Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

Stop The City Council's Theft Of Your Water

water south of 50 council election stop development corruption draught water conservation

  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#1 Phoenix2014

Phoenix2014

    Netizen

  • Registered Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 20 July 2014 - 11:39 AM

I have started this new Forum topic "Stop the City Council'sTheft of Your Water" to focus attention and discussion on stopping the theft.

 

Please do not distract from that goal by discussing general water conservation stories, etc. We all agree that we must conserve.

 

The difference is,

  •  We the residents know we must conserve to protect our limited water supply for those within the current built City limits (North of 50).
  • The City Council's goal is to force us to conserve enough water to claim that our lowered use is the new "norm" so that they can steal the rest and give it to the wealthy land speculators South of 50. 

As I noted under another Forum topic, the Council's goal is not only theft of your water but fails on its basic premise. We are conserving because, due to the drought, that portion of our water dos not exist. Therefore, the Council's premise is that they can use non-existent water to develop south of 50. This is such an obvious failure that no logical debate can be offered. 

 

This is why legal action stands such a strong chance of success. Both federal and state law will be on our side if we challenge the validity of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the grounds that the water source proposed for south of 50 was to come from a truly "new" source out of the Sacramento River.

 

The goal of this new topic is to pull together similar comments from current topics:

• Folsom Water Supply Or Lack Thereof
• Folsom S50 Development Near Final Approval
• 3 City Council Seats Up For Grabs This Fall

And focus the discussion on stopping this illegal theft of our water.
 



#2 Phoenix2014

Phoenix2014

    Netizen

  • Registered Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 20 July 2014 - 11:49 AM

Stop the City Theft of Your Water

Excellent article by Gary Vicini in the Telegraph in February Wednesday. Lays out a fairly accurate account of how the City intends to give our water away to the land speculators south of 50. Question is, why hasn't the paper run a front page article regarding this topic?

Suggested title: City Speaks Out of Both Sides of Their Mouth - Residents told to conserve so City can give away "conserved" water to their politically connected friends.

So, how did the City go from

  • promising to secure a new source of water (not touch our existing supply)
  • to diverting our current water supply instead?

Initial plan – Buy water from holder of Sacramento River rights:

  • Memorandum of Understanding with the County requires a “new” source of water
  • Measure W requires a “new” source of water
  • Environmental Impact Report for the annexed area is based on a water source from the Sacramento River (deal with the Natomas Central Mutual Water Company), which requires the USBR to approve a transfer of the water to Folsom. Hasn't happened and not likely to. There is no mention of any other source, including using our “conserved” water from our existing water supply.
  • EIR also states (based on City document) that this source of water from the Sacramento River can only be reduced by 25% even in times of a "critical drought". Per an article in the Bee a few months back, it could be reduced by 50% or more. So even if this water transfer was approved in the future, it still has the potential of straining our current supply if we had to cover the new development in the next drought.
  • This water supply would require an infrastructure investment of over $700 million + yearly costs of about $12 million to get the water from the Sacramento River at Freeport to Folsom.

 

Current Pan – Ignore the Memorandum of Understanding and Measure W and the Environmental Impact Report AND promises to Folsom residents, and simply divert (steal) our current water supply.

  • Measure W requires a “new” source of water – our “conserved” water is now being called that “new” source by the City. Adding insult to injury, a City document suggests that the money from the sale of our conserved water to the land speculators south of 50, will be given right back to them to offset their cost to build water infrastructure and treatment.
  • LAFCO challenged the City during the hearing for annexation approval, questioning why they should approve annexation without a secure water source. The City stated they intended to use the existing water supply and apparently LAFCO simply capitulated, ignoring both Measure W and their own Memorandum of Understanding.
  • Department of Water Resources (DWR) requires the City to verify the adequacy of our water supply every 5 years. The 2010 report, developed when the City thought they would get the Sacramento River water (in other words, they may not have manipulated it much and it should be accurate) indicates that we need every acre feet we currently have rights to, just making it buy by cutting use by 20% in times of drought. So, how is it that they think that that 20% conservation effort can be used for new development?
  • But none of this is enough for our City Council - Adding insult to injury, it appears that they intend play a shell game by selling your water to a water agency in Rancho Cordova who will then use it for South of 50! Ok, that's the insult part. The injury part? They plan to use the proceeds to give to the land speculators to develop the water infrastructure!

