[Water_news] 5. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS: AGENCIES, PROGRAMS, PEOPLE - 4/30/07

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment

 

April 30, 2007

 

5. Agencies, Programs, People

 

SACRAMENTO TAX INCREASE:

New tax's projects already in pipeline; Flood safety work scheduled, funded by higher assessments - Sacramento Bee

 

Editorial: Historic flood win; Sacramento poised to improve its protection - Sacramento Bee

 

RIVER ISLANDS LEVEES:

Court says global warming non-issue for River Islands - Manteca Bulletin

 

LEVEE MANAGEMENT:

Guest Column: Public safety is priority in levee management - Sacramento Bee

 

INFRASTRUCTURE:

Editorial: Schwarzenegger's holy water war; When it comes to conserving for a drought, dams and reservoirs should be the option of last resort - Los Angeles Times

 

Editorial: Arnold wants a dam; Water policy makes lousy political crusade - Sacramento Bee

 

LEGISLATION:

Landmark climate change bill clears state panel - Woodland Daily Democrat

 

CASTAIS LEGAL ISSUES:

Guest Opinion: Appeal by Casitas explained - Ventura County Star

 

 

SACRAMENTO TAX INCREASE:

New tax's projects already in pipeline; Flood safety work scheduled, funded by higher assessments

Sacramento Bee – 4/29/07

By Matt Weisser, staff writer

 

Bigger levees, a better Folsom Dam, diminished risk: They're on order now that Sacramento residents have approved a property tax increase to double the city's flood safety.

 

The tax was approved by 81.2 percent of property owners who returned mail ballots, according to results presented Thursday by the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency.

 

Only one-third of eligible voters returned ballots, but SAFCA Executive Director Stein Buer called the support "phenomenal" and well above polling that indicated 66 percent support.

 

The landslide vote reflects public concern about what a catastrophic flood could do to Sacramento:

 

More than 63,000 homes, schools and businesses could be submerged, causing more than $11 billion in damage, according to a state study. The city narrowly avoided such a crisis several times in the past 20 years.

 

"To me it means the citizens of this fine community are paying attention, they want to be safer, and they're willing to pay a modest fee to get there," Buer said. "It bodes well for the future of the community."

 

Average property tax assessments will increase $35 per year for about 140,000 parcels in the metro area, to fund $326 million in projects over 30 years. Leveraged against state and federal funds, the tax will buy improvements totaling $2.68 billion.

 

The goal is to double flood protection to a 200-year standard in a decade. That represents a one-half percent chance of flooding in any given year.

 

Residents will see the tax increase on their next annual property tax bill, expected in the mail in November.

 

The benefits are already taking shape:

 

• In October, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is expected to begin excavating a new spillway at Folsom Dam, the key component to doubling the region's flood protection. The $1.3 billion project will take seven years and requires $146 million from SAFCA.

 

• By May 31, SAFCA is to award a contract to control seepage in the south levee of the Natomas Cross Canal. The $13 million project will build a slurry wall 75 feet deep along 1.2 miles of the levee's western half. The project will address seepage fears that drove the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers last year to warn that Natomas may not meet minimal 100-year protection standards.

 

• A second cross canal project next year, costing at least $40 million, will build deeper slurry walls in the levee's eastern half, raising the entire five-mile cross canal levee by 3 feet.

 

• The Mayhew Levee in the Butterfield-Riviera East neighborhood on the American River near Rosemont will be raised 3 feet this year. And an ongoing levee-raising project in south Sacramento's Morrison Creek stream group will continue. Both will offer 100-year safety in those areas.

 

More Natomas repairs will come later along the Sacramento River, including 11.5 miles of levee raising, seepage walls and berms to bolster the inboard side of the levee. A stretch of American River levees near California State University, Sacramento, also will be raised.

 

"This really does mean that Sacramento over the next 10 to 15 years is going to improve the performance of its flood-control system," said Ronald Stork, a senior policy advocate at Friends of the River. "There will be environmental improvements as a result and there will be environmental choices to be made as well."

 

Many projects come with benefits for water quality and wildlife habitat. A big choice is whether to build a setback levee on the Sacramento River in North Natomas or strengthen the existing levee. SAFCA is considering a setback, which could reduce levee erosion and improve wildlife habitat, but also presents challenges.

