Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
November 19, 2007
5. Agencies, Programs, People
WATER BOND DEAL:
Governor, senator near water deal; Still at issue is who oversees spending - Fresno Bee
FLOOD ZONE ISSUES:
Lathrop, Manteca kept out of flood zone for 2 years - Lathrop Manteca Sun-Post
FLOOD FUNDING:
Editorial: Flood of relief;
YUBA/BEAR WATERSHED MEETING:
Yuba/Bear Watershed Council to Revisit the
WATER BOND DEAL:
Governor, senator near water deal; Still at issue is who oversees spending
By E.J. Schultz, staff writer
Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata said in an interview Friday that he hopes to close the deal today and put it up for a vote the week after Thanksgiving.
"We're very close right now," said Perata, D-Oakland, who only a month ago had abandoned hope of reaching a compromise.
"Not everybody gets what they want here, but they get what they need."
Both parties have agreed to make about $3 billion available for dams, which had been a major sticking point. But Democrats, who have a majority in the Legislature, want to be able to oversee the spending on a yearly basis, which Republicans aren't willing to grant.
"We believe that that creates a trap door for them to basically not approve the money for the surface storage projects," said Sen. Dave Cogdill, R-Modesto, the GOP's lead negotiator on water.
Perata is just as adamant about keeping control.
"I just don't want to give away legislative oversight," he said.
Another potential pitfall is selling the plan to the Assembly members, who have not been as closely involved.
"There will be no deal without a vote of the Assembly, and we have not been updated or notified of any progress in any discussions between the governor and the Legislature," said Steve Maviglio, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-
Lawmakers have been trying to reach a water deal for most of the year but have been stymied by a debate over how to boost the state's water supply. Republicans have pushed for dams, while Democrats have said conservation and ground-water storage are the smarter and cheaper options.
Secretary of State Debra Bowen has told lawmakers that they need to approve a bond by midnight tonight to make the ballot. But the Governor's Office and Perata think they can move the date by a few days.
"We'll push the deadline as far as possible," Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said.
Perata and Cogdill said they have agreed to set aside $2.5 billion for dams, as long as the projects are proven to aid the deteriorating Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
The Schwarzenegger administration has pushed dams -- including a proposed dam near
Cogdill said $500 million from another pot of money also could be made available for dams, bringing the total to $3 billion, just $500 million short of what Republicans had been seeking.
"We're confident that at the end of the day this will allow us to move forward on three surface storage projects," Cogdill said.
Other bond money would go for regional water projects -- including ground-water storage -- and ecosystem fixes to the delta.
If lawmakers miss the February ballot, the state's mounting fiscal woes could complicate efforts to find consensus in time for the June or November ballots, when an estimated $10 billion budget hole will be on the top of everyone's mind.
Even if a deal is reached in the next week or so, the state's budget problems -- which have come into focus in recent days -- might give some lawmakers pause.
"It's really difficult to argue for it, to be honest with you, and it makes it very difficult to put votes together," Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines of
Negotiations had stalled for much of the special legislative session on water. The governor called for the special session in early September. But talks heated up in recent days between Perata and the governor, as both sides seek a compromise that would avoid a fight on two competing initiatives.
Perata already has filed his initiative and could soon begin collecting signatures in hopes of qualifying the measure for the November ballot. The plan, which does not earmark money for dams, has the backing of environmentalists.
Cogdill has said he would pursue a dam-friendly initiative that would have the backing of the California Chamber of Commerce and farm groups. But with two competing measures on the same ballot, odds are that both would fail.
Paul Hefner, a campaign consultant who has done work for Perata, said the "prospect of dealing with more than one [initiative] dealing with the same subject would be less than ideal."
Lawmakers missed a mid- October deadline to get a bond on the regular ballot. If a deal is reached now, legislators would have to appropriate money for a supplemental ballot, and would likely have to pass certain exemptions, like shortening the public display period for ballot title and summaries. #
http://www.fresnobee.com/263/story/203464.html
FLOOD ZONE ISSUES:
Lathrop,
Lathrop
By Ben Marrone, staff writer
Large parts of Lathrop and western
Officials from the Federal Emergency Management Agency said this week that levee-protected areas in both cities will be shown as having only a moderate risk of flooding on new flood-risk maps the agency expects to release later this year.
FEMA had considered a high flood-risk designation for the areas, after the state Department of Water Resources insisted the levees are not strong enough to withstand a 100-year flood — that is, a flood with only a 1 percent chance of occurring in any given year.
Such a declaration would have prohibited most new construction in Lathrop and
Now, after months of meetings with the state and a local district that maintains the levees, FEMA has decided to temporarily acknowledge that the levees protect against a 100-year flood, as long as people that live behind them are notified that the strength of the levees is in question.
The agency is still unwilling to say whether the levees actually meet 100-year flood standards, but its two-year approval will allow more time for research and improvements to the levees before the cities are forced to take drastic measures.
FEMA regional engineer Kathleen Schaefer said the decision to temporarily OK the levees was the middle ground between the state and Reclamation District 17, which is in charge of maintaining the levees and claims that they meet FEMA’s criteria.
