This is a site mirroring the emails of California Water News emailed by the California Department of Water Resources

[Water_news] 5. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS: AGENCIES, PROGRAMS, PEOPLE - 8/27/07

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment

 

August 27, 2007

 

5. Agencies, Programs, People

 

WATER POLICY:

Concerns about revived Peripheral Canal plan - Brentwood Press

 

KLAMATH RIVER RELICENSING:

State warns Klamath dam owner over delays - Eureka Times Standard

 

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE:

Flood insurance overhaul stalls; House makes little progress on measure to fix funding flaws - Associated Press

 

 

WATER POLICY:

Concerns about revived Peripheral Canal plan

Brentwood Press – 8/24/07

By John VanLandingham, staff writer

 

Call it the beast that won’t die. The Peripheral Canal – a proposed Delta water bypass system opposed by local recreation enthusiasts and water agencies 25 years ago – is back.

This time it’s touted not only as a way to supply quality water to thirsty southern California farms and homes, but as a potential cure for the Delta’s woes, perhaps saving fish that get sucked into the current pumping system.

Voters rejected the canal proposal in 1982. But Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger revived it last month when he unveiled his plans for a $6 billion water bond on the November 2008 ballot.

Schwarzenegger announced his plans during a visit to the San Luis Reservoir, where he remarked on the low water level, California’s population growth and the continuing need for more water. His plans call for building two new dams in the Sierra and reviving the old Peripheral Canal.

The governor has appointed a Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force to provide recommendations about restoring the Delta. It’s composed of many water interests and agribusiness representatives as well as former Contra Costa Supervisor Sunne Wright McPeak.

“This administration and everyone here loves conservation, but that is not the solution,” said Schwarzenegger in a transcript from his Delta visit. “We have a serious problem. And what we want to make sure of is that we don’t continue on kicking that can down the road; that we make a decision.”

The Peripheral Canal would take the fresh water from the Sacramento area and channel it around the Delta, bypassing the chemical pollutants from farms, salinity and unstable levees that could threaten the quality of the water as it makes its way south.

Whether any such canal will be built remains to be seen. Cost, environmental concerns, Delta stability and whether there is any Delta to save by the time such a project could be built 10 to 15 years down the road all will play a role.

Nearly two-thirds of California’s drinking water comes from the Delta, according to the state Department of Water Resources.

The concern from some local officials is that the canal would harm the Delta by decreasing its fresh water supply, thereby increasing its salinity at a time when levees are corroding, fish are being killed by the Delta pumps and a threatened fish, the Delta smelt, is declining rapidly from undetermined causes.

Greg Gartrell, assistant general manager of the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) and member of the Delta task force, is not ready just yet to take up his sword against the Peripheral Canal, but feels the focus on it might be misplaced at this time.

“My concern is that while the governor is doing all these studies on the canal, there is immediate action needed in the Delta for water quality and other issues now,” said Gartrell. “It is likely to be 10 to 15 years before any Peripheral Canal decision, but other issues have to be addressed right now.”

The CCWD bitterly fought previous proposals to build any facility that would carry fresh water away from the Delta. The district’s board has not taken any position on the governor’s proposal because “there’s nothing to take a position on yet,” Gartrell said.

He estimated that $100 million is needed now to repair Delta levees and fight salinity.

Gartrell did send a letter to Phil Isenberg, chairman of the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force, rebutting claims that increased salinity would return the Delta to its “natural conditions.”

“The historical record clearly shows that the Delta is now far saltier than in any period in the last 800 years. … If a more ‘natural’ variability is desired it will require that the Delta and Bay become significantly fresher, not saltier, for significant portions of every year. Obviously that sort of regime will have serious consequences to both upstream and export water use,” he wrote.

Former Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla of Pittsburg fears that a canal by any name would wreck the Delta, seriously impairing CCWD’s and Antioch’s ability to draw water from it.

Canciamilla said the CCWD is noted for trying to leverage its position to its maximum benefit, adding, “But it can at times be too clever for its own good. The district represents only a teeny tiny piece of the water puzzle, and it’s easy for them to get played in the game.

“It (construction of a canal) may be 20 years off, but if a bond passes that says it is the policy of the people of California to build it, then the die is cast. It’s not about building it tomorrow, but about shifting away from 25 years of no canal.”

Canciamilla, who once chaired the Assembly Water Committee, said he fears a quick deal will be reached that favors southern California water interests over the Delta.

“Things happen so fast in Sacramento,” he said. “In the middle of the night deals are struck and the public won’t know it’s happening until it’s on the ballot. I’m not saying it’s guaranteed, but it’s more likely to happen than not if no one pays attention. That’s the point behind trying to get people to recognize that this is a real possibility.

“We’re not seeing any response from local communities and agencies. After watching and after chairing the water committee and meeting folks around the state on water issues, you start to get a sense of when things are starting to move – and they’re moving now, and not in our favor.”

Canciamilla has launched a Web site, www.stopthecanal.org, seeking to rally opposition and force a statewide solution not only to the Delta’s problems, but all of the state’s water woes.

Antioch Councilman Arne Simonsen shares Canciamilla’s concerns. “People need to be aware,” he said. “Voters out here need to wake up and know what’s going on. Otherwise they’ll find fishing and recreation in this estuary will be draconian if they continue to siphon off water.”

For more information about the governor’s proposal, go to www.deltavision.gov.ca. #

http://www.brentwoodpress.com/article.cfm?articleID=17272

 

 

KLAMATH RIVER RELICENSING:

State warns Klamath dam owner over delays

Eureka Times Standard – 8/24/07

By John Driscoll, staff writer

 

State water quality regulators have issued a warning to the owner of the Klamath River hydropower dams, demanding it stop delaying and embark on an examination of the project's environmental effects that could affect the issuance of a new federal license.

