Water company CEO says Sutter Pointe
set for 2014
May 31st, 2011, 8:26 am by
bvandermeer
Through lawsuits, planning, special elections and
other hurdles faced by the developers of Sutter
Pointe, the south Sutter County housing development,
one question has lagged: When, if ever, will the
project actually happen?
An interview from the Wall Street Journal with the
chief executive officer of the water company serving
Sutter Pointe gives a possible answer: 2014.
Robert J. Sprowls of American States Water Company
said in the interview that’s when home construction
could begin for Sutter Pointe, which could have up to
17,000 homes when it’s built out.
In the interview, Sprowls also points out Golden State
Water Company, which is under the American States
umbrella, must first get approval from the California
Public Utilities Commission to provide such water
service.
Sutter Pointe will be in south Sutter County, near
Highway 99 and Riego Road.
Sutter Pointe pact criticized
By
Harold Kruger/Appeal-Democrat -
2011-04-17 00:09:38
The proposed settlement agreement for water service in
the Sutter Pointe project is running into opposition
at the state Public Utilities Commission.
The agency's Division of Ratepayer Advocates filed its
objection last week, urging the commission to reject
the 204-page pact.
DRA attorney Hien C. Vo said his office will need six
months to review the proposed agreement and do further
research "in light of the number, complexity, and
nature of the unresolved issues."
Golden State Water Co. is trying to obtain PUC
permission to become the water provider for the
17,000-home Sutter Pointe project. The company hopes
to obtain its water supply from Natomas Mutual Water
Co.
"At this stage, the proposed build-out for the Sutter
Pointe project remains highly uncertain, and it is
unclear when (and indeed if) the Sutter Pointe
community will be built," Vo wrote in his 20-page
filing. "This uncertainty affects potential rates and
the cycle of ratemaking for this new service area.
Moreover, the record does not support (Golden State's)
proposed project costs and ratemaking proposals."
He suggested that the PUC should consider the
settlement agreement a new application because it
"raises new issues" and "introduces new testimony."
And, Vo contended, "several of its key elements, such
as the water wholesale agreement with Natomas, project
costs, and its ratemaking proposal, differ
significantly from what (Golden State) originally
proposed in its application."
Vo wrote that Golden State "has a sufficient supply of
water without the wholesale agreement with Natomas to
serve the eventual Sutter Pointe community for many
years before it would have any need for surface
water."
Additionally, he said, water from Natomas would be
three times costlier than groundwater at the site:
$154 per acre-foot vs. $49 per acre-foot.
Natomas is proposing to charge $59 per acre-foot.
Golden State would pay an additional $95 per acre-foot
in energy costs to bring the water to Sutter Pointe,
Vo wrote.
The settlement agreement also calls for Golden State
to take over the Robbins water system.
Vo said while he is "sympathetic to the health and
financial challenges faced by Robbins customers, this
matter is not germane to the commission's
determination of whether to grant or deny" Golden
State's application.
"The county itself may be able to finance the upgrades
by issuing a bond," Vo wrote. "Simply because the
county no longer wants to shoulder the responsibility
of being the water purveyor for the Robbins system
does not mean that (it) cannot."
Dear Stakeholders:
After a fifteen month hiatus, Sutter County is resuming its Groundwater Management Plan - Plan Advisory Group (PAG) meetings. The next Plan Advisory Group (PAG) meeting is scheduled for Thursday, June 17, 2010, from 10:00 am to 12:00 pm at the Veteran’s Memorial Hall at 1425 Veterans Memorial Circle in Yuba City. A copy of the agenda for this PAG meeting is attached. For more information please visit the County’s website at: http://www.suttercounty.org/doc/government/depts/pw/wr/gmp/gmphome
Funding for work on the Sutter County – Groundwater Management Plan had been frozen due to State budget issues. It now appears that there will be sufficient funding available for Sutter County to complete the Groundwater Management Plan process, so the County is able to renew its efforts to finish this task.
Please contact me at this e-mail address or at the phone number listed below if you have any questions.
