Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
October 27, 2008
5. Agencies, Programs, People –
Wall Street collapse kicks up Delta dust
Contra Costa Times
Dan Walters: Delta Vision not likely to succeed
Sacramento
Tahoe planning agency's rules make it tough to add pier
Sacramento
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wall Street collapse kicks up Delta dust
Contra Costa Times – 10/24/08
By Mike Taugher
Now, the endless dust that has one of Marguerite Lawry's neighbors comparing
"One of the guys says, 'You could have filmed Lawrence of Arabia on
The source of the nuisance is a controversial housing development that, three decades after nearly 500 waterfront homes were approved, appears ready for hammers and nails.
But instead of construction crews and trucks, the 310 acres form a ghostly, fenced-off site with ramps leading from levee-top pads to empty docks in the new lagoon. Not a single home has been built.
What makes Delta Coves different from other stalled projects in the collapsed housing market — or perhaps a harbinger of things to come — is the developer is facing severe fines because it lacks the money to meet environmental rules.
In particular, the project has not protected the new levee from wind and erosion, which regulators say should have been done earlier this month.
The engineered levee is massive enough that there is no realistic threat of it failing anytime soon, but it could end up needing expensive repairs. And the sand blowing and washing off it into the lagoon, nearby channels and on neighbors' properties is not just a nuisance, it could clog drainage systems, which are particularly important on this Delta island that is more like a bowl surrounded by water than a traditional island.
The flow of water underground passes beneath Lawry's house on
"They either have to pump it off or this street out here is under water," said Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District district manager Steve Spence.
Now, with the rainy season coming, state and local regulators are issuing citations and threatening the developer with heavy fines and other measures.
State water quality regulators have demanded the site be buttoned down for winter by Nov. 1 or face fines of up to $10,000 per day.
"We're looking at the bonds and all the options we have," said Thom Huggett, interim deputy director of the county's building inspection division.
"The county may have to act in the interest of public safety by going after the bond," Huggett said.
He was unaware of any other instance where the county has called a developer's bond.
It would cost about $300,000 to $400,000 to hydroseed the levee to hold sand in place and prevent erosion of the new levee, Spence said.
Given the size of the project, which Spence said was more than $140 million, that's not a lot of money. But the financial backer was Lehman Brothers, the investment bank that filed for bankruptcy on Sept. 15 and stopped funding the project.
"Lehman selected SunCal management to provide management service for the development of Delta Coves and we are reliant on their funding to carry out our management role for the owner," according to a statement from SunCal Companies, the lead developer. "Since the Lehman Brothers Holding Inc. bankruptcy took place, funding for Delta Coves has stopped.
"We have been in constant contact with Lehman representatives via e-mail, telephone and in person, and despite practically daily assurance that funding for the development would soon resume, they have not carried out their financial commitment nor fulfilled their contractual obligations," the statement continued. "All of the complaints and violations we have received have been provided to Lehman and their advisers and discussed at length at every opportunity. We've repeatedly emphasized the urgency of this matter."
The county has had a testy relationship with the project for 20 years. First approved in the 1970s, the county tried to block it in the 1980s, but lost a federal lawsuit in which the court ordered the county to step aside.
Some residents have opposed the project because of the clash between luxury houses and the island's rustic character, while others welcome the influx of money the project would bring to the local economy.
Other critics say the project is a prime example of bad land-use planning.
The houses in Delta Coves would be built on a sturdy levee, but that design could increase the flood risk elsewhere because other portions of the island would fill with water faster.
"This is sort of scary in a sense," said Jeffrey Mount, a geologist at UC Davis who has been critical of new developments in the Delta and particularly on
http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_10810726
Dan Walters: Delta Vision not likely to succeed
Sacramento
By Dan Walters
The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the
How often have we been given that dark picture? Countless times, and twice more this month, once in a report from the Delta Vision Task Force, appointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to lay the basis for new water policy, and again in a state-sponsored scientific study of Delta issues.
Delta Vision recommends compromises among the countless competing ideological and economic stakeholders, better conveyance facilities and a unified system of governing water use, land use and other Delta issues, replacing dozens of agencies that have pieces of the authority.
How often have we heard that prescription for the Delta? Just about as often as we have heard the list of its ills. So does Delta Vision's vision have any greater chance of succeeding than past efforts, including one called Cal-Fed that spent about $5 billion only to fail? It would be nothing short of a miracle for two very salient reasons.
