Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
September 10, 2007
5. Agencies, Programs, People
FLOOD LEGISLATION:
Two flood-risk bills passed -
Flood bill on way to governor: Machado, Wolk pleased with protection measures of SB 5 - Davis Enterprise
WATER TRANSFER DEAL:
Water Authority wants to rework Imperial deal's price - North County Times
RATE HIKE ISSUES:
Water rates source of constant struggle in
Hearing set on Yuba River transfer - Marysville Appeal Democrat
FLOOD LEGISLATION:
Two flood-risk bills passed
The heart of a five-bill package to reduce flood risk in the
Senate Bill 5 would create both short-term and long-term strategies to protect the
The measure would ban development after 2015 on floodplains that lack adequate protection. More immediately, it would require flood maps to be updated by July 2008 to discourage local government from approving risky developments.
Sen. Mike Machado, D-Linden, and Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, D-Davis, jointly crafted details of SB 5, which passed the Senate by a vote of 27-8.
SB 5 and Senate Bill 17 are the only pieces of the five-bill package that have been sent thus far to Schwarzenegger, who has not said whether he will sign them.
SB 17 would reconstitute and rename the seven-member state Reclamation Board.
Key provisions call for the addition of two legislative appointees, staggered terms, Senate confirmation of all gubernatorial appointees, and for four seats to be reserved for water experts. A separate bill would make the legislative appointees non-voting members. #
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/367256.html
Flood bill on way to governor: Machado, Wolk pleased with protection measures of SB 5
By Cory Golden, staff writer
On Thursday, state lawmakers approved a bill co-authors Sen. Mike Machado and Assemblywoman Lois Wolk believe will discourage building on flood plains.
Over the next eight years, SB 5 aims to limit development in areas without 100-year flood protection, places where the chance of flooding is greater than 1-in-100 in a given year.
After 2015, development would not be allowed without 200-year flood protection in areas of more than 10,000 people or that will reach 10,000 people in a decade. Existing communities will have until 2025 to reach 200-year protection.
Wolk, D-Davis, and Machado, D-Linden, reached the compromise after a year of negotiating. Wolk said she was “very pleased” with the final version of SB 5, the centerpiece of a Democratic package of flood bills.
“I think it's good policy,” she said. “It provides a very balanced, coordinated approach to flood protection. It will also help us update a very outdated way of making land-use decisions in
Wolk said she was “very optimistic” Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will sign SB 5.
Said Machado, “We've got a good product that I think provides greater protection for people and property.”
Lawmakers sent the bill to the Senate on a 47-28 vote after a bitter debate where Republicans complained they had been left out of the closed-door negotiating process.
“This is an important issue and it deserves our attention,” said Joel Anderson, R-La Mesa. “I feel like we've ramrodded this thing through.”
SB 5 would require that the Department of Water Resources develop preliminary flood plain maps by July 2008 and provide them to local governments, propose new building standards for the most flood-prone areas by 2009 and prepare a flood protection plan for the Central Valley by January 2012. The Reclamation Board, which oversees flood control, would be required to adopt the plan later that year.
The bill also mandates that each city and county amend its general plan to include the valley-wide plan by 2014, then bring their zoning ordinances into compliance a year later. Local governments also must develop flood emergency plans.
Communities could continue building in flood danger areas so long as they demonstrate they are making reasonable year-to-year progress in strengthening levees to the 200-year standard.
Bills are linked
SB 5 can take effect only if SB 17 is signed into law. The Assembly sent that bill to the governor with a 46-29 vote on Thursday.
Authored by Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, SB 17 would change the name of the State Reclamation Board to the Central Valley Flood Protection Board and increase the number of members from seven to nine - with two members picked by the Legislature and the rest by the governor.
The bill also sets up four-year terms, conflict-of-interest requirements and expertise qualifications. It would require the board to set levee standards and review and comment on land-use plans.
Currently, board members do not require confirmation and serve indefinite terms at the governor's pleasure.
The Reclamation Board has been criticized heavily since Schwarzenegger fired all its members in 2005, after the board began aggressively questioning development projects. The fired board members included former Yolo County Supervisor Betsy Marchand of Davis and UC Davis geology Professor Jeffrey Mount.
Schwarzenegger then named seven new board members. The new board has since backed off tough levee requirements on the
Three other bills in the package slated to be taken up by the Senate today:
- AB 162: Introduced by Wolk, it would require local governments to incorporate flood hazards in their general plans, just as they are now required to consider fire and earthquake risks.
