[Water_news] 5. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS: AGENCIES, PROGRAMS, PEOPLE - 11/21/07

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment

 

November 21, 2007

 

5. Agencies, Programs, People

 

PROSPECT ISLAND LEVEE REPAIR:

Fish trapped in levee repairs; As authorities drain water off the Delta's Prospect Island, thousands of fish are expected to die - Sacramento Bee

 

J LEVEE REPAIR:

J levee repair to get rolling after holiday - Chico Enterprise Record

 

DEVEOPMENT ISSUES:

Editorial: Flood of good news; Subdivision deal has strings attached - Vacaville Reporter

 

WATER BOND:

Talks continue to place $10 billion water bond on ballot - Capitol Weekly

 

Editorial: Suddenly, a water deal?; A $10 billion idea from out of the blue - Sacramento Bee

 

 

PROSPECT ISLAND LEVEE REPAIR:

Fish trapped in levee repairs; As authorities drain water off the Delta's Prospect Island, thousands of fish are expected to die

Sacramento Bee – 11/21/07

By Matt Weiser, staff writer

 

Thousands of fish are likely to die on Prospect Island in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta within the next few days, the unwitting victims of a project to repair two levee breaks on the island after storms in 2006.

 

The 1,253-acre island, adjacent to the Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, is owned by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The bureau began repairing the levee breaks in October, and recently started pumping trapped water off the island.

 

Fish are also trapped with the water. No one knows exactly how many or what kind. But several fishermen began raising alarms about the problem Tuesday when they learned about the impending carnage.

 

Bob McDarif, an avid fisherman and owner of Cliff's Marina near Freeport, was on the scene Tuesday and said thousands of fish could be seen thrashing on the island as the water level dropped. Among them, he said, were thousands of striped bass, a popular sport fish.

 

"What's going to happen is, every one of these fish are going to die," said McDarif. "There could be a million fish in there. It's terrible."

 

Bureau spokesman Jeff McCracken said his agency consulted with federal wildlife officials before starting the project. He said they concluded the pumping could begin because there was no practical way to evacuate the fish.

 

The bureau directed its contractor to wait for a low tide before closing the last breach, McCracken said, so the island would drain naturally as much as possible.

 

"There certainly were some fish, unfortunately, that were unsalvageable, that we couldn't get off of this island. So there probably has been some fish loss out there," said McCracken.

 

Most of the fish are likely to be striped bass, a non-native fish that is not protected by law. McDarif said he saw thousands of them stranded in the shallow waters on Prospect Island.

 

But striped bass are part of a category of fish that has been declining in recent years. These pelagic or "open water" species include the Delta smelt, a native fish protected by the federal Endangered Species Act.

 

Al Donner, spokesman for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said his agency gave the go-ahead for the pumping after determining there was a "negligible" chance that smelt would be killed.

 

He also said there was no effort to determine what kind of fish might be trapped.

 

"Because we didn't think there would be any – or if any, very few – Delta smelt there, that wasn't a matter of discussion," Donner said.

 

Ironically, government wildlife experts identified Prospect Island more than 10 years ago as an ideal location to be intentionally flooded to create fish habitat. That is why Congress directed the bureau to buy the island in 1994.

 

A $10 million restoration project was proposed, said Lee Laurence, a project manager at the bureau. At one point in 2002, the project hinged on a $700,000 grant from the CalFed Bay-Delta Program to the state Department of Water Resources, Laurence said.

 

But CalFed spokesman Keith Coolidge said the grant wasn't funded because Congress balked at creating a North Delta Wildlife Refuge that would have included the island.

 

Prospect Island was considered ideal for restoration because its interior is relatively shallow. Many Delta islands have sunk more than 20 feet below sea level because their peat soils decompose when dried out. But Prospect Island is less than 10 feet deep, making it a good candidate for restoration.

 

It is also in an area identified as a traffic zone and feeding area for both Delta smelt and salmon.

 

McCracken said the bureau felt obligated to fix Prospect Island because of liability concerns. Water flowing out one of the breaches was eroding a neighbor's levee, he said, and five boats capsized while navigating the rapids caused by a breach.

