SU0013451 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

being considered. For these reasons, the EIR could not conclude that roadway reconstruction would be needed as a result of the earthwork truck hauling. It is appropriate, however, for the EIR to recommend a more detailed design study to identify the current structural sections of the haul route roads and the possible need for reconstruction as a result of the project's earthwork truck hauling. C 179: This mitigation measure has been deleted. Also refer to respons5 C244. C180: Mitigation Measure 4.5-1(b)has been revised to reflect the change. C181: Comment noted. No further response is required. C182: It is extremely unlikely that riparian and savanna vegetation could be established in one year of hand watering. Regardless, the irrigation water requirements cited in the EIR and used in the water balance analysis, although refined to monthly values, agree closely with the estimates proposed by the applicant's engineer in the Water and Lake Management Plan for the project. No change in the water demand estimates is warranted. C 183: Comment noted. The EIR recognizes the riparian status of the property. However,water taken under riparian right is also of no consequence in meeting the water requirements of the project since, as the same commenter correctly states elsewhere(see comment C 175),riparian water use is limited to the "natural flow,which generally does not occur in the Mokelumne River or Jahant Slough . . ." C 184: The DEIR correctly acknowledges and describes the proposed plan to fill the lakes with winter and spring runoff,and properly calls for the applicant to obtain the necessary appropriative water right to do so. With respect to groundwater pumping,the commenter again incorrectly implies that there are water right controls pertaining to groundwater in stating that groundwater pumping will be ". . . within recognized water rights." In fact, there is no establishment limit to the amount of groundwater that one may pump except as may be set by: (a) physical limitations of the aquifer; (b) the courts on a case-by-case basis; or, (c) the CEQA process. Regarding comparable agricultural use of water, the commenter is correct in recognizing that it would most likely be greater than the irrigation requirement for the proposed project, and not limited by the proposed mitigation measures. This is the reason for the serious groundwater overdraft problems in portions of San Joaquin County and other areas of the Central Valley. Irrigated agriculture is not subject to the same CEQA review process at the proposed project. The adjacent water use for agriculture is not a valid basis for ignoring water resource impacts of the proposed project. C 185: Comment noted. No further response is required. C186: The commenter is wrong and appears to be confusing water right laws with regulations. The statement in the EIR is correct. Riparian use of water is guided by case law and is exempt from regulation by the State Water Resources Control Board. There is no permitting process and there are no state regulations for riparian use of water, except when the use of water ceases to fall under the riparian doctrine and becomes subject to appropriation. The fact that the applicant agrees to comply with all state water rights laws does not offer any assurance that water taken III-179