Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
October 5, 2007
5. Agencies, Programs, People
WATER BANKING PROJECT DELAYED:
Property title confusion delays impact report; Lawyer advises AVEK to postpone its water bank study for one week - Antelope Valley Press
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT:
MWD expert says ‘no interest’ -
PASO ROBLES WATER ISSUES:
Column: Water-fee fix may satisfy pipeline foes -
WATER BANKING PROJECT DELAYED:
Property title confusion delays impact report; Lawyer advises AVEK to postpone its water bank study for one week
Antelope Valley
By Alisha Semchuck, staff writer
PALMDALE - At the advice of their attorney, Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency directors agreed to postpone for one week the release of a draft environmental impact report that describes the conditions of land they purchased for a water bank.
AVEK directors reached that decision after some heated discussion during a special meeting Tuesday night. They initially planned to release the EIR for public comment that night, regarding several land parcels that total roughly 1,400 acres at
The delay of the EIR release resulted from a dispute over whether the correct parcel numbers had been identified on the special meeting agenda prepared by AVEK, a water wholesaler that supplies retailers like Los Angeles County Waterworks District 40 and Quartz Hill Water District as well as agricultural users.
Randy Scott, a Rosamond resident opposed to the water bank in his backyard, said he just asked one question that triggered the flap.
"Of the 38 properties listed, it appears 12 don't have a newly recorded deed. Two-thirds show the deed was recorded" on July 17, Scott said, adding that makes sense because water board members approved the close of escrow July 10, in a 4-0 vote, with one director abstaining, citing conflict of interest.
But, Scott added, one-third of the parcels don't show that the deed has been recorded yet. So, he contended, "that property hasn't changed hands. Then (the board) got into whether these were the correct legal descriptions."
AVEK Director Frank Donato reacted to Scott's comments by questioning the transfer of title and the proper legal description of properties listed on the agenda.
"Where's a copy of the agency's final closing statement?" Donato asked. "Has anybody even looked at it? When did we close this deal?"
"Aug. 27, I'm pretty sure," said Tom Barnes, AVEK's water resources manager.
"The agency spent $13 million of taxpayer money and we don't know if the deed has been recorded," Donato persisted. Then he criticized the use of the county tax assessor's parcel numbers as a property identifier on the agenda, rather than the legal land description used by title companies to record deeds. A legal description designates the location of property on a grid in terms of its east-west and north-south coordinates.
If the assessor's parcel numbers don't coincide with the proper legal descriptions, Donato said, "then we cannot discuss the EIR tonight."
If the parcels are incorrect, then AVEK must move the agenda item to another meeting so the correct property description can be listed, AVEK Attorney William Brunick said.
If those parcel numbers are wrong, Donato said, "then there's a problem. They should not be on this agenda."
"I agree with that," Brunick said.
Though Donato continued voicing his grievance, Brunick said, "It's an easy fix. Put it off (until) next Tuesday.
Meanwhile, Ben Horn, the agency's contracted project manager from Boyle Engineering Corporation, assured that the parcels described in the draft EIR are correct.
"I checked it," Horn said. "I did not check the APN numbers on this agenda."
"We're starting to do things destructive to this board and the community,"
"Next week we will use a more general description of the property - the description used in the EIR," AVEK General Manager Russ Fuller said Wednesday. "Provided our board is happy with it and agrees it is an adequate EIR, then we'll circulate it publicly."
That EIR will state what the AVEK board and administrators "believe is needed to address the environmental issues associated with operating the project - traffic, endangered species, flooding, mosquitoes - all issues of concern that need to be addressed," Fuller said. "This will begin the public review period. We'll expect more comments from the public."
If the board had approved the EIR Tuesday, it would have been circulated publicly Oct. 12, according to Barnes. Then Nov. 27 would have closed the 45-day comment period. AVEK would have had until Dec. 10 to respond to those comments and finalize the EIR.
That schedule has been delayed by at least a week, AVEK administrators acknowledged.
Depending on the results of public comments, Fuller said, "we will either make modifications as needed or abandon this project."
However, he pointed out, "we have a tremendous amount of capacity in the (
"All the (water) banks in the Valley need to work together. The main problem - you can't have just one water bank in one area," Fuller said.