 

SAFCA also plans to ask the Corps of Engineers to conduct a new study of levees on the American and Sacramento rivers near their confluence to learn what fixes are needed to achieve 200-year protection. Those levees already meet the 100-year standard.

 

Rose Tribolet, a board member of the Natomas Community Association, is relieved the tax passed, even though it means years of disruptive construction activity.

 

"Although it's an inconvenience, when I see them working on it I'm a happy resident," Tribolet said. "I think people will be feeling a sigh of relief to see that there's actual work being done."

 

Her association wants city and county leaders to impose a building moratorium in Natomas until levees are strengthened. They have declined, but Tribolet said the association will persist.

 

Buer said SAFCA is aggressively pursuing state matching funds from Propositions 1E and 84, approved by voters statewide in November for flood-control projects. The state's first application deadline for those funds is Tuesday; Buer said SAFCA's requests are ready. #

http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/163063.html

 

 

Editorial: Historic flood win; Sacramento poised to improve its protection

Sacramento Bee – 4/28/07

 

This was huge. Voters have put in place the final piece of the flood protection puzzle. Now it will be possible to put the money together to dramatically improve the Sacramento area's flood protection.

 

Floodplain property owners have made the difference by agreeing to a local assessment. It will fund projects along the Sacramento and American rivers that will eventually provide a 200-year level of protection.

 

This community's fight against flooding will never stop. But this is a moment to savor. It's nice when a government and the public that it serves agree on the same goals and how to get there.

 

SAFCA, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, is the local government in charge of flood protection. The agency, led by a capable staff and a board of local elected officials, has the job of identifying the needs and the technical solutions to those needs and then searching for the political path to success.

 

It can be a long and sometimes frustrating journey. A project that looks doable for a while can turn into a loser after a little analysis. In the end, the public must have confidence in SAFCA in order to pay more in taxes to improve the flood protection.

 

SAFCA has performed every part of its job to near perfection in its recent work involving the area's two big rivers. It has found levee, spillway and dam projects that are technically achievable. It has mustered united political support in the floodplain. It has gained the approval of Congress to co-invest in many of the projects. And now with local money, SAFCA has an excellent chance to secure money from state bond funds that voters approved last November.

 

It would be hard to find a steadier hand leading any agency than SAFCA's Stein Buer. And the board has gone beyond the call as well.

 

This year SAFCA's board is led by Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo. She didn't assume the outcome of this election was in the bag. She even took the time to attend a meeting of the Sacramento Unified School District (since it owns schools in the floodplain, it got to vote in this assessment election) to make sure that school board members understood what was at stake and would vote the right way. They did.

 

That's the kind of commitment that can make the difference.

 

The most dramatic physical difference these investments will make is arguably on the American River. When that big storm is on the horizon, a new spillway will be able to safely move more water downstream so that Folsom Dam can hold the coming surge. This spillway will help squeeze the most flood protection possible out of this dam. Sacramento may someday need every bit of that protection.

 

A sense of urgency must be maintained to ensure that the projects stay on time and on budget. Property owners have made a wise choice. Flood protection isn't cheap, but the price of flooding would be much higher. #

http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/162511.html

 

 

RIVER ISLANDS LEVEES:

Court says global warming non-issue for River Islands

Manteca Bulletin – 4/28/07

By Dennis Wyatt, staff writer

 

River Islands at Lathrop — the 11,000-home planned community that is expected to start building its first home in November — won’t be stopped over global warming concerns.

 

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette sided with River Islands as well as the State of California Friday morning in the lawsuit filed over the issuance of permits for levee work made by the State Reclamation Board in 2006.

 

The state and developer had been sued by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Natural Heritage Institute. The organizations contended the reclamation board should have addressed global warming impacts before issuing an encroachment permit for levees.

 

Not only did the judge side with River Islands, but he went a step further and said the state should have issued a variance to allow homes to be constructed on the top of the 300-foot wide “super levee” that is the linchpin of protecting the planned community against a 200-year flood. The judge also said the state should have obtained a wider easement over the project levee. River Islands has indicated it will work with the state on those two issues.