- AB 156: Authored by Assemblyman John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, it directs the Department of Water Resources and the Reclamation Board to set up a mapping schedule, determine which properties are protected by state levees and inform their owners of risk, and prepare regular levee status reports.
- AB 70: Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, it calls for cities and counties that approve new development in flood plains to share liability for property damage caused by a flood. A court would have to find that the city or county acted unreasonably in approving the development.
‘Chilling effect'
Taken together, Wolk said the bills are designed to “reduce the incentive to make a bad decision.”
“(They) will have a chilling effect on unwise development, because all of those actions are public actions,” Wolk said. “With (the California Environmental Quality Act) everybody will have the opportunity to contest decisions or to litigate. We forced it into the public venue.
“We had a choice, we could mandate or we could take a different approach. Ultimately, we think we'll get the same result.”
Other co-authors of SB 5 are Florez, Laird and Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento. The bill has the backing of the League of California Cities, the California Building Industry Association and the Planning and Conservation League.
Tim Coyle of the building industry group said he believed the bill was “fair, equitable and responsible and will ultimately lead to improved flood protection.”
Marchand called it “a real triumph.”
“It's the first time there's been successful legislation to deal with inappropriate building in flood plains,” she said. “Maybe it could have gone further, and maybe it should, but it's a start. I hope it's just the first step in dealing with this public safety problem.”
‘Baby steps'
Not all of the reviews have been as enthusiastic.
Ron Stork of Friends of the River said the bill doesn't go far enough fast enough to stop development. Instead, the bill represents “baby steps along a road the building industry is comfortable with,” he said.
“There needs to be recognition that this bill is a modest thing that left work on the table for a future time,” he said.
Stork said the Legislature is relying too much on the much-maligned Federal Emergency Management Agency to stop development in the short run.
FEMA has failed to make flood-prone areas of the valley comply with 100-year flood standards and has not kept its mapping current, Stork said. Yet it's FEMA, not the state, that appears closer to halting construction by decertifying levees.
“It's really up to FEMA to impose some adult supervision on flood-plain management,” he said.
Wolk disagreed. She said the bill does apply pressure to local governments, even in the short term. In addition, she said the housing slump means builders are “not going to (submit) map after map (of proposed developments).”
“I'd like it to go farther. I'd like it to go faster. But that was not possible,” she said.
Machado, too, bristled at the idea the bill doesn't move fast enough.
“This levee system is over 150 years old,” he said. “We can't make changes overnight.” #
http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2007/09/07/news/121new1.txt
WATER TRANSFER DEAL:
Water Authority wants to rework Imperial deal's price
By Gig Conaughton, staff writer
San Diego County Water Authority officials, using a clause in the contract, have notified Imperial Irrigation District officials that they want the pricing mechanism changed to a complicated formula allowed by the contract.
Water Authority officials say they think the formula would cut the price of water from the $296 per acre-foot it's now paying to $250.24 per acre-foot. An acre-foot is roughly 325,900 gallons, enough to sustain two households for a year.
But the Imperial Irrigation District, which agreed to the water transfer deal in 2003 after eight years of talks, might disagree on the Water Authority's calculations.
"My guess is that they're going to be looking at different variables," said Halla Razak, the Water Authority's water resources manager.
Officials from both sides said the Water Authority's request could mean a savings for
Kevin Kelley, a spokesman for the Imperial Valley district, said his agency and the water authority of
Meanwhile, the fact that water dealers from
That's because
The Water Authority strenuously pursued the water deal with
Under the terms of the deal,
But the water transfer remains controversial in
Even when the federal government pressured irrigation district board members in 2003 to approve the deal as a conservation measure, the district's board approved the deal by only a 3-2 vote.
"It was very controversial," Kelley said last week.
The fact that the Water Authority is now asking that the price of the water be rejiggered -- a move that could cut
Officials said it was too soon to predict that the Water Authority's request would mean lower prices for
First, if the two sides cannot agree, and the issue heads to arbitration, it would open the process -- and the complicated formula -- to interpretation by a third party, with no control over the outcome.
Second, opting to change the pricing formula means that both sides would continue to use the formula for the balance of the 45- to 75-year contract, recalculating prices twice a year, said David Osias, a lawyer consulting the irrigation district.
