Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
November 7, 2007
5. Agencies, Programs, People
WATER PROJECTS LEGISLATION:
House rejects flood bill veto; Bush override a first; Senate could vote today - Stockton Record
Included in bill: Folsom spillway - Sacramento Bee
MATILIJA DAM:
Override of water bill veto aids dam - Ventura County Star
WATER RATE INCREASE DEFEATED:
WATER RIGHTS ISSUES:
Farmers once again are receiving water rights invoices - California Farm Bureau Federation
HABITAT PROTCETION:
$5 million to protect giant garter snakes; Three Rivers has to come up with habitat for levee improvements - Marysville Appeal Democrat
DELTA SIGNAGE:
Delta to be marked by new highway signs - Central Valley Business Times
GROUNDWATER MEETING:
Groundwater conference Thursday in Chico - Chico Enterprise Record
WATER PROJECTS LEGISLATION:
House rejects flood bill veto; Bush override a first; Senate could vote today
By Hank Shaw, staff writer
The vote was the first time the House has voted to overturn a Bush veto, and the tally wasn't even close: 361-54, far above the two-thirds majority required. The U.S. Senate is expected to vote as early as today, and if it, too, overrides Bush's veto, it would be the first time in Bush's presidency he has been rejected by Congress. It also would be the first veto override since 1998.
The reason? Bush is stepping on the home turf of not just Democrats, but Republicans who represent flood-prone areas. Reps. Dennis Cardoza, D-Atwater, and Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, voted to override the veto Tuesday, as did Rep. Dan Lungren, a Gold River Republican who represents the Mother Lode.
Reps. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa, and Devin Nunes, R-Visalia, were among the 54 Republicans who voted with President Bush.
At issue is a $23 billion water resources bill Bush says is too expensive. "This authorization bill makes promises to local communities that the Congress does not have a track record of keeping," Bush told Congress last week in a written statement.
But Bush's critics say his newfound thrift rings hollow next to the escalating cost of the war in
Cardoza said quibbling over a few billion over flood control - especially in the wake of the
The legislation under debate would authorize Congress to spend $106 million for levee repairs in the Delta, $5.5 million to help reimburse Stockton and San Joaquin County for flood-control improvements made along the Upper Calaveras River and Lower Mosher Slough, and $33 million for the city of Stockton's Delta Water Supply Project, which is intended to increase the city's water supply by siphoning water from the Delta, increasing underground water stores and cleaning up polluted areas.
There is also money in the bill to help maintain the Stockton Deep Water Channel.
This bill was the first Water Resources Development Bill passed by Congress in seven years; it is supposed to be renewed every other year, but the Republican-controlled Congress had been unable to pass a bill since 2000. This version was overwhelmingly bipartisan, and it was a long time coming.
"Some of these projects (former Tracy Republican Rep. Richard) Pombo and I had talked about for five years - since I first got to Congress," Cardoza said. "We've been working on these things for so long, it's unbelievable we haven't been able to make that goal."
Stockton Municipal Utilities Department Director Mark Madison said he's relieved that Congress appears willing to fight for this funding. He said the $202 million Delta Water Supply Project is expected to provide enough water for about 44,000 families each year and will be built regardless of congressional action.
"This project is vital,"
But
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071107/A_NEWS/711070331
Included in bill: Folsom spillway
By David Whitney, staff writer
The water projects bill approved Tuesday by the House includes authorization of a joint project between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers to spend $683 million to add a spillway adjacent to Folsom Dam to improve flood control and reduce national security risks to the dam.
White House support of the project was not in doubt. It was singled out in the president's veto message as spending President Bush wanted to protect.
"This bill promises hundreds of earmarks and hinders the Corps' ability to fulfill the nation's critical water resources needs – including hurricane protection for greater New Orleans, flood damage reduction for Sacramento, and restoration of the Everglades while diverting resources from the significant investments needed to maintain existing federal water infrastructure," the president said.