 

Should the state work out a deal with River Islands, that would allow Cambay Group to proceed with home sites on the perimeter levee that have been described as worthy of “million dollar views.” They would have unparalleled views of the river, the Sierra, the Northern San Joaquin Valley and the Coastals anchored by Mt. Diablo.

 

River Islands still must secure federal approval to complete its vision for the entire 4,800-acre Stewart Tract project. That includes restoring habitat on the river side of the levee and creating unprecedented public access to the river. Almost all river access — where its allowed on the San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers — is from launches or locations such as Discovery Park in Sacramento. Very little is in its natural state and most is kept as a levee and not as a riverside ecological system.

 

Army Corps approval that is expected to take until at least 2012 is needed in order to complete the super levee around the entire Stewart Tract.

 

River Islands had state and federal approval that was on again and off again regarding the levees.

 

Finally Cambay Group devised a plan that made state and federal approval moot. They built what were essentially dry levees and then filled the area between the river levee and theirs with dirt.

 

River Islands has moved 2 million cubic feet of dirt without importing or exporting a bucket by creating a serious of interior lakes for drainage and recreation use. They did so without changing the amount of water the rest of Stewart Tract could take should a levee fail therefore making the smaller version — which is roughly half of the overall project — able to proceed without changing existing flood modeling on the San Joaquin River at the crucial Mossdale Crossing.

 

In doing so, they had to build a wide dry levee midway across their original project plan. The number of homes will be cut in half if they ultimately don’t secure Army Corps of Engineers approval to do the project as envisioned.

 

The parallel levees Cambay built are private and “dry” as they don’t border water. They parallel the 80-year-old project levees that were put in place. The state then agreed to allow Cambay to back fill the area between the two levees to create the super levee after determining the private levee was out of their jurisdiction. It has created what Cambay Project Manager Susan Del’Osso has termed “an unprecedented” level of flood protection for the development.

 

As it stands right now, River Islands will be taken out of federal floodplain maps due to the sheer width of the “levees.”

 

River Islands will develop infrastructure including roads to allow the sale of 342 lots to the first three builders this year. The companies are now being selected. Construction expected to start on the first home in November. It won’t be until early 2008 that the first family will move into a home on Stewart Tract after what will have been 11 years and $125 million and counting. #

http://www.mantecabulletin.com/articles/2007/04/28/news/news3.txt

 

 

LEVEE MANAGEMENT:

Guest Column: Public safety is priority in levee management

Sacramento Bee – 4/29/07

By John R. McMahon, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' regional commander

 

The front-page story about levee inspections underscores the challenge that vegetation management on levees poses for life safety and healthy ecosystems in California. While trees and vegetation provide habitat and other benefits, public safety must be our primary concern.

 

The levees are a critical part of a comprehensive regional flood risk management infrastructure. A levee breach in the Sacramento Valley could have consequences comparable to those seen in New Orleans. Thousands of lives, homes and jobs could be jeopardized.

 

Hurricane Katrina was a stark reminder that a flood protection system must be ready to perform as designed and that maintaining levees to certain standards is critical. Federal, state and local agencies that share responsibility to ensure levee integrity must look carefully at vegetation and other vulnerabilities in light of what we have learned.

 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is performing levee inspections, assessing the flood control infrastructure system and determining what actions will minimize risk to lives and property. Additionally, the Corps of Engineers and its partners are working on projects throughout the American River watershed to enhance flood protection.

 

While small trees and vegetation may be desirable on Sacramento Valley levees, unchecked vegetation compromises safety and levee integrity. Brush can hinder personnel fighting floods during an emergency. Where brush obscures visibility, bank erosion and animal burrows are difficult to detect. The Sacramento River Flood Control Project Operation and Maintenance Manual requires that brush, trees and other wild growth be cleared from the tops of levees and slopes to ensure the structure is serviceable.

 

The key is that the vegetation must not interfere with levee integrity and inspection.

 

Trees -- and more specifically their roots -- pose a special challenge. They can penetrate deep inside levee walls, potentially causing the levee to erode from within. To maintain a levee's structural integrity, root damage must be addressed.

