A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
April 2, 2008
3. Watersheds
CREEK CLEANUP:
Creek agency trying to work around fed-funding squeeze; San Francisquito Creek authority wants public's ideas for locally financed flood-prevention project - San Jose Mercury News
DELTA ISSUES:
Answer to failing Delta levees might be rice - Central Valley Business Times
Supes wade into Delta politics - Vacaville Reporter
Guest Column: THE WATER SUPPLY CRISIS; An alternative that can protect the Delta while providing some increase of the State’s water supply - Manteca Bulletin
Guest Column: QUAGGA MUSSELS:
Safeguard lake before opening it to boaters - Ventura County Star
Questions and answers about boat inspections - Lake County Record Bee
CREEK CLEANUP:
Creek agency trying to work around fed-funding squeeze; San Francisquito Creek authority wants public's ideas for locally financed flood-prevention project
By Kristina Peterson, MediaNews staff
While federal funding has dried up, San Francisquito Creek has not.
That's why even without the $700,000 of government money that the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority was hoping for this year, its staff and directors are looking for the closest thing to a quick fix.
In a message to residents last week, the multijurisdiction agency that manages the creek watershed solicited ideas for a "flood protection project utilizing local funds that will provide near-term flood protection for the community."
The agency represents the cities of
Kevin Murray, the agency's project manager, said a short-term, locally funded project will not interfere with the five-year, $7.5million creek study the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is still conducting with roll-over funds from last year.
But to move on to the next major step — creating a hydraulic model to get an "up-to-date picture of the channel profile" — the agency will need federal funding,
The water district already has offered $100,000 in assistance and may be able to provide more,
Meanwhile, the agency is hoping other impacted jurisdictions can help fund smaller projects that target a particular section of the creek, which meanders through a 45-square-mile watershed.
But realistically, with no funding secured yet and local jurisdictions good for maybe $10million to $12 million, the fixes likely will entail either building a small reservoir upstream, diverting water through a channel or pipeline, or addressing the downstream area near Highway 101 most vulnerable to flooding, Murray said.
"You can't do something without some type of consequence," said Menlo Park Vice Mayor Heyward Robinson, a member of the agency's board of directors. "If there was a magic bullet out there, we'd probably have already done it," Robinson said, noting one idea that had been floated was allowing
Norm Beamer, president of the Crescent Park Neighborhood Association in
To submit an idea, contact Kevin Murray by April 9 at kmurray@menlopark.org, or by mail at
Meanwhile, the agency must also choose a new executive director following Cynthia D'Agosta's resignation in March.
Robinson said the board may decide to re-evaluate its structure but has not yet discussed the issue. #
http://www.mercurynews.com//ci_8780506?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com
DELTA ISSUES:
Answer to failing Delta levees might be rice
More rice farming might stop and even reverse land “subsidence” in the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta, the California Department of Water Resources says.
The DWR says it will pay for a rice cultivation project to test the theory.
For over 100 years, as the West Delta islands have been reclaimed and farmed, the land (which is primarily made up of peat) has been sinking, the department says.
“In several places within the West Delta, land has subsided over 25 feet and is continuing to subside at rates of approximately one-half to one inch per year,” it says.
As the land sinks, more pressure is put on levees, increasing the risk of levee failure, the DWR says.
The project will also measure water and air quality impacts as well as the overall potential risk from the increased rice farming.
The minimum size of the rice growing plot is 300 acres and the required average depth of peat underlying the site is seven feet.
The DWR says it plans to have one funding recipient for a multi-year project lasting up to eight years.
While specific funding levels have not yet been set, project funding may be as much as $8 million for this multi year effort. #
http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=8301
Supes wade into Delta politics
Vacaville
By Danny Bernardini, staff writer
The Board of Supervisors adopted six principles Tuesday to follow as they monitor and participate in Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's crafting of the future of the Delta.
The county's hired consultant, Jason Larrabee, spoke to the board Tuesday and fine-tuned the language in the principles. In a slide demonstration, his first slide showed the several agencies that have their hands in various aspects of the plan. He said trying to keep track of all the happenings is difficult.
