Department of Water Resources
California Water News
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
July 3, 2009
4. Water Quality –
Water board to address concerns about landfill
Fallbrook Bonsall Village News
Tuolumne sewer row brewing
Sonora Union Democrat
Fed up with agency fees
Tahoe Daily Tribune
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Water board to address concerns about landfill
Fallbrook Bonsall Village News-7/2/09
By Joe Naiman
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) will soon be considering the issuance of a permit for the proposed Gregory Canyon landfill.
The San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) seeks to impose conditions on that permit to alleviate any impacts not only to its facilities but also to the San Luis Rey River, which serves as a local water supply for several CWA agencies.
Although the original item being debated during the CWA board meeting April 23 would have authorized a letter to the RWQCB which opposed issuance of a permit for the proposed landfill, the amended motion approved by the CWA board authorizes a letter to the RWQCB expressing the CWA’s concerns which were raised in 1999 during the Environmental Impact Review process about the impact to aquifer groundwater supplies from landfill leakage.
The letter also urges the RWQCB to evaluate negative drinking water quality impacts which could occur from leakage when the RWQCB considers issuance of a permit.
The RWQCB has scheduled an August 12 hearing on the waste discharge permit for the proposed landfill.
“What the Authority’s doing today is a good step,” said Otay Water District general manager Mark Watton, who also represents Otay on the CWA board.
The final motion passed the CWA board with directors Rua Petty of Rainbow and Hershell Price of Del Mar opposed. Camp Pendleton representative Jeremy Jungreis abstained from the vote.
Oceanside representative Barry Martin, who requested the original letter asking for denial, voted in favor of the amended motion.
The CWA’s First Aqueduct runs through the San Luis Rey Municipal Water District – which is not within the CWA boundaries – between the Rainbow Municipal Water District and the Valley Center Municipal Water District.
The proposed Gregory Canyon landfill is within the boundaries of the San Luis Rey Municipal Water District.
Although CWA staff handles most right-of-way issues without additional direction from the CWA board, special circumstances exist in the case of the proposed Gregory Canyon landfill.
The site was zoned for a landfill when the county’s voters passed Proposition C in the November 1994 election.
One of the stipulations of that ballot measure was that the landfill provide special protection to the CWA’s First Aqueduct.
The landfill’s Environmental Impact Report reiterated the special protection for the aqueduct.
Gregory Canyon, Ltd. obtained a solid waste facilities permit (SWFP) from the state’s Integrated Waste Management Board in December 2004 which protects the aqueduct in two ways.
The SWFP conditions require an encroachment permit from the CWA, and the permit also states that prior to commencing any construction work Gregory Canyon, Ltd. shall provide the County of San Diego’s Department of Environmental Health with a copy of the executed agreement between Gregory Canyon, Ltd. and the CWA which covers the relocation and protection of aqueduct pipelines.
CWA staff believes that one possible encroachment threat would not take the form of a direct physical intrusion but rather would have the potential for damage to the aqueduct from activities originating outside the CWA’s right-of-way such as blasting.
CWA staff also anticipates encroachment of aqueduct crossings for access to construction and operations sites, although the staff believes that the standard procedures of the CWA’s Administrative Code will ensure that the aqueduct pipelines are adequately protected from traffic crossings.
CWA staff will not recommend issuing an encroachment permit until other aqueduct issues regarding the landfill are resolved.
Information requested by CWA staff to address those issues includes a blasting analysis, load calculations for road and equipment crossings, and more detailed plans which include project phasing.
Because of the special issues, CWA staff will return to the board for approval or direction before proceeding with the issuance of an encroachment permit.
Several CWA member agencies, including Oceanside, rely on Advertisement
the San Luis Rey River for local supply. “Landfills leak,” Martin said.
“None of the recommended actions to mitigate for this have been taken,” said County Supervisor Pam Slater-Price, who is an ex officio member of the CWA board.
“This landfill is located on a fractured bedrock aquifer,” she said. “There is no natural barrier.”
Slater-Price noted that the recent drought situation and associated cutbacks make protection of the river’s water quality even more important.
“Now more than ever Gregory Canyon Landfill threatens our existing water supply,” she said.
Slater-Price told the CWA board that the Las Pulgas Landfill liner leaked in 2006 and 2007 despite assurances similar to those provided for the Gregory Canyon site.