 

These are complex issues that will require further investment, collaboration and public support. The Corps of Engineers is working with communities, the state and resource agencies to find the right approach for each levee segment. We recognize the benefits of fish and wildlife habitat and viable natural systems. However, our priority is public safety. #

 

Brig. Gen. John R. McMahon, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' regional commander, is responding to the April 7 article "Tree-laden levees flunk federal inspection."

http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/162548.html

 

 

INFRASTRUCTURE:

Editorial: Schwarzenegger's holy water war; When it comes to conserving for a drought, dams and reservoirs should be the option of last resort

Los Angeles Times – 4/28/07

 

GOV. ARNOLD Schwarzenegger likes to grumble that the battle over how to store California's scarce water supply for a non-rainy day is tantamount to a "holy war." Year after year, Republicans and farmers push for new dams and reservoirs, while Democrats and environmentalists call for increased underground storage and conservation. Middle ground is as easy to find as a diving hole in the lower Owens Valley.

So it was no surprise this week that the governor's latest water infrastructure plan was voted down by Democrats on the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee. Sponsored by Sen. Dave Cogdill (R-Modesto), SB 59 called for nearly $4 billion in bonds, half of which would be spent on two new dams in the Central Valley.

California slakes its thirst by way of a complex system that transports water from the Colorado River and Sierra Nevada to the drier valleys and coastal plains. Most years this generates enough water, but droughts, aging infrastructure and an ever-growing population threaten to make the well run dry.

Schwarzenegger, who needs Republican support to pass his budget and key reforms, has vowed to keep fighting for the dams. For the rest of his audience, however, he's come up with a novel pitch: Reservoirs are needed because of global warming.

The state's snowpack is indeed likely to shrink as the Earth warms, but scientists disagree on where and how, making it difficult to know whether the proposed Sites and Temperance Flat dams would be positioned properly to capture snowmelt. The dams could help control flows into the environmentally sensitive Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which supplies 60% of Southern California's water. But it seems premature to embark on such massive and intrusive projects before comprehensive proposals to rehabilitate the delta come out around the end of the year.

Of the many ways to save and store water, dams are among the most expensive. They also alter the natural landscape in violent and often irreversible ways. The trend in the modern West is to tear down dams, not build them. Water solutions going forward should be based on cooperating with nature, not continuing the legacy of manhandling river systems into unrecognizable forms.

Knowing that bond-weary voters are likely to be asked to borrow billions more to shore up the far more critical delta, why would Schwarzenegger waste his clout on what appears to be a peripheral, piecemeal project? Politics, most likely. With his reservoir rhetoric, the "post-partisan" governor hoped to split the difference in the holy war — pander to Republicans while sounding environmentally savvy at the same time. It's a nifty trick, but unfortunately it won't solve California's water problems. #

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-ed-water28apr28,1,1852587.story?coll=la-news-a_section

 

 

Editorial: Arnold wants a dam; Water policy makes lousy political crusade

Sacramento Bee – 4/30/07

 

Who knows whether Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will ever manage to build a water reservoir, somewhere, to fulfill one of his goals akin to his favorite flavor of the month. But he sure is making the case in the wrong way.

 

He and Republican supporters in the Senate have proposed a $4.5 billion bond for the November 2008 ballot. The bond would include money to pay for half of two reservoirs. One is Temperance Flat, a reservoir on the San Joaquin River. The other is Sites Reservoir, near the Sacramento River west of the small town of Maxwell.

 

Somebody else -- local governments, Southern California, Warren Buffett, who knows? -- would have to pay for the other half of the costs. Nobody has stepped forward with a checkbook. There are no partners for either project and no final studies showing what the projects would cost or the amount of water they would provide. So the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee the other day did the obvious. It sank the governor's fuzzy reservoir plan on a party-line vote.

 

Detailed studies and a fuller set of facts are necessary to begin making the case for any new reservoir. But first things first. And at the top of any savvy leader's water list should be the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. It is in crisis. The fish populations are dwindling. The state and federal pumping projects are in big trouble in separate court cases. The sea is rising. The levees are suspect. Nothing related to the Delta seems sustainable. And the California Legislature is preparing to make tough decisions about historic fixes next year.