For one thing, Osias said, when the formula was created in 1998 when the Water Authority and irrigation district started negotiating, it contained provisions allowing Imperial Valley's water prices to increase if there were shortages in other
That could be the case next year. A federal judge has ruled that as much as 30 percent of the Northern California water
That won't affect the Water Authority-irrigation district pricing talks now, because both sides agreed in 2003 to suspend the "shortage" provisions for the deal's first 15 years.
But that will eventually end, while the transfer is scheduled to run at least 45 years. #
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/09/10/news/top_stories/1_02_489_9_07.txt
RATE HIKE ISSUES:
Water rates source of constant struggle in
Riverside Press
By Mark Muckenfuss, staff writer
It's not exactly liquid gold, but when
Water costs in the city are anywhere from 27 percent higher to more than double those of surrounding communities, based on current water rates. Requests for further rate increases by the Fontana Water Co. have led to an ongoing battle between city leaders and company officials.
Most recently, the city is objecting to additional rate increases that would help fund an office in
Fontana Mayor Mark Nuaimi says the rates for water in his city are unreasonable.
"I don't think we are being treated fairly and I still think our rates are high," Nuaimi says.
Michael Whitehead, president of San Gabriel Valley Water, says the company provides quality service at the most reasonable price possible.
"Whether our rates are higher or not is simply a function of what it costs to operate the system and the investment required to develop that system," Whitehead says.
Several things are clear.
Documents show that between 2001 and 2005,
Fontana Water Co. had asked for much larger increases. In 2001, the company filed a request with the California Public Utilities Commission for a 70 percent rate increase over three years. In 2004, it applied for an additional 40 percent increase over three years. The commission's documents show regulators granted the company increases of 32.9 percent and 13.1 percent, respectively.
Higher Income, Salaries
The company's annual financial report shows net revenues rose from $5.8 million in 2002 to $8.4 million in 2006, a 45 percent increase.
A state audit found that between 1996 and 2004, instead of reinvesting $27 million into the company as it said it had, San Gabriel Valley Water Co. paid that money out in dividends to its investors and shareholders. Most of that amount was settlement money from polluters.
Salaries for the San Gabriel Valley Water Co.'s six officers (data is not broken out for the
During the same period, the average salary for other San Gabriel Valley Water employees went from $43,850 to $59,065, an increase of 35 percent.
Mike McGraw, general manager of the Fontana Water Co., said he was surprised by that statistic.
"I don't know who's getting that," McGraw said. "The company generally gives a (cost of living increase) at the end of the year.
It's generally in the neighborhood of 3 percent."
Over a six-year period, that would amount to an increase of 16 percent.
The amount San Gabriel Valley Water paid its officers may seem high, but other privately held water agencies also pay their officers generous salaries. Golden State Water Co. in
In addition, many, if not most of the officers are earning money as investors in the company. A state audit conducted in 2005 showed that from 2001 to 2004, a total of $20 million was paid to shareholders (as a private company,
Incentives to Invest
Investment may be the key word.
Ratepayer advocates say that unlike public water agencies, which provide most of
"Normally a business wants to make sure it doesn't over invest," McVey said. "Here there is every incentive (to do just that) because they get a rate of return on it. We've been addressing these issues and saying they need to be scaled back or aren't justified at all."
Fontana Water officials say recent rate increases have been necessary to fund facilities, such as pumping plants that include filtration systems for treating perchlorate-tainted water, and new offices in
McGraw said the company recently spent $3 million to install treatment systems on two of seven wells contaminated with perchlorate. He hopes to reopen the other five wells at an expected cost of $1.5 million each.
The biggest investment, and the most controversial, has been the expansion and upgrading of the Sand Hill facility at a cost of $35 million. New equipment will be able to turn the sediment-heavy water from Lytle Creek into drinkable water and increase the company's ability to treat deliveries from the State Water Project.
Before the recent upgrades, McGraw said, "We were losing millions and millions of gallons a day. Now we can take that water 24/7. We can take our cheapest source of water and maximize the use of it."
Critics say the plant can use water from Lytle Creek only about three months out of the year. They said the investment was unnecessary in arguments before the Public Utilities Commission, but their objections were overruled.
Private utilities are rarely authorized to increase rates to pay for future construction. So the cost of the Sand Hill project has yet to hit ratepayers.
"Customers have to realize that water rates are increasing for everybody," McGraw said. "It's not just us. Water's going to get higher. It's going to get higher for everybody."
