HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - EVWD Board of Directors - 05/14/2001 y
•
East Valrey Water District
1155 DEL ROSA AVENUE, SAN BERNARDINO, CA
REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 14, 2001 2:00 P.M.
AGENDA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"In order to comply with legal requirements for posting of agenda, only those items filed with the District
Secretary by 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday prior to the following Monday meeting not requiring departmental
investigation, will be considered by the Board of Directors".
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Public Comments
CONSENT CALENDAR
3. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes for April 23, 2001.
4. Approval of Liens for Delinquent Water and Sewer Accounts,
5. General Fund Disbursements 4 184767 through 4184997 in the amount of$836,176.48 and Payroll
Checks 48770 through 48823 in the amount of$64,656.16, totaling $900,832.64.
OLD BUSINESS
6. Radon Rule Update
7. Resolution 2001.08 — Resolution Establishing Date, Time and Location of Regular Board
Meetings.
8. First Amendment to Property Exchange Agreement between MWD and EVWD for replacement of
EVWD Well #121 with Well 9147.
9. A report from SBVMWD on activities of the Task Force for Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission activity regarding the Re-Licensing Hydropower Generation Plants on Lytle Creek and
Mill Creek.
10. Correspondence from CRESTLINE VILLAGE WATER DISTRICT and JUNIPER RIVIERA
COUNTY WATER DISTRICT on the new Funding for the Independent Special Districts' Share of
LAFCO Costs for Fiscal Year 2001-02.
I
NEW BUSINESS
1 l. Directors' fees and expenses for April 2001.
12. Discussion and possible action regarding rescheduling/canceling the May 28`h Board Meeting due
to the Memorial Day Holiday conflict.
13. Discussion and possible action regarding a proposal from Psomas for the preparation of a Sewer
Master Plan,
14. Memo from Fred Stafford regarding Southern California Edison's re-billing.
REPORTS
15. Investment Report for Quarter ending December 31, 2000.
16 April 26, 2001 —Releases of Lien for Delinquent Water and Sewer- Accounts.
17. Review and outlook from the Wall Street Journal on the Arsenic Rule.
18. General Manager's Report
19, Oral Comments from Board of Directors.
CORRESPONDENCE
20. Letter of appreciation from Dick Heil and Betty Gibbel (Eastern MWD) regarding the District Tour
on April 19°i.
MEETINGS
21. ASBCSD Membership Meeting, May 21, 2001, Chateau Chang, 15425 Anacapa Road, Victorville,
CA.
22. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT of WATER RESOURCES' WATER EDUCATION
COMMITTEE, Spring 2001 Meeting, June 13-14, 2001, Hilton Hotel, San Bernardino, CA
23. SPECIAL DISTRICT FINANCE, A Special District Institute Seminar, .Tune 21-22, 2001, Caesars
Tahoe, South Lake Tahoe.
24. WATER EDUCATION FOUNDATION, "The Bay Delta Tour", June 27-29, 2001, Sacramento,
CA.
25. WATER EDUCATION FOUNDATION, "2001 Update on Water Law & Policy", July 19-20,
2001, Hyatt Regency Islandia Hotel, San Diego, CA.
2
CLOSED SESSION
26. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXTSTING LITIGATION [Government Code
Section 54956.9 (a)]
Name of Case: In the matter of the Petition of San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District and
Western Municipal Water District of Riverside County to Revise Declaration of Full�Ppropriated
Stream-Santa Ana River System, State Water Resources Control Board of the State of California
Reference No. 333 MFC 266.
27. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL— ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b):
One Potential Case
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS
ADJOURN
3
DEL ROSA NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION
c/o U. Lcder, 16104 Rockyriver Lane, Cerritos, CA 90703 Workin$ Together for Success.
NOTES FOR EVWD MEETING OF 5/14/01 -- RE: CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
In January, 2000, EVWD agreed to revise and clarify its Ordinance #355 relating to
backflow prevention devices (BPD's), and to create a Citizen Advisory Committee to advise
the District on it.
We welcomed that development, and matched its spirit of cooperation by suspending our
public effort of opposing the BPD's requirement, and looked forward to participate in a
serious and substantive review of the issue.
For that we formed the following objectives which would help make the revised ordinance: 1. Clear and unambiguous (reasonable protection where a need is clearly demonstrated).
2. Based on clear and unambiguous standards, surveys, and quantified assessments.
3. Be non-discriminatory and fair (same roles for similar situations).
4. Provide for Due Process procedures (notifications, surveys, remedies, appeals, etc.)
5. Comply fully with the controlling State regulations (no contradictions or deviations).
Just recently however, we were surprised and dismayed to find out that EVWD ignored its
own commitment to create a citizen advisory committee, and instead proceeded on its own
in a stealthy and arbitrary process of revising the Ordinance.
We feel bitter and deceived. EVWD proceeded behind our (and the community's) backs,
effectively keeping us at bay and in the dark, while all along we believed the revision
process was still on-going, and waited patiently for the Citizen Advisory Committee on
BPD's to be convened, and for our opportunity to participate and present our point of view.
Such practice has no place in a democratic society - forming policies in smoke-filled-room
is not acceptable in the USA of the 21st century. And surely it is not the way a public-
serving agency like EVWD should act vis-a-vis the community and customers it serves.
We protest that unilateral action in the strongest terms, and request that the EVWD Board of
Directors take the necessary steps to rectify it by convening the Citizen Advisory
Committee as promised, and engaging in serious and substantive discussion of the
BPD's issues.
Sadly, a cursory review shows the new revision achieved none of the objectives listed above.
We request and expect that this document will be included in the records of this meeting, be
referred to in the minutes of this meeting, and be attached to said minutes.
May 14, 2001
VTo: The EVWD Board of Directors and Managers.
From: Demetrios Vassilakos
Subject: Appeal to the Board to redo the Backflow Prevention ordinance revision in the proper way.
On January 24, 2000, you announced a decision to appoint an ad-hoc citizens advisory committee to study,
research, and advise you on updating the Backflow Prevention Requirements and associated program. On the
same day you appointed me as a member of that committee.
On April 12, 2000, I received a call from the Board's Administrative Assistant Ms. Mary Wallace to attend a
meeting at the EVWD board room on the next day.
On April 13, 2000, I attended the meeting. After a discussion of some BPD appearance and safety concerns
brought about by a representative of the city of Highland, I presented a paper titled "GUIDELINES FOR
REVISING THE EVWD ORDINANCES" in the areas related to BPD's.
I emphasized in that presentation that we should not discriminate against any class of people, such as rich or
~oOOr, homeowners or renters. I concluded my presentation by stating the objective of revising the EVWD
rdinances so that they are up to date and fair to all water consumers. The revisions should be consistent with
the latest experience data and effective towards producing the highest water quality.
The rest of the meeting that day addressed costs and pricing issues related to water and sewer services.
After that day I called several times inquiring about meetings related to the backflow related program. Every
time I was told that every body was busy with higher priority ( than BP) work.
In February 2001 my wife and I noticed the EVWD Notice of Public Hearing but it appeared to both of us that
it was about fees and charges for water and sewer services; the "baelfllow" program was never mentioned.
Then, a week ago we heard that the EVWD had published a backflow regulation revised ordinance.
I am puzzled, dismayed, and unable to understand why you did the BPD ordinance revision in such a stealthy
way. I appeal to you to reconsider and redo the backflow ordinance revision by convening the ad-hoc
committee as you promised on 01/24/00 and getting a recommendations report from them. Any Public
Hearing Notices should be explicit asking for comments on the backflow prevention program requirements,
Thank you.
Sincerely,
~'Demetrios Vassilakos.
Fast Water District, o9,88. ot
~31LL FOR
"Providing Quality Water and Wastewater Service for Over 40 Years" SERWCE AT:
DATE
BILLED
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
BILLING
PERIOD FROM
BILLING
PERIOD TO
CURRENTREAD
PREVIOUS READ
USAGE
TO AVOID A PENALTY
PAY BY: TOTAL ~1~ METER SIZE
Please keep top podion for your records
Prease return bottom portion with your payment
PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE
DUE DATE ARE SUBJECT TO A LATE
SERVICE ADDRESS FEE OF 1.5% ON THE UNPAID BALANCE.
See reverse side for important information.
Please make checks payable to:
East Valley Water District
P O Box 3427
San Bernardino, CA 92413-3427
] Mark this box with an "X"
to indicate change of mailinq
address only. Indicate new
mailing address on reverse side.
Ea , t V l ey Water District
This bill is now past d[,e and payable! If payment is not received
in our office by the spot:bed date, your service is subject to termination.
Charges will ~e .... ~,-,-, for
as.~.,~,~6u sf ut-'.)ll and reconnection services required
because of non-pacmeui All delinquent .charges must be paid before
service can be restcred
Disputed bills must be reported to the billing department within five (5) days
of receipt of the bill.
'The only authorized p8Lyment center is the Fast Valley Water District office
located at 1155 Del Rosa Avenue, San Bernardino, California.
~lf you have any questions regarding your account, please contact the
District office at (909) 889 9501 between 8:00AM and 5:00PM Monday
through Friday exclLK. Jiflg holidays.
Board meetings are held at 5:30PM on th(; second and fourth Mondays
,of each month at the District office, The meetings are open to the
public.
THIS NOTICE DQES NOT STOl:' DISCONNECTION ACTIVITY FROM A PRIOR UNPAID BILL!
Please write the account nut ff~.¢~l ,an your check and return this portion with your payment.
East Va ey Water District go 1155 Del RosaAv8nue · San S8rnardino, Dalifornia g2410-412388~_~501
"Providing Quality Water and Wastewater Service for Over 40 Years" PAST DUE NOTICE
FOR SERVICE AT:
DATE
ACCOUNT NUMBER
YOUR PAYMENT MUST BE RECEIVED BY CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON: I DUE NOW
URGENT DELINQUENT NOTICE! PLEASE ACT
IMMEDIATELY!
As of we have not received payment for your utility bill.
If payment is not received in our office by the date shown above, your service is subject to termination. If your service i" '4is-
connected, it will be restored only after the past due amount, an additional deposit as required by District ordinance, ~a
$45.00 lock fee are paid. If you contend termination of service is for reasons other than non-payment of valid charges, ~
diately contact the District office at (909) 889-9501.
THIS NOTICE DOES NOT STOP DISCONNECTION ACTIVITY ON A PRIOR UNPAID BILL !
Keep this portion for your records
Return this stub with your payment
DELINQUENT To,*.,OWD, E
DATE
ACCOUNT NUMBER ~1~
SERVICE ADDRESS:
See reverse side for important information.
Please make checks payable to:
East Valley Water District
P O Box 3427
San Bernardino, CA 92413-3427
RESOLUTION NO. 2001.08
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
ESTABLISHING DATE, TIME, AND LOCATION
OF ITS REGULAR MEETINGS
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the East Valley Water District finds as follows:
A. The East Valley Water District ("the District") is a county water district organized and
operating pursuant to California Water Code Section 30000 et seq.
B. The District is governed by an elected Board of Directors ("the Board") whose
meetings are subject to the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Government Code
Section 54950 et seq. ("the Brown Act").
C. The Board is authorized by Government Code Section 54953.7 to impose
requirements upon itself which allow greater access to its meetings than prescribed by the Brown Act.
D. The purpose of this resolution is to clarify and supplement the Brown Act and to
ensure that the Board's deliberations and the District's operations are open to the public to the full
extent permitted by law.
THEREFORE, TH~ BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the East Valley Water District does
hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. Regular Meetings. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954(a), all
regular meetings of the Board shall be held on the second and fourth ~oada~s ofeach month at the
District offices located at 1155 Del Rosa Avenue, San Bernardino, California. All such regular
meetings oftbe Board shall generally commence at Og ,'t~r9 ~_...m.
Section2. SpecialMeetings. Special meetings of the Board shall be called and conducted
in accordance with Government Code Section 54956.
Adopted this 14~ day of May, 2001.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Glenn R. Lightfoot, President
Board of Directors
ATTEST:
Robert E. Martin, Secretary
Board of Directors
2
IN TI IE UNITI~I) STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
Nu. 98-101 1.
Filed: April 3(I, 2001
TULARE LAKE BASIN WATER Fil'th Amendment Taking: .lust
STORAGE DISTRICT, Erl' Al.., Compensation- Actions of the
National Marine Fisheries Service and
?laintil'f, the United States Fish and~Wildlife
Service pursuant to the Endangered
v. Species Act imposing restrictions on
plaintiffs' contractual rights to the use
TI IE UNITI~[) STATF. S, ol'water are equivalent to a physical
invasion of property for which
Dellzndant. compensation is owed under the Fil'th
Amendment.
Roger J. Marznlla, Nancie G. Mm'znlla, and Andrew R. Stephens, Marzulla
& Marzulla, Washingtrm, D.C., counsel fur plaintil'i's.'
Dc__e32~ ty £ hieF.lames $. Bro( kshlre, Gene 'al Lit gat~on Section, Enviromnent
ami Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.,
dcl'endaot. Sam Rauc~, Wildlife Section, Environment aud Natural Resources
Division, Department o[ Justice, Washington, D.C., Dana Jacobsen, OflSce of the
Solicitor, Deparlmeut of Interior, Sacramento, Calilbrnia, and Dawn R. Andrews,
OllSce of General Counsel, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Department ot'Commerce, Eong Beach, Calilbrnia, o[counsel."
' Bi'ielk of,'Dnici C't,'i~te in support o[plmntifl's' position were filed ['or State
Water Contractors by Daniel J. O llmlon, Beveritlge & Diamond LL[~, San
Francisco, Calil~rnia and l~r Pacific I.egal Foundation by James S. Btu'lmm, Robin '.,
l,~Rivett, and David E. Haddock, Sacramento, Calitbruia.
'* Brie~ ofAmici Cztritte in support o['del~ndaut's position were filed for the
Natural lleritage Institute; National Wildlilk Federation; the Sierra Club; Del~nders
of Wildlilk; the Phmning and Conservalion I.eague; Calitbrnia Trout; and Water
Watch ol'Oregon by ~A. Thomas, Natural [ leritage Institute, San Francisco,
Calilkm~ia, and Tara E. Mucller, 15~virunmcntal Laxv Foundation, Oakland,
Calilbrnia. Of counsel on the briclg were I'rolkssors Peter B~rn~, Georgetown
University l~aw Center; .Ioseph Sa~, University ol'Calilkmfia at Berkeley, School of
Law; Brian Gray, l lastings College ol'lhc ].aw; } lal-risoll P. Dtmning, University of
Calitbrnia at Davis, gchool of Law; Antoniu Rossman, University o1' Calilbmia at
Berkeley, School of l~aw; aud .lohn D. l!c!mvcrr~2, [h~vironmental l~olicy Project,
Georgetown University Law Center.
OPINION
WiESE, Judge.
PlaintilTs are Calilbmia water users who claim that their contractually-
conferred right to the use o fwater was taken fi-om them when tile federal government
imposed water use restrictions undcr thc Endangered Species Act. They now seek
Fifth Amendment compensation for their alleged loss. The case is before the cottrt
on the parties' cross-molions for snmmaryjudgment as to liability. The issues have
been fi~lly briefed, and oral argument was heard oil March 20,2001. We now rule in
lhvor ofplaintiflk, aad deny the government's cross-motion Ibr summary judgment.
FACTS
This case concerns the delta smelt a~td the winter-run chinook sahnon--two
species of fisl~ determined by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
("USFWS") and the National Marine Fisheries Smwice ("NMFS") to be in jeopardy
of extinction. The eftbrts by those agencies to protect the fish - specifically by
restricting water out-llows in California's primary water distribution system -- bring
together, and argoably rote conllict, tile Endangered Species Act aod Calitbrnia's
century-old regime of private water rights. The intersection of those concerns, and
the proper balance between them, lie at tile heart of this litigation.
Tim development o fCalil'ornia's water system has a loog and detailed history
well chronicled in case law. See, e.g:, United States v. State Water Resources
CQgtro! B(k, 182 Cat. App. 3d 82 (1986). That system, in brief; involves the
transport of water l'rom the water rich areas in northern Calitbrnia to the more arid
parts of the state. Various water projects or aqneduct systems have been built to
facilitate that goal; two -- the Central Valley Project ("CVP") and the State Water
Project ("SWP")-- are the Ibcus of the present litigation.
Although CVP is a federal project mare?ged by the Bureau of Reclamation
("BOll") and SWP is a state pr~iect managed by the Department of Water Resources
('q3WR"), tile two projects share ti coordiaated, pumping system that requires, as a
practical matter, that tile systems be operated in concert. That arrangement has been
formalized both by statute and by subsequent agreement.~ In order to operate the two
projects, water is diverted from the Feather and Sacramento Rivers, captured by
pumping systems located at the southern edge of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,
and then distributed, through a series of canals, to end-users in southern California.
Water that is not diverted from the Delta flows into the San Francisco Bay.
Both BOR and DWR are granted water permits by the State Water Resources
Control Board ("SWRCB" or "the Board") -- a state agency with the ultimate
authority for controlling, appropriating, using and distributing state waters. See
C. alifbrnia v. United States, 438 U.S. 645 (1978). BOR and DWR in turn contract
with~w,~i~c~conferring on them the right to withdraw or use
presc~ntiti~s o~at~r. Of the present plaintiffs, two -- Tulare Lake Basin
Water Storage District and Kern County Water Agency --- have contracts directly
with the State Water Project, and three-- Hansen Ranches, Lost Hills Water District,
,~-~nd Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Wate~istrict- have subsidiary contracts
with Tulare and Kern County. Under its contract with DWR, Kern County's
allotment of entitlement water was set at 1,153,400 acre-feet per year during the
period in question (1992-1994), while Tulare's allocation was 118,500 acre-feet.
By law, the water projects are required to be financially self-sustaining, with
the costs of construction and maintenance to be paid entirely by those who ultimately
receive the water. The water contractors are thus obligated to pay to maintain the
operation of the system regardless of the amonnt of water actually received. Because
the amount of water available to water users in a particular year is largely a function
of natural causes, however, the permits explicitly provide that the state will not be
held liable for shortages dne to drought or other causes beyond its control.
Against this backdrop of water transportation and entitlements, Congress
passed the Endangered Species Act in 1973. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544 (1994)
("ESA"). That act was designed to "halt and reverse the trend toward species
extinction, whatever the cost." Tennessee Valle',' Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 184
(1978). Under the ESA, federal agencies are required to consult with the Secretary
of the Interior or Commeme to "insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried
out by such agency.., is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
endangered species or threatened species .... "16 U,S.C. § 1536(a)(2) (1994).
