Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
March 24, 2008
5. Agencies, Programs, People
Flood-control agency ups ante for developers in Natomas -
PLUMAS
Levee project gains; hurdle remains; $30 million boost from
APPOINTMENT:
County's new water boss has full plate - Chico Enterprise Record
WATER POLICY:
Column:
Flood-control agency ups ante for developers in Natomas
By Celia Lamb, staff writer
New development fees are being considered to help cover an estimated $162 million increase in the cost of levee projects in Natomas, and could become "deal breakers" for some small projects.
In April, property owners in flood-prone areas of
Now, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency projects it will need $576 million, a 39 percent increase.
"Costs have gone up because the magnitude of the project has gone up," said Stein Buer, SAFCA's executive director.
Originally, the agency planned to raise the existing levee along
Faster funding
SAFCA plans $2.7 billion in improvements by 2019 to bring the
Most of the region has at least 100-year storm protection, or a 1 percent chance of flooding per year. But the Army Corps has said the flood risk in Natomas is greater.
SAFCA has asked the federal government to pay 65 percent of the costs to improve flood protection in Natomas. The state would pay 25 percent and SAFCA 10 percent. But even if Congress authorizes the funding, it wouldn't arrive until at least 2010.
SAFCA and the state aren't waiting. They're working on a plan to split the costs -- 70 percent from the state and 30 percent from SAFCA, in case federal money never arrives.
Construction has already started along the
SAFCA's existing property assessment program would meet its 30 percent cost share to bring Natomas up to the 100-year standard, but no more.
SAFCA has proposed one-time development fees as a backup in case the federal funding never materializes.
The fees would apply in the same area as existing property assessments. The territory includes Natomas, the Pocket, south
Hurting development?
The development fees would range from $1.06 per square foot for a two-story apartment building to $2.69 per square foot of ground floor for commercial development. It would add $4,300 to the cost of building a two-story, 2,500-square-foot home.
Homebuyers and owners of new commercial and industrial properties would also pay SAFCA's annual property assessments.
SAFCA used development projections from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments and included proposed projects in the Sutter Point Specific Plan for southern
About 75 percent of new development in
The fee proposal will go to the SAFCA board of directors for conceptual approval April 17, and then to local governments for consideration. SAFCA wants
If the local governments agree, the fees could take effect as soon as mid-July.
Critics say the plan doesn't factor in the real estate market downturn and would hurt small commercial and residential development more than large, multistory projects. Also, because of Federal Emergency Management Agency restrictions that will effectively stop new construction in Natomas starting this December, existing property assessments initially will pay the local share of improvements.
At a SAFCA meeting Monday, Michael Heller, president of real estate developer Heller Pacific Inc., said the fees could be "deal breakers" for small projects.
"I'm really concerned about what this is going to do to the pursuit of building houses, especially in infill areas," he said. "That has a ripple effect to all of the other services downtown (and) development downtown."
David Bugatto, president and chief executive officer of Alleghany Properties Inc., suggested the fees unfairly burden new projects.
"There is a difference between (the old) and the new because the old got the benefit of federal money (for past levee projects)," he said at the meeting. Alleghany Properties wants to build a shopping center and offices on land it owns on both sides of Interstate 5 in
"We understand why the fee is needed, but we certainly want to make sure that fee is equitable," Bugatto added in a telephone conversation. "We want to review it a little closer."
SAFCA attorney Tim Washburn said a development fee program could help the region compete for federal and state flood-protection funding because it would offset the increased economic risk of new development.
"In
PLUMAS
Levee project gains; hurdle remains; $30 million boost from
Marysville Appeal Democrat – 3/21/08
By John Dickey, staff writer
Prospects for the completion this year of a Feather River setback levee to protect
The Central Valley Flood Protection Board voted 5-2 to modify a previous permit issued for levee construction.
Board members debated whether to give a go-ahead for work to begin even before the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approves the levee, but were assured the Corps would have its say in the levee design.
"This is a very difficult decision for us," board President Ben Carter said.
Friday's action may allow the Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority to start levee work next month, despite a last-minute federal environmental impact study proposed by the Army Corps in February.
While the board's action cleared one obstacle, another hurdle remains — $30 million from
The money from builders would be combined with $23 million that
Even if construction starts next month as hoped, some of the job will have to wait until the federal environmental study is completed by October.
It'll be a nail-biter, but if all goes perfectly, TRLIA officials hope that they can finish the 5.7-mile setback levee just in time for the next flood season — keeping their pledge to provide better protection by 2008.
"We could actually go from 18-year protection to 200-year protection by starting now, as opposed to waiting until August," said Scott Shapiro, TRLIA's general counsel.
Otherwise, some
Levees are supposed to be built to protect against a much more powerful, and less likely, storm with a 1-in-100 annual chance of occurring. Otherwise, an area is considered a special hazard flood insurance zone.
Though a federal environ- mental study is needed before the setback levee project can be finished, Three Rivers Executive Director Paul Brunner said a 2008 completion was ambitious but doable.
"If we have dry winters, get going, there's still a chance we could be complete," said Brunner.
County officials hope the levee project is finished in time to beat the federal government's remapping of large areas into special flood hazard insurance zones.
Completion of the setback levee is the last phase of a $191 million effort to shore up shaky Yuba County levees and rebuild them to meet federal standards — a necessary step to avoid high risk flood insurance requirements.