"It's a daunting task, but we give it our best," Larrabee said. "You can expect some vigorous and heated debates."
Supervisor Mike Reagan said one issue that needed to be addressed is what will happen to those cities that border the Delta if there is great change to the area.
"There are going to be winners and losers," Reagan said. "And (the state) has decided that communities in the Delta are going to be the losers."
Reagan also pointed to the fact that
"We have done the responsible thing, which is why those opportunities exist," he said.
The board also discussed the role of the Suisun Marsh in regional water issues and whether it should be formally included in plans for the Delta.
Supervisor John Vasquez said it's important for the board to inject itself in the discussions and he hopes the powers that be listen.
"We all realize change will happen and we need a voice," Vasquez said. "If big big brother is going to tell us what to do, then I don't know what this process is all about."
The board's principles include:
• Further study of Delta water-conveyance options (including through Delta, dual conveyance and isolated facilities options) and impacts of ecosystem restoration projects.
• Mitigation of negative impacts to the county, its citizens or its economic well-being and assurance that Solano County concerns have equal standing to export interests.
• Preservation of county prerogatives, including local land-use authority, tax revenues, public health and safety, economic development, agricultural stability and environmental protection.
• Securing of financial support of infrastructure needs, including transportation corridors, levees/flood control, storage and water delivery systems.
• Ensuring the county is a voting member on any Delta governance structure and that locally elected representatives are a majority of the leaders.
• Utilization of legal standing for any and all proposals and programs that directly or indirectly impact the county, its citizens or its economic well-being. #
http://www.thereporter.com//ci_8781187?IADID=Search-www.thereporter.com-www.thereporter.com
Guest Column: THE WATER SUPPLY CRISIS; An alternative that can protect the Delta while providing some increase of the State’s water supply
Manteca
By Alex Hildebrand, Farmer & Engineer for the South Delta Water Agency
It should first be understood that there is an alternative that can solve
Experts within the Delta, including the South and Central Delta Water Agencies and Jones and Stokes Engineers, presented to the Governor's Vision Process an alternative that would preserve the fresh water Delta, continue the production of food in the Delta, isolate and protect San Joaquin fishery from export operations, comply with water law and the Delta Protection Statutes, and increase the average annual water supply available for export. The Vision Task Force does not even mention this alternative in its reports. This alternative has also been ignored by those who entered the process with a preference for a canal.
The Plan is outlined in the attached eleven page 10/15/07 document entitled Comprehensive Water Management Plan. The full document with technical and modeling attachments is available on request. On page 9, eight advantages of the Plan are listed which are not provided by any other plan.
Rather than consider this Plan, it appears that the State is determined to proceed with a many billion dollar canal which can do nothing to increase the State's inadequate developed water supply, and would unavoidably trash the Delta. A canal would cause an irreversible alteration of the Delta and water management system.
This folly can probably only be prevented if the media and people who understand the consequences of a canal can create a public and governmental understanding that the canal would be a disaster and that there is an alternative that would be less expensive, and that could be built faster, and which would involve no irreversible measures. That plan also proposes measures for better flood control.
How did we get into this mess?
The basic problem is that the population has substantially outgrown the developed water supply. Historically, fresh water flowed into the Delta from the San Joaquin, Calaveras, Mokelumne, and
Delta inflow is therefore now largely dependent on the reduced
The inadequacy of fresh water inflow to the Delta, and the inadequacy of the State's developed water supply are rapidly getting worse. The official State Water Plan dated 2005 anticipates about 12 million more Californians in 2030. However, it makes no provision for the farm water supply needed to grow food for those 12 million people. Refer to the attached June 2, 2005 Critique of April 2005 Public Review Draft of California Water Plan.
Why a "peripheral" canal would be a disaster
A Delta canal of any design would substantially further reduce the inflow of
A canal would therefore inevitably cause a very large increase in salinity in most Delta channels. That increase would be bad for the endangered fresh water species of fish. It would also destroy agriculture in the Delta.