 

Of course, we should always practice water conservation, and now in the midst of a severe drought, we must conserve.

However, we are now required to conserve 20%, and 40% could come along very soon. How much would we have to conserve in a future drought if the City proceeds with their plans to divert (steal) our water, and our water is stretched to the limits even in a good year?

 

If you think the State, LAFCO, DWR, USBR or any other government agency will step in to prevent this unethical, and likely illegal water theft, you are wrong. If the residents do not show that they care, no agency or court will bother. However, if residents challenge the City, I believe the courts and agencies will support us.

 

So, is this Forum for those just waiting for someone else to act or is this a Forum for those who take action?

 

Who enforces CEQA? What role does the Resources Agency have in enforcement of CEQA?

CEQA is a self-executing statute. Public agencies are entrusted with compliance with CEQA and its provisions are enforced, as necessary, by the public through litigation and the threat thereof. While the Resources Agency is charged with the adoption of CEQA Guidelines, and may often assist public agencies in the interpretation of CEQA, it is each public agency's duty to determine what is and is not subject to CEQA. As such, the Resources Agency does not review the facts and exercise of discretion by public agencies in individual situations. In sum, the Agency does not enforce CEQA, nor does it review for compliance with CEQA the many state and local agency actions which are subject to CEQA.



#3 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 20 July 2014 - 12:54 PM

Sorry, I'll try not go off on a tangent into conservation this time, but it is part of how we got where we are with this.  Similarly, my comments below aren't anti-water meter.

 

I'm trying to figure out how we got here.  When water meters were retrofitted in the older neighborhoods, residents were told that the BOR would shut off our water if they didn't meter the whole city because it was a condition for the water contract they had just entered for the East area (This was before Empire Ranch was built out, I believe); that that water was desperately needed or Folsom would have a building moratorium and doom and disaster would ensue.  Now it's being said that water isn't needed and was never used and so it is defined as "new" water that can be used S50.  Did the residents really save that much water or did the city fix enough of the problems in its system that the water contract was never really needed for the East area of existing Folsom?

 

Here is a snippet from a Wednesday, November 7, 2001, Folsom Telegraph article entitled "Council Continues to Grapple with Water Problems:

 

"One of my intentions of this resolution is to make sure the city's current and potential future water sources will go first to the residents of Folsom to take care of our issues, including dry years," said council member Eric King, "prior to sending it anywhere else, including sphere of influence mitigation efforts.  It is an opportunity for this council to set a water policy without ambiguities; to state to residents that the council is committed to not utilize the city's water outside its boundaries.  This is our clear statement to take care of our residents first and not take advantage of them in the future through the installation of water meters."

 

This article was in reference to a resolution the council members were being asked to sign.  I wish I had the front page to this article, but I can't find it at the moment.  It says the council signed the resolution, but I don't remember this well.  EDF maybe you do???  If that is so, then is there something beyond Measure W that says they can't use conserved water for S50?  I know this was something to do with the meter retrofit program and the opposition to having (a) existing residents having to pay for the meters because the city had entered into a contract for more development, and (b) the possibility of having water rates rise as a revenue-generator for the city (also raised in this article by the city attorney who didn't see why they couldn't do that), and © residents N50 having to let landscaping die to save enough water for growth S50.

 

Another article in The Folsom Telegraph on Wednesday, May 5, 2004, is about how the 5,000 acre feet contract almost got cancelled by the PUC.  Here is a quote from that article:

 

"Halting Folsom's water supply could have meant economic disaster, especially the eastern section of the city where development has increased.  The city would have had to issue a development moratorium had PUC cancelled the water contract."