The project has garnered scrutiny because of its early funding scheme — building homes behind risky levees in
One critic, Tom Foley, of
"And this is where we end up today," Foley told the board. "TRLIA has led you into this, and you guys did not, as a board, do your jobs."
State levee bonds will provide the rest of the funding and allow a more expensive setback levee to be built.
The setback design will build a levee one-half mile back from the
http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/levee_61795___article.html/board_corps.html
APPOINTMENT:
County's new water boss has full plate
By Heather Hacking, staff writer
OROVILLE -- There's a lot of work ahead for the new director of the county Department of Water and Resource Conservation.
His first steps are to help funnel ideas and create an environment where people with different views can work together on common goals, he said.
Paul Gosselin grew up south of
Most recently he was chief deputy director for the California Department of Pesticide Regulation before joining Butte County Water and Resource Conservation late last year.
"Water was something that was always of interest in
He sat on a cabinet-level interagency council that dealt with interbasin water transfer approvals.
"My graduate research was on water and the transport of contaminants to groundwater," he explained during a recent interview.
When he applied to lead
He had worked with the county's Agricultural Commissioner's Office and was impressed with the people he had met.
There is a lot going on, Gosselin said, including "strong passion for preserving the resources we have here."
"I think people have tended over the years to lose sight of the large amount of common interest and goals that people up here share," he said.
Locally, there is interest in preserving groundwater resources, making sure there is enough water within the county, working with counties that share the common resource and to "better coordinate science to figure out what our needs are," Gosselin said.
He said he is impressed by what a strong program the county runs and the elements that provide "very solid" protections.
Some members of the community have been asking that a water element be added to the General Plan as a part of the update taking place.
In
Counties can choose to add other elements, such as agriculture and water.
Gosselin said the General Plan's Chapter 12, on water resources, contains an "extensive resource guide" on the county's water policy. He said the document contains many issues in greater extent than other counties that have a water element.
He said there are different schools of thought. Some believe having a separate element for water would bring a focus to those policies. Another view is that having something such as water contained in other parts of the General Plan makes it easier for planning.
But either way, the policies and plans in place through the Department of Water and Resource Conservation don't change just because of where they are written in the General Plan, he said. "It's not going to be lost."
"That's a decision for the Board (of Supervisors) down the line when they decide later in summer or fall," he said.
When asked what topics he sees as most important now, Gosselin said "building up and enhancing public participation at the stakeholder level."
Water issues have heated up in the past year, with a court decision to cut water through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to protect fish, continuing concerns about water supply, negotiations for transfer of water from
Gosselin said it's important that people in the county work together.
"I think it's a matter of continuing on tracking other things going on on a statewide basis and keeping close observation."
That's happening. He noted the regional memorandum of understanding with the counties of
Another accomplishment is the county's Basin Management Objective program that will help water users monitor nearby groundwater use and have remedies if water levels drop.
"We can't make light of that. That's a huge thing," Gosselin said. "There are a lot of things that are going on around the county that we need to highlight, acknowledge and keep momentum behind." #
http://www.chicoer.com/news/oroville/ci_8673602
WATER POLICY:
Column:
By Steve Wiegand, columnist
In today's historical epistle, we provide some admittedly simplistic background for the current tussle over addressing
Edmund G. "Pat" Brown probably wasn't the most eloquent chief executive
Still, Brown succinctly defined the state's water dilemma just after taking over as governor in 1959.
"We do not have enough water when and where we need it," he told legislators in unveiling what would become known as the State Water Project. "We have too much water when and where we don't need it."
Of course Brown wasn't the first Californian to notice this problem, nor the first to try to resolve it.
In the early part of the 20th century,
In the late 1920s, a combination of private, state and federal interests pushed through construction of a dam at
And in the 1930s, legislators and voters narrowly approved the Central Valley Project, a $170 million plan to re-engineer water distribution through the heart of the state.
But the "second Gold Rush" swelled
As envisioned by Brown, a dam would be built on the Feather River near Oroville in
Like virtually every other water project ever proposed in
Northerners feared their water would be drained off; Southerners feared Northerners would control the tap.
Organized labor didn't like it because it would help agribusiness but not the farmworkers they wanted to unionize; the state Grange didn't like it because they figured big farmers would hog the water.
Worse, the costs of the plan spiraled to $1.75 billion, equivalent to 75 percent of the state's budget.
To avoid having his plan pecked to death, Brown decided to push through its basic elements in a single bill, then let the details be worked out separately. The idea was that once the main part was passed, the warring interests would have little choice but to try to work out their differences.
In 1959, legislators approved the main bill. Authored by Sen. Hugh Burns, a Fresno Democrat, and Assemblyman Carley Porter, a Compton Democrat, the Burns-Porter Act authorized the bonds for the project, subject to voter approval.
Brown got voter approval for his plan in November 1960 – but just barely. Throughout the night of Nov. 8, the vote teetered at 50-50. It was so close that the Nov. 9 edition of The Bee carried a headline reading "Water Bond Issue Trails," accompanied by a story saying it was ahead.
Finally, a 90 percent voter turnout in
In his journal the next day, Brown wrote just two words, which may serve as comfort – or a warning – to the current combatants in the debate over more dams and new bonds:
"Water wins." #
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