Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
May 24, 2007
5. Agencies, Programs, People
FEE INCREASE REJECTED:
Pajaro water district loses appeal, may refund $4 million - Associated Press
Developer pitches land swap for new levee, possible subdivision - Chico Enterprise Record
Panel wants public’s opinion - Marysville Appeal Democrat
PROPOSITION 84:
Column: Prop. 84 is poster measure for state's devious initiative system -
STORM DRAIN FUNDING:
Storm drains may get state boost - San Mateo County Times
OROVILLE RELICENSING:
FERC confirms what county has suspected: Dam costs it millions - Chico Enterprise Record
FEE INCREASE REJECTED:
Pajaro water district loses appeal, may refund $4 million
Associated Press – 5/24/07
The Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency increased augmentation fees without getting the proper approval from landowners, the 6th District Court of Appeal ruled this week.
The decision reversed an earlier ruling by the court last summer that said additional water fees imposed in 2003 on households and farms in the area along the
The appellate court determined the 2003 hike was property-related and subject to the provisions of Proposition 218, which calls for a vote by landowners.
The Pajaro district had been levying the water augmentation fee at the rate of $80 per acre-foot, agency attorney Tony Condotti said. When the fee was increased to $120 per acre-foot in 2003, ratepayers sued.
"Essentially the agency was charging a fee to pump your own groundwater," said attorney Robert Johnson, one of the lawyers representing property owners.
The property owners already owned the water rights and shouldn't have been charged for them, Johnson said.
"We think the court made a right decision and an important decision for all of the residents, farmers and landowners in the
Condotti said the agency will likely petition the Supreme Court to review the case. #
http://www.sacbee.com/114/story/192329.html
Developer pitches land swap for new levee, possible subdivision
By Barbara Arrigoni, staff writer
The trade was presented as part of a development plan that could result in bringing 1,000 new dwellings to the town.
Attorney Tim O'Laughlin, a law partner with levee attorney William Paris, presented the idea at the
The meeting was for community input on exchanging a 250-acre southern parcel called
Jaswant Bains owns
The Nature Conservancy's parcel extends from the projected levee site east to the railroad tracks, on the north side of Highway 32. It also abuts the Westermann development project area. At a meeting last September, TNC's land was conceptualized as future open space and a possible sports or recreation area. Conceptual designs of the area if the land swap goes through replace the open area with more residences, tripling the original estimate of new housing.
O'Laughlin said TNC obtained an appraisal and fair market value of
The attorney then came up with the idea to swap the parcels. If agreed to, Bains could develop the 125 acres later, although he said at the meeting that he doesn't plan to at this time. Still, he has hired an engineer and design consultant, the same companies employed for the Westermann project.
O'Laughlin said the idea is a way to get the levee built, an endeavor the community has fought hard to accomplish for years. But he also said the developer has three more years on its option for the land, "then the ranch remains in almonds and prunes."
There were questions from the audience about the swap, and no one verbally opposed the idea. Discussions centered mostly on Bains' plans for the property and aged sugar factory, mistrust of developers based on bad experiences, Hamilton City's need for more recreation and parks, and the levee.
High school Superintendent Ray Odom said the school district supports the plan as long as the district is included in the planning process and the developer mitigates the community's needs.
One resident asked why Bains couldn't offer
TNC would have to find a third party to pay that much.
Levee Reclamation District representative LeeAnne Grigsby-Puente asked why Bains doesn't donate the section needed for the levee. She added the levee project is multi-objective and that the property is the only piece separating the south from the north portions of the project. TNC needs it for the restoration component, which is one of the reasons the levee project has met success in getting governmental approval.
O'Laughlin countered that everyone has a different way of viewing the levee project.
"We want the levee for developing..." he said. "Our goal was to get the property swapped and done so you can get the levee built."
Bains didn't answer Grigsby-Puente's question.
One landowner questioned not only the wisdom of building homes behind a levee, but also indicated that some residents may be struggling with adjusting their previous perceptions of the land's possible use.
The safety of building behind the levee was questioned when someone mentioned the plans for the new structure are built for a 75-year flood. The Corps of Engineers in its project report says the new levee would have a 90 percent chance of clearing a 75-year flood event.
Landowner Mike Billiou asked planning director Dan Obermeyer whether the county would approve a development behind the levee under those circumstances. Obermeyer said it wouldn't, and added the governor has proposed a 200-year flood event restriction.
Billiou also pointed out that when The Nature Conservancy bought the proposed swap parcel near the levee, the original intent presented to townsfolk was to keep that area open.
"That's what was represented to us," Billiou said. "We don't envision 900 houses, we envision 'open.' It makes me very nervous to have houses in that area backed up to that river ... that's part of the problem — the vision."
After more than an hour and a half, O'Laughlin asked the residents to write letters or e-mail their views about the land exchange, but added, "If the levee is going forward, somebody will have to acquire that property from Mr. Bains. The issue will either go forward or be dead."
Grigsby-Puente said afterward that TNC has obtained grant funds and has been working with several other landowners to acquire parcels in the project area. She said there has always been cooperation from the farms and community, but "we haven't come up against this."
