Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
March 19, 2007
5. Agencies, Programs, People
SACRAMENTO
Flood funds would aid Folsom bridge; $4.7 million in tax assessment proposal is part of an old deal - Sacramento
RATE INCREASE:
PUC delays action on Fontana water rate increases - Riverside Press-Enterprise
LOCAL LEVEE REPAIR PROJECT:
Levee repairs may happen by late April - Palo Alton Daily News
OROVILLE RELICENSING:
County officials work to strengthen county's voice in nation's capital - Oroville Mercury Register
Property switch to enlarge Riverbend Park to 210 acres - Oroville Mercury Register
AGENCY RESPONSE:
Editorial: State agencies need to step up on warming law; State must hold itself to same emissions standards that now apply to industries - Sacramento
DENNETT DAM:
Column: Dam shame area projects seem to take so very long -
SACRAMENTO
Flood funds would aid Folsom bridge; $4.7 million in tax assessment proposal is part of an old deal
Sacramento
By Deb Kollars, staff writer
Michael Krisman lives in
But in studying details of a new flood assessment that he and 140,000 other property owners are being asked to support, he hit a snag when he learned $4.7 million would go for a new bridge in Folsom to ease traffic problems there.
"I don't see that it has much to do with flood protection," Krisman said.
Krisman is right. The new $117 million bridge across the
But it won't directly protect anyone from a flood.
The new bridge made its way into the proposed assessment district of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency because of past politics and the complicated way federal flood control projects are authorized and funded, according to Stein Buer, executive director of the agency, known as SAFCA.
"This one does have a convoluted history," Buer said. "It was tied to flood control when the project took off. Our view is it is still tied to flood control."
The new bridge was authorized by Congress as part of a bigger project by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to raise Folsom Dam 7 feet.
Folsom drivers once depended heavily on a road atop the dam to get across town. To raise the dam, that road needed to be closed. But after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in
Originally, the corps planned to build a temporary "detour" bridge for $36 million to make up for the expected long-term traffic disruption.
In the final congressional package, lawmakers directed the corps to build a permanent bridge and added $30 million in non-flood-control money to cover the higher cost.
That flood control package marked a highly publicized compromise between Rep. John Doolittle, a Republican from
Over the years, Doolittle had objected to improvements for Folsom Dam because he thought it would undermine his desire for a new dam at
That same year, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation closed the road atop the dam for national security reasons, leaving thousands of Folsom commuters and business owners fuming. The Matsui-Doolittle compromise made sure the new permanent bridge was part of the picture.
Since then, plans for Folsom Dam have shifted.
Engineers now plan a new spillway on the side of the dam that will allow more water to be released sooner.
Raising the concrete face of the main dam is no longer in the works. Engineers are still studying whether to raise the dam's adjacent earthen embankments by 3 1/2 feet, Buer said.
If SAFCA, which is a funding partner in the overall Folsom Dam project, had tried to remove the bridge from current plans, it could have stalled the entire project and exposed people downstream to greater risk for a longer time, Buer said.
"There's a very strong congressional mandate to expedite this bridge," Buer said. "This is part of our regional strategy to work well with our neighbors and hold to our commitment."
Creg Hucks, project manager for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, agreed.
"Essentially, when Congress tells us to do something, that's pretty serious business for us," he said.
Buer noted that $4.7 million from the SAFCA assessment represents just a sliver of the overall $326 million the assessment will raise to strengthen levees on the American and Sacramento rivers, as well as the improvements at Folsom Dam.
The city of Folsom is contributing $35 million to the new bridge, with federal and state sources covering the rest of the tab, which has risen over the years.
To Krisman, the new flood control assessment should go for flood control measures. And that's all.
"We keep hearing how
He added, however, that it is important for the flood control work to proceed and that he will likely vote yes.
"This bridge thing probably won't torpedo it for me," he said.