In fulfillment of the duties assigned to it under the ESA, the National Marine
Fisheries Service initiated discussions with the federal Bureau of Reclamation and
~ See Act of Oct. 27, 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-546, 100 Stat. 3050; Agreement
between the United States of America and the State of California for Coordinated
Operation of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project (November 24,
1986).
3
state Department of Water Resources to determine tile impact of the Central Valley
Prc~ject and the State Water Project on the winter-tort chinook sahnon. As a result
of those discnssions, the NMFS issued a biological opinion on February 14, [992,
concluding that the proposed operation o['SWP and CVP was likely to jeopardi:ze the
continued existence of the salmon popnlation. Included in the agency's findings was
a reasonable and prmlent alternative ("RI)A"}~ designed to protect the fish by
restricting the time and manner ofpumpi~g water ont ol'the Delta. As a resolt~ ~vater
that wonld ofl~erwise have been available lbr distribntion by the waler projects was
made nnawlilable.
The process was repeated the IBIIowing year, wilh the issuance of a second
biological opinion by NMFS, again finding tile winter-mn chinook salmon to be in
jeopardy. The U.S. Fish and Wilcllil~e Service then issned its own biological opinioo
- tiffs one identil'ying tile delta smelt to lie at risk. Following each of these later'-
issued opinions, RPAs were adopted that again restricted the time and manner in
which water could be pnulped fi-mil the Delta, thereby limiting t~)e water otherw!se
available to the water distribution systems.
On March 19, 1992, the State Water Resources Control Board addressed the
NMFS's first biological opinion. Recognizing that tile Bnreau o[ Reclamation and
the Department ot' Water Resonrces could not comply with tile RPA and still ~heet
the salinity requirements (i~e., water quality standards)~ imposed on them by theh'
pemnts lrom the State Water Resources Coatrol Board, the Board concluded that the'~
federal requirements under the ESA overrode the terms set l'ortlr in the permits. J
Citing its anthority "under Water Code Sections 100 and 275j under its resei~0'~d
jurisdiction in tile permits and licenses of the USBR [Bureau ot' Reclalnation]?nd
DWR, and under its continuing anthority pursuant to the public trust doctrine anti the
reasonableness doctrine, to take action in response to the prevailing drought
2 Where the activities ol'a I'ederal agency are seen to jeopardize the continued
existence of lisled species or cause the destruct ion or adverse modification o[critical
habitats, the Endangered Species Act directs tile Secretm3~ to suggest"reasonable and
prndent alternatives" to avoid snch harms. 16 [J.S.C. § 1536 (b)(3)(A)(1994).
3 The salinity reqnirements, the product o1' eleven mouths of evidcntiary
hearings bel'ore the State Water Resourccs Control Board, were adopted in 1978 and
are set lbrth in the Board's "Water Quality Control Phm Ibr the Sacramento-San
Joaqnin Delta and Snisun Marsh" and in its "Water P, ight Decision 1485." ("D~
1485.") Together, these two documents established new water quality standards for
salinity control and tbr protection oi' Iisi) and wildli['e ill the Delta, and modilqed
earlier permits held by the Bureau of Reclamation and tile Department of Water
Resom'ces, that required those agencies to adhere to tile water qnality standards set
Ibrth in tile clnabty control plan.
conditions and tile NMFS Reasonable and Prndent Alternative,''a the Board waived
the salinity standards to which the prqiecls were subject.
The RPAs were rims implemented in each of the years in questioa, giving rise
to the present claims. According to plaintil'lk, the restrictions imposed by tile RPAs
deprived Tulare Lake Basin WSD of at least 9,770 acre-Feet of water in 1992; at least
26,000 acre~lket of water m 1993, and at least 23,050 acre-feet of water ia 1994.
Kern County Water Agency, by contrast, is alleged to have lost a minimum oF
319,420 acre-feet over that same period.
4 The referenced sections of the Calil'm-nia Water Code, Section I00 and
Section 275, read respeclively as Follows:
/t is hereby declared Ihat because o1' the conditions
prevailing in this State the general wellhre reqnires
that thc water resources o[: the State be pul to
beneficial use to the l'allest extent of which they are
capable, and that the wasle or unreasonable use or
unreasonable method of use oF water be prevealed,
and that the conservalion of such water is to be
exercised with a view to Ihe reasonable and beneficial
use thereof in the interest ol'the people and for the
public welfilre. The right Io water or to the use or
flow of water in or ['rolll any natural stream or
wal:?rcourse in this Slate is and shall be limited to
such water as shall be reasonably required For the
~ ' .. beneficial use to be served, and such right does not
and shall not extend to the waste or unreasonable use
or u. nreasonable method of use or unreasonable
method ol'diversion of water.
Cal. Waler Code § 100 (Deering 1977).
The department and board shall take all appropriate
proceedings or actions before executive, legislative, or
judicial agencies .to preveat waste, unreasonable rise,
unreasonable method ol'nse, or unreasonable method
of diversion of water in tiffs state.
Cal. Water Code § 275 (l)eering 1977).
5
DISCUSSION
The Filth Amendment to tile United Slates Constitution concludes with the
phrase: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without jnst
compensation." The purpose of that claose -- as the oft-quoted language from
Amlstrong v. l. Jnited States., 364 U.S. 40, 49 (1960) explains -- is "to bar
Govemmem fi'om ['orcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all
fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole." At issoe, then, is not
whether the {'ederal government has the authority to protect the winter-ron chinook
salmon and delta smelt under the Endangered. Species Act, but whether it may
impose the costs uftheir protection solely oa plaintiffs.
In arguiug against the existence ora taking, file government offers three lines
of defense. First, defcndant maintains that the implementation of the RPAs merely
fi-ustrated the contract's purpose and, under Omlfia Commercial Co. v. United Statea,
261 U.S. 502 (1923), did not therefore effectuate a takiug. Second, it argues that the
criteria for a regulatory taking -- specifically the existence of reasonable,
investtwent-backed expectations and ora significant decrease in economic value --
have not,bden inet. Finally, defendant contends that the federal government cannot
be held liable for a taking when it does no more than impose a limit on plaintiff's' title
that the backg.round principles of state law would otherwise require. We address
these arguments ia turn.
1.
Defendaat argues that Omnia stands for the proposition that the governmenl
may not be held liable for lawful ac{ions that, though they may injure or destroy
contract rights, do not take then{ as that phrase is understood ia tile constitutional
sense. No taking occurs, defendant maiutains, when "expectations under a contract
are merely fl-ustraled b.y lawful government action not directed against tile takings
claimant." 767 Third Avertue Assoc,.s.v. Unified States, 48 F.3d 1575, 1581 (Fed. Cii.
1995). In defendant's view, th,~ limitations imposed by the RPAs represent a
legitimate exercise of federal auth'ority flint does no more than fi-ustrate, rather than
appropriate, plaintiffs' rights in water.
At issue in Omnia was a contract between Omaia and tile Allegheny Steel
Company that allowed Omnia to purchase large quantities of steel plate at a below-
market price. Whea tile government requisitioned tile steel company's entire
production of steel plate lyf the year, Onmia sued, alleging a taking of its right of
priority to the steel plate. The Supreme Court denied Omaia's cia hn, concluding that
the contract had merely been ended raflmr than appropriated.
In reaching its decision, the Omnia Court noted that the Fifth Amendment
"has always been 'q, nderstood as referring only to a direct appropriation, and not to
consequential i~juries resulting l,rom the exercise ol'law ful power." 261 U.S. at 510
(citation omitted). The Court went on to caulion against confi~sing the contract, i.e.,
an obligation to peri,otto, with the su[~ject malter of the contract, i~.%, steel:
The essence of evm3, executory contract is Ihe obligation
which the law imposes upon the parties to perform it ....
Plainly, here there was no acquisilion of' the obligation or
the right to enforce it. ll` Ihe steel ~ompany had failed to
comply with the reqnisition, what would have beea the
remedy? Not enlk~rcement o1' the comract but enforcement
of,the statute. Il'the government had l`ailed to pay lbr what
it got what would have been the right of the Steel Cnmpany?
Nol to the price fixed by Ihe coutract but to the just
compensation guaranteed by the Conslilution.
Id. at 510-511.
In defendant's view, the requisition of water in the instant case is directly
analogous to the requisition of steel in Omnia. Like Allegheny Steel, DWR
contracted to provide a l,uture product whose delivm3, was made impossible by the
government's lawful action. That action, del'endant maiutaias, served merely to
frustrate the contract rather than to appropriate it, since the government neither
substituted itself, as a contracting party nor assumed any oI' the rights or
responsibilities under the contract.
Contrary to the government's'assertion, however, we do not believe Omnia
governs the present case. Omnia's distinction between a contract that has been
appropriated and one that has merely been fi-ustrated is relevant only where the
contract right that is claimed remains separate and distinct fi'om the property that is
the subject of Ihe'contract. Put difl`erently, O~mnia addresses those situations in
which a litigant claims a contract right with regard to the property (e.g., the right Io
buy it at a certain price) bnt cannot claim ownership of the property, since title to the
property has not yet passed to the party seeking cmnpeasation. See Cuban Truck and
Equip. Co. v. United States, 333 F.2d 873,882 n. 18 (Ct. Cl. 1964) (citing Omnia in
snppo~t of the proposition that "[i]l`title had aot passed to plaintil,l,, its claim would
merely be for frustration of its contract . . . not for a taking or seizure of its
property."). Underfhose circumstaaces, the contract holder can recover only if the
government has actually appropriated the contract itsell; i.e., stepped into the shoes
of the contracting party and assumed the rights and responsibilities under the
contract. But that is not our case.
7
Unlike the situation ill Omnia, where the plaintiff'could claim only a contract
expectancy but not an ownership right in tile steel, our plaintiffs can claim an
identifiable interest in a stipulated volume ol'water. While under California law the
title to water always renrains with tile states, the right to tile water's use is transferred
first by permit to DWR, and then by contract to end-users, such as the plaintil'[k.6
Those contracts cooler on plaintifl's a right to tile exclusive use of prescribed
quantities of water, consistent with tile terms of the permits. That right remains in
place until tbrtnally changed by administrative process. Thus, we see plaintil'l-s'
contract rights in the water's ase as superior to all competing interests. It is a
property interest sufficiently matured to take it o~!~ ol'lhe reahn of an Onmia analysis.
II.
Turning then to the merits ul'plamlil'l's' claim, we begin by dctermming tile
nature of the laking alleged. Courts have Iraditionally divided their analysis o1' Fillh
Amendmeut takings inlo two categories: pl~ysical takings and regulatory takings. A
physical taking occurs when Ihe government's action amounts Io a physical
occupation or invasion of the property, including the Ikmctional equivaletlt of a
"practical ouster of [the owner's] possession.'' Transportatiou Co. v. Chicago, 99
U.S. 635,642 (1878); Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Co~, 458 U.S.
419 (1982). When an owner has snffered a physical invasion oFhis property, conrts
have noted thai "no matter how minute the intrusion, and no matter how weighty the
public purpose behind it, we have required compensation." Lucas v. South Carolina
Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1015 (1992).
A regulatory taking, in contrasl, arises when the government's regulation
restricts the use to which an owner t~my put his property. In assessing whether a
regulatory taking has occurred, courts generally employ the balancing test set Forth
5 Cal. Water Code § 1 I)2 provides: "All water Within the State is tlie property
of the people of the State, but the right to the use of water may be acquired by
appropriation in the manner provided by law." Cal. Water Code ~ 102 (Deering
1977).
~ We accepl Ihat plaintifl~' colllracls are derivative oflhe permit issued lo
DWR, and that the l~ermit has not yet matured inlo a license. (A permit eslablishes
a conditional priority of usage; a license, in contrast, is a confirmed approprialive
right.) We fi~rlher acknowledge that plaintil'l~ possess rights not as direct
appropriators of water, but as pm'lies Io a conlract wilh an entily -- DWR ~
entilled to appropriate water. Those nbscrvalions, however, do nnt change cur
conclusion that plainti ~Fs' right to the nxe ol'wnter is a compensable contractual right
outside lhe pm'view of Omnia.
iu Penn Cemral, weighing the character of tile government action, tile economic
impact of that action and the reasouableness of the property owner's investment-
backed expectations. Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York, 438 U.S. 104, 124-125
(1978). Regulations that am lbund to be Ioo reslrictive, however--i.e., Ihose that
deprive property of ils entire ecouomically beneficial or productive use -- are
commonly identified as categorical takings and, like physical takings, require Ilo such
balancing. _Lucas, 505 U.S. at 1015-1016.
Plaintiffs re'ge us to cousider this acliou as a case involving a physical taking
of property. Under that theory, plaintifl~ possesse~d coutract righls entilling them to
the use ora specified quantity of water. By preventing them fron~ using that water,
plaintiffs argue, the governmeut deprived them of thc entire value of their conlract
right.
Defendant sees the case difl'creutly, lu defendant's view, the court must
examiue tile government's condnct under lhe three-part lesl that Penn Central
prescribes fox' the evalualion of regulatm~j action that interferes with an owner's use
of his property. Under that rubric, defendant contends, the claim must ['ail because
plaintiflk' reasonable contract expeclations were necessarily limiled by regulatory
concern over fish and wildlife; and because the economic loss asserted here -- a
fraction ofthe lnaster contract's overall value --- was de minimis.
Of the two positious, plaintiff's', we believe, is tile correct one. Case law
reveals that tile distinction between a physical invasion and a governmeutal activity
that merely impairs the use of that property tm'ns on whether the intrusion is "so
immediate and direct as to snbtract fi'oln the owner's full enjoyment of the property
2¢n.d to limit his exploitation of it." United States v. Causbv, 328 U.S. 256, 265
(4 946). {u Caosby, for instance, the Court ruled that fl-equent flights imnrediately
above a landowner's prope~y constituted a tal<ing, comparing such actions to a more
traditional physical taking: "Ih by reason of the fi-equency and altitude of the flights,
respondents coukl not use this land for any purpose, their loss would be complete.
It would be as complele as if the United States had eutered upon the surface of the
land nad laken exclusive possession of il." Id. at 261 (IBotnote omitted).
While water rights present an admittedly unusoal situatiou, we think the
· Causbx example is an instructive one. In the coutext of water rights, a mere
restriction oo use -- the halhnark ofa regulalm~ action -- completely eviscerales
tile right itself siuce plaintiffs' sole entitlement is to the rise of the water. See Eddy
v. Simpson, 3 Cal. 249, 252-253 (1853) ("tile right of properly in water is
usufructuary, aud consists not so much of tile fluid itself as the advautage of ils
use."). Unlike other species of property where use restrictions may limit some, but
not all of tile incidents of ownership, tile denial o1' a right to lhe nsc of water
accomplishes a complete exliuction o fall valoe. Thos, by limiting plninlil'l~' ability
9
to ose an alnou!lt ol'water to wl~ch they would.~crwise be entitled, thc government
has essentially sobstituted ilselgas the benefiu~at~ o['the contract rights with regard
to that water aad totally displaced the contract holder. That complete occupation of
property ~ an exclusive possess ~ 1 of ~la ~t tis ;;ale -use ~gb s for preservation
o[the fish ~ mirrors the invasion presen~ m Causby~ To the extent, then, lhal the
[~ederal government, by prcventifig plaintil'l~ fi'om using the water to which Ibey
would otherwise have been eatitled, have rendered the nsnflxtcluary right to that
water valueless, they have thus effected a physical laking.
Our characterization o1' water rights as lhe so,jeer of a physical taking is
con finned by International Paper C~. v~nited Statcs, 282 U.S. 399 ( 193 I). There,
the Supreme Court, in assessing whether lhe ~overnment s acqnisition o1' a
corporation's entire right to water power constiluled a taking, noted that "the
petitioner's right was to the use ol'water; and when all the water Ibat it used was
withdrawn From the petitioner's mill and lurncd elsewhere by government reqnisition
lbr the production o[power it is hard lo see what more the Government could do to
lake thal use." lt~. at 407. Similarly, in Du~Rank, 372 U.S. 609,625 (1963), the
Court made approving reference to cases that trealed water rights as the objecl o[
physical seizure (~ Umted Sta3es v. Gerlach L~ve Stock Co. 339 U.S. 725 ( 1950);
Ivanhoe Irtigatio ~ Dist. v. McCracken, 357 U.S. 275 (1958)), be[o 'e rating that 'la]
seizure o[water rights need not necessarily be a physical invasion of land. It may
occur upstream, as here. Interference wifla or Partial taking o[ water rights in the
manner it was accomplished here might be analogized to interfkrence or parlial
taking o[ air space over land." The Com'~ went on to conclude thai "when the
Govermnent acted here 'with the purpose and e[l~ct ol' st bord' mti~ g the
responde ~ts water ~ghts to the P o. eot s uses wheneve t saw fi, 'with the result
off depriving the owner of its profitable nsc [there was] the imposition of such a
servitude lasI woukl constitule an approprialion o[property Ik)r which compensation
shoold be made.'" I~. (alteration in original) (citalion omitted).
Del~ndant attempts to distinguish Ihesc cases on the gronnd that each
involved actual diversions of water by the government [Br its own consumptive use,
wherehs here, it is claimed, the government has merely regulated the plaintiffs'
meOm~l 0(diverting water. Additionally, dc[~ndant argues that the govermnent could
not ~.law have physically appropriated pi fintifl~ property right since Cali[kmfia
does not 'rdct~gnize a right to appropriate water Ik)r in-stream uses (citing Fullerton v.
State Water R6sources Control Bd., 90 Cal. App. 3d 590 ( 1979)).~ But as del~ndant
* Fullertm!, we believe, is inapposite. At issue in Fullerton was an attempt by
tbe state Department ot' Fish and Game Io oblain a pemlil for an "in-streml~"
appropriation ol'water to provide minimum l]ow guarantees lbr proteclion olqbe fish.
Theqrt!llet-ton Court upheld the SWRCB's denial o[ the pemfit, reasoning that the
(contimted...)
~0
readily admits, Ihe ultimate result of those rate and timing restrictions on pumping
is an aggregate decrease in the water available to tile water prt2jects. Under those
circumstances, whether the govermnent decreased tile water to which plaintiffs had
access by means of a dam or by means of pumping restrictions amounts to a
distiaction without a difl'erence.
Ill.