 

The Delta is the proverbial hub of Northern California's water system. Any new reservoir proposal anywhere in Northern California can't be pondered without knowing first how to fix the Delta. Time and political energy are precious things. The Delta needs to be center stage, with distractions kept to a minimum.

 

The Legislature and the governor should be keeping their minds wide open as they prepare to hear some expert Delta advice from the University of California, Davis, a blue-ribbon task force and wildlife agencies.

 

Meanwhile, if Schwarzenegger insists on championing a reservoir, he should take a tough-love message on the road. He should start in Fresno. There, it seems, the local establishment wants to build Temperance Flat with someone else's money. A local conversation must take place on how those who would benefit locally from any reservoir (whether it's with better flood protection or more farm water in drought years) would have to help pay for it. And they need to figure out how to come up with the money.

 

If that conversation can't occur until the Delta's future is clarified, so be it. But it makes no sense to keep having emotional debates about reservoirs in the abstract. #

http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/163340.html

 

 

LEGISLATION:

Landmark climate change bill clears state panel

Woodland Daily Democrat – 4/28/07

 

The Assembly Committee on Natural Resources has voted to approve landmark legislation by to integrate climate change in state and local water planning.

 

The bill is being supported by a growing list of water agencies and environmentalists. It requires the California Department of Water Resources to consider the anticipated effects of climate change in all state water plans, including the California Water Plan and State Plan of Flood Control.

 

"Numerous scientific studies and journals have highlighted the serious risks posed to water supply by climate change. Those risks include more frequent dry years, more persistent droughts, and reduced water storage in the state's reservoirs, said author Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, D-Davis. "My legislation will help California begin to address those risks by responding to the growing scientific consensus on the connection between climate change and water resources."

 

Approved on a 6-1 vote Monday, AB 224 also requires DWR to identify existing peer-reviewed climate change studies and develop its own climate change information to help local water suppliers identify potential impacts to water supply.

 

Local water suppliers then incorporate that information into their own planning for future water supplies. At the same time, the State Water Resources Control Board will study the greenhouse emission benefits of water recycling and conservation.

 

"This bill is a prudent measure to ensure that water agencies in the state of California are able to adapt and provide the necessary water to meet our future needs," said Mindy McIntyre with the Planning and Conservation League, one of the bill's sponsors.

 

In recent weeks, water agency boards and environmental advocates across the state have weighed in with their support of AB 224.

 

The bill's sponsors include the Sonoma County Wxater Agency, Marin Municipal Water District, Planning and Conservation League, and Natural Resources Defense Council. The bill has also earned support from Association of California Water Agencies, Water ReUse Association, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Inland Empire Utilities Agency, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Sierra Club California, and The Nature Conservancy.  #

http://www.dailydemocrat.com/news/ci_5774401

 

 

CASTAIS LEGAL ISSUES:

Guest Opinion: Appeal by Casitas explained

Ventura County Star – 4/29/07

By Pete Kaiser, of Ojai, is the Division 3 director of the Casitas Municipal Water District and a resident in the community of Mira Monte

 

Over the past few months, I have examined countless pages of testimony, motions and evidence related to the takings lawsuit as presented by lawyers representing both the federal government and Casitas Municipal Water District. After personally interviewing more than 100 constituents and listening to speakers at the April 19 meeting, Casitas ratepayers demand accountability of their federal government, reliable water delivery and adherence to the Endangered Species Act.

 

Consequently, after full consideration of all the information, I support an independent review and decision by the federal appeals court regarding the takings claim. Such a review and decision by a judicial panel on the appeals court are essential either to establish a critical environmental protection precedent or provide direction that may lead to reimbursing our ratepayers for water restrictions imposed by the federal government.

 

Should the appeals court affirm Judge John Wiese's decision, it will resoundingly establish precedent-setting case law that could be referenced by other legal actions involving the balancing of water resources and protection of endangered species. Equally important, this appeal should indicate to ratepayers that the Casitas board has done everything in its power to protect their standard of living, agricultural commerce and business investment in the greater Ojai Valley and western Ventura County.

 

Regardless of the final decision, jurisprudence will be exercised and the future application of water loss compensation decisively clarified for the safeguarding of endangered species.