“There’s still some question as to whether it’s a moderate or high risk in these areas,” Schaefer said. “This was a compromise that everyone agreed to. … When we force everyone to buy flood insurance, there are economic impacts to the community. …
This allowed us to say there is a dispute. We’re not entirely sure.”
Schaefer said FEMA will strongly encourage homeowners behind the levees to buy flood insurance as part of the warning notices it sends out.
Department of Water Resources Deputy Director Leslie Harder said he still believes FEMA should show the area behind the levees as a flood plain. But he was content with the temporary approval, on the condition that homeowners will be warned about the flood hazard and everyone will work together to make the levees stronger.
“We believe that all the maps that are issued by any agency should show accurately what the flood risk is, and that’s the bottom line. But then there are people that say if you do that, you’ll stop development,” Harder said. “Nothing in this world would be perfect, but I think this is good enough for the time being. We want to build on cooperation rather than be arguing for the next two years.”
Last year, Californians voted through two bond measures worth $4.9 billion to improve flood control across the state. Harder said most of the cost of local levee improvements could be paid for out of that pot.
Though the reclamation district’s attorney, Dante Nomellini, insisted that the levees meet the 100-year flood criteria, he said the district would be happy to make improvements.
“We all know there is a risk of flooding, no matter what the criteria is,” Nomellini said. “The local, state and federal agencies are all pulling in the same direction. We don’t have any interest in not improving the levees.”
However, he wasn’t sure two years would be enough time to finish the job, and he predicted that the district would likely need another extension in 2009. #
http://sunpost.net/content/view/1524/190/
FLOOD FUNDING:
Editorial: Flood of relief;
Anyone who survived the New Year's Eve deluge of 2005 will tell you that Thanksgiving arrived early this year in
It came in the form of $3.5 million from the Solano County Water Agency. The money - $2 million this fiscal year and $500,000 each year for the next three years - will allow
That's a good start for a project that could take up to 10 years to complete and will cost more than $26.4 million when all is said and done.
Finally, some progress.
The city has already received approval of $3.9 million in state and federal grants and is pursuing several more. In addition, a developer has promised to build a basin worth $7.4 million, which will leave just a $3.8 million funding gap.
The SCWA funds will go toward purchasing land and building the Encinosa and
The Encinosa project, which features three smaller basins comprising a combined 200 acre-feet of storage, will be tackled first, and the city hopes to complete construction by the end of 2008. The city has secured some of the funds needed to build the
The Laguna Creek basin could move along at a rapid clip, if a developer clears all hurdles. A construction timeline for the Ulatis Creek basin has not been established.
SCWA is to be commended for its contribution and sacrifice. The agency decided to dig into its Flood Control Capital Project Reserve to support the project.
"This was a big commitment on the part of the board to solve a big problem in
No argument here. It was a dismal start to 2006 for hundreds of people who were left homeless and who suffered loss of property.
The city must do everything it can to make building these detention basins a priority. SCWA's contribution is vital and welcome. #
http://www.thereporter.com//ci_7505318?IADID=Search-www.thereporter.com-www.thereporter.com
YUBA/BEAR WATERSHED MEETING:
Yuba/Bear Watershed Council to Revisit the
YubaNet.com – 11/16/07
By Yuba/Bear Watershed Council
On a summer evening in July 2003, 150 people met to discuss the future of planning and restoration efforts along a 39 mile stretch of the
At the time, representatives of the land-managing agencies addressed the why and how of the management plan for public lands along the river: "All three land-managing agencies are required by law to have a management plan for the lands under their jurisdiction. It makes sense to work on just one plan, rather than have each agency independently write their own. It also makes sense for all the agencies, including the County, to be working together in close coordination to solve or avoid problems that go beyond the property boundaries of any one agency."
The Plan set out to:
* Create a consolidated, interagency management plan for public lands in the 39-mile corridor between Spaulding and Englebright reservoirs
* Focus on management of public resources and public lands. The plan will develop a "shared vision" for public lands, and will strive to provide similar management direction on agency lands within the area.
* Strive to reduce or eliminate significant management issues such as fuels and fire protection, public river access, public parking, trash collection, restroom services, day and overnight use and visitor services and facilities
* Satisfy Federal and State needs to protect the "outstandingly remarkable values", water quality and free-flowing conditions that caused the river to be nominated as a Federal, and designated as a
* Recognize the interests and desires of other parties and private landowners in the area. Legal interests will be integrated into the plan. Desires that have reached community agreement will be incorporated into the plan.
* Recognize that people and human uses of the area are historic and will continue.
After two years and over forty meetings with hundreds of participants involved, the final SYRCMP was printed and distributed on May 14th, 2005. Since then, personnel have been working on carrying out mandates and suggestions set into the Plan.
The public is invited:
On Wednesday, November 21st, 10am at Nevada Irrigation District headquarters board room (1036
The Yuba/Bear Watershed Council is a community forum of stakeholders, which is taking the initiative to:
* better appreciate the complex watershed relationships in the
* protect, restore, and enhance watershed resources where needed
* maintain a sustainable watershed resource base for future generations
The Yuba/Bear Watershed Council members are committed to addressing the social, economic, and environmental concerns in the watersheds through cooperating and coordinating with one another, and while respecting the mission, roles, and rights of each partnering organization.
Call L. Campbell at 265-5527 for information and further directions.
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