Property owners in the proposed assessment district have until April 19 to return their ballots. In the unusual weighted mail ballot election, individual assessments vary because they are tied to property type and size, actual flood risk, and the direct benefit each parcel would receive if the work is done. For more information, call (916) 874-7606 or go to: www.safca.org. #
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/139509.html
RATE INCREASE:
PUC delays action on
Riverside Press-Enterprise – 3/15/07
By Michael Mello, staff writer
The years-long feud of
The California Public Utilities Commission was due to decide Thursday whether to allow the increases, but pulled the topic from its agenda late Wednesday afternoon.
"We think that's a good sign at this point in time," said Curtis Aaron,
Though the commission didn't provide the city with the reason the vote was tentatively rescheduled for April 12, Aaron said he believes the commission wants more time to study the issue.
"Hopefully, we're getting through to them that the rates are out of control here," he said.
Officials with the privately-held Fontana Water Co., a subsidiary of the San Gabriel Valley Water Co., could not be reached for comment on the new development.
Water company officials have argued they need the rate increases to pay for a $35 million expansion of a water treatment plant and the costs of supplying a growing city with water.
Construction of the expansion has already progressed significantly, and utility officials have said they can't staff the plant without the higher rates.
The rate dispute began in 2004. The city filed a complaint after Fontana Water Co. raised rates by 32 percent, and in 2005 sought an additional 24 percent increase to take place over the next three years.
Fontana Mayor Mark Nuaimi, who has passionately railed against the water company at several council meetings, last week expressed frustration at what he expected would be a PUC vote in favor of the water company.
"My water bill in winter months is $80. That's insane. Does this sound like somebody's smoking something?" Nuaimi exclaimed at the meeting. He urged
Water company management could not be reached for comment.
The Fontana Water Co. connects to 44,000 businesses and homes serving 160,000 customers in the city and unincorporated area of
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_B_bwater16.13af037.html
LOCAL LEVEE REPAIR PROJECT:
Levee repairs may happen by late April
Palo Alton Daily News – 3/16/07
By Banks Albach, staff writer
Neglected, leaking, eroding and full of rodent holes is how Tommie Roberts, a resident who lives next to
Residents will be breathing easier in late April - 15 months after the creek almost flooded the district under heavy rains - when the city is expected to wrap up the levee repairs.
"It's finally falling into place," said Council Member Ruben Abrica, who, as mayor, declared a state of emergency last year as he watched the levees almost buckle. "I think it's been a learning experience between the bureaucracy, dealing with the state and our own processes here."
In September, the state gave the city a $430,000 emergency grant for the repairs, of which the city is required to pay back 25 percent. The city voted that same week to let City Manager Alvin James bypass formal bidding to speed things up. Four months later, James signed a $546,000 contract with Casey Construction of Emerald Hills. But the project stalled again after the geological engineer backed out.
Upp Geotechnologies of
"The contractor already knows what to do, we just have to put it in writing," Upp said.
The city and the Army Corps of Engineers have to approve the final phase before construction, which should take less than a week, City Engineer Fernando Bravo said.
Bravo said crews have finished pouring 2,000 feet of 8-foot-high concrete reinforcement, laying 400 linear feet of riprap, or boulders that stop erosion, and spreading 3,000 feet of plastic mesh reinforcement about 19 inches under an area of the levees that had large cracks. #
http://www.paloaltodailynews.com/article/2007-3-16-03-16-07-epa-levee-update
OROVILLE RELICENSING:
County officials work to strengthen county's voice in nation's capital
Oroville Mercury Register – 3/16/07
During a national conference,
Butte County Chief Administrative Officer Paul McIntosh and Supervisors Curt Josiassen and Bill Connelly joined 2,000 elected and appointed county officials last week in
The resolution passed unanimously, developing a NACo platform encouraging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to ensure there are no adverse economic impacts resulting from a newly licensed or renewed license of a hydropower facility.
The resolution states that, "The FERC should specifically require licensees in any licensing or relicensing proceeding to make payments in lieu of taxes to the host community if they do not currently pay local taxes and/or to provide additional or equivalent relief to host communities for adverse and unmitigated hydro project impacts on the local community. All FERC hydro licensing decisions should ensure that the host community is not forced to subsidize the operations of FERC licensed hydro projects."
