Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
February 22, 2008
5. Agencies, Programs, People
TESTING OF LEVEES IN THE POCKET AREA:
State tests levees in Sacramento neighborhood - Central Valley Business Times
Editorial: Bowl of river -
GROUNDWATER PUMPING ISSUES:
Pajaro Valley agency in hot water over pumping lawsuit; Pumping lawsuit could take huge bite out of funding - Monterey Herald
TESTING OF LEVEES IN THE POCKET AREA:
State tests levees in
Levees protecting
Drillings to collect core soil samples and cone penetration tests will be performed along the east side levees of the Sacramento River from
Levee evaluations of urban areas of greater
Soil samples are to be collected at 1,000-foot intervals along the levees. Additional landside explorations are also being performed to better define existing subsurface conditions.
Collected samples are analyzed in laboratories to help characterize subsurface soil conditions and identify potential problems or weaknesses in the flood control structures. The tests look at such factors as moisture, density, soil grain size distribution, and shear strength.
Funding for the levee evaluation efforts is provided through two large flood control bonds approved by
http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=7929
Editorial: Bowl of river
OK, let’s start with the most obvious thing about the Natomas basin. It’s called a “basin” for a reason, folks! The 53,000-acre expanse of land is a natural flood plain, a shallow bowl nestled between two rivers, an area that, ideally, should have been left to agricultural uses and/or protected as parks and wildlife preserves.
Well, hey, we know that horse has already left the barn. (There are now about 70,000 people—including the mayor—living in the “bowl.”) But we think the reminder puts any discussion of future development in Natomas in a much-needed context, i.e., city and county officials have known for many decades that the area is at giant risk of flooding. The levee breaches in 1986—the ones that caused massive flooding in Natomas and parts of downtown—were cases in point.
But what happened in ’86 didn’t stop local politicians once opportunity knocked. When the federal government determined in 1998 that the area’s flood protection met a “100 year” standard (meaning the area had a 1-in-100 chance of flooding in any given year), city and country officials jumped at the chance to stage a building boom in Natomas. The flood-prone region quickly became one of the
The growth spurt ended about a year ago, when the levees were found to lose some stability. But it was last month when the Army Corps of Engineers came out with its startling report that said Natomas’ flood risk might be three times worse than had been assumed. Based on this, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is set, probably by December, to designate Natomas a “flood hazard zone,” a label that will put the brakes on new development until the levees are back up to the “100 year” mark.
Here’s where our local politicos come in. First, like defensive school children, they attacked the Corps’ report. Mayor Heather Fargo particularly contested the methodology the Corps used in determining the 1-in-30 designation. It’s true the report reflects a new, post-Hurricane Katrina “risk analysis” method of calculating flood danger. But shouldn’t we acknowledge that Katrina likely taught the Corps some lessons?
Secondly, inexplicably, city leaders have become hell-bent on red-lighting new construction projects for Natomas before the FEMA designation comes down. We were stunned when council members voted a few weeks ago to support annexation of 577 acres of Natomas, and the build-out of 3,500 houses and apartments by Angelo Tsakopoulos’ Greenbriar development.
Are these people crazy or just in denial? As we’ve all heard countless times by now, there is no urban city in
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=625886
GROUNDWATER PUMPING ISSUES:
By Donna Jones, MediaNews Group
The Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency, reeling from the loss of a lawsuit that cost half its annual $8 million budget, faces a new legal challenge that could strip the agency of most of its remaining funding.
That, officials say, would doom the 24-year-old agency charged with protecting groundwater and developing new water sources for the
"I'd hate to think we're there, but maybe we are," said 2nd District Supervisor Ellen Pirie. "It's very disturbing, very serious for the
"We're very concerned," Calcagno said. "If we don't solve this, we're going to hurt together."
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday by the Pajaro Sunny Mesa Community Services District in Santa Cruz County Superior Court, seeks to overturn a 2002 ordinance that allows the agency to collect $80 for every acre-foot of water pumped for area wells.
In the fall, the water management agency repealed similar ordinances passed in 2003 and 2004 in response to a state appeals court ruling that the pumping charges were imposed illegally without a vote of the people.
With the repeal, the agency lost $4 million. If the new lawsuit wins, the agency could lose another $4 million, leaving it with an annual income of $300,000 from management fees.
The agency promises to pay back $13.5 million in fees collected under the 2003 and 2004 ordinances in a settlement under consideration today by a Santa Cruz County Superior Court judge. But the settlement with litigants in previous lawsuits allows the 2002 ordinance — and the $80 charge associated with it — to stand.
Just because he and other plaintiffs are bound by the settlement not to pursue overturning the 2002 ordinance doesn't mean others can't, said grower Dick Peixoto. He said maybe it is time for the agency board "to step back from it and say if the $80 charge is illegal, let's get rid of it. ...
"They think they have this settled, but obviously not. They have another lawsuit on their hands."
Marc Del Piero, Pajaro Sunny Mesa's lawyer, said the district filed the lawsuit after receiving no response to a letter sent to the agency in December demanding immediate repayment of fees collected under the 2003 and 2004 ordinances. The district, which provides water to about 4,000
Pajaro Sunny Mesa, based in the town of
The water management agency board took the first step toward reimbursement Wednesday, approving an ordinance that specifies a timeline for claims. But the agency has yet to craft the details of what board members say will be a claims process complicated by the intricacies of agricultural leases. In some cases, bills were sent to landlords and tenants. The board says it wants to ensure the right person gets the refund.
Pajaro Sunny Mesa has been clamoring for reimbursement since November, and the lawsuit is designed to force the issue and halt further collection of fees under the 2002 ordinance.
"We want them to pay our money back now," Del Piero said. "The courts have decided what they were doing was illegal. They need to give us the money back without excuses."
Dennis Osmer, chairman of the water management agency, called the lawsuit "extremely discouraging," and said having one public agency sue another is "the worst kind of governmental waste." He is hopeful the two boards can get together and work out a "solution that benefits us all" without having to go to court.
But there is no question that Osmer is worried. On March 25, the agency is to report to
"We're not going to have a very substantial report for them," Osmer said. "We don't have a very good long-term outlook, and we're not going to make anything up." #
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://listhost2.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