This is a site mirroring the emails of California Water News emailed by the California Department of Water Resources

[Water_news] 5. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS: AGENCIES, PROGRAMS, PEOPLE - 3/3/08

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment

 

March 3, 2008

 

5. Agencies, Programs, People

 

STATEN ISLAND SALE:

Call to investigate Delta land deal; State spending on Staten Island is questioned - Stockton Record

 

YUBA COUNTY SETBACK LEVEE:

Board weighs how to pay for setback levee; About $30 million to come from developer fees, but sizable gap remains - Marysville Appeal Democrat

 

IMPERIAL IRRIGATION BOARD ISSUES:

Garcia bills would add Coachella members to IID board - Imperial Valley Press

 

Editorial: Garcia plan would hurt Valley - Imperial Valley Press

 

FLOOD INSURANCE:

Expensive insurance needless?; Lodi, San Joaquin County hope to remove area from FEMA's flood insurance mandate - Lodi News Sentinel

 

Flood maps may mandate insurance; FEMA illustrations detailing flood-prone areas to be released later this month - Inside Bay Area

 

FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS:

Editorial: County must put flood fee money to work – soon - Marin Independent Journal

 

Editorial: City takes another step in flood control - Vacaville Daily Reporter

 

UPGRADE:

Potentially costly water improvements pending; Creek gets face-lift ahead of library groundbreaking - Inside Bay Area

 

LOCAL UTILITIES ISSUES:

It's official: Water deal is history - Stockton Record

 

RATE HIKES:

NID board raises water rates - Auburn Journal

 

 

STATEN ISLAND SALE:

Call to investigate Delta land deal; State spending on Staten Island is questioned

Stockton Record – 3/1/08

By Hank Shaw, Capitol Bureau Chief

 

SACRAMENTO - Two Central Valley assemblymen Friday asked a federal prosecutor to investigate a controversial land deal in the Delta that has already come under scrutiny by the state auditor.

 

Assemblymen Bill Maze, R-Visalia, and Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, want U.S. Attorney MacGregor Scott to look into what they say are shady dealings between the state and The Nature Conservancy. Taxpayers have spent $35 million for an easement, levee repairs and operation costs on Staten Island. The state could have bought the island outright for roughly $18 million.

 

"I began looking into the Staten Island deal after I learned that about some serious irregularities in the funding of the project," Maze said in a statement.

 

Staten Island is a 9,200-acre island near Terminous, just north of Highway 12.

 

Maze said he was spurred into action by the results of an audit he commissioned last fall that found serious problems with the deal.

 

"We think there is sufficient merit to this to proceed," Maze said in an interview.

 

Maze said he sent over a cache of documents supporting his case to Scott earlier this week. The U.S. attorney's spokeswoman could not say whether he would take up the investigation.

 

State Resources Agency spokesman Sandy Cooney acknowledged the administration agreed with much of the auditor's findings, but added that "with respect to the appraisal of the property, what we paid for it is within the limitations of that program."

 

Cooney also noted that Maze's allegations involve actions that occurred during the previous administration.

 

Maze says internal documents show that state Department of Water Resources staff was aware that the appraisal of the island, which is still a working farm receiving federal corn subsidies, was inflated by as much as $10 million. The Nature Conservancy and the administration dispute this.

 

"It is unclear to me why The Nature Conservancy, which has over $4 billion in assets and made over $1 billion in revenue last year worldwide, needed grants by the taxpayers of California to purchase the island," Maze said.

 

According to documents surrounding the case, as well as interviews with Nature Conservancy officials last 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.

 

A Nature Conservancy spokeswoman said the public can visit the island to watch the cranes in winter, the farm contributes to the local economy, and the island could provide flood-control benefits to the Delta.

 

That assertion is in dispute. The state auditor found that the conservation easement DWR obtained for Staten Island provides little or no flood-control benefits, despite the fact that $17.6 million of the state's cost came from voter-approved flood-control bond money.

