Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
September 26, 2007
5. Agencies, Programs, People
Bush may veto levee legislation - Chico Enterprise Record
Borrowing may be the choice to fund Yuba levees; If approved, decision could put county $23.3 million in debt - Marysville Appeal Democrat
WATER POLICY ISSUES:
Editorial: Lawmakers must act to ensure water supply -
IMPERIAL IRRGATION ISSUES:
IID may hire rival - Imperial Valley Press
Editorial: Another bad idea from the IID board - Imperial Valley Press
Bush may veto levee legislation
By Barbara Arrigoni, staff writer
Monday, the U.S. Senate passed the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 conference report in a vote of 81-12.
Passage of the bill means replacement of the aged and deteriorating J levee is almost assured. All that is needed now is the signature of President Bush.
It was exciting news to LeeAnn Grigsby-Puente, president of the Reclamation District 2140 board of trustees, which will oversee the maintenance of the new levee once it's built.
"We did it!" Grigsby-Puente said late Monday after learning the Senate had passed the bill.
It's nearly the last step in an effort she and
Natalie Ravitz, a
Boxer, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Congressman Wally Herger (R-Chico) have made efforts for several years to get the Army Corps of Engineers' project funded and authorized by Congress.
The bill will now go directly to Bush for his signature. However, Bush has reportedly threatened to veto the bill, and the Office of Management and Budget has also said it plans to ask for a veto, Ravitz confirmed.
The last Water Resources Development Act bill passed by the full Congress was in 2000.
Ravitz said if the president does veto the bill, both the House of Representatives and Senate will have to vote to override the veto.
"Hopefully he will change his mind," Ravitz said.
Grigsby-Puente said late Monday she's confident the Senate's vote of more than two-thirds, and the vote last August of 381-40 in the House of Representatives, passing a similar bill, will be enough to override a presidential veto.
The
Last week,
Construction of the new levee is expected to begin in 2009. #
http://www.chicoer.com//ci_6999674?IADID=Search-www.chicoer.com-www.chicoer.com
Borrowing may be the choice to fund Yuba levees; If approved, decision could put county $23.3 million in debt
Marysville Appeal Democrat – 9/25/07
By Andrea Koskey, staff writer
“This is the largest borrowing the county has ever done,” County Administrator Robert Bendorf told supervisors Tuesday. “We do have the capacity to issue this debt if necessary. Your board has an obligation to provide services and public safety. It is important to mitigate risk as best we can through our general fund.”
In August, the county learned it is eligible to receive $138.5 million in state bond funds to help construct about six miles of a setback levee along the
The entire setback levee project is estimated to cost $191.8 million. According to Bendorf, the county is responsible for the remaining $53.3 million.
Officials hope to guarantee $30 million from landowners or developers in the southern part of the county, leaving $23.3 million as the county’s share.
Bendorf, Paul Brunner, executive director of the Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority, and members of the county’s financial team briefed supervisors about their options.
County staff estimated the total annual payment over a 40-year period to be $2.1 million. Without an alternate funding source available, that money would need to come out of the county’s general fund.
Supervisor Mary Jane Griego, whose constituents are largely affected by the levee work, said it is a risk worth taking if it guarantees public safety.
“I think we have some tough decisions, but I think it’s doable. I think what we have been presented had very strong consideration and thought. The risk of the general fund has been taken in to consideration and not taken lightly,” she said.
Griego added that the suggestion to begin repaying the debt three years from now allows time for the project to be completed and for the county to create solutions to repay the debt.
“That’s smart,” Griego said.
Although supervisors agreed to direct staff to move forward with the loan, some were concerned over the preservation of the general fund.
Supervisors Dan Logue and Don Schrader agreed that public safety is a concern, but neither would support the financing if the $30 million from landowners could not be secured.
“I feel it is the state’s responsibility, and I’m being asked to chain myself to a tree in the name of public safety,” said Supervisor John Nicoletti.
Nicoletti questioned the ability to finish the project on schedule by the end of 2008 and who may be responsible for any cost overrun.