1 laving concluded that a deprivalion o[',,x~ater amounts to a physical tal,:ing,
we turn now to the question of whether plaintiffs itl fact owned tile property for
which they seek to be compensated. See Palm Beach [sles Assocs. v. United State~,
231 F.3d 1354, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (del]ning the inquiry in a physical takings case
as whether the plaintiff owned the properly at tile tinre o['lhe lakmg). Defendant
argues that both the terms of plaintiffs' contracts and the background principles of
stgte law impose limits on plaintiffs' titles that render their loss of water non-
compensable. That is tile case m the first inslance, defendant conlends, because
plaintiJTfs' contracts entitle them only to tile watcr made available to the Department
of WaterResources. As the water --- through no fault of DWP, -- was not made
available to DWR, plaintiffs have no claim to the foregone flow. Additionally,
defendant ~rgues that plaintilTs' contract rights are suhject to the public trust doctrine,
the doctrine of l:easonable use, and common law principles of nuisance, all of which
provide lot' the protection of fish and wildlife. To the extent that the reductions m
the water supply that plaintiffs suffered are designed to advance those .interests,
defendant argues, the redoctions merely reflect the limitations of title inherent in the
background principles ofstate law. And, detkmdant adds, no right to compensation
altends the assertion of such background principles.
7(...continued)
presetwation of tile fish was but a single factor to be weighed by tile Board in
protecting the public trast, and that tile reservation of water under such a pemrit
would compromise the Board's balancing function, as it rendered the appropriated
water unavailable for other yet unl;areseen ami overriding uses. It was in this context
that the cotu~t concluded that a physical diversion or use was necessary to constitute
an appropriation for the pm'poses ofqoalil'ying {¥r an appropriative permit. 90 Cal.
App.3d at 603. That doctrine, however, has no application where, as here, the
government has not applied for a permit to appropriate water for the fish's protection,
but has instead effectuated a taking of appropriated water for that purpose.
II
i. Contract Language as a Limitation on Title
Under tile ter~'ns of the water supply contracts, neither the state nor its agenls
may be held liable For "any damage, direct or indirect, arising I¥om shortages ia the
amount of water to be made available Ibr delivery to the Agency under this conh'act
caused by drought, operation o Farea o forigin statutes, or any other cause beyond its
controI." Para. 18(0. Defendant reads that language to mean that plaintifl~ are
entitled to receive water only to tile extent that water is available to DWR. Becanse
the imposition of federal use restrictions constitutes a cause beyond DWR.'s control,
defendant argues, plaiatif['s' conlract rights are coptingent on a condition that never
occnrred: the availability of water to DWI>,. Del'endant's argument, in other words,
amonnts to the assertion that a litigant has a compensable property interes! in a
contract right only if he call press For its cldbrcement at law. Defendant ciles O'Neill
v. United States, 50 F.3d 677 (9th Cir. 19!)5) in support oFthis position.
Having considered O'Neill, however, we coL~clude that it has no application
to the present case. In O'Neill, walcr contractors ih the federally-owned Ceatral
Valley Pro ect sued nnder a breach ol'conlract then;'y ~vhen tile cnforcemenl oflhe
Enda!~gered Species Act deprived them oFwater under their contracts. The O'Neill
Court concluded that tile govermnent was not liable based on a provision in the
contract holding the government not responsible Iht"any damage, direct or indirecl,
arising fi'om a short'age on account of errors in operation, drought, or any other
causes." That broad exemption l'rom liability was found to include shortages
water due to implementatioa of tile ESA.
In the present case, tile federal government e~[joys no such contraclual
immunity from liaUi[ity. The comparable lerm ia the plaintifl~' contracts
Paragraph 18(0--insulates DWR fi'omliability lbr circumstances beyond its control;
not the federal govel'~'~ment. Tile inclusioa of Paragraph 18(1) in the contract does nnt
render plaintiffs' interest in tile water contingent; it merely provides DWR with a
det'ens,e against a breach of'contract action in certain ~pecified circunlslances. With
that exception, plaintiffs' contract rights are olherwise fidly formed against DWR,
and certainly against a Ihird party seeking Io inl'ringe on those rights. O'Neill can
provide the government no del'ense to a laking.
ii. The Public Trust Doctrine, the Doctrine of Reasonable Use and Nuisance Law
In addition to its cnntract-based argument, defendant oilers a nnmber of
common law .justifications Ibr limiting thc scope e[ plaintifl~' property right:
specifically, that plainlil'l~ can have no vcsled right in a use or mclhod [fl'divcrling
water that is unreasonable or violates the public trust, lu support of that position,
defendant refers us to various SWRCB decisions, as well as to assorted background
principles of state law l~)r the proposition that plaintiFIV proposed use is
unreasonable or in contravention o[' Cal'l~'fit water law.~ The difficulty with
dele ~da ~t ~ m gt ne ~t, however, is that the water allocation scheme in effect for the
period 1992-1994, as set lbrth iu D- 1485, specifically allowed f~3r lhe allocations
water del~ndant now seeks to deem uarcasonable. We explain l~u'ther.
There is, as an initial matter, no dispute Ibat all California water rights are
su[2ject to the universal limitation that the use must be both reasonable and for a
beneficial purpose. Cal. Const. art. X1V, 5 3, amended by Cal. Const. art. X, ~ 2.
Included in that definition oFreasonable use is the preservation o1' fish and wildlife.
lndeed, the CaliRm~ia legislature has spccifically declared that the protecliou offish
and wildliffc is among the purposes of the state water pr~iects. Cal. Waler Code
11900 (Deering 1977).
Whether a particular use or method oFdiversion is unreasonable or violative
of the public trust is a question committed concurreutly to the Slate Water Resources
Control Board and to the Calilbrnia courls. Se~ Natioual Audubou Soc'y v. Al~
Couoty, 33 Cal.3d 419, 451-452 (I 983). Thus, while we accept the proposition that
plaintiffs have no right to use or divert water in au unreasonable mauner, nor in a way
that violates the public trusl, the issue aow belbre us is whether such a determination
has m. 4act been made.
Plaintill~ argue that ll~e State Water Resources Cc ntrol Bo nd s dectsmn D-
1485 ~ a comprehensive water rights scheme bahmcing the needs of and allocating
water rights among competing users -- deft nos the full scope of their contract rights.
In ~laintiffs' view, D-1485 represenls the state's detem~ination of varioas water
rights, thereby relqecting the amount of water, under state law, they reasonably can
expect aud to which they are reasonably entitled. Plaintii'fs argue that unless and
until D-1485 is modified by the State Water Resources Control Board, or the terms
ot* D-1485 are declared by that board or a California corox to be unreasonable or
violative of the public trust, DWR has a right recognized and protected uuder
California law to divert water in accordance with D-1485.
In defendant's view, D- 1485 Fails to encapsulate the boa 'ds approach to
~ Defendaat cites a range of authority Ibr the proposition fl~at water rights do
not extend to unreasonable methods of diversion, including diversions to the
detriment ofwildlil'e: l)e~2ple ex. tel. State Water Resources Coutrol Bd. v. Forni, 54
Cal. App. 3d 743 (19'76); Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. East Bay Mun. Util.
Dist., 26 Cal. 3d 18~ ( 1980); National Audubon, 33 Cal._' 3d 419; and orders' WI>` 90-5;
WI>, 91-01; WI~ 95-. 17 of the State Walcr Resources Control Board.
endaugerment of'the della smelt and sahnon, both because it was promulgated before
the fish were fonnd to be itl jeopardy, aud because the board enacted D-95-1 -- a
1995 decisioi~ whose provisions adopt measures found iu the RPAs -- to protect tile
fish. Additionally, defendant argues lhat D-1485 should be read as an evolving
document, one informed by later developments in waler ueeds aod altered by
subsequent state actions. In suppm~ of thai theory, defendant oft'ers various state
actions that it claims serve 1o limit plainti fils' contracl rights: California's listing as
"eudangered"under the Cali foruia Endangered Species Act ("CF, SA") the winter-run
chinook sahnon in 1989 and tile delta smelt in 1993; the Depal'tment of Water
Resources's consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service in tbrmulatiug
tile biological opiuious; and tile Calilbrnia Dcpartinent offish and Game's adoption
of the 1993 NMFS biological opinion aad the RPA under CL;SA.
We cannot accept defendant's posilion. As an initial matter, the
responsibility Ibr water allocation is vested in the State Water Resources Control
Board. Cal. Water Code §§ 174, 179; California v. United States, 438 U.S. 645~ 653
(1978). Once an allocation has been made -- as was done in D-1485 --- that
determinatioo defines the scope of plainlifl~' property rigbts, pronouncements of
other agencies notwithstanding. While we accept the principle that Call fornia water
policy may be ever-evolving, rights based on conlracts with the state are not
correspondingly sel f-ad. iustmg. Rather, thc promissory assurauces they recite remain
fixed until formally changed. In tile absence of a reallocation by the Slate Water
Resources Control Board, or a determination of illegality by the Call fora ia courts, the
allocation scheme imposed by D-1485 deft les the scope ol plat ~t~ Hs contract rights.
None of the doctrines to which defendant resorts - - the doctrine of reasonable use,
the public trust doctrine or state nuisance law --- are dmrefore availing.
Nor do we believe that the substzqueut actions by tile SWRCB were designed
to supplant the fiudings of D-1485. Although the Board agreed to waive salinity
requirements to enable compliance with the RPA, tbr instance, it did not revisit the
;vater allocatious set forth in D- 1485 Ihat were established after some eleven months
ot'hem-ings. And while the administrative determinations issued by the SWRCB in
1995 - tile 1995 the Water Control Plan and the Water Right Decision 95-6 --
served to reallocate water allotments, they did so only after the period in dispute, and
caunot therelbre be construed as altering the scope of plaintiITs' contract righls Ibl-
lite 1992- 1994 period.
Defendant argues against this position, urging us to anticipate how tile Board
or the California courts would apply the doctrine of reasonable use if'the issue were
before them. Oil that basis, defeudaa! urges us to find that plaintiffs' proposed use
of water is unreasonable -- and tberelbrc unlawful -- to the extent that it endangers
the fish. Defendant points to a myriad of state and l,ederal actions as evidence that
either the SWRCB or tile Call fornia courts would have deemed plaintilTs' proposed
use unreasonable. The issue del'endanl conlends, is not what [imitations tile stale in
fact imposed on plaintifl~' titles, but what limitations the slale could have imposed
Under state background principles. Del~ndant cites Ritb Energy, Inc. v. United_
State~, 44 Fed. Cl. 108 (1999) lbr that proposition.
Ill Rith Energy, this court rqjected the takings claim ol7 a surface mining
operator who was denied a t'ederal pm'mit to mine when it was delermined that the
.. mining operation would have polluted the st ~te s grot ldwater. There, we concluded
· .that "regulatory action that restrains an owner fi'om tile benelicial rise of his property
-- even a restraint barring all such use -- cannot l?ecome the basis ora compensable
taking where tile restraint tbat is imposed is grounded 'ill the restrictions that
background principles of the State's law of property and nuisance ah'eady place on
laad owne sh p. "Rith Energy., 44 Fed. Cl. at I 13 (quot ~g Lt cas vs. South Carohna
Coastal Counci(, 505 U.S. at 1029). S~gmhcaat lo tile present case, the courl went
on to note that:
[r]estriqtions on the ose ol-pmperly thai have their sourcc in
federal?law also como within Ibis rule to the extent such
restrictions do no more than mirror tile results that could be
reached under the state's nuisance law. l~oveladies [Iarbor,
28 F.3d at 1182: "Since tile federal power to regulate
without risk ora taking is based on Ihe state's nuisance law
... tile federal autbority, il'exercised, is exercised at tile risk
o f an absence of state atttho 'ry.'
Id~at 113.
The reasoning in Rith Energy' was made more explicit in the court's later
denial of a motion for reconsideration. There it explained that "whether the
enl'orcen!ent of [reslrictions on tile state's water resources] is accomplished by tile
state regulatory body or by federal o[l'icials acling under tile autborily of SMCRA
[the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act} is not an issue relevant to the
takings analysis. Under the holding o1' [Luca~], the test is whether tile properly use
that is proscribed is based on 'restrictions that background principles of the Stale's
law of property and nuisance already place upml land ownership.' Where that
condition is met, no compensation is owed." Rith Energy, Inc. v. United St_ales, 44
Fed. Cl. 366,366-367 (1999) (internal citation omitted).
I)et'endant reads these statements to stand lbr the proposilion that the state
does not have to declare a use a nuisance or unreasonable belkn'e Ihe federal
gove!'nment can, without efl'ecting a taking, exercise ils own regolatory powers to
abate~timt use. Put d~tlgrently, the Issue, ia defendant's view, is whelber tile use
conld have been prohibited under state water or nuisance law. I1' so, defendant
15
argues, the federal govemlnent is fi-ee to operate within the regulatory space carved
out by the state background principles, whether or not the state has preceded it.
Contrary to defendant's contention, however, Rith Energy does not stand for
the principle for which it is cited. Crucial to the determination in Ritl~ Ener~,y was
an adjndicated finding by lire Dep. artment of Interior's Office of Hearing and Appeals
based on evidence that had not previously been submitted to the state licensing
authority-- that plaintiff's proposed mining activity would pollute the gromxdwater
(a determination that was later upheld by tile Inlerior Board of l,and Appeals).
Because the backgrom~d principles of Tennessee law made clear that such
contamination ,,,vas prohibited, the action laken by the federal government did not
represent merely what the state cottld have doue uoder its police powers, but rather,
what the court believed tile state ,,vas reqtdred to do ill light oflhe adjudication by the
Department ot%e Interior establishing a "high probability" of aquifer contamination.
There was thus no displacement of thc state regulatory regime by the federal
govermnent in Rith Energy; rather, the federal government mercly made explicit--
in ao area over which it shared regulatory authority with the state -- prohibit ions that
had always implicitlyexisted within state law. And it is that distinction that is crucial
to understanding both Rith Energy and the case now before us. As tile Lucas Court
explained in describing those interests that, on tt~e basis of nuisance principles, are
non-compeosable: "The use of these properties for what are now expressly
prohibited purposes was ahvays nnlawful, and (subject to other constitutional
limitations) it was open to the Stale al any point to make the implication of those
background principles of nuisance and property law.explicit." Lucas., 505 U.S. at
1030.
" That the use now being challenged was not always unlawful is evident from
the fact that it Was specilically authorized by the state in D-1485. Were we now to
deem that u:~e a nuisance, we would not be making explicit that which had always
been implied under background principles of property law, but would instead be
replacing tim state's judgment with our own. That we cannot do.
Ualike the situation in JZ. ith Ener,g.y, where the prohibition on the
contamination oftbe drinking supply was clearly set forth in the state's common law
and the [',act of contamiaatioo was the subject of an adjudicated findiag, our inquiry
does not point to a single, discrete resolution. The public trust and reasonable use
doctrines each require a complex balancing of interests --- an exercise of discretion
for which this court is not suited and wilh which it is not charged.
To the extent that water allocation m California is a policy judgment --- one
specil}cally committed to the SWRCB and Ihe Caliib,-nia courts --- a finding of
16
unreasonableness by this court would be tanImmmnt I~ om* maki,g Calil~rnia law
rather than merely applying it. This is especially true where, as here, the Board
charged with such delerminalions has responded, and e,~ntinues to respond, to the
1'7
concerns about fish and wildlil'e that the govermnent was ~eking to address through
the implementation of the ESA.O
While we are often asked to iuterpret stale or federal statutes or regolations
to determioe Ihe scope of a property inlet'esl under a takings claim,to those
determinations do ~lot extend to mailers o[ discretion commilled lo Ihe aothority of
tile state· Accordingly, we conclude that plaintiflk' right to diverl water in tim
manner specified by their contracts and in conl'ormance with D~ 1485 coutinued ontil
a determrination to the contrary was made either by the SW RCB or by the California
courts. As Ilo soch determination was made during Ihe period 1992-1994, and
subsequent amendments to policy cannot, for coati-act purposes, be made retroactive,
plaintiffs were indeed eutitlcd to lhe water use provided lbr in D-1485 and in their
contracts.
CONCLUSION
Tl~ere is, in tile end, no dispute that DWR's permits, and in turn plaintiffs'
contract rights, are subject to the doctrines of reasonable use and public lrust and to
tile tenets of state nuisance law. Nor is there serioas challenge to the premise lbat the
SWRCB, under its reserved jurisdiction, could at aay time modify tile terms of those
'} Tile California Court of Appeals has characterized D-1485 as "a policy
judgment requiring a balancing oflhe competing public interests, one the Board is
uniquely qualified to make in view of its special knowledge and expertise and its
combined statewide responsibility to allocate the rights to, and to control the quality
of, state water resources." United States v. State W__ater Resources Control Bd., 182
Cal. App.3d 82, 130 (1986). The fact that fish and wikl[i fe concerns were considered
in D-1485 is evident fi'om the decision's language that "l*ull protection" of all l~sh
species was not obtainable without tile "virtual shutting down of Itle project export
pumps" --- an alternative the Board rtiected. D- 1485 at 13. The Board opted instead
for what was described as "a reasonable level of protection." It is also notable that,
since the 1992-1994 period that is the subject o1' suit, the SWRCB has indeed
addressed tile fish preservation issue: signing the 'Trinciples for Agreemeot on Bay-
Delta Standards between the State of Calilbrnia and lhe Federal Governmeul" on
December 15, 1994; adopting, after hearing and comment, WR 95- I, the 1995 Bay-
Delta Plan, on May 22, 1995: and implementing various interim changes to D-1485
with regard to the responsibilities of water rights holders, inclnding measures to
ensu? !{~e..preservation of fish.
~°_S~, Del-Rio Drilling Programs Inc. v. United Slates, 146 F.3d 1358
(Fed Cir. 1998).
permits to reffect the changing need of tile various water users. The crucial point~
however, is that it had not.
D- 1485 is a comprehensive balancing of interests that recognized that while
Ihe "full protection" of fish was perhaps possible, it was ,ot ultimately in the public
interest. The SWRCB chose not to revisit that in-depth balancing of water needs and
uses even as it reviewed the salinity slandards it had set in response to NMFS's
biological opinion. We need not attempt to discern Ihe state's response to the threat,
theft, because the state has in fact spoken.
Nor can we, as defendant urges, make that'determination ourselves. It is the
Board that must provide Ihe necessary weighing of interests to demnnine the
appropriate balance uoder (.ahlt mia law between the cost and beneiSt of species
preservation. The federal govenmmnt is cerlainly fi'ee to preserve the {ish; it must
simply pay Ibr the water it takes to do so.
For the reasons staled, plaintifl~' motion for summary judgment must
theretbre be granted and defendant's cross-motion lbr summary judgment denied
.STATE OF CALIFORNIA - HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
~DRINKING WATER FIELD OPERATIONS BRANCH ~/~ ~
Government Center ~ ~''~
GEN (909) 3834328
FAX (909) 383-4745 J
· / '.~ff
, ,~ .,,,c, ! May 10, 2001
3610064
Robert E. Martin
EAST VALLEY W.D.