 

Maze said he thinks there could be criminal conduct by the state and The Nature Conservancy. "There could be a number of prongs here," he said. #

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080301/A_NEWS/803010324/-1/A_NEWS03

 

 

YUBA COUNTY SETBACK LEVEE:

Board weighs how to pay for setback levee; About $30 million to come from developer fees, but sizable gap remains

Marysville Appeal Democrat – 3/3/08

By Andrea Koskey, staff writer

 

The Yuba County Board of Supervisors will have some big decisions to make Tuesday when it is presented with options to pay for the Feather River setback levee, the fourth in a series of levee repairs.

In October, the state announced Yuba County would receive $138 million from Proposition 1E funds for levee improvements if the county could provide the remaining local match. The project is estimated to cost $191.8 million.

County officials anticipate $30 million to come from developer impact fees in the south county; the remaining $23 million will be borrowed by the county.

"Ultimately, the county is responsible for this money," County Administrator Robert Bendorf said. "We want to eliminate the possibility of using funds from the general fund."

Construction of the levee is expected to begin later this month. The levee will be in the Plumas Lake and Arboga area, along the Feather River.

The choice before the supervisors is to determine how much to borrow, based on the uncertainty of the housing market.

Originally, staff presented a repayment plan that would require the county to borrow $31 million, including three years of interest. With this plan, the county would repay the loan at $2.1 million each year for the next 40 years.

The second option would give the county more time to build up impact fees by borrowing $33 million, including six years of interest. Repayment for this plan would not begin until 2014 at $1.3 million each year and growing to $5.3 million for the next 40 years.

Randy Margo, assistant county administrator, said the second scenario is intended to limit or completely eliminate the county's out-of-pocket expenses by deferring payment for an additional three years.

"We are taking into consideration the current housing slump," he said. "With more time, we hope we are able to collect more impact fees."

Bendorf said with the extra time, fees collected from the developers will also grow if the housing market turns around and more homes are built in the county.

He said staff realizes the importance of the six miles of setback levee along the Feather.

Regardless of the choice, the general fund is always at risk, the administrators said.

"We're viewing this as investment in public safety," Margo said.

Supervisor Mary Jane Griego said this project needs to continue because the risk of flooding far outweighs the price of the project.

"After the '86 flood, businesses left," she said. "For 20 years, the south county has been severely impacted."

Griego also said that when the Federal Emergency Management Agency issues new flood maps for the area, Yuba County will benefit greatly.

This project, Griego said, "isn't for the faint of heart or weak-kneed politicians."

Griego's constituents are largely affected by this setback levee.

Supervisor Hal Stocker said public safety is a priority the board should remember.

"We owe it to these people," Stocker said about residents subject to the 1986 and 1997 floods. "They deserve anything we can do as a county to protect them." #

http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/county_61032___article.html/million_levee.html

 

 

IMPERIAL IRRIGATION BOARD ISSUES:

Garcia bills would add Coachella members to IID board

Imperial Valley Press – 3/1/08

By Brianna Lusk, staff writer

 

The Imperial Irrigation District board could see two new members seated from Coachella Valley if Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia has her way, IID officials said Friday.

Recent legislation proposed by Garcia, R-Cathedral City, would create two additional seats on the five-member board and is a political power play, officials said.

The legislation calls for changing the California Water Code, particularly the section that deals with irrigation districts.

IID officials said in a meeting with Garcia last month she said the bills proposed in the Assembly, which have not been finalized, would give Coachella better representation on energy issues.

The two new seats would only vote on energy issues.

“This legislation is a dangerous thing for the IID,” spokesman Kevin Kelley said. “This destructive proposal can only harm our ratepayers.”

Garcia did not return messages left on her cell phone Friday and her chief of staff, Dillon Gibbons, said Garcia was feeling ill and would try to call back regarding the issue.


Members of the IID board called the move a “resource grab” at the district’s energy interests in Coachella Valley.

“The power assets up there are worth a fortune,” IID board President John Pierre Menvielle said. “They don’t have any business having representation on this board.”

POWERING THE DESERT

Although the IID is an irrigation district, an agreement with the Coachella Valley Water District during the Great Depression opened the door for providing power in the desert region to the north.