Farmers are the primary maintainers of the Delta levees which keep the Delta from becoming an inland salt water bay. Destroying farms would lead to abandoning levees. A canal would therefore convert the Delta to an open salt water bay.
The Governor, the Vision Task Force, the Bay Delta Conservation Planners (BDCP), the Chamber of Commerce, and others have assumed that a solution must include an isolated Delta canal. They have also all either believed or pretended to believe that a canal could be operated while also restoring protection of the Delta. However, they have chosen not to obtain and make public an independent, competent analysis of the increase in salinity in most Delta channels that would be caused by a canal.
The Department of Water Resources, DWR, has presented a disingenuous analysis which only examines the salinity when river flow is far above typical flows, and it does not examine the salinity in the Central and South Delta.
We cannot rely on independent analyses by the CALFED Scientific Advisory Panel for two reasons. First, it is not an independent panel, because it has overlapping membership with the self appointed Public Policy Institute, PPIC, which is an advocacy group. Second, the Panel does not include in its membership the expertise to analyze issues of channel flow distribution, salinity, levee design, land use, farm water salinity needs, or the consequences of converting the channel system to an open Bay as some Science Panel members have proposed.
There are bills in the legislature that would authorize a Delta canal and would also promise described Delta protections. The bills are a sham, because those protections could not be provided if a canal is built. Legislation proclaiming that the protections would be provided would be no more effective than legislation requiring it to be full moon every night!
Despite the failure to examine matters of feasibility and consequences, the DWR is plunging ahead with scoping requirements for an EIR/EIS to build whatever canal is recommended by the BDCP. Refer to the attached March 26 letter from South Delta Water Agency, SDWA, to Delores Brown, DWR, regarding the disingenuous nature of the scoping process as it is described in written material and by a discussion panel at a DWR meeting on March 24.
The Delta Vision Task Force and others have proposed that instead of a stand-alone canal there should be a "dual facility"; that is a canal plus some continued through-Delta flow of water for export. This is unrealistic. Exporters would use the full capacity of the canal as first choice. This then would increase salinity in Delta channels and the exporters would not then want any of the saltier through-Delta water. This too has not been analyzed.
Releasing some of the water in the canal back to the Delta can not mitigate the salinity impacts of the canal. This too has not been subjected to independent publicly released analysis.
There has also been no publicly released analysis of the physical havoc that a canal would cause. It would sever waterways, reduce access for recreational boating, be a barrier for flood flows, sever roads and lands and irrigation systems, create blind sloughs where salinity and dissolved oxygen for fish could not be controlled, etc. The banks of the canal would be no more resistant to failure than would be the case for improved existing levees.
What needs to be done?
We urge that the people to whom this document is distributed will diligently insist on the analyses proposed herein before any commitments are made, and also insist on full consideration of the alternative we have proposed. #
http://mantecabulletin.com/main.asp?SectionID=24&SubSectionID=54&ArticleID=56976
Guest Column: QUAGGA MUSSELS:
Safeguard lake before opening it to boaters
Ventura County Star
By Rich Handley, Division 4 director of the Casitas Municipal Water District
The clear and present danger of a quagga or zebra mussel infestation at
The invasive mussels, native to the
For a long time, it was hoped that the pernicious mussels would not cross the 100th meridian, a geographic demarcation line that divides the
But, in January 2007, quagga mussels were found at
In March 2008, zebra mussels were found in the
For over a year now, Casitas Municipal Water District Director Russ Baggerly has been leading the charge to protect
He has spent countless hours researching the mussel, contacting regulatory agencies and educating the CMWD board on the possible impacts to the lake.
The mussel infestation was discussed three times by the CMWD Recreation Committee and staff. Also, Brian Roney, park services officer, brought newspaper articles to the committee during February 2007.
In addition, the committee discussed the mussel issue at its meetings of June 20 and Sept. 14. Subsequently, the mussel issue was identified in director comments to the Water Resources Committee on Oct. 1.
