[Water_news] 5. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS: AGENCIES, PROGRAMS, PEOPLE - 5/9/08

 

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment

 

May 9, 2008

 

 

Auburn dam may be dealt death blow

The Sacramento Bee – 5/9/08

 

Coastal Commission approves Bolsa Chica footbridge: Bridge will connect Outer Bolsa Bay with upper wetlands and could be built as soon as October.

The Orange County Register – 5/8/08

 

Water bill battle blazes in Palm Springs

Palm Springs Sun- 5/9/08

 

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

 

Auburn dam may be dealt death blow

The Sacramento Bee – 5/9/08

By Matt Weiser

 

A 1965 artist's conception of how an Auburn dam would have looked built at a section of the American River is contrasted with the site in 2006, where preparatory work had been done on the river but stopped in the 1970s because of earthquake concerns. Bryan Patrick / Sacramento Bee file, 2006

 

A long-stalled Auburn dam on the American River has suffered many defeats. But the next could be truly fatal.

 

The State Water Resources Control Board plans to revoke the water rights held by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for the project. The unfinished dam, in other words, would no longer have any water to hold back.

 

Reclamation halted construction on a dam more than 30 years ago due to earthquake concerns, leaving the river's north fork heavily scarred but not permanently blocked. A host of environmental concerns and ballooning costs have delayed the project ever since.

 

Though still coveted by some officials in the region, a dam is probably doomed without water.

 

"If they lose the water rights, it would be very problematic, I would think," said Bruce Kranz, a Placer County supervisor and chairman of the American River Authority, a joint-powers agency and leading dam advocate.

 

The original Auburn dam was approved by Congress in 1965. It was designed to store 2.5 million acre-feet of water behind a dam nearly 700 feet high adjacent to the city of Auburn.

 

Reclamation secured water rights for a dam from the state in 1970. Those rights allowed the agency to store a staggering amount of water – 5 million acre-feet – at different times of year for purposes ranging from power generation and recreation to farming and urban consumption.

 

Under state law, water rights expire if not used. But Reclamation was granted an extension in 1984 on the condition that it present a revised project for approval by Dec. 31, 1987. It failed to do so and has asked for three more extensions since 1988.

The state did not grant those extensions, nor did it revoke the permits as a result.

 

Bill Rukeyser, a spokesman for the state water board, said Reclamation has run out of chances by failing to make progress on the dam.

 

"It's our understanding they will not strongly contest it, because obviously the project is not going ahead," he said. "Basically, time is up, so this is simply a matter of the water rights division taking care of business."

 

But Reclamation spokesman Jeff McCracken said his agency will argue to keep the rights. It requested a hearing on the matter before the water board, set for July 21 in Sacramento. A prehearing conference will be held June 4. Both are open to the public.

 

"This remains a congressionally mandated project," McCracken said. "The bottom line is, we continue to want to hold onto those rights because Congress told us to do something and it hasn't yet been completed."

 

In reality, the project is moldering in legal limbo. It remains federally authorized, but costs have grown so dramatically that restarting construction would require a new vote by Congress.

 

That is unlikely, because the project's environmental consequences would be far more controversial today than when the dam was first proposed. Also, the new water supply it would create is much less than Reclamation's paper water rights.

 

Ronald Stork, a senior policy advocate at Friends of the River, estimated an Auburn dam would yield something less than 300,000 acre-feet of new water supply. That's not nearly enough to justify the project's huge cost, he said.

 

The most recent estimate, completed last year by Reclamation, put the cost to finish the dam at a minimum of $6 billion. That's 12 times greater than the originally authorized cost.

 

"You either have to find very wealthy beneficiaries who are prepared to pay a heck of a lot for the water, or some taxpayers somewhere who are prepared to be fleeced," Stork said.

 

The project also is losing its most committed supporter, Rep. John Doolittle, R-Roseville, who announced in January he wouldn't seek re-election.

 

If the water rights are revoked, another party can apply for them. But they would likely get much less water, because science has shown the environment can't sustain the diversions allowed by the 38-year-old permits.

