Published in the newspaper
Home - Return

Information

Sutter Pointe water study ready
Appeared in Appeal-Democrat 2010-05-08

The California Public Utilities Commission has released a draft environmental study on the proposed Golden State Water Co. project at Sutter Pointe. Golden State wants to provide water service to the Sutter Pointe development in south Sutter County, where an estimated 17,500 homes are to be built, with a projected population of nearly 47,000.

The commission has prepared a focused tiered draft environmental impact report on the proposed water service, which will supply Sutter Pointe with 25,000 acre-feet of water annually. Public comment on the report is being accepted through June 14.

The 284-page study is available at the Sutter County Library in Yuba City and online at www.cpuc.ca.gov/Environment/info/esa/gswc_sp/index.html.

A public meeting is scheduled May 19 4-6 p.m. at the Veterans Memorial Community Building, 1425 Veterans Memorial Circle, Yuba City.

Several Northern California water transfers are ready to go, another was canceled
By HEATHER HACKING - Staff Writer - Posted: 04/22/2010 12:00:00 AM PDT

Water transfers from rice farmers along the Feather River to water users south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta are moving forward, with State Water Contractors' approval of deals that have been in the works for several months. Yet, transfers along the Sacramento River have been canceled due to recent rains, a higher allocation to water users south of the Delta and difficulty moving water through the water delivery system.

Feather River
(State Water Project, operated by the Department of Water Resources)

Several districts got the go-ahead April 16 to sell water to water users along the State Water Project. Farmers who choose not to grow rice will receive $250 per acre-foot of water sold. Western Canal Water District, with headquarters in Nelson, has growers signed up to fallow land and transfer 17,000 acre-feet of water, said Western Canal Manager Ted Trimble. Richvale Irrigation District will be transferring about 16,500 acre-feet of water by not planting rice on about 5,000 acres, said Brad Mattson, Richvale's manager.

Biggs West Gridley Water District will sell 13,000 acre-feet of water through land fallowing, said manager Karen Peters. Within Butte County, Measure G, passed in 1996, does not allow surface water to be sold and groundwater substituted without county approval. But those rules don't apply in other counties.

Sutter Extension Water District, with headquarters in Yuba City, will be fallowing land to transfer 6,000 acre-feet of water. Groundwater substitution will add another 4,000 acre-feet at $225 an acre-foot, said manager Lynn Phillips. One acre-foot of water is 325,851 gallons, enough water to cover one acre of land with one foot of water.

For purposes of water transfers, the Department of Water Resources allows rice growers to transfer 3.3 acre-feet of water per one acre of land not planted. However, depending on the soil type, rice growers might use more water than this when growing rice.

Sacramento River
(Central Valley Project, operated by the federal Bureau of Reclamation)

Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, with headquarters in Willows, had been prepared to move up to 20,000 acre-feet of water and substitute use of groundwater to grow crops. The sale price would have been $200 an acre-foot. However, Thad Bettner, Glenn-Colusa manager, said he received word Tuesday the deals had fallen through. Recent storms have meant an increase in allocation to irrigators south of the Delta to 30 percent.

The Sacramento River, which is tied to the Central Valley Project, "has the lowest priority for conveyance through the Delta," Bettner explained. Feather River runs through the Delta through the State Water Project, and has a higher priority. Also, farmers along the Feather River can temporarily store water behind Lake Oroville. As of Wednesday, Lake Oroville was at 774.61 feet. The reservoir is full at 900 feet. Shasta Lake is much more full and storage space isn't available.

"On the Sacramento River side, all transfers are off," Bettner said. Now farmers are waiting for the rain to stop. After fields dry out, the soil can be prepared for rice planting. Growers often get rice seed into flooded fields by mid-April. But with storms likely again early next week, it may be a while. Water transfers are a controversial subject to many people in the Northern Sacramento Valley.

Barbara Vlamis, of the newly formed AquAlliance in Chico, said her ongoing concern with water transfers is there has never been an overall look at effects on groundwater supply, creeks and species dependent upon surface water. With water deals negotiated separately with district "how do you ever get a big picture view of what's happening?" Vlamis said. She'd like to see a more thorough mitigation and monitoring program.

State water agency hit with violations in Oroville Dam accident
Published Wednesday, Feb. 24, 2010 in the Sacramento Bee.

Safety violations by the state Department of Water Resources caused an accident last year at Oroville Dam that injured five workers, according to an investigation by workplace safety officials. The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration found six violations that contributed to the July 22 accident, including five considered "serious." It levied fines totaling $141,375. The accident occurred when river outlet valves were opened inside the dam. The flow of water through giant tunnels caused a massive suction force that destroyed a steel bulkhead separating workers from the tunnel.

Two workers were nearly sucked into the tunnel. They survived by clinging to a damaged railing that hung into the tunnel. One suffered a broken leg and arm and head trauma. Others had minor injuries. Water releases from Oroville – the state's second-largest reservoir, with a capacity of 3.5 million acre-feet – were curtailed much of the day in the aftermath. Officials said the dam's safety was never compromised. OSHA found, among other things, that an "energy dispersion ring" designed to eliminate the suction force had been removed two months earlier and never replaced.

It also found that the dispersion ring was damaged in 1968 and never repaired. A UC Davis study in 1993 advised DWR that, as a result, flow through the valves should be "severely limited" for safety. Yet DWR officials told the employees on July 22 to open the valves all the way, and they were 80 percent open when the accident happened. DWR spokesman Ted Thomas declined to comment in detail on the investigation. "Our position is that the Cal/OSHA findings contain errors, and for that reason we have appealed," Thomas said.

Oroville Dam is part of the State Water Project, funded entirely by water sales to contractor agencies. It provides water supply and flood protection. The probe also found that DWR failed to educate employees about hazards related to removal of the energy dispersion device. It changed relevant safety practices, but failed to train employees. There were also maintenance problems: Bolts securing the steel bulkhead separating workers from the water tunnel were corroded, and a vacuum alarm on the bulkhead was disconnected.

__________________________________________________________

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER

CITY OF YUBA CITY GROUNDWATER REGION 3 (#5110003) HAS ARSENIC LEVELS ABOVE THE DRINKING WATER STANDARD - FOURTH CALENDAR QUARTER 2009 NOTICE

The City of Yuba City Utilities Department is dedicated to providing high quality water and excellent customer service. We routinely monitor your drinking water to ensure compliance with all health standards. Based on the average of the last four quarters of testing, your drinking water (Region 3 Groundwater) exceeds the federal drinking water standard for arsenic. The City has already taken action to lower arsenic levels in your drinking water, but have not been able to lower it below the federal standard. While this is not an emergency, we want you to know what happened, what you should do and what we are doing to correct this situation.

New Drinking Water Standard In January 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) lowered the drinking water standard for arsenic, a naturally occurring compound in the local groundwater, from 50 parts per billion (ppb) to 10 parts per billion (ppb). Groundwater Treatment Plant #3, operated by the City of Yuba City Utilities Department, exceeded that new standard:

* The current annual average arsenic concentration for Groundwater Treatment Plant #2, which operates year round, is 9.7 ppb.

* The current annual average arsenic concentration for Groundwater Treatment Plant #3 is 13.8 ppb.

This is above the USEPA standard, so you will be notified quarterly until the standard is met or your water source is converted to the City's surface water system. WHAT SHOULD YOU DO?

* This is not an emergency. If it had been, you would have been notified immediately. However, some peope who drink water containing high levels of arsenic for many years may experience skin damage or ciculatroy system problems and may have an increased risk for cancer.

* You do NOT need to use bottled water.

* If you have specific health concerns, please consult your medical provider.

What Steps Are We Taking?

The City is always working to keep arsenic levels in compliance by adjusting treatment processes. The City expects to have Region 3 (area south of Lincoln Rd) permanently converted to Surface Water by Fall of 2010. Region 2 (area North of Lincoln Rd) is currently receiving and should continue to receive surface water until permanently being converted at the same time. See attached map.

We will continue to rigorously monitor your water supply to ensure it meets federal and state drinking water standards and keep our customers informed. Notices similar to this one will be sent to customers every 3 months until your drinking water is in full compliance with the arsenic standard.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

* Contact Water Treatment Plant Supervisor John Westhouse at (530) 822-4637.

* For questions about general water safety standards, contact the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Safe Drinking Water Hotline (1-800-426-4791).

* Find more informaiton about arsenic rule compliance on the EPA Web site: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/arsenic/compliance.html

* Visit our website at http://www.yubacity.net/utiltiies/hillcreat-surface-water.htm and see Hillcrest Water Conversion Schedlule

January 26, 2010 Ad #00091078 - Appeared in: Appeal Democrat on Tuesday, 01/26/2010

Science panel's review of California water woes prompts fight
IT'S POLITICAL, SAY CRITICS; FARMERS CALL EFFORT VITAL
Published Thursday, Jan. 21, 2010 in the Sacramento Bee

An elite science panel's work to clarify California's water problems has become, instead, the latest front in a battle over the Delta's endangered species. Experts on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta say political meddling prompted the review by the National Academy of Sciences. It risks becoming a "sideshow," they say, that could delay real solutions to California's water woes. Water agencies, on the other hand, say the review is essential to ensure California is on the right path because the economic stakes are so high.

The panel appointed by the academy, the nation's most esteemed science body, meets for five days starting Sunday at the University of California, Davis. It is charged with examining rules adopted by federal wildlife agencies to protect imperiled Delta fish species. The panel's recommendations, expected in two phases over 2 1/2 years, carry no legal weight. But they could be the impetus for new regulation, lawsuits, or both.

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., asked for the review in response to requests from San Joaquin Valley farmers, including Stewart Resnick, owner of agriculture giant Paramount Farms. Resnick's Sept. 4 letter to Feinstein asserts that "sloppy science" contributed to the new water and species protections. Resnick and other major water users in the San Joaquin Valley criticize the fish protections, imposed under the Endangered Species Act. They have sued and mounted public relations battles to avoid giving up water to help fish.

Several scientists who are experts on the Delta, however, charge that the review was prompted by political pressure from water users rather than a quest for truth. Jeffrey Mount, a geology professor at UC Davis and nationally known expert on the Delta, believes the academy was asked to get involved simply because "people of great influence" don't like the rules. "It's not a wise use of the National Academy of Sciences, in my opinion," said Mount, who served on a prior academy panel that examined Klamath River issues. "It will become a sideshow. We are setting a bad precedent that will stretch well beyond the Delta."

Holly Doremus, professor of environmental law at the University of California, Berkeley, said many critics fail to understand that perfect science is not in the Endangered Species Act's mandate. It does not, for example, require the government to guarantee that its rules will save the fish. "Lots of people are uncomfortable with uncertain science," said Doremus, who served on two prior academy panels. "The water users really want to know that when they're giving up water, the fish will be saved. And that's an assurance that just can't be provided."

The academy panel can recommend science-based solutions that can't be attained under the law, an outcome that could complicate California's work on its water problems, Mount and Doremus said. The rules, called biological opinions, are adopted by federal wildlife agencies, which set limits on reservoir operations and Delta water diversions to protect five species of native fish: steelhead, two runs of salmon, sturgeon and Delta smelt.

Experts appointed to the academy panel will review decades of science to determine whether the Delta fish protections are justified. From fish behavior to urban water pollution and reservoir function, the panel must decide whether the rules are the best choices for the Delta estuary. Their review will cost an estimated $1.5 million, only half of which has been appropriated by Congress so far. The Delta's state and federal water diversion projects serve 25 million Californians and 2 million acres of farmland. This water demand has contributed to a steep ecological decline, pushing numerous fish species toward extinction.

Water cutbacks triggered by the fish protections and drought last year idled nearly 300,000 acres of San Joaquin Valley farmland, a major blow to a region stressed by the poor economy. "I think it's just time for a really good, thorough look," said Bill Phillimore, executive vice president of Paramount Farms. "If you're taking actions that have a significant economic effect on employment numbers and people's lives, you ought to make very certain that you're right." Mount and other experts on the Delta, however, said the fish protections are rigorously tested science. They have already been reviewed by five independent science panels over the past 14 months.

The academy review, they said, is likely to be redundant or could produce irrelevant information that derails ongoing efforts to solve California's water problems. "I would just describe this as sort of unfortunate meddling," said Bruce Herbold, a biologist at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency who has studied the Delta for two decades. "It strikes me as desperately hoping somebody will come up with some other conclusion." Of particular concern is the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, an effort to obtain Endangered Species Act approval for huge habitat and plumbing projects in the Delta.

The academy review won't be done until 2012, a year after expected completion of the plan. This could cause the plan to be scrapped or redrawn, Mount and Herbold warned. Feinstein, in an e-mailed response to questions from The Bee, said the review will complement the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, not disrupt it. "I see no reason why anyone should be afraid of a scientific review by this highly respected body," she said. "I believe it is the key to making better and more informed decisions in the Delta." Water interests have attacked the biological opinions as flawed and filed multiple lawsuits to overturn them.

The Coalition for a Sustainable Delta, a nonprofit that represents San Joaquin Valley irrigation districts, filed separate federal lawsuits against the smelt and salmon protections. A majority of the coalition's officers work for Resnick's Paramount Farms. "The science is so critical here that we have to ensure we get it right," said Michael Boccadoro, spokesman for the coalition. "Bringing in the highest science body in the nation to do that review is probably long overdue."

In his letter to Feinstein, Resnick provided a list of questions, prepared by Phillimore, for the National Academy of Sciences to consider. Its official charge is little changed from that list. But most of these questions, Mount and Herbold noted, have already been asked and answered in previous independent science reviews. For example, water agencies bitterly oppose an order for more freshwater outflow through the Delta in the fall to benefit smelt. This rule also limits Delta water exports.

Two separate independent science panels have affirmed the importance of fall flows for Delta smelt. Yet the academy panel will take up fall flows again at Feinstein's request. "I really don't know what we're going to get from this (academy review) that's likely to be spectacularly different from what we've got now," Mount said.

Mid-Valley Briefs - Appeal-Democrat - 2009-12-31 22:19:58

Yuba City Water main work closing Clark Avenue

A section of Clark Avenue near Yuba City High School in Yuba City is closed to through traffic through Jan. 10 while a new water main is installed. Work on the section, between B Street and Franklin Avenue, is being done while school is not in session. Classes at the high school begin Jan. 11.

Through traffic is being detoured onto B Street and Gray and Franklin avenues and local access is still available to the high school. Waterline installation on B Street, between Clark and Cooper avenues, was completed Dec. 24. For more information, visit http://www.yubacity.net/construction/contract-09-05.htm or contact the Yuba City Public Works Department at 822-4626.

Sutter County adopts rule for water in landscaping

By Howard Yune/Appeal-Democrat - 2009-12-29 23:13:58

Water conservation plans will be required for future homes and lawns in much of Sutter County — despite leaders' complaints the state has forced their hands in the matter.

An ordinance demanding water efficiency and irrigation plans for many landscaping projects larger than 2,500 square feet won the Board of Supervisors' approval Tuesday and takes effect on Friday. But the 4-1 vote was a largely grudging one, marked by board members' about state intrusion into local affairs.

"We had no way of going to the public, no time to get people's perceptions, to see how (the costs) affect businesses and communities," said Jim Whiteaker, the only supervisor to vote against the law. "The state's gonna do what the state's gonna do, but as a county we shouldn't be accepting this."

The water ordinance brings Sutter County in line with Assembly Bill 1881, a state efficiency law that takes effect Friday.

New homes or rebuilding projects would require the owner to file a landscaping and irrigation plan — usually involving a drip irrigation system — with the county to prove compliance with water consumption limits before gaining a building permit. The ordinance applies to newly landscaped areas 2,500 square feet or larger, outside homes and public buildings.

Future homes are the main target of the law, which does not apply to existing homes except when the owner replants more than 5,000 square feet at a time. Builders and homeowners in Yuba City and Live Oak — home to the bulk of county residents — will be subject to city, not county, water efficiency codes.

Stimulus funds drill wells as Calif water vanishes
This story appeared in Sacramento Bee
Associated Press Writer - Published Wednesday, Dec. 16, 2009

DOS PALOS, Calif. -- The government is spending $40 million in federal stimulus funds to pull water from underground aquifers in drought-stricken California, even as evidence is growing that the well-drilling boom could degrade the quality of water delivered to millions of residents.

Farmers, conservationists and engineers are criticizing the Interior Department's plan to spend taxpayer money on digging more wells, saying the approach risks marring the environment. Canals buckle, aquifers collapse and drinking water turns saltier due to so much pumping, and studies show that the state's water supplies are dwindling.

"We don't need any more straws going down there 'cause we're already doing a pretty good job of sucking it dry," said farmer Dan Errotabere, who has dug three wells as deep as 1,200 feet to irrigate his tomatoes, almonds and garlic in recent years. "We're using this water as a last resort, but pretty soon we're going to need a policy to protect ourselves from ourselves."

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says the government is targeting its well-drilling effort to serve remote communities and prop up California's agricultural economy, a $36 billion industry that grows nearly half the country's fruits, nuts and vegetables.

"The role of the federal government is to provide a helping hand. But the federal government can't solve the water problems," Salazar said as he sampled sliced cantaloupe with local farmers several weeks ago. "California water issues are a big mess and have been a big mess for a long time."

Since the drought began in 2006, hundreds of new wells have been drilled and are pumping around the clock in the state, tapping aquifers that date to the days of the dinosaurs.

In the last six years alone, the amount of water that has been lost from the aquifers coursing beneath the parched Central Valley would be nearly enough to fill the nation's largest reservoir, Nevada's Lake Mead, NASA researchers said Monday.

Salazar announced in July the department would send emergency drought aid from President Barack Obama's stimulus package to drill and renovate up to 135 wells. The total number has dropped since then, and authorities are still drawing up plans about how and where to drill.

The money will go to dig up to 50 new wells, retrofit up to 40 old ones and install temporary pipes and pumps to move water to crops and orchards, federal officials said. More than $2 million of the funds will be used for monitoring the real-time ecological impacts of wells in sensitive areas, and proposed new wells will undergo environmental review.

While everyone agrees the state's aquifers are quickly being drawn down, no California or federal rules govern how much water can be pumped out. Driven by a similar set of concerns, other Western states have set up laws to limit pumping.

Dennis Freeman, who oversees a main canal that irrigates the valley's farm fields, says even without government-financed wells, it is already costing millions to fix the damage wrought by decades of pumping.

"There's no doubt about it, the canal is sinking," he said, gesturing at cracked and buckled concrete panels lining the structure's edge. "There's more wells going in, because our growers gotta get water to their crops. But we're always concerned about the effect that will have."

Federal officials also are monitoring whether pumping could cause the California Aqueduct to sink, slowing deliveries of drinking water to millions of Southern Californians and forcing costly repairs.

Another concern is the quality of water. The federal and state governments allow landowners with wells on their property to swap their underground water for higher-quality canal water.

The brackish groundwater is then pumped into an aqueduct that supplies cities, farms and industry to the south, but that causes what comes out of the tap to grow saltier. The saltier water is expected to cause $18 million in long-term economic damages in those areas, such as problems with water recycling plants and the deterioration of appliances.

Salazar, a former rancher and environmental lawyer, told California farmers the wells and other taxpayer-funded projects would help their businesses stay alive.

"I've watched acres of our land dry up. I've gone to the bank with my brothers and not been able to get financing myself," he said. "You're all wondering what is your future in 30 years, and I know there's a lot of pain right now."

Despite recent storms, the pain is not expected to let up anytime soon. Last month, the Department of Water Resources announced it would release a record-low amount of water to farmers and urban dwellers next year, a response to dry weather and environmental protections for a native fish in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

As the state struggles to find a solution, even federal water managers are discussing whether this small portion of the $787 billion economic stimulus bill could aggravate the problem.

"It keeps coming up in conversation, because we know the more active wells there are, the more these concerns come to the surface," said Michael Jackson, the Bureau of Reclamation's area manager for south central California.

More Complaints About Flood Insurance Overcharges In Sutter County
By: Chris Gilbert - Appeal-Democrat - December 14, 2009

MORE CALLS ARE COMING IN REGARDING FLOOD INSURANCE OVERCHARGES IN SUTTER COUNTY. A NEWS RELEASE STATED ON FRIDAY THAT FOUR PROPERTY OWNERS HAD COMPLAINED OVER THE LAST MONTH OR SO. BUT SINCE THAT INFORMATION CAME OUT, THE COUNTY GOT FOUR MORE CALLS JUST THIS (MON.) MORNING. WATER RESOURCES CHIEF DAN PETERSON SAYS IT MAY BE THAT THIRD PARTIES HIRED BY INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE INACCURATELY PLACING PROPERTY OWNERS IN A SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA. THAT WOULD MEAN RATES OF 17-HUNDRED DOLLARS A YEAR. HE'S URGING ANYONE WITH BILLS OVER 400 DOLLARS TO CALL 822-3299 FOR ASSISTANCE.

Millions in U.S. Drink Dirty Water, Records Show
By CHARLES DUHIGG

More than 20 percent of the nation’s water treatment systems have violated key provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act over the last five years, according to a New York Times analysis of federal data. That law requires communities to deliver safe tap water to local residents. But since 2004, the water provided to more than 49 million people has contained illegal concentrations of chemicals like arsenic or radioactive substances like uranium, as well as dangerous bacteria often found in sewage.

Regulators were informed of each of those violations as they occurred. But regulatory records show that fewer than 6 percent of the water systems that broke the law were ever fined or punished by state or federal officials, including those at the Environmental Protection Agency, which has ultimate responsibility for enforcing standards.

Studies indicate that drinking water contaminants are linked to millions of instances of illness within the United States each year. In some instances, drinking water violations were one-time events, and probably posed little risk. But for hundreds of other systems, illegal contamination persisted for years, records show.

On Tuesday, the Senate Environment and Public Works committee will question a high-ranking E.P.A. official about the agency’s enforcement of drinking-water safety laws. The E.P.A. is expected to announce a new policy for how it polices the nation’s 54,700 water systems.

“This administration has made it clear that clean water is a top priority,” said an E.P.A. spokeswoman, Adora Andy, in response to questions regarding the agency’s drinking water enforcement. The E.P.A. administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, this year announced a wide-ranging overhaul of enforcement of the Clean Water Act, which regulates pollution into waterways.

“The previous eight years provide a perfect example of what happens when political leadership fails to act to protect our health and the environment,” Ms. Andy added. Water pollution has become a growing concern for some lawmakers as government oversight of polluters has waned. Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, in 2007 asked the E.P.A. for data on Americans’ exposure to some contaminants in drinking water.

The New York Times has compiled and analyzed millions of records from water systems and regulators around the nation, as part of a series of articles about worsening pollution in American waters, and regulators’ response.

An analysis of E.P.A. data shows that Safe Drinking Water Act violations have occurred in parts of every state. In the prosperous town of Ramsey, N.J., for instance, drinking water tests since 2004 have detected illegal concentrations of arsenic, a carcinogen, and the dry cleaning solvent tetrachloroethylene, which has also been linked to cancer.

In New York state, 205 water systems have broken the law by delivering tap water that contained illegal amounts of bacteria since 2004. However, almost none of those systems were ever punished. Ramsey was not fined for its water violations, for example, though a Ramsey official said that filtration systems have been installed since then. In New York, only three water systems were penalized for bacteria violations, according to federal data.

The problem, say current and former government officials, is that enforcing the Safe Drinking Water Act has not been a federal priority. “There is significant reluctance within the E.P.A. and Justice Department to bring actions against municipalities, because there’s a view that they are often cash-strapped, and fines would ultimately be paid by local taxpayers,” said David Uhlmann, who headed the environmental crimes division at the Justice Department until 2007.

“But some systems won’t come into compliance unless they are forced to,” added Mr. Uhlmann, who now teaches at the University of Michigan law school. “And sometimes a court order is the only way to get local governments to spend what is needed.” A half-dozen current and former E.P.A. officials said in interviews that they tried to prod the agency to enforce the drinking-water law, but found little support.

“I proposed drinking water cases, but they got shut down so fast that I’ve pretty much stopped even looking at the violations,” said one longtime E.P.A. enforcement official who, like others, requested anonymity for fear of reprisals. “The top people want big headlines and million-dollar settlements. That’s not drinking-water cases.” The majority of drinking water violations since 2004 have occurred at water systems serving fewer than 20,000 residents, where resources and managerial expertise are often in short supply.

It is unclear precisely how many American illnesses are linked to contaminated drinking water. Many of the most dangerous contaminants regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act have been tied to diseases like cancer that can take years to develop.

But scientific research indicates that as many as 19 million Americans may become ill each year due to just the parasites, viruses and bacteria in drinking water. Certain types of cancer — such as breast and prostate cancer — have risen over the past 30 years, and research indicates they are likely tied to pollutants like those found in drinking water.

The violations counted by the Times analysis include only situations where residents were exposed to dangerous contaminants, and exclude violations that involved paperwork or other minor problems. In response to inquiries submitted by Senator Boxer, the E.P.A. has reported that more than three million Americans have been exposed since 2005 to drinking water with illegal concentrations of arsenic and radioactive elements, both of which have been linked to cancer at small doses.

In some areas, the amount of radium detected in drinking water was 2,000 percent higher than the legal limit, according to E.P.A. data. But federal regulators fined or punished fewer than 8 percent of water systems that violated the arsenic and radioactive standards. The E.P.A., in a statement, said that in a majority of situations, state regulators used informal methods — like providing technical assistance — to help systems that had violated the rules.

But many systems remained out of compliance, even after aid was offered, according to E.P.A. data. And for over a quarter of systems that violated the arsenic or radioactivity standards, there is no record that they were ever contacted by a regulator, even after they sent in paperwork revealing their violations.

Those figures are particularly worrisome, say researchers, because the Safe Drinking Water Act’s limits on arsenic are so weak to begin with. A system could deliver tap water that puts residents at a 1-in-600 risk of developing bladder cancer from arsenic, and still comply with the law. Despite the expected announcement of reforms, some mid-level E.P.A. regulators say they are skeptical that any change will occur.

“The same people who told us to ignore Safe Drinking Water Act violations are still running the divisions,” said one mid-level E.P.A. official. “There’s no accountability, and so nothing’s going to change.”

Griffin Palmer contributed reporting.

SECTION 00020 - NOTICE INVITING BIDS

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Yuba City, hereafter referred to as “Owner”, will receive SEALED BIDS at the City Hall, City Clerk's Office, 1201 Civic Center Blvd., Yuba City, CA 95993, until 3:00 p.m. local time, on January 6, 2010, for construction of:

Garden Highway Storage Tank Improvements Contract No. 2009-30

At said place and time, and promptly thereafter, all Bids that have been duly received in accordance with the Contract Documents, will be publicly opened and read aloud. The clock located in the City Clerk's office is considered the official local time. Project Description: In accordance with plans and specifications prepared by Peterson Brustad, Inc., the Work includes the furnishing of all labor, materials, tax, equipment and services for the construction and completion of the rehabilitation of the 3 million gallon potable water storage, including joint sealing, interior coating and ladder replacement at the Garden Highway Storage Tank. The total Contract Time to achieve Final Completion is 90 calendar days. The estimated cost of construction is $340,000. At the time the Contract is bid, awarded and for the duration of the Contract, the Owner has determined that the General Contractor shall possess a valid State of California Class C33 - Painting Specialty Contractors' License. Failure to possess the specified license shall render the Bid as non-responsive. Bidders must comply with the provisions of the California Business and Professions Code Section 7028.15 by setting forth their license number and expiration date on their Bid. A full set of Contract Documents and all information available to Bidders, as further defined in Section 00200, INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO BIDDERS, may be examined at the Owner's Utility Department during regular business hours. Bidders may also obtain the plan holder's list and purchase a copy of the Contract Documents and related information from: Signature Reprographics 620 Sunbeam Ave. Sacramento, CA, 95811 Phone: (916) 454-0800 Fax: (916) 736-3053 www.signaturerepro.com Document Description Non-Refundable Charges Complete half-size set of Contract Documents (specifications and half-size drawings) $75 plus shipping and delivery Checks should be made payable to: City of Yuba City. Charges are not refundable, regardless of whether the documents are returned or not. Complete sets of Contract Documents must be used in preparing Bids. The Owner does not assume responsibility for errors or misinterpretations resulting from the use of incomplete sets of Contract Documents. The Owner, in making copies of the Contract Documents available on the above terms, does so only for the purpose of obtaining Bids for the Work and does not confer license or grant for any other use. A mandatory pre-bid meeting and project walk-through will be held on December 16, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. at 302 Burns Drive, Yuba City, CA 95991. At this meeting, representatives of Owner and the Design Engineer will discuss the bid documents, site constraints, order of work and other items specific to this project. A project walk-through will follow this meeting, including confined space entry into the tank for those with the proper certification. A sign-in sheet will be available up until commencement of the pre-bid meeting only. Attendance at the entire pre-bid meeting and project walk-through is mandatory for bidding. Bids received from Bidders who did not sign the sign-in sheet and attend the meeting and project walk-through will be returned to the Bidder unopened. Attendance by subcontractors is not mandatory, but all interested prospective subcontractors are encouraged to attend. The Owner will transmit to all recipients of complete sets of Contract Documents such Addenda as Owner considers necessary in response to questions raised at the meeting and project walk-through. Oral statements not confirmed by Addenda may not be relied upon and are not binding or legally effective. Except for mandatory walk-through, no other access to the project site will be granted pre-bid without the Owner's approval. During all site visits the Bidder must be accompanied full time by an authorized representative of the Owner. No exceptions to this requirement. Written questions regarding the Contract Documents and/or the proposed Work should be directed to Ashley Rico, Administrative Assistant by phone at (530-822-4639), facsimile at (530-822-4773), or e-mail at (arico@yubacity.net) no later than ten (10) calendar days before the time specified for opening bids. Bidding procedures are prescribed in the Contract Documents. Bids shall be executed upon the Bid Forms bound and made a part of the Bid Documents. All prescribed Bid Forms may be removed from the Contract Documents for submission in a sealed envelope. A Bid Guaranty in an amount not less than ten percent (10%) of the total aggregate of the Bid, including all Additive and/or Alternate Bid Items shall accompany each Bid. This Bid Guaranty is to be forfeited should the Bidder, if awarded the Contract, fail to enter into the same, or fails to furnish the bonds and/or proof of insurance as stipulated in the Contract Documents. The checks or bond shall be made payable to the Owner. The successful Bidder will be required to furnish both a Faithful Performance Bond in the amount of one hundred percent (100%) and a Payment Bond in the amount of one hundred percent (100%) of the Contract price. Pursuant to the provisions of California Labor Code Section 6707, each Bid submitted in response to this Invitation to Bid shall contain, as a separate bid item, adequate sheeting, shoring, and bracing, or equivalent method, for the protection of life or limb in trenches and open excavation, exceeding five feet, which shall conform to applicable safety orders. By entering an amount for this bid item, the Bidder warrants that its action does not convey tort liability to the Owner, the Engineer, the Construction Manager, and their officers, employees, agents, and subconsultants. Pursuant to Sections 1770, et. seq., of the California Labor Code, the successful Bidder shall pay not less than the prevailing rate of per diem wages as determined by the Director of the California Department of Industrial Relations. Copies of such prevailing rate of per diem wages are on file at the Owner's Engineering Department where copies will be made available to any interested party on request. These rate determinations may also be found on the State of California Department of Industrial Relations' website at: http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlsr/DPreWageDetermination.htm. The successful contractor and its subcontractors shall employ the appropriate number of apprentices, in each apprenticeable craft, on the project site as stipulated in California Labor Code, 1777.5. The successful Bidder must insure that its policies and practices provide equal opportunity to all applicants and employees without regard to race, color, creed, sex, age, religion, ancestry, citizenship, national origin, handicap, mental condition, veteran or marital status. The successful Bidder must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 22300, for monies earned by the Contractor and withheld by the Owner to ensure the performance of the Contract, the Contractor, may, at its option, choose to substitute securities meeting the requirements of California Public Contract Code Section 22300, or have the retained, earned monies deposited in an escrow account at a federal or state chartered bank. No Bid received and read aloud may be withdrawn for a period of sixty (60) days after the bid opening date, except pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 5101 et seq. Telephones will not be available to Bidders at the Owner's offices for the preparation of bids or for communicating bid results. Bid forms received after the designated time will not be opened and will be returned to the Bidder unopened. Bidders shall develop and submit bids at their own expense. The Owner will not reimburse any costs associated with the development and submittal of any and all bids. The Owner reserves the right to award the Contract, to reject any and all Bids, to waive irregularities, and to reject nonconforming, nonresponsive or conditional Bids.