“If a leak occurred at the Gregory Canyon Landfill, it would be a catastrophe of epic proportions,” she said. “The landfill in this location is a disaster waiting to happen.”
Richard Chase of Gregory Canyon, Ltd. suggested that those concerned about discharge-related impacts from the landfill submit such comments to the RWQCB while letting the CWA focus on mitigating issues of direct concern to that agency.
“It’s not appropriate for the County Water Authority to get involved in the politics of this matter,” he said.
“It’s not a political decision. It’s what is the right thing to do as stewards of this most precious water,” Petty said. “It is a major, major concern. If there was a breech from the landfill, it could permanently damage the San Luis Rey River.”
Nancy Chase of Gregory Canyon, Ltd. supported the final CWA action to have the RWQCB address the CWA’s concerns rather than simply oppose it. “We can live with that,” she said.
Chase noted that mitigating risks would be beneficial for Gregory Canyon, Ltd. “We have the most to lose,” she said.
George Courser of San Diego argued for a letter of outright opposition. “A forceful message must be sent to the regional board,” he said. “The safety of our water supply can never be jeopardized.”
Bonsall’s Sheila Walson also desired a letter of pure opposition to a landfill in the proposed location. “You don’t put a dump by a river,” she said.
Walson’s husband is a member of the Rainbow Municipal Water District board. “The County Water Authority needs to send a clear and a strong message,” Gerald Walson said.
“The water in the San Luis Rey River is a precious commodity and must be protected,” Gerald Walson said. “Once you pollute that aquifer, I don’t have any idea how you’re going to clean it up.”
“It is our firm belief that a high priority must be placed to protect our water supplies from contamination,” said Edward Kimura of the Sierra Club.
“This project will be here forever,” said attorney Walter Rusinek, who represented the Pala Band of Mission Indians. “This is an issue that the County Water Authority needs to step in and oppose right now.”
Regardless of the conditions the RWQCB places on the permit, the CWA will still have some control over the landfill’s construction and operations.
“We have absolute control over the requirements that are going to be in an encroachment permit,” said Fallbrook Public Utility District general manager Keith Lewinger. “It’s going to be up to us as a board to define what restrictions we want.”
“We can take whatever means are necessary,” Watton said. “We still have the ultimate say on that.”
In addition to the RWQCB and the CWA, Gregory Canyon, Ltd. will also need permits from the Integrated Waste Management Board, the San Diego Air Pollution Control District, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, and any other regulatory agencies which would provide required permits.#
http://www.thevillagenews.com/story/38921/
Tuolumne sewer row brewing
Sonora Union Democrat-7/2/0
By Walt Cook
Construction of a new sewer plant to serve the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians’ planned business expansion is imperiled as Tuolumne City Sanitary District officials claim the district is owed $2.9 million.
The Me-Wuk tribe, whose hotel and golf course plans rely on the $6 million plant, count that data used by the district to bill the tribe for the expansion work was inaccurate and possibly fraudulent. The tribe has already paid $4.27 million, and says it’s been overcharged.
Work on the sewer plant, which will replace an old one, began in the spring.
A July 1 letter from a law firm representing the tribe accuses the district of breach of contract, fraud and misrepresentation.
The claim letter arrived at the district’s office via fax machine Wednesday afternoon, just as the sewer district’s board members were complaining that the tribe had issued no reason for its refusal to pay its $2.9 million tab.
A legal paper server later plopped down another copy on the table in front of board Chairman Kevin Burns while he was speaking.
The board, per advice from its attorney Pat Greenwell, refused to make copies of the letter available to the public, which drew complaints from people attending the board meeting. Greenwell said the letter fell under the legal claim exemption of the state’s Public Records Act.
The tribe’s Oregon lawyer, David Lundgren, provided a copy to The Union Democrat.
The letter, citing statements from two former district employees, claims at least one plant employee altered data to make it seem like the casino’s wastewater was more potent than it really is.
A plant manager, the letter claims, would allow samples of the casino’s water to settle, pour off the clear liquid at the top, mix the remaining sample, and send it to a lab for testing.
By using the allegedly altered samples, the district was able to charge the casino more, according to the letter.
Wednesday’s letter also claims the district manipulated data to make it seem as if the casino was using more water than it truly was.
Aformer district employee claims data he entered into a water flow database for the casino was regularly altered, according to the letter.
The board didn’t address the claims Wednesday due to their legal nature. They did, however, criticize the tribe’s refusal to pay.
