Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
August 6, 2008
5. Agencies, Programs, People –
IID agrees to added safety
The
Editorial
Daniel Borenstein: New EBMUD rates are unfair
Contra Costa Times- 8/4/08
Proposed
YubaNet.com- 8/6/08
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
IID agrees to added safety
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
To John Hunter the fight to add safety measures along the lining of the
In his words, he just won Round 5 on Tuesday as the Imperial Irrigation District Board of Directors unanimously approved writing a letter to the San Diego County Water Authority and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to consider Hunter’s safety proposal.
“We just won the fifth round. … Now we’ve got 10 more rounds to go,” Hunter said.
Hunter has been pushing for a 23-mile segment of the
The estimated cost of the safety measures is $3 million on top of the $280 million for the canal lining project.
“I think this goes a long way in showing the way we value life,” said IID Director Mike Abatti of the proposal.
Halla Razak, Colorado River programs director for the San Diego County Water Authority, said once the letter is received from the IID and discussion is held internally, it could be placed on a future agenda as soon as the end of this month or early in September.
Razak said the SDCWA has been looking at the human safety aspect of the project, but said it was important to do whatever possible to not allow people in the canal.
She said the types of proposed safety measures could promote canal entrance.
“
Whatever SDCWA decides, Hunter said he will continue with his efforts.
“It was a huge step, but we still have some groups to deal with,” Hunter said. “But we’re committed to this for as long as it takes.”#
http://www.ivpressonline.com/articles/2008/08/06/local_news/news04.txt
The
By Steve Lopez
Here we go again, back to my favorite place in all of
This time it's not about the ban on frontyard fences, or a threatened $347,000 fine for a little tree trimming. This time we've got a case of City Hall yard cops cracking down on a resident who has gone native, replacing a green but thirsty lawn with drought-resistant plants.
Socially responsible?
Yes.
In compliance with city code?
Not on your life.
If this seems like déjà vu all over again, that's because the case is quite similar to the one I wrote about in February. Back then, Pete Anderson and Sally Browder were threatened with "criminal charges" after switching from water-guzzling landscaping to native
"No brown, all green," an ever-vigilant
With that in mind,
"Please," she said in an e-mail. "
Always happy to help.
On Monday afternoon, I drove out to the house in question. Walkowiak lives on the western edge of the city, and as I approached, I saw one green lawn after another, with sprinklers running at some houses.
In a drought, shouldn't they be the people who are cited?
The offending property stood out like a sore thumb. Instead of lush, neatly manicured grass, I saw decorative rocks, mulch and a couple dozen native plants.
The miscreant responsible for this abomination greeted me on the front porch of the house she rents with a friend and two children. Walkowiak, a union organizer, said the owner pretty much leaves the landscaping to her and Quintin Carter, the guy she lives with.
The frontyard had been nothing but crab grass, which yellowed as always last summer, and this naturally caught the attention of
"They said we had to have it green within 30 days or we'd be fined," Walkowiak said. "I thought, 'OK, I'll rise to the occasion.' "
And so she began drenching the crab grass. "I was out here every night," she said. "It was lush, it was green."
But the water bill was going up, and she wasn't any happier with green crab grass than she had been with brown crab grass.
"We live in
She began by investigating ways to kill the lawn, and came upon a remedy that could accomplish two vitally important things at once: Stave off a water shortage, and save the newspaper industry.
"You lay down the newspaper on the lawn," Walkowiak said, "but it has to be 12 sheets thick."
Sure, the L.A. Times might have shrunk a bit in recent years, but it's still fat enough to kill Walkowiak's grass. Chalk it up as yet another advantage we hold over Internet-only news sources.
I poked around in the garden for the remains of my columns, but couldn't find any. As critics have suggested, though, my words were like fertilizer, and from a bed of ink-stained mulch has risen a field of beauty -- and the water bill has been cut by more than half.
"This is white sage, this is pitcher sage; here we've got coast sunflower, Mulholland oak," Walkowiak said, leading me on a little tour past yellow poppies and all the rest.
Sure, the yard is a work in progress, and the stacks of old newspapers had to have been a bit of an eyesore.
When I visited, trash bags filled with mulch were still scattered around, the curb strip was still pretty scraggly, and it'll take a year or two before the native plants mature and fill in.
Unfortunately, the folks at City Hall are not a patient lot. Walkowiak and Carter received notice last week to appear at City Hall tomorrow and explain why they are still in violation of city landscaping standards. If they don't, the case will be referred to "the city attorney's office for potential legal action," and they will be fined $74 for further inspections.
This can be avoided if they quickly "remove all weeds and install plant materials or decorative ground cover elements (tree bark, pebbles, river rocks, etc. . . . ) on front lawn. Bare areas must be landscaped or covered."
Walkowiak is confused.
"Is this a bare spot?" she asked, pointing to the space between two plants. And what is the city calling a weed? Might the inspector have confused some of the young native plants with weeds?
Two doors away, neighbors Julio Escobar and Maria Valencia said they thought Walkowiak's yard looked great, but they weren't surprised by the hassle. A city inspector had stopped by their house,
Sam Engel, who runs
The yard was thick with weeds until very recently, Engel said, but Walkowiak has done a lot of work since then. The curb-strip crab grass, though, is going to have to be dealt with soon, he said.
Walkowiak sounded ready for a fight when I told her that. And she said there's no way she's paying a nickel in penalties for conserving water.
"Look at the Verdugo Hills," she said from her frontyard, gazing into the distance. "They're not green. Should we fine someone?"#
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez6-2008aug06,0,4088429.column?page=1
Editorial
Daniel Borenstein: New EBMUD rates are unfair
Contra Costa Times- 8/4/08
By Daniel Borenstein, Staff columnist
IN ITS ATTEMPT TO encourage water users to conserve during these times of drought, the East Bay Municipal Utility District has set up an overly complex system that punishes households that have been frugal in the past and does not charge enough to high-volume consumers.