DATED: Terrel Locke City Clerk
December 5, 2009
Ad #00088299

SECTION 00020 - NOTICE INVITING BIDS

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Yuba City, hereafter referred to as “Owner”, will receive SEALED BIDS at the City Hall, City Clerk's Office, 1201 Civic Center Blvd., Yuba City, CA 95993, until 2:00 p.m. local time, on January 6, 2010, for construction of: Garden Highway Pump Station Improvements Contract No. 2009-29

At said place and time, and promptly thereafter, all Bids that have been duly received in accordance with the Contract Documents, will be publicly opened and read aloud. The clock located in the City Clerk's office is considered the official local time. Project Description: In accordance with plans and specifications prepared by Peterson Brustad, Inc., the Work includes the furnishing of all labor, materials, tax, equipment and services for the construction and completion of the installation of a third potable water booster pump and associated piping improvements to the Garden Highway Pump Station. Owner has received funding pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Bidder shall comply with all provisions of the ARRA including, without limitation, all “Buy American” requirements. The total Contract Time to achieve Final Completion is 150 calendar days. Included within the project is one critical milestone, with completion required within 75 calendar days. The estimated cost of construction is $220,000. At the time the Contract is bid, awarded and for the duration of the Contract, the Owner has determined that the General Contractor shall possess a valid State of California Class A- General Engineering Contractor' License. Failure to possess the specified license shall render the Bid as non-responsive. Bidders must comply with the provisions of the California Business and Professions Code Section 7028.15 by setting forth their license number and expiration date on their Bid. ARRA Funding - This contract is to be funded through a (grant/loan) obtained from the California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. There are a number of special provisions for this funding that the bidder should understand. A. DOL Wage Rates will apply to this funding package. B. The project will include special reporting provisions to a national database regarding the progress of construction. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, the Government Funding Transparency Act of 2008 (“2008 Act”), and Section 1512(c) of ARRA require periodic reporting of project information. Applicants must report on the financial status and performance of their projects on a weekly and quarterly basis. C. The project includes certain Buy-American provisions included in the Act. D. Equal Opportunity in Employment - All qualified Applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap or national origin. Bidders on this work will be required to comply with the President's Executive Order No. 11246, as amended by Executive Order 11375, and as supplemented in Department of Labor regulations 41 CFR Part 60. E. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) – This contract is subject to EPA established DBE “fair share” goals. California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) document “California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Guidance” is included in the bidding documents. A full set of Contract Documents and all information available to Bidders, as further defined in Section 00200, INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO BIDDERS, may be examined at the Owner's Utility Department during regular business hours. Bidders may also obtain the plan holder's list and purchase a copy of the Contract Documents and related information from: Signature Reprographics 620 Sunbeam Ave. Sacramento, CA, 95811 Phone: (916) 454-0800 Fax: (916) 736-3053 www.signaturerepro.com Document Description Non-Refundable Charges Complete half-size set of Contract Documents (specifications and half-size drawings) $75 plus shipping and delivery Checks should be made payable to: City of Yuba City. Charges are not refundable, regardless of whether the documents are returned or not. Complete sets of Contract Documents must be used in preparing Bids. The Owner does not assume responsibility for errors or misinterpretations resulting from the use of incomplete sets of Contract Documents. The Owner, in making copies of the Contract Documents available on the above terms, does so only for the purpose of obtaining Bids for the Work and does not confer license or grant for any other use. A mandatory pre-bid meeting and project walk-through will be held on December 16, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. at 302 Burns Drive, Yuba City, CA 95991. At this meeting, representatives of Owner and the Design Engineer will discuss the bid documents, site constraints, order of work and other items specific to this project. A project walk-through will follow this meeting. A sign-in sheet will be available up until commencement of the pre-bid meeting only. Attendance at the entire pre-bid meeting and project walk-through is mandatory for bidding. Bids received from Bidders who did not sign the sign-in sheet and attend the meeting and project walk-through will be returned to the Bidder unopened. Attendance by subcontractors is not mandatory, but all interested prospective subcontractors are encouraged to attend. The Owner will transmit to all recipients of complete sets of Contract Documents such Addenda as Owner considers necessary in response to questions raised at the meeting and project walk-through. Oral statements not confirmed by Addenda may not be relied upon and are not binding or legally effective. Except for mandatory walk-through, no other access to the project site will be granted pre-bid without the Owner's approval. During all site visits the Bidder must be accompanied full time by an authorized representative of the Owner. No exceptions to this requirement. Written questions regarding the Contract Documents and/or the proposed Work should be directed to Ashley Rico, Administrative Assistant by phone at (530-822-4639), facsimile at (530-822-4773), or e-mail at (arico@yubacity.net) no later than ten (10) calendar days before the time specified for opening bids. Bidding procedures are prescribed in the Contract Documents. Bids shall be executed upon the Bid Forms bound and made a part of the Bid Documents. All prescribed Bid Forms may be removed from the Contract Documents for submission in a sealed envelope. A Bid Guaranty in an amount not less than ten percent (10%) of the total aggregate of the Bid, including all Additive and/or Alternate Bid Items shall accompany each Bid. This Bid Guaranty is to be forfeited should the Bidder, if awarded the Contract, fail to enter into the same, or fails to furnish the bonds and/or proof of insurance as stipulated in the Contract Documents. The checks or bond shall be made payable to the Owner. The successful Bidder will be required to furnish both a Faithful Performance Bond in the amount of one hundred percent (100%) and a Payment Bond in the amount of one hundred percent (100%) of the Contract price. Pursuant to the provisions of California Labor Code Section 6707, each Bid submitted in response to this Invitation to Bid shall contain, as a separate bid item, adequate sheeting, shoring, and bracing, or equivalent method, for the protection of life or limb in trenches and open excavation, exceeding five feet, which shall conform to applicable safety orders. By entering an amount for this bid item, the Bidder warrants that its action does not convey tort liability to the Owner, the Engineer, the Construction Manager, and their officers, employees, agents, and subconsultants. Pursuant to Sections 1770, et. seq., of the California Labor Code, the successful Bidder shall pay not less than the prevailing rate of per diem wages as determined by the Director of the California Department of Industrial Relations. Copies of such prevailing rate of per diem wages are on file at the Owner's Engineering Department where copies will be made available to any interested party on request. These rate determinations may also be found on the State of California Department of Industrial Relations' website at: http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlsr/DPreWageDetermination.htm. The successful contractor and its subcontractors shall employ the appropriate number of apprentices, in each apprenticeable craft, on the project site as stipulated in California Labor Code, 1777.5. The successful Bidder must insure that its policies and practices provide equal opportunity to all applicants and employees without regard to race, color, creed, sex, age, religion, ancestry, citizenship, national origin, handicap, mental condition, veteran or marital status. The successful Bidder must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 22300, for monies earned by the Contractor and withheld by the Owner to ensure the performance of the Contract, the Contractor, may, at its option, choose to substitute securities meeting the requirements of California Public Contract Code Section 22300, or have the retained, earned monies deposited in an escrow account at a federal or state chartered bank. No Bid received and read aloud may be withdrawn for a period of sixty (60) days after the bid opening date, except pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 5101 et seq. Telephones will not be available to Bidders at the Owner's offices for the preparation of bids or for communicating bid results. Bid forms received after the designated time will not be opened and will be returned to the Bidder unopened. Bidders shall develop and submit bids at their own expense. The Owner will not reimburse any costs associated with the development and submittal of any and all bids. The Owner reserves the right to award the Contract, to reject any and all Bids, to waive irregularities, and to reject nonconforming, nonresponsive or conditional Bids. Comply with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, including the “Buy American” requirements.

DATED: Terrel Locke City Clerk December 5, 2009

Sutter County is sponsoring a free workshop on basic National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations, floodplain management policies, and the practical application of these policies in local communities. The workshop will be held on January 20, 2010 at the Veterans Hall in Yuba City, from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm. An agenda for the workshop is attached.

The intent of the workshop is to give a thorough introduction to the NFIP from the perspective of a local community official responsible for developing, implementing and enforcing local floodplain management regulations. The workshop will be based on the FEMA-480 Manual (A Study Guide and Desk Reference for Local Officials), and will be focused on regulations that apply to the Northern California area.

Although this workshop was developed to assist local community officials, it is open to the general public. Please forward this announcement to anybody who might be interested in attending the workshop.

It is recommended that attendees download a copy of FEMA 480 prior to the workshop at the following website:
http://www.floods.org/index.asp?menuid=388&firstlevelmenuid=180&siteid=1

Hard copies of FEMA 480 can also be acquired from FEMA at this website:
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1443&fromSearch=fromsearch

An RSVP is encouraged for logistical purposes. To RSVP, please send an e-mail to: dwpeterson@co.sutter.ca.us or call (530) 822-3299.

Regards:
Daniel W. Peterson, P.E., CFM
Chief, Water Resources Division
County of Sutter
(530) 822-7450
dwpeterson@co.sutter.ca.us

Yuba City weighs $6 million for fish screens
By Ashley Gebb/Appeal-Democrat - 2009-12-02 14:38:07

Yuba City is progressing with plans for a project that not only protects fish, but will help secure a valuable source of city water. The City Council held a public hearing Tuesday for an environmental assessment and draft study report for upgrades to a water intake structure on the Feather River. It is anticipated adoption of the documents will be considered at the Dec. 15 meeting, and once they are approved, the project can go to bid.

Construction would likely begin in late spring and take a year to complete. Council members balked a bit at the $6 million cost, but city staff told them there is no other option. Without mitigation for impacts to spring- and fall-run Chinook salmon and steelhead trout, the state would likely not renew two of Yuba City's 20-year water permits, which provided 65 percent of the city's water for free in 2008, said Utilities Director Bill Lewis.

If the mitigation efforts are necessary, the city must proceed with the project, said Mayor Kash Gill. "But if we're spending $6 million and have to change the location of it in four to five years, it does not make sense," Gill said. The new intake structure will be about 50 feet upstream from the existing inlet pipeline and should be able to be incorporated into any upgrades, Lewis said. The fish screens allow for intake of 48 million gallons per day, when the pump only has a capacity of 42 million gallons per day and the city only needs 30 million.

About 10,000 homes would need to be built in Yuba City before a larger intake structure would be needed, Lewis said. Gill also asked if other mitigation options are available, such as spending less money and replenishing the number of fish by other means. Other agencies have used other mitigation methods, such as building hatcheries to offset fish loss, but that was not an option for Yuba City, said Maria Solis, assistant utilities director.

The 40-year-old water intake structure is now the largest unscreened structure on the Feather River and the last to adopt some sort of mitigation for impact to fish, Lewis said. The upgrades and fish screens will prevent fish from being sucked into or trapped against the pipes. The $6 million project will be funded by state revolving fund loans, to be repaid with rates and future impact fees, and a $900,000 grant through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No residents spoke at the public hearing Tuesday, and no written comments have been received. No action was taken by the council.

Calif. projects historic low for water deliveries
Published online on Tuesday, Dec. 01, 2009 - By GARANCE BURKE - Associated Press Writer

FRESNO, Calif. State officials expect to release a record-low amount of water to 25 million California residents next year if the drought continues, a grim outlook for local farmers and urban dwellers already struggling to conserve after three years of persistent dry weather. Lester Snow, who directs the state Department of Water Resources, said Tuesday the agency anticipates delivering just 5 percent of what was requested by its contractors, the lowest projection in history.

While water deliveries could increase if more rain and snow falls over the winter months - a likely possibility if El Nino weather patterns hit California - Snow said the state had to assume it would be faced with a fourth year of drought. "We're putting people on notice to get on with conservation," Snow said. "We'll need to take measures because what if there is not only a fourth year of drought, but a fifth and sixth year?"Last year, the state predicted it would deliver 15 percent of requested water but boosted that number to 40 percent by May.

State Water Project supplies feed most Southern California cities and help irrigate 750,000 farm acres scattered throughout the southern San Joaquin Valley, San Diego and Orange counties. Water managers in Kern County, where thousands of pistachio and almond trees grow near the Tehachapi range, said Tuesday's news was akin to a worker hearing his wages would be cut to 5 percent. "This would be devastating to an employee, and the extremely low water allocations are the same to Kern County farmers," said Jim Beck, general manager of the Kern County Water Agency.

The federal government also delivers water to California farmers and residents. Last year, federal deliveries were just 10 percent of the normal allocations, fallowing tens of thousands of acres, forcing bankruptcies and contributing to record unemployment. The Bureau of Reclamation is not expected to announce its water delivery plans until February. While the dry weather has exascerbated the problem, farmers' water woes are not all drought-related.

Supplies for crops and cities also have been restricted by federal environmental restrictions cutting back allocations that flow through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the main conduit that sends water to nearly two-thirds of Californians.

Last month, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a milestone $11.1 billion water bond that includes money to fix the freshwater estuary, as well as invest in water-efficiency and conservation programs and groundwater storage. However, the bond must still be approved by voters next November, meaning none of it can be spent toward immediate drought relief. There's nothing in the bills that would immediately affect this winter and spring," Snow said.
Associated Press Writer Samantha Young in Sacramento contributed to this report.

SECTION 00020 - NOTICE INVITING BIDS

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Yuba City, hereafter referred to as “Owner”, will receive SEALED BIDS at the City Hall, City Clerk's Office, 1201 Civic Center Blvd., Yuba City, CA 95993, until 10:00 a.m. local time, on December 29, 2009, for construction of:

Sanborn Storage and Pumping Plant Contract - No. 09-24

At said place and time, and promptly thereafter, all Bids that have been duly received in accordance with the Contract Documents, will be publicly opened and read aloud. The clock located in the City Clerk's office is considered the official local time. Project Description: In accordance with plans and specifications prepared by Carollo Engineers, P.C., the Work includes the furnishing of all labor, materials, tax, equipment and services for the construction and completion of a 3.6 million gallon reservoir, a water pump station, and all other improvements shown in the Contract Drawings. Owner has received funding pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Bidder shall comply with all provisions of the ARRA including, without limitation, all “Buy American” requirements. The total Contract Time to achieve Final Completion is 400 calendar days. The estimated cost of construction is $5,000,000. At the time the Contract is bid, awarded and for the duration of the contract, the Owner has determined that the General Contractor shall possess a valid State of California Class A- General Engineering Contractor' License. Failure to possess the specified license shall render the bid as non-responsive. Bidders must comply with the provisions of the Business and Professions Code Section 7028.15 by setting forth their license number and expiration date on their bid. ARRA Funding - This contract is to be funded through a (grant/loan) obtained from the California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. There are a number of special provisions for this funding that the bidder should understand. A. DOL Wage Rates will apply to this funding package. B. The project will include special reporting provisions to a national database regarding the progress of construction. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, the Government Funding Transparency Act of 2008 (“2008 Act”), and Section 1512(c) of ARRA require periodic reporting of project information. Applicants must report on the financial status and performance of their projects on a weekly and quarterly basis. C. The project includes certain Buy-American provisions included in the Act. D. Equal Opportunity in Employment - All qualified Applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap or national origin. Bidders on this work will be required to comply with the President's Executive Order No. 11246, as amended by Executive Order 11375, and as supplemented in Department of Labor regulations 41 CFR Part 60. E. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) – This contract is subject to EPA established DBE “fair share” goals. California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) document “California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Guidance” is included in the bidding documents. Checks should be made payable to: City of Yuba City. Charges are not refundable, regardless of whether the documents are returned or not. A full set of Contract Documents and all information available to Bidders, as further defined in Section 00200, INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO BIDDERS, may be examined at the Owner's Utility Department during regular business hours. Bidders may also obtain the plan holder's list and purchase a copy of the Contract Documents and related information from: Signature Reprographics 620 Sunbeam Ave. Sacramento, CA, 95811 Phone: (916) 454-0800 Fax: (916) 736-3053 www.signaturerepro.com Non-Refundable Charges Document Description (Estimated Cost) Complete half-size set of Contract Documents (Specifications and half-size drawings). Set will also include a CD containing pdf files of non-scale reduced drawings and specs. $155 plus shipping and delivery Complete full-size drawings set (Specifications and full-size drawings). Set will also include a CD containing pdf files of non-scale reduced drawings and specs. Individual drawings will not be sold separately. $265 plus shipping and delivery Complete Geotechnical Report $20 plus shipping and delivery Checks should be made payable to City of Yuba City. Charges are not refundable, regardless of whether the documents are returned or not. Complete sets of Contract Documents must be used in preparing Bids. The Owner does not assume responsibility for errors or misinterpretations resulting from the use of incomplete sets of Contract Documents. The Owner, in making copies of the Contract Documents available on the above terms, does so only for the purpose of obtaining Bids for the Work and does not confer license or grant for any other use. A mandatory pre-bid walk-through meeting will be held on the 8th of December, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. at 701 Northgate Ave. Yuba City, CA. At this meeting, representatives of Owner and the Design Engineer will discuss the bid documents, site constraints, order of work and other items specific to this project. A project walk-through will follow. A sign-in sheet will be available up until commencement of the pre-bid walk through meeting only. Attendance at the entire pre-bid meeting and walk-through is mandatory for bidding. Bids received from Bidders who did not sign the sign-in sheet and attend the meeting and walk-through will be returned to the Bidder unopened. Attendance by subcontractors is not mandatory, but all interested prospective subcontractors are encouraged to attend. The Owner will transmit to all recipients of complete sets of Contract Documents such Addenda as Owner considers necessary in response to questions raised at the meeting and walk-through. Oral statements not confirmed by Addenda may not be relied upon and are not binding or legally effective. Except for mandatory walk-through, no other access to the project site will be granted pre-bid without the Owner's approval. During all site visits the Bidder must be accompanied full time by an authorized representative of the Owner. No exceptions to this requirement. Written questions regarding the Contract Documents and/or the proposed Work should be directed to Ian Pietz, Senior Engineer by phone at (530) 822-7685, fax (530) 822-4739, or e-mail at ipietz@yubacity.net no later than ten (10) calendar days before the time specified for opening bids. Bidding procedures are prescribed in the Contract Documents. Bids shall be executed upon the Bid Forms bound and made a part of the Bid Documents. All prescribed Bid Forms may be removed from the Contract Documents for submission in a sealed envelope. A Bid Guaranty in an amount not less than ten percent (10%) of the total aggregate of the bid, including all Additive and/or Alternate Bid Items shall accompany each bid. This Bid Guaranty is to be forfeited should the Bidder, if awarded the contract, fail to enter into the same, or fails to furnish the bonds and/or proof of insurance as stipulated in the Contract Documents. The checks or bond shall be made payable to the Owner. The successful Bidder will be required to furnish both a Faithful Performance Bond in the amount of one hundred percent (100%) and a Payment Bond in the amount of one hundred percent (100%) of the Contract price. Pursuant to the provisions of California Labor Code Section 6707, each bid submitted in response to this Invitation to Bid shall contain, as a separate bid item, adequate sheeting, shoring, and bracing, or equivalent method, for the protection of life or limb in trenches and open excavation, exceeding five feet, which shall conform to applicable safety orders. By entering an amount for this bid item, the Bidder warrants that its action does not convey tort liability to the Owner, the Engineer, the Construction Manager, and their officers, employees, agents, and subconsultants. Pursuant to Sections 1770, et. seq., of the California Labor Code, the successful Bidder shall pay not less than the prevailing rate of per diem wages as determined by the Director of the California Department of Industrial Relations. Copies of such prevailing rate of per diem wages are on file at the Owner's Engineering Department where copies will be made available to any interested party on request. These rate determinations may also be found on the State of California Department of Industrial Relations' website at: http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlsr/DPreWageDetermination.htm. The successful contractor and its subcontractors shall employ the appropriate number of apprentices, in each apprenticeable craft, on the project site as stipulated in California Labor Code, 1777.5. The successful Bidder must insure that its policies and practices provide equal opportunity to all applicants and employees without regard to race, color, creed, sex, age, religion, ancestry, citizenship, national origin, handicap, mental condition, veteran or marital status. The successful Bidder must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 3400, the Owner finds that a particular product is designated by particular manufacturer on a “sole-sourced” basis for the following reasons: (1) In order that a field test or experiment may be made to determine the product's suitability for future use. (2) In order to match other products in use on a particular public improvement either completed or in the course of completion. (3) In order to obtain a necessary item that is only available from one source. Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22300, for monies earned by the Contractor and withheld by the Owner to ensure the performance of the Contract, the Contractor, may, at its option, choose to substitute securities meeting the requirements of Public Contract Code Section 22300, or have the retained, earned monies deposited in an escrow account at a federal or state chartered bank. No bid received and read aloud may be withdrawn for a period of sixty (60) days after the bid opening date, except pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 5101 et seq. Telephones will not be available to Bidders at the Owner's offices for the preparation of bids or for communicating bid results. Bid forms received after the designated time will not be opened and will be returned to the Bidder unopened. Bidders shall develop and submit bids at their own expense. The Owner will not reimburse any costs associated with the development and submittal of any and all bids. The Owner reserves the right to award the Contract, to reject any and all Bids, to waive irregularities, and to reject nonconforming, nonresponsive or conditional Bids. Comply with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, including the “Buy American” requirements.

DATED: Terrel Locke, City Clerk
December 1, 2009

'Garden of Eden' needs some work
November 27, 2009 12:01:00 AM
Our levees are being examined, aligned and hardened, and when finalized will give us protection and security as never before. There is, however, an aspect of water in the Sacramento Valley that needs to be addressed.

The Sacramento Valley is the most flood-prone valley in the country because of the 26,000-square-mile watershed that drains into the valley. This water that threatens us is also the source of our agricultural riches and daily sustenance. When the rivers receiving this water rise above their normal level, this very valuable resource flows to a salty demise into the Suisun Bay.

What we need, then, are reservoirs that will contain this $200 per-acre foot commodity, to be released economically and intelligently.It may take a reservoir conservator to micro- and macro-manage leaky faucets and billion-dollar dams. Our existing politicized agencies do not seem able to rise above their buttoned down perspectives to meet 21st century challenges.

Reservoirs will be surface and subterranean to recharge sucked out aquifers and ground water sources and to provide power, flood control, drought relief, irrigation, domestic supply, recreation, etc. Can we not, using our collective wisdom, build structures to these ends, so that our children and their children can continue to enjoy our Garden of Eden? Do we need more motivation than that which was generated in 1955, 1986 and 1997?

Larry G. Harris
Yuba City

Excerpt from: Stinky YC water story on KCRA: A back story
2009-11-22 19:48:36 - Appeared in Appeal-Democrat
In case you missed it, KCRA ran a story on Nov. 13 on the complaints about stinky water in Yuba City......You will also see in the news segment that the spokesperson for the treatment plant declares that there had not been any complaints in the three weeks preceding the news story.

Au contraire! Exactly one week prior to the visit by KCRA, I submitted a complaint via the Yuba City Web site. Interestingly, on the 13th I logged back on to the city's Web site and my complaint was nowhere to be found.

Here's my follow-up question to the treatment plant that was not addressed in the news story: Why is it that some recipients of surface water are getting stinky water while other residents and businesses from the same water source are getting good water? After all, I gave Yuba City officials examples of specific neighborhoods with and without the problem in my now deleted polite electronic complaint and question.

I do think I know the answer to my question, but I'd like to hear it from the experts who process Feather River water for us.Full disclosure: A concept that apparently is not well understood by those who serve and tax ratepayers. Perhaps a refresher course in public relations is in order.

— ycorgs

The Aquifer Storage Monitoring Well Near the City’s Water Treatment Plant was Drilled to 630 Feet.

Stinky Water Video

To view the video that aired on KCRA Channel 3 on November 13th
during the 6 to 6:30 p.m. news, click here

Water Connection Fee Dropping In Yuba City
By: Chris Gilbert - November 13, 2009

THE ONE-TIME WATER CONNECTION CHARGE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN YUBA CITY IS EXPECTED TO DROP BY NEARLY 800 DOLLARS. UTILITIES DIRECTOR BILL LEWIS SAYS THE NEW CHARGE OF 6-THOUSAND-489 DOLLARS IS A MORE ACCURATE REFLECTION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT COSTS. THE CITY IS ALSO EXPECTED TO DELETE A 10-DOLLAR MONTHLY SURCHARGE ASSOCIATED WITH CUSTOMERS OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE HILLCREST WATER SYSTEM AD HOC COMMITTEE.

Groundwater

Groundwater Region 1 (East of Highway 99) customers have been switched to surface water. Notification letters will be mailed soon. It is anticipated that with 30 inch pipeline construction from near Yuba City High School to Lincoln and Phillips Road, these customers will be able to remain on surface water. Groundwater Region 3 (south of Lincoln and west of Highway 99) did not meet the arsenic criteria again for the third quarter of 2009. Notification letters will be mailed as required per the California Department of Health Services. Region 3 customers are scheduled to be converted to surface water in the fall 2010.

State lawmakers approve $11 billion water deal

By Samantha Young/Associated Press - 2009-11-04 11:26:51

SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers today passed an $11 billion overhaul of the state's antiquated water system in a bid to supply a soaring population while preserving a fragile environment. After a long night of debate, the state Assembly voted in favor of the comprehensive package of water bills and a bond measure to fund them. The Senate also approved. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was expected to sign the five-bill package.

The plan provides funding for new dams, groundwater cleanup, conservation and habitat restoration. It gives Schwarzenegger comprehensive tools to begin restoring the crucial Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and create a stable water supply for cities in Southern California and farmers in the Central Valley. "Water is the lifeblood of everything we do in California. Without clean, reliable water, we cannot build, we cannot farm, we cannot grow, and we cannot prosper," Schwarzenegger said.

Lawmakers have wrangled for years over how to upgrade the water system. The problems became more acute this year when farmers faced a third dry year with less snowfall and new pumping restrictions to protect a delta fish. Democrats and Republicans spent months hashing out a strategy intended to change how water is used in California and how to better manage the delta.

The water plan includes creation of a seven-member governing council to oversee the delta that funnels fresh water from Northern to Southern California, where most of the state's population lives. The maze of earthen levees is susceptible to earthquakes that could halt pumping for months. Federal courts and agencies have ordered reductions in pumping to protect he delta's collapsing ecosystem.

Legislators want to require California cities to use 20 percent less water by 2020, although large urban areas such as Los Angeles and San Francisco would not have to meet such a high threshold because per-capita water use is lower than other parts of the state.

At the center of the new water package is the bond that has grown over the past two days to more than $11 billion. The Senate had passed a $9.9 billion version earlier in the week but the Assembly added more money for water recycling and conservation programs.

Summary of Updates to Chapter 6 Water System Ordinance

(A certified copy of the full text of this ordinance is posted in the office of the City Clerk)

Notice is given that at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1201 Civic Center Blvd., Yuba City, California, the City Council of the City of Yuba City will hold a public hearing on the following:

The Chapter 6 Water System Ordinance of the City of Yuba City Municipal Code update. In summary the purpose of this Ordinance update is to:

* Delete surcharges associated with customers outside the City limits per the Hillcrest Water System Ad Hoc Committee recommendations.

* Allow a six month window of time for parcels served with private wells to connect to the water system at the same rate as current groundwater customers who are converting to surface water per the Hillcrest Water System Ad Hoc Committee recommendations.

* Update the water connection charges to the current capital improvement program and per the recommendations of the Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee. This will reduce the fee from $7,209 to $6489

* Require connection charge to be collected at time of other impact fees are paid

* Residential rental account procedures are established

* Cross connection section is added

* Clarify service connections per parcel and meter location

* Bring the Ordinance into conformance with the current City organizational structure. All references to City Administrator are changed to City Manager and from Public Works Director to Public Works Director/Utilities Director.

* Increased penalties for violations of the Ordinance

* Other minor changes

This ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Yuba City on the 20 day of October 2009. The second reading will be held on the 17 day of November beginning at 7:00 PM at City Hall, 1201 Civic Center Blvd., Yuba City CA 95993.

All interested parties are invited to attend the hearing to express their opinions. Written or verbal statements will be accepted at, or prior to, the public hearing. Written statements should be mailed or hand-delivered to the City Clerk's office, 1201 Civic Center Blvd., Yuba City CA 95993.

The Council Chambers are accessible by wheelchair. If you require auxiliary aids or services (i.e., signing services) to make a presentation to the City Council, the City will be available to assist you. Please contact the City Clerk's office (530-822-4609; TDD 530-822-4732) at least 72 hours in advance so such aids or services can be arranged.

Terrel Locke
City Clerk
November 2, 2009 Ad #00086264
Appeared in: Appeal Democrat on Monday, 11/02/2009

Thomas D. Elias: 'Water czar' not yet delivering
Appeal Democrat - 2009-09-26 19:18:35

You couldn't really blame farmers and farm workers in the vast stretches of west San Joaquin Valley these days if they were muttering something like "water czar, schmater czar." For even though U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar came to Fresno and Coalinga at midsummer to announce that he's making his chief deputy secretary an ambassador to the big players in California's water crisis, nothing has changed.

More than 500,000 San Joaquin Valley acres remain fallowed, pulled out of production because of lack of water. Unemployment still approaches 40 percent in farming towns like Mendota, Huron, Dos Palos and Firebaugh. The yellow-and-black signs posted in dry fields beside Interstate 5 that read "Congress Created Dust Bowl" — those aren't coming down anytime soon. And there's the prospect that the huge pumps at the south end of the delta formed by the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers will be stopped again next spring, just as they were this spring.

For not only is the minnow-like delta smelt — whose survival is the goal of the pump shutdowns responsible for much of the drought in the west valley — still endangered despite discovery of a copious colony near a large island in the delta, but its slightly larger relative the longfin smelt also now has that designation.

Salazar says he wants to improve things by expediting one idea that looks promising: The so-called "two gates" proposal, a $160 million plan that would use moveable gates to screen threatened fish like the two smelt species out of water flows as they are sucked into the pumps.

That's as constructive a suggestion as the water crisis of the last few years has produced, one that's eminently doable and would not force either side to compromise. But state legislators couldn't even agree on something as simple as that while trying to pass corrective water measures this summer.

Salazar also became the latest to assert that he's trying to "bring all of the key federal agencies to the table" in trying to make water peace. Of course, they have all been at a bunch of tables together for many years, with seemingly countless Bay/Delta task forces and committees convening, issuing reports and not solving much over the last 20 years or so.

Not that there's a lack of sensible ideas out there. One suggests fallowing of thousands of acres in the west valley that are so tainted with toxic chemicals they can't be farmed responsibly, then passing their water rightsto other farmers until the land is cleansed. Another is to increase use of recycled laundry and dish water for lawns and industry throughout the state, reducing demand considerably because lawns and cooling processes are far more thirsty than people.