1155 Del Rosa Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92413
SUBJECT: ELECTRICAL POWER INTERRUPTIONS~RESPONSE
PLANNING
Gentlemen:
The purpose of this letter is to remind you of the continuing potential for electrical power
interruptions to occur within the State of California and to urge your utility to determine
your ability to provide adequate quantities of safe drinking water during rolling electrical
power outages of at least 2 hours in duration. As you probably are aware, the demand for
electrical power within the State has fi'equently exceeded the current infrastructure's
ability to meet that demand. Rolling outages were experienced in January 2001 and have
continued to occur periodically throughout the State. Long-term predictions indicate that
the State will likely continue to have problems during the summer months when electrical
demands rise rapidly due to the use of air conditioning equipment.
The Drinking Water Program encourages all utilities to secure backup power capabilities
and to routinely test their emergency power generating equipment to ensure that it will
function properly when needed, in addition, storage should be maintained as full as
possible to prevent system &watering during rolling blackouts. As part of our being
prepared to assist water utilities during emergency situations, we ask that you update your
Disaster Response Plan, if needed, and provide us with a copy. A suggested notice
advising the public on actions to be taken during low pressure situations or water outages
is attached for your use. If your system experiences problems, please contact this office
for advice or assistance.
During emergencies, water utilities may provide valuable mutual aid to other water
utilities. The Water Agency Response Network (WARN) is one of those mutual aid
organizations established for the purpose of providing assistance to member utilities in
California during emergencies. Utilities that are members of WARN have access to
resources of other WARN member agencies to help them in emergency situations. The
available resources include personnel, heavy equipment, pumps, generators, piping
ELECTRICAL POWER INTERRUPTIONS--RESPONSE PLANNING
May 10, 2001
Page 2
supplies, etc. The WARN web site can provide you with more information at:
http://wam.mwd.dst.ca.us. You may also wish to participate in a forthcoming regional
workshop being organized by the Association of California Water Agencies. More
information on the workshops is available at http://www.acwanet.com/co-op/.
If you have any question regarding this letter, please call our office at (909) 383-4328.
Sincerely,
Kalyar~ur Y. Baliga, Ph.D., P.E.
Senior Sanitary Engineer
Enclosure
PUBLIC NOTICE
CONSUMER ALERT DURING WATER OUTAGES
OR PERIODS OF LOW PRESSURE CAUSED BY ROLLING
POWER OUTAGES
1. If you are experiencing water outages or low water pressure, immediately
discontinue any non-essential water usage. This includes all outdoor irrigation
and car washing. Minimizing usage will reduce the potential for the water system
to lose pressure or completely mn out of water. Please notify your water system
of the outage or low pressure.
2. If the water looks cloudy or dirty, you should not drink it. Upon return of normal
water service, you should flush the hot and cold water lines until the water
appears clear and the water quality returns to normal.
3. If you are concerned about the water quality or are uncertain of its safety, you
· l~ may add eight drops of household bleach to one gallon of water and let it sit for
30 minutes or alternatively, if you are able, water can be boiled for one minute at
a rolling boil to ensure its safety.
4. Use of home treatment devices does not guarantee the water supply is safe after
low pressure situations.
5. Do not be alarmed if you experience higher than normal chlorine concentrations
in your water supply since the Department is advising public water utilities to
increase chlorine residuals in areas subject to low pressure or outages.
6. The Department has also advised public water systems to increase the
bacteriological water quality monitoring of the distribution system in areas subject
to low pressure. They may be collecting samples in your area to confirm that the
water remains safe. You will be advised if the sampling reveals a water quality
problem.
7. Your water system is committed to make certain that an adequate quantity of
clean, wholesome, and potable water is delivered to you. We recommend that
you discuss the information in this notice with members of your family to ensure
that all family members are prepared should water outages or low water pressure
occur.
9400 Cherry Ave., Bldg. A · Fontana, CA 92335
Inland Empire Box697.
:~' TEL (909) 357-0241 · FAX (909) 357-3884
UT/L/TiES AGENCY
www. ieua.org
....
Chief Executive Officer DATE: May 2, 2001
General Manager
TO: All Independent Special Districts
SUBJECT: Alternative LAFCO funding for FY2001/02
Bo~rd of Directors
John L. Anderson After receiving separate letters from two Special Districts, stating their opposition to
President
the latest proposed funding method by the "Work Group," we are compelled to
address the issue in response to some of the statements made. Yes, we are the
Terry CatJin Agency that is listed as having the highest total revenue. However, those "revenue
vice President numbers" from the State Controller's Report can be misleading, if one is to interpret
AB2838 thoroughly.
Anne W. Dunihue
Se~e¢~,~.'T,'e~,,'e; Let me take this opportunity to state a few facts. 1) Inland Empire Utilities Agency is
an Enterprise Agency, which means we only had $271,547 for FY1997/98, if we
applied the definition of "revenues for general purpose transactions" in Section 56381
wyatt L. Tro×elof AB2838.2) Our Agency has not employed the services of LAFCO for the past 20+
Dtrector
years. 3) Given the mix of 50+ Special Districts within the County, there is virtually no
equitable way to derive a fair solution for all. 4) The time and effort wasted in trying to
ne Koopman find a solution has become quite expensive. It should also be noted that revenues of
~e¢o,' $40,752,735 as reported in the FY1997/98, State Controller's Report were strictly
pass-through and capital payment revenues for infrastructure expansion and/or
replacement purposes.
At the April 4, work group meeting, there were less than 30 Special Districts
represented. We believe everyone present was sincere to work towards an amicable
solution.
Finally, let me remind every district that Inland Empire Utilities Agency is willing to pay
its fair share. However, we do not want be taken advantage of just because the
magnitude of work we perform for our communities is much greater than other
entities.
Sincerely,
ENCY
Richard w. Atwater ~ '
Chief Executive Officer
General Manager
cc: LAFCO
50 years of Excellence in Water Resources Management
1950 - 2000
DRAFT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
REGULAR BOARD MEETING APRIL 23, 2001
MINUTES
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by President Lightfoot. Director Negrete
led the flag salute.
PRESENT: Directors Wilson, Negrete, Sturgeon, Goodin, Lightfoot
ABSENT: None
STAFF: Paul Dolter, District Engineer; Alberta Hess, Chief Financial Officer;
Mary Wallace, Administrative Assistant.
LEGAL COUNSEL: Steve Kennedy
GUEST(s): None
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
M/SIC (Wilson-Goodin) that the April 23, 2001 Agenda be approved as
submitted.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
President Lightfoot declared the public participation section of the meeting open at 5:31
p.m. Them being no written or verbal comments, the public participation section was
closed.
APPROVAL OF APRIL 9, 2001 BOARD MEETING MINUTES.
Director Negrete noted that the motion for the item, "APPROVAL OF LIENS FOR
DELINQUENT WATER AND SEWER ACCOUNTS", was made by Director Goodin and
seconded by Director Wi[son, not by Director Sturgeon and Director Negrete.
M/S/C (Wilson-Sturgeon) that the April 9, 2001 Board Meeting Minutes be
approved with revision as noted.
MINUTES: 04/23/01
APPROVAL OF SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 18, 2001.
M/S/C (Wilson-Sturgeon)that the April 18, 2001 Special Meeting Minutes be
approved as submitted.
APPROVAL OF LIENS FOR DELINQUENT WATER AND SEWER ACCOUNTS.
M/SIC (Wilson-Sturgeon) that the liens for delinquent water and sewer accounts
be approved for processing as submitted,
DISBURSEMENTS
The Chief Financial Officer noted that the Payroll Distribution date on the 'Disbursement
Memorandum" should have been April 12, 2001, not March 28, 2001.
M/S/C (Wilson-Sturgeon) that General Fund Disbursements #184607 through
#184766 in the amount of $779,214.00, Payroll Fund Disbursements #8716 through
#8769 in the amount of $60,920.29 totaling $840,134.29 be approved with the revision
to the date as noted by the Chief Financial Officer.
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING AN "ALTERNATIVE FUNDING
FORMULA" FOR LAFCO.
M/S/C (Sturgeon-Negrete) that Board President Glenn Lightfoot be authorized to
cast a ballot on behalf of the District for an alternative funding formula for the
independent Special Districts' share of LAFCO net cost.
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE SCHEDULED TIME OF
DAY FOR THE DISTRICT'S REGULAR BOARD MEETINGS.
A change for the time of the E)istr[ct's Regular Board Meetings on the second and fourth
Monday of every month was discussed.
M/S/C (Negrete-Wilson} that the time of the District's Regular Board Meeting be
changed from 5:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. commencing with the May 14, 2001 meeting and
that a Resolution supporting that action be placed on the May 14~ Agenda.
SIERRA WEST ADJUSTERS' RESPONSE DIRECTED TO THE LAW OFFICE OF
GRANOWITZ, WHITE AND WEBER IN REFERENCE TO MR. TIM MAZZA'S
PROPERTY DAMAGE CLAIM was presented to the Board. Information only.
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE DESIGNATION OF A
VOTING DELEGATE TO REPRESENT EVWD AT THE GENERAL MEMBERSHIP
MEETING ON MAY 10TM AT THE ACWA SPRING CONFERENCE IN SOUTH LAKE
TAHOE.
MINUTES: 04/2.3/0I
M/SIC (Sturgeon-Negrete) that Director Wilson be designated as voting delegate
on behalf of the East Valley Water District.
OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN OPR'S (OFFICE OF PLANNING AND
RESEARCH) DEVELOPMENT OF LAFCO SERVICE REVIEW GUIDELINES.
information only.
APRIL 13, 2001 RELEASES OF LIEN FOR DELINQUENT WATER AND SEWER
ACCOUNTS.
List of [lens released on April 13, 2001 was reviewed. Information only.
ORAL COMMENTS FROM BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
Director Lightfoot commented on the April 18, 2001 Special Board Workshop wherein
various activities of the Board members were reviewed; that a "Legislative Review
Committee" had been formed with Director Wilson as Chair and Director Light-foot as
co-chair. Information only.
There being no further verbal or written comments from the Directors, this section of the
meeting was closed.
ADJOURN
There being no fur[her business, President Lightfoot declared the meeting adjourned at
5:45 p,m.
Glenn R. Lightfoot, President
Robert E. Martin, Secretary
3 MINUTES: 04/23/01
CERTIFICATE OF LIEN
MAY 14, 2001
ACCOUNT OWNERS PROPERTY AMOUNT
NUMBER NAME ADDRESS OWED
1. 007-0113-4' 5442 NEWBURY AVE ~
2. 008-0567-4* 27071 14TH ST 50.95
3. 015-0187-3' 5439 IRONWOOD ST 58.31
4. 017-0260-2 5801 CHIQUITA LN ~
5, 024-0132-0 25740 ALTO DR 29.71
6. 034-0127-0' 25675 DATE ST 129.11
7. 041-1228-5' 26718 BRUCE ST ~
8. 062-0024-2 6786 VALARIA DR 36.89
9. 083-00'12-1 27165 COLE CT 105.56
10. 092-0156-3 7450 NEWCOMB ST 281.38
11. 101-0105-2' 7511 LOS FELIZ DR 55.85
12. 104-0011-1' 24251 4TH ST 36.77
13. 105-0043-3+ 27421 CYPRESS ST 129.93
14. 112-0128-3' 24639 COURT ST 100.00
15, 114-0034-5'+ 25262 COURT ST 51,74
16. 122-0537-3 29066 ROSEWOOD LN 26.89
17. 123-1129-5' 29339 CREST VIEW LN 70,40
18. 136-0055-8' 26522 SPARKS ST 107.31
19. 142-0043-6' 3383 MIRADA RD 58.41
Page 1 of 2
20. 155~674-0 7807 COLWYN AVE 141.94
21. t55-0949-2+ 26654 WARD ST 22.44
22. 155-0950-2+ 26644 WARD ST 344.39
TOTAL $1,973.69'~ j}
* STILL OWNS PROPERTY
+ MULTIPLE UNITS
Page 2 of 2
East Va'l* ey Wate 'District
TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM: ALBERTA M. HESS / CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICE~/
SUBJECT: DISBURSEMENTS
DURING THE PERIOD APRIL 16, 2001 THROUGH MAY 2, 2001 CHECK NUMBERS
184767 THROUGH 184997 IN THE AMOUNT OF $836,176.48 WERE ISSUED.
PAYROLL CHECKS 8770 THROUGH 8823 IN THE AMOUNT OF $64,656.16 WERE
DISTRIBUTED ON APRIL 25, 2001.
TOTAL OF ACCOUNTS PAYABLE DISBURSEMENTS AND PAYROLL FOR THE PERIOD -
$900,832.64.
April 23, 2001
Gov. Christ'me Todd Whitman
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20460
Re: Radon in Drinking Water
Dear Gov. Whitman:
The American Water Works Association (AWWA) requests a thorough re-evaluation of the
1999 proposal for the regulation of radon in drinking water. The AWWA is an international,
nonprofit, scientific and educational society dedicated to the improvement of drinking water
quality and supply. Founded in 1881, the Association is the largest organization of water
supply professionals in the world. Our 57,000 plus members represent the full spectrum of the
drinking water community: treatment plant operators and managers, environmental advocates,
scientists, academicians, and others who hold a genuine interest in water supply and public
health. Our membership includes more than 4,200 utilities that supply roughly 80 percent of
the nation's drinking water.
The 1999 radon proposal would use drinking water as the leverage for reducing radon levels in
indoor air. EPA's own risk models (page 59249 from the November 2, 1999 Federal Register
proposal) conclude that 98% of the risk of radon is associated with air and only 2% with
drinking water. AWWA supports a proposal that focuses on addressing the greatest (indoor air)
risk first by setting a single MCL of 4000 piC/L for drinking water, with no mandated
multimedia mitigation (MMM) programs. This approach would not trigger the alternative
MCL provisions of the 1996 SDWA Amendments and would result in a simple and
understandable drinking water standard.
AXWCJA also recommends that EPA address indoor radon issues outside of the SDWA, and
would support an increase in the State Indoor ~ir Radiation Grants (SIRG) program to increase
the current voluntary program addressing indoor air radon problems. Therefore, a thorough re-
evaluation of the 1999 radon proposal is needed that focuses more on the indoor air radon risk,
and a person on your staff should be designated to oversee this re-evaluation.
Yours Sincerely,
Bob Willis Jim McLnerney
AWWA President Chair, AWWA Water Utility Council
F:\home\jar\let~ers\whitman4230 !.radon
President Bush to Nominate Six Individuals to ~crvc m es A0xmmstranon rage t ut z
~ THt~ WHITE HOUSE
~ Office of the Press Secretary
fia,~vb,,,,,,~a~, For Immediate Release April 18, 2001
President George W. Bush today announced his intention to nominate six
individuals to serve in lfis administration.
The President intends to nominate ~Geor? Tracey ~V[ehan: llI~ ~
Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for Wat~
]search 3°~ ~. He is currently the Director of the Office of Great Lakes in the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. He served as Associate
Deputy Administrator of the EPA from 1992 to 1993 and was Director of
the Missouri Department of Natural Resources from 1989 to 1992. He is a
Latest News graduate of St. Louis University and St. Louis University Law School.
Press Briefings The President intends to nominate Eduardo Aguirre, Jr., to be First Vice
President of the Export Import Bank of the United States for the remainder
Federal Statisticsof a four year term expiring January 20, 2005. Aguirre is currently the
President of Bank of America's International Private Bank. He was
appointed by then Governor George W. Bush as a regent for the University
of Houston System and former President Bush appointed him to serve on
the National Commission for Employment Opportunity from 1991 to
1993. A resident of Houston, Texas, he is a graduate of Louisiana State
University.
The President intends to nominate Donald E. Powell to be a Member of the
Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for a
term of six years and Chairperson for a term of five years. He is presently
the President and CEO of First National Bank in Amarillo, Texas, and was
formerly with the Boatman's First National Bank of Amarillo. He is
currently the Chairman of the Board of Regents for the Texas A&M
University System. He is a graduate of West Texas State University and
received a Master's degree from Southern Methodist University.
The President intends to nominate Robert S. Martin to he Director of the
Institute of Museum and Library Services. He is currently a Professor and
Interim Director of the School of Library and Information Studies at Texas
Women's University in Denton, Texas. He served as Director and
Librarian of the Texas State Library and Archives Commission from 1995
to 1999 and served as a Professor and as Associate Dean of Special
http://www.wtfitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/04/20010418-2.html 4/20/01
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
UTILITY REPLACEMENT AND
PROPERTY EXCHANGE AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT is made this day of ,2001, by and
between The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, a public corporation (hereafter
"Metropolitan"), and East Valley Water District, a pnblie agency (hereafter "East Valley").
RECITALS
A. The parties entered into a Utility Replacement and Property Exchange Agreement
(MWD Agreement No. A04986), dated September 1, 1999 (hereafter "Agreement"), which
provides for a Replacement Project wherein East Valley's Well 121 is to be replaced with a new
Well 147 and the parties would exchange the requisite parcels of real property, all as set forth in
the Agreement.
B. As part of the Replacement Project provided for in the Agreement, a pipeline(s)
between the new Well 147 and East Valley's existing Plant 143 is io be constructed, as generally
depicted on Figure 3 of Exhibit C to the Agreement (hereafter "Pipeline).
C. Metropolitan has acquired permanent easements adjacent to current Abbey Way
for water pipeline and public road purposes wherein it is anticipated that the Pipeline is to be
located.
D. The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that East Valley is indemnified and
held harmless against any claim that it does not have the requisite right-of-way interests for
placement, operation and maintenance of its Pipeline and to ensure that East Valley has
sufficient time to complete the Replacement Project.
-1-
COVENANTS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the preceding recitals and the mutual covenants
contained herein, the parties hereto agree to amend the Agreement, as follows:
1. A section 6.3 is added to read as follows:
Section 6.3 INDEIVIN~ICATION FOP. PIPELINE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
Metropolitan agrees to indemnify and hold East Valley and its officers, directors,
agents and employees harmless from and against all claims and liabilities of any
kind arising out of, or resulting from, any claim or lawsuit by any current or
future owner of the fee of any real property in which lhe Pipeline is to be placed,
which claim asserts that East Valley does not have the requisite interest in real
property to place, operate and maintain the Pipeline. This indemnification
provision shall run for a period of five years from. the completion of construction
of the Pipeline, at the end of which period this indemnification obligation shall
cease and terminate.