Regards:
Daniel W. Peterson, P.E., CFM
Chief, Water Resources Division
County of Sutter
(530) 822-7450
dwpeterson@co.sutter.ca.us
New
Ordinance is Cash Cow for City
The ordinance passed last night by the City Council
would permit some customers to be billed as soon as
February. Ian Pietz said that the ordinance takes 30
days to go into effect. Then it allows for 30 days to
begin billing after receiving water. There are 800
homes that are North of Lincoln and West of Walton
receiving surface water periodically. They also would
be the first to have meters installed.
Ian Pietz has also said that no construction is needed
for Region 1 (900-1,000 homes). It seems they then
would be the next to receive surface water. That means
that 1,700-1,800 homes could be billed with no
construction needed to deliver surface water to
them. In September 2007, Ian Pietz said that if
Regions 2/3 were put on surface water that all
capacity of the enlarged water treatment plant would
be exhausted.
The unsolved mystery is how will the remaining 2/3
customers and the un-built but planned, 124 homes be
served without further expansion of the already
recently enlarged water treatment plant which was a
$24 mil project that was financed with the sale of
bonds (debt). THE COST OF THIS IMPROVEMENT WAS NOT
PASSED ON TO THE YUBA CITY WATER CUSTOMERS.
If at first Hillcrest
plan doesn’t succeed
Try, try again, says
Yuba City City Council
November 24, 2008 11:50:00 PM
-
By John
Dickey/Appeal-Democrat
Yuba City is poised to start
work on connecting 4,000 Hillcrest households to
city surface water after opponents failed to defeat
a water connection surcharge Monday. Veto of the nearly
$20-per-month surcharge would have required just
over 2,000 Proposition 218 protest ballots. But
opponents could only muster up 807 protest votes:
634 in Region 2/3 and 173 in Region 1.
The City Council voted
unanimously to introduce an ordinance for the water
surcharge after hearing the results from City Clerk
Terrel Locke. "This is put to bed now, the
city can move forward," said Mayor Rory Ramirez in
his last meeting with the council. But opponents may not let it
sleep just yet. They are considering whether to file
a legal challenge to the city's sur-charge, which they are calling
a tax for an improvement, said Elaine Miles, a
Hillcrest resident who has spoken against the
surcharge.
"The issue is not surface
water, the issue is the fairness of this tax," said
Miles. The project also has to be
designed and put out to bid. If bid offers are above
the amount of the surcharge, the city would have to
repeat the Proposition 218 process a third time. Some opponents said they were
against a Hillcrest area-only surcharge to pay for
the pipes and storage tanks to hook the area up to
city surface water. A major pipe will be upsized
beyond Hillcrest needs to handle water for future
development, but the city said it is paying for the
added cost of the piping.
"I say this cost should be
borne by all of the city, and not just this one
area," said Suzanne Connelly, a Hillcrest resident. Others were happy to pay the
surcharge, saying it would be less than the costs of
water softener salts, bottled water and appliance
replacement. "I just feel it would be a
much better choice," said Deb Fahs, who lives in
Region 2.
The city has been proposing a
surface-water connection to replace the Hillcrest
groundwater source. Hillcrest water is high in
arsenic and requires extensive treatment — something
the plant is not designed for, and which reduces the
plant's water output, according to the city. At one point the city issued a
notice to residents about the high arsenic levels. City officials said at
Monday's meeting that one of the Hillcrest wells had
to be taken out of service because it collapsed and
was "pumping gravel" with production of 10 percent
of normal.
Some surcharge foes questioned
the city's maintenance of the Hillcrest water plant. Monday's hearing could mark
the beginning of the end of the controversial
Hillcrest water issue which has been battled out in
meetings since 2007. Monday's Proposition 218
hearing was the second one for the city after a
previous attempt failed overall but passed in Region
1, prompting another try after some claimed they
were misinformed. Hillcrest residents could see
the surcharge on their water bills by the summer of
2010, a month after the connecting pipes and storage
tanks are completed, according to city officials.
Numerous wells, drilled by
and serving both commercial and residential
properties, exist in Sutter County and throughout
the Central Valley. Those private parties who
are interested in securing water from their
wells invest in maintenance in order to keep them
functioning. When and if they begin to falter,
owners either invest in major repair or
replacement in order to keep the water--_that is
still down there and available_--serving their
needs. Crumbling wells in Yuba City appear to
be indicative of maintenance failure or failure to
plan for the inevitable need for replacement.
