Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
July 16, 2008
5. Agencies, Programs, People –
Agency seeks more Vegas water
The Associated Press- 7/15/08
Snake Valley
The Las Vegas
Proponents of PWD recall effort collect signatures
The Antelope Valley
The End of
IndBay.org- 7/15/08
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Agency seeks more Vegas water
The Associated Press- 7/15/08
A hearing will be held in late 2009 on a bid by the main water supplier for
The Southern Nevada Water Authority wanted the hearing on the
The delay is fine with opponents of the big project, who argued that a January hearing wouldn't give them enough time to prepare. Hearing officer Susan Joseph-Taylor said an exact hearing time frame would be set at a later date.
SNWA's application for the
The authority's eventual goal is to import enough water to serve more than 230,000 homes, in addition to about 400,000 households already getting its water. Cost of its pipeline project has been estimated at anywhere from $2 billion to $3.5 billion.
Foes of the
Other opponents include federal agencies such as the National Park Service which has a park near the pumping zone, and
Foes of the entire SNWA plan, developed because of concern about reliability of Colorado River water which has been the main source for Las Vegas, have repeatedly compared it with a Los Angeles water grab that parched California's once-fertile Owens Valley in the early 1900s.
The project is backed by casino executives, developers, union representatives and others who point to water conservation efforts in Las Vegas and who warn of an economic downturn — beyond the one the state already is experiencing — unless the city gets more water.
In a ruling last week, Taylor granted SNWA just over 6 billion gallons a year of the 11 billion gallons of groundwater it sought from Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave Valleys in Lincoln County, despite warnings from opponents that the pumping could have a catastrophic impact.
SNWA representatives had contended the water authority met all requirements for the pumping from the three valleys and said critics' disaster scenarios were unfounded. The valleys, located between about 75 miles and 125 miles from
Last year,
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/07/15/state/n114606D63.DTL&type=science
Snake Valley
The Las Vegas
The water authority has asked the state Water Resources Division for permission to draw more than 50,000 acre feet a year -- more than 16 billion gallons -- from the valley that lies mainly across the border in
Opponents at a hearing Tuesday argued that they should have at least a year to do additional studies of the groundwater in the rural ranching valley, and to model how pumping the water to Las Vegas would effect the water table and the environment.
They said a $2 million study by the U.S. Geological Survey and the University of Nevada Reno funded by the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act, which began in April, should be completed before State Engineer Tracy Taylor rules on the pumping plan. The study won’t be completed until fall of 2011, although test wells could begin producing data as soon as spring 2009.
J. Mark Ward ,of the Utah Association of Counties, said that because only a small corner of Snake Valley is in Nevada, Utah’s rural Millard County should also be given time to work with staff from the state’s own Water Resources Division to completely study how much water Snake Valley residents and business on the Utah side are using and what the impacts of pumping on them might be there.
Ward argued the application of the Southern Nevada Water Authority would lower the water table in
And Ward said he wants
Ward, representing
But Susan Joseph Taylor, chief hearing officer for the Nevada Water Resources Division, seemed reluctant to hold a hearing in
But Ward and attorneys for the U.S. Department of Interior,
Joseph Taylor said hearings in the fall of 2009 would be announced this year. Although she said she wanted to hold the hearings to two weeks, opponents and SNWA estimated it would take at least three weeks of testimony to wrap up both sides.
The water authority has filed a number of applications to draw water from rural
Last week,
J.C. Davis, a spokesman for SNWA, said construction of the pipeline is estimated to cost $3.5 billion.#
Proponents of PWD recall effort collect signatures
The Antelope Valley
By ALISHA SEMCHUCK, Staff Writer
PALMDALE - Critics of Palmdale Water District directors Jeff Storm, Dick Wells and Dave Gomez are walking neighborhoods to collect voters' signatures needed to demand a recall election against the trio.
Recall committee members on May 14 received the go-ahead from the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk's office to begin collecting signatures.
The recall committee must obtain 7,061 valid signatures of citizens registered to vote within the water district boundaries by Sept. 11.
"The people we've spoken with have all been willing to sign, with one exception - someone who said he personally knew one of the directors," said recall proponent Gordon Dexter, a former Palmdale Water District board member. "But he did sign the other two petitions."
Dexter and Laura LaMoreaux, wife of Dennis LaMoreaux, the district's ousted general manager, said they haven't tallied the number of signatures obtained so far because the petitions were divided up between more than 100 precincts, with one person in charge of the group canvassing each area.
"We're going to pull them all in at the end of July and see where we're at," Laura LaMoreaux said. "Then we'll determine what approach we need to pursue in August."
"We're trying to maximize the number of people out collecting signatures," Dexter said.
Asked to comment on the recall campaign, Wells said he appreciated the opportunity but added, "I don't want to comment."
Gomez and Storm did not return calls.
In their formal responses to the recall charges, Wells, Gomez and Storm said the recall is an effort by district director Raul Figueroa and former directors Dexter, Ron Cunningham and Nolan Negaard to take over the water district. "This is not a recall. It is a coup attempt," Wells wrote in his formal response. "It is an attempt to get by revolt what they couldn't get at the ballot box."
Recall proponents deny the accusation. They say the recall is also supported by former directors who have been off the board for years, as well as by district customers, by noncustomers who live inside the area in which the district collects taxes and by numerous district employees.
A majority of recall proponents say their main motivation is the ouster of Dennis LaMoreaux in a vote by Storm, Wells and Gomez.
"I've known Dennis LaMoreaux for maybe 20 years. I think he's one of the most knowledgeable people regarding water in this Valley. And we have a real water problem here," said Joyce Freeman, widow of 12-year Palmdale Water District board member J.B. "Jay" Freeman.