The mitigation of hydropower projects is at the forefront of
McIntosh's hydropower project mitigation resolution is one of 34 new policy positions adopted by the NACo Board of Directors.
The conference provided an opportunity for local county governments to strengthen relationships with national legislative contacts.
http://www.orovillemr.com/news/ci_5448562?source=email
Property switch to enlarge
Oroville Mercury Register – 3/17/07
By Mary Weston, staff writer
A proposed property switch between the state,
The Butte County Board of Supervisors directed staff to prepare the necessary documents for the transfer at the March 3rd meeting.
District one Supervisor Bill Connelly said the board had unanimously supported the proposal.
"The whole board of supervisors is supportive of the regional park, which benefits the whole county," Connelly said.
Connelly said the board supported the land transfer to preserve land and access along the river to provide a buffer between future development and the river.
Under the proposal,
The county acquired the 70 acres on
When the county transfers the property, the Department of Fish and Game will deed 150 acres to FRRPD for
Currently the riverfront park is comprised of 60 acres of land the city gave to FRRPD in the late 80s and the rest of the land is leased from DFG. Leased land includes the land where the Wildlife Fishing Pond was developed at the north end of the park about four years ago.
FRRPD General Manager Bob Sharkey said DFG had proposed transferring the property to the park district in the late 1980's, but the district management and board had refused the offer.
At that time, FRRPD had developed the Riverfront Enhancement Plan, which proposed
The plans for that park didn't come to fruition, as state funding was cut. Now, 30 years later, Sharkey said the river park has been realized through
"We will finally have a 210-acre regional park in downtown Oroville," Sharkey said.
Sharkey said Butte County Water Commissioner Larry Grundmann had helped greatly with bringing about the land trades.
"It's just a matter of paperwork now," Sharkey said. #
http://www.orovillemr.com/search/ci_5458113
AGENCY RESPONSE:
Editorial: State agencies need to step up on warming law; State must hold itself to same emissions standards that now apply to industries
Sacramento
The California Air Resources Board greatly expanded its portfolio when the state enacted its global warming law last year. The law gave CARB wide latitude to establish regulations and trading programs so the state can cut greenhouse gas pollution 25 percent by 2020, with an additional 80 percent cut by 2050.
But other state agencies must do their part if this ambitious law is to succeed.
The Public Utilities Commission and California Energy Commission will play key roles in reducing greenhouse gases from power plants and promoting energy efficiency. We will be saying more about this in future editorials.
The Resources Agency must ensure that forests are managed in ways that help absorb carbon dioxide. The Integrated Waste Management Board must work to capture more methane from landfills that now wafts into the air.
All the while,
What type of buildings are they leasing? Is the state holding itself to the same standards it imposes on private industries?
We were expecting some solid answers when the Climate Action Team, made up of the governor's Cabinet secretaries, met in
How tough? Consider the Department of Business, Transportation and Housing. Over the next three years, this agency must reduce 5.5 million tons of greenhouse gases from vehicles through better land-use planning and transportation design. How?
Caltrans now administers about $5 million each year in grants to help local governments develop "blueprints" -- plans aimed at cutting vehicle trips by placing housing closer to jobs. Yet $5 million is a blip compared with the billions Caltrans is spending on highways, potentially encouraging more vehicle trips.
Then consider the Department of Food and Agriculture. The department doesn't have regulatory authority over farmers, yet it needs to be actively involved with the task of capturing methane from dairies -- a major source of greenhouse pollution. What is the department's strategy on this? We await answers.
The list goes on. The Department of Water Resources, which moves water over mountain ranges, didn't specify how it will transition to cleaner sources of power. The Department of General Services was fuzzy on plans for reducing emissions through greener state office buildings and cleaner vehicle fleets (although it later provided more details).
To ensure more clarity, all state agencies should immediately join the California Climate Registry and provide a public benchmark of their emissions. To their credit, Cal-EPA, the Energy Commission and PUC and DGS have all signed up.