Staff writer Barbara Arrigoni can be reached at 896-7757 or barrigoni@chicoer.com.
BACKGROUND: The Nature Conservancy needs a parcel of land south of
WHAT'S NEW: At a town meeting Monday, the attorney representing Westermann Ranch in a proposed development project pitched an idea to swap the needed parcel with one TNC already owns, which would possibly expand development. #
http://www.chicoer.com/newshome/ci_5972654
Panel wants public’s opinion
Marysville Appeal Democrat – 5/23/07
By John Dickey, staff writer
A
The Citizen’s Advisory Committee on Flood Control voted Wednesday to send a letter to
The idea of hiring a public opinion consultant came up as committee members talked about whether both a sales tax and property assessment at the same time would meet with public resistance. Committee member Darin Gale suggested some kind of polling to measure public sentiment.
“I have a big fear, in
But another member, Sarb Basrai, said both measures should be offered. If both pass, it would prove to
“I think you bring both of the measures to the table,” said Basrai.
No recommendations have been made by the committee on whether to offer a sales tax measures, a property assessment or both.
Much of Wednesday’s meeting focused on how much a sales tax measure could raise toward the roughly $113 million local match for Proposition 1E bond funds. That figure is a guess and could change considerably depending on what problems turn up as the levees are drilled for soil material.
Robert Spencer, of MuniFinancial, told the advisory panel that $82 million could be generated over a 25-year period by a 0.5 percent sales tax. That is about the maximum local sales tax that could be approved. Anything more would likely face rejection by voters.
A sales tax would require a two-thirds vote to pass. Currently,
http://www.appeal-democrat.com/onset?id=48792&template=article.html
PROPOSITION 84:
Column: Prop. 84 is poster measure for state's devious initiative system
By George Skelton, Times columnist
Perhaps we should just nod in respect to the clever tactics.
Maybe all of the above.
Bill Leonard, member of the state Board of Equalization, says: "My reaction is, 'I told you so.' "
That's irresistible and I'll join him.
Proposition 84 — sold last year as a water protection bond — was one of five special interest ballot initiatives crafted to spend and/or tax. They represented the sort of ballot-box budgeting that has crippled the ability of elected officials to set spending priorities.
Moreover, Prop. 84 was a "pay-to-play" measure. That's when an initiative entrepreneur shops a bond proposal to potential investors, who agree to back it financially in return for potentially reaping a share of the benefits for their pet causes. Prop. 84, authorizing $5.4 billion in state borrowing, did contain "a buffet of goodies" for its bankrollers, I wrote before the November election.
My advice to voters was to "dump every one" of the special interest ballot measures. And every one was tossed except Prop. 84, which passed with 54% of the vote.
Leonard was the most outspoken opponent of Prop. 84, writing the opposition argument in the state's Official Voter Information Guide. "This measure should have been titled the 'Special-Interest-Hidden-Agenda-Bond,' " the Republican began in his written argument.
"This so-called 'water bond' has no funding for dams or water storage! The authors set aside billions for bureaucratic studies, unnecessary protections for rats and weeds, and other frivolous projects."
Little did Leonard or any of us really know.
As revealed by Times reporter Evan Halper in Monday's paper, some legislators — in cahoots with the measure's special interest backers — see Prop. 84 as a pork barrel. No surprise there. Indeed, that's likely why Democratic legislative leaders and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger all endorsed it.
Halper's story detailed how bills are pending that would tap into the bond money for the likes of a bike path through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, overnight accommodations for kayakers at Lake Tahoe, an ocean aquarium in inland Fresno and enhancements at L.A.'s Natural History Museum and the Huntington Botanical Gardens.
This from a bond measure officially titled: "Water quality, safety and supply. Flood control. Natural resource protection. Park improvements."
"It does have a certain element of bait and switch about it," says Richard G. Little, director of the Keston Institute for Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy at USC.
After all, the supporters' argument in the voter guide mentioned the word "protect" 10 times. As in: "Prop. 84 protects
Nothing at all about bike trails or kayaking or aquariums.
" 'Protect' is the key word," notes veteran political strategist Darry Sragow, who has run four successful bond campaigns for the Los Angeles Unified School District. "Its repeated use clearly was based on opinion research, and based on what happened in
Just a year earlier, Californians had been jarred psychologically when Hurricane Katrina slammed into New Orleans, crumbling levees, flooding the city, inflicting $81 billion in damage and leaving 1,836 dead.
That could happen here, we realized. An earthquake could destroy the delta's aged levees, killing people, cutting off much of
That was enough to prod the governor and Legislature into placing four public works bonds totaling $37 billion on the ballot, including $4.1 billion for flood control. Prop. 84 piggybacked onto this bipartisan package, and all were approved by voters.
Nobody talked up borrowing money — paying double the base prices, including interest — to upgrade local bicycling, kayaking and botanical gardens.
The lesson here is not so much about the trickery of Prop. 84. It does have some pluses, including $2.3 billion for water quality and flood control. It's more about the deviousness of the entire initiative system and the inevitable deceitful advertising.