"This popular bill comes not a moment too soon," said Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento, who is an ardent advocate of the last major component of work to protect the city from giant storms.
"As we know in
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/476007.html
MATILIJA DAM:
Override of water bill veto aids dam
By Michael Collins, staff writer
The House voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to override President Bush's veto of a popular bill that authorizes hundreds of water resources and flood-control projects across the country, including the Matilija Dam project near Ojai.
The Senate is likely to follow suit, possibly as early as today, marking the first time in Bush's presidency that lawmakers have overridden one of his vetoes.
Bush vetoed the bill last Friday, arguing that its $23.2 billion cost was fiscally irresponsible. But lawmakers, including a number of Republicans, said the legislation was long past due and noted that it had been seven years since the last water-resources bill was passed.
The House vote to overturn the veto was 361-54, well over the two-thirds majority needed. "The president's veto of this strong bipartisan bill that will enhance the safety and security of millions of Americans was irresponsible," said Rep. Lois Capps, D-Santa Barbara. "I am proud Congress is taking quick action to override the veto and ensure that these critical infrastructure projects move forward."
Rep. Elton Gallegly,
The federal legislation, known as the Water Resources Development Act, authorizes spending $144.5 million for the dam removal and restoration of the
County Supervisor Steve Bennett said the project is important because it involves much more than removal of the dam.
"It's a full ecosystem restoration project, which means it will return the
"More sand deposition at the mouth of the
The Matilija Dam was built more than five decades ago and is now considered obsolete, with 95 percent of its water capacity choked by 6 million cubic yards of sediment. The dam removal project is in the design phase. #
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2007/nov/07/override-of-water-bill-veto-aids-dam/
WATER RATE INCREASE DEFEATED:
By Jennifer Gentile, staff writer
Even the prospect of a 2 percent water-rate reduction wasn't enough to sway
Election night ended in disappointment for Measure Q supporters. With 49 of 49 precincts reporting, no votes totaled 6,239, or 54 percent of ballots cast, while yes votes totaled 5,313 or 46 percent.
Measure Q would have allowed
The transfers added $3.2 million annually to the city's general fund. Mayor Harry Price said such a substantial cut to the fund, which supports essential services like police, fire and street and park maintenance, will force some difficult decisions in
"The voters have spoken," Price said. "They've given very clear direction on how they want their money spent."
Price added that he is "disappointed" by the results, having "thought for certain that voters would recognize the need to maintain the status quo."
"That means, given our budget projections, we're going to have to make some cuts," Price said. "The challenge now will be how do we accommodate for the loss of $3.2 million per year."
The mayor also said the failure of Measure Q means the city must be more aggressive in pursuing state and federal funding sources. The Community Development Department has been successful in attracting businesses to
Kurt Hahn, a city council candidate and outspoken Measure Q opponent, perceived Tuesday night as a victory for taxpayers.
"I'm just really happy David has beaten Goliath and scored a victory for taxpayers and honesty," Hahn said.
He identified a number of areas where, in his view, the city could scale back financially, including consultants. He also suggested unloading one of the city's golf courses and putting a train station project on hold.
"I think the money is there," he said, "and by taking this away, it forces them to look for alternatives."
Hahn and other opponents maintained that when Proposition 218 was approved in 1996, and affirmed in 2002,
Proponents took issue with this argument, claiming that the California Supreme Court never ruled that water in-lieu fees are illegal, only that voters must approve them.
Although the fate of Measure Q is decided, the issue may yet be the subject of a grand jury investigation. The Central Solano Citizen/Taxpayer Group has lodged a complaint with the Solano County grand jury, asking the panel to "calculate the scope of monetary damages suffered by Fairfield citizens," to confirm that there were no exceptions from Proposition 218 nor any suspension while it was challenged in court and establish that Fairfield citizens have been denied "their legal right to vote" on the in-lieu fees until now.