2. The last sentence of Section 1.3 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:
Construction of all Replacement Project facilities shall be completed
within eighteen (18) months from the date that Metropolitan grants East Valley
access to Parcel B pursuant to Section 1.2 of this Agreement.
3. A Section 3.4 is added to read as follows:
Section 3.4 NOTIPICATION RE PIPELINE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
Concurrently with Metropolitan's delivery of those title documents referenced in
Section 3.1, Metropolitan shall deliver to East Valley in recordable form a
-2-
"Notification and Authorization" for East Valley to utilized Metropolitan's
easements for East Valley's Pipeline in form as attached hereto as Exhibit D.
4. In all other respects, the provisions of the Agreement are to remain unchanged by
this Amendment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this First Amgndment to
Utility Replacement and Property Exchange Agreement to be executed by their respective
officers as of the date first above written.
ACCEPTED:
EAST VALLEY WATER. DISTRICT THE METROPOLITAN WATER
DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN
CALIFOR_NIA
Ronald R. Gastelum
General Manager
By: By:
Glenn R. Lightf00t RoyWolfe
President, Board of Directors Manager, Corporate Resources
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Bmnick, Alvarez & Battersby Roderick B. Walston
Steven M. Kennedy General Counsel
By: By:
General Counsel Lauren R. Brainard
Senior Deputy General Counsel
Date: Date:
-3-
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND VqI-t'EN RECORDED MAIL
TO:
The Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California
P.O. Box 54153
Los Angeles, CA 90054-0153
AUTHORIZATION A_ND NOTIFICATION
Inland Feeder Pipeline
MVC]D Parcel Nos. INFED1-28-160PEA1, INFED1-28-170PEA1,
INFED1-28-210PEA1
APN. 1210-211-21, 1210-211-18, 1210-211-11
The Metropolitan Water Dist~ct of Southern California, a public corporation
(hereafter "Metropolitan"), hereby authorizes and provides notification that East Valley Water
District (hereafter "East Valley"), as anticipated as part of Metropolitan's Inland Feeder
Project, will utilize for the construction, operation and maintenance o£East Valley's pipeline,
connecting its Well 147 and Plant 143, that permanent easement for water pipeline and public
road purposes described in Exhibit A and shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
Dated: THE METROPOLITAN WATER
DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Ronald R. Gastelum
General Manager
· l~ By:
ATTACHMENT D
EXHIBIT A
Authorization and Notification
INFED 1-28-160MI1
INFED 1-28-170MIl
INFED 1-28-210MI 1
MWD to East Valley Water District
Those portions of the southwest quarter of Section 2, Township 1 South, Range
3 West, San Bernardino Meridian in the City of Highland, County of San Bernardino, State of
California, as described in Permanent Easement Deeds recorded December 16, 1999, as
Document No. 19990515095, recorded December 16, 1999, as Document No. 19990515097
and in Final Order of Condemnation recorded January 12, 2001, as Document
No.200100 t 3548, all of Official Records of said County.
Ail as shown on Exhibit "B" of Attachment "D", attached hereto and made a part hereof.
. Wiseman, P.L.S. 6241
AL p:\.Alegal~8~EVWDIST,doc ADdl 11, 2001
Page i of 1
· ATTACHMENT D Page I of 1
EXHIBIT B
"THIS EXHIBIT IS TO BE ATTACHED TO THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION"
POR. SW1/4 SEC. 2, T. 1 S., R. 3 W., SBM, CITY OF HIGHLAND
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NOT TO SCALE~ .~. 0 ~' ~o ~:~ .~ ~
· LEGEND . AU~*HO~Z~TION
AND
INFED1-28-170MI1
INFED1-28-210MI1
GREENSPOT PREPARED UNDER
~ ' IR~.
~ ~SITE MY SUPERVISION THE METROPO~TAN WATER DIS'TRICT'
MERRIS
OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
ST. ~ ~ IN.ND FEEDER
A ~THO~I~TIO~
: · · ~
,or ro sc~ DATE / / INFED1.28.160M[1, 170MI1 & 2JOMI1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
In re Application of: )
) Project Nos.: 1932-004,
Southern California Edison Company ) 1933-010,
for Licensing of ) 1934-010
Santa Aha Nos. 1 and 2, )
Lytle Creek, and )
Mill Creek Nos. 2 and 3 )
)
MOTION FOR INTERVENTION
BY
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
Pursuant to Rule 214(d) (18 C.F.R. Section 385.214) of the Rules of Practice and Procedure
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC" or "the Commission"), EAST VALLEY
WATER DISTRICT ("EVWD') hereby moves to intervene in the above-docketed proceeding.
I. EVWD's Interest In These Proceedings
EVWD is a self-governing special district duly organized and operating as a County Water
District under California Water Code Section 30000 et seq. Under its enabling legislation, EVWD
has broad statutory power to furnish, store, conserve, appropriate, acquire, divert, sell, and otherwise
make use of the water supplies within its jurisdictional boundaries. Water Code Sections 31000,
31020-31023, 31026, 31033, 31035. The District is also empowered to represent its inhabitants,
landowners, and water users in legal proceedings involving said water resources. Water Code
Sections 31081-31082.
///
EVWD was formed in 1954 and covers an area of approximately 25 square miles in the
County of San Bernardino. EVWD provides water and sewer service to residential, commercial, and
industrial properties within the Cities o fHighland and San Bemardino and in unincorporated portions
of the County of San Bemardino, and serves a population of approximately 56,000 people.
EVWD owns and operates 21 wells and appurtenant pipellnes and other facilities from which
it extracts approximately 19,000 acre feet of groundwater per year from the San Bemardino Basin
Area (which includes the Bunker Hill Basin and the Lytle Creek Basin) for direct delivery to its
customers.
EVWD also receives surface water l~om the Santa Ana River pursuant to its stock ownership
ora majority of shares in the NORTH FORK WATER COMPANY (hereinatter '~YFWC"), a mutual
water company incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of California. NFWC holds
surface water rights in the Santa Arm River pursuant to an agreement emered into with Bear Valley
Land and Water Company [the predecessor in interest to the Bear Valley Mutual Water Company
(hereinafter "BVMWC")] in 1885 (hereinafter "the NORTH FORK AGREEMENT"). The NORTH
FORK AGREEMENT quantified NFWC's rights to the natural flow of the Santa Ana River during
the summer months as follows:
June 500 inches (10 els)
July 600 inches (12 cfs)
August 600 inches (12 cfs)
September 550 inches (11 cfs)
October 450 inches (9 cfs)
November 400 inches (8 cfs)
During the remaining months, NFWC is entitled under the NORTH FORK AGREEMENT to one-
fourth of all the water flowing in the Santa Aha River.
///
2
These rights were later recognized in a stipulated judgment entered into in 1977 between Big
Bear Municipal Water District and several water companies representing water users and overlying
owners within the San Bernard'mo Basin. Big Bear Municipal Water District v. North Fork Water
Company, et al., San Bemardino County Superior Court Case No. 165493 (hereinafter "the NORTH
FORK JUDGMENT").
Further, NFWC's surface water fights are included in the Santa Aha River - Mill Creek
Cooperative Project Agreement (hereinafter "the EXCHANGE PLAN") entered into in 1976 between
the SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (hereinafter"SBVMWD"),
NFWC, and various entities with rights in the Santa Arm River and Mill Creek. Under the
EXCHANGE PLAN, SBVMWD contributes import water from the State Water Project and the
parties to the EXCHANGE PLAN are then able to use all of this water on an integrated basis utilizing
a coordinated system of mutual exchanges and transfers.
The EXCHANGE PLAN also provides that a Management Committee is set up to administer
the provisions thereof. As such, SBVMWD makes ava'flable to the Management Committee its
import water from the State Water Project for delivery and use as "Exchange Water." This
"Exchange Water" is delivered to a party in exchange for an equal mount of that party's "Entitlement
Water" made available to the Management Committee for delivery and use pursuant to the terms of
the EXCHANGE PLAN. Withrespect to "Entitlement Water" inthe Santa Ava River, the Exchange
Plan provides that NFWC, BViVlWC, and Lugonia Water Company together own maximum
instantaneous rates of flow of 88 cfs.
In reliance upon NFWC's fights to the Santa Ama River as described above, EVWD incurred
bonded indebtedness in the amount of $7.65 million and designed, constructed, and installed the City
3
Creek Treatment Plant in 1994 for the purpose of treating and delivering water fi.om the Santa Arm
River to EVWD's customers. Tiffs project included the erection of a four million-gallon-per-day
("mgd") treatment plant, associated chemical feed systems, construction of a control budding, a pre-
engineered building, a three-million-gallon reservoir, a pump station, and associated site, piping, and
electrical work. The City Creek Treatment Plant is designed to be expanded to eight (8) mgd.
As part of its operation of the City Creek Treatment Plant, EVWD takes water fi'om the Santa
Aha River at the North Fork weir located in the area of Mentone immediately downstream from the
site of the Seven Oaks Darr~
In part, EVWD entered into the above obligations in reliance upon the historic operation and
use of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (hereinafter "EDISON"), including the
water diversion, generation, and conveyance facilities which are the subject of these proceedings. As
a source of water for irrigation and municipal uses, the San Bernardino Valley area has historically
depended upon the water available through the surface diversions and hydroelectric operations of
EDISON on Lytle Creek, the Santa Ana River, and Mill Creek. EDISON and its predecessors
developed diversion works, canals, and powerhouses along these streams, and numerous local water
agencies constructed pipeline distribution systems to redivert water fi.om the afterbays of the
powerhouses for conveyance to their various uses. These local distribution systems and uses are
dependent upon continuance of the EDISON diversions.
II. EVWD's Obieetions To The Application
EDISON has applied to FERC for new licenses to operate the powerhouses on Lytle Creek,
Mill Creek, and the Santa Aha River. As part of its relicensing application, EDISON proposes to
bypass flows in these watercourses, including those above EDISON's Santa Aha Powerhouse No.
1 and Mill Creek Powerhouse No. 2. In theory, the water now generating electricity in those
4
powerhouses would simply be passed downstream for use in its lower powerhouses. In fact,
however, such a change in operations would have profound adverse effects upon EVWD and its
inhabitants, landowners, and water users, and upon the environment of the San Bemard'mo Valley.
Accordingly, EVWD urges continuation of the present diversions at Santa Ana No. 1 and Mill Creek
No. 2, and submits the following preliminary objections to the EDISON plan without waiving its right
to submit subsequent comments and objections thereto:
A. Lost Water
Allowing the water to remain in these streams, above the Santa Ama Powerhouse No. 1 and
Milt Creek Powerhouse No. 2, would reduce the historic flow to the San Bemardino Valley,
particularly in the critical summer months. Much of the water will be lost to evaporation and
transpiration in and adjacent to the streams. Water use requirements within the San Bemard'mo
Valley will necessitate replacement of this lost water supply from sources outside the San Bemardino
Valley.
B. High Cost Of Replacement Water
To the extent that alternate water supplies to replace such lost water are available through the
State Water Project, the cost of importing this water and pumping it over the Tehachapi Mountains
is exorbitant. Additionally, amortization of capital costs for the facilities required to collect and
convey the water to the San Bernard'mo Valley is also significant. Further, this replacement water
is also poorer in quality and substantial treatment will be required.
C Quality Degradation
Water that is le~ in the streams and recaptured below the EDISON afrerbays in question will
be poorer in quality than the water received under present operations. Additional treatment may be
required to purify this water for domestic purposes.
5
D. Adverse Environmental Changes
EDISON and its predecessors have diverted the water l~om Lytle Creek, Santa Ann River,
and Mill Creek for about 100 years. Altering these historic practices will have many environmental
effects on the streams in question, including but not limited to (1) changes in hydrologic
characteristics of the streams, (2) changes in native vegetation, (3) changes in fish and wildlife, (4)
changes in recreational use, (5) changes in water quality, and (6) changes in the water supply
characteristics of the groundwater basins in the downstream area. All of these impacts must be
carefully evaluated for all seasons of the year before the proposed modification of diversion practices
is authorized.
Moreover, environmental damage will not be limited to those particular streams in the San
Bernardino Valley, since any area ~om which the necessary replacement water is taken will also
suffer adverse environmental effects. For example, lifting such water over the Tehachapi Mountains
involves fuebburning generation to produce the electricity involved. The environment al impact would
be even more serious if southern California sources were utilized for replacement water.
III. Good Canse Exists To Grant EVWI)'s Motion To Intervene
The Commission has granted motions out of time to intervene in situations where a new issue
has been injected into the proceeding after publication of notice in the Federal Register. See
Wolverine Po~ver Corp., 45 FERC ¶ 61,310, reh 'g, 85 FERC ¶ 61,066 (1988) (Wolverine); see also
Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co., 49 FERC ~ 61,284 (1989) (Commission granted five late
motions to intervene when movants had been "caught off guard" when Commission, by letter order,
decided issues that had never before been addressed); Southern Natural Gas Co., 23 FERC ¶ 61,095
(1983) (untimely motion to intervene granted when Company did not reco~ize the extent of
jeopardy it faced in pipeline PGA proceeding until after issuance of order).
///
6
EVWD is a member of the Water Agencies Task Force that has participated in the East End
Relicensing Collaborative Process (hereina~er "the Collaborative") during the last three (3) years.
Upon learning on ,2001, that Collaborative negotiations had reached an
impasse without resolution, EVWD has acted without delay to protect its interests before this
Commission by the filing of the within motion. This proceeding still remains in its preliminary stages.
Therefore, consistent with Wolverine and other Commission precedent, EVWD's motion to
intervene should be granted by the Commission.
IV. EVWD's Interests Cannot Be Adequate .ly Represented Absent
Intervention
The Commission has consistently allowed motions to intervene out of time when the interests
of a movant cannot be adequately represented by another party. See Sea Robin Pipeline Co., 49
FERC ~[ 61,010, reh 'g denied, 49 FERC ¶ 61,351 (1989) (late intervention granted when intervenor
was allocated a significant sum of the take-or-pay costs at issue, it had a substantial and direct interest
in the proceeding, and its interest would not have been represented by another party); Louisiana
Intrastate Gas Corp., Southern Natural Gas Co., 25 FERC ~ 61,167 (1983).
Because of the magnitude of EVWD's surface water fights in the Santa Arm River and the
severe economic harm that EVWD will incur if the FERC ultimately adopts the release proposed by
EDISON, EVWD cannot simply abrogate its statutory obligation and rely upon other entities to
represent the interests of EVWD's constituents. Therefore, EVWD's motion to intervene should be
granted so that it may preserve and protect EVWD's surface water fights in the Santa Aim River.
V. No Disruption, Delay~ Or Prejudice To Other Parties Will Be
Caused By Grautin~ EVWD's Motion To Intervene
This proceeding is at its preliminary stages. No notice ofenvironmemal analysis yet has been
issued. Because of the early state of the proceeding, no delay will result if EVWD's motion to
intervene is granted. Likewise, no party's interests will be prejudiced by EVWD's intervention. The
7
Commission's policy is to liberally grant late interventions at the early stages of a proceeding precisely
because such intervention will "neither disrupt the proceeding nor prejudice the interests of any other
party." Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation, 79 FERC ¶ 61,205 at 61,950 (1997).
Accordingly, the Commission should grant EVWD's motion to intervene.
VI. Ent~ To The Service List
Should the Commission grant intervention as requested, please include the following name
to the official service list:
Steven M. Kennedy
Bmnick, Alvarez & Battersby
1839 Commercenter West
Post Office Box 6425
SanBemardino, CA 92412
CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, EVWD respectfully requests that the Commission issue an
order granting this motion for intervention in this proceeding pursuant to Rule 214(d).
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this day caused the foregoing document to be served upon all
known parties in this proceeding by mailing first-class a copy properly addressed to each party.
Dated at San Bernardino, California, tlxis day of ., 2001.
San Bemardlno Valley Municipal Water District
1350 SOUTH "E" STREET - P. O. BOX 5906 - SAN BERNARD~O, CAL~ORNIA 92412-5906 -(9~) 387-9200
FAX (909) 387-924~f
April 24, 2001 " ~u~. /
Mr. Michael L. Huffstutler Mr. Michael L. Huffstutler
Bear Valley Mutual Crafton Water Company
Water Company 101 East Olive Avenue
101 East Clive Avenue Redlands CA 92373-5249
Reolands CA 92373-5249
Mr. Gerald J. Black
Fontana Union Water Company
Post Office Box 309
Fontana CA 92334-0309
~-/Mr. Robert Martin Mr. Anthony Araiza
East Valley Water District West San Bernardino County
Post Office Box 3427 Water District
San Bernardino CA 92413-3427 Post Office Box 875
Rialto CA 92377-0875
Mr. Joseph Zoba
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Post OffJ. ce Box 730
Yucafpa CA 92399-0730
Mr. Douglas Headrick Ms. Stacey Aldstadt
City of Redlands City of San Bernardino
Post Office Box 3005 Post Office Box 710
Redlands CA 92373-1505 San Bernardino CA 92402-0710
Mr. Burnell Cavender Mrs. Sheila Hamilton
Post Office Box ].~39 Po~t ~ff~.ne ~ox 28~3
Redlands CA 92373-0581 Big Bear Lake CA 92315-2863
Dear FERC Task Force participant:
Southern California Edison Company applied to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission for new licenses to operate the
powerhouses on Lytle Creek, Santa Ana River and Mill Creek. The
water agencies have combined their efforts in a Task Force to
participate in the Federal Energy 9egulatory Commission
Collaborative Committee process in an attempt to define
conditions to be included in new licenses for the Lytle Creek,
Santa Ana River and Mill Creek powerhouses. The Federal Energy
Division I Division Ii Division III Division IV Division V General M~ag~r
Regulatory Commission Collaborative Process may be moving toward
an end. Our efforts do not appear to have resulted in
overwhelming success with the other participants on the
Collaborative Committee. I enclose a tabulation illustrating
the costs of the consultant's for the FERC Task Force. I also
enclose a tabulation of the contributions the San Bernardino
Valley Municipal Water District has received from the
participants.
At the April 16, 2001 meeting, The Board of Directors of
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District again expressed
concern that participation in the Collaborative Process has been
of questionable success in addition to being expensive. The
Directozs are concerned that the Task Force has conscientiously
provided real scientific and historic information when the other
Collaborative participants have not provided scientific
information and refuse to acknowledge the scientific information
that the Task Force provided. The Board believes that continued
participation in the Collaborative may not be the best forum to
promote the water agencies' concerns. The Directors suggested
individual participation in the formal hearing process before
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission may be a better forum
to continue the quest to obtain licenses for operation of the
powerhouses.