My suggestion next time is to toss every campaign mailer in the trash before it pollutes your mind. Focus on the nonpartisan legislative analyst's invaluable summary of each measure in the voter guide.
After being misled, Little says, "Voters get outright cynical. They say, 'Next time why should I believe you?' Once you've lost that trust, it's real hard to get back."
Sragow has a slightly different take: "Voters are smart. They're very skeptical of bond measures. They fundamentally believe that a lot of money will be misspent. That said, they're willing to hold their collective noses and vote for these measures if they think the need is great enough."
But biking and kayaking, displaying fish and flowers? These may be worthwhile projects, but they're not at the top of most people's priority lists for use of tax dollars — not with leaky levees, clogged traffic and polluted water.
Not with the state still spending in the red and the governor trying to raid public transit funds and freeze benefits for the impoverished aged and disabled.
No, if anybody's going to pay for these pork projects, it should be the local people who'll benefit.
Unfortunately, the property tax-cutting Proposition 13 nearly 30 years ago made it practically impossible for local governments to raise revenue for such projects.
So the laugh's on us, whether we're talking about Prop. 13 or Prop. 84. #
STORM DRAIN FUNDING:
Storm drains may get state boost
By Aaron Kinney, staff writer
The bill, introduced Wednesday by state Sens. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, and Tom Torlakson, D-Antioch, would require an amendment to the state constitution and approval by statewide ballot.
(C/CAG) of
The proposed amendment, if successful, would allow cities to assess homeowners a fee to pay for stormwater runoff in a manner similar to the water and sewage fees they already charge. State law currently prohibits the practice.
For
"We said this is one thing we would love to see," said Burlingame Mayor Terry Nagel, recalling the city's meeting with Yee, "because of the difficulty we have getting two-thirds of the vote on any method of taxation."
Yee spokesman Adam Keigwin said municipalities throughout the region and the state are struggling to find sources of revenue for treating and monitoring stormwater runoff.
SCA 12 would provide for funds to enhance infrastructure, treat pollution or mitigate mudslides and coastal erosion, he said.
"They could assess the fee as they see fit to address the needs in their communities," Keigwin said. "The local municipalities are best equipped to make that decision, but they need the funds to do it."
Richard Napier, C/CAG's executive director, called SCA 12 the organization's "top legislative priority in 2007."
This legislation will enable local governments to fund the increased requirements from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and will provide a valuable tool to have clean water in the
Yee also stressed the environmental impact of the bill, which could yield financing for cleaning the state's coastal areas and waterways.
For
On Monday, the City Council decided to put off paying roughly $50,000 to fund a preliminary study of instituting a community facilities district, an alternative to a general obligation bond that was suggested by opponents of Measure H.
Council members indicated they may be willing to wait and see how Yee's initiative fares before committing to the analysis. #
http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/localnews/ci_5975232
OROVILLE RELICENSING:
FERC confirms what county has suspected: Dam costs it millions
By Roger Aylworth, staff writer
OROVILLE -- For years
On Tuesday,
DWR is seeking a renewed license to operate the facility. FERC is the federal agency that grants the licenses.
While the EIS estimate of the costs in services and lost property taxes is far less than the $12 million annual costs
However, Rick Ramirez, DWR's Oroville relicensing program manager, said he didn't see those costs in the EIS.
In a telephone interview with the Enterprise-Record, Ramirez said the FERC report specifically cites only $573,800 in annual costs to
He said he was mystified by Alpert's figures.
"I see no numbers like that in the FERC table," said the DWR official.
"He's wrong, and he needs to read the report again," said Alpert in a phone interview from his office.
While the table Ramirez cited doesn't list the figures, according to Alpert the report identifies specific costs to the county including $1.7 million for law enforcement and criminal justice, fire and rescue, roads and other miscellaneous costs.
However, Alpert said the important figures relate to the county's lost property taxes.
Alpert cited a comment on page 345 that says that "lost tax revenue, in the range of $1 million to $6.9 million annually, are reasonable estimates of the county's foregone tax revenue."
Ramirez said FERC often hears from groups that claim economic impacts that are beyond the jurisdiction of the commission to grant.
He suggested that some or all of the county's alleged costs may fall into this category.
"They have been saying that forever," said Alpert of Ramirez's comment.
"It's interesting they (the FERC staff) spent 30 pages of a report and are coming up with some numbers that are totally irrelevant," said Alpert.
When
Alpert said he was originally told "FERC would never recognize damages."
Ramirez said the EIS "doesn't necessarily reflect" the economic benefits the county receives from having the Oroville project within its jurisdiction.
Alpert said the FERC report "says we generate revenue (from the dam project) in unknown and strange ways," a point he flatly rejects.
Alpert charged DWR has been playing a game of "hide the ball."
"Yeah, we see the numbers, but we don't care," was how Alpert characterized the DWR's response.
The county counsel predicted it will be as long as two years before FERC issues its final ruling on the license and even then he thinks the county probably will have to take the matter to court.
Until then, he said, he won't put any credence into what DWR says about the situation.
"We will believe what they say when FERC and the appellate court say it. Then I'll believe it," said Alpert.
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