Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
October 2, 2007
5. Agencies, Programs, People
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA LEVEE FUNDING:
Gap in levee-fix funding; Yuba County weighs pledging $23 million for work - Sacramento
Levee funding options drying up - Santa Maria Times
DEVELOPMENT ISSUES:
Officials float rejecting new housing tract - Antelope Valley Press
FREE INCREASES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE:
Editorial: Compromise now on Paso water rates; Fee increases are necessary to pay for pipeline, but a big jump in the flat fee may be too painful -
Correction: Potential price of water incorrect
Associated Press
A potential deal to buy water from Northern California farmers could be more expensive than the $125 per acre-foot
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA LEVEE FUNDING:
Gap in levee-fix funding; Yuba County
Sacramento
By Mary Lynne Vellinga, staff writer
Faced with falling home sales, builders in the flood-prone Plumas Lake development have capped the amount of fees they're willing to advance Yuba County to strengthen levees protecting thousands of new residents.
It would be the largest general fund debt obligation ever assumed by the largely rural county, according to a staff report. Annual debt service would top $2 million.
If the supervisors don't vote yes, they risk losing a commitment of $138.5 million from the state Proposition 1E Bond to build a new "setback" levee along a stretch of the
"If the board doesn't approve it, we have a potential hole of $23.3 million, which obviously won't satisfy the local match contribution that the state is requiring to receive the money," said County Administrator Robert Bendorf.
"We have flooded twice since 1986, and if
In theory, the county could repay the debt from future homeowner assessments, but those still have to be approved by residents, Bendorf said.
Builder fees are another potential source. But if the home market remains in a slump, there's no guarantee they will materialize.
Supervisor Mary Jane Griego, who represents the
"But you can't just go in and start something and not finish it," she said.
From the start, Griego readily admits,
But she argues that it was the best way to get money for levee improvements protecting the 35,000 or so people who already live in the area.
Despite known weaknesses in the levees, the state Reclamation Board allowed building to continue in
"This thing has been a risk since day one," Griego said.
"We've been gambling our time away. But look at the success we've had with it. I'm not going to stop now."
Griego has been urging her new constituents occupying the 3,000 or so houses built so far in
Monique White, who moved with her husband and five children to the
She has been talking to her neighbors about making their voices heard.
"This
The Feather River improvements represent the fourth and final stage of a joint effort by
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has certified that three major levee selections along the
They actually are designed to withstand a 200-year flood, officials say, but the federal government only certifies to the 100-year level.
Of the $130 million spent on levee improvements so far, about $70 million has come from builder fees, Bendorf said. Most recently, the homebuilders have been paying $29,000 in fees for every new house.
A group of nine builders has been paying the fees in advance with the agreement that they would get paid back later as other landowners sought to pull building permits for their properties.
This group previously had agreed to advance the county up to $135 million in fees.
But now -- with the housing market in a slump -- they are willing to kick in just $30 million more -- for a total of $100 million.
Even with the reduction, "the funding program provides not just our fair share, but a substantial portion for the landowners who are receiving the benefits (of flood protection) but not putting up their fair share," said Seth Merewitz, a lawyer representing the landowners group.
Bendorf said construction of new homes in
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/409648.html
Levee funding options drying up
By Malia Spencer, staff writer
Local officials continue to seek federal funds to deal with the inadequacies of the Santa Maria River Levee, but even with the added urgency caused by the second-largest wildfire in state history, the competition for the money is stiff due to the demands on the federal budget.
As a result,
Officials see the potential for major problems because about 25 percent of the drainage area for the
Crews are expected to begin adding to a pilot channel that was dug last year near Suey Crossing, said Tom Fayram, deputy director of public works and water resources. Additional work to clear willows and other debris near Guadalupe is expected to begin in the next few weeks.
The 2007-08 budget for maintaining the Santa Maria River Levee is roughly $175,000, Fayram said. He authorized an additional $250,000 be to released from a $1 million reserve fund to cover preventative work.
Fayram had been hoping to secure emergency federal funding to finance the work, but so far has come up empty. A request to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which was recommended for approval by the
Another emergency fund, through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service, remains a possibility, but the account is empty, according to federal officials.
The county used this watershed emergency fund in the past, Fayram said, following the Marre Fire of 1994 and the Painted Cave Fire in 1990.
Officials with the USDA program continue to study the burned watershed to identify any possible work that would be eligible for the federal dollars, said Bill Ward, with NRCS.
“At the present time, we don't have any money available if we find eligible work,” he said, adding that if a need is identified, then it can be placed on a waiting list for money.
However, replenishing this emergency fund requires an act of Congress - something local officials are already waiting on.
Even without the need for emergency funding,
The 26-mile barrier was built by the corps between 1959 and 1963, and it is the agency that certifies whether the barrier is adequate to protect the city from a 100-year flood. The certification on the levee was officially dropped earlier this year, when the
With the decertification of the levee, it opens the door for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to place the city in a flood plain and require flood insurance for homeowners.
If the levee were fixed to the satisfaction of the corps, which could then certify the barrier, the flood-insurance provision would be dropped.
However, in order to fix the problem, the corps must study the levee to determine the best solution. And the only way the corps can be directed to study the levee is through a line item in its budget from Congress.