The issue was heard by the full board three times — Oct. 10 and Oct. 24 and again in January — before a vote was taken to temporarily restrict access to outside boats March 4 in order to formulate an action plan to protect the lake.
The Casitas Municipal Water District must develop a credible protection plan before it can reopen the lake to outside boats. To develop a credible plan, it should undergo an independent third-party review by a competent consultant.
The third-party review could help assure that all aspects of the plan would positively protect the lake as a water resource for all users in the
At the March 26 board meeting, the board established an ad hoc committee on quagga/zebra mussels. A dialogue will immediately be established with regulatory agencies, the fishing community and the boating community, so that work to protect the lake — and eventually reopen it to outside boats — can be ongoing and pertinent. #
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/apr/02/safeguard-lake-before-opening-it-to-boaters/
Questions and answers about boat inspections
By Terry Knight, outdoors columnist
Deputy Director of Public Works Water Resources Pamela Francis said that with the cooperation of the boaters the inspections will be conducted quickly and with as little pain as possible.
"We are asking the boaters to be patient and to assist us by having their boats clean and dry prior to being inspected," Francis said.
Francis has provided the following questions and answers to help educate boaters about the new program.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: How serious is the threat of invasive mussels such as zebra or quagga mussels?
A: The zebra mussel and its close cousin, the quagga mussel, have become the most serious non-native biofouling pest to be introduced into North American fresh waters. An infestation causes mussel colonies to form on all surfaces including boats, engines, buoys, pipes, water intakes, ladders, beaches, native shellfish, adversely affecting anyone who uses the lakes.
The most serious economic impacts are sustained by water districts and other users of lake water who may have increased maintenance costs due to plugged water pipes, intake screens, and possible damage to pumps and other equipment. It even impacts citizens who don't use the lakes through increased costs for drinking water and food prices passed along to consumers by the water and agriculture industries brought on by their increased costs in maintenance and equipment repair. It impacts the local fisheries, and, in some lakes, has caused a collapse in the populations of sports fish.
These mussels have the ability to tolerate a wide range of conditions and are extremely adaptable. Once they have infected a water body, they cannot be eradicated. They have no native predators. They cannot be prevented from spreading into downstream waters.
Q: Why did the Board of Supervisors enact this inspection ordinance?
A: These invasive mussels were introduced into the
Q: Have any lakes in
A: Yes. Lakes throughout the state are constantly being monitored, but as of April 1, 2008, 18
Q: How do I know if my boat needs to be inspected?
A: All boats and equipment must undergo an inspection process prior to launching in
Q: How do I get an inspection sticker if I am a local resident with local boats?
A: The ordinance has a program for local residents to help simplify the inspection process to qualify for a sticker. A call-in screening process -- effective April 8 through June 30, 2008 -- is offered to determine if a more rigorous physical inspection is required. This is applicable to
This special program will enable residents to obtain an inspection sticker at no cost beginning April 8 through June 30, 2008. The eligibility for an inspection sticker will be determined through a simple call-in process, designed to make it convenient for local residents to obtain a sticker. As part of this call-in process, every resident who owns a vessel will be asked a few simple questions and then will be asked to complete, sign, and return an affidavit agreeing to comply with the clean-vessel policy. Once the signed affidavit is received, the inspection sticker will be issued.
Beginning April 8 through June 30, local residents may participate in the call-in screening process by calling one of the following locations:
--
--
-- Lakeport Regional Chamber of Commerce, 263-5092; Monday-Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Q: How do I get an inspection sticker if I am a bringing a boat in from outside of
A: Owner/operators must have their vessels inspected in order to obtain a sticker. Contact staff at your lodging establishment to determine if they offer a courtesy boat inspection. If not, they can direct you to the nearest boat inspection location and the hours of operation. Additional locations are frequently updated on the Lake County Mussel hotline (707) 263-2556 and Lake County Mussel Web site: www.co.lake.ca.us/mussels.
Q: When does the inspection program begin?