The City should take the appropriate steps to
make certain that the water that is available
underground _will continue_ to meet the
demands of water customers, rather than crying
"Wolf" or pretending it is powerless to follow the
lead of the private-sector well owners. - Bob
Mackensen
FROM:
Steven Jepsen, City Manager
DATE: November 21, 2008
SUBJ: *City Manager’s Weekly Report *
Utilities Department
*Hillcrest Groundwater System: *Region 2/3
plant number 2 has 2 wells that provide water for
filtration. One well is typically used and the
other is a standby well. The larger of the two
wells failed this week. It appears to have
collapsed and can no longer provide water. The
backup well is currently on line. The backup well
is also showing signs of collapse and could fail
in the near future. If the backup well fails the
remaining wells can not meet the demands of the
current customers.
*Wastewater Facility Permit: *The
wastewater facility permit adopted in October 2007
by the Regional Water Quality Control Board was
appealed by the California Sport fishing
Protection Alliance to the State Water Resource
Control Board (SWRCB) for reconsideration. This
week SWRCB held a hearing and provided their staff
direction on the appeal. The board dismissed most
of the appealed issues without comment. The SWRCB
directed the Regional Water Quality Control Board
to make clarifications and modifications to four
provisions of the permit. Yuba City concurred with
the directions provided and at this time do not
foresee any significant changes due to the
proposed changes. It is anticipated that the
Regional Board will take final action within the
next six to nine months.
*Wastewater Facility Fines: *The Regional
Water Quality Control Board issued a letter
assessing mandatory minimum penalty for effluent
violations totaling $99,000. The violations span a
period of over 8 years. Staff agrees that $84,000
is the appropriate fine and will be discussing
with the Regional Board the remaining violations.
The Wastewater Facility was in compliance
with 99.96 percent of the limits during the last
eight years. The vast majority of discharge
exceedences during the last eight years fall into
two categories – bacteria and settleable solids.
There has not been a bacteria exceedence in the
last three years. Staff has made improvements to
reduce the likelihood of these types of events.
The settleable solids events have continued to
occur as recently as September 2007. A project
scheduled to start next month may reduce these
types of exceedences.A number of other California
communities from Lodi to Williams have been fined
from $21,000 to $2.1 million.
City trying to
sell Hillcrest plant
Water tie-in to 1,000 homes
in Region 1 still on fast track
September 14, 2008 09:21:00 PM -
By John
Dickey/Appeal-Democrat
The City of Yuba City has
started shopping around its Hillcrest water plant
after residents turned down a proposal to connect
to municipal surface water. But a smaller tie-in that
would ship water to 1,000 homes in Region 1 is
still on the fast track. Utilities Director Bill
Lewis is hopeful he can meet the City Council's
goal last month of a Region 1 meeting within 30
days. The Utilities Department has been working on
getting the project and its costs outlined so a
timely City Council session can be held. No date
has been set.
"I'm trying to meet the
council's deadline of 30 days," said Lewis. The council asked city
staffers to look at a tie-in for that area alone
after Region 1 residents did not veto the city's
surface water connection proposal. Overall, the city's proposal
was turned down last month by a majority of
Hillcrest Region 1, 2 and 3 property owners and
utility customers. The City Council on Tuesday
will consider a resolution to apply for
low-interest loans from the California Department
of Public Health. The loan would cover the costs
of reducing arsenic concentrations in Region 1.
While the city is studying a
plan to connect Region 1, which is located east of
Highway 99 in unincorporated Sutter County, it is
also shopping the Hillcrest water plant around. Letters went out Tuesday to
eight water utility companies asking if they had
an interest in purchasing the Hillcrest water
plant, said Lewis.
Public Meeting
- WHO: Yuba City City
Council
- WHAT: Application for loan
to reduce arsenic concentrations in Region 1
- WHEN: 7 p.m. Tuesday
- WHERE: City Council
chambers, 1201 Civic Center Blvd.