 

"Fish (Bob Fish, a Folsom resident) referenced the city's 1997 Sphere of Influence Study and Master Services Element environmental report that states that metering could stretch the city's water supply for an additional 35 to 40,000 population."

 

    "That's an environmental assessment, pointed out council member Kerri Howell.  'It doesn't claim to be nor has it ever been the policy of this or previous councils to try and do that."

 

I'm not against smart growth.  I am just very concerned about the supply.



#4 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 20 July 2014 - 03:54 PM

Is there any way you can link the Gary Vicini article from February?  I don't remember seeing it.

 

There was a good common sense letter to the editor by a M. Jaeger, M.D.



#5 supermom

supermom

    Supermom

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,225 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 20 July 2014 - 08:50 PM

we need a bumper sticker. 



#6 TruthSeeker

TruthSeeker

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 967 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 07:13 AM

Great posts!

 

Very glad that someone cares enough to bring this information to the public to see what is going on that everyone needs to be made very aware of. 

 

Supermom - great idea! It would be great to have a bumper sticker showing our stance on this - we need a slogan, I think the topic title here is perfect.


Svzr2FS.jpg


#7 camay2327

camay2327

    GO NAVY

  • Moderator
  • 11,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 21 July 2014 - 07:23 AM

I just wish more people could see this.  This needs to get out to the whole community of Folsom. Not

just the people on myfolsom. Get it in the news....


A VETERAN Whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America" for an amount "up to and including their life". That is HONOR, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it. -Author unknown-

#8 SCA

SCA

    Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 203 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 09:56 AM

According to an editorial by Evert Palmer in the Telegraph back in February, the Bureau of Reclamation releases an average of 2.7 million acre-feet of water from Folsom Lake each year.  The same article also says that Folsom has water rights to 34,000 acre-feet of water per year and currently uses about 24,000.  That means in one year we currently use less than 1% of what is released.  If we were using our full 34,000 that would still be less than 2% of what is released.  Is the bigger problem the amount of water being released? 



#9 FolsomEJ

FolsomEJ

    All Star

  • No Politics!
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 July 2014 - 10:02 AM

Yup.  Not mention the fact that MOST of the water we "use" is returned downstream, ready to REUSE again.



#10 mrdavex

mrdavex

    Superstar

  • No Politics!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 794 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 11:50 AM

Yup.  Not mention the fact that MOST of the water we "use" is returned downstream, ready to REUSE again.

 

EJ, I know we have discussed this a few times before, but I will restate my thoughts, based mostly on facts.  Most of the water we use that goes down the drain does get reused downstream.  However, we use a fair amount of water that does not go down the drain and does not make its way back downstream.  Here are some examples of those uses:

 

1. Water lost to evaporation inside the house: Vapor from hot showers, drying dishes, drying clothes, cooking (I have no numbers, but figure these numbers are pretty insignificant).  Unless your AC's condensate line drains to the sewer, which typically only happens in commercial buildings.

2. Outdoor water use.  According to the EPA, 30% of residential water use is outdoors, with 50% of that wasted.  In our hot climate, I'd wager it's a greater percentage.  Using myself as an example,  I only pay $5-$10 for actual water used in winter, but up to $20 in the summer when I run my irrigation system.  And I water pretty efficiently.

3.  Some runoff from over watering or washing your sidewalk may make its way back to the river via our creeks, but a fair amount sill evaporates.

4.  Evaporation from swimming pools and water features.

5.  Plants absorb water, as many of them are 90-95% water.  Excess water is transpired to the air.  You could recover some of their water composition by mulching or composting.

 

Ideally, the water that evaporates would make its way back as rain or Sierra snowfall, but it has seemed to take a detour these last couple of years to the Midwest and East Coast.

 

While we could discuss more, I realize I'm threadjacking, so I will stop here.  But I do wonder if our city's water rights allocations could account for the water that we do return to the river for downstream users.  We do measure the amount of sewage we produce, so maybe we could subtract a reasonable percentage of that from our annual water usage tally.