"Water flows in underground streams. You can put water in one area that ends up in another area miles away. We need to have connected plumbing above ground, just like the connections that exist below ground." #
http://www.avpress.com/n/05/1005_s10.hts
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT:
MWD expert says ‘no interest’
By Darren Simon, Special to this newspaper
As quickly as a controversy started to build over the Imperial Irrigation District looking to contract the vice chairwoman of another water board as a consultant, the issue has come to an abrupt end.
Marcie Edwards, vice chairwoman of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, has informed the IID board via e-mail she has no further interest in pursing a contract with the district.
In the e-mail sent to the district, she says she believes it would be necessary for the board to reach a consensus on a contract with her. She says since the board does not appear to have a consensus vote, she is no longer interested in serving as a consultant.
While that e-mail makes no specific criticisms of the district, there is another e-mail, district Director John Pierre Menvielle said, that was never sent to the district.
That e-mail, reportedly a communication between Edwards and another board she belongs to, the Southern California Public Power Authority, does reference political strife within the district.
“I have no interest in being yet one more political football for them,” Edwards says in the SCPPA e-mail, which was provided to the Imperial Valley Press by Menvielle.
Edwards, who is the manager of the city of
For weeks, members of the IID board had voiced interest in hiring Edwards as an expert on power issues through her work with the city of
A draft contract between her and the district stated she would earn $175,000 to work with the district for four months on reorganizing the district power department, which has been embroiled in controversy over an energy-trading scandal.
The draft contract also had her working with interim General Manager Mike Campbell on general organizational matters within the district and even had her involved in the hiring of a permanent general manager.
As of a week ago, at least four board members were continuing to voice their support for hiring her, despite concerns raised by the public that she is vice chairwoman of the MWD, which some have referred to as a rival water board to the district.
Even IID board President Stella Mendoza, who a week ago was voicing support for Edwards, said MWD is not a friend of the district.
In fact,
A week ago the board chose to delay a vote on hiring Edwards, and the matter was expected to return to the board this month.
Menvielle said he never would have voted to hire Edwards as a consultant.
“I would not have supported her because she served on the MWD board,” he said. #
http://www.ivpressonline.com/articles/2007/10/05/news/news03.txt
PASO ROBLES WATER ISSUES:
Column: Water-fee fix may satisfy pipeline foes
By Phil Dirkx, columnist
In the debate about Paso Robles getting Nacimiento water, the strongest argument against the plan evaporated Tuesday night.
That argument was that the city is charging an unfair flat fee to pay for the Nacimiento pipeline project. All customers are charged the same flat fee regardless of how much water they use or don’t use.
Then Tuesday night the Paso Robles City Council repealed the latest flat fee plan and voted to switch to fees based on how much water each customer uses.
The pipeline fee had really become a hot issue this summer when the city council voted to raise it. The plan was to raise it gradually from the present $12 per month to $60 per month by July 2010. That got everybody’s attention.
Most people felt the uniform flat fee was unfair. Enough of them signed petitions to force the council to either repeal the increases or hold an election on them.
Tuesday night the council didn’t just repeal the increases. It also told city staffers to draw up a new fee plan based entirely on how much water a customer uses. All flat fees would be abolished, even the present $12 one.
The city staffers had anticipated the council’s action. They had prepared a consumption- only fee proposal. It would start at $2.25 per unit next February. (A unit of water is 100 cubic feet, or 748 gallons.) It would then rise in three annual steps to $4 per unit in July 2010.
City Manager James App said that would cover the pipeline bond payments plus all the other costs of running the water department. He hoped it would also pay for building the city’s treatment plant for the Nacimiento water.
The councilmen favored the plan but also asked to see a proposal for “tier” rates. Under tier rates, customers who use over a certain amount would be charged a higher rate for the amount used in that higher tier.
I expect many conservation-minded people will now support the pipeline instead of opposing it. They were against the original flat-fee rate because it did nothing to encourage conservation. In fact it would encourage waste. But with our water bills based on how much we use and with the higher rates, we’ll be inspired to conserve.
Of course some of my fellow Roblans oppose the pipeline for other reasons, such as the overall cost. I hope they’ll consider that delaying the project will only raise the cost. The price of bread, milk, construction materials and almost everything goes up steadily. Consider Los Osos, where they’ve been debating for 30 years about building a sewer. In August, they were told the sewer could now cost the average home $25,000 plus $40 per month.
Also water is getting scarcer. For the past few summers, city officials have urged us to use less water because it got dangerously low in our reservoirs even though all pumps were pumping day and night. Water is a necessity of life. #
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