Yet another would see California build more desalination plants to take advantage of the virtually endless seawater lapping at on the state's doorstep. But that hasn't yet become cost effective in most places.

It also makes sense to add new dams and a peripheral canal around the delta, facilities to catch runoff from winter rains and spring snowmelt which now drains into the Pacific Ocean and the San Francisco Bay without accomplishing much.

But even with plenty of federal economic stimulus dollars around and earmarked for infrastructure, there's no consensus on any of these items, so nothing gets done. Plus, in a time of extra-lean budgets, there's little state money available to match the federal dollars.

Farmers say the nation's food supply is endangered as they scrub plans to grow seasonal crops while using precious water to ensure some permanent plants like fruit trees and grapevines survive the dry period.

And politicians posture. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who previously showed little interest in the plight of farmers, farm workers and the businesses that depend on them, suddenly scheduled a visit and a photo op in troubled Mendota after he was upbraided by farmers at a Fresno appearance where he had planned to ignore water and talk only budget. Salazar names a czar with no real powers.

What's needed in the water wars is both the common sense to move quickly on measures that can be done immediately and the sense of alarm that would be needed to put someone truly powerful in charge of an anti-drought campaign. If Salazar and his boss, President Obama, really want to get something done, they could appoint someone more prominent than a deputy secretary as a de facto "ambassador" to California. How about Vice President Joe Biden, who has no firm responsibilities in Washington, but does have Obama's ear far more frequently than Salazar?

That's just one possibility. The bottom line is that it's not enough for officials like Schwarzenegger and Salazar to talk, or even to spend a relatively insignificant sum like $160 million, which might buy some fish screens, but won't put a dent in the cost of a dam. Real action is needed, and soon, or the San Joaquin Valley, still the crop cornucopia of America, will lose some of its most talented farmers, farm workers will leave and the nation will find itself importing a lot more food than it already does.

Logue bill to governor’s desk
Appeal-Democrat - 2009-09-11 00:01:04

A bill by Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Linda, to give regulatory relief to small agencies when they violate water laws, has moved to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk for approval.

AB 914 passed unanimously off the Assembly floor Wednesday, and previously passed the state Senate. The bill allows the state Water Board to consider the impact of fines on ratepayers in small communities when those communities are out of compliance on state laws.

Under the bill, the board can choose to let small communities use the fine to fix whatever problem first led to the law violation, rather than giving it to the state.

In expressing his support for the bill, Yuba County Supervisor Andy Vasquez said in a press release from Logue's office, "Our communities have had to bear an unnecessary burden because we lack economies of scale."

Worrying about water - Legislation may send supplies to thirsty SoCal
By Ben van der Meer/Appeal-Democrat - 2009-09-11 00:32:07

Those involved in water issues in the Mid-Valley may have dry mouths today as they anticipate a vital — and potentially momentous — water bill coming out of Sacramento. Though the bulk of the bill is believed to be aimed at the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, water experts locally said ongoing disputes on how much water is sent to Southern California hold the most concern for the region.

"Depending on the outcome, this bill could be extremely damaging to water availability for us in Northern California," said Walter Cotter, general manager of the Browns Valley Irrigation District. "The language they started with last week was fraught with issues."

Water-dependent agriculture in the southern half of the Central Valley, along with ever-growing populations in Los Angeles and beyond, have led to more calls for a conveyance system of getting water from the northern to southern part of the state. Environmental groups have said the delta's ecosystem is on the verge of collapse, and said help for endangered species such as the Delta smelt fish needs to be addressed as well.

The bill being discussed by a conference committee of both Assembly members and senators is expected to result in a water bond that would go before voters next year. Money from the bond, if approved, would go for projects designed to get a start on addressing the state's ever-present water woes.

Yuba County Water Agency General Manager Curt Aikens said Tib Belza, vice chairman of YCWA board, had been given input into the legislation in his role as an agency board member, and the agency favored a comprehensive approach to water issues including conveyance, water storage and ecosystem protection.

"Unfortunately, the conference committee process has not resulted in a comprehensive package of legislation that would effectively solve the Delta infrastructure and ecosystem crisis," Aikens said in an e-mail statement Thursday. "This legislative package, as approved by the conference committee, does not include storage projects or a financing mechanism." Belza said language in the bills over such topics as water rights protection in the area of origin fill him with concern.

"There are all kinds of systems in place that were put there to protect people, so they know what could be counted on," Belza said. "That needs to be protected." But a spokesman for state Sen. Sam Aanestad, R-Penn Valley, said he's concerned legislative Democrats on the conference committee aren't hearing the message. Aanestad's district includes Yuba, Sutter and Colusa counties.

"Those protections aren't contained in this report. There's no specific language," said Aanestad spokesman Bill Bird, whose boss warned in a commentary Thursday the preliminary report released by the committee was dangerously deficient on new water storage proposals and conservation requirements for the state's largest cities.

Belza said in terms of storage, he'd still advocate for the Sites Reservoir, a proposed project in Colusa County that would take excess water off the Sacramento River in flush flow times, but wouldn't affect any waterway directly. While opponents of Sites contend the water diversion would cost more than it's worth, Belza said cost effectiveness is a poor barometer for why a project shouldn't be done. "If you think about it, it's a net money loser when you start drying up farms," he said. "And they don't come back."

With midnight Saturday marking the end of this year's legislative session, some observers wondered whether the clock would run out before a bill materializes. Bird said he expected the committee to continue meeting. But while water supplies in Collins Lake under his watch look like they'll hold out this year until the rains come, Cotter said, the bill's ramifications could make future years harder to predict. Belza said he'd put it another way: "From our standpoint, no bill is better than a bad bill."

Other Views: Saving water a year-round commitment

By Lester Snow and Timothy Quinn - 2009-09-07 22:36:46

As the summer months wane into September, Marysville and Yuba City residents know only too well that warmer weather usually brings increased outdoor water use.But they may not know just how tight water supplies are this year. In fact, we're in the middle of a water crisis. But by using water wisely, we can make a difference.

A recently announced public education program called "Save Our Water" can help us become better stewards of this precious resource. Developed by the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) in partnership with the California Department of Water Resources, Save Our Water is designed to complement local conservation efforts while encouraging residents all over California to increase water conservation.

Ample supplies of high quality water are a necessity for California, a fact well known to Central Valley farmers, city-dwellers, scholars and business leaders. Yet the San Luis reservoir, which serves much of the Central Valley, is only one-third full.

Water supply is a huge challenge up and down the state. Our water agencies are responding with vigorous leadership. Currently, 65 water agencies across California have implemented some kind of mandatory limitations on water use. Fifty-seven, including the Browns Valley Irrigation District, have requested voluntary measures for conservation from residents.

There's a great deal at stake. Water is a vital ingredient in assuring a high quality of life in our cities and towns.Water has been a necessity in California since the Mission era. It is ever more important in our modern, populous California, particularly since many major water reservoirs are at critically low capacities.

In addition to a third year of dry weather, California water users in 2009 also face several allied challenges, including climate change, aging infrastructure, population growth and legal protections for species. These contribute to the cyclical water challenges of nature.

On a daily basis, we use far more water outdoors than indoors.Simply reducing the number of times we water lawns and adjusting sprinklers to avoid waste can help. Indoors, we can save a lot by fixing leaks, taking shorter showers and turning off the faucet while brushing tee

California's leaders are working to develop lasting solutions to our water system problems, some of which involve the environmentally challenged Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Plans include increased investments in the state's water infrastructure and environmental protections with focus in the Delta, a key source for both the Federal Central Valley Project and California's State Water Project.

Meantime, all Californians need to use our existing water supplies efficiently.Each of us should do all we can to save water. Conservation will help stretch current and future water supplies as we move forward with necessary improvements to our overall water system.

Please join in this vital effort to save California water. Take a few moments to look critically at how you use water inside and outside of your home. By taking common sense steps to save water, we can make a difference for California.

Lester Snow is the director of the California Department of Water Resources. Timothy Quinn is the executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies, a coalition of 450 public water agencies.

For more information about how to conserve water or about the Save Our Water public education program, visit www.saveourh2o.org or join the effort on Facebook or Twitter.

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS

Sealed proposals will be received at the City Clerk's Office, City of Yuba City, located at City Hall, 1201 Civic Center Boulevard, Yuba City, California, 95993, until 3:00 P.M. on Tuesday September 22, 2009, at which time they will be publicly opened and read aloud, for construction in accordance with the specifications to which special reference is made as follows:

SHANGHAI – RAILROAD WATER LINE PROJECT

General Work Description: The work to be done consists in general of installing approximately 2,545 linear feet of 14-inch diameter domestic waterline, related appurtenances, and other such items of work as required by the plans and specifications. No bid will be considered unless it is made on the bid form furnished by the Public Works Department. Each bid must be accompanied by cash, cashier's check, certified check, or a bidder's bond executed by an admitted surety insurer made payable to the City of Yuba City for an amount equal to at least ten percent (10%) of the total bid amount, such guaranty to be forfeited should the bidder to whom the contract is awarded fail to enter into the contract.

This project is subject to the “Buy America” provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This contract is subject to state contract nondiscrimination and compliance requirements pursuant to Government Code Section 12990.

In accordance with the provisions of Section 1770 to 1790 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City of Yuba City has ascertained that the general prevailing rate of wages applicable to the locality in which the work is to be done to be listed in the “General Prevailing Wage Rates as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations,” which is on file at the Public Works Department and available from the California Department of Industrial Relations Internet website at www.dir.ca.gov. The Federal minimum wage rates set forth in this project as predetermined by the United States Secretary of Labor are set forth in the book entitled “Notice to Contractors, Special Provisions, and Contract Documents.” Addenda to modify the Federal minimum wage rates, if necessary, will be issued to holders of the plans and specifications.

If there is a difference between the minimum wage rates predetermined by the Secretary of Labor and the general prevailing wage rates determined by the Director of the California Department of Industrial Relations for similar classifications of labor, the Contractor and subcontractors shall pay not less than the higher wage rate. The Department will not accept lower State wage rates not specifically included in the Federal minimum wage determinations. This includes “helper” (or other classifications based on hours of experience) or any other classification not appearing in the Federal wage determinations. Where Federal wage determinations do not contain the State wage rate determination otherwise available for use by the Contractor and subcontractors, the Contractor and subcontractors shall pay not less than the Federal minimum wage rate which most closely approximates the duties of the employees in question.

It is mandatory that the Contractor to whom the contract is awarded and any subcontractor under him pay not less than said specified rates to all persons employed by them or either of them in the execution of the contract.

No pre-bid meeting is scheduled for this project.

Bids are required for the entire work described herein. No bid will be accepted from a Contractor who is not licensed under Chapter 9, Division 3, California Business and Professions Code. The Contractor shall possess a Class A or Class C-34 license.

SHANGHAI – RAILROAD WATER LINE PROJECT

The total quantity of materials estimated for this contract is in the table below:

Bid Unit of Estimated

Item Item Description Measure Quantity

1 Job Site Photos/Video LS 1

2 Construction Area Signs/Traffic Control LS 1

3 Clearing and Grubbing (includes tree removal) LS 1

4 Trench Shoring/Bracing LS 1

5 14" Ductile Iron, Water Line LF 2,545

6 10" Ductile Iron, Water Line LF 40

7 6" Ductile Iron, Water Line LF 208

8 14" Gate Valve EA 7

9 10" Gate Valve EA 1

10 6" Gate Valve EA 3

11 Ductile Iron Fittings LB 4,987

12 Fire Hydrant Assembly EA 2

13 Type A Trench Restoration (A.C. paid separately) LF 1,122

14 Type A-1 Trench Restoration (A.C. paid separately) LF 383

15 Type D Trench Restoration LF 1,291

16 Asphalt Concrete, Leveling Course, Type "A" (1/2 Agg.) TON 131

17 Asphalt Concrete, Overlay, Type "A" (3/4 Agg.) TON 306

18 Pavement Reinforcing Fabric SY 1,734

19 Type W14, 2" Double Combination Air Valve EA 1

20 Type W15 2" Single Combination Air Valve EA 1

21 Testing Block and Bypass, 14" W EA 1

22 Thermoplastic Centerline, Detail 2 LF 1,044

23 Thermoplastic Right Edgeline, 27B LF 1,081

24 Thermoplastic Pavement Markings - Stop Bar SF 21

25 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking - "STOP" 22 sq ft EA 1

Plans, specifications, and proposal forms for bidding this project can be obtained at the office of the Public Works Director, City of Yuba City, 1201 Civic Center Boulevard, Yuba City, California, 95993, for a non-refundable deposit of $40.00 per set. An additional non-refundable deposit of $5.00 for shipping and handling is required for those requesting delivery by U.S. mail. Deposit shall be in the form of a cashier's check, personal check, or business check.

Please direct questions to the Department of Public Works, (530) 822-4783, attention Benjamin Moody.

TERREL LOCKE, CITY CLERK
CITY COUNCIL OF YUBA CITY
Aug. 29 & Sept. 8, 2009 Ad #00081706

Appeared in: Appeal Democrat on Saturday, 08/29/2009

Huge Water Tank Going Up For Hillcrest Customers

By: Chris Gilbert - August 19, 2009

CONSTRUCTION OF A HUGE STORAGE TANK WILL SOON BEGIN, TO HELP HILLCREST CUSTOMERS CONVERT TO SURFACE WATER. THE COST OF THE PROJECT IS NEARLY 6-MILLION DOLLARS, AND WILL BE FUNDED, IN PART, BY SURCHARGES RECENTLY APPROVED BY THOSE CUSTOMERS, AS WELL AS WITH DEVELOPMENT FEES. CONSTRUCTION OF THE TANK, WHICH CAN HOLD 3-POINT-6 MILLION GALLONS OF WATER, IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN IN LATE NOVEMBER AND BE COMPLETED IN THE SPRING OF 2011. IT'LL BE LOCATED AT LINCOLN AND SANBORN ROADS.

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER

CITY OF YUBA CITY GROUNDWATER REGION 3 HAS ARSENIC LEVELS ABOVE THE DRINKING WATER STANDARD - SECOND CALENDAR QUARTER 2009 NOTICE

New Drinking Water Standard
In January 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) lowered the drinking water standard for arsenic, a naturally occurring compound in the local groundwater, from 50 parts per billion (ppb) to 10 parts per billion (ppb). Groundwater Treatment Plant #2 and Plant #3, both operated by the City of Yuba City Utilities Department, exceeded that new standard:

* The current annual average arsenic concentration for Groundwater Treatment Plant #2, which operates year round, is 10.1 ppb.

* The current annual average arsenic concentration for Groundwater Treatment Plant #3, which operates during summer months, is 10.5 ppb.

These levels are above the USEPA standard, so you will be notified quarterly until the standard is met.

WHAT SHOULD YOU DO?

* This is not an emergency. If it had been, you would have been notified immediately. However, some people who drink water containing high levels of arsenic for many years may experience skin damage or circulatory system problems and may have an increased risk for cancer.

* You do NOT need to use bottled water.

* You do NOT need to boil your water or take other corrective actions.

* If you have specific health concerns, please consult your medical provider.

What Steps Are We Taking?

The City is always working to keep arsenic levels in compliance by adjusting treatment processes.
The City expects to have Region 3 (area south of Lincoln Rd) permanently converted to Surface Water by Fall of 2010. Region 2 (area North of Lincoln Rd) is currently receiving and should continue to receive surface water until permanently being converted at the same time.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

* Contact Water Treatment Plant Supervisor John Westhouse at (530) 822-4637.

* For questions about general water safety standards, contact the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Safe Drinking Water Hotline (1-800-426-4791).

* Find more information about arsenic rule compliance on the EPA Web site: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/arsenic/compliance.html

* Visit our website at http://www.yubacity.net/utilities/hillcrest-surface-water.htm and see Hillcrest Water Conversion Schedule

August 7, 2009 Ad #00079955 - Appeared in: Appeal Democrat

Bill Lewis Explains EPA Yuba City $2,400 Fine...

Appeal-Democrat - 2009-07-29 00:25:59

EPA fines YC $2,400

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fined Yuba City $2,400 Tuesday for not updating the risk management plans for its water and wastewater treatment plants. The city has already addressed the violations, which were discovered in a routine inspection in December 2007. The violations were really a paperwork issue and the public was never at risk, said Utilities Director Bill Lewis.

The inspection identified that the city had not identified parks and recreation areas where people could be affected if the treatment plants experienced a chlorine release. The city also did not certify that its operating procedures were current and accurate, as is federally mandated, or that it had completed its three-year compliance audit, which was due by June 1, 2006.

Yuba City takes act on the roads

City lifting economy by expanding public works

July 27, 2009 12:11:00 AM - By Ashley Gebb/Appeal-Democrat

From road widenings to traffic signals and road rehabilitation to surface-water conversions, Yuba City may have more improvement projects this year than ever before.

Yuba City's Public Works Department has about $23 million in capital improvement projects it will undertake in 2009-10, some of which have already started. The figure is an astronomical increase from years past, when the average amount was $2 million to $4 million, said George Musallam, Public Works director. The city is eager to start the projects because of low construction costs and the struggling economy, he said.

"It's a chance to pump some money into our local economy," Musallam said. "We are having our own stimulus package to try to help our own community." He estimates the projects will bring 250 new jobs to the area, based on research by the Sacramento Regional Research Institute. The project that will have one of the greatest impacts is widening Walton Avenue and Franklin Road. It has not gone out to bid, but construction of the $2 million project is expected to start in September. When complete, both roads will have four lanes leading up to the intersection, which should greatly reduce the daily congestion in that area, Musallam said.

Another project of public interest is the Hillcrest Surface Water Conversion, he said. The pipeline and water meter installation makes up about half the cost of the capital improvements.

Most of the $23 million comes from stimulus money, grants and development impact fees, he said. Any city funds are specifically earmarked for construction. There will be some traffic impacts to residents during construction, but Public Works will try to make them as slight as possible, Musallam said. "We will work nights, we will work weekends, we will work around the schools," he said. "We are very conscious of trying to have minimal impacts."

Darin Gale, Yuba City's economic development manager, is excited to see improvements taking shape. The Highway 99 landscape median is part of the economic development work plan, so it's nice to see it in action, he said. "Obviously maintaining key corridors and gateways in our community is a big help in attracting new jobs and businesses," he said. "I don't think anyone drives through Yuba City without being at the intersection of Highway 99 and 20."

Wayne Reedy, owner of Wayne Reedy Construction in Marysville, said it is nice to win the bid for a local project. His company will be completing the Reeves Avenue parking lot. Local projects are good for both his employees and the city, giving an immediate economic impact and a continual trickle-down effect, he said. "It kinds of gives a local stimulus," Reedy said. "Times are tougher now, but we are able to pick up work close to home and I definitely appreciate it. My guys do, too."

Marysville water costs surging

Cal Water seeking nearly $23 more per month

July 16, 2009 12:15:00 AM - Appeal-Democrat

Water rates for Marysville residents could rise as much as $23 per month by 2013, if California Water Service Co. gets the OK from the state Public Utilities Commission. Rates would rise by 22 percent in 2011, 24.7 percent in 2012 and 19.8 percent in 2013. The average residential customer's monthly bills would rise by an average of $6.24 in 2011, $8.43 in 2012 and another $8.43 in 2013.

Customers with large lot sizes, such as industrial users, would see monthly increases of $10.45, $14.71 and $14.71 again in the three years beginning in 2011. Earlier this year, Cal Water officials announced plans to install water meters for 2,500 flat-rate customers in Marysville over the next 10 years, as part of a conservation effort. In a press release, Cal Water officials said the rate increase is necessary to cover higher costs in providing water service, including state mandates for conservation, maintenance and centralized services; and for completed and planned water system projects.

An application by Cal Water for the increase filed earlier this month kicked off an 18-month review process by the PUC, with a final decision expected late next year. If approved, rate increases would begin in January 2011. Cal Water officials said in the release they were sensitive to rising bills at a time when many customers may be experiencing economic difficulties, but the agency also has several water-conservation options customers can use to lower their bills.

Customers will be able to learn more about the proposed rate increase at a workshop planned for the fall and at public participation hearings to be held late this year or in early 2010. Cal Water is the largest subsidiary of San Jose-based California Water Service Group, serving more than 460,000 customers in 83 California communities through 26 separate districts.

Sutter Pointe searching for water

By Howard Yune/Appeal-Democrat - 2009-07-12 00:28:23

Sutter Pointe remains only a spot on the south Sutter County map. But a disagreement already has developed over whether the county — or a private company — will slake the planned city's thirst. State utility officials may settle the dispute between the county and Golden State Water Co., which claims the right to provide water service to the Sutter Pointe site in rural south county. The conflict turns on control of surface water deliveries, which Sutter Pointe's planners say will be needed to fully build out a town planned to eventually include as many as 17,500 homes.

Sutter Pointe's environmental impact report projected annual water demand at full buildout at 25,199 acre-feet. An acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons. A Golden State Water spokesman on Thursday downplayed any ill feelings but predicted company rather than county control of water service would let the community — and employment — grow as quickly as possible. "This isn't adversarial," said Mitch Zak, spokesman for San Dimas-based Golden State Water. "This is a better way to help economic development and create jobs." In letters to the county and filings with the state Public Utilities Commission, Golden State Water has said it can run water deliveries more cheaply than Sutter County. The firm plans to merge the future water network into its existing systems in Rancho Cordova and Arden, a web of about 16,000 customers it hopes will help lower construction and treatment costs.

Natomas Central Mutual Water Co. holds the rights to deliver agricultural water from the Sacramento River to the Sutter Pointe site, currently a spread of rice fields and orchards off Highway 99/70 and Riego Road. Roland Tanner, a Golden State Water vice president, argued the district has the right to transfer water rights to the company while Sutter County can get them only by taking them through eminent domain. The transfer is part of a pact the companies made in March 2004, eight months before voters passed Measure M to approve the zoning for Sutter Pointe.

However, county officials recently have sought to reassert their control over water and other utilities in the future city. "Our position is the Board of Supervisors will determine how the (surface) water is provided, to ensure future citizens have a water supply at reasonable costs," County Administrative Officer Larry Combs said in late June. On Friday, Combs declined to lay out details of the county's claim but called negotiations with Golden State Water "fruitful."

The commission is expected to take at least a year to decide on the water rights. Golden State Water plans to use the Natomas company's water rights to supply Sutter Pointe. The community, which also will include new retail and industrial districts, is expected to subsist on groundwater for about five years, then add surface water as more homes and industrial sites are built.

Golden State Water's local ambitions also extend to Robbins, a community of about 400 people near Yolo County. The firm has negotiated with the county to take over the failing Robbins water network from a county-supported district, where homeowners shot down a plan last November to raise monthly service rates as high as $100 to pay for repairs. No construction at Sutter Pointe is expected until after 2011, when the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency is scheduled to finish upgrading local levees to 100-year flood protection levels.

Jun 29, 2009

Governor Appoints Point Person On Water Issues FRESNO, Calif. (AP)

Lester Snow was appointed Monday as the new state coordinator on handling the water shortage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has appointed a new state coordinator on issues relating to the water shortages. The appointment of Lester Snow on Monday comes a day after Interior Secretary Ken Salazar named his chief deputy, David Hayes, as the federal point person coordinating federal action on the state's water problems.

Salazar says Hayes will work to hurry the permit process on projects that could expedite the flow of water through state and federal canals south of the troubled Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Schwarzenegger says Snow, of the Department of Water Resources, will coordinate work on long- and short-term fixes on the state government side.

Job loss on farms and in the fishing industry are spurring officials to act.

Residents off the hook for cost of meters

June 15, 2009 12:02:00 AM Grant will help Hillcrest transition
By Ashley Gebb/Appeal-Democrat

Some Yuba City water users may no longer have to pay up to $500 when the city converts them from groundwater to surface water.The city has been selected to receive a $3.5 million American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grant for its water meter installation project. The project includes installation of about 3,500 water meters, most of which will be in the former Hillcrest Water System, from flat-rate to metered services. The city was not expecting to receive the money because the project was determined to be ineligible. But Utilities Director Bill Lewis petitioned the California Department of Public Health to ask for a re-evaluation.

"There were other projects similar to our water meter project that were funded, so we questioned why some were funded and some weren't," he said. The city was subsequently added to the list of approved projects. The city has not received the check yet, but Lewis said he sees no reason the city would not receive the grant. For Yuba City to receive $3.5 million is quite remarkable, Lewis said. The state only allocated $150 million in projects for $6 billion in requests. Yuba City received an additional $900,000 for pipeline installation to service the customers. Lewis expects installation to start this fall but said it depends on how fast the state turns around the money. The City Council adopted water fees and charges related to the Hillcrest Water System conversion from groundwater to surface water in February, after months of heated discussion among residents and city officials.

The surface water connection will replace the Hillcrest groundwater source. The $18.8 million project includes plans for a water storage tank and connection piping that allows for future growth. Opponents failed to defeat the nearly $20-per-month water connection surcharge in November. Once the conversion is complete, customers had the option of paying up front or a monthly fee for the next several years. Now, existing homes without meters could see a reduction in conversion costs of up to $500 per household. The grant will pay for the purchase and the contract labor for installation of the meters, Lewis said.

The Hillcrest surface water conversion is progressing as portions of the project start to go out to bid. Customers west of Highway 99, north of Lincoln Road, are already receiving surface water. Customers on the east side of Highway 99 will receive surface water on a permanent basis this fall, and customers south of Lincoln Road and west of Highway 99 should be on surface water in fall 2010. Groundwater customers pay the same year-round. Now their bills will grow in the summer and shrink in the winter. When averaged out, it will be about the same, Lewis said

Water meters are a good tool for water conservation, Lewis said. "It enables customers to see how much water they are using, and if they feel they are using too much, they can cut back and actually measure how much they use," Lewis said. "We always encourage people to use water wisely." The American Waterworks Association estimates meter installation decreases water consumption by about 30 percent.

6-9-2009 Hillcrest Water Meters to be Paid for with Federal Recovery Grant Funds

• The Utilities Department received notification on Friday June 5th, that the City has been selected to receive a $3.5 million American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Grant for the City’s Water Meter Installation Project. This project will include installing approximately 3,500 water meters to convert all existing flat-rate customers to metered services. The majority of these meters will be installed in the former Hillcrest Water System area as part of the Surface Water Conversion Project. For existing homes without meters, the savings for the meter and installation could reduce the conversion costs up to $500 per household.
This project was not listed as a fundable project on California Department of Public Health’s (CDPH) draft fundable project list that was released in early May; however, the City petitioned CDPH to re-evaluate this project as fundable within the Project Priority List. CDPH subsequently approved Yuba City’s petition and awarded the $3.5 million grant.

PUBLIC NOTICE- NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared on the following project:

Walton Avenue and Franklin Road Widening – Widen Walton Avenue between Anneka Lane to approximately 180' south of Franklin Road and Franklin Road from Walton Avenue to Littlejohn Road. Utility work includes the extension of a 16” water main on Franklin Road to connect two existing lines, relocation of existing overhead lines and utility poles, and the installation of service stubs to adjacent properties.

Notice is hereby given that the City of Yuba City has prepared a Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, for the above-described project. For more information about the project and to review and/or obtain a copy of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, please contact Diana Langley of the Yuba City Public Works Department, Engineering Division, 1201 Civic Center Boulevard, Yuba City, CA 95993, Telephone Number (530) 822-4792. The public review period begins on May 9, 2009 and ends on June 8, 2009 @ 5:00 p.m. All comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration should be received by the end of the public review period. The Public Hearing for the above-referenced project will be held on June 16, 2009 @ 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers located at 1201 Civic Center Blvd., Yuba City, CA.

Dated: May 5, 2009 May 9, 2009 Ad #00072647

Appeared in: Appeal Democrat on Saturday, 05/09/2009

Taxpayer Groups,

To say there's a lot going on right now in the HJTA office is an understatement. Between Proposition 1A work, doing speaking engagements, and starting to take positions on the thousands of legislative bills circulating the Capitol, I must regretfully admit I haven't kept you all in the loop as much as I might have liked. As a consequence, I'm sending out three emails to you today. I promise I won't make it a habit.

UPDATES ON PROPOSITION 1A - NEW WEBSITE LAUNCHED

We have launched a campaign website at http://www.noproposition1a.com Check it out! It’s got lots of great information on it. I particularly like the “sheep” radio ad exposing Prop. 1A as a wolf in sheep’s in clothing. Just click on the link at the bottom of the homepage.

Please LINK to the website, if you have a website of your own or even from your Facebook page. By the way, there are now 2,809 members on our No on 1A Facebook page, not bad for a group that was started about two months ago.

WHERE'S TAXO?

TAKE THE TAXO CHALLENGE

As a way to draw attention to our new website, HJTA has created "Taxo" a $16 billion tax increase in Proposition 1A that has been carefully hidden by the Sacramento politicians who placed it on the ballot. "Where's Taxo" is inspired by the well-known picture puzzle game. Have some fun! By going to www.noproposition1a.com you can meet Taxo and take on the challenge of finding the $16 billion tax increase in statements and mail pieces put out by Proposition 1A promoters -- Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.

Go to www.noproposition1a.com now and take the challenge. Look carefully, you could be the first to find Taxo. If you do find Taxo, contact us and we will publish your name and astounding feat on our website. Go to www.noproposition1a, now, and Good Luck Finding TAXO!

Please forward this e-mail to your friends and let them take the challenge, too!

NEW FIELD POLL – GOOD NEWS, BUT WE MUST REMAIN VIGILANT

The latest Field Poll shows 49% of voters intend to vote no on Prop. 1A while 40% intend to vote yes. A whopping 72% of voters believe that voting “No” on Proposition 1A would “send a message to the governor and the legislature that voters are tired of more government spending and higher taxes.” However, we cannot take anything for granted. Our opponents have raised over $15 million to bombard people with deceptive print, television, and radio ads and we are liable to be outspent by perhaps 20:1. Still, we have made solid messaging inroads both through social networking sites and earned media opportunities. Clearly, there are a number of fired up taxpayers out there so let's do what we can to get the word out in these final two weeks.

DO YOU HAVE YOUR OWN WEBSITE OR ARE YOU A MEMBER OF A DISCUSSION FORUM?

Please post links to our campaign site, http://www.NoProposition1A.com. You can do this by simply typing the link in a post on a discussion forum, as a link from your own website, or you can use one of the banners available on the campaign site here: http://www.NoProposition1A.com/website_banners.htm. This is an easy way to help our campaign because it spreads the No on 1A message across cyberspace and increases our search engine ranking too. Does this help answer your question to using their data? If not give David Wolf a call and ask him.

PLAN A NO ON PROP. 1A RALLY IN YOUR CITY

I have noticed a lot of spontaneous No on 1A rallies springing up, which can lead to wonderful media coverage the final two weeks of a campaign. We still have a few hundred “No on Prop. 1A” rally signs from the Sacramento Tea Party event, so please let us know if you would like some and provide your address. As always, if you have any other questions about the campaign please let me know. Otherwise, keep up the good work, and please forward this message to others in your group. Your support has been both encouraging and amazing.

David Wolfe
Legislative Director
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
916-444-9950

Authorized by No New Taxes, No on Prop. 1A, A Project of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

"NOTICE IS ALSO HEREBY GIVEN that the Vote By Mail ballot processing may begin on the seventh day before the election, which is May 12, 2009 at the Elections Office. All procedures are open to the public and all interested parties will be afforded the opportunity to observe the procedures. All ballots will be tallied at the Elections Office, 1435 Veterans Memorial Circle, Yuba City, California. The Elections Office will be open at 7:00 a.m. on Tuesday, May 19, 2009."