The governor may also need to apply some personal pressure. Right now, the Climate Action Team is chaired by Cal-EPA Secretary Linda Adams, who is highly capable but lacks authority to police other agencies. Only the governor can do that. If he doesn't, the Legislature will need to exercise its oversight role. #
http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/139432.html
DENNETT DAM:
Column: Dam shame area projects seem to take so very long
By Jeff Jardine, Bee columnist
Except for building more homes and strip malls, getting something done seems to take forever here in the valley.
Consider Dennett Dam, built on the
The dam washed out in 1935 and was rebuilt in 1937. It washed out again in 1940 and was condemned by the state in 1947.
Since then, there have been varying plans to rebuild it — including an idea in the early 1970s to restore it as part of Tuolumne River Regional Park — or to rip it out. There never seems to be the political will or the money to do either.
The drowning of 13-year-old Jeremy Wilson at the dam March 9, coupled with the September 2006 death of an 8-year-old boy who slipped into the river while walking across the dam, has renewed the clamor for its removal.
To illustrate just how long things can take here, Dennett Dam was condemned seven years before the first mention of the Highway 120 Oakdale bypass.
The dam's foundation is still there 60 years later. Meanwhile, nary a shovelful of dirt has been turned toward building the Oakdale bypass.
Instead, we get developer-driven construction in the form of housing and shopping centers, and congestion on outmoded roads and highways.
This is a consistent pattern in the valley over the decades. There's been a dearth of individuals and agencies who step up to shepherd issues and worthwhile projects without taking generations to do so.
The practice has been to consider, hire consultants, consider some more and then hire more consultants. And while all that professional mumbling is going on, the price of a project skyrockets and takes decades to materialize.
Some examples:
The drive to build a performing arts center in
Oakdale went 45 years between building public elementary schools, opening Sierra View in 2005. The town's population grew from about 6,000 to 18,500 during that time.
Road construction in
The state, which takes in gasoline and other taxes for roads and transportation, gives the lion's share of its payouts to counties that pass extra taxes or extract the funds from developers. We're not among them.
And in
The dam cost $9,931.33 to build in 1933.
In 1984, demolition was pegged at a whopping $36,800, which, I'm guessing, was about half of the median home price in the county around that time. It's also less than the $41,997 asking price for a used Chevy Avalanche 4x4 pickup advertised in the paper this week.
What would the dam cost to remove today?
In
The lake behind Dennett Dam never was more than 10 feet deep during the few years when the dam was fully functional. So the amount of silt behind it shouldn't be as substantial and costly to remove.
Still, each decision over the years not to demolish the dam guaranteed an astronomically higher cost the next time the topic was broached.
Nick Pinhey, who took over as
He suspects that removal would be subject to environmental and Department of Fish and Game reviews, which would figure in the overall cost. And although the city built the dam, he's not 100 percent sure the city owns it.
"In most cases, cities do not have jurisdiction over the river body," Pinhey said. "The question I have needs further research: Who is responsible?"
An online bulletin published in 2005 by the state Department of Water Resources suggests that it is the city's problem.
"The city of
The timing for removal was perfect in 2002, when the city began construction on the
Yet, it was ignored during the bridge planning process.
"The bridge project was 95 percent planned with final CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) and NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) documents completed. There was not enough time in the planning schedule to alter the documents to include the dam removal and stay on schedule for the spring 2002 construction start," the bulletin stated.
Yes, a dam they'd been talking about removing since 1947 sneaked up on them when they were engineering the bridge.
So, I suspect the remains of Dennett Dam will be around for years to come.
That's how we do things here. #
DWR's California Water News is distributed to California Department of Water Resources management and staff, for information purposes, by the DWR Public Affairs Office. For reader's services, including new subscriptions, temporary cancellations and address changes, please use the online page: http://listhost2.water.ca.gov/mailman/listinfo/water_news. DWR operates and maintains the State Water Project, provides dam safety and flood control and inspection services, assists local water districts in water management and water conservation planning, and plans for future statewide water needs. Inclusion of materials is not to be construed as an endorsement of any programs, projects, or viewpoints by the Department or the State of
No comments:
Post a Comment