Local officials have been trying for two years to get this funding, and later this month Santa Maria Mayor Larry Lavagnino and Utilities Director Rick Sweet are once again planning a lobbying trip to
The two are expected to meet with
“Until Congress tells the Corps of Engineers to do a study, we can't do a darn thing,” Lavagnino said. “Our hands are tied. If I could hand them money, I would - and I think the county would back it.”
A spokeswoman for Rep. Lois Capps, D-Santa Barbara, said Capps is working to ensure the Santa Maria River Levee issue is addressed by Congress and Army Corps of Engineers.
If and when the corps finally does a study and finds the best solution to shore up the levee, then
“We have a lot of options once (Congress) gives that small amount (of money) to the corps, then we are going to be very proactive,” Lavagnino said. “Until then, we are on the defense.”
As part of the defense, the city has also used its money to purchase rock to stockpile near the levee and plans are in the works to possibly construct basins in the riverbed to help catch the extra silt and debris coming off the burned watershed. #
http://www.santamariatimes.com/articles/2007/10/01/news/featurednews/news01.txt
DEVELOPMENT ISSUES:
Officials float rejecting new housing tract
By James Rufus Koren, staff writer
LOS ANGELES - With California Aqueduct water supplies in question because of a court ruling over an endangered fish,
County supervisors will be asked Tuesday to approve a report showing there is an inadequate water supply for a 160-acre tract proposed near Avenue J and
The Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency cannot guarantee water from the State Water Project will be available for the new tract, according to the report from Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 40, which supplies much of
The trouble stems from a U.S. District Court action that protects the delta smelt, an endangered fish species that has been hurt by water pumps in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta - the source of the water that flows down the California Aqueduct to
"While state and local water agencies are still analyzing the court ruling, the decision might result in a significant reduction in water supplies from the State Water Project to AVEK and other State Water Project contractors," the report said. "As AVEK is currently unable to assure the (Waterworks) District of the availability of State Water Project water supplies ... the District is unable to conclude that sufficient future water supplies are available for this project."
According to the report, the 650-home tract would create demand for 780 acre-feet of water per year. A single acre-foot is 325,851 gallons.
Supervisors face the decision against a backdrop of controversy over the Valley water supply's ability to support population growth. With last winter the driest on record for
Waterworks officials have not ordered their customers in
District officials had contemplated ordering a 30% reduction in water use, but shelved that plan after city officials accused them of failing to prepare for an emergency and of engaging in scare tactics.
This is the second time the Waterworks District has said there is not enough water for new developments in the Valley.
In July 2004, the district stopped issuing new "will-serve" letters - documents that say the district will supply water - to proposed housing tracts. The waterworks district never officially refused water service, but it had sent letters saying water might not be available.
That dispute was settled in December 2004 when the waterworks district and AVEK struck a deal that required AVEK to provide District No. 40, which covers most of Lancaster and Palmdale, with a set percentage of its water supply. The deal also increased fees paid by developers to enhance the Valley's water system. #
http://avpress.com/n/01/1001_s4.hts
FREE INCREASES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE:
Editorial: Compromise now on Paso water rates; Fee increases are necessary to pay for pipeline, but a big jump in the flat fee may be too painful
Tonight, the Paso Robles City Council will reconsider its plan to drastically raise water rates to pay for the Nacimiento Water Project— a move prompted in part by a voter initiative.
If the city doesn’t repeal the new rates, it will have to hold a special election on the fees.
An election would be divisive and costly; it would be far better to work out a compromise now, and we urge both sides—the City Council and the ratepayers —to come to terms.
Without a doubt, a substantial rate increase will be necessary to pay the city’s share of the $178 million Nacimiento Water Project, which is vital to the city’s future.
But we can understand why Paso residents—who have enjoyed some of the lowest water rates in the state— would be upset by the news that their flat monthly fee will jump to $60 from $12 over the next few years.
Here’s what’s especially hard to swallow: The $60 charge would be imposed across the board. That means a single person living in a studio apartment would pay the $60 fee, as would a family of six living in a five-bedroom house with a swimming pool and a big green lawn.
We like the idea of rewarding frugal water users with significantly lower bills—a system that makes sense especially in drought-prone California—and we applaud the City Council for being open to considering a different rate structure.
At the same time, we recognize that city officials had good reason to set the flat rate so high: They wanted to obtain a better interest rate on bonds that will fund the city’s share of the Nacimiento project.
That was a wise move that saved $300,000 a year, but now that the bonds have been issued, the council can take a fresh look at the fees — which is something city officials pledged to do even before the voter initiative.
City officials have two alternative fee schedules on the table:
• One would keep the flat monthly rate at $12 but increase the per-unit cost of water from $1.28 to $4 over the next few years.
(A unit is 748 gallons.Monthly usage varies widely; one customer said her family of four uses about 12 units a month for their average-size house, though usage can be much higher for homes with extensive landscaping and swimming pools.)
• The other would increase both the flat fee and the per-unit rate. Under that proposal, the flat fee would go up to $36 a month over the next few years, and the per-unit fee would increase to $2.34 a month.
Paso Robles residents have the chance tonight to let the council know what they think about the two options — or to suggest other ideas.
Don’t let the opportunity pass; rate increases may be inevitable, but they’ll be less painful if ratepayers and city officials work together to make fees as equitable as possible. #
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/editorial/story/156297.html
Correction: Potential price of water incorrect
Associated Press
A potential deal to buy water from Northern California farmers could be more expensive than the $125 per acre-foot
We apologize.
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