Public Comments on AWA's Revised EIR

Members of PHAW won a lawsuit against the Amador Water Agency challenging the competency and technical accuracy of the agency's Final Environment Impact Report (FEIR) for the Transmission Pipeline Project. The Agency's FEIR had concluded the pipeline project would have no significant impact on the creeks and environment. PHAW and others believed this to be completely incorrect, and have supporting data to prove it.

Amador County Superior Court ruled against PHAW in the initial stages, but that decision was reversed on appeal to the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento. The ruling states "the Agency abused its discretion because the EIR does not contain a required statement indicating the reasons why the Agency determined that the reduction in the surface flow of local streams would not be significant." Therefore, AWA set aside its certification of the final EIR and released a revised water resources section. The public had a 45-day comment period ending October 18, 2004 before the revised EIR began the recertification process. Below are just some of the comments on the EIR revision from PHAW, hydrologists, Fish & Game, City of Jackson and others (in no particular order).


  • Comment Letter by California Department of Fish & Game - PDF, 246KB
    This strongly worded letter from the state authority on fish and game declares that the Revised 4.1 EIR section does not mitigate wildlife resource impacts to a less than significant level.
  • Analysis of EIR Data by Bill Condrashoff, PHAW member - PDF, 155KB
    This analysis shows numerous errors, miscalculations and erroneous data in the EIR revision and its sources, particularly in the EIP unpublished report from 2000 (PDF, 1MB) upon which many of the EIR revision's tables are based.
  • Comments on Environmental Impact Report for the Amador Transmission Project by Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, Attorney for City of Jackson - PDF, 556KB
    This letter expresses the City of Jacksons concern that the revised and recirculated Section 4.1 of the EIR does not adequately address the project’s hydrological and water quality impacts on streams such as Jackson Creek, that are supported by water leaking from the Amador Canal. Further, it asserts that Section 4.1 does not fully comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) or the writ of mandate issued by the Superior Court in its CEQA lawsuit.
  • Identification of Riparian and Wetland Vegetation Dependent on Water Supplied by the Amador Canal And An Analysis of Dependence of Jackson Creek Flows on Flow in the Amador Canal by Eric Larsen, PhD, Hydrologist - PDF, 1.3MB
    This analysis, prepared by hydrologists for PHAW's attorney, shows the dependency of Jackson Creek flows on the Amador Canal, and the potential impact of dewatering the Amador Canal on hundreds of acres of wetlands.
  • Comment Letter by Russell Evitt, founding member of PHAW - PDF, 267KB
    This letter presents an alternative to the pipeline that would solve all the major environmental problems with the pipeline project as currently proposed. It also discusses the economic costs of the pipeline.
  • Comment Letter by David Evitt, founding member of PHAW - PDF, 169KB
    This letter covers every possible topic (and more!) regarding the long history of the AWA's proposed pipeline project.
  • Comment Letter by J. William Yeates, Attorney for PHAW - PDF, 106KB
    This letter recommends that the Agency revise section 4.1 Water Resources by providing necessary baseline information, relevant standards of significance, and clarifying inconsistencies in the data used. It also recommends that the entire DEIR be recirculated for public review and comment, as revised section 4.1 refers to other sections of the DEIR, and it is unclear whether the revisions may alter other sections of the DEIR.
  • Comment Letter by Lawrence Quirollo, Fisheries Biologist - PDF, 93KB
    Highlights weaknesses in the EIR involving instream flow assessment methodologies.
  • Comment Letter by Carolyn Fregulia, PHAW member - PDF, 2.9MB
    This letter contains in-depth historical background on many of the problems with the EIR revision.
  • Comment Letter PDF, 89KB and Open Letter to Citizens of Amador County (PDF, 46KB) by Gary Cranfill, PHAW member, Teacher, Author, Property Owner Amador County
    These letters voice concerns of landowners along the canal, as well as general concerns for Amador County arising out of the lack of mitigation in the revised EIR.
  • Comment Letter by Thomas Bowhay, MD - PDF, 49KB
    This letter expresses the public health repercussions, including West Nile Virus, that could occur from the drying and stagnating of local waterways.
  • Comment Letter by Gary & Carol Timmons, PHAW members - PDF, 133KB
    This letter contains a summary of concerns regarding the EIR revision and proposed dewatering of the canal.
  • Comment Letter by Carole Cuneo Marz & Jim Marz, PHAW members - PDF, 1.4MB
    This letter contains observations of a 7th generation rancher in Amador County on the revised EIR.
  • Comment Letter by Cathy Williamson, local rancher - PDF, 6MB
    An analysis of why the EIR's conclusions are contradictions from a landowner whose ranch depends upon the Spinetta Tributary. Research based on the book "Successful CEQA Compliance: A Step-by-Step Approach".
  • Comment Letter by Edward McCracken, Fregulia Ranch - PDF, 72KB
    This letter contains questions and comments about the effect of the dewatering of the canal on local waterways, and also on local wells.
  • Wild and Scenic River Statements in regard to AWA EIR Revision by Victoria Ehrhardt - PDF, 3.4MB
    Explores the Wild and Scenic River status and its ramifications with respect to Amador's waterways and the revised EIR.
  • Comment Letter, Poem and Excerpt from Foothill Conservancy Newsletter by Sandi Soracco - PDF, 672KB
    Short comment letter and poem by Sandi, and excerpt from the Summer 2004 Foothill Conservancy Focus Newsletter raising serious concerns about the Jackson Hills development.
  • Comment Letter by Veronica Ramirez, DHS - PDF, 209KB
    DHS, a responsible agency under CEQA, will require from AWA a mitigation and monitoring plan consistent with California Dept. of Fish & Game before certifying the EIR and before AWA can apply for DHS funding.
  • Comment Letter by Mel and Candi Emerson - PDF, 117KB
    Short comment letter asking the AWA to consider the ecological impact of the pipeline.
  • Comment Letter by Mary Lou Oneto - PDF, 122KB
    Short comment letter expresses concerns for the impact on Oneida Creek which serves the Oneto hereford ranch.
  • Comment Letter by The Oaks Community Association - PDF, 175KB
    Comment letter from the Oaks Homeowners Association requesting the AWA mitigate the impact to reduced flows in Jackson Creek which would affect the Oaks sewer problem/dilution factor.
  • Comment Letter by David Wardell, Eagle's Nest Owners Association - PDF, 125KB
    The only comment letter received by AWA that is in favor of the pipeline, from a homeowner's association in western Amador county.