The 100-year agreement is set to expire in 2033, when IID officials said they will continue to power the Coachella Valley.

CVWD General Manager Steve Robbins said that’s still up for debate.

“After the 25 years it’s not quite clear as to what happens,” Robbins said, adding CVWD was neutral on who provides power to the area in the future.

IID legal counsel Jeff Garber said the California Water Code allows an irrigation district like IID to provide energy outside its territory. A change in the code could affect not only IID ratepayers, but other similar irrigation districts in the state, he said.

Robbins said he was briefed by Garcia on her proposal and that it is not an issue on which CVWD will choose sides.

“We’re not in the power business. We’re not looking to be in the power business. It’s not a CVWD issue,” Robbins said.

“The position I got from my board (of directors) was to stand back and stay out of that one.”

THE EFFECT

But the idea that the change on the IID board wouldn’t affect water issues along with energy issues doesn’t add up, IID Director James Hanks said.

Hanks said CVWD’s conclusion is flawed.

“That contract ties back to the water. They definitely have a dog in the fight because our contract is with them,” Hanks said.

The viability of the district, officials said, could be at stake.

The board votes on water and energy issues that often cross over, Kelley said.

“You can’t distinguish the two without undermining them. You cannot separate water and power,” Kelley said.

Hanks said the district stands to lose everything if the energy department were sold or compromised by being separated from the water department.

Power bills can sometimes double just by crossing the street that separates the IID service area from Southern California Edison, an investor-owned utility, Kelley said.

“Where she’s headed could impact Coachella energy rates. When all is said and done, she’s looking at reorganization,” Hanks said.

DOES COACHELLA HAVE A VOICE?

The idea of having Coachella Valley ratepayers on the board is nothing new to Earl Hazan.

As a member of the Energy Consumers’ Advisory Committee, the Palm Desert resident has been bringing up the issue for months.

“I’ve been pushing for an open forum on this,” Hazan said. “It seemed to me the board was ducking a responsibility.”

The advisory committee is a 20-member organization under the IID umbrella that includes residents from the Coachella and Imperial valleys.

There are two vacancies from the Coachella Valley, so for now only eight of the 18 people serving on the committee are north desert ratepayers.

The committee meets monthly to discuss energy issues and often makes a recommendation to the board.

Hazan said he has not talked to Garcia about his views and was pleased to hear about her plans.

“At least it’s a step in the right direction, but it doesn’t go far enough,” Hazan said.

He said he would be in favor of creating an entirely different water board voted on by the two valleys without restrictions on residency. All members could end up being Coachella residents, he said.

“I felt the people are not represented. So far the ECAC has been a publicity group. We have not been very good at advising the board,” Hazan said.

Gil Perez, chairman of the committee and an El Centro resident, said he doesn’t think Coachella representation is needed on the IID board.

“We review policies as well as budgetary items and give our opinion. Personally I think the way it’s working is going well,” Perez said.

CONTROL AT RISK

IID has grappled with transmission issues and the possibility of being bypassed by privately owned energy companies like San Diego Gas & Electric in a race to link to renewable energy.

Garcia’s timing, Kelley said, is questionable.

Menvielle said there are some in the Imperial Valley who would like to see the energy and water sides of IID broken up.

That vulnerability could leave private utilities chomping at the bit to come into IID territory.

“I think that would be a disaster. Even with the missteps that have been taken on the issues of natural gas, we still have among the lowest rates in Southern California area,” Hazan said.

“If the board decided to sell the power system, we would be faced with a private company coming in and they would inevitably jack the rates out of sight.” #
http://www.ivpressonline.com/articles/2008/03/01/local_news/news03.txt

 

 

Editorial: Garcia plan would hurt Valley

Imperial Valley Press – 3/1/08

 

We’re not sure what Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia is thinking, but she certainly doesn’t have the best interests of the Imperial Valley in mind.

Garcia is apparently unhappy with the Imperial Irrigation District and wants to do something about it. She has introduced bills that, when amended, would call for adding voting members to the IID Board of Directors from the Coachella Valley.