NOTICE OF POLLING PLACES FOR THE STATEWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SUTTER COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ON May 19, 2009. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the following are the legally designated polling places and precincts for the Statewide Special Election to be held in the County of Sutter, State of California, on Tuesday, May 19, 2009: All Precincts 0000001 LO Comm 1 Live Oak Community Building 10200 O St, Live Oak, CA 95953 0000002 LO Comm 2 Live Oak Community Building 10200 O St, Live Oak, CA 95953 0000003 LO Res 3 Live Oak Resource Center 10720 Live Oak Blvd, Live Oak, CA 95953 0000004 Red Cross 4 American Red Cross 2125 E Onstott Rd, Yuba City, Ca 95991 0000005 Red Cross 5 American Red Cross 2125 E Onstott Rd, Yuba City, Ca 95991 0000006 United Pent 6 United Pentecostal Church 2649 E Onstott Rd, Yuba City, CA 95991 0000007 Dell-Wayne 7 Dell-Wayne Estates 3120 Live Oak Blvd, Yuba City, Ca 95991 0000008 Y S Fair 8 Yuba Sutter Fairgrounds 442 Franklin Ave, Yuba City, Ca 95991 0000009 Vet Ctr 9 Veterans Center 1425 Veterans Memorial Circle, Yuba City, CA 95993 0000010 Vet Ctr 10 Veterans Center 1425 Veterans Memorial Circle, Yuba City, CA 95993 0000011 Vet Ctr 11 Veterans Center 1425 Veterans Memorial Circle, Yuba City, CA 95993 0000012 Vet Ctr 12 Veterans Center 1425 Veterans Memorial Circle, Yuba City, CA 95993 0000013 Methodist Ch 13 First United Methodist Church 3101 Colusa Hwy, Yuba City, Ca. 95993 0000014 Methodist Ch 14 First United Methodist Church 3101 Colusa Hwy, Yuba City, Ca. 95993 0000015 Sutter Ch 15 Sutter Community Church 2900 Acacia Ave, Sutter, CA 95982 0000016 Sutter Ch 16 Sutter Community Church 2900 Acacia Ave, Sutter, CA 95982 0000017 St Andy 17 St. Andrews Presbyterian Church 1390 Franklin Rd, Yuba City, CA 95993 0000018 St Isidore 18 St. Isidore Church 222 Clark Ave, Yuba City, CA 95991 0000019 #4 YC Fire 19 Yuba City Fire Station #4 205 S Walton Ave, Yuba City, Ca 95993 0000020 Moose 20 Moose Lodge 205 S Walton Ave, Yuba City, Ca 95993 0000021 Moose 21 Moose Lodge 205 S Walton Ave, Yuba City, Ca 95993 0000022 Moose 22 Moose Lodge 205 S Walton Ave, Yuba City, Ca 95993 0000023 AK School 23 Andros Karperos Middle School 1666 Camino De Flores, Yuba City, Ca 95993 0000024 7th Day 24 Seventh Day Adventist Church 1460 Richland Rd, Yuba City, Ca 95993 0000025 Franklin 25 Franklin Elementary School 332 N Township Rd, Yuba City, CA 95993 0000026 #3 YC Fire 26 Yuba City Fire Station # 3 795 Lincoln Rd, Yuba City, Ca 95991 0000027 #3 YC Fire 27 Yuba City Fire Station # 3 795 Lincoln Rd, Yuba City, Ca 95991 0000028 N Valley 28 North Valley Calvary Chapel 613 Bogue Rd, Yuba City, Ca 95991 0000029 N Valley 29 North Valley Calvary Chapel 613 Bogue Rd, Yuba City, Ca 95991 0000030 River Bend 30 Riverbend School 301 Stewart Rd, Yuba City, CA 95991 0000031 Lincrest 31 Lincrest School 1400 Phillips Rd, Yuba City, Ca 95991 0000032 1st Reform 32 First Reformed Church 9882 Garden Hwy, Yuba City, Ca 95991 0000033 P Grove 33 Pleasant Grove Fire Department 3100 Howsley Rd, Pleasant Grove, Ca 95668 0000034 EN Fire 34 E. Nicolaus Fire Department 1988 Nicolaus Ave, Nicolaus, Ca 95659 0000035 Meridian 35 Meridian Elementary School 15898 Central St, Meridian, CA 95957 NOTICE IS ALSO HEREBY GIVEN that the Vote By Mail ballot processing may begin on the seventh day before the election, which is May 12, 2009 at the Elections Office. All procedures are open to the public and all interested parties will be afforded the opportunity to observe the procedures. All ballots will be tallied at the Elections Office, 1435 Veterans Memorial Circle, Yuba City, California. The Elections Office will be open at 7:00 a.m. on Tuesday, May 19, 2009. DONNA JOHNSTON, SUTTER COUNTY CLERK/REGISTRAR OF VOTERS BY: Chris Goforth, Assistant Registrar of Voters April 24, 2009 Ad #00071452
Appeared in: *Appeal Democrat* on Friday, 04/24/2009

Feds step in with $260 million for California water projects

This story is taken from Sacbee / Our Region / Top Stories - Published Thursday, Apr. 16, 2009

California on Wednesday got a promise of $260 million in federal economic stimulus funds for water projects, and an assurance that the administration of President Barack Obama will be an active partner in combating the state's water troubles. U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced the funding at Sacramento's Mather Field, after an aerial tour of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. He was joined by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and leading state and federal legislators.

Funding will be directed at projects overseen by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. It includes $31 million for safety projects at Folsom Dam, mainly to assist ongoing construction of a new flood-control spillway. Another $4 million will pay for planning related to a habitat conservation plan in the Delta, where a controversial diversion canal is proposed to address water supply and habitat concerns.

The biggest allocation is $110 million to build new pumps and fish screens at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam on the Sacramento River. The facility diverts water into the Tehama-Colusa Canal to irrigate 150,000 acres of farmland, mostly on the west side of the Sacramento Valley. The archaic facility is the largest unscreened water diversion left on the Sacramento River and is blamed for killing endangered salmon and sturgeon. Improvements were authorized in the 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Act but never funded.

The Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority is ready to start construction this spring, said General Manager Jeffrey Sutton. "It's been a big problem for salmon and steelhead and sturgeon, which try to migrate past the dam, for a long time," said Kate Poole, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "This is the big sum of money they needed to actually fully construct the project."

Perhaps more important was Salazar's promise on Wednesday that the federal government will again assume a large role in helping solve California's water problems. Reclamation's California projects are some of its biggest, irrigating nearly half the produce sold in the United States. Yet the federal government has largely stood on the sidelines for nearly a decade while California struggled with its water infrastructure problems.

Salazar announced the funding after touring the Delta by helicopter with Schwarzenegger. The Delta is the locus of the state's water and environmental problems, where declining fish species and drought have reduced water deliveries. Reclamation and the state operate separate Delta pump systems that provide water to 23 million Californians and 3 million acres of farmland. "The Delta is a stark reminder that California's water supply has reached its limits," Salazar said. "It is time to make hard choices, and it is time for the federal government to re-engage in full partnership."

That was music to the ears of state officials, including Lester Snow, California's Water Resources boss. Snow was in charge of the CalFed Bay Delta Authority in the 1990s, when the federal government made big promises about helping California solve the Delta's problems. In subsequent years, however, it largely failed to meet funding agreements. "It's a sea change in the way we're going to deal with Delta issues," Snow said Wednesday. "We have a secretary of Interior showing a personal interest in these very difficult resource issues we have in California."

Other funding as part of Wednesday's announcement includes: • $40 million for drought relief projects such as drilling new wells and assisting with water transfers, especially in the beleaguered San Joaquin Valley, where Delta water cutbacks have caused mass crop fallowing and unemployment. • Battle Creek, a tributary of the Sacramento River, will get $26 million for salmon and steelhead habitat restoration.

The state is also now eligible for another $135 million in federal grants for water recycling projects. This brings California's potential stimulus water grants to about $400 million. Jay Lund, a UC Davis professor of civil and environmental engineering, said stimulus money will help generate jobs in construction, among the hardest-hit sectors in California's downturn. But he said Californians should not fool themselves into thinking this money will solve their water woes; the problems are too big.

"There will never be enough federal money to cover all of California's water problems," he said. "Local interests will find it's ultimately in their interest to pay either higher local water rates or higher local taxes, because there's just a lot to be done."

Congressmen want more water for California farmers

Tuesday, Mar. 31, 2009 - By KEVIN FREKING - Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON Displaying a bowl of minnows and pictures of unemployed farm workers and their families, California congressmen pleaded with their colleagues Tuesday to make an emergency exception to the federal Endangered Species Act. The lawmakers said efforts to protect a 3-inch-long fish, the delta smelt, have led to court-ordered reductions in the amount of water pumped to some farmers in the San Joaquin Valley, leading to fallowed fields and skyrocketing unemployment.

They said even as a drought enters its third year, there is enough water in California to share with the valley's thousands of farms. Their proposal would increase the diversion of water for those farms. In 2007, a federal judge ordered federal and state water authorities to reduce the amount of water they pump through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in a bid to protect the delta smelt. The finger-length fish is considered a bellwether for the health of the delta, the heart of California's water-delivery system.

Speaking before the House Natural Resources Committee, several of the state's lawmakers discounted the drought as the reason for the San Joaquin Valley's lack of water. Rather, they said it was a matter of priorities, with the government valuing fish over families. Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Atwater, said thousands of families were moving out of his district. He called the exodus the "Dust Bowl migration in reverse."

Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia, said the unemployment rate in his district is nearly 20 percent and is nearing 50 percent in some communities. "We're not asking for a billion-dollar bailout. We aren't even asking for one single dollar," Nunes said. "All we need is for this committee to move emergency legislation which would allow the delta pumps to return to historic export levels." Without such action, the economic devastation will only grow worse, he said.

Experts say the water shortage in California's Central Valley, the most productive agricultural region in the country, results from myriad factors: the order to reducing delta pumping, several years of below-average precipitation and California's inability to upgrade its water system to meet the demands of a population nearing 38 million people.

The state has said it will deliver only 20 percent of the water typically allocated for cities and farms this year. The federal Bureau of Reclamation, which operates a separate system to deliver water to farmers, has said it will not deliver any water this spring to farms south of the delta. Farmers north of the delta can expect to get just 5 percent of their contracted amount.

The shortage could force farmers to idle more than 300,000 acres, leading to a loss of about 37,000 jobs. The delta also feeds drinking water to some 25 million Californians, stretching from the San Francisco Bay area to San Diego. Dozens of cities that expect to get less water from the delta this year are considering conservation measures.

Nunes, in pointed comments to the House committee, described the plight of his constituents in the most dire terms. He said the committee has been silent on the issue for two years. "Failure to act, and it's over," he said. "You will witness the collapse of modern civilization in the San Joaquin Valley." With that, he offered to submit a fishbowl filled with nine minnows for the Congressional Record. The fish were rainbow smelt, not the endangered delta smelt, which are illegal to possess without a permit.

Rep. Grace Napolitano, D-Norwalk, responded by asking him to take the plastic wrap off the bowl so the fish could get some air, which Nunes did. Napolitano served as chairwoman for Tuesday's hearing. The hearing was designed to address the various steps the federal and state governments were taking to address California's water shortage. Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, said some of the lawmakers were "cherry picking history" and ignoring that water has been pumped into the valley at rates that exceeded what was appropriate.

That's one of the reasons the judge ordered state and federal wildlife agencies to revise how much water should be pumped out of the delta. Most of the pumping occurs from late spring through summer. "The judge had no choice because the system was run right down to the margins where in fact he did kick in the protections of the Endangered Species Act," Miller said. Doug Obegi, staff attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, agreed the water shortage is in some respects man-made, but he said it's because California has failed to make sufficient investments in alternate water supplies. He said his organization opposes making exceptions to the Endangered Species Act.

"There are solutions that comply with existing law that protect endangered species and people," Obegi said. "We can do this without eviscerating protections for salmon, delta smelt and killer whales, all of which depend on a healthy delta."

An update for Borst and his water struggle. Note that Jarvis supported his effort.

BULLETIN: $8 million claim hits Paso water plans
A group of North County residents has filed a claim against the city of Paso Robles to recover $8 million in water and sewer fees they say has been improperly levied against property owners and ratepayers for the past six years. John Borst of Concerned Citizens of Paso Robles (CCPR) said the claim was filed earlier this month for “damages as a result of violations of [state constitutional amendment] Prop. 218.” Four of its members retained the Manhattan Beach law firm of Huskinson, Brown, Heidenreich and Carlin, which specializes in taxpayer refunds and class action lawsuits. Such a claim, almost always denied by city lawmakers, is a precursor to a lawsuit. Paso Robles officials have 45 days to respond.
Published Friday, January 9, 2009 3:57 pm

Paso water rate boost appears headed to voters
By DANIEL BLACKBURN Paso Robles city officials’ hopes for carefree financing of future water supplies may have gone down the drain Tuesday, and proponents of an elevated water tax now face a precarious ballot challenge. Representatives of a citizens group presented Assistant City Manager Meg Williamson with a box containing what they said were the signatures of more than 2,100 Paso Robles registered voters. The petitioners are asking Paso Robles City Council members to rescind their January action in which they approved higher water fees for property owners. If that doesn’t happen, members of Concerned Citizens for Paso Robles (CCPR) want voters to have final say over the future of their water costs.
Published Tuesday, March 3, 2009 8:18 pm

Is Paso’s water levy lawful?
Howard Jarvis alliance says no, no, no By DANIEL BLACKBURN An influential statewide taxpayer group views elements of Paso Robles’ proposed water rate increase as unlawful and unconstitutional, and is “strongly” advising city officials to take a different funding path. Findings of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) lend credence to a position advanced by a local group, Concerned Citizens for Paso Robles (CCPR).
Published Friday, October 24, 2008 11:46 a

21.

Paso’s costly water project just a backdoor tax?
By DANIEL BLACKBURN A multi-million-dollar Paso Robles water project funded by fattened water rates has pitted two mayoral candidates against one another and the conflict’s outcome could impact North County development for years to come. City officials have decided to saddle water users with sharp rate hikes to pay for the Nacimiento Pipeline water delivery system, which includes a $100 million-plus water treatment plant to deal with the lake water’s high mercury content. A price tag to the pipeline of $76 million is alleged, but debt service and other costs may eventually hike the total project cost to more than $300 million.
Published Wednesday, September 3, 2008 10:47 a

Where was our support?

Regional wastewater flushed

By Ashley Gebb/Appeal-Democrat - March 5, 2009 - 12:09AM

Live Oak plans to correct its wastewater problems by building its own plant, City Council members decided Wednesday. After an at-times heated discussion with residents, the City Council voted unanimously to move forward with plans to build its own wastewater treatment plant. A local plant is the best way to meet state standards, keep residents' costs low and possibly receive up to $10 million in state assistance, said City Manager Jim Goodwin The project should be put out to bid in a few weeks and the council will then discuss a potential rate increase. Construction of the plant should take two years.

City officials are excited about the prospect. "I think luck has kind of shined down on us," said Mayor Diane Hodges. Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, California could designate up to $10 million in grant funding for Live Oak's project. The city has been told by the state the community is competitive to receive the funding because it is disadvantaged and its project is shovel-ready, Goodwin said. The state Water Resources Control Board will meet March 17 to discuss program and policy changes that would create the opportunity to take advantage of grant funds.

A local plant is the only option eligible for federal stimulus grant funding, Goodwin said. To take advantage of the funding, the city must act now. But many residents did not agree with the council's decision. Jonathan Evans said he thinks council members came to the meeting with their minds made up. "The project they have is shovel-ready because they made it shovel-ready," Evans said. Any option could have been made shovel-ready, he said, but instead, Live Oak spent $2 million on engineering its own plant and only $50,000 on looking into a regional plant or selling the system.

Evans is not so sure if Live Oak will ever see $10 million for a local plant, he said. "I have faith in the state," he said. "I do not have faith in the City Council to get it done." Councilman Gary Baland was not happy to see a less-than-favorable reception from the community. "Instead of some of you getting up and jumping for joy over $10 million, you are finding more ways to ridicule," he said. The City Council is acting in the residents' best interests, Baland said.

"I know your children, I live with your children," he said. "I'm a part of this community and I feel your pain." Without grant funding, a local plant could raise residents' sewer rates from $45.16 to $112.20 per month by 2018. Live Oak fell out of state compliance after California changed its wastewater treatment standards years ago. Its compliance dates have been extended to allow the city to finalize a solution, but starting in April, Live Oak faces fines of $3,000 per day per violation. The city has to move forward but the state has not guaranteed anything, Goodwin said.

"There are steps that are out of our control right now," Goodwin said. That idea was of little comfort to Evans. "We are going to go down a path before we know that information, and that scares me," he said. Resident Sharon Huber worried about the finality of the council's decision. "The point is, are we putting all our eggs in one basket?" she said. "What if we don't (get the money)?" If Live Oak does not receive state funding and residents face a large rate increase, the council will discuss other options, Goodwin said.

A local plant seems like a short-term fix if the city could face more noncompliance in five years, said resident Dwight Davis. A regional plant seems more affordable in the long run. "I'm going to be paying for it, whether I pay now or pay later," he said. Huber agreed, saying wastewater problems will only continue. "It has been every five years for the 30 years that I know of," she said.

Good Morning Mr. Lewis:

I have read the below article with interest as it mentions the conversion project of Yuba City Well/Groundwater to Yuba City Surface water.
Was this an item before the City Council? Please tell me at which meeting and agenda item that is was covered.[Bill Lewis] The water line projects have not yet gone to Council for approval to advertise the construction project – tentatively scheduled for 3/17.

Also, it states that funding for extensions to Walton and Shanghai Bend areas is SRF. Is that mentioned funding the same SRF Loan that was applied for for the change in water supply to Regions 2 and 3. Of course this is of major interest as Shanghai Bend was never mentioned as part of this project.[Bill Lewis] Shanghai Bend line is part of the Region 1 loan package that the Department of Public Health is currently reviewing.

I have tried to be brief in my questions to save your time. However, if I have been too brief, please respond.

I have not received an answer to my questions written to you on 2-19-09. If they have been misplaced, I can resend the message to you.

Thank you,

Suzanne Connelly

Yuba City maps out summer road projects

By Ashley Gebb/Appeal-Democrat - March 2, 2009 - 12:02AM

Yuba City has outlined $14.75 million in summer road projects, which will keep it a lot busier this year than seasons past, said Public Works Director George Musallam. The projects are as simple as street light installation and as complex as widening roads and waterline extensions. The projects should all be started by summer and finished by early fall, Musallam said. "My goal is to go and do those easy projects and get them done," he said.

The smallest project is a traffic signal at Gray and Queens avenues. Musallam said Yuba City tries to install at least one signal a year. The larger projects include widening Walton Avenue and Franklin Road, at a cost of $2.2 million using development impact fees. "There is a real need for this right now, because it is a really congested area," Musallam said. Walton Avenue and Franklin Road are each two lanes in highly residential and business areas. Widening them to four lanes will increase safety. "There is a lot of interest in the community for that one and it's finally becoming a reality," he said.

The other large project is waterline extensions in the Walton and Shanghai Bend areas as the city converts Hillcrest water users from groundwater to surface water. The extensions, which are funded through the state revolving fund, will cost $6.25 million and take several months. Public Works is going to do its best to keep traffic moving during construction and will send notices to residents to inform them of possible delays, Musallam said. Roadwork will be staggered to minimize impact on residents.

The major road rehabilitation on Bridge Street at Walton, Gray and Railroad avenues must be completed as soon as possible because the grant funds that support it have an expiration date. Other street rehabilitation and slurry and cap seal projects are planned for various roadways throughout the city. The summer projects also include improvements on Bridge Street from Plumas to Shasta streets and road widening and sidewalk installation on Jamie Drive and Belvin Road to Butte Vista School as part of Safe Routes to School. The projects are being funded through development impact fees, federal road rehabilitation dollars, gas taxes, grant money and the State Revolving Fund.

3-3-09:  Test Process for Wells Now......

Public notice would be required if the rolling annual average of quarterly results of any individual water well or plant were to exceed 10 ug/l of treated water arsenic.
Your home is primarily served by Plant #2.
Well number 7 at plant #2 was reported to have collapsed. This was based on the fact that its pumping had been dramatically reduced and was pumping sand and gravel. After a great deal of effort we were able to pull the pump. It was determined that the pump column had failed at a joint, prior to failure it was pumping water onto the pump liner and casing - causing the casing liner to fail. Two other column joints were also leaking and near failure. The casing liner failure allowed sand and gravel to fall into the pump area. The column is in the process of being repaired. Yuba City had installed the casing liner a few years ago. Well #7 is still out of service while repairs are being made. This well is located at plant #2. The other well at plant #2 can meet the winter demands.

Bill Lewis
Utilities Director
302 Burns Drive
Yuba City, CA 95991
530 822-4319
blewis@yubacity.net

Sutter County homes part of real estate fraud

By Rob Young/Appeal-Democrat - February 20, 2009 - 6:22PM

An arrest warrant was issued Friday for a Nevada County real estate broker who took more than $20 million from investors for fraudulent developments, including some in Sutter County, state Attorney General Jerry Brown said. Seventy-three charges, including embezzlement and securities fraud, were filed against Thomas Hastert in Nevada County Superior Court. Bail was set at $540,000. Besides Sutter County, Hastert brokered more than 270 "hard-money" loans, which typically provide high returns, in Nevada, Sacramento, Butte, Placer and Yolo counties for three years starting in September 2004, Brown said.

"This man brazenly deceived investors and borrowers, promising high returns and easy loans, ripping off his customers for his own personal enrichment," Brown said in a statement. "Ultimately, this criminal scheme collapsed when many of these loans failed, costing hundreds of people more than $20 million," Brown said. A spokesman for Brown's office said some of the fraudulent developments, mostly houses, were in Sutter County, but that it wasn't clear if any of Hastert's alleged victims are county residents.

Hastert secured $20 million from several investors, using the money to broker loans to borrowers seeking to develop homes on real estate. He told investors that borrowers had excellent credit scores, but many of the borrowers did not make regular payments or held properties in foreclosure, Brown said. Although Hastert was required by law to place the money with a third-party escrow firm that would verify that funds being withdrawn were used for construction projects, he never established the account. Borrowers used the money without oversight, the attorney general said.

Hastert told investors he would personally oversee the developments. But when one investor asked to be driven to a particular property, Hastert was unable to find it, Brown said. To deceive investors, Hastert set up fake investors, or "straw men," including his secretary, who never invested a single dollar. When a legitimate investor tried to initiate foreclosure proceedings, Hastert said the supposed majority owner was opposed. Hastert collected a 3 percent fee on each loan he brokered, taking his fee up front as if the loan were fully funded. But some loans never were fully funded, while others took more than a year to reach that point, Brown said.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Doug Gault, Public Works Director, 530-822-7450

Sutter County Stimulus Package Project List: $60 Million In ‘Shovel-Ready’ Road, Water And Building Projects

Sutter County has assembled a master list of $60 million in “shovel ready” projects for consideration if Congress approves President Barack Obama’s proposal for a public works stimulus package to revive the American economy. The list, compiled by Public Works Director Douglas R. Gault, was forwarded to Congressman Wally Herger, Senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, State Senator Sam Aanestad and Assemblyman Jim Nielsen.

The Sutter County list contains $30.2 million in road projects, $27 million in building projects, and $2.9 million in water projects. All projects could start within three to six months of funding approvals and be completed within one year.The road projects list includes approximately $23 million for road rehabilitation projects throughout Sutter County. The building projects include $12.5 million for a new Human Services Building and $3.5 million for a new animal shelter. A majority of the water projects involve improvements to the water system for the community of Robbins, including the elimination of arsenic.

Because the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency was formed in 2007 to coordinate flood control projects, Sutter County’s list does not include “shovel ready” levee projects. “Shovel-ready” projects are defined as those where construction can begin within six months after funding is received. Sutter County does not own or maintain any of the 240 miles of levees in the county; they are owned by the state and federal governments.

However, the approximately one mile long Levee District 1 setback levee project at Starr Bend has already received an appropriation for $16 million and is expected to be completed on schedule in 2009. An Army Corps of Engineers study on alternatives for other levee projects is not expected to be completed until 2010.

A proposed early implementation project to repair-in-place levees from Yuba City to southern Butte County is being considered by the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency but that project and is not far enough along in the approval and engineering process to qualify as “shovel-ready.”

Sutter County “Stimulus Package Project” synopsis and cost estimates

Facilities:

Construct 65,000 square foot Human Services building to consolidate services. $12,500,000.
Construct 10,000 square foot Animal Control Facility to replace aging existing facility. $3.5 million.
Replace aging and inefficient heating, ventilation and air-conditioning system at Sutter County Jail with modern HVAC system. $1.5 million.
Construct 1,800 square foot steel building for Road Maintenance offices at the County’s Corporation Yard. $700,000.
Install 4,000 feet of eight-inch ductile iron water main to replace existing two-inch line at Sutter County Airport and Whiteaker Hall, improving water flow for fire protection and reliable potable water service to several industrial buildings. $400,000.

Roads:

Road rehabilitation projects, including overlays, cape seals, and slurry seals. Already identified for 2009 is 22.2 miles of county roads at cost of $1.2 million; the remainder would be for maintenance treatments for other substandard County roads. $23,100,000.
Widen a 1.2 mile section of Butte House Road, including rerouting drainage through graded ditches and piping and seven fee of shoulder widening in each direction. (This project fully funded for 2010) $880,000.
Preventative maintenance on 16 deteriorating bridges throughout Sutter County, applying a sealant to prevent future damage. $650,000.
Replace a deep roadside ditch that presents a significant traffic hazard along Franklin Road with drainage piping. $900,000.
Construct an eight-mile long Class 2 Bike Lane along George Washington Boulevard, with a four-foot pavement widening in each direction with associated signage and striping. $4 million $4,000,000.
Construct a one mile long Class 2 Bike Lane along Franklin Road. $200,000.

Water Resources Projects

Replace 5,000 feet of existing two-inch and three-inch galvanized water line with six-inch PVC water main in the community of Robbins, providing reliable potable water service and adequate fire service. $740,000.
Install 32 water meters in the community of Robbins. $100,000.
Demolish the water tower in the community of Robbins. $30,000.
Purchasing an easement and installation of two eight-foot diameter treatment tanks, a filtration system and related equipment to remove arsenic from the water supply in Robbins. $870,000.
Replace three underground tanks at the Robins Wastewater Treatment Plant with a new fiberglass tank. $300,000.
Purchase a new storage container to house spill materials at the Robbins Wastewater Treatment Plant. $30,000.
Installation of new 20 gallons-per-minute pump station and power supply in the drainage basin that serves the Sunset Estates subdivision west of Yuba City. $75,000.
Replacement of undersized drainage culverts at 10 road crossing on the Live Oak Canal, and replace other drainage culverts under roadways at critical locations throughout the County. $750,000.

Citizens stiffed for ‘misconduct’

January 14, 2009 12:02:00 AM

Concerning the Jan. 9 article about Yuba City being fined $6,000 by the Fair Political Practices Commission (“YC fined $6,000 for Hillcrest mailers”): At issue was the bald-faced attempt by the city to influence an election. The mailers were created by the city administration, printed for the city administration, mailed for the city administration, and paid for by the “taxpayers.”

One thing is certain: The citizens and taxpayers of Yuba City should not pay this fine. But it appears that the City Council and the city manager believe it is perfectly OK to stiff the citizens for this administrative misconduct. It shouldn’t take a rally or a demonstration to change some minds. For starters, please folks, call the city and just say no.

Robert Mackensen
Yuba City

YC fined $6,000 for Hillcrest mailers

Ex-mayor off the hook

January 08, 2009 12:20:00 AM - By Robert LaHue/Appeal-Democrat

Yuba City will be fined $6,000 by the Fair Political Practices Commission for twice breaking the state election code in mailers to Hillcrest Water System users, according to documents for the commission's upcoming meeting. Under the agreement, which the FPPC will consider approving at its Jan. 15 meeting, the city and former mayor Rory Ramirez will acknowledge that two mailers sent out to Hillcrest users featuring Ramirez violated Section 89001 of the Government Code.

The section says "No newsletter or other mass mailing shall be sent at public expense." Ramirez declined to comment on the matter. City Manager Steve Jepsen said the city does not necessarily agree that one of the mailers violated FPPC rules, but decided to agree to the stipulation to move the issue along. "In order to expedite this, we find it's probably more expedient and way less costly to stipulate to the position of the FPPC," Jepsen said.

The maximum possible penalty for the violations was $10,000. The City Council voted in September, with Ramirez abstaining, to indemnify the former mayor, who is no longer on the council after not running for re-election, from any legal wrongdoing and paying any fines the FPPC may levy against him for the mailers.

Roman Porter of the FPPC could not specifically talk about this case, but said, in general, when more than one individual is identified as responsible for a violation, it's considered a "joint and several liability." This means the FPPC can collect all of part of the fines from whoever is involved, so long as the fine is paid. "There in general may be an issue as to whether that's an appropriate use of public funds, but that's outside the purview of the FPPC," Porter said, noting that would likely fall under the district attorney's responsibility.

"The stipulation does not require Ramirez to pay anything," Jepsen said. "It requires the city to pay the fine, and we're doing that." The mailers were sent out during a hotly-contested debate over switching customers on the Hillcrest system from well water to surface water. The switch will add a $19.80 monthly surcharge to Hillcrest area bills. At least one complaint about the mailers was sent to the FPPC by an organized group of Hillcrest customers who opposed the city's water switch proposal. Elaine Miles, a leading member of the group referred to as Murky Waters, did not return phone calls seeking comment. She earlier described the City Council vote to spare Ramirez from paying any costs as "a gross misuse of the taxpayer's dollars."

The first mailer was a brochure sent in June that included a short message from Ramirez and his picture, discussing the city's proposal to switch Hillcrest customers from well water to surface water. The second mailer was an August letter signed by Ramirez accusing opponents of the surface water plan of "misrepresenting facts." It also included a form that would allow residents to withdraw their signed protest of the surface water switch under Proposition 218, or file a new protest.

According to the FPPC documents, Jepsen wrote the letter. Jepsen said, in retrospect, it would have been better to have had him sign the letter rather than Ramirez. "I wrote the letter, and we felt it would have more emphasis coming from the mayor," Jepsen said. The city said the violations occurred "because of its reliance on a consultant hired to provide professional expertise in public education through mailers," the documentation said.

Jepsen said the consultant, Jones & Stokes, has already reimbursed the city $3,000 to pay for the fine over the June brochure. The commission opted for the lower $6,000 penalty rather than the maximum fine because the city cooperated with the FPPC investigation and shown that it "paid for these mailings from revenue-generating sources and reimbursed any taxpayer funds spent."

Also, the commission said Ramirez's violation was not a usual circumstance, since most code violations of this kind are for candidates using public funds to support their own re-election. Ramirez had already announced he was not seeking re-election to the City Council when the mailers were sent. "The city contends that it used the mayor in the mailings with the intent to more effectively disseminate information to water customers, not to promote the mayor," the documents said.

PUBLIC NOTICE

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 6-5.601.I. of the City of Yuba City Municipal Code and Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 403.8(f)(2)(viii); Public Notification is hereby provided that Feather River Energy Center, located at 202 Burns Drive in Yuba City, County of Sutter, California, was in significant non-compliance with applicable pretreatment standards and requirements for the 12 month period ending on December 31, 2007.

