23 replies to this topic

[tessieca]

Since Bob chastised me for pointing out that the matter was on the open agenda, did you at least get the opportunity to have your say Robert?? Even if it was rejected?

[Robert Giacometti]

Since Bob chastised me for pointing out that the matter was on the open agenda, did you at least get the opportunity to have your say Robert?? Even if it was rejected?

YES, even though I disagreed with the council's decison, I should acknowledge they and in particular Mayor Andy gave me an opportunity to ask many questions. I felt we had a civil discusion about this issue and agreed to disagree. They said it was a good deal but none could quantify how it was a good deal.

Ken Payne the Utilities Director has talked with me and will meet with me to go over all the information and details

A couple of points I feel need to be addressed.

#1. Each and every time any citizen has questioned the general plan or any proposal involving development with regards to there being enough water supply available, we were always told there would be enough water. At the meeting they had a powerpoint showing we would be facing a water shortfall at buildout N50.

How & When did this happen?

#2. Why in the world do we want to be the water service provider to Aerojets development, when its not part of the city of Folsom? I get the sense we are deliberately painting ourselves into a corner so we are almost FORCED to annex Aerojet.

#3. Since Aerojet needs a permanent source of water to develop this property and the 2036 water wouldn't qualify as the contract expires in 2036, therefore we the City of Folsom has the upper hand as they need the deal more than we do....so why didn't we get a better deal?
So in theory every year that goes by without this agreement brings Folosm closer to getting ALL of its water back and more imperative for Aerojet to find a source of permanent water. The clock is ticking on them not us!

( I suspect the answer is related to # 1 above, since we have overbuilt beyond our water supplies N50, we also need to find a permanent source for the additional water needed N50)

#4, Why didn't this proposed agreement go through the Citizens Utility Review Commision? When did the citizens ever have a chance to discuss any issues regarding this other than the first time its brought to the council meeting and they approve it the same night. I was the only person in the entire community to ask questions, yet this deal reduces our long range water supply for our children. If this is such a good deal why didn't it face the scrutiny of its citizens?

#5. A huge RED Flag for me is talk about the GET water from Aerojet that will be Folosm's in the future. I believe it was Mr. Starskey who made the comment that was significant and Ms. Howell, who asked if that water would be considered a new source of water. This is significant because it could allow this ( GET) water to be considered as a new source for S50, while N50 is getting less.

This is nothing more than a shell game with water and it doesn't benefit anyone N50!

[Robert Giacometti]

I had the opportunity to meet with Ken Payne ( Utilities Director) this morning and he went over all the details, answered all my questions and did his best to explain why this is a good deal for the City of Folsom.

This is a very complicated issue as it involves Water Districts which do NOT follow city boundaries, previous agreements that bind the city and a special assesment District, that is part of the water district.

One of the disappointing things I learned is the Aerojet property is part of the Folsom water district, so we have to provide water for their development IF water is available, regardless of the 2036 agreement. So even if we were able to terminate the 2036 water agreement, we still have to provide water.

Something to keep in mind is the Aerojet property is within the Urban Services Boundary and so the county can approve developmet there while we have to provide the water, yet we have very little ability to oversee the planning and development process. This puts us in a precarious situation.

I would have preffered the city try to get out of being a water district for this area completely, but that may have resulted in us giving up some of our supply also.

I can't say this is the best possible deal for the City, yet I will acknowledge it is better than I originally thought and that we do get some of our water committments back now, instead of later.

I would prefer our council come out and declare any water we recieve from Aerojets GET facilities is NOT a new source of water and will NOT be used S50. This should be a cocern for all of us.

This is a very complicated issue.

[Kerri Howell]

The deal with Gencorp actually increases the water available in Folsom. Gencorp land has been in the City's service area for water all along and, as a tentacle of the deal with Gencorp, we actually do remove a portion of what is currently in our service area, by giving it to Golden State Water to service, without giving them any water. The City of Folsom can not determine what qualifies as new water - it is what it is. The GET water is a "new" source of NON-potable water, just like any other type of "reclaimed" water. We get potable water back from Gencorp and they use GET water for industrial purposes. That is part of the way the water supply increases. There was no conspiracy about how much water is available at build out north of the freeway, and there is no increase in the population or an increase in the amount of water needed to serve the existing City limits (keeping in mind that there have always been water service customers outside the City limits). What has changed since the adoption of the general plan is the Water Forum agreement, and the regional agreements that, in the event of a drought, everybody's water supply is cut back. The "shortfall" that was discussed during the council meeting and the associated cost of purchasing it is what would have resulted in a cost to the ratepayers for "buying" the additional water for a dry year supply.

