[Water_news] 5. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS: AGENCIES, PROGRAMS, PEOPLE - 5/29/09

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment

 

May 29, 2009

 

5. Agencies, Programs, People –

 

Time for the water district to answer a few questions

The Morgan Hill Times

 

Historic Mt. Whitney Fish Hatchery to re-open to public

The Inyo Register

 

Carping About Water Rates

The Santa Barbara Independent

 

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

 

Time for the water district to answer a few questions

The Morgan Hill Times – 5/28/09
 By Morgan Hill Editorial Board

Santa Clara Valley Water District Director Sig Sanchez - who represents Morgan Hill - recently penned a bristling and lengthy letter to the editor defending the bloated agency which has been raked over the coals by the Santa Clara County Grand Jury, embarrassed by its own internal hiring monkey business and now beaten badly in a court decision by a small, privately owned water company in a lawsuit that could - and should - cost the district millions.

For Mr. Sanchez, we request that he take up his pen again and answer a few questions for the folks that are paying the water bills:

- Please explain the following: The Santa Clara Valley Water District has about 825 budgeted employees for 1.7 million customers. In comparison, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California serves more than 19 million customers with about 2,000 employees. That's one employee for every 2,000 customers for SCVWD and one employee for every 9,500 customers for the MWD. If the MWD had the same employee-to-customer ratio, it would have nearly 10,000 employees. That would be one incredible hiring splurge.

- Mr. Sanchez, has it been the practice of the Santa Clara Valley Water District to budget for positions, then leave those positions unfilled, yet still include those unfilled positions in its calculations for ground water extraction charges to retailers - like the cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy - in other words, baking the budget fraudulently? If that's not the case, explain why the court found that to be the case in the suit recently won against the district by the Great Oaks Water Company?

- Explain why the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board repeatedly ignored the Proposition 218 requirement passed by voters in 1996 which specifies that voters must approve property-related fees - specifically groundwater extraction fees in this case - when it was very clear from multiple court rulings that Proposition 218 was applicable?

- Lastly, for now, please detail exactly how much you and your fellow board members have approved spending for the law firm of Duane Morris to defend the water district in the multiple lawsuits involving charges of invalid fees for groundwater extraction and violations of Prop 218 that Great Oaks Water Company has filed against the district. The ratepayers would like to know the total amount paid, all attorneys involved and each of their hourly charges and a list of all legal expenses related to the lawsuits.

We won't even bother asking why the water district hired an out-of-the-area, out-of-its-delivery-scope San Francisco law firm. Great call to support the ailing Silicon Valley economy … but we digress.

Those aren't all the questions we have, but it's a start. For now, the questions about adding two new board members (and the expense, of course), redrawing representation boundaries and clandestinely rewriting the District Act, will wait. We thank you for your time and attention in advance.

P.S. - Please don't engage any high-priced attorneys to respond to this. It's written in straightforward, plain English, and responses in a like manner from our representative would be most appreciated.#

 

http://www.morganhilltimes.com/opinion/256480-time-for-the-water-district-to-answer-a-few-questions

 

Historic Mt. Whitney Fish Hatchery to re-open to public

The Inyo Register – 5/28/09

By Mike Bodine

After fires and floods, the Mount Whitney Fish Hatchery is ready to accept visitors – but, for now, just the human type.

 

The hatchery is not yet ready, physically or financially, to return to the world-class egg producing hatchery it once was.

On July 5-6, 2007, the Inyo Complex Fire burned 55,000 acres west of the hatchery, then a year later, almost to the day, on July 12, 2008, a fierce thunderstorm in the area caused massive flooding damage to the hatchery. Two employee residences and two spawning buildings were lost and the water and pipe infrastructure of the hatchery was destroyed.

 
Thousands of volunteer man hours have gone into cleaning up the ponds and grounds at the hatchery site that were damaged or destroyed by the flood, according to Bruce Ivey, president of the Friends of the Mount Whitney Hatchery.

 
“It’s the most beautiful it’s looked in years,” Ivey said of the outside grounds. And to commemorate the reopening of the hatchery as a setting for small gatherings or weddings, the Friends are inviting the public to a reopening party and dinner at 5 p.m., Saturday, May 30, at the hatchery north of Independence. Tickets are $10.

 

Ivey explained that while the grounds are gorgeous, the main building was left as is. He said the building was not severely damaged. “The rooms were flooded from the water pipes, the flood water never made it under the door or through the windows.”

According to Ivey, the main building had not been cleaned, but was left to serve as an example for visitors of the extent of the flood damage.

Ivey said that while the state cannot afford to clean or maintain the hatchery, the Friends have taken it over as a meeting place and, in the future, an interpretive center. He said the Friends are working on display signs describing the history of the hatchery and the fire and flood damage.

In order for the state to grant the Department of Fish and Game funds to rebuild, an extensive engineering study must be performed at the site to ensure its stability. Ivey said testing would also have to be conducted on water chemistry and temperatures, once ideal for raising eggs, but now may be compromised because of the fire and flood damage. He explained that the floods destroyed much of the flora and fauna surrounding the waters feeding the hatchery, changing the water temperature. The flood also deposited foreign matter into the water that may be considered a contaminate and prevent the hatchery from being the egg producing hatchery it is, or was famous for being.