Hahn said he received a letter from the jury foreman, expressing reluctance to get involved in a matter that is before the voters. However, Hahn has sent a reply letter and is awaiting a response. #
http://www.thereporter.com//ci_7392235?IADID=Search-www.thereporter.com-www.thereporter.com
WATER RIGHTS ISSUES:
Farmers once again are receiving water rights invoices
By Ching Lee, Assistant Editor
For the fifth consecutive year, individuals who hold permits and licenses for
The California Board of Equalization on Oct. 15 sent bills for fiscal year 2007-08 to an estimated 6,000 to 7,000 water rights holders who possess some 13,500 permits and licenses. Meanwhile, litigation over the legality of these "fees" is now before the California Supreme Court.
Farm Bureau contends that the water rights fees are really unconstitutional taxes because there is little connection between the amount charged and the benefits received by those who foot the bill.
"It doesn't matter whether you've drawn a drop of water from your water rights permit or license. The fee is based on your right to do that," said Carl Borden, CFBF associate counsel. "You have to pay it no matter how much water you take or whether you take any water at all."
The fees were initially imposed as a result of Senate Bill 1049, which went into effect in 2003. The California Legislature passed the new law on a simple majority vote, directing the State Water Resources Control Board to collect fees from water rights permittees and licensees to pay for the operations of its Division of Water Rights.
Borden said that over the five years the legislation has been in effect, tens of millions of dollars have been collected by the board. Most rights holders are charged the minimum annual fee of $100 while others are hit with bills for thousands of dollars.
The Imperial Irrigation District is assessed hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
Farm Bureau filed suit claiming that the fees are imposed in violation of Proposition 13, which requires legislation that results in new or increased taxes be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. Farm Bureau's lawsuit seeks refunds of all fees that water rights holders have been paying.
In April 2005, the Sacramento County Superior Court ruled against Farm Bureau and other groups that had joined in the legal dispute. The challengers then appealed to the court of appeal, which handed down a mixed decision in January.
"The court struck down the SWRCB's regulation setting the fee schedule for fiscal year 2003-04 but upheld the statute itself," Borden explained. "So, the appellate court did not stop the SWRCB from mailing fee bills for later years to holders of water rights permits and licenses. That's why they recently received bills for the current fiscal year."
The California Supreme Court agreed to review the court of appeal's opinion.
"We hope the court will hear oral argument and issue its opinion in 2008," said Borden.
Farm Bureau legal experts once again recommend that bill payers file protests to improve their chance of getting a refund if CFBF's suit ultimately proves successful. The state of
"Although we contest the state's position, we cannot predict this dispute's outcome," said Borden.
Water rights holders who received one or more bills for fiscal year 2007-08 have at least four courses of action, he said.
One is to simply pay the fee to the Board of Equalization by Nov. 14 without filing a protest. By timely paying the fee, an 11-percent annual interest and 10-percent penalty would be avoided, Borden said. However, the court may, as argued by the state, determine that fee payers who did not file a protest are not entitled to a refund even if the Farm Bureau wins the case, he added.
Another option is not to pay the fee and take no other action. However, nonpayment results in the addition of interest and a penalty to the fee. The Board of Equalization could seek to collect the unpaid amount by attaching the water rights holder's wages and placing a lien on his real property. If the court were to uphold the fee, the holder would owe the amount plus the interest and penalty. Also, the SWRCB may revoke the holder's permit or license for nonpayment, Borden said.
A third option is to not pay the fee for now but mail a protest with a copy of the bill to the SWRCB. This option requires immediate action, as the SWRCB must receive the protest by Nov. 14. The protest procedure is described in the bill under "Information concerning determinations." A sample protest form that Farm Bureau members can use is posted on Farm Bureau's Web site at www.cfbf.com/protestform.cfm.
Water rights holders need not pay the fee until the SWRCB has denied the protest and 30 days after the Board of Equalization has issued a "notice of redetermination." While the 11-percent interest will then be due with the fee, there should be no penalty if the fee and interest are paid within the 30 days, Borden said. Holders should keep copies of everything they mail to the SWRCB, he added.