The facts and reasons for the determination of significant noncompliance are a result of violating the following Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 403.8 (f)(2)(viii)(A)(B)(F)&(G)):

For the 12 month period ending December 31, 2007, Feather River Energy Center neglected to accurately report and re-sample their waste stream within thirty (30) days after becoming aware that self-monitoring results demonstrated non-compliance with the City of Yuba City’s Local Limit for Zinc and Copper. Subsequent monitoring by Feather River Energy Center and the City of Yuba City has demonstrated that Feather River Energy Center is in full compliance with their Industrial Waste Discharge Permit.

Should you have any questions please contact the City Clerk’s office (530-822-4609); TDD (530)822-4732 or the Utilities Department (530)822-4639.

Terrel Locke, City Clerk

December 29Ad #00063642

PUBLIC NOTICE

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 6-5.601.I. of the City of Yuba City Municipal Code and Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 403.8(f)(2)(viii); Public Notification is hereby provided that Sunsweet Growers Inc., located at 901 N. Walton Avenue in Yuba City, County of Sutter, California, was in significant non-compliance with applicable pretreatment standards and requirements for the 12 month period ending on December 31, 2007.

The facts and reasons for the determination of significant noncompliance are a result of violating the following Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 403.8 (f)(2)(viii)(F)):

Sunsweet Growers Inc., failed to perform their quarterly self-monitoring analyses as required by their Industrial Waste Discharge permit during the third quarter of 2007. Analyses were to include monitoring for the following pollutants: Ammonia as Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus, Nitrate as Nitrogen, and Iron. Subsequent self-monitoring has demonstrated that Sunsweet Growers Inc., is in full compliance with their Industrial Waste Discharge Permit.

Should you have any questions please contact the City Clerk’s office (530-822-4609); TDD (530)822-4732 or the Utilities Department (530)822-4639.

Terrel Locke, City Clerk

December 29Ad #00063641

Impact fee freeze thawed in Yuba City

City Council rejects plan; first fee hike in January

November 19, 2008 12:19:00 AM - By John Dickey/Appeal-Democrat

Yuba City will move ahead in boosting impact fees on construction after the City Council rejected a proposal Tuesday to freeze the fees. The City Council was considering a proposal that the city hold off on the first fee increase in January, a $3,236 boost, one of three annual phased increases that would bring impact fees on homes construction up to $23,386 per home.

But council members voted unanimously to begin the first of three annual fee hikes in January. Another vote next month will finalize the fee increase. Mayor Rory Ramirez and Councilman Kash Gill both said at Tuesday's City Council meeting that the city should move ahead in January with the plan approved in 2007 to phase in revised fees over three years. Tuesday was Ramirez's last City Council meeting.

"We should bite the bullet, make the call," said Ramirez. Ramirez said the impact fees have not been updated in a number of years. The city got caught in the biggest growth of its history but it cannot recoup the lost fees. Impact fees collect money to pay for new roads, parks, police and fire facilities and other growth-related improvements. Some have contended that Yuba City fees have been too low over the years to pay for projects such as a traffic interchange for Pease Road and Highway 99.

The idea to hold off on fees came after an ad-hoc committee meeting for development impact fees chaired by Ramirez and McBride. Developers raised concerns about the worsening economy during the meeting and said any fee hikes would slow development.Two citizens, Dr. Larry Ozeran and Elaine Miles, said City Council should start the first of the fee hikes and not delay them."Waiting just puts us farther behind," said Ozeran.

Darin Gale, legislative advocate for the North State Building Industry Association, supported the freeze because it would encourage economic development. Gale said four other cities are looking at cutting their fees by 25 percent. The 41 new home building permits issued by the city so far this year is the lowest number in years. In 2007, the city issued 182 single-family home permits —a slow year compared to 2005 when it granted 895 permits.

What do impact fees do?

Yuba City impact fees fund police and fire facilities, roads, the Corporation Yard, parks and libraries.

They are paid when someone builds a home, office, store or industrial building.

The current fee is $12,401 for construction of a single-family home.

The city will increase fees by $3,236 per home to $15,637 in January, the first of three annual increases that will boost fees to $23,386 per home by January 2011.

The first phase of impact fee increases for commercial and retail construction will also start in January. Revised city impact fees were hashed out in October 2007 but City Council agreed to freeze fees at their current levels for 2008.

Tuesday's proposal would have extended the freeze one more year.

To: City Council of Yuba City

City of Yuba City

1201 Civic Center Boulevard

Yuba City, CA 95993

Concerned Citizens for Walton Water Customers in Hillcrest Water System—South Walton Area is a group of individual citizens interested in ensuring that taxes, assessments, and fees imposed by the City of Yuba City for municipal services conform to state and local laws -- including California’s Proposition 218 “Right to Vote on Taxes Act”. Thus, this letter is in regards to the lawfulness of the revenue-raising/financing mechanism the City has chosen to fund selected public improvement projects related to its Hillcrest Water System (HWS) enterprise water service.

We, in our community, are of the opinion that the City’s currently proposed water rates should not be levied as a “fee” but as an “assessment” or “special tax.” We believe this strongly and unequivocally. The California State Constitution and associated case law is clear in regards to how the capital cost of a public improvement project should be funded.

First, according to CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 53750 (b) an

“Assessment" means any levy or charge by an agency upon real roperty that is based upon the special benefit conferred upon the real property by a public improvement or service, that is imposed to pay the capital cost of the public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of the public improvement, or the cost of the service being provided. "Assessment" includes, but is not limited to, "special assessment," "benefit assessment," "maintenance assessment," and "special assessment tax."

Second, in Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority, 2008, the California Supreme Court states:

Capital cost is defined as “the cost of acquisition, installation, construction, reconstruction, or replacement of a permanent public improvement by an agency.” Art. XIII D, § 2, subd. (c)

Several references to the Hillcrest Water System since 2004 have indentified this system as part of a Capitol Improvement Program (CIP) for the City's water distribution system. The following references clearly indicated that the Hillcrest Water System--South Walton Area

Project is a CIP. References to this are:

1. The Master Plan Update, Executive Summary, dated May 2004, page 7, Capital Improvement, Phase 2, as prepared by HDRm reads as follows:

Improvements to the surface water distribution system and to serve Regions 1, 2, 3, and portions of Regions 4A/5A and 4B/5B.

2. In a cover letter from Mr. Ligaya Kohagura, HDR, dated May 19, 2004, concerning the final submission of the Water Master Plan Update reads as follows:

The Water Master Plan Update Report evaluated the current and future water needs for the City and the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI), including the former Hillcrest Water Company groundwater regions acquired by the City in May 2001. The result of this evaluation is the proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the City’s water distribution system and Surface Water Treatment Plant (SWTP). The CIP identifies improvements needed to meet the projected growth and water demand in the City, former Hillcrest Regions, and future developments in the SOI. The Executive Summary provides a brief overview of the update study’s purpose, objectives, findings and recommendations, and the recommended CIP.

3. The Yuba City Update to Water Demand and Infrastructure System Evaluation Technical Memorandum, Introduction, Background, page 3, prepared by HDR, dated July, 2006, reads as follows:

HDR prepared the City of Yuba City’s May 2004 Water System Master Plan Update. The May 2004 water master plan (WMP) evaluated the current and future water needs for the City and the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI), including the former Hillcrest Water Company groundwater regions acquired by the City in May 2001. The result of the master plan’s evaluations was the proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the City’s water distribution system and Surface Water Treatment Plant (SWTP). The CIP identifies improvements needed to meet the projected growth and water demand in the City, former Hillcrest Regions, and future developments in the SOI.

4. A City of Yuba City Staff Report, Item 6, Subject and Recommendations from the Utilities Department, reads as follows:

Approval of Carollo Engineers Professional Services contract for the Engineering Design Services for the South Walton Area Storage and Pumping Plant.

Direct staff to make appropriate fund transfers from enterprise fund 509-Z69990 (Water Connection Fee Fund) and establish a new CIP account to capture all project costs for design of this storage and pumping plant. Funds will be reimbursed by existing customers through a State Revolving Fund (SRF) low interest loan and/or water connection impact fees.

5. The January 2, 2008, 2004 Water Master Plan Update Report, Yuba City, Utilities, web page reads:

The 2004 Water Master Plan Update Report evaluated the existing and future water needs for the City and the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI), including the former Hillcrest Water Company groundwater regions acquired by the City in May 2001. The result of this evaluation was the proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the City's water distribution system and Surface Water Treatment Plant (SWTP). The CIP identified improvements needed to meet the projected growth and water demand in the City, former Hillcrest Regions, and future developments in the SOI. The Executive Summary provides a brief overview of the update study's purpose, objectives, findings and recommendations, and the recommended CIP.

6. The City of Yuba City, 2009-2013, Capital Improvement Budget - Project Index shows as Project Number 1008, Groundwater Treatment & Delivery System Improvements and its scope is described as:

To provide funding for improvements to the old Hillcrest Water District wells, treatment plants and storage tanks in Groundwater Region 1 and Region 2/3. These improvements are needed to meet CDPH standards and provide reliable potable water supply to the City's groundwater customers. A surcharge will be added to regional customers' bill.

7. Also, as noted in the City's Cost Estimate Surface Water System Improvements H.W.S. Regions 1, 2 & 3, Updated April 25, 2008 – WPL, that at least the following 2 items were previously identified as a CIP. These were: 3.6 MG Reservoir and a 8.5 MGD Firm Pump Station Capacity (10.5 MGD Total) at a cost of nearly $7,000,000.

The Hillcrest Water System—South Walton Area Project, as referenced above, clearly indicates that it is a public improvement project having a capital cost!

Third, in a pre-Proposition 218 decision, the California Supreme Court in Knox v. City of Orland (1992) explained the nature of a special assessment. A special assessment is a “ ‘compulsory charge placed by the state upon real property within a predetermined district, made under express legislative authority for defraying in whole or in part the expense of a permanent public improvement therein . . . .’ ” The capital improvement project identified in the references above clearly identifies and provides the rationale for compulsory charges to be levied upon water customers by the City. Those compulsory charges have the purpose of “defraying in whole or in part the expense of a permanent public improvement therein . . . .’ ”. In addition, the Supreme Court ruled in San Marcos Water Dist. v. San Marcos Unified School Dist. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 154, 228 Cal.Rptr. 47; 720 P.2d 935, and again stated in Richmond v. Shasta Community Services Dist. (2004), that "a fee aimed at assisting a utility district to defray costs of capital improvements will be deemed a special assessment from which other public entities are exempt.” (Also in Richmond v. Shasta Community Services District [2004] the Court noted, “We agree that supplying water is a "property-related service" within the meaning of article XIII D's definition of a fee or charge.” The Court in San Marcus Water District v. San Marcus Unified School District [1986] also recognized that “revenues collected as a result of the 'sewage facilities charge' are used by the city to provide capital for sewer construction, i.e. to finance local improvements. Such a charge for capital funding is little more than a disguised special assessment.”). In short, both the fees and/or charges as proposed by the City in July 2008, and October 2008, for the customers of the Hillcrest Water System—South Walton Area to pay for its capital improvements, in light of the above statements of law, are actually “assessments” and should be levied as such following the procedural requirements of Article XIII D Section 4 of the California State Constitution.

Fourth, in a similar situation to that now under consideration by the City of Yuba City regarding its water rates, the Shasta Community Services District “proposed to divide the costs of new capital improvements between users receiving service through existing connections and users applying for new connections.” The Supreme Court concluded in their discussion on assessments, “any costs imposed on customers receiving service through existing connections would be subject to article XIII D's voter approval requirements, and thus their consent. Customers who apply for new connections give consent by the act of applying" (Richmond v. Shasta Community Services Dist. [2004]). Consequently, the City’s proposed capital improvement projects require voter approval, either by way of an assessment or a special tax.

Fifth, practical application of the above law(s) in which a Governmental agency properly recognized that a capital improvement project requires an assessment—and voter approval—includes the Salinas Valley Water Project (Monterey County, 2003, http://www.mcwra.co.monterey.ca.us/welcome_svwp_n.htm ), and the Los Osos Wastewater Treatment Project (San Luis Obispo County, 2007). The Hillcrest Water System—South Walton Area project contains capital costs and should, likewise, conform to Proposition 218’s voter approval assessment requirement (including a ballot vote) to secure project funding.

Sixth, “while a special assessment may, like a special tax, be viewed in a sense as having been levied for a specific purpose, a critical distinction between the two public financing mechanisms is that a special assessment must confer a special benefit upon the property assessed beyond that conferred generally.” (Knox, supra, 4 Cal.4th at pp. 141-142.) “Benefits” of the Hillcrest Water System—South Walton Area project have been published in City produced flyers and the July 2008, and October 2008, notices of the proposed surcharge. Briefly, the alleged benefits are to: increase reliability, enhance quality, and meet demand. Nonetheless, special assessments may in reality be special taxes if the property assessed receives no special benefit beyond that received by the general public. (Knox v. City of Orland, supra, 4 Cal.4th at pp. 142-143; Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority, 2008)

Seventh, the City to date has been unable to identify measurable benefits required for the levy of an assessment on water customers. In fact, the Hillcrest Water System—South Walton Area project provides exactly what all other City of Yuba City water customers receive—potable water from the City. Thus, City officials have then but only one other financing or revenue-raising mechanism under Proposition 218 to use for funding its capital improvement projects—a special tax. Indeed, the projects identified in Hillcrest Water System--South Walton Area project have all the earmarks of a special tax.

For example, “Recommendations” adopted by the Council on July 1, 2008, state, “The proposed water rate surcharge is based on the City of Yuba City receiving a low interest California Department of Health State Revolving Fund loan.” The City’s desire to raise revenues to meet capital and debt costs for expanding the surface water system is again confirmed in the City’s October 8, 2008, notice of the proposed surcharge sent by the City to South Walton area water customers, which stated, “The proposed rates are based upon the estimated cost to build and expand the City surface water system for HWS Region 2/3.” And, “In order to deliver surface water to Region 2/3 customers, the City must build, and pay for, certain new pipelines, water storage tank, pumps and other water infrastructure.”

The Courts have spoken on how a revenue-raising mechanism with a specific purpose can be characterized:

In general, taxes are imposed for revenue purposes, rather than in return for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted.(Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 218, 240 [1 Cal.Rptr.2d 818])

The essence of a special tax “is that its proceeds are earmarked or dedicated in some manner to a specific project or projects” (Neecke v. City of Mill Valley [1995] 39 Cal.App.4th 946, 956).

Additionally, Proposition 218 defines “special tax” as “any tax[4] imposed for specific purposes, including taxes imposed for specific purposes, and placed into a general fund.” See Cal. Const., Article XIIIC, § 1(d).

The proceeds derived from the City’s proposed surcharge are earmarked and dedicated to largely pay for the Hillcrest Water System--South Walton Area Project. The earmarking and dedication of funds to these and other capital improvement projects is made clear. Consequently, in light of the above case law and Article XIIIC, Sec. 1(d), the related capital project costs identified for the Hillcrest Water System--South Walton Area Project require funding through a special tax.

Eighth, the definition of special tax under Proposition 218 means that a tax with an identified purpose requires a two-thirds vote (See Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Roseville [2003] 106 Cal.App.4th 1178); and, as with general taxes, no local government may impose, extend, or increase any special tax until such tax is submitted to the electorate and approved. Cal. Const., art. XIIIC, § 2(b). The imposition, extension or increase of special taxes requires a two-thirds vote of the electorate voting in an election on the tax. Cal. Const., art. XIIIC, § 2(d). Consequently, the capital improvement costs, if not levied as an assessment, do lawfully require two-thirds voter approval for project funding, extension or increase.

Finally, Proposition 218’s underlying purpose is to limit government’s power to exact revenue from taxpayers without their consent and to curtail the deference traditionally accorded legislative enactments on fees, assessments, and charges. The Concerned Citizens for Hillcrest Water Customers construes article XIII D, section 4, subdivision (f) — the “burden . . . to demonstrate” provision — liberally in light of the Proposition’s other provisions, and concludes for the reasons stated above that the City errors in its attempt to so levy water rates as fees or charges under Proposition 218 Article XIIID Section 6 to finance capital costs. The proper and lawful financing mechanism for funding City capital improvement water enterprise projects is through an assessment or a special tax.

Prepared and submitted by:
Elaine Miles, Legal Liaison
Concerned Citizens for Walton Water Customers in Hillcrest System—South Walton Area
487 Anita Way
Yuba City, CA 95993
(530) 671-7916

Date: November 17, 2008

Approved by: Concerned Citizens for Walton Water Customers in Hillcrest Water System--South Walton Area

Copies to:
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
The Honorable Jerry Brown, Attorney General
Debra Bowen, Secretary of State
Supervisor James Whiteaker, Sutter County, District 4
The Honorable Carl Adams, Sutter County District Attorney

[1]Thus, the City of Inglewood, CA, e.g., defines a special assessment as “A compulsory levy made against certain properties to defray all or part of the cost of a specific capital improvement or service deemed to benefit primarily those properties.” (Source: City of Inglewood web site, Glossary of Government terms, http://www.cityofinglewood.org/help_index/glossary.asp . Accessed 7/24/08.)

[2] AB 2951 in 2006 established that public agencies such as schools are also subject to charges for water, sewer and electricity that contain a capital facilities component. This now permits a public utility to equitably apportion the costs of operating, maintaining, repairing, and replacing their system facilities among all customers - public and private.

[3] The definition in Sec. 2 (e) of Article XIII D reads, a “''Fee” or ''charge” means any levy other than an ad valorem tax, a special tax, or an assessment, imposed by an agency upon a parcel or upon a person as an incident of property ownership, including a user fee or charge for a property related service.”

[4] Generally speaking, a tax is a monetary imposition of a governmental legislative body on persons or property subject to the jurisdiction of the governmental body, for the purpose of raising revenue to support its activities. People v. McCreery (1868) 34 Cal.432; Taylor v. Palmer (1866) 31 Cal.240.

Water penalties for YC, Live Oak

November 23, 2008 - 1:31AM - By Howard Yune/Appeal-Democrat

Lapses in sewage treatment will strike at Yuba City and Live Oak — in their checkbooks. The Central Valley Water Quality Management Board has announced administrative civil liability penalties against the two cities for water-quality violations going back eight years. Yuba City received a $99,000 fine, while the state docked Live Oak $66,000.

The fines stem from violations of state standards for suspended solids clouding wastewater from the towns' sewage treatment centers. Regulators also cited Live Oak's effluent for excessive oxygen depletion, which potentially can threaten fish. Water quality officials recorded 39 water quality infractions in Yuba City, including 14 it termed "serious," since 2000. In Live Oak, regulators pointed to 27 violations going back to 2003, five of them serious.

The latest fines are in line with those assessed in other North State cities, according to officials in both towns. Among Mid-Valley communities, western Colusa County took the heaviest blow in August, when the water board penalized Williams $2.1 million and the Maxwell Public Utility District $1.6 million. Bill Lewis, Yuba City's director of utilities, said Thursday he would contest some of the reported infractions. The city has until Dec. 10 to do so.

Live Oak City Manager Jim Goodwin said he will seek to have that town's fine applied to the cost of replacing or overhauling its sewage system, although the water quality board said in its ruling it would demand the city produce a plan to do so first. Live Oak has forecast it will need as much as $25 million to overhaul its sewage treatment to consistently meet state water-quality rules. That expense has led to proposals for centralizing several treatment systems in Yuba City to cover most of the county, including Live Oak, in hopes of cutting costs. City officials have not yet decided whether to seek such a merger.

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL
WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
CENTRAL VALLEY REGION

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT FOR
MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES
IN THE MATTER OF CITY OF YUBA CITY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
SUTTER COUNTY

The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region (Central Valley Water Board) proposes to enter into a settlement with the City of Yuba City for alleged violations of the Federal Clean Water Act. The City of Yuba City is alleged to have exceeded permitted effluent limits for residual chlorine, total suspended solids, total coliform organisms, pH, and settleable solids, and the Central Valley Water Board proposes a penalty of $99,000 for these violations. The public is invited to comment on this settlement by submitting written comments to the below address, attention Patricia Leary, by 5 pm on 17 December 2008. Full copies of the proposed settlement documents can be found on the Central Valley Water Board’s website at www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/tentative_orders , or can be obtained by contacting Patricia Leary at (916) 464-4623, or by mail at:

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region
11020 Sun Center Drive, #200
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6114

November 20Ad #00061362

Impact fee freeze thawed in Yuba City

City Council rejects plan; first fee hike in January

November 19, 2008 12:19:00 AM - By John Dickey/Appeal-Democrat

Councilman Tej Maan also said the city should get started on the fee increases. "I think we have to get started," said Maan. "It would be less painful if we started swallowing this pill now." Councilwoman Leslie McBride and Councilman John Miller also said the city should move ahead and reject the freeze but wanted City Council to look at phasing the fees in over four or five years rather than three years. The idea to hold off on fees came after an ad-hoc committee meeting for development impact fees chaired by Ramirez and McBride. Developers raised concerns about the worsening economy during the meeting and said any fee hikes would slow development.

Two citizens, Dr. Larry Ozeran and Elaine Miles, said City Council should start the first of the fee hikes and not delay them. "Waiting just puts us farther behind," said Ozeran. Darin Gale, legislative advocate for the North State Building Industry Association, supported the freeze because it would encourage economic development. Gale said four other cities are looking at cutting their fees by 25 percent.

The 41 new home building permits issued by the city so far this year is the lowest number in years. In 2007, the city issued 182 single-family home permits —a slow year compared to 2005 when it granted 895 permits.

What do impact fees do?

Yuba City impact fees fund police and fire facilities, roads, the Corporation Yard, parks and libraries.
They are paid when someone builds a home, office, store or industrial building.
The current fee is $12,401 for construction of a single-family home.
The city will increase fees by $3,236 per home to $15,637 in January, the first of three annual increases that will boost fees to $23,386 per home by January 2011.
The first phase of impact fee increases for commercial and retail construction will also start in January. Revised city impact fees were hashed out in October 2007 but City Council agreed to freeze fees at their current levels for 2008.
Tuesday's proposal would have extended the freeze one more year.

Hillcrest water tests reveal drop in arsenic

By John Dickey/Appeal-Democrat - November 16, 2008 - 12:22PM

Recent tests of Hillcrest water showed it was under federal arsenic limits —meaning no notification letters for residents. "As of right now, the system is still in compliance," said Yuba City Utilities Director Bill Lewis. There were concerns in the last few months that the Hillcrest Region 2/3 water was going to test consistently high for arsenic —high enough that residents would be sent state-mandated notification letters. But October tests showed arsenic concentrations of 7.6 parts per billion, lower than July readings of 12 parts per billion.

If readings had continued to trend higher —at least nine parts per billion —the rolling average would have likely been high enough to require the state-mandated letters for arsenic, said Lewis. It would have been up to the state Department of Health to require the city to issue the letters. The state is now requiring monthly tests rather than quarterly tests. Results from the last test in November were not available. Lewis said that more chemicals are being added to the water to get it under the federal limits of 10 parts per billion for arsenic. The use of more chemicals will shorten the life of the groundwater plant filters, decrease Yuba City water output and pressure and may result in brown water, he said.

Raw, untreated Hillcrest water has seen arsenic levels this year from 30 to 70 parts per billion. Arsenic levels over federal standards have prompted to the city to propose a nearly $20-per-month surcharge for Hillcrest Region 1,2,3 residents without meters. The surcharge would pay for costs of connecting 3,000 homes to the city's main water system which takes water from the Feather River.

A Proposition 218 protest hearing is set for 4 p.m. Nov. 24 at Lincrest Elementary School, 1400 Phillips Road, marking the end of a period when residents can oppose the surcharge. More than half of the homeowners or utility payers have to oppose the surcharge or else it will go into effect. Some residents have opposed the surcharge, while others have said they would rather pay it and get city surface water.

Yuba City Commissioners have approved the map for development which includes the need for a 30" pipe for the water supply from the City Water surface water system.
Here is the map provided at the Planning Commission meeting held on 11-12-08.

Click on the picture below to enlarge

Home plan raises worries

By John Dickey/Appeal-Democrat - November 13, 2008 - 12:29AM

Yuba City planning commissioners got the first view Wednesday of a proposal to add 24 homes to the Sutter Heritage subdivision. Commissioners recommended that the City Council approve a general plan amendment that was lower in density. But some wondered about an agreement to give developer Braddock & Logan a 20-year tentative map to build the third phase of the 162-home project located on the northeast corner of Smith Road and Walton Avenue.

Normally the tentative maps, which detail proposed subdivisions, would expire after two years with a five-year extension possible. Some commissioners noted that standards could change over 20 years, making the map obsolete. "I'm a little concerned about approving a map that is going to be in effect for 20 years without review," said Commissioner Mike Tomlinson. Community Development Director Aaron Busch said the 20-year map matched a 20-year development agreement and master plan for the subdivision.

Braddock & Logan was one of the first developers to get development rights for a subdivision after a city shift in policies to require master-planned developments. Braddock and Logan representative Darrell Bolognesi said the 24-home subdivision was a cleanup item. Previous plans were to build multi-family units but the single-family homes were more marketable. Bolognesi said there was no firm date to start work on the Sutter Heritage subdivision. Building would depend on an improved construction market.

Planning Commissioner John Dukes recused himself from the commission proceeding because he would have to review the project as a Yuba City City Councilman after being elected Nov. 4.

Valley's flood risks shown at state online map site

Published 12:00 am PDT Thursday, September 18, 2008

New maps to understand flood risk are available online from the state Department of Water Resources.

The maps are intended to show "best available" flood-risk information for 32 counties in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley watershed.

They do not replace any official risk maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to set flood insurance requirements.

Rather, they use additional geographic and hydrologic data to provide more information.

For instance, many residents will find the maps show their home in a 200-year flood zone, a lower-risk category than the typical 100-year zone employed by FEMA, but still considered potentially hazardous in a severe storm.

The maps were required by Senate Bill 5, adopted in 2007.

Urban areas are not required to curb development according to the new maps. But by 2014 they must have plans in place to provide 200-year protection for new development.

To find the maps, visit www.water.ca.gov/ and enter "best available maps" in the search window.

– Matt Weiser

YC resident asks: 'Why does my tap water stink?'

By Rob Young/Appeal-Democrat - September 22, 2008 - 10:53PM

Q: My water stinks! I live in south Yuba City off of Bogue Road and as of the past months my city water smells rotten. The smell is so bad that my girlfriend has to plug her nose when she drinks it and then gives me the "It is time for you to move if your water doesn't start tasting better" stare. What should I do?

A: That odor, which may have Yuba City residents checking under their kitchen sinks for a dead cat, is actually a substance called geosmin, said Ian Pietz, the associate engineer in charge of Yuba City's water filtration plant. Geosmin is an organic compound produced when blue-green algae dies. You're smelling it this year because much of Yuba City's drinking water comes from Lake Oroville, where the water level is very low. The blue-green algae lives — and dies — on the lake bottom, said Pietz.

It's not unusual at this time of the year, when temperatures in the Feather River are warmer, for Yuba City's water to smell like algae. But this geosmin stuff is a whole different kettle of fish. Humans can smell geosmin when it reaches a level of five parts per trillion. The water coming into Yuba City's water treatment plant is at 25 parts per trillion, Pietz said. The city is receiving many complaints, he said. Pietz pointed us toward Wikipedia, which compares geosmin "to the strong scent that occurs in the air when rain falls after a dry spell of weather."

If you ask us, that's a very kind way of describing what another reader called a stench. "I have turned on my shower, kitchen sink or even flushed the toilet and the smell is horrible," that reader told Since You Asked. To combat geosmin, more activated carbon is being added to water at the plant. But there's a limit to that remedy. Any more carbon would have a negative effect on other treatment processes, said Pietz. The good news is that geosmin is harmless to humans. And the odor can be eliminated with a home charcoal filter, he said.

Another piece of good news is that water from the plant smells less of chlorine than in years past. Pietz attributed the improvement to the addition of a four-million-gallon storage tank that alters the route that water takes during the treatment process. So let's all hold our noses and raise our glasses in a toast — to higher water levels next year in Lake Oroville.

Hillcrest hoopla
August 30, 2008 - 11:06PM - By Harold Kruger/Appeal-Democrat

Well, all that Hillcrest stuff is over, for now, but it will probably pop up again. What's really interesting is a comment City Manager Steve Jepsen offered to Rick Dais during a July interview. Dais provided a transcript of the session. "Let me ask you the same question I asked Bill Lewis. Why did you buy Hillcrest if their wells were crappy and yours were good?" Dais asked Jepsen.

"I don't know why the city bought Hillcrest," Jepsen replied. "You know, from my perspective, had I been here, I would have recommended that we not buy it." The happiest guy back in 2001 when the city bought Hillcrest Water Co. was its owner, Daryl Morrison, who hung on as a "special consultant" to the city for two years at $1,000 a month. The purchase price was about $3.4 million.

What a deal.

Flood warning system unveiled by California water agency

By Matt Weiser - Published 12:00 am PDT Sunday, August 24, 2008

Amid a two-year drought, some people might be yearning for a heavy rain. And when high water strikes again, California will be ready with a new color-coded alert system.Borrowing a bit from federal security agencies, the state Department of Water Resources recently unveiled a "flood conditions" warning system to inform the public of the state's level of mobilization to combat flooding.

When there are no significant concerns, like today during a typically hot and dry August, the alert level is Floodcon 1 – no significant events. From there it steps up to Floodcon 5, which means land is likely going underwater in multiple locations and multiple emergency teams are deployed.

I want good water, but at what price?

Appeared in Appeal-Democrat - August 13, 2008 - 5:56PM

I would like to know why Yuba City had to send out such expensive fliers, by mail, to each Hillcrest Water customer? Are we paying for this? Now there are people going door to door dropping off fliers that say, "I support the Yuba City Water Department's ‘proposed' connection fee and ‘withdraw" my protest.'" "You" mail it back to the city. What is that all about? Is the city doing their own protest against the protesters? Are employees at Civic Hall logging all those cards in? Are we now paying for that service also? Pretty sneaky, if you ask me. What are they really hiding from us?

I feel if they get the whole city on meters, then they can start mandating new guidelines and start charging everyone outrageous prices. If we go on meters and pay over a 20-year time span, I want a "guarantee" that if there is a drought and we are switched back to well water, that we won't pay for metered surface water that we will not be getting. Meters aren't mandated 'till the year 2025.

Nancy Charpentier
Yuba City

Response from Murky:

Regarding misleading mailing which included a post card, the Mayor asks if you would like to protest in another protest and check off the second square. HOW MISLEADING. We have a protest in progress; is he starting his own? If you have been mislead and thought it is the same protest since it would be easy to think that, you can write in a letter to say what your intentions are right up to the Monday deadline. If you have protested and signed the protest, you do not need to do anything else. Maybe a call to the Mayor's office to say you object to his own personal protest. What? Notice the City Council is not part of this. Hum, Murky.

City solution is all smoke and mirrors

Appeared in Appeal-Democrat - August 12, 2008 - 6:12PM

I am writing this letter in response to Mr. Bob Bush’s letter of July 24.I am one of that “small group of people” opposing Mayor Rory Ramirez’s and the Yuba City Council’s proposal for the Hillcrest Water problem. First of all, my wife and I moved to Yuba City in 2005, none of these problems were disclosed to us. I agree the water is bad, but in my opinion, this is an infrastructure problem, not just a Walton area problem.

They are proposing a 30-inch water main to end on Lincoln Road. Funny how that definitely affects the undeveloped area east toward George Washington Boulevard. That happens to be in Yuba City’s sphere of influence since the incorporation of the Watlon area or South Yuba City as it’s called on the map.

