wheat Winter Wheat Rye Oats Canola Safflower Alfalfa Other Hay/Non Alfalfa Sugarbeets Dry Beans Potatoes Other Crops Watermelons Onions Cucumbers Peas Tomatoes Herbs Clover/Wildflowers 59 Sod/Grass Seed 61 Fallow/Idle Cropland 66 Cherries 67 Peaches 69 Grapes 71 Other Tree Crops 75 Almonds 76 Walnuts 77 Pears 92 Aquaculture 111 Open Water Count 34720 1297 865594 2784 96162 235 1 6 80 73319 108 2476 5 10670 77492 9201 120 35387 1 104 3038 251 808 1244 121862 1053 638 59 512337 11 49 1638 64 82252 179897 286 91 22254 Acreage 7721.5 288.4 192503.5 619.1 21385.9 52.3 0.2 1.3 17.8 16305.8 24 550.6 1.1 2373 17233.8 2046.3 26.7 7869.9 0.2 23.1 675.6 55.8 179.7 276.7 27101.5 234.2 141.9 13.1 113941 2.4 10.9 364.3 14.2 18292.4 40008.1 63.6 20.2 4949.2 Page 8 of 14 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00002445-00008 121 Developed/Open Space 122 Developed/Low Intensity 123 Developed/Medium Intensity 124 Developed/High Intensity 131 Barren 141 Deciduous Forest 142 Evergreen Forest 143 Mixed Forest 152 Shrubland 176 Grass/Pasture 190 Woody Wetlands 195 Herbaceous Wetlands 204 Pistachios 205 Triticale 206 Carrots 208 Garlic 209 Cantaloupes 211 Olives 212 Oranges 213 Honeydew Melons 216 Peppers 220 Plums 221 Strawberries 222 Squash 223 Apricots 224 Vetch 225 Dbl Crop WinWht/Corn 226 Dbl Crop Oats/Corn 229 Pumpkins 236 Dbl Crop WinWht/Sorghum 242 Blueberries 244 Cauliflower 56922 35711 17702 2888 3231 28 111 6 40 4234 18863 111527 12297 2076 23 340 1101 1729 9 5131 245 5535 1 1182 1 37 627 2286 12 1324 9 488 12659.1 7941.9 3936.8 642.3 718.6 6.2 24.7 1.3 8.9 941.6 4195 24803 2734.8 461.7 5.1 75.6 244.9 384.5 2 1141.1 54.5 1231 0.2 262.9 0.2 8.2 139.4 508.4 2.7 294.5 2 108.5 538930.9 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA Page 9 of 14 ED_001523_00002445-00009 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA Page 10 of 14 ED_001523_00002445-00010 Appendix C: Methane GWP and Time Intervals Quoted text below is from: Claims that Livestock Grazing Enhances Soil Sequestration ofAtmospheric Carbon Are Outweighed by Methane Emissions From Enteric Fermentation: A Closer Look at Franzluebbers and Stuedemann (2009) Mike Hudak, mike. hudak@ gm ail. com, www.mikehudak.com 7 April 2015 Revised 29 July 2015 Page 2: Current studies peg the GWP of CH4 at "34" over a 100-year interval (GWP100) and at "86" over a 20-year interval (GWP20) [5], Stated otherwise, over a 20-year interval, a given mass of CH4 would have the same effect in the global climate system as a mass of CO2 that is 86 times greater than that mass of CH4. But in 2013, the IPCC noted that "there is no scientific argument for selecting 100 years compared with other choices."[6] Moreover, the IPCC found that at the 20-year timescale, total global emissions of CH4 are equivalent to over 80% of global CO2 emissions.[7] In that light, Howarth (2014) argued for focusing on the 20-year, rather than the 100-year, period based on "the urgent need to reduce methane emissions over the coming 15-35 years."[8] Page 6: [5], Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, 714, Table 8.7, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wgl/ (accessed 13 July 2015). [6], Ibid., 711. [7], Ibid., 719, Figure 8.32. [8], Robert W. Howarth, "A Bridge to Nowhere: Methane Emissions and the Greenhouse Gas Footprint of Natural Gas," Energy Science & Engineering, (2014) doi:10.1002/ We wish to note for the record that Howarth, on pages 8-9 of "A Bridge to Nowhere ... (2014)," also wrote: "The model published in 2012 by Shindell and colleagues [41] and adopted by the United Nations [42] predicts that unless emissions of methane and black carbon are reduced immediately, the Earth's average surface temperature will warm by 1.5C by about 2030 and by 2.0C by 2045 to 2050 whether or not carbon dioxide emissions are reduced. Reducing methane and black carbon emissions, even if carbon dioxide is not controlled, would significantly slow the rate of global warming and postpone reaching the 1,5C and 2.0C marks by 15-20 years ... Why should we care about this warming over the next few decades? At temperatures of 1.5 2.0C above the 1890-1910 baseline, the risk of a fundamental change in the Earth's climate system becomes much greater [41-43], possibly leading to runaway feedbacks and even more global warming. Such a result would dwarf any possible benefit from reductions in carbon dioxide emissions over the next few decades (e.g., switching from coal to natural gas, which Page 11 of 14 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00002445-00011 does reduce carbon dioxide but also increases methane emissions). One of many mechanisms for such catastrophic change is the melting of methane clathrates in the oceans or melting of permafrost in the Arctic. Hansen and his colleagues [43, 44] have suggested that warming of the Earth by 1.8C may trigger a large and rapid increase in the release of such methane. While there is a wide range in both the magnitude and timing of projected carbon release from thawing permafrost and melting clathrates in the literature [45], warming consistently leads to greater release. This release can in turn cause a feedback of accelerated global warming [46] ... An increasing body of science is developing rapidly that emphasizes the need to consider methane's influence over the decadal timescale, and the need to reduce methane emissions." 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA Page 12 of 14 ED_001523_00002445-00012 Appendix D: 2014 CropScape Approximation Map for AndersonCottonwood Irrigation District and Adjacent Areas (ACID, Redding area) USDA "51 - A 2014 Area of Interest Land Cover Categories ibv decreas ng acreage AGRICULTURE* . io | | CrW'-w't'W-5 E8BI J . .. r~l FarMlOiCrx-i-w | ] Vvi I__ ] r~~i .'s . I"... 1 4 x." a r~T : I ~] |--] '1^ ?&s m ' m 10^ m NON-AG^ICULTURE" [ | ojrfird .. HMM ite#Fst ' "*x ~ iff" ^1." v> I f." 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA Page 13 of 14 ED_001523_00002445-00013 Associated Spreadsheet for Approximated ACID Area and Adjacent Areas (CropScape) Value 1 3 6 21 22 24 28 36 37 42 43 44 48 54 61 66 69 71 75 76 111 121 122 123 124 131 141 142 143 152 176 190 195 204 211 212 220 225 242 Category Corn Rice Sunflowers Barley Durum Wheat Winter Wheat Oats Alfalfa Other Hay/Non Alfalfa Dry Beans Potatoes Other Crops Watermelons Tomatoes Fallow/Idle Cropland Cherries Grapes Other Tree Crops Almonds Walnuts Open Water Developed/Open Space Developed/Low Intensity Developed/Medium Intensity Developed/High Intensity Barren Deciduous Forest Evergreen Forest Mixed Forest Shrubland Grass/Pasture Woody Wetlands Herbaceous Wetlands Pistachios Olives Oranges Plums Dbl Crop WinWht/Corn Blueberries Count 4 2 45 2 1 14 53 1280 21796 22 1 1 5 16 1482 1 30 6 83 1258 6386 29206 9539 7770 2330 3652 20306 1136 231 36113 290876 14853 50 4 1808 32 854 29 6 Acreage 0.9 0.4 10 0.4 0.2 3.1 11.8 284.7 4847.3 4.9 0.2 0.2 1.1 3.6 329.6 0.2 6.7 1.3 18.5 279.8 1420.2 6495.3 2121.4 1728 518.2 812.2 4515.9 252.6 51.4 8031.3 64689.3 3303.2 11.1 0.9 402.1 7.1 189.9 6.4 1.3 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA Page 14 of 14 ED_001523_00002445-00014