 

The district's primary objective is to provide for the continual delivery of quality water to our ratepayers at the most reasonable cost. Of course, this must be balanced with the board's commitment to, and investment in, the recovery of the steelhead.

 

It is apparent that supplemental sources of water are rather tenuous. For example, reliance on the state water system is problematic due to the questionable integrity of levees and diminishing water supplies from reduced snow packs, not to mention recent court decisions to shut off access to that water supply. Connection to state water would also result in significant cost for necessary infrastructure. Just as important is the expressed desire by our local ratepayers to retain autonomy from outside water sources.

 

Instead of looking for additional sources of water, many have suggested we do a better job of conserving our water. As important as conservation is, studies have shown that even under the most ideal implementation and participation, these efforts within the district will amount to approximately 350 acre-feet of water saved per year an obvious benefit, but much less than the estimated average annualized water loss from the federally imposed water restrictions.

 

Facing major climate changes and predicted long-term drought scenarios, the full impact upon local water supplies and reservoir replenishment is uncertain. I am quite concerned about the future in this regard and how extended droughts may impact water supplies for our communities, which rely not only on wells but ultimately Lake Casitas.

 

Naturalists stress that many species are dependent on Lake Casitas' own ecosystem. Steelhead do present a barometer of a healthy riverine environment, but the lake and its surrounding watershed also provide habitat for a number of species of concern. Recently, bald eagles have been seen at the lake. Last week, I observed great blue herons near the shoreline creating this year's nests. Great egrets, horned larks, loggerhead shrike, horned and whiptail lizards, migratory birds and various raptors all enjoy a healthy living ecosystem around the lake. Keeping this extended ecosystem of the Ventura River in balance requires a conscientious holistic approach toward watershed management.

 

Ultimately, it will take effort from every one of us the board, district staff, individuals, advocacy groups, contingent water purveyors and governmental regulators to purposely work together for sustainability and efficient use of water in order to balance this resource with many competing interests. Only then will we achieve some level of balance between mutually dependent natural and human systems. #

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2007/apr/29/appeal-by-casitas-explained/

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 California.

 

[Water_news] 4. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS: WATER QUALITY - 4/30/07

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment

 

April 30, 2007

 

4. Water Quality

 

S.D. Bay cleanup mandate stagnates; Report to back up '05 order not done

San Diego Union Tribune – 4/30/07

By Mike Lee, staff writer

 

Two years after water regulators ordered a $96 million cleanup for San Diego Bay – one of the largest in U.S. history – they have yet to produce a scientific report to justify their mandate.

 

The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board has made little visible progress toward backing up its initial order, which would require shipbuilders, the Navy, the city of San Diego, San Diego Gas & Electric Co. and others to undo their alleged pollution of the bay stretching back to the early 1900s.

 

Roughly 60 acres of bay sediment south of the San Diego-Coronado Bridge have been contaminated by heavy metals and toxic chemicals from industrial activities and urban runoff. The water board seeks the cleanup to protect fish, and people who use the bay.

 

The targets of the order have contested it and said the best option is to not disturb the sediment. In contrast, environmentalists are pushing for even more cleanup work.

 

Some conservationists, legislators and state officials are frustrated by what state Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, calls the “snail's pace.” The delay raises questions about whether the water board can effectively handle a cleanup initiative this big.

“It's extremely disappointing that this has dragged out this long,” Kehoe said. “Cleaning the bay has been under discussion for many, many years and we need to really start delivering some results to the public.”

 

At first, the board was going to vote on finalizing its plan in August 2005. Now, it doesn't expect to sign off on the cleanup order until mid-2008.

 

Several factors caused the postponement. The agency initially chose not to publish its scientific justification on grounds that the law doesn't require such a report. It reversed course after requests by the shipyards and environmentalists.

 

In addition, to comply with the state water board's “paperless” workplace initiative, the agency decided to digitize tens of thousands of paper files that support its case. Now the water board is swimming in a sea of paperwork related to its order.

 

Turning those files into electronic documents will cost as much as $152,000 and take about six more months.

 

In December, the State Lands Commission took the unusual step of publicly prodding the water board to quickly and fully clean up the bay. The commission deals with the use and pollution of state properties, including bays and tidelands.

 

“The commission was trying to be polite about this, but it aimed to indicate concern and show that we want to see this thing done,” said Paul D. Thayer, the commission's executive officer.

 

He said the commission might sue the bay polluters if the water board doesn't get the job done. Thayer declined to set a timeline for that action.

 

“We have confidence that the board will see this issue through,” he said. “It's just that there are other mechanisms out there if there should be some problem.”

 

John Robertus, the water board's executive officer, defended his agency's performance. He said it takes time to complete a project that sets precedents with its size, standards for people's health and the digitization of documents.

 

In addition, the board has been slowed by the lack of statewide guidelines for sediment quality, which state water-quality officials intend to finalize early next year.

 

“There is no clock that drives this,” Robertus said. “We want to do it right. I don't want to have a long, protracted court battle that we end up losing.”

 

As for the two years that have elapsed since the board announced its order, Robertus said it's not unusual for the agency to publish preliminary findings so the public can have time to review them.

 

But Jack Minan, who was chairman of the water board when it announced the bay order, acknowledged that the agency's staff issued the mandate prematurely.

 

“The delay does seem too long and staff would have been better advised to complete the necessary work” before it made the order public, said Minan, a University of San Diego law professor who left the board late last year.

 

He said one option is for the agency to dismiss its tentative order and make room for citizen lawsuits over the sediment pollution. Typically, judges will wait until an agency has finished deliberating an issue before they hear related litigation.

 

Minan said the best course now is for the board to complete its task.

 

“This is such an important issue of regulatory concern regionally, statewide and nationally that the administrative process ought to be allowed to work,” he said.

 

The water board didn't forecast such a lengthy procedure when it announced the cleanup mandate on April 29, 2005.

 

It took the unprecedented step of ordering eight parties to remove or cover 885,000 cubic yards of tainted sediment. That probably would mean dredging the bay's bottom and disrupting shipyard work at a substantial cost to the companies.

 

National Steel & Shipbuilding Co. – now General Dynamics NASSCO – and Southwest Marine, now known as BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair, are among those on the hook for the bay cleanup. The other parties named in the order are Chevron, BP, the Navy, San Diego Gas & Electric Co., the city of San Diego and the owners of a former bayside tenant named San Diego Marine Construction Corp.

 

The case may have national repercussions: some of the country's largest shipbuilders are watching to see which requirements will prevail in San Diego.

 

Last week, a NASSCO spokesman declined to comment on whether the company was pleased or frustrated by the time that has passed since the board's tentative mandate.

 

A year ago, however, its legal team sent a letter to the agency saying the delay was “evidence that the regional board staff did not have, and still does not have, a sound basis for issuance of the order.”

 

Meanwhile, environmentalists have been repeatedly discouraged by the water board's pace. At San Diego Coastkeeper, executive director Bruce Reznik has worked behind the scenes for months with politicians and other agencies to generate pressure for quicker action.

 

“I don't think a lot of the key decision-makers . . . realize how poorly this has been handled and I think when people do, they are going to be fairly outraged,” Reznik said. “It's an embarrasment.”

 

For the water board's staff, a major issue is the complexity and volume of the cleanup documents, which take up some 130 linear feet of shelf space.

 

The agency aims to make most of those documents available electronically as part of the state's “paperless office” initiative. But the project was delayed by about three months while officials finalized the state protocol.

 

Last year, the San Diego board hired a private contractor, D-M Information Systems Inc., to scan the documents and prepare an index. The State Water Board kicked in $62,000 for the effort and the regional board put up about $60,000.

 

David Barker, the engineer in charge of the documents at the local level, said he's confident that he has – or can quickly find – enough money to finish the job.

 

Roughly 25 percent of the related documents have been digitized. It's a time-intensive process that involves sorting through tens of thousands of pages and identifying the relevant pieces.

 

Barker said the board would release an updated cleanup order, a technical report to support its demands and the electronic document index so the public-comment period could start in November. The revised order would not be markedly different from the current version, he added.

 

When that package is made public, the real work begins: sorting out competing claims about who's responsible, deciding what kind of work should be done and determining how to divide the bill. #

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070430-9999-1n30bay.html

####