We find it not only curious, but also dangerous that Garcia — who will be termed out of office this year — feels the need to take this parting shot.

It is true the IID provides power for some parts of the Coachella Valley. In fact, 60 percent of the district’s power customers are there. But the Coachella Valley does have a voice in the IID’s power operation. It has eight members on the Energy Consumers’ Advisory Committee. This committee discusses all power issues that face the IID and make recommendations to the board.

The IID, as we all know and Garcia may have forgotten, is an irrigation district. As such, it is permitted by the water code to provide energy outside of its territory. And under current law, people in the Coachella Valley are not entitled to representation on the board, according to the IID’s legal counsel. Garcia obviously wants to change that.

The question is why? Well, it is certainly not because citizens in the areas of the Coachella Valley serviced by the IID are complaining. Quite the contrary. The IID’s rates are lower than the rates paid by the other residents in the Coachella Valley who get their service from Southern California Edison.

We are confused that a legislator who has focused on broad issues such as identity theft and trans fats would appear ready to toss us under the bus as she prepares to leave office.


The power brokers are obviously not in the Imperial Valley, but the Coachella Valley — and that is the constituency that apparently matters to Garcia. And call us paranoid, but when we see an elected official making a move like this for a larger area, we can’t help but think the real target is our water. On the heels of the comments by Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman about our Valley fallowing land so Vegas can run its fountains, it doesn’t seem that farfetched.

But Garcia should know that while our influence may be small, we are not stupid. And this most recent attempt to grab the resources of our Valley has done something we weren’t sure was possible: it has united the IID board.

We join the board in its opposition to Garcia’s plan. This is not simply aimed at fixing a partnership that isn’t broken in the first place; it’s aimed at re-writing the rules in favor of our larger neighbor.

Ultimately, it is about control. Garcia obviously doesn’t care about local control, because her plan could eventually take the power — literally — out of Imperial Valley’s hands. #

http://www.ivpressonline.com/articles/2008/03/02/our_opinion/ed02_03-02-08.txt

 

 

FLOOD INSURANCE:

Expensive insurance needless?; Lodi, San Joaquin County hope to remove area from FEMA's flood insurance mandate

Lodi News Sentinel – 2/29/08

By Ross Farrow, staff writer

 

Property owners in northwest Lodi and much of Woodbridge may not require expensive flood insurance after all.

Lodi and San Joaquin County officials are working together to make minor repairs to berms and levees that they hope will convince the Federal Emergency Management Authority to remove the neighborhoods from high-risk status.

As soon as the rain-saturated ground dries out, the city of Lodi will level out a narrow strip between Lodi Lake and the railroad tracks, which Public Works Director Richard Prima hopes will convince FEMA that flood waters from the Mokelumne River won't head southwest into the Park West neighborhood.

Residents in Park West and Woodbridge became alarmed in January, when FEMA issued a preliminary map that put those areas into a high-risk flood zone. That designation, if made permanent next year, would require property owners to spend up to $2,462 for flood insurance through the federal government.

Meanwhile, in Woodbridge, county Public Works staff and consultants are checking levees on the south bank of the Mokelumne River to see if at least the older part of the town can be relieved of having to purchase flood insurance, Deputy Public Works Director Steve Winkler said Thursday afternoon after a press briefing on the new preliminary flood-control zones.

Prima said he thinks that the area of the Mokelumne River near Lodi Lake wouldn't flood Lodi anyway, but the roughly $10,000 the city is spending may be a small price if it will exempt its residents from mandated flood insurance.

In its preliminary map, FEMA designated all of Woodbridge except for the Del Rio subdivision as a high-risk flood area along with areas of Lodi generally west of Lodi Lake, west of Mills Avenue and south to White Oak Way in the Park West subdivision.

In Woodbridge, the county is looking at three or four levees that it counted on prior to the construction of Camanche Dam in 1964. But once Camanche was constructed, the levees were considered to be unnecessary, Winkler said.

"We're in the process of studying if indeed the levees are necessary," Winkler said.

