Supervisors get update on hauled water as a permanent source

>> The Butte County Board of Supervisors held another discussion Tuesday regarding the potential to consider water hauling as a permanent water source for the sake of development and rebuilding.

Earlier this year, the board began to mull ideas for having a permanent water source on paper for rural areas affected by the recent wildfires. In October, supervisors Doug Teeter and Bill Connelly asked county staff to look into ways to consider hauled water as a permanent water source to help with the rebuilding process.

Kami Loeser, director of water and resource conservation, provided a presentation to the board on Tuesday going over the findings so far alongside Director of Development Services Paula Daneluk.

“The two things we were looking at were identifying long-term challenges of providing hauled water to existing residences without water due to either drought disaster, dry wells or fire disaster,” Loeser said. “We also looked at some of the regulatory requirements for a permanent water source at the time of issuance of a building permit under redevelopment in the burn scar area and new development inside and outside the burn scar areas.”

Loeser said the residences in question have likely had a combination of events that led to water insecurity, both in terms of dry wells resulting from the drought and damage from fires.

“This is true for domestic wells both in the foothills as well as the groundwater subbasins in the valley,” Loeser said. “The county has provided a temporary water storage tank program and water delivery services through DWR and the Small Community Drought Relief Program, which did end in October due to lack of funding. But we have applied for additional grant funds for that.”

Until a change in the water code, new residences could not be built without a verifiable permanent water supply. Early on in the rebuilding process after the Camp Fire and North Complex fires, the county was able to provide building permits even without a permanent water source. At the time, Loeser said, the wait for drilling new wells was as long as two years, which would have greatly pushed back rebuilding for those affected by the fires.

Additionally, water haulers had been limited to specific service areas until California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order to allow for more broadness and permission for water districts to provide water to the haulers. Loeser said that as long as the county has the funding, it will continue to provide the water delivery services until the executive order comes to a close.

It was noted in the presentation that other similarly-sized counties also have water delivery programs but only in the cases of emergencies because of concerns for health and safety.

Connelly was quick to say he believed the county should lobby to allow for water delivery to be seen as a permanent water source.

“I'd like to say that I think we should lobby to change it,” the supervisor said. “We deliver milk in bulk, we deliver juice in bulk, nobody's been poisoned or died. … I think it's an option that should be held open, especially with swings in our climate.”

Supervisor Tami Ritter disagreed with the notion, citing the potential for abusing the change in development.

“I don't feel we should be advocating for a change of this because … it's a change throughout the state of California where they could be approving development in areas where they don't have water sources.”

She argued the change could allow building in places that would require water deliveries.

“We don't want to see huge developments go into areas where they cannot support that development.

Supervisor and Chair Tod Kimmelshue agreed with Ritter saying that the current policy should remain.

“Development should be where water is available,” Kimmelshue said. “I don't think we should get in the habit of providing development where there is no water source anywhere in California. I think our policy should stand where it is, and I don't think any more staff time should be used on this issue.”

Beyond discussion, no action or vote was taken by the board.