Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
July 20, 2007
5. Agencies, Programs, People
STATEWIDE WATER PLANNING:
Column: California Focus: State could run low on clean water; The aging delta infrastructure is vulnerable to floods or earthquakes - Orange County
Editorial: Two water proposals in need of improvement; Plans from Schwarzenegger and Perata fall short on priorities, fiscal responsibility - Sacramento
Editorial: Plan for our water needs; Two bond proposals look at increasing state's water storage -
Editorial: Water wrangling - Riverside Press
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT MANAGEMENT:
IID names Grubaugh acting GM - Imperial Valley Press
Editorial: Ultimately, Hosken was the fall guy - Imperial Valley Press
STATEWIDE WATER PLANNING:
Column: California
Orange County
By Allan Zaremberg, columnist
Almost every time we all pull into traffic congestion, we're reminded that our neglected infrastructure of streets and highways has not kept up with
What is much less obvious but no less critical is the vulnerability of
As a result, we often take this precious resource for granted. That attitude must change. New projections show the state's population will hit 60 million by 2050, raising new challenges for our statewide water infrastructure. Despite significant advances in water conservation,
Climate change and the aging state of our infrastructure add to the challenge. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is a case in point. The Delta – unfortunately better known as the name of an airline than as a key source of water for 25 million Californians and some of our most productive farmland – is at risk from a major flood or earthquake that would disrupt water deliveries for months or years at a time.
Aging levees that protect the delta are in disrepair, and experts agree they are vulnerable to widespread failure that would be comparable to the disaster in
A major flood or a 6.5-magnitude earthquake could cause a breach in the levees that would render the Delta unusable as a source of clean water. Such an event would shut off water delivery to
The delta itself also has a host of environmental problems, including pollution and the decline of numerous fish species. Experts agree that the delta in its present state can no longer meet the current needs of people or fish, let alone accommodate future demands.
Our aging water infrastructure is further compromised by the possibility of climate change that could produce longer droughts and more severe floods. Warmer winters mean more rain and less snow in the Sierras. More rain means less "natural" water storage, i.e., the Sierra snowpack, and more runoff than our system can possibly capture and store. The excess water could overrun our flood control system, and send precious water out to the ocean in times of heavy storms.
Investing in our water infrastructure is essential to maintaining
We are at a critical juncture and need to make urgent repairs and essential improvements today to guard against catastrophes while also putting in place the needed long-term solutions to our state's water supply and quality. Without sustainable, long-term solutions to our looming water crisis, investors' confidence in our state could erode. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, we know too well what can happen without serious forethought and planning.
This is why Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is traveling the state to call attention to this problem we all face and to urge action on a solution. It is not often that we are presented with a "win-win" scenario that can protect both our environment and our economy. We must all work together to put in place a solution that will give us the water we need for the future while improving our environment. The time to act is now; let's not miss this chance to do what's needed before it's too late. #
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/water-delta-state-1779981-california-infrastructure
Editorial: Two water proposals in need of improvement; Plans from Schwarzenegger and Perata fall short on priorities, fiscal responsibility
Sacramento
There's an old African proverb that states: "Only a fool tests the depth of the water with two feet." Apparently, neither Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger nor Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata knows of that proverb. Both have jumped feet-first into the crocodile-filled pond of state water politics by promoting multibillion-dollar packages for a 2008 ballot.
Some might call this leadership. Some might call this a cynical attempt to win Republican votes for a budget compromise.
Whatever the motivation, there's little doubt that
Unfortunately, neither Schwarzenegger nor Perata has yet offered proposals that set clear priorities or offer sufficient details.
Schwarzenegger is proposing a $6 billion package that includes a $1 billion down payment for "conveyance" -- most likely a smaller version of the
Will $4.5 billion cover the cost? State officials aren't sure. Will the cost per unit of water delivered be cheaper than other options? How much water will go to environmental purposes, such as Delta flows? No one knows -- or is saying.
Perata's proposal is better, but has the feel of being hastily assembled. Before incurring new debt, he wants to target unspent bond dollars on immediate projects to protect the Delta and clean up groundwater basins. Then he would come back with a $5 billion bond for the 2008 ballot. About $2 billion would go to conveyance and Delta restoration, with the remainder divided among regions through a competitive process.
The Senate leader's plan allows regions to team up and decide the best projects to suit their needs. His printed proposal is unclear, but he says locals would pay half of the costs. To their credit, the governor and Sen. Dave Cogdill, R-Modesto, also want to require beneficiaries to pay half the cost.
