Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation for DWR personnel of significant news articles and comment
November 13, 2007
1. Top Items
Quiet island in dispute; Use of state flood grants to buy land scrutinized - Sacramento Bee
Audit alleges bond bungle; State still doesn't own overpriced island, report says - Stockton Record
State auditor blasts flood protection spending - Central Valley Business Times
Quiet island in dispute; Use of state flood grants to buy land scrutinized
Sacramento
By Judy Lin, staff writer
The sky above a stretch of flooded farmland on this island in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta becomes speckled with white and pale gray birds.
The creatures – distinguished by long legs and longer necks – come to roost on this wetland each winter. Some have been spotted for at least 18 years.
Conservationists tout the 9,200-acre island, located south of Walnut Grove in
But a recent state audit has raised questions about the department's decision to hand $17.6 million in flood protection bond money to a non-governmental organization that emphasizes habitat protection over flood control.
State Auditor Elaine Howle stressed the need for better monitoring as the department gets ready to dole out $330 million in additional flood protection bonds.
"DWR needs to do a better job of managing the flood protection corridor program," Howle said in an interview. "We found several weaknesses in awarding the grant, as well as monitoring how well those programs are proceeding."
The audit, which was released Nov. 5, said the department failed to show the merits of five grants in 2001, including the $17.6 million
DWR Director Lester Snow agreed the department needs to do a better job of tracking grants and decisions. The audit was especially critical of the department, then under former director Tom Hannigan, for not using a scoring tool that would have ranked projects based on their merit.
Snow said more staff members have since been assigned to the program.
The
In return for the department's investment, the state retains easement rights for flood projects.
Keeping the land undeveloped gives
"When I look at the cranes, I think it's a wise investment," Zeleke said.
Some believe the money should never have been spent on buying
Assemblyman Bill Maze, R-Visalia, who called for the audit, took notice of
"It should not have been used for that project whatsoever," Maze said.
Since then, the audit found that not much has improved.
"Six years after Nature Conservancy acquired Staten Island, Water Resources has yet to implement a flood protection project on the island, and it is unclear whether the acquisition will ultimately result in a tangible flood protection project," the audit states.
The audit also questioned the department's contention that the island provides significant flood protection by preventing development in a flood-prone area, given what the audit called "the current legal restrictions prohibiting such development."
Snow, however, defends the department's selection of
Snow said funding from Proposition 13 allowed the department to acquire easements to protect floodplains while preserving the agricultural use of the property.
"The
In addition to questioning the
Auditors said they had no way to review the selection committee's decisions. Of 11 projects the department considered funding, five were selected without proof of a competitive process.
Snow said he intends to adopt a ranking system for future flood protection projects as the department prepares to hand out new bond money.
Last November, voters approved two bond measures – propositions 84 and 1E – that provide the department with $330 million for flood protection projects. The money has been designated for the protection, creation and enhancement of flood protection corridors and bypasses.
At
The cycle is simple. Farmers grow corn and wheat during the year, then flood the land after crops are harvested, creating a haven for cranes and other birds.
The cranes that winter on the island are playful. On a dirt road cutting through the farm, Zeleke looks out on the birds as they throw their heads up, fan their wings and occasionally toss grass.
"This is the ideal situation," Zeleke said. "You have the economy benefiting ... and also managing the land in a successful way that the cranes keep coming back." #
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/485403.html
Audit alleges bond bungle; State still doesn't own overpriced island, report says
By Hank Shaw, staff writer
Now the state neither owns the land nor is it open to public access; it's still making money and collecting federal subsidies for the conservancy as a working farm.
What's more, $17.6 million of the state's cost came from voter-approved flood control bond money, yet the conservation easement the Department of Water Resources obtained for
The audit also found that Water Resources failed to set serious criteria for allocating flood-control money, rarely bothered to follow up with entities it gave the money to, and can provide only spotty documentation about how more than $57.1 million was spent.
This mismanagement of public bond money becomes all the more serious considering that voters just passed $9.5 billion in water bonds last year, State Auditor Elaine Howle said.
Little of that money has yet been spent, and Water Resources chief Lester Snow - who was not with the agency when the abuses the audit discovered took place - says he is busily making sure this does not happen again.
Snow's spokeswoman Sue Sims said the agency agrees with much of Howle's assessment: "It's a good opportunity to look at where we need to improve."
David Kline of the California Taxpayers' Association says the public should be outraged.
"It's a classic case of bait and switch," Kline said. "The voters are always being told that if they approve this bond, they will get this great service. Then, years later, you find out that money was squandered. But then we're still paying the bonds."
Howle only examined spending surrounding the flood-control bond voters passed in 2000; the
Sims said that decision was made before Snow arrived at Water Resources.
"He's not going to second-guess that decision," Sims said. "There's no real reason to try to go back and get into the minds of those people."
Attempts to reach Tom Hannigan, who led Water Resources at the time, were unsuccessful.
According to documents surrounding the case as well as interviews with Nature Conservancy officials earlier this year, the conservancy wanted the island because the previous farmer had been a pioneer in wildlife-friendly agriculture - and because Staten Island is a wintering ground for sandhill cranes, which are numerous enough to be hunted in many other parts of the country, but are still threatened in California.
Water Resources' argument for the expenditure was that
The easement gives the state the ability to use part of the island for flood control until 2011, when the conservancy gets full control of the island.
Cases such as these have led Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian, R-Stockton, to sponsor legislation to require the state to record and post publicly all the conservation easements it has granted since that 2000 bond issue. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the legislation earlier this autumn.
"It's what we've been saying for years," Aghazarian said. "Audit after audit is going to show this. We need to preserve and restore the environment, but these are taxpayer dollars we're talking about."
The audit looked at 13 flood-control projects, including one on the
Sims says Water Resources is fixing its problems.
"There's some fiscal discipline in the programs now that there wasn't then," she said. "We're in a much better position now."
Kline of the taxpayers association says he has an idea what they can do on
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071112/A_NEWS/711120326
State auditor blasts flood protection spending
The California Department of Water Resources awarded $57.1 million for local grants under the flood protection program based on poorly defined selection criteria and incomplete information, state Auditor Elaine Howle says in a report.
“Most notably, it is unclear whether the most expensive grant, the acquisition of Staten Island, will result in a tangible flood protection project in return for the $17.6 million in funds awarded,” the report says.
Ms. Howle’s report says the appraisal for the
Despite the state spending $17.6 million for the
In the grant agreement for the project, the Department of Water Resources gave The Nature Conservancy money from the state flood protection program to acquire
“However, during the six-year period following Nature Conservancy’s acquisition of Staten Island, Water Resources has yet to implement a worthwhile flood protection project on the property,” the auditor’s report says.
And the report says that while the DWR contends that
Officials of The Nature Conservancy could not be reached Monday. Their
Overall, says the report, the Department of Water Resources did not always obtain information from applicants called for in its regulations to evaluate a potential project’s flood protection benefits, such as evidence that property owners are willing to sell their property at fair market value.
“Moreover, although Water Resources established a framework for monitoring projects that would have been effective if enforced, it has not done so,” the report says.
“Correcting these deficiencies in the flood protection program is important because Water Resources will select and monitor similar projects to be funded with an additional $330 million that
http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=6968
####
No comments:
Post a Comment