Freeman called LaMoreaux "one of the most conscientious people I've ever met. I went to a meeting. About 20 people got up and asked, 'Why? Why do they want to replace him?' To my knowledge, they never gave a reason."
Freeman said when those directors put out a list of qualifications in search of a new general manager, the criteria fit LaMoreaux. In addition, the water district has said the new general manager's salary will be $215,000, compared to $178,000 for LaMoreaux, she said.
"Where are they going to get that money? Are they going to raise the water rates? Are we going to have to pay more?" Freeman asked.
Cunningham referred to an extra $150,000 payment made to LaMoreaux for his resignation.
"The main reason I support the recall is I don't like the way they're spending some of the big dollars," Cunningham said. "It's unnecessary."
After Storm, Wells and Gomez voted to place Dennis LaMoreaux on paid administrative leave in late December, and later gave him the option to quit or be terminated, they paid him $150,000 more than his contract required if he agreed to sign a letter denouncing the recall. When LaMoreaux asked to change the letter to state that he does not support or oppose the recall, he was told he would lose the additional $150,000 if he altered the letter.
Nolan Negaard, who served four terms on the water board before being defeated in 2005, said of LaMoreaux: "They gave him one choice - either resign or get fired."
Negaard said he has "no faith that (Storm, Wells or Gomez) will ever do what I consider to be the right thing."
Hal Macy, who sat on the water board for 14 years in the 1970s and 1980s, said Gomez, Wells and Storm gave no plausible reason when they decided to end LaMoreaux's contract.
"He was apparently following policy established by the directors in a manner acceptable to them shortly before his employment was severed," Macy said. "What appropriate justification was given to the public for his departure?"
Macy said employees feel they could face repercussions, even possible job loss, if water district administrators learn they participated in the recall campaign.
"They're ratepayers themselves," Macy said. "If they choose to participate in the recall, that should not put their employment in jeopardy. As ratepayers and taxpayers, they should be afforded the same opportunity as any other person to participate in the recall effort if they choose."
Laura LaMoreaux said she is supporting the recall effort, although she cannot sign the petition because she is not a voter in the district. But, she said, unlike her husband, she did not sign an agreement with the district to stay neutral. She said she backs the recall "mainly because Dennis cared so much about the water district.
His first and foremost thought is always the ratepayers and then the employees. He can't protect them anymore. This recall would help protect the ratepayers and employees."
Figueroa said he supports the recall because he doesn't believe the actions taken by Storm, Wells and Gomez are "in the best interest of the ratepayers on multiple issues."
"We've got the Dennis thing. We've got the increase in travel expenses. We've got $25,000 (approved) for new office furniture," Figueroa said. "The economy is bad. Everybody is being told to conserve. Yet these directors don't seem to be on that same wavelength ... They just increase board spending. Look at schools. They're being cut to bare minimum. We need to be setting an example also."
In the Westside Park Mutual Water Company area, which is within the district's property-tax boundaries, water company board president Phil Wood said he didn't want to state his position on the recall because he didn't want to influence voters among the water company's 355 households.
"It's really up to the individual voter," Wood said. "We try to stay out of politics as much as we can. I would encourage people to research the issues and form their judgement based on the facts. Right now, all water companies need qualified individuals who have some background. When deciding who should sit on a water board, look at qualifications, not personalities and politics."#
http://www.avpress.com/n/15/0715_s8.hts
The End of
IndBay.org- 7/15/08
By Dan Bacher
The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) will present a case-in-chief at the July 21 and 22, 2008 hearings before the State Water Resources Control Board in Sacramento concerning the Board's proposed revocation of water rights for Auburn Dam. "Given the over-appropriation of water in California, massive increases in State Water Project and Central Valley Project export levels, grievous degradation of the Delta and its tributary waters, precipitous declines in pelagic and salmonid species and pervasive impairment of water quality, it is virtually impossible that the permits could be issued today in their present form," said Bill Jennings, executive director, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance.
As California Delta fish species and
The End of
by Chris Shutes, FERC Projects Director
July 15, 2008. CSPA will present a case-in-chief at the July 21 and 22, 2008 hearings before the State Water Resources Control Board in
Almost exactly ten years ago, CSPA protested a petition for extension of time filed by the Bureau of Reclamation for its Auburn Dam water rights. After ten long years of procedural delay by the Bureau, in which the Bureau failed to produce requested environmental documentation requested by Water Board staff, and completely failed to secure funding from Congress, Board staff took action to revoke. The Bureau requested a hearing for its iconic project, and the stage for arguments is set.
Shutes's testimony states, in part, "After 37 years, there is no project, no prospect of a project, no Congressional interest in a project, no federal funding for a project, no funding partners for a project, and no environmental documentation for a project."
"It is flatly unacceptable that it took the Board ten years to act on a simple protest to extend the time to put to use. It's worse than staring at a dead car in front of your house for a decade because your neighbor's big brother might come home with the key one day and decide to use it," Shutes continues.
Jennings' testimony discusses today's statewide implications of the proposed massive diversion from the American River that was authorized by the Board in a bygone era:
"Given the over-appropriation of water in California, massive increases in State Water Project and Central Valley Project export levels, grievous degradation of the Delta and its tributary waters, precipitous declines in pelagic and salmonid species and pervasive impairment of water quality, it is virtually impossible that the permits could be issued today in their present form."
The hearings are scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m., July 21, at the Cal EPA building, Second Floor, 1001 I Street,
For the Testimony of Bill Jennings, Executive Director, CSPA, and Chris Shutes, FERC Projects Director, CSPA, go to http://www.calsport.org.
Persons wishing to support revocation of the Auburn Dam water rights via e-mail can follow this link to a page on the website of our allies in this fight, Friends of the River: http://www.friendsoftheriver.org.#
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/07/15/18516411.php
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