Ivey explained DFG has given no indication that the state has the money, or is willing to conduct the study, much less rebuild the hatchery.

For more information about the hatchery or dinner, call 878-2127. Tickets for the dinner may be purchased from any Friend of the Mount Whitney Fish Hatchery.#

 

http://www.inyoregister.com/content/view/120922/1/

 

Carping About Water Rates

The Santa Barbara Independent – 5/29/09

By Ben Preston

 

Upset over the prospect of water bills that are even higher than the ones they already pay, almost 100 people packed the Carpinteria City Hall Wednesday night for the Carpinteria Valley Water District’s meeting. The streets were lined with numerous parked cars, but not by the battered farm trucks and pedestrian vehicles one might expect from people tired of paying expensive water bills. Rather, the lots and lanes were in large part filled with the Mercedes, BMWs, and expensive SUVs owned by Carpinteria’s more cosmopolitan residents.

 

“No more new projects we can’t afford and don’t need,” said Ocean Oaks resident Annie Bardach, to applause from the audience. Bardach, one of the community leaders of Carpinteria H2O — a grassroots group fighting for lower water bills — listed a number of ways the district could cut costs, including cutting employee health benefits.

 

After presenting potential rate increases in the wake of what they said were improvements to meet federally mandated water quality standards, the district’s Board of Directors fielded irate comments from members of the public. Most honed in on the district’s 1991 purchase of an allotment of 2,000 acre-feet from the State Water Project — which has since been determined is twice what the small district needs — as the primary cause for concern, but others called for the expulsion of general counsel Chip Wullbrandt, a possible merger with the Montecito Water District, and installation of a desalinization plant as other possible fixes to the district’s spiraling budget. Carpinteria resident Tom Mayer called for the board’s immediate resignation, suggesting that a state agency should step in and take control of the district.

 

“Who’s looking out for the rank-and-file rate payer?” said Bruce Taylor, who owns a commercial building on Linden Avenue.

 

As has been customary at Carp Water meetings in recent memory, the subject of Rancho Monte Allegre was broached.

 

Many customers voiced their comcerns that the 3 million-gallon tank which was installed on ranch property — which is slated for development — was intended to provide water service at district expense for a developer who was unable to secure a permit from the state to divert local creeks for water. Board members said the tank was built to meet federal water quality standards while covers were being constructed for the Ortega and Carpinteria collection reservoirs. Director June van Wingerden pointed out in response to suggestions that the district be merged with Montecito that the Montecito Water District collects property taxes as part of its revenue stream, a method of charging the Carpinteria Valley Water District does not use. “It’s hard to compare Montecito and Goleta with Carp unless you consider property taxes,” said director Bob Lieberknecht.

 

Many people have turned their faucet on for 50 years and water always comes out, so it’s difficult to fathom that water could cost more”

 

Having sat silent for most of the meeting’s controversial rate increase agenda item, director Matthew Roberts explained that the $3 million annual cost of state water — which he noted was approved by 63 percent of Carpinteria’s electorate in 1991 — plus ever higher standards from the federal government, have made providing water service very expensive.

 

“Many people have turned their faucet on for 50 years and water always comes out, so it’s difficult to fathom that water could cost more,” he said, adding that water rates across the country are soaring due to aging infrastructure, federal water quality regulations, and, in this area, Southern California’s dwindling supply. “We are not making uninformed decisions.”

 

As the board finished the first agenda item, firector Frederick Lemere invited audience members to stay for the next two agenda items, which explained in detail how a big chunk of the district’s money was being spent. However, save nine people, all of the concerned customers — including the most vehement protesters of water rate increases — had departed.

 

South Coast water agencies share some infrastructure, so Rebecca Bjork, the City of Santa Barbara’s Water Resources Manager, and Kate Reese, General Manager of the Cachuma Operations and Maintenance Board (COMB), were on hand to present upcoming capital improvement projects that will affect Carpinteria water customers. Bjork said that significant costs were incurred by 2007’s Zaca Fire, which burned the upper reaches of the Santa Ynez River watershed and deposited tons of silt in Lake Cachuma, the main drinking water supply for the South Coast. The organic carbon from the fire bonds with chlorine molecules, creating potentially carcinogenic chemicals, she said, increasing the annual treatment and solids handling costs at Cachuma by $2.2 million. Future plans include ozone treatment at Cater Treatment Plant to remove organic carbon, as well as to improve the taste and clarity of drinking water. Bjork said that the treatment will also reduce costs a bit. Currently, the City of Santa Barbara pays 60 percent of the plant’s operating costs, while Montecito and Carpinteria split the other 40 percent.

 

Because her agency is seeking a number of grants to fund improvement projects, Reese said that the much needed updates to Cachuma and the South Coast Conduit — the pipe that supplies South Coast communities with 80 percent of their drinking water — will add significant cost to the districts it serves. COMB is seeking a $16 million bond measure and Proposition 50 money to fund $20 million worth of projects, including a second pipeline to augment the aging South Coast Conduit, and a new office building for COMB staff. “We operate on a shoestring budget,” said Reese, pointing out that her staff works in dilapidated trailers with leaky roofs, and that they are not able to create a reserve fund for projects.#

 

http://www.independent.com/news/2009/may/29/carping-about-water-rates/

 

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

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.