If you have que~ions on this matter, please call me at
Cc: Tim Moore
Roy Leidy
Taylor Miller
Contributions from Participants in the Task Force for the
Collaborative Committee for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
activity regarding Re-Licensing Hydropower Generation Plants on
Lytle Creek License 1932, Santa Aha River License 1933, and Mill Creek License 1934
invoice Participant Amount Date
Date: Agency: Paid: Received:
21-Jun-00 Bear Valley Mutual Water Company $10,000.00 06-Jul-00
21-Jun-00 Fontana Union Water Company $10,000.00 25-Jul-00
21-Jun-00 Riverside Highland Water Company $5,000.00 25-Jul-00
21-Jun-00 East Valley Water District $!0,000.00 06-Jul-00
21-Jun-00 West San Bemardino County Water District $10,000.00 29-Aug-00
21-Jun-00 Yucaipa Valley Water District $10,000.00 29-Feb-00
21-Jun-00 City of Redlands $0.00
City of Riverside $10,000.00 24-Apr-00
21-Jun-00 City of San Bemardino $10,000.00 10-Oct-00
21-Jun-00 San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District $10,000.00 29-Jun-00
21-Jun-00 Big Bear Municipal Water District $8,333.00 25-Jul-00
7-Feb-01 BearValley MutuaIWater Company $10,000.00 16-Feb-01
7-Feb-01 Crafton Water Company $10,000.00 16-Feb-01
8-Feb-01 Fontana Union Water Company $10,000.00 12-Apr-01
7-Feb-01 EastValley Water District $10,000.00 20-Feb-01
7-Feb-01 West San Bernardino County Water District $10,000.00 27-Feb-01
7-Feb-01 Yucaipa Valley Water District $0.00
16~Feb-01 City of Redlands $0.00
7-Feb-01 City of San Bernardino $10,000.00 21-Mar-01
7-Feb-01 San Bemardino Valley Water Conservation District $10,000.00 20-Feb-01
7-Feb-01 Big Bear Municipal Water District $8,333.00 15-Feb-01
Total Received from Participating Agencies $171,666.00
Expenses associated with the
Task Force for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Re-Licensing Hydropower Generation Plants on
Lytle Creek License 1932, Santa Ana River License 1933, and Mill Creek License 1934
Invoice invoice
Date: Invoice from: Number: Description: Amount:
RISK SCIENCES Invoices:
29-De0-99 Risk Sciences FERC-99-1 Prof Fees & Exp Oct-Dec $7,666.01
28-Feb-00 Risk Sciences FERC-00-1 Prof Fees & Exp Jan-Feb $5,943.07
13-Apr-00 Risk Sciences FERC-00-2 Prof Fees & Exp Mar-Apr $5,838.39
25-Jun-00 Risk Sciences FERC-00-3 Prof Fees & Exp May-June $13,794.17
28-Jul-00 Risk Sciences FERC-00-4 Prof Fees & Exp July $4,638.47
2-Oct-00 Risk Sciences FERC-00-5 Prof Fees & Exp Aug-Sep $5,987.97
8-Jan-01 Risk Sciences FERC-01-1 Prof Fees & Exp Oct-Dec $6,954.85
7-Feb-01 Risk Sciences FERC-01-2 Prof Fees & Exp Jan $3,,119.87
7-Mar-01 Risk Sciences FERC-01-3 Prof Fees & Exp Feb $9,887.94
8-Apr-01 Risk Sciences FERC-01-4 Prof Fees & Exp Mar-Apr $11,775.14
RISK SCIENCES SUB-TOTAL $75,605.88
EIP ASSOCIATES (Roy Leidy) Invoices:
~' August 1999 FERC Task Force Created
15-Nov-99 EIP'Associates 9919 Prof Fees & Exp to Oct 30 $11,068.49
2-Dec-99 EIP Associates 9995 Prof Fees & Exp to Nov 26 $1,728.40
20-Jan-00 EIP Associates 10106 Prof Fees & Exp to Dec 31 $6,080.07
8-Feb-00 EIP Associates 10194 Prof Fees & Exp to Jan 28 $1;3,758.20
2-Mar-00 EIP Associates 10293 Prof Fees & Exp to Feb 25 $2,760.00
2-Mar-00 EIP Associates 10292 Prof Fees & Exp to Feb 25 $10,143.38
12-Apr-00 EIP Associates 10414 Prof Fees & Exp to Mar 31 $11,554.98
3-May-00 EIP Associates t 0528 Prof Fees & Exp to Apr 28 $5,192.65
3-May-00 EIP Associates 10529 Reimbursable Exp to Apr 28 $27.02
8-Jun-00 EIP Associates 10633 Prof Fees & Exp to May 26 $2,937.11
10-Jul-00 EIP Associates 10751 Prof Fees & Exp to June 30 $14,426.05
8-Aug-00 EIP Associates 10906 Prof Fees & Exp to July 28 $12,032.01
7-Sep-00 EIP Associates 11035 Prof Fees & Exp to Aug 25 $11,352.69
12-Oct-00 E IP Associates 11153 Prof Fees & Exp to Sep 29 $17,577.08
10-Nov-00 EIP Associates 11249 P rof Fees & Exp to Oct 27 $7,150.36
19-Dec-00 EIP Associates 11413 Prof Fees & Expte Nov 24 $44,375.08
18-Jan-01 EIP Associates 11463 Prof Fees & Exp to Dec 29 $21,075.15
26-Jan-01 EIP Associates 11538 Reimbursable Exp to Dec 28 $16,586.00
6-Feb-01 EIP Associates 11570 Prof Fees & Exp to Jan 26 $34,153.94
6-Mar-01 EIP Associates 11652 Prof Fees & Exp to Feb 23 $42,529.31
10-Apr-01 EIP Associates 11750 Prof Fees & Exp to Mar 31 $40,295.31
EIP ASSOCIATES SUB-TOTAL $326,803.28
Risk Sciences Sub-total $75,605.88
EIP Associates Sub-total $326,803.28
TOTAL Consultant Charges TOTAL $402,409.16
cmst[ine vlU ige
Ison
C.N. "Bud' McGehee
Alan E. C~anin
~ENE~AL ~NA~E~
· ~R D~I~ April 25, 2001 Nor~a, L.
To: All Independent Special Districts in San Bernardino County
Subject: Funding For the Independent Special Districts' Share of LAFCO Costs for
Fiscal Year 2001-02
The Board of Directors of the Crestline Village Water District is greatly concerned about
the Funding Alternatives that have been presented thus far. The District has voted
"NO" on the ballot that is due by May 15, 2001 and we encourage you to do the same.
Enclosed for your review is our staff recommendation for a new alternative funding
formula that we would like you to consider. The original alternative funding method
presented in the November 14, 2000 letter from LAFCO attempts to apportion the
independent Special Districts' sham of the LAFCO funding in an equitable manner, but
this was not acceptable to all districts. The hospital districts feel that they need special
consideration due to the nature of their business, and the largest districts feel that thei¢
share, based on a percentage of their total revenues, is inequitable. When alternatives
are presented, they are unacceptable to the smaller districts because they don't have
the revenues to pay a lot and the medium to large sized districts' feeling is: '~/Vhy do we
have to pay more so that everyone else can pay less?"
In our staff recommendation, the original alternative funding formula has been modified
to give the hospital districts special consideration and to place maximum amounts on
the districts' shares. While this formula probably does not satisfy every district, we
believe that this formula better meets the needs of a greater number of districts by
recognizing the needs of the Hospital Districts, reducing the amount of the largest
districts' shares and by not over burdening the smaller and medium sized districts.
We encourage you to vote "NO" on the current ballot and to give this new proposal
consideration.
General Manager
Encl.
P.O. BOX 3347 · 777 COTTONWOOD DRIVE, CRESTLINE, CALIFORNIA 92325 · TELEPHONE (909) 338-1727 · FAX (909) 338-4080
Dav~ R. 01son
WATER Di/TRI(T Norman L. Hun!
April 19, 2001
James M. Roddy, Executive Officer
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
175 West Fifth Street, Second Floor
San Bemardino CA 92415-0490
Subject: Alternative Funding Formula for the Independent Special Districts'
Share of LAFCO Costs.
Dear Jim.
Please consider this letter as a follow up of our conversation earlier this week and to
deliver the signed Ballot from the Crestline Village Water District that is due by May 15,
2001.
The Board of Directors, at their Regular Meeting of April 17, 2001, discussed the current
Altemative Funding Formula being considered. While there is no real objection to the
tiered method as a whole, there is a concem and objection regarding the method outlined
In the enclosed ballot.
The Board feels that the current proposed fee of $4518 for all districts with Operating
Revenues of $1,200,000 or mom, including the Inland Empire Utilities Agency with a
Total Operating Revenue of over 85,000,000 is completely uufair,
In the event the current ballot does not pass, and it may be necessary to consider another
method for the Alternative Funding Formula. I have attached to this letter a report
prepared by our staff that proposes a new Alternative Funding Formula for Independent
Special Districts' share of LAFCO costs for fiscal year 2001-02. We feel that this
formula better meets the needs of a greater number of districts by recognizing the needs
of the Hospital Districts, reducing the amount for the large districts and not over
burdening the smaller districts.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please give me a call at 909-338-1727.
Very truly ours,
t,
ALTERNATIVE FUNDING FORMULA FOR THE
INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICTS' SHARE
OF LAFCO COSTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-02
BALLOT
The CRESTLINE VILLAGE WATER DISTRICT
(Name of District)
has reviewed and considered the following alternative funding formula for
the independent districts' share of the LAFCO cost for FY 2001-02:
1. Each of the three Health Care Districts in San Bernardino County
(also known as "Hospital Districts"), shall each contribute $500 to the
Independent Special Districts' share of the LAFCO net cost, regardless
of the amount of their current total revenues; and,
2. All Independent Special Districts with total revenues less than
$50,000, as reported in the FY 1997-98 State Controller's Report on
the "Financial Transactions Concerning Special Districts" (the latest
publication available), shall each contribute $25 to the Independent
Special Districts' share of the LAFCO net cost; and,
3. All Independent Special Districts with total revenues between $50,000
and $100,000, as reported in the above-noted State Controller's
Report shall each contribute $50 to the Independent Special Districts'
share of the net LAFCO cost; and,
4. All Independent Special Districts with total revenues between
$100,000 and $200,000, as reported in the above-noted State
Controller's Report shall each contribute $250 to the Independent
Special Districts' share of the LAFCO net cost; and,
5. All Independent Special Districts with total revenues between
$200,000 and $1,200,000, as reported in the above-noted State
Controller's Report shall each contribute $2,750 to the Independent
Special District's share of the LAFCO net cost; and,
6. All Independent Special Districts with total revenues in excess of
$1,200,000, as reported in the above-noted State Controller's Report
shall equally divide the balance of the LAFCO net cost (currently
estimated at $4,518 per district for FY 2001-02).
Special Districts
Funding Formula
Ballot Measure
It is understood that this alternative formula shall be in effect only for
Fiscal Year 2001-2002, so that legislation amending Government Code
Section 56381 (the statutory formula), if any, can be further reviewed.
The above-named district hereby votes /V~) on this
alternative funding formula. (yes/no)
District President/Authorized Board Member
Date
2
V
ALTERNATIVE FUNDING FORMULA FOR INDEPENDENT
SPECIAl.. DISTRICTS' SHARE OF LAFCO COSTS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2001-02
Following is the proposed funding formula:
1. Each of the three Health Care Districts.in San Bernardino County (also known as
"Hospital Districts") shall each contribute $500 to the Independent Special
District's share of the LAFCO net cost, regardless of the amount of their current
total revenues; and,
2. All Independent Special Districts with total revenues in excess of $50,000,000, as
reported in the FY 1997-98 State Controll's Report on the "Financial Transactions
Concerning Special Districts" (the latest publication available), ..shall each
contribute $20,000 to the Independent Special District's share of the LAFCO net
cost; and,
3. All Independent Special Districts with total revenues less than $50,000,000, shall
each contribute an amount not to exceed $!0,000 to the Independent Special
District's share of the LAFCO net cost. The amount to be contributed is
determined by the ratio of each District's Total Revenues as compared to the
Total Revenues for all districts in this cate.qory whose share do not exceed
$10,000; and, (This section's wording may need to be worked on.)
4. This alternate formula shall be in effect only for fiscal year 2001-2002.
(At least 34 of 54 districts should be in favor of this funding alternative as being the best
alternative presented (other than the original alternative). Another 3 district would see
very little difference between this proposal and Ballot II, and another 4 districts would be
better offwith this proposal than with Ballot II.)
25715 8ant-. Ro.a, P.O: B~!~i'~e V,,lley, CA 92307 (760) 247-9i~ ~'~i ~:~'i~:~47-3974
~y 1, 2001., ~::
TO: ~L ~EPE~ENT SPECI~ DIS~CTS
S~CT'. ~A~ L~CO
D~ F~low gp~i~
~in, the L~CO ~t~ S~dy ~ouP of~e ~oci~tion of~e $~ B~dino County Sp~ci~
~s~cts ~ pr~uc~ moth~ fo~ula, The ~rst ro~ul~ w~ ~uate ~d u~r to the majo~ of the
~6cts, ~y-~x (56) ~ ~1, T~s n~ fo~ula ia just a~ bla~d ~d ~en more inequitible th~ ~e last one.
It npp~ ~at there i~ ~le thou~ gong into ~e pro~s of~ndi~ ~e f~r ~lution to the ~nding of
L~CO. Attached is a d[ff~t ro~ul~ m~hod bas~ on the ~e data t~t the ~oup u~ to ~me up
~th their fo~ula. ~e ~h~ m~hod i~ b~ed upon the ~e ~t~e r~ (pro r~ta ~ppo~io~t)
~[~ c~g~ to ~ the Di~tfi~ involve, ~s m~h~ ~y not be n~ to m~y oryou. Ii i~ f~r and
~ui~blo to ~1 ofus. ~y it w~ n~ cho~n is ~ myat~
Below ~o ~me ~ that ~y ~e the myst~:
L F~ oft~ mem~es ofl~ ~ G~p ~present ~me of t~ ~ lop rewnu~ pricers,
For them to create ~ ~pt their alter~ti~ fo~ula, the~ ~M ~ th~ while D~s~cts
with f~ le~r ~es w~M ~ ~ more,
Z dll gix of t& members ~ted '~s" ~o ~pro~ the I~t u~easo~blefo~la,
~, O~ lhe ~rteen (1~) lop re~nue pr~cers, revere totalltng ~imatel~ $~7,844,~20
of t~ total re~e of ali the Dts~icts, ~ but ~e YO~ "YES" to ~pro~ ~elr fo~la,
t~l t~ bur~n of ~ ~O ~Mtng w~ld come ~m the majori~ of DIstric~
20~ of t~ r~enue,
1~ there a myst~ No~ You ~ ~ what is happing; it is subjmtlve ~d not obj~Ne. We
r~-ro~ into a~ptin~ ~t~ t~l is bad ~r us. ~dh~n~ly, it ~s b~ ~
fo~l~ p~u~d by the ~oup, th~o is no di~ussion inst., nor ~y m~n8 for di~ssion.
~ ~vm ~ "~e it or I~ve" pro~i~ion. By vo~g ~o appro~ the ~oup'~ lo.ia we ~e ~pro~
t~ ~p to t~e adv~t~ge of ~he ~jo~ty ofus. ff~ have ~ready voted yes ~d w~t to c~e yo~
vote, c~l ~em ~d c~ge ~ to NO.
~ Dis~ct ~ges yo~ ~s~ct to ~ ~ ~e new ~d~g fo~a ~d ~k
~e a look at a fo~ula ~ is ~ to ~1. ~ beh~f of the Bo~d of Dir~o~ of ibc
Coun~ Wat~ Di~fi~, we t~k you for ~ur ~nsidemion,
~C~L W. ~S, ~ner~
LAFC0 APPORTIONMENT
ALTERNATIVE ]qJNDTNG FORMIA, A
]qAME OF DISTR~CT pORTION OF ALLOCATION OF $1 qR
A?.le Valley ~e Prat~ti~n % I :~.2~
. . 1,0053i
~oW F~e Prot~tJnn ~, 12 { 4
~hlnn V~I~ Inda~ndant Fire 1:223
~wenmine Palm~ C~ 68 1 ]
R~mtnw R~renHon ~d P~k 237.66
~ker D~ R~r~tinu ~d P~k 3 I
~im of The World Recr~tinn ~d P~k ~7.79
~n)nve ~e~fl ~m~e Co~ntinn 63 ~
W~ V~ V~nr ~nntrnl 466 41
Yu~n Vnll~ ~n 9 ~
~i~ ~ Co~mun{t~ Redoes 211 a
~tow ~i~ht~ C~mmnn{~ S~cem
~ ~ C~ Commu~ Se~a 2.97728
~A~ ~nmmu~ty ~e~ees 75.77
l~ke ~owh~ Cflmmufl{~ R~S 4 ~01 87
New~ ~nmmun{~ Re~ ~.99
Y~o C~mmunity Re~m ,
B~ V~I~ Cammuni~ Ho~itM 2.48 I
Rig Be~ Mu~eipfl Water Oimtfi~ 1:2R1
R~ ~{~ Vdl~ Munlel?l 11 370
Apple Vdl~ F~thill Wnt~
Ap?e VdI~ ~ei~ht~ Water 49.~
~owh~r P~ ~un~ Water ~22 72
~dy M~ W~ter .... ~ ~ !_067.2~
~re~tlin~ yilla~e Water , ,, ,
~ue~n~a ~o~m~ Watar .....
lo~hu~ R~fl WAter _
l~iper ~vera'Co~tF Water .......
Monte V~ta Water _ _ 3:075~
Rnnflln~ ~pdn~*
~underbkd ~oun~ Water ~ ' 40:97
Tw~t~fle
~or V~ey ~ater ......
....
W~I g~fl Be~rd~o ~oun~ Wat~ 3:76554
Vu~pa V~ Water _ 3:913 ~ I
Ri~hom Oe~ View Water
~llne-L~e ~oW~Jd Wa~er ~en~'" _ 661
.......
TOT~ $158,399.94
L~CO EST~ ~OET $156,~0.00
~O~A:
$ ]SS 189 = .0004240384 X YOUR REVENUE ~ ~QUAL SHARD
373,053,456 PORTION OF
ALLOCATION
Special Districts
Funding: Formula
Ballot Measure
It is understood that this alternative formula shall be in effect or~ly for
Fiscal Year 2001-2002, so that legislation amending Government Code
Section 56381 {the statutory formula), if any, can be further reviewed.