If so, the county will shore them up and make its best case to FEMA, he added.

Winkler said he hopes to submit some data to FEMA within the next two weeks.

What will help Lodi and Woodbridge is that flood waters in northern San Joaquin County generally run west and slightly south, said Ron Baldwin, the county's Office of Emergency Services director. By going west, the most flood-prone areas are farmland west of Woodbridge toward Interstate 5, county officials say.

The levee work may not remove all of Woodbridge from the high-risk flood designation, Winkler said. Newer neighborhoods near the Mokelumne River's south bank may not be able to avoid the flood insurance mandate, but older parts of Woodbridge may be off the hook, he said.

Meanwhile, the city of Stockton faces considerable expense because of what FEMA considers to be flood danger along the Calaveras and San Joaquin rivers in the west side of the city.

While neighborhoods surrounding the potentially high-risk flood area won't be required to buy flood insurance, Jana Critchfield, a FEMA insurance specialist, strongly urged property owners to buy insurance.

"Six inches of water will float a car," Critchfield said. "Just 2 inches of water will cause major damage."

The press briefing in Stockton included an overview of FEMA's preliminary maps that were issued in January. Much of the same information was given at a Woodbridge Municipal Advisory Council meeting in early February.

Once the county and city of Lodi finish their attempts at reducing flood liability in Lodi and Woodbridge, they will focus on legislation adopted last year that will require 200-year flood protection rather than the 100-year standard that FEMA requires.

Senate Bill 5, authored by State Sen. Mike Machado, D-Linden, requires 200-year urban flood protection on new development. Cities and counties must submit a plan to the state by 2012 and put it into effect by 2025, Winkler said.

SB 5, signed last year, establishes flood protection requirements for local land-use decisions consistent with the Central Valley Protection Plan, according to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Web site. #

http://www.lodinews.com/articles/2008/02/29/news/1_fema_080229.txt

 

 

Flood maps may mandate insurance; FEMA illustrations detailing flood-prone areas to be released later this month

Inside Bay Area – 3/1/08

By Karen Holzmeister, staff writer

 

Don't have spending plans yet for the federal tax rebate due later this year?

 

Good.

 

Property owners in communities surrounding the San Lorenzo Creek Watershed may need that extra cash.

 

Flood insurance, plus tax money for flood control projects, isn't cheap.

 

Castro Valley, Cherryland, north Hayward, west San Leandro and San Lorenzo could be affected by new flood plain maps that the Federal Emergency Management Agency will be released later this month.

 

Meetings will be held in April in Castro Valley, San Leandro and San Lorenzo to discuss areas of likely flooding, based on existing and planned development, and existing flood control facilities.

 

Representatives of Alameda County's Flood Control District also will discuss potential projects that could protect areas with a 1 percent chance or more of flooding in any one year.

 

"Don't underestimate Mother Nature," Daniel Woldesenbet, the county's public works director, told 40 people Wednesday at a county Unincorporated Services Committee meeting in San Lorenzo. "We are taking this very seriously."

 

Sixty years of rainfall data, collected at area U.S. Geological Survey gauges, show that watershed flooding could be worse in the future, Woldesenbet and other county administrators said.

 

Flooding occurs, in part, due to creek runoff. Development and paving in San Lorenzo Creek's upper area also have reduced the ground area available to absorb water, causing flooding downstream.

 

The 40-square-mile San Lorenzo Creek Watershed is the land area through which water flows en route to a body of water — San Francisco Bay, in this case.

 

Eight major creeks drain into San Lorenzo Creek.

 

Projects that could reduce flooding include improvements at Cull Canyon Reservoir in Castro Valley and Don Castro Reservoir in Fairview; lengthening flood walls in San Lorenzo Creek's lower areas; and desilting creek areas.

 

Voters in various zones of the county's flood control district would have to approve assessments for the improvements.

 

Lenders also require flood insurance for homes in special flood hazard zones, and insurance will be discussed at the upcoming community meetings.