One is that the water conflict isn't really about water. As important as it may be, water is merely the battleground for the larger debate over how
There are other fronts in that battle, most notably transportation. This year's Senate Bill 375 would redirect transportation financing away from roads serving tracts of single-family homes and toward mass transit connected to higher-density development.
Water, however, is an even more powerful factor in development than transportation. Simply put – and this is now state law – a housing project cannot proceed without having a specific source of water, and the Delta's increasing unreliability for water helps major environmental groups influence development patterns.
That's why they persuaded voters 26 years ago to reject a "peripheral canal," which would have improved both the Delta environment and water supply reliability – the same solution that Delta Vision and other authorities endorse. And that brings us to the second reason why Delta Vision's report is unlikely to generate policy.
The state's water stalemate is a symptom of its chronic inability to deal with issues that arise out of a fast-growing and fast-changing society. Given the ability of any major stakeholder on any issue to block any action that it finds noxious (such as the peripheral canal in 1982), a major water policy advance would require virtual unanimity among dozens of interests. That's virtually impossible to achieve.
Ergo, don't expect Delta Vision to be any more successful than past efforts at breaking the stalemate, even as the state experiences worsening water shortages and the Delta continues to deteriorate. #
http://www.sacbee.com/walters/story/1343871.html
Tahoe planning agency's rules make it tough to add pier
Sacramento
By Chris Bowman
That's because the new Tahoe Regional Planning Agency rules adopted last week come weighted with enough restrictions to sink a pier plan before the first piling is driven.
The permit process for piers, all designed to protect the lake's beauty, can take years longer than that for building a lakefront home, according to consultants for lakefront owners who had property in the few areas where piers have been allowed.
The fees paid to consultants and attorneys who many use to navigate the regulatory maze can rival the cost of building the pier.
To win a pier permit, lakefront owners have had to re-roof a neighbor's home in earth-tone colors, plant trees to hide the home from sightseers and even change the exterior paneling on the house to better blend with the forest and sapphire lake.
"When you start to look at what the new TRPA rules really mean, you'll see that almost no one will be enticed to build a pier," said Jan Brisco, executive director of the Tahoe Lakefront Property Owners Association.
Brisco said she would be surprised if the new annual quota of five piers a year will be reached.
"I'm telling you, this is not for the faint of heart," Brisco said.
Mara Bresnick, chairwoman of the bi-state TRPA, said she's confident that the agency will have no shortage of applicants but concedes that they'll be limited to those "with a tremendous amount of tenacity and a good deal of money."
It takes tens of thousands of dollars in consultants fees just to determine whether you can build a pier, Brisco said. The property owner then pays TRPA $100,000 – which funds extensive staff evaluations – for the pier building permit and posts a $10,000 bond for five years as an assurance that the required environmental extras are met.
Add the costs of designing and building a pier, and the total tally can easily exceed $250,000.
A pier on Tahoe is worth as much as 10 percent to 25 percent of the land value, which along the shore runs from $1.5 million to $35 million, according to Hugh McBride, a real estate appraiser in
Even the 700-plus lakefront owners fortunate to have a pier become mired in regulations when they want to extend or repair the structure.
Judy Wright, 72, said she and her late husband, Edwin, sank $70,000 in consultant fees trying to win permission for a 30-foot extension of their pier on the north shore's
"My husband said he was going to beat the system. Well, cancer beat him first," Wright said.
After he died last year, Wright said she withdrew their permit application.
"I threw in the towel. I am too old to be taking on government agencies," she said.
The complex rules on Tahoe piers are rooted in a 40-year-old compact between
Yet an obstacle course of privately built piers and fences have kept the beach-loving public from enjoying its full splendor.
The pier rules and the revisions approved last week are designed to balance the multitude of interests, maintaining the property owners' development rights while minimizing the clutter and glare of shoreline development for sightseers.
Those seeking to build piers or boat slips must consult about a dozen different maps to make sure, among other things, the structure does not degrade fish habitat, spoil the scenery or encroach on drinking water intakes.
The process becomes arduous if the owner is looking to build a pier for exclusive use. The TRPA rules favor piers owned by multiple homes in the neighborhood to limit the number of structures jutting out from the shore.
Some owners have no quarrel with the many environmental restrictions, seeing them as the price to be paid to keep Tahoe beautiful.
Lynn and Gary Crosswhite of
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1345796.html
No comments:
Post a Comment