--
"Let's just hope Comcast doesn't own any tanks."
-Robert X. Cringely

#11 nowtherestofthestory

nowtherestofthestory

    Netizen

  • Registered Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 01:26 PM

SCA,

 

Folsom Lake doesn't belong to the City of Folsom. No matter how much water is in Folsom Lake we are only entitled to X amount. The rest of the water has been committed to other users downstream.

 

In a previous letter to the Telegraph, Mr Palmer indicated that the Council approved a water source for South of 50 that protected the integrity of Measure W. In the letter your referring to he also indicated some state law prohibitive us from using conserved water, but despite repeated requests cant tell us what state law he is referring too. It seems that the Council should be asking the same question, but since they are silent on this matter, it speaks Volumes about their integrity.

 

Most informed people in town don't go around quoting Mr Palmer.

 

Regarding how much water he claims we are using is very deceptive.  As Mr Vicini so accurately pointed out in his letter, the City has long term contracts committing a significant portion of our water rights to commercial users. These commercial users are NOT using nearly as much water as they are entitled too. The City is claiming the water these Commercial users aren't using as available, buts its already been promised. Even Forrest Gump can see the danger in this methodology, but our Council and Mr Palmer, can't or won't.



#12 SCA

SCA

    Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 203 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 05:05 PM

I realize that Folsom Lake doesn't belong to the City of Folsom and that we are only entitled to X amount of water but what happens in drought years? Do the communities that rely on Folsom Lake for water, such as Folsom and Roseville, have priority or do those downstream have priority?

#13 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 22 July 2014 - 06:18 AM

I realize that Folsom Lake doesn't belong to the City of Folsom and that we are only entitled to X amount of water but what happens in drought years? Do the communities that rely on Folsom Lake for water, such as Folsom and Roseville, have priority or do those downstream have priority?

 

We do have pre-1914 water rights which have priority.  One contract is for 22,000 af. and another for 5,000 af.  However, a recent ruling (June 2014) may give the State Water Resources Board the ability to curtail and restrict even those water rights.  Folsom was supposed to find an alternate source for dry years, but I don't think they ever did.

 

There was also a recent article about Aerojet Rocketdyne and Folsom jointly doing something with wells so Aerojet could use groundwater for industrial operations instead of taking the surface water out of the lake in regard to Folsom's water contract with Aerojet.  I mean, less water out of the lake is a good thing, but what did it cost Folsom residents for this joint effort?  Were the wells already located on Aerojet property?  I wish the article provided more info.

 

Added:  I just realized that the article referred to 2 million gallons of water a day Aerojet uses will no longer come from surface water.  There was also the Willow Hills pipeline that supplies Aerojet with their 3 or 4,000 af of water Folsom provides them that was leaking about 1 million gallons per day during the peak summer season.  Does anybody know if this is a separate project or the same project?



#14 Tyto Alba

Tyto Alba

    Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 July 2014 - 01:50 PM

I have started this new Forum topic "Stop the City Council'sTheft of Your Water" to focus attention and discussion on stopping the theft.

 

Please do not distract from that goal by discussing general water conservation stories, etc. We all agree that we must conserve.

 

The difference is,

  •  We the residents know we must conserve to protect our limited water supply for those within the current built City limits (North of 50).
  • The City Council's goal is to force us to conserve enough water to claim that our lowered use is the new "norm" so that they can steal the rest and give it to the wealthy land speculators South of 50. 

As I noted under another Forum topic, the Council's goal is not only theft of your water but fails on its basic premise. We are conserving because, due to the draught, that portion of our water dos not exist. Therefore, the Council's premise is that they can use non-existent water to develop south of 50. This is such an obvious failure that no logical debate can be offered. 

 

This is why legal action stands such a strong chance of success. Both federal and state law will be on our side if we challenge the validity of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the grounds that the water source proposed for south of 50 was to come from a truly "new" source out of the Sacramento River.