 

Flood insurance can be purchased at less-expensive rates before FEMA adopts the final flood plain maps, county administrators said. Those lesser amounts can be grandfathered in for future buyers of the same property.  #

http://www.insidebayarea.com/dailyreview/localnews/ci_8418596

 

 

FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS:

Editorial: County must put flood fee money to work – soon

Marin Independent Journal – 3/2/08

 

YEARS COULD pass before lawsuits challenging the Ross Valley flood fee vote are resolved.

 

While we believe the two lawsuits should be dropped, we also believe that local officials need to keep doing what is needed to reduce the risk of flooding in the Ross Valley.

 

The flood fee already has generated more than $1.2 million, but the county has said it can't release the money because of the legal challenges. Supervisor Hal Brown, whose district includes the Ross Valley, is looking for ways to start spending that money right away.

 

There is some risk in that strategy, but we believe the need to address flooding problems in the Ross Valley is so great - we have had three close calls in the past few months alone - that the county can't afford to wait for the courts to act.

 

Towns and citizen groups in the Ross Valley are increasingly demanding action. Brown is working on a finance plan that could involve the county freeing up the money in the form of a loan of some kind. That would be a smart move.

 

The work needs to be done, which means the money will need to be spent - regardless of where it comes from.

 

BROWN SAYS those three flooding warnings make it clear that local government has an obligation to do something.

 

This is also about momentum. The Ross Valley has experienced 14 major floods in the past 50 years. But little has been done to reduce the risk of flooding, even as additional building has taken place. The New Year's Eve flood damaged 1,200 hoes, 200 businesses and caused $100 million in damage in the county, most of it in the Ross Valley.

 

 Last year's flood fee measure, which was narrowly approved by voters and costs an average of $125 per parcel annually, was a huge step forward. This is the first real opportunity to address flooding in the Ross Valley on a regional level. All the cities and towns in the valley are working together on this issue for the first time in more than 30 years.

 

Much needs to be done, and some residents remain skeptical about what can be achieved, but we simply cannot afford to sit on our hands and wait for the courts to deal with these two lawsuits.

 

THIS SPIRIT of collaboration must be nurtured and encouraged.

 

We urge Hal Brown to quickly figure out a prudent way to free up the money generated by the flood fee.

 

We also urge Ford Greene and the Marin United Taxpayers Association to drop their lawsuits over the legality of the flood fee vote. The two suits could take years to resolve.

 

MUTA's lawsuit, which argues the fee should be struck down because couples who owned property were not allowed to vote individually, has yet to be heard in Marin Superior Court.

 

Greene, who was elected to the San Anselmo Town Council in November, lost his first round in Marin Superior Court and is appealing. He contends the election was illegal because voters had to sign their ballots, giving up their right to privacy. He says he is not opposed to flood-control efforts and has no problem with the county advancing the money to the local flood district.

 

That's very magnanimous of him. What would be even more impressive would be for him to admit defeat and remove another obstacle to flood-control efforts. #

http://www.marinij.com/opinion/ci_8425536

 

 

Editorial: City takes another step in flood control

Vacaville Daily Reporter – 3/3/08

 

When it comes to protecting Vacaville from possible flooding, every positive step the city makes deserves some recognition.

 

Vacaville residents learned just how important retention basins are on Dec. 31, 2005, when a winter storm dumped 5 inches of rain in one night. Hundreds of residents woke up to a New Year's Eve with waters rising over the curbs, up their driveways and into their houses. Thousands more had cars damaged or destroyed in the flood.

 

At the time, the city was already working to establish a number of retention basins, as recommended by a previous study. It was important, yes, but it wasn't until lives were forever changed that it became clear just how important.

 

So the good news to celebrate at this juncture is that the city has now approved the design concept and environmental assessment for the Encinosa Detention Basins project.

 

Two basins, which will be built on 60 acres to the northeast, near Pleasants Valley Road and Foothill Drive, will give the city another 140 acre-feet of storm-water storage capacity, thus providing some relief for the northeastern portion of Vacaville.

 

On the north end, the larger of the two basins will provide storage capacity of 107 acre feet.