Once it’s developed in the future it will just be a matter of hooking up, and there you go, water for new development a selling point, don’t you think? Future revenue for all of Yuba City (taxes). I support better infrastructure, but my question is why should a small group pay for all the work which is going to benefit the city as a whole?

Mr. Ramirez says it’s not an infrastructure question. He said this to me at a meeting at the Moose Lodge recently. Then what is it If you are going to take my money, then don’t try to con me by telling me it’s not something that it is. Infrastructure costs should be shared by all who will benefit. What is Mayor Ramirez and the council’s hidden agenda? Let’s talk about it, no smoke and mirrors.

William Peterson
Yuba City

Water-fix proponents misleading residents

Appeared in Appeal-Democrat - August 12, 2008 - 6:12PM

Mr. Darin Gale sent a postcard in the mail stating that if the Hillcrest groundwater customers are successful with their protest the Hillcrest Water System will be sold. This is an assumption by him and not a fact, as he implies in his postcard.

Mr. Gale has, at best, been misleading about the HWS. The postcard sent to you was paid for by “Sutter County Citizens for Good Government.” This group receives financial backing from many other special interest groups. Mr. Gale is also a representative of the “North State Building Industry Association” – another special interest group.

Last year, Mr. Gale was successful in getting a significant reduction in proposed development impact fees for his group. Was this in the city’s best interest? Mr. Gale uses these funds from these groups to oppose Walton city residents. Do you, the public, really believe these funds are being provided to him to support the citizen’s best interest? Frankly, our community is fed up with being accused of lying and being called a special interest group, while he and his friends are truly the ones who are representing special interest groups and misrepresenting our position?

Walton protesters’ funds come out of our own pockets and not the deep pockets of special interest groups. All we want is the city to be fair with its citizens and that we have the right to protest through the democratic process when being treated unfairly.

Drew Sallee
Yuba City

Issue about growth and free state money

Appeared in Appeal-Democrat - August 12, 2008 - 6:10PM

The truth is that all of Yuba City’s water pipes are inner connected. If the city wanted to, it could put surface (river) water into the whole system tomorrow. However, this would create a water pressure problem. This could be overcome by running the water line from Railroad and Bogue west to Sanborn and from Sanborn south to Bogue. This project may also require a pumping station and a water tank. However, this would only take care of the existing homes.

This is where the lie comes into the city’s plan. You see the city wants to install a bigger 30-inch pipeline that is necessary for future city growth. However, the low interest loan from the California State’s Water Revolving Fund is only available if the project is for improvement of an existing system, only 10 percent can be used for expansion. So if the city can sell or scare the people in Regions 1, 2 and 3 into paying for their expansion program, they’re home free.

Now, our local politicians are free to, as they have in the past, give our money away in the form of discount impact fees to out-of-town contractors. As a result, you and I will be paying for this long after those out-of-town boys have gone south with our money. The majority of the people in Regions 1, 2 and 3 are not opposing surface water, only the unfair cost. Everyone in Yuba City deserves the same water at the same price. Everyone!

Lynn Horn
Yuba City

City backers go YouTube-ing on water change

Ballots on contentious Hillcrest proposal to be opened at meeting

By John Dickey/Appeal-Democrat - August 12, 2008 - 12:16AM

With less than a week to go until a Yuba City hearing, the Hillcrest water issue is heating up to a boil — now with a video on YouTube. Opponents of a city proposal to pipe in city surface water to 4,000 Hillcrest residents and charge nearly $20 per month have spoken out at public hearings and gathered signatures in an attempt to block the move.

Supporters of a city proposal to hook Hillcrest homes up to a city water plant have rolled out their own campaign in the last few weeks. Their goal is to try and get some of the people who have put their protests in writing to take back their signatures. Door hangers, fliers sent by mail, and a video on YouTube are supporting what some say is a city plan to provide clean, safe, affordable drinking water. At stake for both sides is a proposal to hook Hillcrest residents up to city water that could be derailed if just over 50 percent of the property owners oppose the city's plan.

Hillcrest resident Darin Gale, who supports the city's plan, said he and about 20 others want people to have the facts and have put out the fliers and the video. The move is in response to what Gale says is misinformation given by some opponents of the city proposal to tie in Hillcrest with surface water. "As long as they have the facts, make an educated decision on it, that's what we want," said Gale.

Gale said one piece of misinformation being put out is a claim that water bills will raise to $80 or $90 a month for Hillcrest residents after they put in water meters and pay the $19.80-per-month cost of the tie-in. Gale said the average water bill is likely to be about $45, a figure which he says is from the city.

Gale is legislative advocate for the North State Building Industry Association, a trade organization. But he says he is acting out of a desire for better water for his family, which includes three children.

Lynn Horn, a Hillcrest resident who is gathering signatures to protest the city's plans, denies telling people there will be $80 to $100 water bills. He sees the plan to bill residents as a plan to pay for part of a pipeline needed for growth.

"The story that I'm telling you, and the story that I'm trying to tell everybody, is that this 30-inch pipeline is not necessary to provide water for the citizens that live here now," said Horn. Utilities Director Bill Lewis, who has viewed the supporters' YouTube video, said the video is accurate except for a statement that the Hillcrest water system is out of compliance.

Technically, the system is in compliance because the city is providing surface water to replace the water from a well contaminated with nitrates and taken out of service, said Lewis. Hillcrest residents have been battling —and applauding — the city's proposal to provide surface water for just about a year.

At the time, the city announced plans after Hillcrest strayed out of compliance with tougher federal standards on arsenic in drinking water during 2006.

Editorial: New water bond? First, spend existing billions

Proposition 84 funds should be the first choice for improving state water supplies
Published 12:00 am PDT Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Following the driest spring in recorded history, California faces a water challenge of epic dimensions. Reservoirs are low. Hundreds of fires have ravaged dozens of watersheds. Salmon, smelt and other fish are in trouble, adding to the complexity of moving water through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Under pressure from worried farmers and business leaders, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein last week unveiled their latest multibillion-dollar bond proposal to finance water projects and river restoration efforts. This latest plan is an improvement over previous versions, reducing the total debt down to $9.7 billion and creating a more level playing field for water investments of all types.

The rest of the story

Dan Walters:
Can we trust California's water future in politicians' hands?

By Dan Walters - Published 12:00 am PDT Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Seven decades ago, California's politicians wisely concluded that they couldn't trust themselves to divvy up highway construction funds that were critical to the future of a fast-growing state.

They created, therefore, a state Highway Commission to consult with highway engineers and decide which of the many competing projects were to be built, rather than leave those decisions to power politics and Capitol horse-trading.

The rest of the story

Water shortage the real problem

July 14, 2008 - 6:07PM - Appeared in Appeal-Democrat

The Hillcrest water issue appears to be drawing to a close with an affordable water (rate) increase over time to pay for the construction necessary. None will be entirely happy about how it began or ends. The city council is trying to resolve the issue with the least public resistance. But are they overlooking a far greater threat to sourcing water?

I have mentioned at a meeting before the threat of serious surface water shortage with global warming. I do not believe it registered at all. The current wells are contaminated with impurities and compounds that the aquifers accumulate over time from the exchange of rising and falling surface water. This is the city's real impurity issue. Surface water has changing contamination levels with the seasonal runoffs upstream. It’s a day-to-day change. Surface water is better if available. But what happens if the river level sources continue to diminish? Back to the wells again; as a temporary water rationed solution? There are not nearly enough wells to supply this city if surface water becomes difficult to obtain in the warming future.

The city should and must address the problem of how to renew the present wells by either recasing at perforated levels and drilling deeper, or drilling deeper to new aquifers that will then blend with the perforations of higher-level aquifers at the present time. Later, when the river levels drop, these deeper aquifers can supply some, but not all, the water that will be needed. We need more deep wells to have a backup that is adequate and can be relied on. We do not have any backup regardless of what the city has been calling those few wells.

L. Stange
Yuba City

Water issue runs beneath the surface

July 14, 2008 - 6:09PM - Appeared in Appeal-Democrat

This letter is in response to the letter written by Lloyd Leighton (“Stop patching, start fixing,” June 8).

I do not think you realize the complete cost of the new surface water. It will not only cost the $20 you refer to, but we will have to continue to pay the $20 or so that we pay now for the bonds already acquired along with the usage shown on the new water meters we will be getting. So in reality we could be facing an $80 water bill.

This may be chump change to you, but I am single and I only have so much of the resource called money to go around. Also, just recently in the news, one California town is reverting back to ground water due to the lack of available river water. What if we have no snow pack?

There is only so much water in the river and everyone wants to tap into it. It will run dry.

Brenda Owen
Yuba City

LIVE OAK

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER

SECOND CALENDAR QUARTER 2008 NOTICE

The City of Live Oak Has Levels of Arsenic above the Drinking Water Standard

Several sources for our water system exceed the new drinking water standard for arsenic. Although this is not an emergency, as our customers, you have a right to know what happened, what you should do, and what we are doing to correct this situation.

What happened?
The US EPA standard, enacted January 2006, lowered the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of arsenic from 0.050 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 0.010 mg/L. We routinely monitor for the presence of drinking water contaminants and sample results received thus far indicate all wells are out of compliance with this new standard. You will be notified quarterly until the violation is corrected. Contact the Public Works Department for the actual levels of arsenic at each source.

What should I do?
You do not need to use an alternative water supply (e.g., bottled water).

This is not an emergency. If it had been, you would have been notified immediately. However, some people who drink water containing arsenic in excess of the MCL over many years may experience skin damage or circulatory system problems, and may have an increased risk to getting cancer.

If you have other health issues concerning the consumption of this water, you may wish to consult your doctor.

What is being done?
The City of Live Oak is planning to have an arsenic removal treatment system installed in the drinking water system. We anticipate resolving the problem within the year.

For more information, please contact the City of Live Oak at 695-2112 or 9955 Live Oak Blvd., Live Oak California, 95953.

Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not have received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and businesses). You can do this by posting this public notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.

This notice is being sent to you by the City of Live Oak Public Works Department.

State Water System ID#: 5110001. Date distributed: July 29, 2008

____________________________________________

YC's Hillcrest water showdown

City Council OKs controversial connection

July 02, 2008 12:00:00 AM - By John Dickey and Ryan McCarthy/Appeal-Democrat

The Yuba City City Council approved a plan Tuesday night to connect 4,000 Hillcrest homeowners to the city's main water plant that taps into the Feather River. Utilities Director Bill Lewis told the council that households in Hillcrest regions have an opportunity to upgrade to city surface water from groundwater wells.

Council members agreed, voting 4-0 for the plan to connect Hillcrest residents to surface water. Councilman John Miller recused himself because he lives in the area. "I heard and felt (in) eight months a lot of frustration and a lot of anxiety over things that have happened in the past," said Mayor Rory Ramirez. Ramirez and Councilman Kash Gill comprised an ad-hoc committee on the contentious water issue. "The ultimate decision is going to lie in your hands," Gill told Hillcrest dwellers.

Residents of Hillcrest Regions 1, 2 and 3 would pay $19.80 per month per home to connect to the city's water plant, or a total of $3,570 if they want to pay all the costs at once. The charges would pay for $18.8 million in pipelines, pumps, storage tanks and a water meter. The plan was debated for more than two hours as at least 100 people crowded into the council chambers in City Hall.

Some homeowners were ready to pay to hook up to the surface water and ditch the groundwater wells that deliver harder water that requires treatment to get rid of the arsenic. "We have gone over this ad nauseam," said John Dukes, who supported switching from ground water to surface water.

Mike Vinsonhaler, of Mariner Way, said residents would get better water for $20 a month. "I just feel it's really a no-brainer," said Vinsonhaler.But many argued that they should not have to pay to fix the Hillcrest water system since it belongs to the city. "My question, is why do I as a resident have to fix your broken system?" asked Scott Sorensen, of Nann Drive.

Some believe all city water users should help foot the bill. "I like the idea of spreading the bill over the entire system," said Barry Schroeder. Others thought the cost was too much. "I agree it's terrible water and I would like surface water," said Janet Baur. "But the price is too high."

For close to a year, the city has held meetings on the Region 2/3 groundwater plant that serves nearly 3,000 homes. Arsenic and nitrate levels have been high at times requiring additional treatment and some well shutdowns. The water is not in violation of any drinking water standard, including the more stringent 10 parts per billion arsenic standard.

____________________________________________

Beware city officials' 'murky waters'

June 30, 2008 - 5:19PM

In a city brochure called "The Choice Is Clear" the mayor thanks "all the citizens" for helping the city reach their recommendation for Hillcrest water users to convert to surface water. That was an easy recommendation — as everyone wants clean, safe water. The real hard issue is — who pays for this recommendation?

Who are the citizens that Mayor Rory Ramirez and Councilman Kash Gill speak of? Surely, not the 1,800 Hillcrest water users who submitted petitions opposing the city to unfairly charge them for the past mistakes the city made with the Hillcrest Water Company purchase.

The city's budget is in jeopardy and impact fees from developers are practically non-existent. An influx of nearly $20 million of loan money — the amount taxed on water users — would be most welcomed by the city. If the city convinces you to say yes, be aware that this is the start, not the end, of financing the city's faulty vision to enhance future development.

It is time for Hillcrest water customers to become actively involved in defeating Yuba City's unfair and inequitable recommendation. Walton citizens should remember the city's unfulfilled promises made during the 2000 Walton annexation. Let's not make the same mistake again.

If you disagree with the recommendation — say no. By not protesting you are giving a yes response to the city. Don't let politicians, developers and Realtors convince you to pay for something that is not your responsibility. Attend tonight's 7 o'clock meeting at City Hall and express what you think about "the choice is clear."

Donald Kessel
Yuba City

____________________________________________

Bee Exclusive: Capital gushes wasted water

Metropolitan region's per-capita use tops U.S. daily
average as conservation pledges go unmet.

By Matt Weiser - Published 12:00 am PDT Thursday, June 19, 2008

The Sacramento metropolitan region has so neglected water conservation that it now ranks as one of the world's most extravagant consumers of water, a Bee review has found.

Throughout California, urban water agencies have generally failed to make good on conservation promises made during the state's last major water fight.

No concentration of residents and businesses, however, uses as much as Sacramento: 25 percent more per capita on a daily basis than Las Vegas, and nearly 50 percent more than Los Angeles. Those cities have cut use despite massive growth.

Even excluding large industrial and agricultural users, the Bee's review of an array of water statistics found per-capita consumption here is greater than the U.S. daily average. It's also higher than urban use in Canada, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and a host of other developed nations.

Experts said the high rate of water consumption leaves California vulnerable to the current drought, declared this month by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Read the entire article by clicking here

____________________________________________

Op-Ed: Yuba Accord will reap many public benefits

By John Nicoletti June 14, 2008 - 9:45PM

California's State Water Resources Control Board took an important step forward last month to address California's fisheries and water problems by issuing a final order to amend the water rights permits held by the Yuba County Water Agency (YCWA). YCWA will now officially implement the consensus-based lower Yuba River Accord (Yuba Accord), a comprehensive settlement of litigation over fisheries flows in the lower Yuba River. This landmark agreement will significantly increase the amount of water available for salmon and other fisheries and return water transfer revenue to YCWA and its member water districts for water supply and flood control improvements.

The Yuba Accord is a remarkable new fisheries protection and enhancement measure for California's Department of Fish and Game and an important water supply tool for the Department of Water Resources. Both agencies were instrumental in the Yuba Accord's development and final approval. Locally, the Yuba Accord should strengthen Yuba County's environment and economy.

Twenty-four miles of salmon and steelhead habitat in the lower Yuba River will be improved by higher instream flows and $5 million in funding for fisheries studies and restoration fisheries measures. As one of California's signature rivers, the lower Yuba River nurtures one of the Central Valley's last wild, native Chinook salmon runs. It has no hatcheries, so its salmon and steelhead runs comprise primarily native, wild fish. Sturgeon, stripped bass, pikeminnow, shad and other wildlife also rely upon this river's habitats. Our local economy will also benefit.

For the next eight years, water rights held by local water districts and YCWA will not be threatened by controversy and litigation over instream fisheries flows. This certainty will be invaluable in enabling Yuba County's farmers, who rely on water supplies from the Yuba River, to continue to make capital investments, to hire local workers and to successfully continue to grow high quality food, like wholesome rice, peaches and plums.

The Yuba Accord's cornerstone is an innovative program using available water supplies for both instream fisheries flows and for water transfers. Developed by the Department of Fish and Game, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Trout Unlimited, The Bay Institute, Friends of the River, the South Yuba River Citizen's League and YCWA, the Yuba Accord specifies a new operational plan for New Bullards Bar Dam and Reservoir. Higher reservoir releases will be made in the summer and fall months for salmon and steelhead.

These releases will be coupled with a new, responsible conjunctive use program using both surface water and groundwater supplies to meet the local needs and those of the fisheries in the lower Yuba River. While preserving water for local agricultural production, the Yuba Accord will increase minimum instream fisheries flows from 260,000 acre feet of water in a dry year to 574,000 acre-feet of water in a wet year — an increase of up to 170,000 acre-feet over previously required flows.

Because of these higher flows, more water will be available for the Bay-Delta's fish and wildlife. The Yuba Accord will provide at least 600,000 acre feet of water for CALFED's Environmental Water Account, a successful program to protect fish and wildlife in the Bay-Delta ecosystem. This is the first long-term major acquisition of water for this program. Cities and farms, increasingly threatened by water shortages, will benefit because the Yuba Accord will provide them with supplemental water supplies — bolstering the State's ability to protect the environment while helping to supplement the State's water needs during dry periods.

A new River Management Team, comprised of biologists from local, state and federal agencies, and environmental groups, is now in place. This team will coordinate the development of scientific information from a $5 million fund, financed by YCWA, for fisheries studies, habitat maintenance, and improvement measures.

The Yuba Accord's success is the result of real imagination, hard work and perseverance by many people. I am proud of the constructive roles taken in the Yuba Accord's development by our local water districts: Brophy Water District, Browns Valley Irrigation District, Dry Creek Mutual Water Company, Hallwood Irrigation Company, Ramirez Water District, South Yuba Water District, and Wheatland Water District. Chuck Bonham of Trout Unlimited, Gary Bobker of The Bay Institute, Lester Snow of the Department of Water Resources, and former Fish and Game Director, Ryan Broddrick, also played key roles in Yuba Accord's creation.

There is one person who deserves special thanks — Don Schrader. Don has served this community as a supervisor and YCWA director since 1997. Because of his experience and knowledge of our community's needs, he was asked to be the lead director on the negotiations that led to the Yuba Accord. All of us in this county will benefit tremendously because of his work, whether you're a local farmer, someone who loves fishing or boating in the Yuba River, or anyone who cares about higher flood control protection. The Yuba Accord will benefit all of us, and we owe Don our thanks.

John Nicoletti is chairman of the board of directors of the Yuba County Water Agency. Nicoletti serves with Don Schrader on the Yuba County Board of Supervisors.

Priority: Protect water

By Robert LaHue/Appeal-Democrat - June 11, 2008 - 11:54PM

The general tone at the first public meeting on a groundwater management plan for Sutter County was a desire to protect water — from contamination, severe depletion, or in some cases, exportation to Southern California.

But despite whatever the concerns are concerning the county's groundwater reserves, the message from many at the Veterans Memorial Community Building Tuesday morning said getting the plan done was important.

"This is your plan," said Larry Ernst, a project manager for Wood Rodgers, the county's consultant for the plan.

Ernst said the general purpose of the plan is to be responsible stewards of the county's groundwater and to sustain it for use currently and in the future. In addition, having a groundwater management plan in place will make the county eligible for various grants from the Department of Water Resources.

"There's a lot of purposes for preparing a groundwater management plan," Ernst said.

Some water districts in the county, including Butte Water District, Feather Water District and Reclamation District 1500, have groundwater management plans in place.

A groundwater plan would be required to prepare objectives for managing groundwater, prepare a groundwater map and create protocols for monitoring the groundwater.

Other suggested, but not required, aspects of the plan can include identifying and protecting recharge areas, establishing policies for constructing new wells, creating a program for destroying abandoned wells, controlling intrusion of salt water and developing relationships with state and federal regulatory agencies.

Also encouraged was working with other neighboring counties, or as Chuck Owens of DWR said, "aquifers don't respect political boundaries."

"That's a reason why counties need to work together," Owens said.

Ernst presented the makeup of an eventual groundwater management plan as being able to take many different forms. He pointed to the plans of two neighboring counties — Colusa and Butte — as examples of contrast.

The Colusa plan, which is currently in a public review phase, is what Ernst described as "qualitative," intended to prevent damage but avoid restricting water use. The Butte plan is more "quantitative" and sets solid parameters that groundwater quality and levels must be maintained within, he said.

There is also the question of creating a countywide ordinance on groundwater usage. Yolo, Colusa, Glenn, Tehama and Butte counties all have such ordinances in place.

"One of the things we may need to discuss in this plan is, 'Is there should be (a county ordinance)?'" Ernst said.

Dan Peterson, the county's deputy director of Public Works - Water Resources estimated it would take between a year to 18 months to complete the plan.

"The county needs to get this done now to protect its resources," Peterson said.

Information

A Web site has been set up for the plan:

www.suttercounty.org/doc/government/depts/pw/wr/gmp/gmphome

Water-Starved California Slows Development

The New York Times June 7, 2008 By JENNIFER STEINHAUER

PERRIS, Calif. — As California faces one of its worst droughts in two decades, building projects are being curtailed for the first time under state law by the inability of developers to find long-term water supplies. Water authorities and other government agencies scattered throughout the state, including here in sprawling Riverside County, east of Los Angeles, have begun denying, delaying or challenging authorization for dozens of housing tracts and other developments under a state law that requires a 20-year water supply as a condition for building.

California officials suggested that the actions were only the beginning, and they worry about the impact on a state that has grown into an economic powerhouse over the last several decades. The state law was enacted in 2001, but until statewide water shortages, it had not been invoked to hold up projects. While previous droughts and supply problems have led to severe water cutbacks and rationing, water officials said the outright refusal to sign off on projects over water scarcity had until now been virtually unheard of on a statewide scale.

“Businesses are telling us that they can’t get things done because of water,” Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said in a telephone interview. On Wednesday, Mr. Schwarzenegger declared an official statewide drought, the first such designation since 1991. As the governor was making his drought announcement, the Eastern Municipal Water District in Riverside County — one of the fastest-growing counties in the state in recent years — gave a provisional nod to nine projects that it had held up for months because of water concerns. The approval came with the caveat that the water district could revisit its decision, and only after adjustments had been made to the plans to reduce water demand.

“The statement that we’re making is that this isn’t business as usual,” said Randy A. Record, a water district board member, at the meeting here in Perris. Shawn Jenkins, a developer who had two projects caught up in the delays, said he was accustomed to piles of paperwork and reams of red tape in getting projects approved. But he was not prepared to have the water district hold up the projects he was planning. He changed the projects’ landscaping, to make it less water dependent, as the board pondered their fate.

“I think this is a warning for everyone,” Mr. Jenkins said. Also in Riverside County, a superior court judge recently stopped a 1,500-home development project, citing, among others things, a failure to provide substantial evidence of adequate water supply. In San Luis Obispo County, north of Los Angeles, the City of Pismo Beach was recently denied the right to annex unincorporated land to build a large multipurpose project because, “the city didn’t have enough water to adequately serve the development,” said Paul Hood, the executive officer of the commission that approves the annexations and incorporations of cities.

In agriculturally rich Kern County, north of Los Angeles, at least three developers scrapped plans recently to apply for permits, realizing water was going to be an issue. An official from the county’s planning department said the developers were the first ever in the county to be stymied by water concerns. Large-scale housing developments in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties have met a similar fate, officials in those counties said.

Throughout the state, other projects have been suspended or are being revised to accommodate water shortages, and water authorities and cities have increasingly begun to consider holding off on “will-serve” letters — promises to developers to provide water — for new projects. “The water in our state is not sufficient to add more demand,” said Lester Snow, the director of the California Department of Water Resources. “And that now means that some large development can’t go forward. If we don’t make changes with water, we are going to have a major economic problem in this state.”

The words “crisis” and “water” have gone together in this state since the 49ers traded flecks of gold for food. But several factors have combined to make the current water crisis more acute than those of recent years. An eight-year drought in the Colorado River basin has greatly impinged on water supply to Southern California. Of the roughly 1.25 million acre-feet of water that the region normally imports from that river toward the 4.5 million acre-feet it uses each year, 500,000 has been lost to drought, said Jeff Kightlinger, the general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

Even more significant, a judge in federal district court last year issued a curtailment in pumping from the California Delta — where the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers meet and provide water to roughly 25 million Californians — to protect a species of endangered smelt that were becoming trapped in the pumps. Those reductions, from December to June, cut back the state’s water reserves this winter by about one third, according to a consortium of state water boards.

The smelt problem was a powerful indicator of the environmental fallout from the delta’s water system, which was constructed over 50 years ago for a far smaller population. “We have bad hydrology, compromised infrastructure and our management tools are broken,” said Timothy Quinn, the executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies. “All that paints a fairly grim picture for Californians trying to manage water in the 21st century.”

The 2001 state water law, which took effect in 2002, requires developers to prove that new projects have a plan for providing at least 20 years’ worth of water before local water authorities can sign off on them. With the recent problems, more and more local governments are unable to simply approve projects.

“Water is one of our most difficult issues when we are evaluating large-scale projects,” said Lorelei Oviatt, the division chief for the Kern County Planning Department. In cases where developers are unable to present a long-term water plan, “then certainly I can’t recommend they approve” those developments, Ms. Oviatt said.

As the denied building permits indicate, the lack of sufficient water sources could become a serious threat to economic development in California, where the population in 2020 is projected to reach roughly 45 million people, economists say, from its current 38 million. In the end, as water becomes increasingly scarce, its price will have to rise, bringing with it a host of economic consequences, the economists said.

“Water has been seriously under-priced in California,” said Edward E. Leamer, a professor at the Anderson School of Management at the University of California, Los Angeles. “When you ration it or increase its price, it will have an impact on economic growth.” The water authority for Southern California recently issued a rate increase of 14.3 percent, when including surcharges, which was the highest rate increase in the last 15 years. In Northern California, rates in Marin County increased recently by nearly 10 percent, in part to pay an 11 percent increase in the cost of water bought from neighboring Sonoma County.

Interest groups that oppose development have found that raising water issues is among the many bats in their bags available to beat back projects they find distasteful. “Certainly from Newhall Ranch’s standpoint, water was a key point that our opponents were focused on,” said Marlee Lauffer, a spokeswoman for Newhall Ranch, a large-scale residential development in the works is Santa Clarita, north of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles, among others, has opposed the development.

To get around the problem, Newhall Ranch’s planners decided to forgo water supplied through the state and turn instead to supplies from an extensive water reclamation plant as well as water bought privately. Other developers, like Mr. Jenkins, have changed their landscaping plans to reduce water needs and planned for low-flow plumbing to placate water boards.

Mr. Schwarzenegger sees addressing the state’s water problem as one of his key goals, and he is hoping against the odds to get a proposed $11.9 billion bond for water management investments through the Legislature and before voters in November. The plans calls for water conservation and quality improvement programs, as well as a resource management plan for the delta. Among its most controversial components is $3.5 billion earmarked for new water storage, something that environmentalists have vehemently opposed, in part because they find dams and storage facilities environmentally unsound and not cost effective.

The critics also point out that the state’s agriculture industry, which uses far more water than urban areas, is being asked to contribute little to conservation under the governor’s plans. As more building projects are derailed by water requirements, the pressure on farmers to share more of their water is expected to grow.

State needs innovative, aggressive water solutions

By Peter H. Gleick - Special to The Bee Published 12:00 am PDT Sunday, June 1, 2008

For more than a decade, California has had relatively adequate winter rains and mostly full reservoirs. No longer. We had the opportunity to fix many of our water problems while the state had more abundant water, but that chance has been squandered. And though we've never been very good at making rational water decisions in a crisis, the time to change that is clearly and urgently here.

The fisheries of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta are collapsing, farmers and cities are facing reduced water deliveries and higher prices are being imposed on heavy water users. Last year many parts of the state were critically dry and with this spring one of the driest on record, water agencies are imposing the first serious drought restrictions in recent memory. These will help, temporarily, but more permanent changes are needed.

We must put in place some of the proven, cost-effective solutions we have available to us and push forward with new approaches for a comprehensive solution to our perennial water problems. But our leaders remain deadlocked in the old, entrenched thinking that got us into our water problems in the first place.

In the interest of changing the tone of the conversation, here is a water package based on improving efficiency and developing local supplies that could transform California's water landscape to a sustainable future with a vibrant economy, robust agricultural sector and healthy environment.

First, we must monitor and measure all water uses in California, including both surface and groundwater. Many get a free ride to use water with no oversight, review or right. If we don't know who is using how much water to do what, we will have no chance to make rational decisions about reasonable water management and use.

Second, let's set a goal of improving the efficiency of both urban and agricultural water uses by 20 percent by 2020. Californians already use less water today than we did 20 years ago because of improvements in efficiency produced by old water conservation programs. Research from the Pacific Institute shows that we could further reduce urban water use by an additional 30 percent with existing, cost-effective technologies, while maintaining a healthy economy. We can also grow more food and fiber with less water – a key priority as pressures on global food stocks grow.

One way to meet this goal is to replace old appliances and fixtures in existing homes by requiring that they be retrofit with water-efficient devices when the home is sold. This is an inexpensive and effective option. Let's offer developers faster permits or reduced permit fees if they build new homes to higher water-efficiency standards than already required. We could even require that all new developments be water-neutral, with any new water demands offset by efficiency improvements in existing developments.

Water managers must stop confusing changes in behavior with improvements in water-use efficiency. Before asking people to take shorter showers or to flush their toilets once a day during a drought, ask them to replace their water-wasting showerheads and toilets. Better yet, give them efficient ones free. Let's use concerns about the drought to install fixtures and appliances that will continue to reduce water waste when the drought is over. Improvements in efficiency let us have showers, gardens and clean toilets while using less water.

Third, we must expand the thinking of what constitutes new supply. In the 20th century, new supply meant building another dam. In the 21st century, it must mean integrated management of surface and groundwater, storm water treatment and use, and the development of drought-proof water sources, such as reuse of highly treated wastewater and desalination.

New, local supplies could offset diversions from the Delta or other unsustainable sources. The state could encourage this shift by offering economic incentives for the development of new water sources that satisfy all required environmental reviews and reduce withdrawals from the Delta on a one-for-one basis. Reducing water taken from the Delta could save it from ecological collapse; but continuing current policies is sure to lead to disaster.

Some new sources, like desalination, require far more energy than other water sources, thereby increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Why not offer incentives for these new energy-intensive sources if the energy demand is instead met by new, renewable energy sources and if the water produced replaces water presently taken from unsustainable sources? Australia just built a new seawater desalination plant powered by wind turbines and is planning more. So could we.

If we are innovative and aggressive about solving our water problems now, we'll reduce the risk that more stringent, mandatory reductions will be imposed upon us during the coming droughts.

Measure calls for developers to pay water impact fees

Business interests, builders, chamber trying to derail bill

The San Diego Union-Tribune - May 27, 2008
By Michael Gardner

SACRAMENTO – The Assembly plans to take up legislation that would force developers to pay to offset increased water use at new projects, much like school impact fees. The legislation, believed to be unprecedented nationally, comes as water supplies are shrinking, Californians are questioning potential rationing while new homes continue to spring up and lawmakers are in gridlock over building more reservoirs.