There may be a chance for Schwarzenegger and Perata to marry their proposals, but the final product must meet certain conditions:
• State funding should go only to projects that offer large regional or statewide benefits. Restoration of rivers or storage projects that help restore flows in the Delta fall into this category. Projects that help a certain city or farm district do not.
• Any projects receiving state funding must demonstrate their cost competitiveness. If a water reservoir can be shown to supply cheaper water than conservation or groundwater storage, then it should be pursued.
• Any projects receiving funding should come with a basic "do no harm" requirement.
The last condition is vital. Although the governor and others herald the Pat Brown era of water works, they forget to note the downsides of those projects. To some degree, the reservoirs, aqueducts and water pumps built by Brown -- and the subsidies that have promoted wasteful uses of water -- have contributed to the crisis in the Delta. Future state investment must not repeat those mistakes. #
http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/282157.html
Editorial: Plan for our water needs; Two bond proposals look at increasing state's water storage
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata have jumped feet-first into the crocodile-filled pond of state water politics by promoting multibillion-dollar packages for a 2008 ballot.
There's little doubt that
Both bond proposals need much more analysis, but here are some initial points about each measure.
Schwarzenegger is proposing a $6 billion package that includes a $1 billion downpayment for "conveyance" -- most likely a smaller version of the
State officials aren't sure whether $4.5 billion will cover the total cost of these reservoirs, but it would be a good down payment.
The Temperance Flat dam is estimated to cost about $2 billion and would take years to build.
Perata's proposal has some benefits. Before incurring new debt, he wants to target unspent bond dollars on immediate projects to protect the Delta and clean up groundwater basins. Then he would come back with a $5 billion bond for the 2008 ballot.
About $2 billion would go to conveyance and Delta restoration, with the remainder divided among regions through a competitive process.
The Senate leader's plan allows regions to team up and decide the best projects to suit their needs, but it doesn't necessarily require locals to pay for a share of any benefits they receive.
By contrast, the governor and Sen. Dave Cogdill, R-Modesto, want to require beneficiaries to commit to paying half the cost before the state commits its share.
There may be a chance for Schwarzenegger and Perata to marry their proposals, but the final product must meet certain conditions:
State funding should only go to projects that offer large regional or statewide benefits. Restoration of rivers or storage projects that help restore flows in the Delta fall into this category. Projects also must help meet the water needs of a growing population and agriculture, which feeds the nation.
Projects receiving state funding must demonstrate their cost competitiveness. They also must be part of a balanced water policy that includes more storage -- both above and below ground -- and more conservation. This state can no longer ignore its water needs. #
http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/story/90758.html
Editorial: Water wrangling
Riverside Press
State Sen. Don Perata's water bond proposal last week gave a timely boost to the lagging discussion of the state's water needs.
The Legislature needs to move beyond ideological battles and invest in a reliable, long-term water supply for
And with Gov. Schwarzenegger and the Senate's ranking Democrat both pressing the issue, the state stands a better chance of seeing progress.
Long-range climate projections predict drier weather, with less winter snowpack. Those changes will require altering traditional water practices. And the delta, which supplies water to two-thirds of Californians, including Inland residents, faces collapse without quick state action.
Perata, D-Alameda, last week proposed a $5 billion water bond issue that would include $2 billion to help fix the delta, another $2 billion for water-supply projects and $1 billion for restoration projects, including the Salton Sea.
Gov. Schwarzenegger proposed a $5.95 billion water plan in January, which included $1 billion for the delta and $4.5 billion for two new dams. The Senate killed the proposal in April, but Schwarzenegger hopes to resurrect the plan.
Schwarzenegger's approach foundered on its support for new dams, one east of
Environmentalists and Democrats oppose the dams, while Republicans and agricultural interests support them. Perata tries to duck the issue by letting local agencies, not the Legislature, decide on water projects.
But the senator's strategy is misguided.
Besides, rejecting the proposed dams now is premature. Drafts of feasibility studies and environmental reports on the projects will not be ready until next year.
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT MANAGEMENT:
IID names Grubaugh acting GM
By Darren Simon, staff writer
For the second time in three years Imperial Irrigation District Assistant General Manager Elston Grubaugh finds himself at the helm of the district on an interim basis.
By a 5-0 vote Thurs-day, the IID board named Grubaugh acting general manager a day after the board voted 4-1 to fire General Man-ager Charles Hosken.
The motion to name Grubaugh acting GM was made by Director James Hanks and was seconded by Director Anthony Sanchez.
IID board President Stella Mendoza said Grubaugh has 17 years experience, which will enable him to take on the acting GM position.