 

The southern basin will provide another 33-acre feet of storage capacity.

 

Encinosa Creek drains into Alamo Creek, which has been known to rise and flood during heavy rains. The Ulatis Drainage System Study, which was released in the fall of 2007, recommended that Vacaville build upstream basins as a flood-control measure.

 

Other basins will take somewhat longer to complete. The estimated construction date for the planned Alamo basin is 2010, and a developer has pledged to build the Laguna basin around the same time. No completion date is set for the Ulatis basin.

 

In addition to City Council, several agencies, including the California Department of Fish and Game, the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife, must also sign off on the project.

 

The Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams, will have oversight of the design and construction of the Encinosa north basin because of its size.

 

The city hopes to obtain all permits by May and award the project in June. Construction could begin as early as July and be completed this fall, just in time for another rainy season.

 

That is good news indeed. #

http://www.thereporter.com//ci_8436223?IADID=Search-www.thereporter.com-www.thereporter.com

 

 

UPGRADE:

Potentially costly water improvements pending; Creek gets face-lift ahead of library groundbreaking

Inside Bay Area – 3/3/08

By Karen Holzmeister, staff writer

 

CASTRO VALLEY — The future Castro Valley Library site is looking pretty sharp, even if a groundbreaking ceremony for the new community building is months away.

 

The Castro Valley Creek at Norbridge Avenue near Castro Valley Boulevard just received a half-million-dollar facelift.

 

In the future, a walkway will span the stream and link the library with a playground to be built on the west side of the creek.

 

For now, a 300-foot section of concrete culvert has been removed, and the creek restored to a natural state last seen a half-century ago.

 

The Alameda County Public Works Agency installed in-stream rocks, contoured slopes and native plants to control erosion and offer local wildlife a resting place.

 

A small amphitheater, next to the stream, will be used for outdoor classes.

 

"This project highlights the possibilities for restoring streams in urban areas," explained Paul Modrell, a county environmental compliance specialist.

 

Just as this project demonstrates, making the greater Hayward area's creeks, canals and reservoirs healthy and safe will be a costly proposition.

 

The county and hired consultants now are preparing waterway upgrades for review and eventual voter approval in the next couple of years.

 

Waterways in the San Lorenzo Creek watershed, which flow from the San Leandro, Castro Valley and Fairview hills into the Bay, are targeted for improvements.

 

So are the Cull Canyon reservoir in Castro Valley and the Don Castro reservoir in Fairview.

 

The county, however, is dealing with more immediate issues.

 

A two-year ban, limiting construction near waterways in unincorporated county areas such as Castro Valley, ends May 4.

 

County supervisors must revisit the issue of building near urban streams because the building embargo can't be extended.

 

Environmentalists have protested an increase in infill housing near urban creeks, as a result of ridge and canyon development restrictions imposed by Measure D in 2000.

 

However, the county still hasn't completed a comprehensive plan for development that could have an impact on creeks.

 

A Hayward-area citizens' task force, which has studied watercourse protections since last June, suggests interim changes in the county's review and permit process to better protect creeks.

 

County supervisors Alice Lai-Bitker and Nate Miley will schedule a special meeting in April to discuss the recommendations with task force members.  #

http://www.insidebayarea.com/search/ci_8435479?IADID=Search-www.insidebayarea.com-www.insidebayarea.com

 

 

LOCAL UTILITIES ISSUES:

It's official: Water deal is history

Stockton Record – 3/2/08

By David Siders, staff writer

 

STOCKTON - At 12:01 a.m. Saturday - the day the city retook control of its water and sewer utilities - an operator in a control room at Stockton's sewer plant turned from her computer without fanfare and registered day-end readings in a log.

 

So ended the largest water contract of its kind west of the Mississippi River, a 20-year, $600 million privatization deal that drew protests, litigation and national media attention when the council adopted it in 2003.

 

"Nothing," said Municipal Utilities Director Mark Madison, who was in the control room for the occasion. "Business as usual."