“The idea is to create a framework by which California can continue to accommodate the need for growth while staying within the inherent limits of our water supply,” said Assemblyman Paul Krekorian, D-Burbank, who is carrying the measure. An intense lobbying campaign is under way leading up to the floor vote, with builders and business interests marshalling forces to block the bill and environmentalists mounting an aggressive campaign to push the measure along to the Senate. Water agencies are divided.

“It's going to be tough – very tough,” Krekorian said. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on the bill. “It's a paradigm shift in how people are thinking about water,” said Debbie Davis of the Environmental Justice Coalition. The fee would be capped at 1 percent of the cost of a house, roughly $3,000 on a $300,000 home, or less than $10 a month over the life of a 30-year mortgage, supporters counter.

To Krekorian, that's a small price to guarantee water for homes. Without the bill, he said, projects could be blocked under existing law that allows water agencies to declare that there is not enough supply to meet the increase in demand. Or ratepayers and taxpayers would continue to subsidize growth, he said. Builders say that more fees would be another drag on their slumping industry. The California Chamber of Commerce is pitching in to help kill the legislation.

“AB 2153 further exacerbates a suffering economy and dismal housing market by imposing an untold tax on new home buyers,” opponents wrote. Business interests argue that new homes and buildings are water-efficient. The measure contains some exemptions: Projects that replace existing building would be exempt if they use less water. Affordable housing would not be subject to the law.

Meanwhile, the bill requires that at least 40 percent builder-financed conservation would have to be achieved in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. “This is a middle path,” Krekorian said. “This is not an anti-growth measure.” Opponents are not swayed.

“Accounting for every drop of water goes too far,” said Assemblyman Doug La Malfa, R-Willows, who worries that making developers responsible for even more conservation will “be used as an excuse” to abandon planning for new reservoirs for the entire state.

The San Diego County Water Authority on Thursday voted to oppose the legislation. Director Keith Lewinger said the bill has failings, such as being implemented through the legally complex California Environmental Quality Act, over-reliance on mitigation in disadvantaged communities and not stipulating that required conservation take place within the water district where projects are proposed.

Nevertheless, Lewinger, general manager of the Fallbrook Public Utility District, said over-arching supply issues remain as California grows. “Does the public support the general concept of subsidizing the development of future water supplies for future development? What I'm hearing from my customers is, no, they don't,” he said

Krekorian's measure would require developers to prove their projects have no net gain in water use or pay into a fund to finance conservation projects elsewhere, such as fixing leaky pipes, cleaning up groundwater and recycling.

Ugly Ruling From Appellate Court
by Jeff Green August 18, 2005

The Appellate Court has issued an ugly ugly ruling on the case of Escondido citizens against the City of Escondido and the California Department of Health Services, affirming the lower courts dismissal of the case.

The Plaintiffs will appeal to the California Supreme Court.

North County Times newspaper report follows discussion below.

Short description: The Appellate Court treated all rhetoric from DHS and lower court as fact, when they are required to take all Plaintiff's allegations as fact for the purpose of their review; substituted its own opinions as fact when it suited their conclusion; weaved an arduous path back to the public policy of fluoridation when they couldn't make the grade on the hydrofluosilicic acid substance; and conjured up non-conforming legal theory to replace the flawed decision by the lower court. Other than that, it is nice that it is only 29 pages, so that the inane drivel stops someplace.

Although there are other reasons why Appellate decisions are issued as unpublished, as this case is, and restricted from use and citations for other cases (and thus not precedent setting.) It is also frequently a means for reducing accountability for what one observing attorney described as, "a whack job on the issues."

Discussion (all bolding in quotes are mine):

As expected from the tone of oral arguments on the already-written opinion on August 10, the California Fourth District Court of Appeals delivered its rubber stamp of the Department of Health Services version of how court decisions should be made, using the points argued in DHS briefs, which were once denied by the original court, as a template for their ruling to affirm the decision of the lower court to dismiss the case.

Explaining away how the lower court could use an already exhausted motion process to blow it up to summary judgement that completely reverses the Court's own rulings: "Indeed, a court has complete power to change its decision until judgment is entered." The Court never addresses the merit or error in the original rulings that prevailed in the case for three years.

As early as page 9 of the 29 page opinion, on explaining their standard of review: "We independently review the trial court's ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings to determine whether the complaint states a cause of action. In so doing, we accept as true the plaintiff's factual allegations and construe them liberally."

However, from that point forward the Court ignored this premise, and proceeded to offer its own version of the facts when the DHS version or the lower court' version was not sufficient. The sentence following their statement of acceptance declares the Court's intent: "If a judgment {by the lower court} on the pleadings is correct upon ANY theory of law applicable to the case, we will affirm it regardless of the consideration used by the trial court to reach its conclusion." And they did. But they went even further.

As Plaintiff's attorney Norm Blumenthal articulated to Judge Stern of the lower court, the legal process allows him to state his Plaintiff's claim, and the burden at trial is first for him to prove this claim. If he does not prove this claim, we are sent packing. If he does prove the claim, the Defendants have a right to prove that there is a benefit from their actions that exceeds the harm. If the Defendants can not prove the benefit exceeds the harm, the Plaintiffs prevail. If the Defendants prove there is greater benefit than harm, the Plaintiffs bear an additional burden of showing that there are less harmful alternatives. And ultimately there is a test of whether the offending actions are reasonably related to a legitimate government interest.

In this case Judge Stern of the lower court, and this Appellate Court, rule as if the appearance of a defense constitutes a reason to abrogate their responsibility and stated intent to, " ... accept as true the plaintiff's factual allegations and construe them liberally."

Instead of hearing the merits of the Plaintiffs claim of harm at trial, or as must be accepted as factually true to consider the pleadings only on the law, the Court inserts its own opinion that there can be no harm because there is an elaborate system to prevent harm.

It then leaps to the conclusion that Constitutional protections do not apply to substances added to water because there is a legislative scheme to assure you are not harmed.

And then, AS MATTER OF LAW, they conclude that hydrofluosilicic acid is safe because the elaborate scheme to prevent harm says so.

The Court then asserts that the standard of harm is the point of remediation incorporated in Maximum Contaminant Levels, without any attention to Plaintiff's weight of evidence from state and federally mandated risk assessments.

The Court further rejects Plaintiff's judicial notice of documents that prove that the fluoridation chemicals are drugs, and asserts as fact the DHS version of FDA jurisdiction rather than Congressionally-mandated responsibilities and authorities of the FDA.

The list goes on for 29 pages worth of distortions. But the core issue, upon which the Court has relied for its grandiose ruling, and for which the Court supplies its own opinion as if it is a matter of law, is whether each person receiving public drinking water contaminated with hydrofluosilicic acid and its attendant lead and arsenic is truly free to choose not to be exposed.

Plaintiffs will file a request that the case be heard by the California Supreme Court.

Thursday, August 18, 2005
Last modified Wednesday, August 17, 2005 11:53 PM PDT
www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/08/18/news/top_stories/21_26_258_17_05.txt

Appeals court OKs Escondido's water fluoridation

by: SCOTT MARSHALL - Staff Writer
NORTH COUNTY ---- A state appeals court ruled Wednesday that the way the city of Escondido is adding fluoride to its drinking water does not violate the constitutional rights of its residents and that the city's conduct does not violate state law.

As a result, the 4th District Court of Appeal in San Diego declined to reinstate a lawsuit in which a group of Escondido residents alleged that the city's fluoridation of the water violated their constitutional right to "bodily integrity."

The city, which began putting fluoride in its water more than a year ago while the lawsuit was pending, is pleased with the court's decision, Assistant City Attorney Jennifer McCain said.

Norman Blumenthal, an attorney for the residents, said he and his clients "respectfully disagree" with the appeals court and will ask the state Supreme Court to hear the case.

The Statewide Fluoridation Act requires public water systems throughout California with more than 10,000 water-service connections to fluoridate their water to promote dental health. Escondido has 25,000 service connections that serve about 130,000 people, stated an appeals court opinion issued Wednesday.

The Escondido City Council voted 3-2 in June 2001 to lift a 1999 city ban against putting certain chemicals in city water to begin the process of adding fluoride to the drinking water. A group of residents filed a lawsuit in September 2001 that challenged the city's planned water fluoridation.

A trial of the lawsuit was scheduled for Oct. 12, 2004, but on that day, Superior Court Judge Jacqueline Stern made her decision to throw out the lawsuit, saying the residents had failed to provide a legal reason that Escondido's water fluoridation violated their rights. The residents appealed.

Attorneys for the city and the state, which approved Escondido's plan, argued to the appeals court that the city is complying with all state and federal laws. The substance used to fluoridate the water, hydrofluorosilic acid, is approved in the Safe Drinking Water Act and is used elsewhere in California, across the country and around the world, the state's attorney argued.

Blumenthal argued, however, that the city is "mass medicating the entire community" with a substance that has not been approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration and that the hydrofluorosilic acid contains lead and arsenic at levels that will cause cancer.

Associate Justice Judith Haller, writing for the appeals court, stated in a 29-page opinion that laws and regulations allow "fluoridating agents" like hydrofluorosilic acid to contain contaminants like lead and arsenic as long as they comply with maximum contaminant levels and detection levels.

McCain said the city is complying fully with the law.

"We've had no problems with our detection levels, and everything is safe," McCain said.

Haller wrote that the Escondido residents in the lawsuit were trying to "establish a right to public drinking water of a certain quality or, more specifically, a right to drinking water uncontaminated" with the acid, but no such right exists. State and federal constitutions do not guarantee an environment free of contaminants.

Courts across the country have "uniformly upheld the constitutionality of adding fluoride to the public water supply," but no court has recognized a legal claim entitling citizens to drinking water more pure than what federal and state standards require, Haller wrote.

Haller also wrote that the residents involved in the case are not compelled to drink the fluoridated water and that they retain the right to choose not to drink water with hydrofluorosilic acid.

Blumenthal described the appeals court decision as a "real slippery slope" that could allow governments to put barbiturates in the water to control unruly people or amphetamines to counteract laziness and argue that residents don't have to drink the water.

"To say that you can avoid drinking water is naive," Blumenthal said.

Haller also wrote for the court that the residents' challenge to the use of hydrofluorosilic acid involved a legislative process that the court did not have authority to perform. The residents should have raised their concerns and information about hydrofluorosilic acid with the state at the "administrative level" before the state approved a permit allowing the city to fluoridate the water, Haller wrote.

Hundreds wade in on Walton water issue

Opinions vary about what Yuba City should do next

By John Dickey/Appeal-Democrat May 19, 2008 - 11:58PM

Walton-area residents got more arsenic information than some could swallow Monday at a Yuba City City Council study session.

The short answer may be that if a person lived in a house for 30 to 40 years, and drank water which contains 50 parts per billion of arsenic, they would have a 1 percent higher risk of getting cancer, said Bruce Macler, a toxicologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

That was not acceptable for the federal government or for Congress, which passed the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act. Macler said the water standards have to be set at a level that has no known or anticipated effects because the water is there for everyone — not just elderly residents, but infants and kids as well.

"Your water has to be squeaky clean," said Macler.

Otherwise, people face a higher risk of cancers of the lung, bladder, kidney, nose, prostate, skin and liver.

Macler and others spoke about arsenic risks, water standards and a number of other topics during a City Council study session at Andros Karperos Middle School attended by more than 200 people.

The Hillcrest Region 2/3 plant has had trouble at times meeting a new 10 parts per billion federal drinking water standard, prompting drinking water warnings from the city at one point. The water now meets arsenic standards after the city shifted to a treatment process that has reduced the amount of water coming out of the plant. Otherwise, the water might turn brown.

Reese Crenshaw, an engineer with the state Department of Public Health, said the ferric chloride treatment the city is using to remove arsenic has reduced the plant's water production to marginal levels.

"You may have noticed some brown water — the city had to reduce the treatment rate," said Crenshaw. The plant is also not built to handle the corrosive treatment chemicals used to eliminate arsenic, said Crenshaw.

To meet arsenic standards, the city is recommending either a connection to surface water costing $3,900 per home, or an improved groundwater system totaling $5,310 per home.

Some residents say their water is OK, and don't believe they should have to pay to fix it. Any costs should be shared by all the city residents since it's the city's plant they maintain.

For Roberta Osgood, whose residence is connected to Hillcrest Region 2/3 water, the information about arsenic risks all sounded like a scare tactic. She said she has heard it before with the gasoline additive MTBE.

"I think what I'm getting at, it was scaremongering," Osgood said during the meeting. "You're trying to scare everybody."

Others on their way out of the meeting had a different take.

Phil Hohman, 65, of McCune Avenue, already knew what he was hearing — the city does not have a choice about fixing the plant because the federal government is mandating it.

Tony Galyean, a resident of Hillcrest Region 1, asked the City Council to give him the good water now, the surface water. The groundwater is not safe for his kids, he said.

"I want the water, I want it now," said Galyean. "I want the good water."

Beware YC officials' ulterior motives

Appeared in Appeal-Democrat May 12, 2008 01:50:00 AM

This city, dear to so many, has taken a stance of disregarding or opposing the taxpaying residents' requests.

The water users in south Yuba City have validated their objections with the needed numbers of signatures presented on the petition objecting to the planned fees to change the source of their water. The change is still planned even though the former Hillcrest water has been corrected to meet the new federal guidelines for arsenic levels. The filtration system has been refurbished and arsenic levels corrected. There never was a nitrate issue in the wells being used.

The city is on a mission to deny the voice of the residents. Terra Buena had to annex to change their poisonous nitrate water to safe water.

However, the city is now offering Region 1 surface water to replace their safe water. This is to pollute the accumulated signed petition numbers.

Is this simply dirty politics or a Machiavellian plot to obtain a loan that apparently the city is so desperate for they will continue this plot to both risk their credibility and legitimacy? Those funds touted as a low-interest loan estimated amount of $30 million were applied for under the California Department of Health Service's Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.

Region 1 is not in the loan application. The City of Yuba City financed $24 million to redesign and enlarge the Surface Water Treatment Plant without dividing up the cost to existing customers who benefited from the improvements.

Suzanne Connelly

Yuba City

Critics hit YC water mailer

By John Dickey/Appeal-Democrat May 6, 2008 - 11:53PM

The Yuba City City Council on Tuesday night approved hiring a firm to send fliers to Hillcrest water users. But some residents who have criticized the city's handling of water issues opposed the move. "They are now spending large sums of our tax money on glossy fliers to convince us what is best for us," said Janet Baur, of Rancho Way, one of several residents who spoke up on the outreach program.

The council approved paying up to $75,000 to Sacramento-based ICF Jones & Stokes for public education and outreach related to Hillcrest water issues. About $20,000 worth of mai ings have hit Hillcrest-area mailboxes, including 1,000 homes in Hillcrest Region 1. The homes are in a strip just east of Highway 99 and south of Marcia Avenue. Region 1 is outside of city limits and has not been discussed for possible conversion to surface water as Region 2/3 has, which has apparently caught some residents by surprise.

"This inclusion of 1,000 homes could defeat our objective," said Baur. But city officials sent mailers to Region 1 residents in addition to Region 2/3, saying people felt that they would be given a chance to convert to surface water after the city purchased the Hillcrest water plant in 2001. Since the city has completed its water plant expansion, it can now offer that opportunity, Utilities Director Bill Lewis said in an interview.

If Region 1 is included, total per-household costs of converting to city surface water would be reduced by just over $400, said Lewis. The council would have to decide whether to make Region 1 part of the assessment balloting for water improvements. Councilman Kash Gill, one of two council members on the Walton water ad-hoc committee, supported the mailings. "We want to make sure we are able to reach every single person we can," said Gill.

Crunch time for state's water?

By Ryan McCarthy/Appeal-Democrat May 3, 2008 - 11:51PM

A severe drop in the Sierra snowpack doesn't pose immediate problems for the Mid-Valley, but another dry year will bring serious statewide water shortages, some local officials say. "It could get pretty ugly," said Don Schrader, a Yuba County Water Agency board member. "This is what everybody who knows anything about California water has been predicting for a long time."

The state has gained millions of residents without developing adequate water storage in recent decades, Schrader said. "'Dam' has been a dirty word in California," he said. "We have environmental groups who would love to tear down dams rather than build new ones."

The state Department of Water Resources said last week that its final snow survey for the season showed a water content of just 67 percent of normal after a dry March and April. The two months were the driest in the northern Sierra Nevada since 1921, when records were first kept, the agency said.

Frank Gehrke, chief of snow surveys for the Department of Water Resources, said the Sierra snowpack helps replenish reservoirs. "It's like a bank account," Gehrke said. "Our income isn't keeping up with our expenditures." Bill Lewis, utilities director for Yuba City, said the city has adequate supplies for this year and does not expect any problems. Yuba City anticipates selling about $20,000 worth of water this year because it has more supplies than it can use or store, Lewis said.

California needs to add more water supplies, he said, and cities' desalination and water reclamation efforts are possible projects. YCWA board member Schrader said conservation and wetter-than-normal years until recently have allowed the state to avoid the consequences of inadequate water projects. "We've been living off stored water," Schrader said of California.

The Bay Area and the state south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta will be most impacted if dry conditions continue, he said. Yuba County will be in far better shape because Bullards Bar Reservoir provides local water supplies, Schrader said. The Sites Reservoir has been proposed in Colusa County as a project to add water storage capacity in the state.

Gary Reedy, a fisheries biologist and river science director for the environmental group South Yuba River Citizens League, based in Nevada City, said that "politically minded operatives will take advantage of conditions such as our extremely dry March and April to advocate for unreasonable proposals."

"Dam advocates have not been scientific in their assessment of proposed dams," Reedy said. "If we take an objective, comprehensive approach to evaluating water supply projects, we find dam proposals don't all have merit." John Nicoletti, chairman of the YCWA board, and member Tib Belza share Schrader's views. Nicoletti, a Yuba County supervisor, said the state is "running out of tricks and options" as water supply problems persist.

Belza said the YCWA, which provides supplies for seven agricultural districts, will in 2008 "have enough supply to satisfy our farmers needs, which is our No. 1 priority." Water-related issues remain of limited interest to the public, he added. "The only time people really get interested in water is when they don't have enough or when they have too much," said Belza.

Yuba City awash in water issues

Assemblyman brings experts for town hall session April 25, 2008 11:22:00 PM By John Dickey/Appeal-Democrat

Important debates about water resources are going on in California, said Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa, who brought some of the issues to Sutter County residents at a town hall meeting Friday.

California's water plan is being updated. Levees have been a concern since Hurricane Katrina hit. And Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last month called for a 20 percent decrease in per-capita urban water use by the year 2020.

More than 50 people attended the meeting on water issues at the Veterans Memorial Building presented by LaMalfa, R-Richvale.

A number of experts from levee agencies, state government and a private water company talked about water supply, water quality, flood control and economic issues.

With concerns over levees, back-to-back years of scant precipitation and long-term water supply issues circulating in state government offices in Sacramento, LaMalfa thought it was a good time to air some of the issues locally.

A state Department of Water Resources official called the state's water supply issue a "crisis" because of the combination of a growing population's demands for water, a changing climate, and more water being used to protect fish, including the Delta smelt.

"There's no doubt we have a crisis on our hands we have to deal with," said Mark Cowin, a deputy director for the California Department of Water Resources.

Too much water has long been a concern for Sutter County residents. The county not only has a history of flooding, but is expected to have areas of the Yuba City Basin designated as special flood hazard insurance zones within the next year.

Yuba County and the Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority are in the midst of building better levees along the Feather and Yuba rivers that will provide a 200-year level of flood protection.

But in Sutter County, repairs are years away. In fact, the studies for the repairs are not even finished.

"More needs to be done on this side of the river," said LaMalfa.

Sally Serger, chair of the Citizen Advisory Committee on Flood Control, said she was tired of studies.

Bill Edgar, interim director of the recently formed Sutter-Butte Flood Control Agency, said the levee repair process was a slow-moving one. And before the levees were fixed, Sutter County residents would likely be paying higher flood insurance rates.

"This is not a logical, quick process," said Edgar. "Having been through this in Sacramento, it is very frustrating to explain it to folks who just want to get it done."

Dry conditions in California reduce Sierra Nevada snowpack

By SAMANTHA YOUNG, Associated Press Writer Thursday, May 1, 2008

The Sierra Nevada snowpack, a key source of California's water supply, has fallen well below normal levels after California experienced its driest two-month period on record, state water officials said Thursday.

Department of Water Resources scientists found snowpack water content averaging only 67 percent of normal throughout the 400-mile-long mountain range. Levels were 88 percent of normal in the northern Sierra and about 60 percent of normal in the central and southern regions.

Frank Gehrke, the snow survey chief at California's Department of Water Resources, said dry, sunny conditions in March and April melted what was an average snowpack earlier this year. In addition, soils parched from last year's drought are soaking much of the early snowmelt.

"It's a knock-out punch to have that combination," Gehrke told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from Echo Summit.

At the summit just south of Lake Tahoe, scientists measured 3.3 inches of snow in a meadow on Thursday. That's only 11 percent of what is expected there at this time of year.

The amount of water running into streams and reservoirs is only 55 to 65 percent of normal, according to the figures collected by the Department of Water Resources.

That's one of the reasons federal and state water managers have reduced water exports so far this year.

Water deliveries also have been cut to comply with a federal judge's order that limits pumping from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta by as much as 30 percent to protect the delta smelt, a threatened fish species.

The pumping restrictions, last year's drought and this year's dry conditions have left the state's reservoirs lower than normal. Lake Oroville, the state's principal storage reservoir, is less than half full.

"It's going to be a rough decade," said Tim Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies. "You will see mandatory rationing, I believe."

Last May, the Sierra snowpack was just 29 percent of normal, the lowest since 1988.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said the most recent snow survey underscores his argument that California should conserve more water and build more dams.

"These actions are vital to protect our environment, economy and quality of life," Schwarzenegger said in a statement. "I know that legislative leaders share my goal of comprehensive water reform, but time is running out. The longer we wait, the worse our situation becomes."

The Democratic-controlled Legislature has blocked Republican proposals to build dams, favoring increased water conservation measures and water recycling as way to meet the needs of California's population, now at 37.7 million.

Yuba City's safety needs clash with funding woes

By John Dickey/Appeal-Democrat April 22, 2008 - 11:40PM

The Yuba City City Council heard last month from Police Chief Richard Doscher about how police are stretched so thin that preventive patrols are all but impossible. The City Council got more of an explanation Tuesday about what is needed to expand public safety forces to handle a growing city — one with more gang shootings recently, some council members noted.

The real trick for city leaders will be paying for more police officers, more firefighters and bigger facilities while the city faces a potential budget shortfall next year. The Fire Department needs about $6.7 million in short-term spending on fire stations, some already budgeted, plus at least three additional firefighters. If growth picks up again, another engine company may be needed at a cost of $1.25 million.

Police are struggling with how to come up with hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for a full-fledged gang unit and equipment, plus a takeover of Walton-area policing from the Sutter County Sheriff's Department. But the $67 million fiscal wild card is the need for a bigger police headquarters to handle future growth. An expansion of the existing police headquarters is a stop-gap solution that is already 37,000 square feet short of the department's assessed space needs, Doscher told the council.

No decisions were made Tuesday on the public safety issues. But council members have started to stake out positions on how to pay for more police and fire. Mayor Rory Ramirez was absent from the workshop meeting. Councilman Kash Gill said he was willing to consider a sales tax if it was one that had a "sunset" date. He noted that it seems like shootings occur daily or weekly in Yuba City.

"I would be more or less willing to look at some sort of sales tax increase," said Gill. Councilman Tej Maan said he was against new city taxes because of the need to raise money to match state levee bond funds. He wanted to look at using city reserve funds instead. "Recently, with the gang shootings, we need to take this issue seriously," said Maan. "But I'm not in favor of any more taxes."

Mayor Pro Tem Leslie McBride said after the meeting that she wanted to wait for more budget information to come in the next few weeks before voicing any opinions. "I need to know more before I make a final determination," said McBride. Complicating the spending issue is yet another public safety issue. The Sutter-Butte Flood Control Agency needs to raise money to study levee problems and provide a local match for state-funded levee repairs.

"How many taxes will the citizens of Yuba City and Sutter County tolerate?" asked Councilman John Miller, who chairs the agency. He said he agreed with Maan in opposing new city taxes.

What they need – Price tag

FIRE: Station improvements, three firefighters — $6.7 million

FIRE: Additional engine company: $1.25 million

POLICE: Full-fledged gang unit — Hundreds of thousands

POLICE: Expanded headquarters — $67 million

Source: City departments

Report for YC retail center starts soon

By John Dickey/Appeal-Democrat April 18, 2008 - 12:51AM

Work on an environmental impact report for what could be Yuba City's largest retail center is expected to start in the next few weeks. "It's moving ahead," said Denis Cook, a consultant for the Siller Ranch project. "We're going through the entitlement process." The Siller Ranch project is years away but an early step got under way Tuesday when Yuba City City Council approved an agreement to start work on the project's environmental impact report.

Siller Ranch has been proposed as a master plan project with as much as 1 million square feet of stores and restaurants including three big-box retailers, seven major stores and 20 smaller shops. If it is built, the 100-acre shopping center located on the west side of Highway 99 just south of the intersection with Lincoln Road would be almost twice the size of the Yuba City Marketplace and Home Depot complex.

Project developer Siller Brothers Inc. would pay the costs of the environmental report. An agreement approved by City Council with SWCA Environmental Consultants says the cost would not exceed $380,180. The report alone could take more than a year but would only be the start of planning meetings, public hearings and construction in phases. The land would have to be annexed into the city with rezonings and a general plan amendment required from city officials.

At least one new traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 99 and a new street to be named Pebble Beach Parkway would be added to handle the traffic. Developers first proposed the retail complex several months ago when they filed documents with Yuba City.

Cultivating Support

'City slickers' learn about ag from Dan, Don

By Nancy Pasternack/Appeal-Democrat April 18, 2008 - 1:05AM

They cheered a Sacramento City Council member's ride on board a John Deere tractor, marveled at the aroma of prunes being steamed inside the Taylor Bros. processing plant, and giggled at comments made by Sutter County Supervisor Dan Silva. More than 30 officials and nonprofit organizers from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments toured Yuba-Sutter farms and agriculture-related enterprises Thursday in an effort to better understand the region's rural communities.

Owners of those businesses, including Silva, explained farming operations in detail and enumerated hurdles involved in making agricultural work profitable during the day-long bus tour. Silva initiated the tour for SACOG members in order to educate them, he said, because much of the region that the group oversees is made up of agricultural land "and not a single person (on the board) has an agriculture background."

In coming months, SACOG, which provides long-range transportation plans and negotiates regional housing and clean air issues, will conduct similar tours in Yolo, Placer, Sacramento and El Dorado counties. "They don't have a clue about water," Silva, a fourth-generation Sutter County farmer said last week of the regional council. "The most important treasure in America is agriculture. They have no clue about the value."

Mike McKeever, SACOG's executive director, said he hoped members would get a clearer picture by the end of the day of economic realities faced by property owners and governments in rural communities. Small towns within the region have critical sewer and water issues because "they're having to meet the same federal standards," as urban areas do, he said, "but without the tax base to pay for improvements."

Urban development encroaches on farming territory, pitting agriculture-related traffic against commuters and causing a mix of traffic on roads that are not designed to handle it, he said. Transporting food-related products to market — the impact of high fuel costs — "those are just some of the issues they face," McKeever said. "They're big."

Throughout the day, Silva introduced brief presentations by farm representatives and kept his captive audience plied from his own stash of ag-related facts and commentary. People buy ranchettes, he said, "to be a pain in the ass to agriculturists." Among the many conflicts caused by the homes' proximity to farms, he said, is that "the soccer moms don't want any crop spray."

"Tell us how you really feel, Dan," one tourist piped up in response. The group visited a kiwi ranch and a small strawberry and vegetable farm owned and operated by a Marysville-area Hmong family. They learned about fertilizer costs and transport costs and the effects of crop failures and political turmoil elsewhere in the world on the SACOG region.

In the Robbins basin, home to much of Silva's farm property, a higher proportion of farm land than usual is planted with wheat because of grain shortages abroad. Prices for wheat have tripled in the last year. All land use boils down to dollars, Silva reiterated again and again.

Recent construction of 15 new homes in Robbins dramatically affected the entire town's fortunes by disqualifying it from low-income entitlement grant money, he said. Yuba County Supervisor Don Schrader focused on water issues. "We've got a serious problem," he said. "There's going to be a drought, and they're going to take this water and send it south. Water buyers are blood thirsty."

"Northern California," he said, "is going to have to stand up for its water rights." By the time the busload of what Silva referred to as "city slickers" got finished asking their questions (Why are the bottoms of many fruit trees painted white? Answer: Young trees, recently grafted, are vulnerable to insect boring and sunburn), they had taken to calling the day's tour guides "The Dan and Don Show."

Some admitted they had learned a lot. "When I think of water, I usually think of homes," said McKeever. "But out here, it's different. Water is their livelihood." Decisions made for rural areas "affect economies that affect all of us," he said.

Potential supervisors differ on spending tax dollars

By Robert LaHue/Appeal-Democrat April 18, 2008 - 12:58AM

The two candidates for Sutter County's District 4 supervisor clashed Thursday night about the county's financial condition. During a forum for Republican candidates in Yuba City, challenger Sylvia Oakley said the county has been consistently overbudgeting, and that tax money could be better utilized.

"We have to have truth in budgeting ... when elected, I will examine and detail how our tax dollars are being spent and shift them into areas that can better benefit the taxpaying public," she said. Supervisor Jim Whiteaker asserted the county is in "excellent" financial shape and has enough money in reserves to absorb revenue reductions from the state. "We will not lay off one county employee, we will not discontinue any county services," he said.

Oakley, a Yuba City financial analyst and former accountant in Auditor-Controller Robert Stark's office, also said the county needs to be more aggressive on flood control, noting Yuba County levees should be completed next year "Now where has Sutter County been for the last four years?" Oakley said. "Let's stop blaming the state for a lack of funding, and let's stop blaming federal government for increasing the standards, let's just fix the problem."

Whiteaker pointed to $60 million in flood protection investments by the county since 1997 and receiving early implementation levee funding from the state. He also proposed rezoning property along Highway 99 for business development and creating a fast track system for business development.

"We can do all this and still protect our farm base," he said. Along with Whiteaker and Oakley, three of the five candidates for District 1 supervisor spoke to the Sutter County Republican Women Federated. Melinda Russell, a Live Oak planning commissioner, said her lifetime involvement in public service drove her to run.

"A lot of people think I haven't lived here all my life, I can't care about the community as much, but that's not true at all," she said. Farmer Jeff Boone of Live Oak proposed stronger efforts to get a third bridge across the Feather River and using "smart growth" principles. "It means we needs some businesses to go along with those homes we've been building," he said.

Incumbent Larry Montna proposed establishing businesses along Highway 99 that can utilize the railroad line, wants to work on a regional sewer treatment plant, and armoring levees with sheet piling instead of slurry walls to make levee upgrades less expensive. "I don't know how many (of you) went through (the 1955 Yuba City levee break), but it's no fun," he said.

When are they going to repair Franklin Road?

By Rob Young/Appeal-Democrat April 14, 2008 - 11:55PM

Q: With all the money being spent on roads around Yuba City, could you find out if they plan to do any work on Franklin Road between Walton Avenue and Highway 99? It floods when it rains and it's rough as a country road. If you sit at Don's Furniture for a day, I bet you would count more than 1,200 cars passing on the road. And how about another really rough road — Garden Highway near the Yuba-Sutter Fairgrounds?

A: Have Don put out a BarcaLounger recliner and we'll be right over with a clipboard.