 

Gary Bobker, program manager at the Bay Institute, said conflicts over Prospect Island illustrate the need for a comprehensive vision for the future of the Delta, one that establishes large restoration zones and deals with liability issues.

 

A task force appointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to present just such a vision when it meets next week in Sacramento. The North Delta near Prospect Island is one area it has looked at for restoration.

 

But the bureau is hoping to unburden itself of Prospect Island. By the end of this month, it plans to offer the island to any other agency within the Department of Interior, Laurence said. She does not expect any takers, in which case it will be offered for sale to anyone, perhaps as soon as January.

 

The bureau expects to spend about $2.5 million fixing the Prospect Island levees and pumping out the water. That's almost as much as the $2.8 million it spent to buy the island in 1994.

 

In the meantime, McDarif plans to gather a volunteer force at Cliff's Marina at 8 a.m. today to try to rescue some of the fish.

 

"I'm just trying to save these fish," he said. "This situation right here is totally outrageous." #

http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/507812.html

 

 

J LEVEE REPAIR:

J levee repair to get rolling after holiday

Chico Enterprise Record – 11/21/07

By Barbara Arrigoni, staff writer

 

WILLOWS -- The county is ready and work will finally begin next week to reinforce a section of Hamilton City's J levee, declared in need of emergency repair, before heavy rain hits and the Sacramento River rises again.

 

The Glenn County Board of Supervisors authorized the start of work at its regular meeting Tuesday after recent delays due to meeting state demands.

 

"It's been a roller-coaster ride," said Dan Obermeyer, Glenn County director of the Planning and Public Works Agency. "It's not the home stretch, but we're incredibly close."

 

The project is to repair the back side of the J levee at River Mile 200.6, which is located about half way between the Gianella Bridge and the north end of the levee. It's a temporary fix until a new setback levee is built, possibly as soon as 2009.

 

The county was ready to start weeks ago, but work was delayed recently over the cost of materials for the work. The Department of Water Resources requested bids for those costs in order to justify the share the state will pay through a grant.

 

Public Works sent out eight bids last week and got responses from six vendors. Two declined and one wasn't on a list of acceptable vendors. Of the three remaining, one was very low, one was "on target," and the third was too high, Obermeyer said, adding that the low bidder opted out.

 

But just moments before addressing the board, Obermeyer received word via e-mail from DWR that the next-highest bid would be accepted. That bid was for $25.50 per cubic-yard of material, shipped to the site. The project will use more than 9,000 cubic-yards of soil that has to meet state specifications.

 

With DWR's approval, the out-of-pocket cost to the county will be between $10,000 and $20,000, which Obermeyer said the Planning Department has budgeted for.

 

The board authorized the work to begin after Obermeyer assured that DWR will revise a section of its grant agreement as soon as possible and to sign the paperwork as soon as it's complete.

 

A separate action to transfer funds that will come from the state was also approved. The actual amount DWR will provide in the grant won't be certain until the revised documents are received, but Obermeyer said $174,000 is the latest amount given. The board agreed to transfer funds not exceeding that amount.

 

County Administrative Officer David Shoemaker said once the work is done, the county will assume full liability for any problem with the levee that occurs before the new setback levee is built.

 

BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors authorized Glenn County officials to prepare emergency reinforcement of a 400-foot section of Hamilton City's J levee that had severely eroded during storms two years ago. The county sought state funds for the project, and work was delayed.

 

WHAT'S NEW: The board Tuesday gave final authorization to begin work and transfer funds that will be covered by the state.

 

WHAT'S NEXT: The repair is expected to keep the 101-year-old levee standing until a federal project begins, possibly in 2009, to build a new setback levee. #

http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_7521592

 

 

DEVEOPMENT ISSUES:

Editorial: Flood of good news; Subdivision deal has strings attached

Vacaville Reporter – 11/21/07

 

Concerns about a flooded housing market were not enough to deter Vacaville's City Council from making a deal that could offset flooding of a different kind.

 

A retention basin that could hold runoff during dangerously heavy storms is part of the deal Vacaville struck with developer Reynen and Bardis. In turn, the council voted 3-2 to approve Brighton Landing, a 233-home development that would occupy about 57 acres east of Leisure Town Road and south of Elmira Road.