The point is that this IS a good deal for Folsom, there was no water given away, we get the water back sooner rather than later, we get rid of a portion of our service area, the total available water increases and use of the GET water is good for the environment. Yes, water is a very complicated issue.

[cw68]

Wait, did a Folsom official actually say, "good for the environment?" That's something I'd sure like to hear more often!

[Robert Giacometti]

The deal with Gencorp actually increases the water available in Folsom. Gencorp land has been in the City's service area for water all along and, as a tentacle of the deal with Gencorp, we actually do remove a portion of what is currently in our service area, by giving it to Golden State Water to service, without giving them any water. The City of Folsom can not determine what qualifies as new water - it is what it is. The GET water is a "new" source of NON-potable water, just like any other type of "reclaimed" water. We get potable water back from Gencorp and they use GET water for industrial purposes. That is part of the way the water supply increases. There was no conspiracy about how much water is available at build out north of the freeway, and there is no increase in the population or an increase in the amount of water needed to serve the existing City limits (keeping in mind that there have always been water service customers outside the City limits). What has changed since the adoption of the general plan is the Water Forum agreement, and the regional agreements that, in the event of a drought, everybody's water supply is cut back. The "shortfall" that was discussed during the council meeting and the associated cost of purchasing it is what would have resulted in a cost to the ratepayers for "buying" the additional water for a dry year supply.

The point is that this IS a good deal for Folsom, there was no water given away, we get the water back sooner rather than later, we get rid of a portion of our service area, the total available water increases and use of the GET water is good for the environment. Yes, water is a very complicated issue.

Kerri,

Thanks for your comments.

We have always been told there was enough water to build out our general plan N50. That question has been asked time and time again with the same response of "there is enough water". Now we are being told there is a projected shortfall, I just wanted to know how this happened?

I was told the pre 1914 water rights are secured and can NOT be cut its the "Fazio" water that can be reduced during drought years.

Personally, I would have preferred giving up ALL of the water service area outside of our cities boundaries. Granted this may have required us to give up some water rights to accomplish this, but everything is negotiable. Since you said this is a good deal for the City of Folsom, I'm wondering what did Aerojet get in this deal that enabled them to agree to give up water? What would motivate them to give up water without getting anything in return?

You and your colleagues have had numerous private closed session meetings with Mr Payne regarding this issue along with an ability to set meetings with him privately, to review all the details of this very complex agreement. The citizens of Folsom got ONE (1) opportunity to ask questions and make comments at the city council meeting without any benefit of any informational meetings prior to this.

My guess is 99.99% of the residents probably don't have a good understanding of this complex issue and when I don't understand something I ask questions. I've expressed my thanks to the Council and Mr. Payne for each's efforts to try and answer my questions.

I would like to see the council go on record and state any GET water and/or benefits belongs to the residents of the current water district and WILL not be given to S50, sinc ethe GEt water was aquired as a result of the agreement modfiying the existing agreement.

Again, thank you for your comments!

[Redone]

I would prefer our council come out and declare any water we recieve from Aerojets GET facilities is NOT a new source of water and will NOT be used S50. This should be a cocern for all of us.

Robert, you say these statements without saying WHY ? If this is new potable water,like Kerri said, then why would you want it restricted ? If new water is found why can't it be used for S50? ????

[Robert Giacometti]

Robert, you say these statements without saying WHY ? If this is new potable water,like Kerri said, then why would you want it restricted ? If new water is found why can't it be used for S50? ????

If all the predictions of global warming come true and water storage reserviors don't have the levels they currently do our children's and their children's supplies could be drastically reduced. This water would be extremely important for them, so lets NOT give it away now!

There is surface water out there for the landowners S50 to buy and develop their property from other sources.

Let keep all of our water for future generations and let them decide what they want to do with it in the future!

[camay2327]

Yea, maybe build a pipeline from a flood area to Folsom and pump water in...

The United States could have a network of water pipelines all over the US and when water was needed in one place and out of a flood area it could be moved. Yes it would be very expensive..

haha