On a more serious note, Since You Ask gets more complaints about that stretch of Franklin — specifically the part between Walton Avenue and Littlejohn Road — than any other rough road in the area. Now there's some reason for optimism. Yuba City Public Works Director George Musallam said he'll go to the City Council this summer with plans for improvements, including repaving, widening, curbs and gutters.

If approved, construction would probably happen next year. The city already owns most of the right of way it needs, he said. The bumpy, block-long part of Garden Highway between Second Street and Franklin Avenue is also high on the complaint list. Musallam said the City Council has already approved funds for improvements, including curbs and gutters. Construction could happen this year, he said.

FROM: Steven Jepsen, City Manager
DATE: April 11, 2008
SUBJ: City Manager’s Weekly Report

Community Development

• Cinemark Pulls Building Permit: On Thursday, April 10^{th, Cinemark obtained their building
permit for the construction of their new 38,888 square
foot (12-screen) movie theater adjacent to the
existing Movies 8 Theater on W. Onstott. Construction
is expected to last approximately eight to nine
months. During construction, the existing Movies 8
Theater will remain open, but upon completion of the
new theater, the existing facility will be torn down
for additional parking improvements.}

^•^{Flex Zones in Downtown:} ^{At their April 9th meeting, the Planning
Commission recommended approval of allowing the use of
"flex-zones" on Plumas Street as part of an amendment
to the City’s Central City Specific Plan. The
flex-zones would allow restaurant businesses in the
Plumas Street area of downtown the opportunity to
place outdoor dining facilities on the adjoining
sidewalks or in the adjoining parking spaces as a
means of further enhancing the streetscape of that
area. This amendment to the Specific Plan will be
forwarded to the City Council at their May 20th
meeting}

On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 11:23:23 -0700 "Donald Kessel"

The article below indicates that Hillcrest Water is intended to be integral part of the City's surface water backup system. In addition, in a September 2000 article in the Appeal Democrat, the following statement is made, "A few yars ago, Hillcrest approached Yuba City about a purchase, but the deal fell through, according to William Lewis, the city's Utilities Director." this statement indicates that the Ciy was negoaiting to aquire Hillcrest long before the Walton Area annexation. This clearly indicates intent that the acquisition of Hillcrest Water was for the general benefit of all the City and not just the Walton Area. Could it be that the Walton Annexation was the "hammer" to acquire the Hillcrest Water System? In any case, the Hillcrest Water System belongs to the City, is the City's problem and any corrections to provide the Walton Area residents with safe water should be financed by the City not just the Walton Area Residents!

City of Yuba City 2005 Urban Water Management Plan

WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY

Yuba City water source is the Feather River, north of the confluence with the Yuba River. Upstream dams on all forks of Feather River control flow in the Feather River. Oroville Dam is the primary upstream control. DWR operates Oroville Reservoir, 3,500,000 acre-feet capacity,

for the State Water Project (SWP). This represents over sixty percent of the total SWP storage. The SWP maintains contracts of over 4,000,000 acre-feet. Due to the critical nature of water supply by the SWP there is an extremely small chance that the Feather River flow being so low that water could not be withdrawn. This results in a high reliability water source.

Oroville Dam was completed in 1967. Since the dam’s completion, there has always been sufficient flow in the Feather River to allow withdrawal of some water. This includes the drought periods of the 1970’s, 1980’s and 1990’s. In the event of a catastrophic problem that prevents any release from Lake Oroville, Yuba City would implement significant mandatory water conservation, and blend available surface water with standby well water.

Other than emergency conditions, it appears that sufficient water would always be available for withdrawal from the Feather River. Yuba City maintains adequate water supply permits and contracts, utilizing 3,600 acre-feet per year of groundwater, to meet the needs of its customers beyond 2020 under normal water year conditions, on an annual basis.

There are several ways that Yuba City can close the gap between supply and demand beyond 2020. These include:

1 Obtain additional water supply through contract.

2. Increased conservation effort.

3. Utilize additional groundwater.

4. Utilize recycled water.

5. Combination of 1 – 4.

Manager's Report-Siller Ranch Project; Franklin Road 16" Water Line etc.

DATE: April 4, 2008 AMENDED City Manager’s Weekly Report
Economic Development

• The second Work Session for developing the City's Economic Development Strategic Plan is scheduled for Thursday, April 10, 4-6:00 pm. The City’s facilitator, Audrey Taylor, will focus on prioritizing and identifying short and long-term initiatives from the objectives the group defined during the prior Study Session. Participants will be asked for input on Citywide priorities, particularly regarding the assets/strengths that we can capitalize on to improve Yuba City’s economic vitality.

Movie Theater Ordinance Repeal

• The repeal of the Ordinance limiting movie theater construction to downtown has been approved by the Planning Commission and will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration at their April 15 meeting.

Siller Ranch Project

^{At the April
15th City Council meeting the Council will be asked
to approve a Funding Agreement with Siller Brothers
Inc. and a Professional Services Agreement with SWCA
Environmental Consultants for the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Siller
Ranch Project. The subject project is comprised of
approximately 230 acres of unincorporated land
located primarily west of Highway 99, east of
Gilsizer Slough, north of

Bogue Road,
and south of

Lincoln Road.
The project includes a General Plan amendment,
Rezoning, and Development Plan on approximately 95
acres of the property which is planned for the
future development of potentially 1,000,000 square
feet of retail development. Additionally, the
project also includes a Master Plan for the entire
230 acres of unincorporated land which will include
residential subdivisions as well as additional
retail development on the east side of Highway 99.
Due to the size and scope of the project, staff
determined that an EIR is necessary in order for the
project to proceed. This EIR will also be used by
LAFCo for the necessary annexation of the property
into the City limits.}

Public Works

Franklin Road 16" Water Line: The Franklin Road 16-inch Waterline Project was awarded to TerraCon Pipelines, Inc. of Healdsburg. This project involves construction of a 16-inch diameter water main in Franklin Road from Harding Road to Ohleyer Road. The project is part of the City’s water master plan, but will initially be used to serve the City’s proposed Fire Station No. 4 relocation site. The Contractor anticipates beginning construction in late April or early May pending approval of bonds and insurance. Construction is expected to last approximately 1 month. During working hours, motorists should expect the westbound lane of Franklin Road to be closed with flaggers controlling traffic. At the end of each workday the westbound lane will be re-opened to traffic.

Slurry Seal Project: The FY2007-08 Slurry Seal Project has been suspended since last fall due to weather conditions. The suspension will be lifted in late April and construction is scheduled to start in early May. Over the course of two weeks California Pavement Maintenance Company, Inc. will apply a slurry seal to several streets in the Royo Ranchero Drive, Pebble Beach Drive, Wilbur Avenue, and Stafford Way areas. Notices will be mailed to residents fronting the streets receiving a slurry seal approximately 2 weeks prior to construction.

Utilities Department: March 28

• The Federal EPA inspected and reviewed the wastewater facility’s pretreatment program. The inspection took two days and a report is expected within three months. Minor revisions to the pretreatment ordinance were identified and will come before Council for approval.

• Staff requested a Cal OSHA inspection to evaluate the wastewater facility and its safety programs. The inspection identified minor improvements to be made. The inspectors were impressed with the site and safety procedures. A full report is expected within a month.

• Groundwater System Region 2/3 was inspected by the California Department of Public Health. The inspector noted that due to high nitrates, Well 14 must be physically disconnected from the water supply. Without this well the area does not have adequate water supply per the Water Works Standards. Staff is evaluating options including conservation and supplementing with surface water. When warmer weather arrives and customers begin irrigating water pressure in the area may be lower than last year. Long-term solutions include repair of the groundwater system or conversion to surface water.

• Staff has begun flushing water mains in Groundwater Region 2/3. Completion is expected by April 4. During the flushing some customers may experience discolored water for short periods of time. To minimize impacts, most flushing will take place at night.

• The City of Live Oak and Sutter County have approached staff regarding the possibility of the Yuba City wastewater facility becoming a regional treatment plant for Live Oak and the town of Sutter. Live Oak’s discharge permit has a compliance date of early 2009. The City designed improvements and received a low bid of approximately $18,000,000. Live Oak is now evaluating if it is more cost effective to utilize a regional option. Yuba City staff is evaluating impacts to the wastewater collection and treatment facilities in addition to potential discharge permit issues.

Major Development Project In South Yuba City To Be Studied

By: Chris Gilbert April 8, 2008 AM 1600 FM 95.5 KUBA

MAJOR DEVELOPMENT OF HUNDREDS OF ACRES IN THE SOUTH AREA OF YUBA CITY IS BACK ON THE FRONT BURNER. THE CITY COUNCIL IS EXPECTED TO APPROVE AN AGREEMENT NEXT WEEK FOR THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. THE SO-CALLED "SILLER RANCH PROJECT" WOULD BE ON 230 ACRES OF UNINCORPORATED LAND OFF HIGHWAY 99 BETWEEN BOGUE AND LINCOLN ROADS. AS MUCH AS A-MILLION SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL DEVELOPMENT IS INCLUDED, ALONG WITH AN UNSPECIFIED NUMBER OF HOMES. A DEVELOPMENT GROUP SPOKESWOMAN DECLINED COMMENT.

Letter to the Editor

FLAWED CITY WATER PLAN?

Yuba City is currently planning to convert the Walton Area residents to surface water. Recent articles in California newspapers indicate that California is experiencing a dwindling surface water supply. It would appear that a combination of a surface and ground water sources blended together would be in the best interest of all Yuba City residents. To rely upon only surface water which is subjected to changing environmental and political haggling seems flawed and unwise. The City should be working towards increasing ground water supplies to ensure its residents the availability of an adequate water supply. Walton area residents should be cautious about voting for the surface water only solution!

Hillcrest Water users AD-HOC Committee members at last meeting

SURINDER BAINS 674-1070

LYNN HORN 751-5157

ROGER HOLLIS 933-1966

DONALD KESSEL 755-4048

DAN MESCHER 673-3478 - absent due to illness

ELAINE MILES 671-7916

BARRY SCHROEDER 671-5777

PHIL TREANOR 673-6301

BOB VAN OOSTERHOUT 674-7969

PETITIONS:

JANET BAUR 673-2716

SUZANNE CONNELLY 755-0729

The City of Live Oak
Has Levels of Arsenic Above the Drinking Water Standard

Appeal-Democrat, March 22, 2008

Several sources for our water system exceed the new drinking water standard for arsenic. Although this is not an emergency, as our customers, you have a right to know what happened, what you should do, and what we are doing to correct this situation.

What happened?
The US EPA standard, enacted January 2006, lowered the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of arsenic from 0.050 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 0.010 mg/L. We routinely monitor for the presence of drinking water contaminants and sample results received thus far indicate all wells are out of compliance with this new standard. You will be notified quarterly until the violation is corrected. Contact the Public Works Department for the actual levels of arsenic at each source.

What should I do?
* You do not need to use an alternative water supply (e.g., bottled water).
* This is not an emergency. If it had been, you would have been notified immediately.
However, some people who drink water containing arsenic in excess of the MCL over many years may experience skin damage or circulatory system problems, and may have an increased risk to getting cancer.
* If you have other health issues concerning the consumption of this water, you may wish to consult your doctor.

What is being done?
The City of Live Oak is planning to have an arsenic removal treatment system installed in the drinking water system. We anticipate resolving the problem within the next year and a half. For more information, please contact the City of Live Oak at 695-2112 or 9955 Live Oak Blvd., Live Oak California, 95953.

Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not have received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and businesses). You can do this by posting this public notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.

This notice is being sent to you by the City of Live Oak Public Works Department.

State Water System ID#: 5110001 . Date distributed: 3/28/08.

March 22Ad #00042102

Mar 22, 2008

Williams rejects wastewater plan

February 01, 2008 02:01:00 AM By Robert Parsons for the Appeal-Democrat

Williams property owners have voted down an $8,641 sewer connection assessment that would have funded construction of a $25 million wastewater treatment plant. "It was a close race, but we lost," Mayor Patricia Ash said following the vote count. Ballots were mailed Dec. 19 and voting closed Wednesday, following a final, standing-room-only public hearing at the Williams fire house. A total of 1,499 ballots were mailed to city property owners, but only 517 of those ballots were turned in. The assessment failed 302-215, according to City Clerk Rene Miles.

The proposal called for property owners with the potential to connect to the city's sewer system to pay about $8,641 to connect to a new plant. Property owners would have either paid the entire sum all at one time or could opt for a 40-year low-interest federal loan from the USDA. Under the loan, residents would have paid about $235 twice a year with their property taxes.

"Forty years is a long time," resident John Troughton told the City Council. "Who's to say that a few years from now the government won't just change the standards again? Someone should tell the state that if they want this, then they have to give us some help."

Leonard Tremayne, a Williams homeowner since 1963, said at the hearing he collects government disability and already lives from check to check. He said he would have no way to pay "any additional tax that high." Maria Mendoza, a Williams homeowner for the last 14 years, said she voted in favor of the assessment. "I hope the city finds the money to build this. It's hard to pay for everyone, but it's a good thing for the environment, too," Mendoza said.

Williams has been out of compliance with state clean water standards since 2005 and has already been fined $2.1 million. Under the conditions of a bill authored by state Sen. Sam Aanestad, R-Grass Valley, who represents Colusa County, state officials had agreed to allow the city to use those funds toward the cost of constructing a new plant.

An extension from the Regional Water Quality Control Board set a new 2010 deadline for city compliance. However, City Manager Jim Manning said a condition of that agreement included a "milestone" date of Feb. 1 to allocate funding for construction. Now that the special district proposal has failed, city officials will be forced to come up with a different plan to bring the city into compliance.

Gerry LaBudde, the engineering consultant hired by the city to design the new plant, said this problem "won't just go-away." Labudde said, "The (Regional Water Quality Control Board) does not seem to care that people can't afford it."

Costly fix for Williams sewers

February 14, 2008 12:01:00 AM

On Jan. 30, property owners of Williams voted on an unrealistically state-mandated need to build a new $25 million sewer plant for a 5,000 population community of mostly minimum-wage earners and fixed-income households. The ballot proposed a one-time property assessment of $8,600-plus or 40-year loan payments of $400-plus per year at 4.5 percent interest, more like $19,000.

If defeated, the state will fine Williams thousands of dollars daily, forcing cutoff of basic municipal services. I invite the State Water Quality Control Board to meet with our civic leaders to understand exactly the consequences of their unsupported dictates; our state senators and representatives also.

If Williams could form a coalition with other identified affected humble communities to negotiate a better solution with the regulators and open a transparent and competitive bid with responsible engineering firms, costs could be lowered dramatically for any such construction for each town due to collective leverage.

The current Williams City Council did not create this issue. Past sprawling developments were sanctioned by previous councils which allowed them to pay no access fees to extend services. No vision nor implementation of responsible and sustainable growth was in place at that time, unfortunately.

Dixie La Grande
Williams

PS: (NOTE: "Williams decided not to accept the estimated charges and now Williams will have to examine other options.")

Whiteaker opposes high charges his city constituents face to improve their water
By John Dickey/Appeal-Democrat February 06, 2008 - 11:30 PM

Sutter County Supervisor Jim Whiteaker said he has never spoken before the Yuba City City Council.

But the Walton-area water issue brought him to the podium for the first time Tuesday. Whiteaker spoke out against the several thousand dollars in charges that homeowners in the 4th Supervisor's District may face to improve their water.

"I felt compelled to," said Whiteaker, in an interview. "The majority of the people, after walking the district, expressed such anger, I felt as a representative to them I need to speak out on this issue."

Whiteaker said that the Hillcrest Water System — another name for the Walton-area groundwater plant — is part of the citywide water system. So it needs to be handled like other repairs or improvements in Yuba City, including downtown Plumas Street, with the costs spread citywide.

"I do not believe, if the main water line on Plumas Street needed to be replaced, you would go to the residents of the area and tell them they needed to put up several thousand dollars to repair it," Whiteaker told the City Council.

Whiteaker also said to the council that he believed the Walton-area water issue could hurt prospects for annexations, and could even jeopardize an assessment that will be needed to pay for levee repairs.

Not surprisingly, City Council members contacted Wednesday didn't share Whiteaker's take on things, including Mayor Rory Ramirez, who is on a Walton water ad-hoc advisory committee.

Ramirez said he disagreed with Whiteaker's position that the Walton-area water is a citywide problem, and that customers on the city's surface water system should pay to fix another system. He noted that Tierra Buena residents have paid $3,500 to leave the Walton groundwater plant and go to city surface water.

"Is it fair and equitable to say you've got to spend more money to fix the system you left?" asked Ramirez.

Councilman Kash Gill, also on the ad-hoc committee, was another council member who disputed Whiteaker's contentions. Gill added that the Plumas Street repairs noted by Whiteaker have been paid with redevelopment-area money.

Annexations were another issue where Ramirez disagreed with Whiteaker — there are too many dynamics that affect the land transfers, he said.

"It's on a case-by-case basis," said Ramirez.

Councilman Tej Maan disagreed with Whiteaker's claim that prospects for levee assessments would be harmed by the Walton-area water charges.

Maan said there are about 90,000 people impacted by Sutter County flooding compared with 4,000 to 5,000 people affected by Walton area.

"This is one issue for a particular part of the city," said Maan.

The supervisor — who is in an electoral race for the 4th District — said in an interview that the approximately $6,000 in costs for Walton-area water improvements were too high but declined to give a specific figure. The city is working to fine-tune the cost figures.

Whiteaker was following the tracks of his challenger, Sylvia Oakley, who appeared at a City Council meeting last month to say the city should get a mediator if the Walton-area issues cannot be resolved.

Contacted Wednesday, Oakley said she believed that it's the city's responsibility to fix the plant, and not the residents, since the city bought the facility.

Ramirez said the Walton-area water facilities are handled separately because the city cannot charge people on one system for another system that does not give them any benefits.

YC City Council approves Walton plan over residents' objections
By John Dickey/Appeal-Democrat February 06, 2008 - 12:13 AM

It took hours of debate over Walton-area water issues, but the Yuba City City Council finally took action on a $41,000 engineering study Tuesday.

The council voted to approve the study by TLA Engineering and Planning Inc., of Roseville, that would identify parcels that would benefit from Walton-area water improvements, calculate assessments, and perform other work needed to bring an assessment district to a mail-ballot vote.

Roughly a dozen Walton-area residents showed up to ask the City Council to remove the engineering study from Tuesday's agenda until the next meeting on Feb. 19.

Some residents said that ad-hoc committee meetings had set Feb. 19 as the date when the council would discuss the engineering study, though Mayor Rory Ramirez said he had asked residents not to hold him to that date.

Sutter County Supervisor Jim Whiteaker was also at the Yuba City City Council meeting at the same time that his own board met.

Whiteaker, whose district includes the Walton area, spoke out on the matter and asked the City Council to reconsider Walton water charges from the point of view that the water system is simply another component of the city's overall water system.

After TLA finishes the work in May, the Walton Water ad-hoc committee will confer with the council regarding a possible vote for an assessment district.

Yuba City faces red ink, City seeking to reduce red ink
By John Dickey/Appeal-Democrat
Appeared in Appeal-Democrat, March 1, 2008

Yuba City has to slash spending to reduce a shortfall that is projected to hit more than $1 million through June - and keep climbing. Though the potential red ink due to declines in sales tax and building permit revenue is hardly welcome, the city is not yet anticipating layoffs. "If you look at us on a relative basis, we're in very good shape," said Mayor Rory Ramirez. "I'm not happy where we are. Historically, we operated at a balanced budget. " City officials may be counting their blessings, as well as their pennies, after some of the bleak news coming from other nearby cities.

Vallejo, for instance, was facing bankruptcy, avoiding fiscal catastrophe only through a last-minute deal with its unions. And Sacramento was set to lay off 28 employees to counter a growing budget gap that was projected to climb to $55 million through the next fiscal year beginning in July.

Yuba City is planning more modest measures to trim the nearly $1.5 million gap between revenues and spending through June. The city will not fill any vacant positions other than police officers, bringing the difference to within $253,000. Departments typically spend less than their budgets, if spending follows past trends, reducing the remainder.

But that only takes care of this fiscal year. The next 12 months starting in July are expected
to be even tougher, with a nearly $1.4 million deficit even after the city accounts for savings
from unfilled positions. "The city is going to have to be more vigilant as far as
expenses," said Ramirez

In addition to not filling vacant staff spots, the city may have to keep its budget for supplies and services at the previous year's level with no increases for inflation. And departments will have to start prioritizing their expenditures. "It is more worrisome because it is a bigger nut to crack, but we certainly have options we'll take under consideration," said Robin Bertagna, the city's chief financial officer. Yuba City did catch one break that some other cities didn't get.

While the city is expecting $660,000 less sales tax and $600,000 less building permit revenues for the fiscal year ending in June, property taxes are expected to be up $475,000 from earlier projections.

New motor vehicle dealerships and building materials stores are among the economic sectors that are contributing to the decrease in Yuba City sales tax revenues, according to a report from the HdL Companies, a consultant for the city.

YC’s debts add up to a pretty penny

Rob Young-Appeal-Democrat

February 25, 2008 10:29:00 PM

Q: What is the debt of Yuba City? Can you tell me the amounts by type of debt and how the debts will be repaid?

A: Since You Asked is flattered to receive a question about such an important public policy issue. We had been planning to answer the latest question about when Yuba City's In-N-Out Burger will open.

The answer is that Yuba City's debt was, as of the start of the current budget year, just under $109 million, according to the city's chief financial officer, Robin Bertegna.

You've got to hope the city is paying that Visa bill on time because the interest charges must be unbelievable.

Seriously, most of the debt is payments on bonds issued to finance various public improvements. Here's the breakdown in rounded figures: wastewater treatment, $21.5 million; water treatment, $30.6 million; acquisition of streetlights from PG&E, $1 million; Gauche Aquatic Park improvements, $12.5 million; redevelopment, $22.6 million. That last category includes infrastructure like housing and streets.

All that stuff is on page 70 of the city's current adopted budget, an imposing, acronym-laced document of 342 pages.

Also included in the debt is $7.7 million borrowed to finance the city's unfunded liability to the California Public Employees Retirement System. That part is labeled "CDCDA Pooled POB-2007A," which, as it turned out, is a mistake discovered by Since You Asked. It's actually supposed to be the CSCDA, which stands for the California Statewide Community Development Authority, said Bertegna.

Sadly, there is no reward for discovering such an error.

For anyone who actually delves into the budget book, the figures on page 70 don't actually add up to $109 million. That's because the city borrowed another $16 million for infrastructure that didn't make it into the book, said Bertegna.

The good news, if it can be called that, is that some of the debt doesn't have to be paid until 2035 or 2036. Some of us will be dead by then, so we're just going to go to Gauche Aquatic Park and splash in the water and think about other things.

User fees will be used to pay off the bonds for the water and wastewater improvements, while impact fees and property tax dollars will cover the Gauche Park improvements. General tax revenue will be used for the street lights and pension debt, said Bertegna.

Q: With the new Gauche Aquatic Park getting a lot of press, I was wondering just who was this Gauche person that the park is named after?

A: You correctly assumed Gauche was a person and not an adjective — a good thing since the adjective means lacking grace or tactless.

The name of the park is pronounced "Go-SHAY," after Glenn Gauché, a former music teacher, dance band leader and Yuba City mayor who died in 1957.

Local historian Don Burtis provided that information in an Appeal-Democrat letter to the editor published in September 2006.

Walton water pricey
By John Dickey/Appeal-Democrat 2007-08-01 00:07:00

A glass of water that meets federal standards won’t be cheap for the 3,000 or so Walton-area homes using groundwater from a treatment plant.

Yuba City officials Tuesday put the price tag of converting to city surface water from the Feather River at $5,800 per home.

If residents choose instead to make repairs to the ground water system, that will be even more costly, adding up to $7,460 per home.

Residents without a water meter can add another $500 to the bill which could be paid in cash, as part of a monthly water bill, or as an assessment that shows up on property tax bills, if a district was formed.

Those figures work out to an annual payment of anywhere from $410 to $715 over 20 years, depending on whether the city gets a low-interest loan from the state and on which type of water residents decide on.

Costs were released at a community meeting at the Yuba City Moose Lodge, which was provided at no charge to the city. More than 100 residents packed the hall.

City officials say the need to fix the water system is prompted by new rules from the Environmental Protection Agency. Standards for the amount of arsenic allowed in drinking water were lowered from 50 parts per billion to 10 ppb.

“The water quality didn’t change - the regulations changed,” Utilities Director Bill Lewis said in an interview. Residents are getting groundwater that averages 14.6 ppb, according to a city report.

Excessive nitrates are also a problem for one groundwater well that supplied extra water during summer. The state Department of Health Services ordered the city to take the well out of service. “By losing that well, we no longer have enough water to meet their needs,” said Lewis. Some residents may find the bill harder to swallow than the arsenic.

Dorian Kittrell, 44, of Littlejohn Road, figured infrastructure costs money. And he’ll get plenty of years of better water - though he faces costs of as much as $14,000 for his two lots.

But the older neighborhood is filled with aging residents who may struggle with the bill, worried Kittrell. “I just feel sorry for all these elderly people, I really do,” said Kittrell.

The city is looking for a decision in September on whether to fix the former Hillcrest Water Co. groundwater plant or hook up to city surface water. The payment method has to be figured out by December.

Walton's water woes a worry to residents

Appeared in Appeal-Democrat November 16th, 2007 by John Dickey

Talks between Walton residents and a Yuba City Council ad-hoc committee trying to sort out area water problems will start at the source - the water treatment plant.

With several thousand dollars in costs required to fix it or connect with another water source, some residents have started asking whether the plant is really broken. And, if it isn't why fix it if?

Dan Mescher, of Joseph Street, doesn't doubt the plant needs to be updated. But he said that a lot of water has been drawn from it over the years. "Are arsenic levels too high, and is the system working efficiently or not?" wondered Mescher. City officials spent two hours Thursday writing down residents' concerns about the plant, financing and other issues Thursday at an ad-hoc committee session held at Yuba City City Hall.

The more than 30 residents who attended came up with 44 issues to discuss. Leading the list was a question about the condition of the Hillcrest water system itself, and financing plan to pay for either plant upgrades or connections to city surface water for the 3,000 homes in the Walton area that use groundwater from the former Hillcrest Water Co. plant. Homeowners face costs of from $5,000 to $8,000 for plant improvements or connections with another city plant that draws water from the feather River.

Controversy over the issue led to the formation of the South-west Walton Water Issue Ad-Hoc Committee, comprised of Councilmen Rory Ramirez and Kash Gill, which is supposed to come up with a solution to the problem after talking with residents. Adding to the confusion are the arsenic levels in the treated water, which have gone up and down. Earlier this year, they shot up above 10 parts per billion, the limits for arsenic levels in drinking water set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

But they dropped below the limits for the last two quarters after the city put in place what it calls a short term treatment solution for the arsenic levels. Arsenic is naturally occurring in some rock formations with Sutter County being one of the biggest problem areas in the state. Health effects can include skin pigmentation changes, thicker skin, vascular disease and some types of cancer after many years of exposure.

Water hookup fees protested

YC Council gets earful from Hillcrest residents

January 15, 2008 11:55:00 PM By John Dickey/Appeal-Democrat

Hillcrest area water issues are starting to boil over into Yuba City City Council meetings from an advisory ad-hoc committee set up to handle the contentious issue. More than 100 Hillcrest area residents packed Council chambers Tuesday to hear more than a dozen people complain about the possibility of being charged several thousand dollars to either connect to the city's surface water plant, or fix the Hillcrest 2⁄3 water system.

One of them, Bob van Oosterhout of Cortez Court, brought a stack of what he said were 1,200 protest signatures gathered recently. More are on the way, he said "It seems to me that you have forgotten that you are working for the people," Van Oosterhout said. Van Oosterhout and others also cited a long list of complaints about the way the city has handled Hillcrest water, the area's annexation several years ago and other issues.

Another resident, Donald Kessel of Pebble Beach Drive, said costs should be shared by all city residents. "If we decide to choose surface water, it would be like paying a seven-year old retroactive reconnection fee at today's prices," Kessel said. "If we fix the system, we will actually be fixing the city's water system."

The meetings also brought Sutter County Supervisor candidate Sylvia Oakley to the podium. She said the city should consider hiring a mediator if problems cannot be worked out through the ad-hoc committee. The Council had little reaction to what was an unagendized matter that was taken up during the public comment part of the meeting.

"All of us are looking for solutions to the problem," said Mayor Rory Ramirez. "We're looking for solutions that are as economical as we can make them." Ramirez and Councilman Kash Gill are heading a Walton water ad-hoc advisory committee that has tried to come up with a solution to water-quality problems that must be fixed, according to the city.

After a few months of twice-weekly meetings, the committee is taking a break while engineers estimate local and citywide economic benefits that the Hillcrest 2⁄3 water plant delivers. Studies have been proposed but have to be approved by the Council.

Residents are upset over possibly having to pay between $5,800 to $7,460 per home for improvements. The city last year held meetings that proposed quick action after the groundwater arsenic exceeded federal limits of 10 parts per billion last year - limits that were tightened recently from 50 parts per billion.

Stinky Water Video

Groundwater

State lawmakers approve $11 billion water deal

Other Views: Saving water a year-round commitment

Huge Water Tank Going Up For Hillcrest Customers

Bill Lewis Explains EPA Yuba City $2,400 Fine...

Yuba City takes act on the roads

City lifting economy by expanding public works

Marysville water costs surging

Cal Water seeking nearly $23 more per month

Sutter Pointe searching for water

Governor Appoints Point Person On Water Issues FRESNO, Calif. (AP)

Residents off the hook for cost of meters

June 15, 2009 12:02:00 AM Grant will help Hillcrest transition By Ashley Gebb/Appeal-Democrat

This story is taken from Sacbee / Our Region / Top Stories - Published Thursday, Apr. 16, 2009

Congressmen want more water for California farmers

Regional wastewater flushed

Yuba City maps out summer road projects

Sutter County homes part of real estate fraud

Citizens stiffed for ‘misconduct’

Water penalties for YC, Live Oak

Impact fee freeze thawed in Yuba City

City Council rejects plan; first fee hike in January

Valley's flood risks shown at state online map site

Published 12:00 am PDT Thursday, September 18, 2008

YC resident asks: 'Why does my tap water stink?'

Flood warning system unveiled by California water agency

By Matt Weiser - Published 12:00 am PDT Sunday, August 24, 2008

Editorial: New water bond? First, spend existing billions

Proposition 84 funds should be the first choice for improving state water supplies Published 12:00 am PDT Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Dan Walters: Can we trust California's water future in politicians' hands?

By Dan Walters - Published 12:00 am PDT Tuesday, July 15, 2008

YC's Hillcrest water showdown

City Council OKs controversial connection

Bee Exclusive: Capital gushes wasted water

Metropolitan region's per-capita use tops U.S. daily average as conservation pledges go unmet.

Water-Starved California Slows Development

By Peter H. Gleick - Special to The Bee Published 12:00 am PDT Sunday, June 1, 2008

Beware YC officials' ulterior motives

Dry conditions in California reduce Sierra Nevada snowpack

Major Development Project In South Yuba City To Be Studied

Costly fix for Williams sewers

YC’s debts add up to a pretty penny

YC Council gets earful from Hillcrest residents

June 15, 2009 12:02:00 AM Grant will help Hillcrest transition
By Ashley Gebb/Appeal-Democrat

Proposition 84 funds should be the first choice for improving state water supplies
Published 12:00 am PDT Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Dan Walters:
Can we trust California's water future in politicians' hands?

Metropolitan region's per-capita use tops U.S. daily
average as conservation pledges go unmet.