Private vs. Public
That may be so, but
McGraw said that's the result of two things. First, private utilities are subject to taxes and franchise fees from which public utilities are exempt. Secondly, he said, private agencies invest more in maintaining their systems.
With municipal agencies, he said, "I think some things can get overlooked as far as maintenance of the water system.
In addition, said McGraw, "We've got certain financial responsibilities that public agencies don't have. They don't pay taxes and they don't pay franchise fees. They don't pay shareholders."
But when taxes and franchise fees are subtracted (shareholder dividends are not listed in public reports),
"They're making a lot of money and the ratepayers are paying a huge amount of money," says Mayor Nuaimi. "It seems all the municipals do it cheaper. Set a rate that's competitive to the neighboring rate. If they can't make a dollar and can't manage within that financial structure, maybe they shouldn't be in the business."
Nuaimi is particularly angered that in its latest rate increase request to the Public Utilities Commission, the San Gabriel Valley Water Co. is asking that
Company president Whitehead said
Danilo Sanchez is water program manager with the Division of Ratepayer Advocates, a part of the Public Utilities Commission that represents water customers. Sanchez has argued against Fontana Water Co.'s proposed increases in the past and doesn't like the new office proposal.
"We have concerns," Sanchez said. "It looks pretty questionable what they're doing. The
Hopes for Savings
Last year, the commission fined the company $60,000 for submitting false information to the agency. The commission determined that the water company had funneled proceeds from contamination lawsuits to its shareholders.
First, in addition to approving a 13 percent increase over three years for Fontana Water Co. on its 2005 application, the commission also approved the company's plan to charge a $5,000 developer fee on most new homes built within the service area.
Curtis Aaron,
"They could generate about $8 million per year," Aaron said.
However, with the current decline in new home construction, that amount is expected to be substantially lower.
Aaron said the city hopes to have a water reclamation project completed within the next year. It would allow treated water from the city's sewage plant to be used for nonpotable purposes such as landscape watering. The system could be set up with existing water lines, Aaron said, and would reduce the amount of water the Fontana Water Co. would have to supply.
"We can save the ratepayers a lot of money," Aaron said.
Fontana Water will file a rate request with the Public Utilities Commission again next year, asking for additional increases.
Nuaimi said his strategy will not change.
"I think it's an ongoing vigilance," he said. "We have to continue to be involved."
He said he has extended an invitation.
"I'd like the water company officials to come to the City Council and present their rate case," he said. "I'd love to be in front of the PUC and endorse what they're doing. I hope they take us up on our offer." #
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_B_water09.3feb434.html
Hearing set on
Marysville Appeal Democrat – 9/9/07
The State Water Resources Control Board has scheduled December hearings on the Yuba County Water Agency’s request to transfer up to 200,000 acre-feet of water annually to state and federal agencies.
The proposal is part of the Lower Yuba River Accord, which aims to improve flows in the river to aid the fishery.
The water, stored in Bullards Bar Reservoir, would go to the state Department of Water Resources and the federal Bureau of Reclamation.
The proposed Yuba Accord includes three separate but related agreements for fisheries, water purchase and conjunctive use.
According to the state board, the proposed Yuba Accord instream flows are meant to provide “a level of protection for fish, wildlife, and other instream beneficial uses that would be equivalent to, or better than, the protection that would be provided by the long-term instream flow requirements” the board adopted in its Yuba River decision, known as RD-1644, in July 2003.
In April, the Water Agency filed a notice of petition for a long-term transfer of up to 200,000 acre-feet of water per year to DWR and the bureau.
The Water Agency stands to collect at least $32 million as an initial payment from the state and federal agencies within 60 days of the effective date of the agreement, according to accord documents released in 2005.
A draft environmental study prepared for the transfer said the agency has suggested payments could go as high as $70 million in the first eight years, depending on the water supply situation.
The water would be available for use by DWR to provide salinity and water quality controls within the delta or to export from the delta at either the Clifton Court Forebay or the Tracy Pumping Plant for use within the State Water Project or the Central Valley Project.
The long-term transfer petition does not specify the maximum release rates. The Water Agency has said the maximum release rate from Englebright Reservoir under most hydrologic conditions is approximately 750 cubic feet per second, but that during dry years the maximum additional release rate may increase to approximately 1,000 cfs.
An acre-foot of water is about 326,000 gallons.
The hearing is set for Dec. 5 in
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