The above-named district hereby votes ~ on this
alternative funding formula. [yes/no)
District~resident~Authoriz~d Board Member'
Date
ALTERNATIVE FUNDING FORMULA FOR THE
INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICTS' SHARE
OF LAFCO COSTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-02
BALLOT
The East Valley Water District.
{Name of District)
has revie~ved and considered the following alternative funding formula for
the independent districts' share of the LAFCO cost for FY 2001-02:
1. Each of the three Health Care Districts in San Bernardino County
{also known as "Hospital Districts"), shall each contribute $500 to the
Independent Special Districts' share of the LAFCO net cost, regardless
of the amount of their current total revenues~ and,
2. All Independent Special Districts with total revenues less than
$50,000, as reported in the FY 1997-98 State Controller's Report on
the "Financial Transactions Concerning Special Districts" (the latest
publication available), shall each contribute $25 to the Independent
Special Districts' share of the LAFCO net cost; and,
3. All Independent Special Districts with total revenues between $50,000
and $100,000, as reported in the above-noted State Controller's
Report shall each contribute $50 to the Independent Special Districts'
share of the net LAFCO cost; and,
4. All Independent Special Districts with total revenues between
$100,000 and $200,000, as reported in the above-noted State
Controller's Report shall each contribute $250 to the Independent
Special Districts' share of the LAFCO net cost; and,
5. All Independent Special Districts with total revenues between
$200,000 and $1,200,000, as reported in the above-noted State
Controller's Report shall each contribute $2,750 to the Independent
Special District's share of the LAFCO net cost; and,
6. All Independent Special Districts with total revenues in excess of
$1,200,000, as reported in the above-noted State Controller's Report
shall equally divide the balance of the LAFCO net cost (currently
estimated at $4,518 per district for FY 2001-02).
Special Districts
Funding Formula
Ballot Measure
It is understood that this alternative formula shall be in effect only for
Fiscal Year 2001-2002, so that legislation amending Government Code
Section 56381 (the statutory formula), if any, can be further reviewed.
t
The above-named district hereby votes ~/~- on this
alternative funding fo~ mula. {yes/no)
Pres±dent
Presi~teht/Authorized Boarc~ Member
Date
# of
Post-It' Fax Note 7671 Date.,~_-Tq;) ~ Ipagss~' ~
Co./Dept. U~ ~.. 0 U CO. ~q~
Phone. Phone ~ ~g~qfl ~
2
z
i o o ~ oo o ~
z
oj 0 ~
O0 W
oo ~o5~ooo ~
~ ~ oo~ ~ ~
~o 0 o o ooooo ooo oo o
o
~ w ~oo~o oo o ~
~oo~o~ ~ ~
Z Z ZZ
o ~ oo
~z~
0 ~ ~ ~0 0 Ow~_ <<~J
z =~ oo= ~
0 OZ
~ o
~ 0 --
o oo ~ ~ ~ o~
0
~ W ~ Z
zzo~ : oo w
~ o ~ ~ oo
u.I
o o c;:? o o o. o o. o
~ c5 cd o c:; c:5 o cd o cd
r, Dw
~ °o °o o c::, o o o o o
c::) o c::? o c3 c:3 c::)
· - rs'
w~ c~ o o. o. o o. o o o ~z
_o~ w ~- ~ ~- ~ ~ o ,:0 ~ o° w
,Yn, U_ ~- ~ ,-
af~ ~,O~i~ ~-- I'- u3 o LO >- ,~ o 0 t-. --
~oo° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,-
X~ 8 °o. oo ooo ooo o
W
LU
o~ o
__. ,,~, ~6 o d ~5 o ~ ~5 ~5 o z
<
n-
>'_j ~9 n ~ > 0 Z 0O n, ~ <> UJz
D m w 0 0 w < w < n -n 0
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
E 'ECTOR'S FEES AND EXPENSE F,~7ORT
DIRECTOR: L-I~Z-[.~)'~O0'~' MONTH OF: ~/~/L
3oardMeetings: ~(/~ ,
Conferences and Other Meetinqs
Date: z//,(_ Organization //~'ctO Description. f~,,~,/~/x,C~
Date: "~/¢, Organization £ I~)f- Description.....~)¢,~/4s"f~'~P
Date: .'¢-/~ Organization tq~.'z?,'uG ~,/ ~..~ Description
Date: z~//~, Organization /~/~L~..~. Description M~I~I~L~
Date: ~/~¢' Organization f~L///JD Description. /~,~,'?D
Date: '~/z~ Organization [/~bJ D Description.....~/~;?~-/C2"T'
Date: H/ZO .Organization /4~,~,,¢6g/¢~,~<~)¢fa Description ~,/H,I'T'£~.
Date: .Organization Description
Date: Organization Description
Date: .Organization Description
~ Date: Organization Description
Date: .Organization Description
Date: Organization Description
Date: Organization Description
Date: .Organization Description
TOTAL# OF MEETINGS ~ @125.00 each $ //2¢';¢_~____~
Personal Auto: Miles x .325 per mile $.. ¢¢' .
Parking Fees $ ~ .
Total Lodqin.qs, Meals & Other: (Details on Back) $.
Total Director's Expenses $
~~¢~ L~,~/¢c/~'/[j'' T°talDirect°r'sMeetings&Expenses$ //2Z"'[2
~i~igned /,~, Less any Advance Payments $.
Date of Board Approval TOTAL DUE DIRECTOR $
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
DIRECTOR'S FEE AND EXPENSES REPORT
DIRECTOR: DON GOODIN MONTH April, 2001
Meetinqs Claimed:
Board Meetin.qs ('Dates) 9,23
Conferences and Other Meetinqs
Date: 16 Organization: Special Districts Location: Gourmet
Date: 17 Organization: WESTCAS, Budget Corer Location: Ontario
Date: 18 Organization: Board Workshop Location: District
Date: 19 Organization: District Tour Location: District
Date: 2O Organization: Mtg w/Glen, Bob Location: Tartan
Date: Organization: Location:
Date: Organization: Location:
Date: Organization: Location:
TOTAL MEETINGS 7 X$125.00= $ 875.00
Personal Auto
Date: Function:
Date: Function:
Total $
Lod.qin.q
Date: Function:
Date: Function:
Total $
Meals (Receipts)
Date: Function:
Date: Function:
Total $
Other
Date: Function:
Date: Function:
Total $
Total Directors Expenses $
Total Directors Fees (Meetings) $ 875.00
Less Advance Payments
Approved Date of Board Meeting Ma), 14, 2001
~ EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
DIRECTOR'S FEES AND EXPENSE REPORT
Meetings Claimed
Board Meeting (Dates) q Z
!
Conferences and Other Meet nss
Date: / 7 Organization .~.,'.,'.Z:' Location
Date: t/c-~' Organization,Zd/~xc~'d~'",/~,~tg'/~DLocation ~',. ~/o
Date: /.(~ Organization~/5~z~/' /O~ Location ~)?,.~'~'/~'~'
Date:/ Organization ocation
Date:2 7 Organization{~'~e',or'~/,'~,/~.,ff/ffg~ Location
Dat~: OrganizationLocation
TOTAL MEETINGS~ / ~ $12S.00 ~ach
Personal Aulo
Date: Function A~Icnded $
Date: Function Attended
Total
~dgings: ~eceipts aRached)
Da~e: Function Attended $
Date: F~clion Attended $
Total
Meals: (Receipts at{ached)
Date: Function Attended $
Date: Function Attended $ ~-
Total $
Other:
Date: Function Attended $
Date: Function Attended $
Date: Function Attended $ ' O
Total $.
Total Director's Expenses $ '-~-'
Total Director's Fees (Meetings) $
Less any Advance Payments $ __.?
~ ~ TOTAL DUE DIRECTOR $
Signed
Approved Date of Board Meeting
.. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRIr..
/ DIRECTOR'S FEES AND EXPENS. E' R'~'PORT
~IRECTOR: Sturgeon MONTH OF: April 2001 ·
~""~leetin,qs Claimed
Board Meeting (Dates): 9 & 23
21 Habitat for Humanity Highland/SB Tour
Conferences and Other Meetin.qs 11 & 12 ~- AGWA in Ontario
Date: 4 .OrganizationLAFCO Location San Bernardino
Date:, 16 OrganizationSpecial Districts LooationSan Bernardino
Date: 19 OrganizationEVWD Tour Location San Bernardino
Date: 18 .OrganizationEVWD tocationDistriot Offices
Date: 5 Organization Region 8 Location Burbank
Date: 6 Organization CDF Location. Arrowhead Springs
23 S'±gn Contracts at EVWD
TOTAL # OF MEETINGS 10 @125.00each $ 1,250.00
Personal Auto:
Date: Function Attended
Miles x per mile
Date: Function Attended
Miles x per mile $
TOTAL $
~'Lodgin,qs: (Receipts attached)
Date: 03/27 Function Attended W~.F
Date: Function Attended $
TOTAL $ 8 7.2 0
Meals: (Receipts attached)
Date: Function Attended $.,,
Date: Function Attended $.
TOTAL $
Other:
~ Date: 06/3.7 Function Attended AWWA ,, $ 805.00
Date: Function Attended
Date: Function Attended $
TOTAL $ 8o5.0o
,SUMMARY,:
Total Director's Fees (Meetings) $1250. oo
Total Director's Expenses $ 892.20
~1~ Less any Advance Payments -- $
QC~------ TOTAL DUE DIRECTOR $2,142.20
Signed
Approved Date of Board Meeting,
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRI' '
'"~IRECTOR'S FEES AND EXPENSE R~ORT
DIRECTOR: SKIP WILSON MONTH OF:
Meetings Claimed
BoardMeeting(Dates) q[ rt $ s,/;y j
Conferences and Other Meetings
Date: ~.[!~. Organization ~.a~?~[ D',~-F~-b,- Location
Date: '~/Iq Organization 0wr 'r~o~ Location
Date: '.11 g Organization u;?~. ~.~, /1 ,,,~ ~ t Location
Date: ¥/~7 Organ/zation~s ?~o~_,-:~Ce~,.. ~ Location
Date: '~ I '( Organization ktl~cO -o~- ~.lao~.~h~ Location
Date: ~[2~' Organization tqr't ,o! 6,~.,,-.~.,~,.. /,a,.ne Location
TOTAL MEETINGS / ~ ~ ~ each
Personal Auto
Date: Function Attended
Date: Function Attended $
Total $ --~
Lodgings: (Receipts attached)
Date: Function Attended $
Date: Function Attended $
Total $ --~
Meals: (Receipts attached)
Date: Function Attended $
Date: Function Attended
Total
Other:
Date: Function Attended
Date: Function Attended $
Date: Function Attended
Total
Total Director's Expenses $
Total Director's Fees (Meetings) $ ~t
Less any Advance Payments $
/ ./~f'¢///~ ),~_~ TOTAL DUE DIRECTOR $
Signed
/
Approved Date of Board Meeting
~ ~'~ I;~fol,latio~i a;ld Ellghleerhtg Soh~tic,s
May 8, 2001 ' ~
~.RobertM~in t ~. ~U~ M~Y - ~ ~00 .~
Oener~ M~ager ; ~ ..........~
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
1155 Del Rosa Avenue ~ST V~&LEY V,~;~i'f R DiSTR~CT
S~ Bem~dino, CA 92410
Subject: PROPOSAL FOR P~P~ATION OF A SEWER MASTER PL~
De~ Mr. M~in:
Psomas is pleased to sub~t this revised proposal for the prep~ation of a Sewer Master Plan for
East Valley Water District (Dis~ict). We appreciate the time yo~ st~f has spent with us in
refining ~d identifying the needs of the District. Psomas has successfully provided the exact
s~e se~ices for a number of other public agencies in California. k all cases, Psomas has
worked very closely with each agency to underst~d their cu~ent needs as well as their ~mre
growth expectations to prep~e a sewer m~ter pl~ that truly represents the agencies' needs.
Psomas intends to apply the highest level of c~e in the prep~ation of the District's Sewer
Master PI~ by closely co~unicating with the District staff at v~ious stages of the Sewer
M~ter Plan prep~ation.
Our propos~ is attached for your reference (Attac~ent A). The proposal lists the major tasks
proposed for this project, with a budget estimate for each task. Psom~ would be pleased to
~er discuss ~s propos~ with you ~d yo~ st~f to ~swer ~y addition~ questions regar~ng
the proposed tasks ~d the scope of each task.
We ~e ready to st~ on this ~si~ent i~ediately and look fo~d to wor~ng with you ~d
your staff. If you have ~y questions reg~ding t~s propose, please do not hesitate to contact
John R. Thornton our Tech~c~ M~ager or me.
Sincerely, ~
~~. Rowe, PE 3187 ~ed H~[, Aveaue
Director of Water Resources suite 250
costa Mesa, CA 92626
Attac~ent 714.751 7373
714.545 8883 Fax
PSOI~AS
EAST VALLEY WATER DIASTRICT
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE PREPARATION OF A
SEWER MASTER PLAN
Scope of Work
TASKS ESTIMATED FEE
Task 1 - Project Initiation $2,915
1 ,lO - Develop work plan and review with District
1,20 - Kick~off meeting
Task 2 - Data Collection $16,180
2.10 - Obtain from District and review atlas maps, sewer as-builts,
maintenance records
2.20 - Obtain land use information including current
and future for District, City of Highland, City of San Bernardino,
and the County
2.30 - Evaluate atlas maps and land use and determine flow monitoring needs
2.40 - Review master meter data and interview District staff and estimate
infiltration, review flow monitoring locations with District
2.50 - Initiate flow monitoring (flow monitoring cost not included)
2.60 - Evaluate flow monitoring data and compare to land use and develop
flow generation factors for different land uses as well as peaking factors
Evaluate and recommend modeling software based on sewer system
Characteristics
2.70 - Review with District
Task 3 - Mapping $17,530
3.10 - Digitize 600 scale District sewer system maps to develop
AutoCAD base map to serve as anode diagram for modeling
3.20 - Identify manhole inverts from 100 scale atlas maps and
input into database, spot check questionable areas from
as-built drawings as necessary.
3.30 - Digitize land use to AutoCAD base
Task 4 - Modeling Existing System $30,760
4.10 - Build flow model node diagram of existing system
4.20 - Determine tributary areas
4.30 - Input data into flow model and run
4.40 - Calibrate flow model with monitoring and master meter data
4.50 - Identify characteristics in existing system
4.60 - Develop exhibits, deficiencies, and recommendations
4.70 - Review with the District
PS OI IAS
TASKS ESTIMATED ]FEE
Task 5 - Modeling Future System $15,520
5.10 - Overlay future land use and determine additional flows
5.20 - Revise model to reflect future system
5.30 - Run future system model and determine future sizes
5.40 - Develop exhibits of future sewer system and WWTP capacity needs
5.50 - Review with District
Task 6 - Capital Improvement Program $22,430
6.10 - Interview O & M staff and identify hot spots
6.20 - Review stream crossings in particular City Creek and determine
need to replace crossing based on capacity and pipe materials
6.30 - Review Sunrise Ranch annexation as to need for stand alone WWTP
or flow through District
6.40 - Determine need for permanent flow monitoring stations
6.50 - Review with District
6.60 - Develop a Capital Improvement Proglam
Task 7 - Master Plan Report $18,720
7.10 - Develop a draft Master Plan Report
7.20 - Review with District
7.30 - Final Master Plan Report
Task 8 - Other Studies $12,415
8.10 - Review IPA A~eement with regards to capacity and rights of
the District and submit a memo
8.20 - Review Overflow Response Plan for compliance with CMOM and
RWQCB requirements and submit a technical memo
8.30 - Review design standards and submit a technical memo
8.40 - Misc. Additional meetings estimated at 4 over the life of project
Task 9 - Other Costs $97,266
9.10 - Sewer Flow monitoring software to be determined based on
characteristics of sewer system, for budget purpose $11,000
9.20 - Two permanent flow monitoring stations including installation
and one year comprehensive monitoring service including
quarterly reports. $57,750
9.30 - Three temporary flow monitoring station operated for one week
including installation, take down and report. $ 9,240
9.40 - Three AutoCad Map 2000i licenses, current cost of $4,500 per
license plus tax. $14,546
9.50 - Provide computer work station recommendations and two days
training with districts sewer system model $ 4,730
TOTAL ESTIMATED FEE $234,791
To: Robert E. Martin, General Manager
CC: Alberta M. Hess, Chief Financial Officer
Becky Kasten, Account Clerk II
Paul Dolter, District Engineer
From: Fred Stafford, Water Production Superviso
Date: May 7, 2001
Re: Southern California Edison Re-Billing
Since late last year (2000), Alberta, Becky and I have been involved in
several meetings with Ray Hicks, Account Executive for Southern California
Edison (SCE), concerning what SCE states is a series of reading errors. Per
SCE, these reading errors resulted in under and/or over-billings which netted
nearly $90,000 in under-billings
East Valley Water District has made all payments to SCE as billed, except
the additional charges. The additional charges are based on SCE's revised
calculations, based upon historical usage.
Attached is a letter from Mr. Hicks, explaining what SCE states caused the
under and/or over-billing. You will note that the errors were the results of
both accounting and installation errors on the part of SCE. These revised
calculations are based upon the data that SCE is familiar with and could or
could not be correct. There is always reasonable doubt, although they
based it upon our historical usage.
Memorandum
May 7, 2001
Southern California Edison Re-Billing
Page 2
This entire situation does not sit well with me because I cannot really
validate their revised over/under-billings, The SCE revised calculations
seem to be legitimate, although they have been tardy in their discovery of
errors.
/wf
EDISON'
~m~ An EDI$?N £NTERNATIONAL® Company
March 27, 2001
Alberta Hess ": '
Chief Finaxtcial Officer
East Valley Water District
P. O. Box 3427
San Bemardino, CA 92413
Dear Alberta:
The following is a summary of the accounts we have been reviewing and the balance for
each.
Service Account No. (credit)/debit
14-957-64 50,000.00
01-3786-92 (23,865.07)
00-6922-40 (10,483.70)
2-07-759-4695 (1,212.75)
~' TOU REBI~LL 71,256.84
Showcase Project (3,000.00)
Total Due 82,695.32
The following is an explanation of each above account.
.14-957-64: When the meter was changed in 1998, the kilowatthour (kWh) and reactive-
volt amps (kVAR) leads were reversed. KVAR has current 90 degrees out of phase with
the voltage and is used to deterr~ne Power Factor. This resulted in an under payment to
SCE. Meter leads were corrected and tested to verify proper operation. This occurred on
June 30, 1998 and was corrected on November 27, 2000.