The fourth option is to pay the fee to the Board of Equalization now and mail a protest with a copy of the bill to the SWRCB.
Holders who have already paid the bill can still file a protest, Borden said.
"The important thing is that filing a protest by Nov. 14 may enhance your ability to get a refund of the fees paid if they are ultimately declared invalid," Borden said.
Letters containing this information were mailed on Oct. 31 to Farm Bureau members with water rights permits or licenses, Borden said. #
http://www.cfbf.com/agalert/AgAlertStory.cfm?ID=929&ck=0D0871F0806EAE32D30983B62252DA50
HABITAT PROTCETION:
$5 million to protect giant garter snakes; Three Rivers has to come up with habitat for levee improvements
Marysville Appeal Democrat – 11/6/07
By Andrea Koskey, staff writer
A $5 million contract to create a giant-garter snake habitat was approved Tuesday by the Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority to move forward on Yuba County levee improvements.
The habitat will make up for any loss of natural surroundings for snakes in the area of a proposed six-mile setback levee planned for this spring to protect
“Without making this commitment, we would not be fulfilling the environmental condition to receive permits for construction,” Director Mary Jane Griego said. “So, this stands between us and our goal to provide public safety to the south county.”
Roughly 135 acres of giant-garter snake habitat will be affected when construction begins on the six miles of setback levee, also known as Phase Four of the
The contract was unanimously awarded to Wildland Inc., a habitat development company from Rocklin. The contract will allow the company to create as natural a habitat as possible for the reptiles within Gilsizer Slough, across the river in
“It’s an expansion of the existing preservation,” said Jeff Mathews, director of sales and marketing for Wildlands. “The misconception is that we will back a truck up and load snakes and move them. Instead, we create and promote habitat so snakes nearby can move to and thrive.”
TRLIA environmental project manager Anja Kelsey said several locations for the mitigation area were discussed.
“We compared cost for on-site versus off-site mitigation areas. At the end of the day, this was the better option,” she said. “We anticipate significant impact on the natural habitat. Therefore, this is a requirement for us if there is habitat loss.”
Construction of the habitat will coincide with setback levee construction expected to begin in the spring. #
http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/habitat_56218___article.html/levee_move.html
DELTA SIGNAGE:
Delta to be marked by new highway signs
Motorists driving along the roads of the California Delta, the largest estuary on the West Coast, may never know they’ve entered the Delta. But that is changing thanks to a new road sign campaign by Caltrans and the Discover the Delta Foundation.
Eight state highway signs that welcome visitors to the California Delta and another that marks the site of an information center are being put up on major highways.
The first of the four-by-eight foot signs will be installed in Sacramento County just west of Interstate 5 and in Solano County about five miles west of Rio Vista along Highway 12. The maroon colored signs feature artwork that was created the late Delta artist Marty Stanley.
“The signs are part of foundation’s work to increase the awareness of the California Delta,” says Tom Martens, interim executive director of the year-old foundation, which has an office in Walnut Grove.
The project includes purchasing signs and working with counties and the California Department of Transportation to erect them along eight state highway Delta entry locations.
The project is expected to be completed by the end of the year.
The entrance signs are part of the multi year effort to increase the awareness of the California Delta, according to Martens, who says the foundation is considering promoting signs on bridges that provide names of the rivers, sloughs and other waterways.
“If the Delta is to be protected over the long term, the recognition needs to be improved dramatically – including not only the geography of the Delta, but also its problems and importance as an environmental and economic asset to its residents,” Mr. Martens says. #
http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=6929
GROUNDWATER MEETING:
Groundwater conference Thursday in Chico
The League of Women Voters will hold a conference on groundwater beginning at 5:30 p.m. Thursday at the
Special guest Carol Patterson will be speaking. Patterson is from the Edwards Aquifer Authority in
Other speakers include Phil Lydon, a retired geology professor at
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