“I’m positive he will move the district forward in a positive manner,”
Grubaugh will lead the district as it launches a search for a permanent GM just as he did in 2005 when then-General Manager Jesse Silva retired.
“I think the best thing I can do is provide some continuity,” Grubaugh said Thursday.
THE FOCUS
He said the focus has to be on ensuring both power and water services continue without interruption during what could be a GM search lasting several months.
Grubaugh takes the reins of the district during a period of controversy — the fallout from an investigation that revealed a 2005 IID natural gas hedging program saw energy traders violate policies and spend millions of dollars beyond parameters.
Board members have not said Hosken’s firing was the result of that investigation. Hosken began as general manager months after the hedging program was implemented.
But some on the board have raised concern with the level of controls that were in place and the level of information that came forward to the board earlier in Hosken’s less-than-two-year tenure.
Board members have declined to comment on why they voted to fire Hosken. Only Director John Pierre Menvielle voted against the firing.
Grubaugh, who was a subject of the hedging investigation as he was acting general manager during a period when the program was implemented, acknowledges the hedging issue is ongoing.
He said the board will be working directly with human resources to consider disciplinary actions, and Grubaugh said he will not be a part of that process.
THE BOARD’S ACTION
Of the board’s action to fire Hosken, Grubaugh said, “The board has done what the board has done.
“I think Charlie Hosken was a good manager who loved the Valley,” he said.
Grubaugh will lead the district as it faces not only what could be an ongoing storm over the hedging investigation, but also as the district board pushes for new internal controls and looks to rebuild a public trust board members say is missing.
“I think the current board is concerned with our relationship with our customers,” Grubaugh said. “The board wants to see that relationship improve. That’s a direction we all would like to see.”
Along with internal issues, Grubaugh also will lead the district as it considers another controversial matter — the Green Path Southwest project.
Likely the proposed Green Path project, one of the most critical energy agreements the district has considered — involving millions of dollars in costs — will come to a head during his tenure as acting GM.
Grubaugh said recently his focus has been on helping to develop the district’s proposed equitable water distribution program and other special studies.
Now, he said he will have to quickly educate himself “on those critical issues facing the district,” including Green Path.
When Grubaugh last served as acting general manager, he also sought the permanent position, and was a finalist. But prior to the board selecting Hosken in 2005, Grubaugh pulled himself out of contention for the position.
As to whether he again would seek the permanent position, Grubaugh said he has not reached such a decision.
“I’ve learned never to say never,” he said. #
http://www.ivpressonline.com/articles/2007/07/20/news/news05.txt
Editorial: Ultimately, Hosken was the fall guy
In the end, Charles Hosken took the fall.
It was probably no real surprise that the Imperial Irrigation District board fired Hosken, the district’s general manager, on Wednesday. No surprise, but still an ill-advised move.
Even though we disagree with the decision, we understand that the board has the right and the power to decide who should be the general manager. If it feels Hosken was not doing the job he was hired to do, it had the right to let him go.
But as a public body, the board should tell the public why it fired Hosken. Board members must give their constituents an honest, specific reason why they felt the district would function better if Hosken were no longer at the helm, and what he did wrong to deserve to be fired.
And is the district any better off now than it was at the beginning of the week? The new acting general manager, Elston Grubaugh, who was a subject of the recent investigation over the failed natural gas hedging program, which cost the district millions of dollars, is also tainted by the scandal — rightly or wrongly. By all accounts Grubaugh is very capable, but will this instill confidence in the public? We doubt it.
And although Hosken was the sacrificial lamb in all of this, shouldn’t others be held accountable as well? Directors Stella Mendoza, who voted to remove Hosken, and John Pierre Menvielle, who was the one vote against it, were on the board when the hedging started and when the controversial energy cost adjustment was increased. Why are they not under fire as well? And if this is about how poor the entire structure of the organization is, why are other managers or workers not being fired? Is Hosken alone responsible for a work environment that has been in place for years?
Of course Grubaugh is simply a stop-gap general manager. He will ultimately be replaced by a full-time utility professional at some future date. But who would agree to a deal to manage the IID? We are concerned that the board would continue to make life difficult, to say the least, for any new general manager selected to replace Hosken. Would a top-notch manager willingly take the reins of an organization that just cut the legs out from under a general manager who was working hard to make improvements?
We hope the board will not seek a puppet to do its bidding or look to the past for a new leader. Instead, we hope the board hires a strong manager, gives him or her a solid, long-term contract and lets them do their job. All seem to agree on the fact that the structure at IID is broken. This is the chance to get someone on board to fix it.
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://listhost1.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