A: The program for local residents and non-local boats begins April 8, 2008. To reduce waiting times, local residents are being encouraged to delay obtaining the stickers until they plan to launch their boats, but before June 30, 2008, when the free interim program ends.
Q: How much does it cost to get an inspection sticker?
A: During this interim phase, from April 8 through June 30, the inspections and inspection stickers are free.
Q: What types of water vessels require inspection?
A: All registered and unregistered vessels are required to have an inspection sticker. This includes motorized and non-motorized vessels such as power boats, sailboats, kayaks, canoes, jet skis, inflatable rafts, float tubes, and other towables and water-related equipment.
Q: What is the penalty for launching a boat without a sticker?
A: Violations of this law may be treated as an infraction, misdemeanor, and even a pubic nuisance. This means a violator faces monetary penalties, the possible impoundment of his/her vessel, and in some cases, incarceration in the Lake County Jail.
Q: My patio boat has been in the waters of
A: Probably not. This will be determined through the call-in process.
Q: Where will the inspection stations be located?
A: Out-of-county boat owners that require inspection can contact staff at their place of lodging to request a courtesy boat inspection or for a current list of boat inspection locations. Call the Lake County Mussel Hotline at (707) 263-2556 or go online to: www.co.lake.ca.us/mussels. Local residents begin the phone-in process to determine if further inspection is required.
Q: Will the inspection stations be manned 24 hours per day?
A: No. However, staff at several local lodging establishments may be able to offer assistance to their guests.
Q: How long will the inspection take?
A: It varies depending on how the boat has been operated in the past 30 days, and how diligent the owner/operator was in cleaning, draining, and drying when exiting the previous water body. Owners/operators can streamline the process by saving receipts or certificates documenting recent cleanings/and-or inspections.
Q: What parts of the boat and trailer will be inspected?
A: This depends on the risk factors, but all parts of the boat must be cleaned, drained and dry. This includes livewells, bait wells, bilges, and areas likely to contain water. If the boat is determined to be a higher-risk vessel, a thorough boat and trailer inspection may be necessary.
Q: Will I be required to remove panels and floor boards from my boat during the inspection?
A: The bilges, livewells, bait wells, and any other areas that collect water MUST be cleaned, drained and dry.
The inspector must be able to ensure this.
Q: What is the cost of the inspection?
A: During the interim phase of the program, there is no cost.
Q: Where will the sticker be attached?
A: For registered vessels, the sticker should be affixed on the port (or left) side of the boat, 6 inches in front of the registration number. For unregistered vessels such as kayaks or canoes, the sticker should be affixed in a prominent location toward the front of the boat. Vessels with special requirements will be instructed as to acceptable alternate display locations.
Q: How long is the sticker valid?
A: Inspection stickers are valid through December 31, 2008.
Q: Must a boat be re-inspected every time it enters
A: Yes.
Q: What are the fines if I am cited for not having a valid sticker?
A: Penalties are administered in relation to the offense. Fines begin at $100 although administrative penalties plus a misdemeanor can be charged on the first offense.
Q: If it is determined that my boat must be decontaminated, where do I go?
A: Currently, there are no decontamination facilities in
Q: What does decontamination of my boat consist of and what is the cost?
A: The decontamination process includes power washing with very hot water, flushing of the motor cooling system, draining and drying of any standing water including bilges, ballasts, and bait wells, etc. Further details may be accessed online at www.co.lake.ca.us/mussels.
Q: Are
A: Yes.
Q: If my boat has never left
A: An inspection sticker is required and can be obtained through the call-in process.
Q: If I am a
A: Yes.
Q: Will I be allowed to release live minnows and other live bait in the water when I am done fishing?
A: No. Disposal of live bait and bait water is strictly prohibited.
Q: What do I do if I see someone ready to launch without a sticker?
A: Call the
Q: Where can I obtain more information about the inspection program?
A: Call the Lake County Mussel Hotline at (707) 263-2556 or go online to: www.co.lake.ca.us/mussels. #
http://www.record-bee.com/sportsoutdoors/ci_8777461
###
No comments:
Post a Comment