23 replies to this topic

[ducky]

But if the flow of water out our sewage treatment facility drops the state will make up the difference by increasing flow out the dam. They're trying to achieve a certain flow at the delta. Either thaT comes from our treatment plant or directly out the dam.

-Robert

 

You have a point.  Even though the residents and businesses in Folsom (and a lot of Sacramento) conserved even more this year, the volume of water that left the lake was still more than last year due to higher releases for the Delta.

 

The only way I can think of that the city could ensure access to its full water rights would be to build their own reservoir or underground tanks S50 to store water drawn from the dam during the rainy season (if we ever get one) or create a new source from rainwater collection.

 

The gray water thing they are doing in El Dorado Hills has run into the problem of decreased gray water supply because people are conserving.  They could increase capacity, but that is expensive.

[bordercolliefan]

I thought the New York Times article made our city look very reckless, and the comments I received when I posted it on Facebook seemed to take a similar view. The article makes one imagine news stories 10 years from now, featuring dejected residents standing in front of dry kitchen taps: "Folsom's city leaders made the decision to allow development despite all the warning signs that there wouldn't be enough water to go around..."

Embarrassing to see Folsom painted in this light.

[nomad]

I thought the New York Times article made our city look very reckless, and the comments I received when I posted it on Facebook seemed to take a similar view. The article makes one imagine news stories 10 years from now, featuring dejected residents standing in front of dry kitchen taps: "Folsom's city leaders made the decision to allow development despite all the warning signs that there wouldn't be enough water to go around..."

Embarrassing to see Folsom painted in this light.

 

Wasn't Folsom just voted like 7th best place to live in the country?

[andy]

I thought the New York Times article made our city look very reckless, and the comments I received when I posted it on Facebook seemed to take a similar view. The article makes one imagine news stories 10 years from now, featuring dejected residents standing in front of dry kitchen taps: "Folsom's city leaders made the decision to allow development despite all the warning signs that there wouldn't be enough water to go around..."

Embarrassing to see Folsom painted in this light.

 

I don't have a problem with his comments - he's handling a difficult situation where all the answers are likely bad choices.  Because of our tax structures, if this city doesn't continue to grow it will suffer economically.  Stopping that growth merely allows other areas of the state to use the water he passes on and then prosper at our expense.  South of 50 provides enough growth to help this city for 20-30 more years.

 

I have mixed feelings about the South of 50 project, and I do think the city has manipulated the situation and is too beholden to certain developers, but what he said is right.  The land South of 50 is pretty and I'd like it to never change, but looking at it is about all it's good for - you can't grow stuff on it and other areas where development is discussed in this region have land useful for agriculture, floodplain, and migratory flyways.  If this state is going to locate its growing population someplace, this is probably a better location than most.

[ducky]

 

I don't have a problem with his comments - he's handling a difficult situation where all the answers are likely bad choices.  Because of our tax structures, if this city doesn't continue to grow it will suffer economically.  Stopping that growth merely allows other areas of the state to use the water he passes on and then prosper at our expense.  South of 50 provides enough growth to help this city for 20-30 more years.

 

I have mixed feelings about the South of 50 project, and I do think the city has manipulated the situation and is too beholden to certain developers, but what he said is right.  The land South of 50 is pretty and I'd like it to never change, but looking at it is about all it's good for - you can't grow stuff on it and other areas where development is discussed in this region have land useful for agriculture, floodplain, and migratory flyways.  If this state is going to locate its growing population someplace, this is probably a better location than most.

 

 

I don't have a problem with his comments - he's handling a difficult situation where all the answers are likely bad choices.  Because of our tax structures, if this city doesn't continue to grow it will suffer economically.  Stopping that growth merely allows other areas of the state to use the water he passes on and then prosper at our expense.  South of 50 provides enough growth to help this city for 20-30 more years.

 

I have mixed feelings about the South of 50 project, and I do think the city has manipulated the situation and is too beholden to certain developers, but what he said is right.  The land South of 50 is pretty and I'd like it to never change, but looking at it is about all it's good for - you can't grow stuff on it and other areas where development is discussed in this region have land useful for agriculture, floodplain, and migratory flyways.  If this state is going to locate its growing population someplace, this is probably a better location than most.