If the tribe doesn’t pay the $2.9 million plus interest, it’s not paying its fair share for the new plant, according to the district’s engineer Harold Welborn, who developed the casino’s billing formula.
The casino’s sewer use, per Welborn’s calculation, is equivalent to 1,250 homes. All of Tuolumne, meanwhile, uses the equivalent of just 850 homes.
Welborn explained that just after Black Oak Casino was completed, the district’s calculations showed that the facility’s sewer usage was equivalent to 853 homes. When multiplied by the single-home connection fee (at that time $5,000) the casino owed the district $4.27 million, he said.
The tribe paid, and the two parties agreed the casino would be monitored for 15 months to determine if more connection fees were required, according to Welborn.
Welborn last year found the casino was actually using the equivalent of 1,250 homes. By then, the sewer hookup fee for homes had grown to $7,200, bringing the remaining balance to $2.9 million.
“They’ve used more capacity than they’ve paid for,” Welborn said.
Doug Benton, owner of Sierra Mountain Construction Inc., which is working on the sewer project, expressed concern Wednesday about the district running out of money and not being able to pay for his work.
He said the tribe wasn’t giving the board “the respect it deserves” by coming to meetings to inform board members of its issues with the additional fees. Benton said if he and his crew are forced to postpone the job due to non-payment, the project will end up costing the district’s taxpayers more money due to mobilization costs.
Welborn said he has been talking to banks to try to secure financing for the remainder of the project, but, due to the frozen credit markets, has had no luck. A broker could likely secure a loan, he noted, but for a fee of $20,000.
Board members scoffed at the idea.
Though the sewer plant isn’t expected to be completed for three months, district officials reported they have only enough money in their construction fund to last until the end of July.#
http://www.uniondemocrat.com/2009070297150/News/Local-News/Tuolumne-sewer-row-brewing
Fed up with agency fees
Tahoe Daily Tribune-7/3/09
By Adam Jensen
To residents, it's known as the “Tahoe Tax,” a surcharge on seemingly every purchase — from gasoline to groceries — because of the unique locale where they are bought.
But when it comes to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, the tax goes by a different name. The planning agency's compact doesn't allow for the collection of taxes, but does grant the agency the right to collect project review fees to reimburse its expenses, and mitigation fees to alleviate the detrimental effects of development on the lake.
The fees are just part of doing business in such breath-taking natural surroundings, according to one TRPA official.
But to some in the Lake Tahoe Basin, the fees are a prime example of big government run amok.
Although it has taken Jim Morris, the president of Lake Tahoe Accommodations in South Lake Tahoe, eight years to secure the building allocation needed to build a 2,155-square-foot home on Venice Drive in the Tahoe Keys, it's the fees that anger the Carson Valley resident the most. The house is being constructed as a rental property that will generate funds for the pension plan for the more than 30 employees of Lake Tahoe Accommodations, Morris says.
In addition to $18,920.20 for a sewer permit, the permit fees associated with the construction on the home total $23,180.68. More than two-thirds of the $23,000 in fees are levied by the TRPA.
“I was immediately taken aback by the unbelievable statement of fees, etc. for a single family residential building permit,” Morris said in a letter to the TRPA in March. “The absurdity of the charges seems to be indicative of how far unchecked government has come.”
Despite the thousands of dollars in fees, it was $500 that sent Morris through the roof.
In September, the TRPA told Morris the base allowable land coverage of the parcel he intended to build on was 7 percent, effectively preventing a house from being built on the lot that's between two existing homes.
Morris protested the decision to the TRPA, which then ruled — after requiring a $500 application fee — that the amount of allowable base coverage was 30 percent because the parcel is considered a “man-modified” parcel under agency rules.
The developer is galled at the $500 charge, saying it should be the responsibility of the agency to be able to accurately interpret its own rules.
“I don't know how many people they screwed with this deal,” Morris said.
To Morris, the fees are a symptom of an agency that places undue burden on individual families rather than concentrating on large public projects that could most benefit Lake Tahoe.
Erosion control measures along the basin's road network would be more effective toward improving the health of the lake than regulating the coverage created by individual homeowners, Morris contends.
“They could do some good, but them concentrating on the single-family residents is a joke,” Morris said.
Such large-scale projects are under way, but limitations on land coverage and requiring homeowners to install erosion control measures on their property are part of a “holistic” approach to improving Lake Tahoe's environmental quality, something that won't happen for free, said TRPA spokesman Dennis Oliver.