 

For his part, longtime dam supporter Kranz has turned his focus elsewhere.

 

"Politically, it's not there right now," he said. "I want to work on things that have a chance of being successful."#

http://www.sacbee.com/dyn/comments/standard/comments_separate.html?uri=http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/925168.html&o=d&ud=u&avatar=n&tie_to=925168&url_type=1&headline=Auburn%20dam%20may%20be%20dealt%20death%20blow#345868

 

 

Coastal Commission approves Bolsa Chica footbridge: Bridge will connect Outer Bolsa Bay with upper wetlands and could be built as soon as October.

The Orange County Register – 5/8/08

By Annie Burris

 

HUNTINGTON BEACH The California Coastal Commission has approved permits for a footbridge in Bolsa Chica – the last major hurdle before construction can begin.

 

The bridge could be built as soon as October, said Jeff Stoddard, with the Department of Fish and Game, who presented the proposal to the commission Wednesday afternoon.

 

Without the bridge, visitors such as the 500 Earth Day volunteers in April needed to walk along Warner Avenue to reach the mesa. The metal single-span bridge would connect the visitors' center parking lot with the northern end of the reserve's upper wetlands and mesa.

 

"It is going to solve a huge public safety problem," said Connie Boardman, former Huntington Beach mayor and member of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust. "It was a really dangerous situation."

 

The project will cost more than $400,000, with funds coming from the state, county and private organizations.

 

The cost is high, officials said, because of special features meant to address environmental concerns. For example, the bridge won't have a middle leg touching the water and would be built outside of the reserve.#

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/bridge-mesa-huntington-2037533-cost-reserve

 

 

 

Water bill battle blazes in Palm Springs

Palm Springs Sun- 5/9/08

By Willian Avila

 

Some 50 Palm Springs homeowners association presidents were the audience of a meeting Tuesday where a Desert Water Agency rate increase proposal was sharply rebuked.

 

Opponents of the rate adjustment, which would increase the average monthly water bill from $46.58 to $55.25, said the DWA has unjustly asked for an increase that targets domestic and reclaimed water, sanitary service and groundwater replenishment assessments.

 

Even with the increase, however, DWA rates will remain among the lowest when compared to other nearby agencies, according to a DWA document.

 

Still, Vic Gainer, chairman of the Palm Springs HOA Presidents Council, called the proposed move "outlandish, unreasonable and unfair."

 

Critics say the ballots that were sent to customers were inserted in monthly bill statements, making it difficult for customers to vote against a rate adjustment.

 

Returning a ballot to DWA is an automatic rejection of the adjustment. Out of the 54,000 to 55,000 that were mailed, at least 50 percent plus one must be returned to defeat the proposed increase.

 

"They have done everything they can to suppress our right to know," said Bob Mahlowitz, vice chairman of the Palm Springs Neighborhood Involvement Committee, which accounts for 6,000 homeowners. "They've done everything they can to make it difficult for us to vote."

 

But DWA officials said they've met every requirement set by California law to inform voters.

 

"I'm baffled by their audacity in making these kind of comments," said David Luker, general manager and chief engineer at the DWA. "It was reviewed many times by our attorney for our compliance with California law.

 

"The notice of the rate was not sent in a water bill. It was sent in a separate mailing to all of our customers who pay water bills and all the property owners."

 

The DWA also began sending out a letter recently to water users with a rebuttal of the "misinformation ... being generated by a few customers charging the Desert Water Agency with misdeeds about its proposed rate increase."

 

DWA officials said every user should have it in their mailbox before the 8 a.m. June 3 public hearing at the agency's office, where the matter will be discussed.

 

While Gainer said it is "inevitable" that the bill will pass because of the circumstances, he has called on HOA presidents to rally in opposition at the meeting.

 

The DWA "has not complied with the spirit of the law," Gainer said. "We need to make a statement, elevate the issue for Palm Springs property owners to influence the DWA to do the right thing."

 

Water users who did not cast a vote may ask for a new ballot at the DWA office at 1200 Gene Autry Trail.#

http://www.mydesert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080509/NEWS01/805080339/1006/news01

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.