 

The State Water Resources Control Board last week sent a letter to Pacificorp giving the company a month to sign an agreement to conduct the environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act.

 

”Further delay is unwarranted,” wrote board Executive Director Dorothy Rice. If it's not signed in a month, “the State Water Board will deny Pacificorp's request for water quality certification without prejudice.”

 

Pacificorp needs certification from the state in order to get a new license for the four dams. But the letter lines out delays beginning in 2002, when the water board first told the company it would need to hire a consultant to prepare an Environmental Impact Report.

 

It wasn't until this May that Pacificorp began to argue that the Federal Power Act preempts the state law regarding the certification. The state water board has rejected that argument, and said that the time is ripe to get the analysis under way.

 

A denial “without prejudice” may not have real teeth, however, and Pacificorp may be able to refile its state application if time runs out.

 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission expects to release its federal environmental review within six months to a year. Before it can issue a license to Pacificorp -- which would last 30 to 50 years -- it needs the state's approval on water quality issues.

 

”The commission cannot issue a new license until it receives a water quality certificate from the state,” said FERC spokeswoman Barbara Conners.

 

That has led some to wonder if Pacificorp, currently operating under annual license conditions, is interested in quickly getting a new license, since it will come with far more strict operating conditions than the status quo.

 

Craig Tucker, Klamath campaign coordinator with the Karuk Tribe, said it's in Pacificorp's interest to delay the process.

 

”Under any scenario, a new license makes these dams either a liability or a lot less profitable than they are right now,” Tucker said.

 

Pacificorp spokeswoman Jan Mitchell said the company is reviewing the agreement now, and is working to develop the scope and cost of the study. Its license didn't expire until 2006, she said, and it takes years for the resolution of new one, and denied any delay.

 

”That's not the case,” Mitchell said. “We're moving forward. It's a very complex process.”  #

http://www.times-standard.com//ci_6709361?IADID=Search-www.times-standard.com-www.times-standard.com

 

 

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE:

Flood insurance overhaul stalls; House makes little progress on measure to fix funding flaws

Associated Press – 8/27/07

By Ben Evans, staff writer

 

WASHINGTON -- Despite promising changes, Congress has shown little enthusiasm for taking the unpopular steps that experts say are necessary to fix the nation's main flood insurance program.

ADVERTISEMENT


Recent flooding in the Midwest has brought the issue back to the forefront. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, back-to-back storms in 2005, dispelled any notion that the insurance program was self-sustaining. They threw it roughly $20 billion into debt and called attention to major structural flaws.

Nearly everyone acknowledges it cannot pay off the debt, much less pay for losses in future storms. But so far, Congress has done little more than raise the program's borrowing limit, essentially handing taxpayers a series of shaky IOUs.

A failure to act could leave the public vulnerable to large bailouts of the program and help perpetuate a false confidence among some property owners that they do not need coverage.

"The early rhetoric was, 'We're going to fix this. We're not going to tolerate this continued exposure of taxpayers to unlimited subsidies,' " said Robert Hunter, a former director of the flood program who now oversees insurance issues for the Consumer Federation of America. "They've done nothing to fix it. It's just unbelievable."

The National Flood Insurance Program was created in 1968 to protect homeowners and reduce federal costs from natural disasters.

Run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, it provides nearly all the flood coverage in the United States. Private agents sell the policies. Homeowners can get up to $250,000 in structural coverage and an additional $100,000 for contents.

On average, residential premiums are about $400 per $100,000 of coverage. The rates typically do not reflect the real risks and therefore shift costs from policyholders to taxpayers generally.

After the deadly 2005 hurricane season, the Government Accountability Office added the program to a short list of "high risk" areas in the government that the agency believes deserve urgent attention.

The starting point for an overhaul, experts say, is raising rates for the more than 5 million policyholders, particularly those with high-risk coastal properties or vacation homes who pay heavily subsidized rates. Other recommendations include requiring coverage in more areas, enforcing tougher building and land-use policies, and updating old flood maps so homeowners know their true risks.

"To really fix the program doesn't include a great deal of good news," said David John, an expert on insurance policy at The Heritage Foundation. "For a politician, this is a no-win situation. But unfortunately, delay makes it a no-win situation for the taxpayer."

Legislation addressing some of the issues stalled last year.

This year, the House has made some progress. But critics say a bill passed by the House Financial Services Committee last month barely tackles the problem.

The bill includes only modest rate increases, allowing premiums to rise a maximum of 15 percent per year instead of the current cap of 10 percent. The measure has drawn attention largely for a provision to expand the program by adding wind coverage.

The committee chairman, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said the bill is aimed at gradually putting the program on sound financial footing. Trying to fix the problems overnight would be a "very serious blow" to policyholders, he said.

The bill, Frank and his aides noted, doubles spending on flood mapping. Starting in 2011, it would allow higher premium increases of up to 25 percent a year or the riskiest and most heavily subsidized vacation properties and second homes.

"The bill will reduce the level of subsidy," he said.

But Frank dismissed questions about the massive debt, calling it a loan from one government agency to another.

Hunter, who worked in the Ford and Carter administrations, said that "the money doesn't come from nowhere. The taxpayers pay it."

John said that if the hurricane that hit Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula last week had aimed toward the East Coast, "you would have yet again multibillion-dollar bailouts."

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 California.

 

No comments:

Blog Archive