 

It is the second bit of good news on Vacaville's flood front. Just last week the city learned that the Solano County Water Agency has pledged $3.5 million to help the city build two of four retention basins.

 

The need for the basins was pointed out 17 years ago in the Ulatis Creek Watershed Study. But the issue came to a head after a New Year's Eve deluge in 2005 left hundreds of residents homeless and thousands without cars.

 

In last week's vote, only Councilman Curtis Hunt and Vice Mayor Chuck Dimmick voted against the project, expressing concerns about adding more homes to a depressed housing market.

 

While that concern is commendable, it is important to remember that it could be years before Brighton Landing becomes a reality, if it does at all. The market will determine whether the project will thrive or even survive.

 

In the best of all worlds, the economy will pick up and the housing market will recover its former zest. And just about that time, 233 homes will be ready for potential homeowners.

 

On the other hand, the project could linger for years, as did the North Village subdivision. Still, despite environmental issues and housing slumps, North Village has finally come to fruition.

 

It will be to the city's benefit if New Brighton can make it past all hurdles. Not only will the developers dedicate 80 acres for a detention basin along Laguna Creek north of Cherry Glen Road - which is twice the size the flood study suggested was necessary - but the developer cannot begin building houses until the detention basin is complete.

 

If all goes as planned, construction could start as early as 2009.

 

City staff estimated the developer's contribution to be worth about $7.4 million, which also helps Vacaville close a flood project funding gap that still exceeds $11 million.

 

In addition, the developer has offered a 500-foot agricultural buffer on 28.98 acres. The buffer would remain in place as long as the current General Plan is in effect, but could be moved east should the city decided to expand its urban boundary.

 

Granted, there is still much work to be done before Brighton Landing can move forward.

 

The current plan would require several amendments to the city's general plan, specifically addressing planning processes and a mix of housing types. The City Council will have to determine if the project is viable and appropriate. After all, the detention basin can't be the project's only selling point.

 

But if the project passes muster, it seems to be a good deal. Even though there is no timeline or even a guarantee that Brighton Landing will be built, if it is, the city's benefit would be substantial. #

http://www.thereporter.com//ci_7523666?IADID=Search-www.thereporter.com-www.thereporter.com

 

 

WATER BOND:

Talks continue to place $10 billion water bond on ballot

Capitol Weekly – 11/15/07

 

A long-stalled attempt to place an unprecedented water bond before California voters is making new progress, with a proposed $10 billion plan that would include money for both groundwater and surface storage. The on-again, off-again negotiations gained momentum this week, but an agreement with legislative Republicans remained elusive as the Thanksgiving holiday approached.

 

Capitol sources say negotiations continue between Senate lead Don Perata and Gov. Schwarzenegger. But Republicans in both the Assembly and the Senate continue to balk at key financial provisions. Among them is a debate over how much ongoing control the Legislature would maintain over water projects. The Republicans want guaranteed funding for projects that have been approved, and not subject them to continuing legislative review. 

 

On Tuesday, it looked as if the Senate might vote on a deal as early as Monday, Nov. 26. But Senate Republicans say they have not been consulted on the latest developments, and Perata has cancelled floor sessions until Dec. 5. Those sessions were canceled, sources said today.

 

"While we've had some productive discussions in recent days, we have yet to reach an agreement on how best to supply the clean drinking water California's homes, farms and businesses need to grow and thrive," Perata said in a statement.

 

Supporters have sought to put the water proposal on the Feb. 5 ballot.  But the postponing of the Nov. 26 floor session makes it that much more unlikely that a bond deal can be reached in time to make the February ballot. If the bond does not make the February ballot, it could be before voters in June. If it appears in February, the secretary of states's office might be required to publish a third ballot pamphlet -- the first for the candidates and propositions originally placed on the ballot, the second for the referendums on the tribal gaming compacts and a third for any water plan.

 

If ultimately approved by voters, the bond would be nearly double the size of the water quality bond that voters authorized last year, about $5.4 billion. That bond was part of a larger infrastructure improvement package approved by voters to overhaul California's aging freeways, improve transit and freight corridors, provide money for local water projects, beef up levees and other projects.