 

I have mixed feelings about S50, too, but I think you are ignoring the concern that it seems kind of cavalier to go forward without figuring out the water supply problem.  It's not about how pretty or useful the land is or isn't.

 

I saw a news report where someone from the State Water Resources Board, I believe it was, said they admit they have allocated more water on paper than actually exists because up until now they didn't have an adequate way to track that data.

 

Folsom's problem is unique in that we don't have other sources we can go to in dry years.  I mean, we could spend a lot of money, I suppose, piping back the water we sold to Rancho because they don't have the problem of the lake level dropping below their intake.  Of course, whatever solution becomes necessary in the future will be funded by ALL residents  and not just the new residents South of 50 and certainly not those who have profited from building.

[cw68]

Folsom's problem is unique in that we don't have other sources we can go to in dry years.  I mean, we could spend a lot of money, I suppose, piping back the water we sold to Rancho because they don't have the problem of the lake level dropping below their intake.  Of course, whatever solution becomes necessary in the future will be funded by ALL residents  and not just the new residents South of 50 and certainly not those who have profited from building.

What frustrates me the most is that the developers had agreed to pay for a second water source and the City Council said, "Nevermind that; we'll save you gazillions with a different solution!"

[tony]

What frustrates me the most is that the developers had agreed to pay for a second water source and the City Council said, "Nevermind that; we'll save you gazillions with a different solution!"

...and gave up a great opportunity to diversify our water supply in the process.

[cw68]

...and gave up a great opportunity to diversify our water supply in the process.

Exactly. Show me that the developer's profits is a higher priority than Folsom's safety and protection.

[maestro]

I thought the New York Times article made our city look very reckless, and the comments I received when I posted it on Facebook seemed to take a similar view. The article makes one imagine news stories 10 years from now, featuring dejected residents standing in front of dry kitchen taps: "Folsom's city leaders made the decision to allow development despite all the warning signs that there wouldn't be enough water to go around..."

Embarrassing to see Folsom painted in this light.

 

WATER GUARDIAN AGENCY DID not APPROVE CITY'S EIS:

 

I'd like to remind the world that when the city council approved its "Environmental Impact Statement" for the S of 50 area, it was NOT acceptable to the Bureau of Reclamation which manages our only water source.     Mike Finnegan, USBR CCAO Manager wrote 43 pages about the city's "environmental statement" of 600 pages.        He said the water claims were not valid.    He punctuated his problems with the city by sending his USBR Response to USACE, Army Corps of Engineers, and NOT to the city itself.      The Corps had oversight because of the required US 404 Permits, but USBR has no enforcement powers.

 

What this means is simple:    Reclamation DID NOT accept the water portion of the city council's "EIS" as valid.      If Reclamation had any enforcement powers, they would have asked the city council why city chose to violate Measure W.     Guess federal agents who enforce had better things to do than chase after the council, but we certainly asked them to enforce and stop this train wreck.          The city manager tells us the city has "water rights" --   but the water is NOT THERE.     He can say how great the council is forever, but it won't save lives and provide REAL WATER.   

 

 

SACOG & region neighbors CANNOT STOP CITY:

http://www.sacbee.co...le31525607.html

Sac Bee article Aug. 20, stated Folsom violated the local agreement 2004 Blueprint to restrain sprawl.     Illinois study finds some city is really violating this plan......   guess who.

 

 

DOCUMENTS are public:

If you like it simple, stop reading now you know Reclamation did NOT approve the city council's water claims as correct and real.     If you wish more to chew on, try this.      Many people knew a single owner had all of the FPA land in the S of 50 growth area.       Did you know that suddenly, all at once last year, the single owner sold all his vacant speculative land holdings in three counties -- including all his land in the FPA South of 50, part of Folsom.

 

Both these documents are public record, which I've shared with SACOG.     The FPA  "environmental statement" is huge and online, with all the Responses  from agencies and people who know there's nuts in the city air.        The sale of the parcels composing the FPA South of 50 and parcels in two other counties, which were sold at once to one buyer,  ---  that's all public record.       The one owner sold out all at once.    No one talks about his city land anymore, because he sold it all at once.

 

 

Does anyone on the east coast know about this?     Yup.    They probably don't think it is worth dealing with a state dying of drought, heat, fires, lack of water regulations & enforcement;   especially since they can't stop it, even if their fruit and vegetable baskets disappear.

 

.