 

The goal of this new topic is to pull together similar comments from current topics:

• Folsom Water Supply Or Lack Thereof
• Folsom S50 Development Near Final Approval
• 3 City Council Seats Up For Grabs This Fall

And focus the discussion on stopping this illegal theft of our water.
 

Do you have anything in the works to address the elected city personnel?



#15 maestro

maestro

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 26 July 2014 - 02:53 PM

According to an editorial by Evert Palmer in the Telegraph back in February, the Bureau of Reclamation releases an average of 2.7 million acre-feet of water from Folsom Lake each year.  The same article also says that Folsom has water rights to 34,000 acre-feet of water per year and currently uses about 24,000.  That means in one year we currently use less than 1% of what is released.  If we were using our full 34,000 that would still be less than 2% of what is released.  Is the bigger problem the amount of water being released? 

 

City is full of misstatements, eh?   The city has Pre 1914 Water rights during Multi Year Drought, of HALF that amount.

 

City "rights" are now about 17,000 Acre feet.    But, city rights COULD BE LOWER tomorrow because there might NOT be enough water for the 17,000 AF to matter at all.

Source:   Water Forum Agreement.

 

The last Folsom  Water Management Report to Reclamation  which bears an Engineering Seal was 2005.    The engineer noted the city reached full 34,000 AF usage in at that time and needed to  conserve  IMMEDIATELY.  

 

As for releases, they are at a bare minimum now, to keep the river alive.   When salmon and trout ran, Reclamation refused to accommodate our fish who are food-supply for humans.    In fact, during June, Reclamation made releases which dropped Folsom Reservoir so drastically it went down 6 to 8 feet vertically.    That was not for fish, it was for So Cal/LA.    

I sent them a 4sewerdogs channel video from www.youtube.com 

showing the drop "to combat Delta salinity."    Well, folks that is another way of saying:  sending Folsom water down to So Cal, especially to LA water department.    Clearly we up here were NOT included in protections, because Folsom water disappeared like into a rathole.   That is what the Delta tunnels are all about.

 

If that is not enough, the owner of south of 50 FPA  (Folsom Plan Area) bought Conaway Ranch (largest water rights around), and many Sacramento River rice farms.     But the city gave him free engineering support, which showed the pipelines would cost $1/4 Billion ---   with a B.    So, Jan 2013, our water rights to non-existent water went to enhance the price of FPA land.   The council gave it away in "closed session."   Or is that "secret?"     Worst of all, the Sac river water can be sold to LA MWD.    Two weeks ago one acre foot of water sold in the southland for $1.1 million per acre foot.   Selling that alternate water supply instead of constructing pipes to FPA,  certainly filled someone's pocket?

 

Did you know the city council approved and is spending OUR money to dig two huge water tunnels under highway 50, to send our water to FPA?    They also are spending $3 million to construct two huge tunnels to bring the FPA sewage north, under 50, to enter the jammed-up 27" sewage mainline.  

 

Did you know the city filed a lawsuit, suing the rest of the world, Superior Ct. Sac County  34-2013-00138798, to prevent anyone from suing the city because it violated the terms of Measure W, our water law.    In other words, the city council told the judge:  here's the announcements, the hearings, and the public meetings where we passed our laws giving away water which does not exist.    See, no one can sue us.    Slick as sewage.

 

If you want evidence, read the 2005 Folsom Water Management Plan at www.usbr.gov  or Google that.

Also look at current Budget under Sanitary Sewer spending,   Resolutions 9096, 9097, and of course the Brown & Caldwell Technical Memo to Todd Eisling, stating the FPA will immediately consume at least 20,600 acre feet of water.  (That exceeds the ENTIRE drought water rights of 17,000 AF for Folsom, CA.)     That estimate does not consider how much more dense the FPA land zoning is than north of 50.   

 

Don't forget the East Area water being given over to FPA as well by our council.   The East Area will pay less, because their water is going to FPA.

 

Why is this not in the media?    No agency has spoken the magic words:   "all wrong."    But the Op-Ed pages are full of anger.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: water, south of 50, council election, stop development, corruption, draught, water conservation

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users