Just as it's every homeowner's responsibility to take steps to prevent wildfire in the basin, it's also their responsibility to help protect the lake, Oliver said. Owning a home at Lake Tahoe requires owners to be stewards of the land rather than just occupants, Oliver said.
“What we're trying to do is perfect the art of people being able to live in a place like Tahoe and do so environmentally capably,” Oliver said.
Fees are a necessary part of protecting the lake and are reviewed annually to ensure they are appropriate, Oliver said. Project application fees pay for the planning staff needed to review development projects in the basin, Oliver said. Mitigation fees don't fund TRPA operations and are held by the agency to fund future projects designed to meet certain environmental goals, Oliver said.
“It's all going back into the product,” Oliver said. “If you want to see if it's working, just look around, Lake Tahoe is a pretty nice place.”
Even though Morris says he would prefer that the TRPA focus on roadway improvements rather than individual homeowners, he questions the effectiveness of projects paid for by mitigation fees, using as an example an erosion control project behind Tahoe Valley Elementary School that appears in disrepair.
The maintenance of mitigation projects is an under-funded aspect of protecting Lake Tahoe, Oliver said, noting such maintenance is not the responsibility of the TRPA, but the responsibility of the owner of the project.
A larger share, $142 million, of the next environmental improvement program — a $2.4 billion public-private partnership to fund projects that improve Lake Tahoe's environment — is allocated for just such maintenance, Oliver said. Where that money will come from isn't known, but is expected to include all levels of government and the private sector, Oliver said.
Still, Morris has vowed to keep up the fight against an agency he feels has overstepped its bounds, and he isn't alone.
In a December lawsuit challenging TRPA's recently passed ordinance amendments to regulate development near Lake Tahoe's shoreline, the Tahoe Lakefront Owners' Association contends a $100,000 public-access mitigation fee for new pier construction at Lake Tahoe is arbitrary and illegal.
“TRPA attempts to justify that high fee by referring to efforts to increase public access to the lake shore. However there is no assessment of what impact, if any, a new pier might have on public access,” according to the suit.
The fee was set at $100,000 because it represents the cost to remove a pier and restore the area it was built on, Oliver said. The money generated from the fee will go to pay for future projects providing public access to Lake Tahoe's shoreline, Oliver said.
But, in the eyes of the owners association, the fee is representative of an agency that has gone too far.
“Absent some nexus between the harm and the remedy, the amendments' $100,000 fee is just a tax,” according to the suit. “The compact does not give TRPA the right to impose taxes.”
TRPA fees: Adding it up
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency fees associated with construction of a 2,155-square-foot home in the Tahoe Keys:
$100 — Fee for monitoring water-quality impacts and permit conformance.
$3,258.40 — Air quality mitigation fee for new residences. The fee is $325.84 per daily vehicle trip. Single-family dwellings create 10 daily vehicle trips, according to the International Traffic Engineering Manual.
$88 — Information technology surcharge for all applications. Serves as cost recovery mechanism and funds equipment and systems upgrades.
$365 — Off-site coverage mitigation to pay for water-quality issues resulting from the portion of the driveway apron that connects to the street.
$263.40 — City of South Lake Tahoe cost recovery for TRPA review. Agencies that partner with TRPA add 10 percent to TRPA application filing fees to recover cost of administrating a memorandum of understanding with the TRPA.
$2,370.60 — TRPA cost recovery for application review is $1.10 per square foot on new residential buildings. The city keeps this to pay for staff time reviewing the project. Includes all administration costs for permit review and site visits.
$76 — TRPA cost recovery for administration of securities, finance team, etc.
$2,901.60 — TRPA water-quality mitigation fund contribution based on square feet of impervious surfaces created. The current fee is $1.86 per square foot. Mitigation funds are a pass-through and go to the jurisdiction where a project is developed to fund water-quality improvement projects to offset the impact of development as a whole. TRPA collects no administration fees for water-quality mitigation funds and holds them in an account to accrue interest until the jurisdiction is ready to implement a project.
$3,250 — Special water-quality mitigation for Tahoe Keys properties. Fee is a set amount per new home in the Keys and is not used often since there are few vacant parcels left.
Source: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.#
http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20090703/NEWS/907029993/1068&ParentProfile=1056
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment