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

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment

 

April 4, 2007

 

5. Agencies, Programs, People

 

NAPA FLOOD ISSUES:

Which comes first: Creek or River?; Flood control board to decide if Napa Creek should be next priority - Napa Valley Register

 

CENTER FOR WATER EDUCATION:

Water center's next chapter still uncertain - Riverside Press Enterprise

 

 

NAPA FLOOD ISSUES:

Which comes first: Creek or River?; Flood control board to decide if Napa Creek should be next priority

Napa Valley Register – 4/4/07

By Kevin Courtney, staff writer

 

The local flood control district will be asked to decide this spring whether residents and businesses along Napa Creek will get flood protection before properties affected by Napa River flooding do.

In Harm’s Way, a group of creekside neighbors, wants protection within the next two years. The current schedule calls for creek work to begin in 2013.

Napa Creek residents began pressuring the flood board after their neighborhood was inundated in the New Year’s Eve flood of 2005. This was the eighth time in 10 years the creek had left its banks, they said.

The flood board, composed of county supervisors and Napa City Council members, supports beginning the design of creek flood defenses this summer.

 

But no construction would occur until after major work on the river is completed, such as the relocation of railroad tracks and construction of a bypass channel east of downtown.

Linda Kerr of In Harm’s Way argued Tuesday it made no sense to finish the plans for Napa Creek defenses in 2008, then wait until 2013 to build them.

“A completed design sitting on a shelf for five years offers flood protection to no one,” Kerr said.

If Napa Creek culverts and flood terracing were started in 2008, Kerr conceded, flood protection along the river might be delayed a year. This would leave the Oxbow neighborhood, Napa Valley Exposition and Soscol Avenue’s auto row vulnerable for an extra winter.

Given historical statistical probabilities, no flood would occur along the river during that year’s delay, Kerr said.

But if Napa Creek isn’t protected until 2013 or later, her neighbors can expect to flood another couple of times, she said.

Flood protection along the creek and river would both be funded by the federal government, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers overseeing the work.

Federal funding has been lagging behind the local need, which means that the Corps will likely not have the money to do both Napa Creek and Oxbow construction simultaneously, officials believe.

Napa Mayor Jill Techel, who chairs the local flood district, asked staff to report in May or June on the pros and cons of a change in flood priorities.

Both the Corps and the local flood district have agreed there is no hydrological reason stopping them from making Napa Creek the top construction priority, Kerr said.

Until now, the flood district has supported the Corps’ plan to finish major work on the river before beginning construction on Napa Creek.

Large numbers of businesses through central Napa are vulnerable until river defenses are in place. New commercial projects also require flood protection before they can begin.

The Corps is able to begin design of Napa Creek defenses this year only because the amount of federal funding ended up higher than expected.

Earlier this month the Corps shifted an extra $3 million to the Napa project, raising 2006-07 funding to $14 million. In addition, the flood board is advancing $6.5 million in local flood tax revenues so the Corps can finish construction of defenses along Main Street between Napa Mill and First Street, and to do design work for the bypass, the railroad relocation and Napa Creek.

Once design work is completed in 2008, the Corps will need larger sums to build flood defenses and move the Napa Valley Wine Train tracks — including construction of two new bridges.

Railroad costs are estimated at $30 million, the bypass and flood walls at $15 million, while Napa Creek could cost $10 million to $15 million, said Julie Lucido, the flood district engineer.

As part of a change in federal policy, the Corps will be able to spend an additional $2 million this year from funds that were allocated for 2005-06 but never spent. This makes this year’s corps budget $22.7 million, a record.

For the flood project to be completed in 2015, the Corps will need $15 million a year. If more money becomes available, the project will be completed sooner. #

http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2007/04/04/news/local/doc461336dd54425919745264.txt

 

 

CENTER FOR WATER EDUCATION:

Water center's next chapter still uncertain

Riverside Press Enterprise – 4/4/07

By Steve Fetbrandt, staff writer

 

HEMET - The nonprofit foundation that fashioned the new $26 million Center for Water Education, adjacent to the Diamond Valley Lake, has vacated the premises, leaving dust to settle over the building and its contents.

 

John Clairday, senior deputy general counsel for Metropolitan Water District, said the water center's staff turned the building over to MWD on March 16 after the water wholesaler canceled the foundation's 99-year ground lease.

 

Standing in the shadow of Diamond Valley Lake's east dam, the center held a "soft opening" late last year and hosted some tours and field trips. However, it has never opened full time to the public, and MWD has not set a target date to do that, Clairday said Monday.

 

Hemet Councilwoman Lori Van Arsdale, who also serves on the foundation's governing board, said foundation leaders met last week at MWD headquarters in Los Angeles to hash out details of the transition.

 

"We have given our legal counsel instruction to go back at Metropolitan with a few changes in the memorandum-of-understanding and hope to have some answers in the next week or two," she said Tuesday.

 

"It's been a challenge to get some definitive answer as to whether they will make sure they take care of our school-bus tours, which are booked thorough October," she said. "So far, they've been good about doing that."

 

MWD created the foundation several year ago to raise funds and build the center.

 

The effort was cut short when the water district's governing board voted Feb. 13 to take the property back. That action came after two contractors filed liens because they had not been paid for construction and landscaping work.

 

MWD originally contributed $16 million to finance the building's construction.

 

The foundation, composed of a volunteer board of directors and four staff members, raised $9.4 million but was unable to meet expenses because of cost increases or construction materials and rain delays.

 

Phillip Pace, the foundation's chairman, has said there was little choice but to relinquish the property after MWD canceled the ground lease.

 

MWD plans to move its staff from the Diamond Valley Lake Visitors Center into the water center's building at some point, Clairday said, but no provisions have been made for doing that. Nor has any action been taken regarding MWD's decision to seek outside proposals for other possible uses for the center.

 

For now, Clairday said, the focus is on nailing down the amount of debt that MWD must cover to protect its investment in the property.

 

Once MWD and the foundation agree on the "reasonable and appropriate" debt -- which is estimated at $4.67 million -- the water district will pay the bills and get the liens removed, he said. #

http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_D_center04.3e06678.html

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.