 

Negotiations involving legislative leaders and others were held through the weekend and continued this week.  Perata, who is taking the lead in the discussions, sources say, and he has been meeting with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on the issue. The governor apparently is supportive of the proposal, although he has not yet signed off on it. There was no immediate comment from the governor's office.

 

The Republican governor earlier rejected a water proposal authored by Perata, but negotiations resumed after partisans in the debate over whether to build new dams could not reach a compromise. The dispute over dam construction has been at the center of the debate over a comprehensive water program.

 

But Capitol sources say the outlines of a compromise were in play, on at least one of two key pieces that earlier were stumbling blocks.

 

First, there was tentative agreement to provide at least $2.5 billion for both surface and groundwater storage. The money, with matching funds, could be used to build, revamp or expand reservoirs, as well as develop new or expand existing groundwater storage. In the negotiations, environmentalists backed off their position opposing surface storage, while dam proponents accepted more groundwater storage.

 

Second, there was a growing sense that a critical piece of the financing scheme in the original proposal, a "continuous appropriation" that would allow top state water officials to approve financing without prior legislative approval, should  be removed. Republican sources, however, said those discussions were still up in the air.  

 

The proposal also includes competitive language for builders and contractors, requires water districts to demonstrate a public benefit to obtain bond money. There is also language relating to conservation.

 

The governor has already shown his support of spending major money on water. In September, he added some $3.5 billion to his original proposal, pushing the state's end of the tab to more than $9 billion.

The governor's plan, which drew support from U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, includes $1 billion for conservation and local water projects and nearly $2 billion for Delta restoration. The biggest piece, $5.1 billion, would go for three projects: two new dams and the expansion of the 100,000-acre-foot Los Vaqueros Reservoir northeast of San Francisco. Under the governor's plan, the reservoir could be expanded up to 275,000 acre-feet at a cost of $600 million to $800 million. The funding, which comes from voter-approved bonds, limits the state's cost to 50 percent of the projects, which means the total cost of the projects is double the amount listed in the legislation.

 

The new round of negotiations apparently include the Los Vaqueros project, but it was unclear how much dam construction would be authorized. State water officials had recommended all of the projects nearly a decade ago, but the funding was never developed. #

 http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?xid=wp7wvdmreao7y8

 

 

Editorial: Suddenly, a water deal?; A $10 billion idea from out of the blue

Sacramento Bee – 11/21/07

 

It's a bit late for lawmakers to be slamming a $10 billion water bond onto the February ballot. But that's still a possibility as we approach turkey day.

 

Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata called a session for Monday to discuss, and possibly vote on, a water deal in the works.

 

Then he canceled it. By the time you read this, it may be on again. Certain senators seem intent on placing something on the Feb. 5 ballot, even if the Assembly hasn't been part of the talks.

 

Wait, you say, isn't the state in a financial hole? Shouldn't we avoid accumulating more debt, since interest payments are one reason the state faces a $10 billion deficit? And shouldn't we demand a full public process before agreeing to place such a large bond measure on the ballot?

 

Forget it. Such high-minded concerns seem to go out the window when the governor and lawmakers are under pressure to act.

 

The governor is being pressed by farm interests and his San Joaquin Valley supporters to approve billions for water, including a new reservoir above Friant Dam. Southern California interests want new "conveyance" – a modified version of the Peripheral Canal – to deal with a cutback in water pumped south from the Delta.

 

Meanwhile, Perata and many other lawmakers are holding out hope that voters will approve a modification of term limits, and let some incumbents stay in office longer. Approval of a major water package – which polls well – might help in that ancillary cause. Or so the thinking goes.

 

For weeks, negotiations on a water package seemed bogged down in disputes between supporters of new dams and advocates of increased groundwater storage and conservation. In typical Capitol fashion, the two sides are discussing a tentative compromise that balloons the size of the proposed bond package from an original $6 billion to $10 billion or so.

 

Will this package propose smart water investments? Can the state afford it? Will beneficiaries pay their fair share? All good questions. Just don't expect them to be fully answered if this deal gets hatched and placed on the ballot. #

http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/507362.html

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 California.