The new rates, which take effect Aug. 1, are so out of whack that high-end users will continue to pay less per gallon than those who conserve the most. In essence, top-tier consumers still will receive a quantity discount.
Officially, the rate schedule suggests just the opposite — that the fee per gallon is less for those who conserve. However, that does not account for the fixed charges to all single-family households to cover costs such as water meters, seismic upgrades to the water-delivery system and customer service. When those fees are added in, the rate per gallon favors heavy consumers.
The solution is simple — and one that district directors should adopt before next summer when we could be facing an even worse drought: The fixed fees should be wrapped into the water usage charges, distributing more of the cost to the heavier consumers. It's a structure used by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power that would provide a further incentive to conserve.
Instead, the water district — the largest in the East Bay and the only one that has imposed mandatory rationing — has created a fee schedule so complex that it requires a spreadsheet to dissect it. That fact alone makes for bad public policy.
Consumers should be able to understand the fee structure so that they can make informed decisions about their consumption.
To understand the new rates, let's start with the basics: EBMUD charges customers based on a "unit" of water, which is equal to 100 cubic feet or 748 gallons. For single-family households, the rate structure will be $1.82 per unit for households that use less than 100 gallons per day, and a sliding scale as follows for those who use more: $2 per unit for the first 172 gallons per day; $2.49 per unit for water in excess of 172 gallons per day up to 393 gallons per day; and $3.05 per unit for water in excess of 393 gallons per day.
That part is fairly easy to understand: The sliding scale encourages conservation and those rates, which represent a 10 percent increase over current rates, easily could be adjusted further to encourage even more prudent consumption. Indeed, it should have more tiers to punish heavy consumers.
But that's only the start. The district has added another layer of fees — a surcharge on the water used above each customer's "water use allocation." That allocation is computed by averaging each household's average water use for the same billing period in the past three years. For single-family households, water use above 90 percent of that allocation will face a surcharge of $2 per unit.
Here's where the plan starts to fall apart: The surcharges punish households that have conserved in the past and allows past water-wasters to continue their bad consumption habits without penalty as long as they do not use more water than in the past. Many people cut their consumption after the most recent drought in the early 1990s. They put in drought-resistant landscaping and low-flow shower heads. They should be rewarded, not punished, for their behavior. The district should drop the surcharge and simply raise rates for heavy users.
Finally, there is the fixed fee of $11.29 a month for each single-family residence. For the district's most conservation-minded customers, this charge constitutes more than half their monthly bill and, consequently, drives up the actual cost per gallon. A household that uses 100 gallons per day will pay a monthly bill of $18.57, or $4.64 a unit. Nineteen percent of the district's households use no more than 100 gallons per day.
In contrast, a water-abuser who last year consumed about 2,460 gallons a day could use the same amount this year and pay $323.90 a month, or only $3.24 a unit. That's simply wrong. Water-wasters should not be rewarded with less expensive per-unit rates.
The question is not whether the rate structure should be fixed; it's whether the water district directors have the political courage to stand up to the water-wasters. Only 6 percent of the district's single-family households consume more than 1,230 gallons per day (50 units per month). Most of them probably are living in big homes with massive lawns.
They can afford to pay more — to pay their fair share. And maybe some of them would start conserving if they faced higher bills.#
http://www.contracostatimes.com/danielborenstein/ci_10093778?nclick_check=1
Proposed
YubaNet.com- 8/6/08
by Save San Onofre Coalition YubaNet.com
"From the start, this ill-sited toll road was fundamentally flawed and environmentally harmful," stated Dan Silver, executive director of the Endangered Habitats League. "The shenanigans began with attempts by the TCA, an Orange County-based toll road construction agency, to exempt the project from
It continued with politically motivated 'science' to justify the toll road and minimize its environmental degradation - a fact contributing to a resounding defeat at the California Coastal Commission this past February. Now, the project is before the Bush Administration and the Commerce Department for review."
"While we do not oppose toll roads, we strongly oppose toll roads through state parks," commented Elizabeth Goldstein, president of the California State Parks Foundation. "This project unnecessarily threatens a state park with a popular campground, cultural and Native American resources and a pristine beach."
Project opponents cited ample reasons why the proposed toll road threatens San Onofre State Beach. Well-documented concerns include the road's adverse impacts on coastal habitats, endangered species, irreplaceable cultural and recreational resources, water quality and wetlands. Equally important, toll road opponents highlighted that specific and reasonable alternatives are available that would achieve the project's primary purpose without permanently sacrificing this irreplaceable coastal treasure.
"San Onofre State Beach is one of
Ronald Reagan established the park in 1971 for the enjoyment of all Californians. This State park is not just another vacant parcel to be pillaged by a toll road construction agency," added Joel Reynolds, senior attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council. "The Foothill South toll road is the poster child of reckless coastal development and represents the single greatest threat facing our State Park system,"
added Stefanie Sekich, Save Trestles Campaign Coordinator with the Surfrider Foundation. "If constructed, this road would negatively impact coastal water quality and affect the surfing at Trestles beach.
Californians need real traffic solutions, not toll roads that pave over our State Parks."
BACKGROUND:
The Save San Onofre Coalition is a diverse coalition of individuals and groups that includes four former state parks commissioners, local, regional, state and national environmental organizations, cities, counties and elected officials statewide. For more information about the Save San Onofre Coalition, visit www.savesanonofre.com.#
http://yubanet.com/california/Proposed-Toll-Road-Threatens-San-Onofre-State-Beach.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