“We’ve looked at these scenarios,” Brunner said. “If it is a dry winter, yes, we can finish on time.”
Bendorf said cost overruns will be the county’s responsibility.
Supervisor Hall Stocker said the project is worth it.
“I think it is our obligation to protect those people,” Stocker said. “My motivation is the obligation to those folks who’ve been flooded before.”
Attorney Seth Merewitz said landowners are “committed to seeing the process through.” The group hopes to have an agreement on the $30 million next week.
If that money is guaranteed, Bendorf and Brunner suggested the remaining $23.3 million could be raised through impact fees from future construction, or by creating an assessment district or community facilities district, which TRLIA is already working on.
“The assessment is one of the layering techniques (used for paying back the debt before using general funds),” Brunner said. “If the county accepts the (funding) proposition, we will have a better idea where we stand on an assessment district.”
The time line:
• Amount from Proposition 1E: $138.5 million
• Local Match: $23.3 million; $30 million from participating landowners
• Repayment strategy: Future landowner fees or creation of assessment and community facility fund.
• What’s next: Submit to state a plan of repaying borrowed money by Oct. 3. Prepare documents to borrow $23.3 million. #
http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/county_54533___article.html/million_general.html
WATER POLICY ISSUES:
Editorial: Lawmakers must act to ensure water supply
You might have heard that
It's true we've suffered through a dry year, but
This week, we'll find out if our elected leaders will face that crisis.
The governor has called a special session to discuss water and health care. Water is by far the hotter topic.
Most of
People aren't the only ones dependent on this estuary. Once, there were millions of delta smelt; now there are thousands. To save them from extinction, a federal judge ordered less pumping next year when the smelt are most vulnerable.
As our dry year provoked worries of drought, growing fear over climate change alarmed others and coalesced in a crisis mentality.
Last summer, Gov. Schwarzenegger began talking about a $5.9 billion water bond to help pay for two new reservoirs and delta improvements. He made it clear that a "conveyance" system was needed to keep delta water flowing south.
Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata offered a $5.4 billion proposal to give money to local jurisdictions for storage projects, and $2.4 billion to improve the delta. He, too, emphasized improved "conveyance" around or through the delta.
Meanwhile, the Association of California Water Agencies got $1 million from three of its largest members -- all big delta water users -- to fund a voter education campaign.
But some voters don't need education. They recall 1982, when the state rejected the original "peripheral canal" proposal. Their disdain of the idea has not diminished.
Last week, like a good poker player, Gov. Schwarzenegger upped his bet. He's promoting a $9 billion bond to build the most crucial aspects of his plan -- dams at Temperance Flat near
He outlined his ideas in a six-page news release, nearly half devoted to those delta "improvements." He's willing to wait on his Blue Ribbon Delta Committee report, due in November, to determine the nature of those improvements. If there is to be a canal, he would shift the burden of building it to those who would benefit from it -- including the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and south valley farmers.
It's a shrewd move.
Suddenly, Met -- a big supporter of the governor's previous proposal -- has lost some of its enthusiasm. Now, Met is reported to prefer Perata's idea.
Sen. Dave Cogdill of
No one needs to be stampeded. But timing is always crucial. We're not in a water crisis yet. But we will be if our elected leaders fail to act. #
http://www.modbee.com/opinion/story/76144.html
IMPERIAL IRRGATION ISSUES:
IID may hire rival
By Darren Simon, staff writer
If Imperial Irrigation District board members were looking for public support in their proposal to contract the services of the vice chairwoman of a rival water agency, the board didn’t get it.
In fact, the IID board Tuesday found itself accused by one Valley resident of violating public meeting laws by allegedly reaching a consensus on the issue before the board meeting.
To add to the controversy, a comment by interim district General Manager Mike Campbell that the district was operating in “somewhat” of a crisis mode led one director, John Pierre Menvielle, to criticize the district board.
“I think some of the crisis we are going through is a result of the IID Board of Directors,” Menvielle said.
No specific comments were made as to why the district might be in a state of crisis.