 

On their way from the control room to the front of the plant, Madison and Councilman Clem Lee passed the offices of water giant OMI-Thames Water, which operated the plant since 2003. The management, for the most part, had moved out. The rank and file stayed on, returned to the payroll of the city, for whom most had worked before.

 

The turnover was forced by a San Joaquin County Superior Court judge, who ruled in 2006 that the contract was illegal. The city failed in its approval of the deal to conduct an adequate environmental review, the court ruled. The council last year abandoned its appeal of the ruling.

 

Stockton officials have said OMI-Thames saved taxpayers millions of dollars. Critics - principally the Concerned Citizens Coalition of Stockton, which sued the city to undo the deal - said the company mismanaged the utilities and that the city failed in its duty to oversee it.

 

The Saturday turnover, the coalition's Sylvia Kothe said that afternoon, was "a long time coming."

 

In his bathroom across town from the sewer plant, Mayor Ed Chavez commemorated the event.

 

At 12:02 a.m., he said, "We are at home, and we are testing to make sure the transition took place."

 

His toilet flushed.

 

"And it seems like all systems are go," he said. #

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080302/A_NEWS/803020318/-1/A_NEWS

 

 

RATE HIKES:

NID board raises water rates

Auburn Journal – 3/1/08

By Gloria Young, staff writer

 

The Nevada Irrigation District voted to raise water rates Wednesday, but the cost impact will depend on usage.

 

For the majority of residential users, the bills will go up $1.47 a month. But many agricultural raw-water users will see much higher hikes.

 

For example, the cost for 20 miner’s inches rises 14.5 percent — from $3,131.71 to $3,586.60, according to Marie Owens, NID finance manager.

 

Rates won’t change for raw-water customers who take 1.5 to 12 miner’s inches. But those who use less than 1.5 and more than 12 miner’s inches can expect to pay more.

 

Each miner’s inch is the amount of water flow through a one-inch aperture or about 11.25 gallons per minute in California, per Web site www.stream.fs.fed.us/

 

“As a result of the overhaul of the rate structure, smaller and larger customers will see larger increases to make up for those already paying their disproportionate share,” Owens said. “It became evident that certain classes of customers within a rate category — raw or treated — were subsidizing other customers. What we are trying to accomplish is fairness and equity across the board to all rate payers.”

 

A public hearing on the rate hike, which goes into effect March 1, attracted approximately 15 customers who spoke out against the increase. After hearing the comments, the board, which had considered approving yearly hikes through 2012, decided to stick to a one-year increase, with new notices going out in the fall for next year, Owens said.

 

Jack Allen, a cattle rancher in Lincoln, was one of those who spoke out against the rate hike during the meeting.

 

Allen, who uses 50 miner’s inches of water a year, will see his bill go up nearly $1,200. That includes a $296.80 newly imposed surcharge for 2008, he said.

 

“The biggest impact is another rise in the cost of doing business in Placer County and California,” Allen said. “Here’s another $1,200 out of my pocket with no way to recoup it.”

 

The surcharge ups his increase to 15.5 percent and is something that wasn’t adequately explained, he said.

 

“They couldn’t come up with anything outside of the cost of living,” he said. ‘There’s really no reason for it. It’s just another fee and there’s nothing we can do about it. If they stick with this schedule, by 2012 we won’t be able to buy water.”

 

The rate hike was configured based on a study by financial consultant Alex Handlers with Bartle Wells Associates in Berkeley, who advised that even with the rate increase, NID water rates would remain among the lowest in the region and well below the statewide average, according to a NID press release.

 

As part of the new rate structure, NID is implementing a fixed monthly minimum water use charge based on meter size ratio and will begin to phase out a 25 percent surcharge to commercial customers. The district also implemented a residential lifeline water use rate for the first 5 HCF (hundred cubic feet) consumed monthly. The current cost is $1.214 per HCF. The first five will drop to $1.08 per HCF according to Owens.

 

The water district serves 18,500 treated water customers and 5,800 raw water customers in Nevada, Placer and Yuba counties, Owens said.  #

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 California.

No comments:

Blog Archive