But the board in July fired one general manager, an acting general manager retired suddenly and the district has found itself dealing with the impacts of an energy scandal dating back to 2005 where millions of dollars in public money were spent in violation of district energy trading policies.
VOTE TABLED
After a lengthy discussion and questions from the public, the IID board voted to table a vote on contracting Marcie Edwards, vice chairwoman of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, to serve as a consultant on reorganizing IID’s troubled Energy Department.
But the delayed vote was only meant to give staff time to finalize the contract language.
Four board members, President Stella Mendoza, Mike Abatti, James Hanks and Anthony Sanchez, voiced their interest in contracting Edwards. They said she comes “highly recommended” and as public utilities manager for the city of
Menvielle said he would vote against contracting her.
Edwards, who would earn $175,000 for four months of work, plus receive payment for her expenses, did not attend Tuesday’s meeting.
People attending the meeting also urged the board not to sign a contract with Edwards.
“She sits on the board of the Metropolitan Water District,” said Bruce Kuhn, a former IID director.
“They have not been our friend. They can put their arm around us and look like it, but they have not been our friend.”
Valley resident Cliff Hurley accused the board of violating the Brown Act, the laws that govern what can and cannot be discussed behind closed doors.
“To generate a consensus outside this board room is illegal,” Hurley said. “It’s very apparent all five of you have been very involved in this process outside the board room.”
The board does acknowledge that in pairs its members met with Edwards, but board members said they were not involved in drafting a contract with her.
CONTRACT CHANGES
While the vote on her contract was tabled until October, discussion turned to changes in the proposed deal.
For one, board members said they did not want Edwards involved in selecting a permanent district general manager. The contract language presented to the board would have had her play a role in advising the board on hiring a new GM.
Another change to the contract, one Edwards has reportedly asked for, would no longer have her receive full payment should the board terminate her contact after three weeks. The proposed new language would have her receive payment for time served if her contract is terminated.
Discussion Tuesday also focused on preventing Edwards from having any contact with the Water Department.
District General Counsel Jeff Garber said to the extent reorganization issues could impact both departments, she may have some involvement on the water side.
Board members said she cannot have access to the Water Department.
“Met is not a friend,”
Before the board tabled the vote, Kuhn one more time asked the board to reconsider hiring her.
“If you think you are going to separate her from the water side, it just isn’t going to happen,” he said. #
http://www.ivpressonline.com/articles/2007/09/26/news/news02.txt
Editorial: Another bad idea from the IID board
The Imperial Irrigation District board is talking out of both sides of its mouth again.
On Sunday, the board ran an advertisement that dismissed the idea the district was “a rudderless ship,” and insisted that recent changes were positive and more will be shared with the public in coming weeks.
That same day, the public did learn that the district was considering paying $175,000 to a board member of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to help the district with its Energy Department and possibly other duties as well.
On Tuesday, the board discussed the idea before tabling the item until its next meeting.
We encourage the board to drop this ridiculous plan. The MWD has been and still is a rival to the IID. While the organizations have a longstanding water agreement in place, the MWD continues to eye water from the Alamo and New rivers that now flow into the
So what does the IID do with this traditional adversary? It invites the vice chairwoman of the MWD to help it reorganize its operation. There were even preliminary discussions about her helping the district select its next general manager, although that terrible idea has apparently — and thankfully — been dropped.
But we are still uncomfortable with the idea of bringing this person on as a consultant. What the IID is saying, in effect, is that contrary to the advertisement it ran, it is indeed a rudderless ship that needs someone from the outside to come in and help it make decisions. This move simply proves to us that the IID cannot function in its proper form.
That was even more apparent at Tuesday’s meeting, when interim General Manager Mike Campbell said the district is in “somewhat” of a crisis mode. That doesn’t seem to jibe with the board saying in the advertisement that the “picture of turmoil that has emerged in the media doesn’t square with reality.”
Actually, it squares perfectly with reality. And it’s time the board not only admits there is turmoil at the IID, but that it caused the turmoil. But bringing in a person from MWD to fix the problems is obviously not the answer.
The district cries loudly that it wants to remain an independent body, but this proposal says otherwise. #
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