91.3.7.86-92: When a meter change occurred in 2000, the wrong multiplier was left on the
account resulting in an over billing to customer. The multiplier has been corrected and
this credit is the over payment to SCE. A multiplier is the value used to calculate actual
usage against the meter consumption.
00-6922-40: This account had a rate change requested in 1999. The rate was not ..
changed until December 2000. A review of the account usage resulted in the above
credit.
_2-07-759-4695.: This had a late payment charge incorrectly applied. ~t was removed
from the bill and a credit was added.
7951 Redwood Ave.
TOU...REBILL is due to the electronic calendars of certain Time of Use 'frou) meters
not updating prior to the summer of 1999. This resulted in On-Peak kW and kWh not
registering on several accounts. KW is the highest fifteen-minut~ period demand
measured over a month. The attached spreadsheet identifies each account and the amount
due. Details of usage have been reviewed with your staff. The rebilling of the accounts
results in the above debit.
Showcase Pro.iect is the cooperative effort between EVWD and SCE staff to document
the energy usage and patterns on the new Sodium Hypochlorite Generator at the Philip A.
Disch Surface Water Treatment Plant.
If you have any questions, please call me at (909) 357-6271.
Thank you,
Ray Hicks
Account Executive
Water Segment
Southern California Edison
Enclosure
V
Service Accounts Affected By Re-Bill
Balance of
Minimum
Service Customer Acct Charge TOU Reblll
Acct # # Customer Name Service Address Deblt/Credlf; Debit/Credit Net Deblt/Credll
EAST VALLEY WATER
719985 77594695 DISTRICT 6TH-PEDLEY, SAN BERNARDINO $0.00 $4,927.12 $4,927.1
EAST VALLEY WATER
692240 775s469-" DISTRICT 180I PLANT E 10 PMP, HIGHLAND $0.00 $1,259.86 $1,259.85
EAST VALLEY WATER
1378692 77594695 DISTRICT 2135 PLANT F3, HIGHLAND -$564.85 $6,230.39 $5,665.5z.
EAST VALLEY WATER
687429 77594695 DISTRICT 2017 PLANTH3, EAST HIGHLANDS" $0.00 $770.11 $770.11
EAST VALLEY WATER
1022542 77594695 DISTRICT 2129 PLANT HS, EAST HIGHLANDS -$357.52 $3,321.45
EAST VALLEY WATER
962190 77594695 DISTRICT 2308 3RD ST, HIGHLAND -$779.85 $10,442.48 $9,652.6.',
EAST VALLEY WATER
707259 77594895 DISTRICT 30 LAPRA[X-28TH ST, SAN BERNARDINO $0,00 $1,005,10 $1,005.1¢,
EAST VALLEY WATER
977206 77594695 DISTRICT 6901 DEL ROSA DRIV, HIGHLAND 60.00 $2,821.02 62,621.02
EAST VALLEY WATER
~,~.,~78706 77594695 DISTRICT 1807 PLANT J 8 PMP, SAN BERNARDINO $0.00 $3,429,28 $3,429.2~
'~' EAST VALLEY WATER
2973785 77594695 DISTRICT 1703 PLANT E 9 PMP, SAN BERNARDINO $0,00 $5,567.74 $5,567.7,~
EAST VALLEY WATER
1378693 77594695 DISTRICT 2138 PLANT AS, EAST HIGHLANDS $0.00 $12,803.38 $12,803.3~
EAST VALLEY WATER
5845739 77594695 DISTRICT 29090 ABBEY PA2, HIGHLAND -$417.03 $10,225.43 69,808.4¢
EAST VALLEY WATER 28889 GREENSPOT ROAD, EAST
10436633 77594695 DISTRICT HIGHLANDS -$1,887.01 612,089,5c. $10,202.5(
EAST VALLEY WATER
10504943 77594695 DISTRICT 4588 E HIGHLAND AVE, HIGHLAND -$615.50 $288.14 -$327.3(
EAST VALLEY WATER
679404 77594695 DISTRICT 2005 PLANT H6, HIGHLAND 60.0C $976.17 $976.17'
EAST VALLEY WATER
76352(: 77594695 DISTRICT 1319 PLANT G-3, HIGHLAND -$78.66 $0,00 -$78,66
GRAND
TOTAL -64,700,42 675,957.26 $71,256.84
ED]SON"
Mamh 27, 2001
Alberta Hess
Chief Financial Officer
East Valley Water District
P. O. Box 3427
San Bemardino, CA 92413
Dear Alberta:
The following is a summary of the accounts we have been reviewing and the balance for
each.
Service Account No. ~credit)/debit
14-957-64 50,000.00
01-3786-92 (23,865.07)
00-6922-40 (10,483.70)
2-07-759-4695 (1,212.75)
TOU REBILL 71,256.84
Showcase Project (3,000.00)
Total Due 82,695.32
The following is an explanation of each above account.
14-957-64: When the meter was changed in 1998, the kilowatthour (kWh) and reactive-
volt amps (kVAR) leads were reversed. KVAR has current 90 degrees out of phase with
the voltage and is used to determine Power Factor. This resulted in an under payment to
SCE. Meter leads were corrected and tested to verify proper operation. This occurred on
June 30, 1998 and was corrected on November 27, 2000.
01-3786-92: When a meter change occurred in 2000, the wrong multiplier was left on the
account resulting in an over billing to customer. The multiplier has been corrected and
this credit is the over payment to SCE. A multiplier is the value used to calculate actual
usage against the meter consumption.
,00-6922-40: This account had a rate change requested in 1999. The rate was not
changed until December 2000. A review of the account usage resulted in the above
credit.
2-07.759-4695: This had a late payment charge incorrectly applied. It was removed
from the bill and a credit was added.
7951 R~dwood Ave.
Foniana, CA 92556- 1657
TOU REBILL is due to the electronic calendars of certain Time of Use (TOU) meters
not updating prior to the summer of 1999. This resulted in On-Peak kW and kWh not
registering on several accounts. KW is the highest fifteen-minute period demand
measured over a month. The attached spreadsheet identifies each account and the amount
due. Details of usage have been reviewed with your staff. The rebilling of the accounts
results in the above debit.
Showcase Pro,iect is the cooperative effort between EVWD and SCE staff to document
the energy usage and patterns on the new Sodium Hypochlorite Generator at the Philip A.
Disch Surface Water Treatment Plant.
If you have any questions, please call me at (909) 357-6271.
Thank you,
Ray Hicks
Account Executive
Water Segment
Southern California Edison
Enclosure
RELEASE OF LIENS
APRIL 26, 2001
ACCOUNT OWNERS PROPERTY AMOUNT
NUMBER NAME ADDRESS OWED
1. 063-0285-2 1829BANGORAVE 46.62
2. 084-1595-9 26556 FRANCISCO CT 90.97
TOTAL $137.5~/
+PAID THROUGH TAX ROLLS
Page 1 of 1
THE WALL STREET JOUP,~NAL WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25
Pd VIEW & OUTLOOK
The Arsenic Ruckus
We've recently learned a lot about became the benefit to be weighed
arsenic, thanks to the ruckus the earl- against the coot of implementing the
ronmental/satety folks raised when new standard. TheEPA monet[ned the
the Bush Administration withdrew rea- benefits of its new standard at $170 mll-
ulations the Clinton Administration ts- lion a year, and estimated the costs at
sued three days borers leaving office. $210 mil[ion a year. It then.decided that
What we learned, though, is not what this trade.off "justified" the costs, and
the ruckus is supposed to teach us, and promulgated the standards.
everyone else. These calculations have since been
First, it seems that cost-benefit extenalvetycritiquedinapaperforthe
analysis, the bane of the green move- AEI-Brcoklngs3dintCenterforRegala-
ment everywhere, has reared its ugly tory Studies. It's entiUed "EPA's Ar.
head. Under the relevant law, the Envi- genie Rule: The Benefits of the Stan-
ronmentai protection Agency is not dard DO Not Justify the Costs," and
merely charged with determining waswrittenbyJasonK, Burnett, are-
whether arsenic is dangerous, which searcher for the center, and Rober~W.
depending on the dose it certainly Is. Hahn, its director, an A. EI resident
The law says that in determining what scholar and a lung-time academic.
level of arsenic is safe in drinking wa- They argue that the linear metbodol-
tel', the EPA should find a level "that ogy overstates the benefit; they think
maximizes health risk reduction bene~ that the new standards woukin't save 28
fits at a cost that is]net[fled by the ben- lives a year as the EPA said, but only
elite." Hmmm. about 10. Since the costs would divert
We also learned that the ruckus con- money from other good uses, they con-
sists of trying to cut arsenic into the tinue, on net the rule would actually rs-
Prcorastean Bed of "g~'eedy business sulttoaloosefiife,Atso, nootscomenow
pollutoo environment, kills innocents and the benefits come far in the future,
to swell profits." While some industrial and the gPA didn't discount for this.
processes produce arsenic, this is It'sworthnotingthatinquantifying
pretty much incidental. The arsenic re- the savings, the EPA used a value of
ally in question was put there by none $6.1 millldn for what economists call
other than Mother Nature. The issue is the "value ufa statist[nail[fo." The AEI-
~vhethar municipal water systems In Brookings authors warn that the term
!ligb-arsenic areas such as New Me×- is in/elicithus: "Economists are trying
~co have to invest in new equipment to to measure what people are willing to
reduco the level of arsenic Mother Ns- pay for small changes In the probabil-
tut~e gave them. ity of reducingdifferent kinds of heaRh
Since 1942, the allowable standard and safety rtsk%,not the value of ~av-
ina a life," The point is that we need
for arsenic in drinking water has been some way t6 think about risk. Safety is
50 parts per billion (or micrograms per never absolute; we do not baa aurorae:
liter). In recent years, epidemtologinal
evidence from Taiwan, Chile and Ar- biles because we can statistically pre-
gent[ns has clearly implicated arsenic ' 'diet fatal anoidents.
as a cause of {~lahder and lung cancer, At the very least, the arsenic issue
but arsenic levets in these studies ran is anything but black and white. There
at least several hundred parts per bi]- are vast swatches of subjective judg-
ment; even on what the meaning of
lion, No real data exist for 50 pph, or "justify" is, The disting~shed sc[eh-
the 5 ppb once proposed or the 10 ppb ttsts of the NRC can only give answers
promulgated by the Clinton EPA.
based on heroic asstLmptiuns. We can
search Council juggled this problem in it through the first 1,459 days of the
i999. it decided that in the ahasnoo of Clinton Administration before promul-
rea(data, the estimate for the effect of gating the standards along with the
{ewer doses should be considered "lin- . Marc Rich pardonsjand the rest. And
ear," i.e., the effects of small doses we can certainly understand why the
would be proportional to the effects of Bush Administration might want to
larger doses. Ii thus estimated thafa take another look,
{ifetimeofdrinkingwaterwtihS0ppb The Bush crittc~ are raising a
of arsenic would canse 1 to L5 cease of ruckus because that's whal they do, but
male bladder cancer per 1,000 popula- one note especially bothers us. There's
tion. Then, with two of 16 members dis- an infersane that it's somehow illeglti-
sent[nc, it estimated that the risk for mate for Senator Pete Demonic[ to talk
ah cancers would be "on the re'der of 1 about arsenic to incoming gPA head
in 10o." Christie Whitman. Senator Domenicl's
Thts is a rather starthng estimate, New Mexico coustiinenis will both bear
but clearly an iffy one, in all likelihood the main costs and reap the main bene-
u win'at-case one. New Mexico environ- fits of the proposed new rule;you could
mental offici&]s report no unusual loci- even ask why we need an EPA rule at
denoo of cancel' attributable to arsenic, all when the voters of Albuquerque
as might be expected if the 1 in 100 est[- could decide on theft own how much
mate is in the ballpark. Incidences of they want to pay for a reduction in a
bladder cancer are unusually low-the slight and iffy risk. But fi' it's going to
state has the 48th lowest rate in the be decided at the federal level, s~ety
country. Dose effects are not usually their elected representatives are enti-
linear; the human body can process tied to make their views lmowni
iow levels of many poisons. Some stud- Mere voters are not qualiffed to ar-
ies even suggest arsenic in Iow levels is gue with 'science," the environmen-
an essential nutrient, iai/safety folks reply. Their arsenic
Yet in the EPA analysis, a reduction ruckus, as is so often the case, has pro-
in the risks based on NRC methodology roundly anti-democratic undertones.
DISTRICT
Board of Directors
Preslden t
Rodger D. Sicms
~'ic~, ~,.e,i,t~,,,t April 30, 2001
R{chard R. Halt
Marion V. Ashley
R~,,ay ^. ~o,-d Mr. Robert E. Martin
David J. Slawso. General Manager
East Valley Water District
Mal'y C Whhc P.O. Box 3427
San Bernardino, CA 92413
.Iohn B. Brudhl
Director (~fthe Dear Mr. Martin:
D¢,t,.ict ,¢'s,,. c,,t¢. On behalf of my colleague, Betty Gibbel, and myself I want to thank you and all the
Marlo V. Ashley staff of East Valley Water District for a wonderful day. The tour was extremely well
planned and executed, and we were certainly treated like kings!
We were especially impressed by the fact that your Directors are so supportive and
z~.~,,tc, ,,-~ take such an active role in the tour. Obviously, senior management was also
~awi,,¢,,,,dSh~,'~-in thoroughly involved. Those are the kinds of small details that can easily be
overlooked but which are important when well-done, as you folks so professionally
accomplished.
Your district is impressive and has much of which to be proud. Betty and I came
away with some useful ideas to improve our tours, as well as being thoroughly
educated on your district.
Please express our thanks to staff and to the Directors, especially my good flying
friend, Don Goodin.
Sincerely, ~
Community involvement
gfui/i~g.4ddress: Post Office Box 8300 Pc s. CA 92572-8300 Telephone: (909) 9,8-0777 Fax: (909) 928-6177
L~c'ation: 2270 Trumbte Road Perris. C'A 92570 h'.terr~et: www.emwd.oru
San Bernardtno County Special Districts '~" ~,
BaldYcl~tea~gxMesa Waterclx,~a,xx~District iniS¥ictorville.h°sting the May memberShip meeting at
The social hour will begin at 6 p.m. with a Call to order at 6:45 p.m. A sit-down
dinner will be served.
Choice of: I~akecl .~hrimp in ~'arLic E~u'H:er
12~a~: Duck L'~2range
A'kLan'kic gbLibu~c (CharbroiLecl or CaJun)
New York .b~ceak (CharbroiLecl or Cajun) and B, akecl
t.lappy ~'amiL>' 5~cirfry (Mix~:ure of Shrimp, f~,eef, Chicken and \/er~'e~cabLe~)
~ervea wig:h: Fr~h q'reen ~aLacl, GarLic I~read, Chinese 12.ice ancl:l~o~,rtbe~
Co~: ~2~ each ent:rge '
Program: IDiLL Pos~:mu~, .~an ~ernarctinv Cvun~ .~upervbvr,
................................................. : .......................
R$¥P to Karen 1Vi. Bligh by 1V[a¥
Telephone: ?60-949-0332 Fax: 760-949-'1563
10313 Duucan ~oad, ¥ictor¥ille, CA, 92,392,-0832,
District/Associate
IG~IV[[NDF. E.: There is a $2 surchaz~e per person for reservations made after the
meeting without having m~de reservations. You will also be billed for the dinner if cancellation is not received
,t, he d.~ad ,ne da~. ,
].:5425 Anacapa Road
Victorville, CA 92392
Directions:
15 Freeway north to Palmdale Road (CA-18W). Turn left onto Mafiposa Road. Turn Left onto 7t~
Street (72 Street becomes Palmdale Road/CA-18). Turn left onto Park Avenue. Turn left onto
Anacapa Road.
~ 15425 Anacapa Road, Victorville, CA 92392-2463
Region 10
Director Dr, Dadeen Stoner California Regional
Environmental Education
Dear Water Education Committee Members: April fl0, 200~
You are invited to attend the Spring 2001 meeting of the California Department 6f Water
Resources' Water Education Committee on June 13-14, 2001in San Bernardino. Your co-hosts
for this meeting are NEST - CREEC Region 10, CSUSB Water Resources Institute, and the San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District.
The first day of the meeting will start with a continental breakfast at 8:30 a.n~ at the San
Berrardino Valley Municipal Water District. g~er an introduction to the water district's
leadership in and contributions to water management, you will be taken, by bus, to visit several
sites: Baseline Feeder, Devil Canyon Power Plant, Seven Oaks Dam, and Yucaipa Lakes. Lunch
will be provided. The bus will return about 4:00 p.m.
At 6 p.m., the Water Resources Institute will host a reception on the Cai State San Bemardino
campus. An overview of the campus's efforts in water research, public policy, history, and
educational will be presented. A special feature of this reception will be the performance of the
Paul Cash Magic Show, "Protecting Earth, Our Water Planet."
The second day will start with a continental breakfast at 8:30 a~m. Participants will have an
opportunity to share their educational programs. If you have a specific presentation request of
15 minutes or more, please use the enclosed request form to submit your presentation. Longer
presentations will be included in the final agenda. All who are planning to give a presentation or
share information should complete the "Water Education Committee Member Update Form" and
bring a copy to the meeting. These forms will be used to compile meeting's minutes. Lunch will
be included and we will adjourn by 3 p.m.
Our meeting hotel will be the Hilton Hotel in San Bernardino (see enclosed for map). The
nearest airport is Ontario, wlfieh is approximately 20 miles from the hotel. You can either rent a
car or take a shuttle to the hotel from the airport. Please call the hotel directly for reservations.
For those without a car, we will arrange transportation to the water district office and to the
university. The meeting registration form will be used to help us plan for transportation needs.
Please return your registration, to be received by May 30, 2001. For any questions, please call
Carolyn Creel, NEST-CREEC Region 10 Coordinator, at 909~880-5490 or me at 909-880-5640.
Sincerely,
Dr. Darleen K. Stoner ~ '~.' ~, t
Professor, Environmental Education & - ::~ '
Founding Director, Network for Environmental Science Teaching ' '-
Environmenta~ Education Resource Center, California State University, 5500 University Parkway,
San Bernardino, CA 92407-2397 TEL 909-880-5681 I FAX 909-880-7013 http:/Isoe.csusb.edulNEST/
REGISTRATION FORM
Water Education Committee Meeting
June 13-14, 2001 ~ San Bernardino
MUST BE RECEIVED BY May 30, 2001
Name
Title
Agency
Mailing address
City Zip
Telephone Fax
Email
Registration fee will be $30.00. This will cover all expenses.
Please make your check for $30.00 payable to CSUSB Foundation. Enclose the check with your
Registration Form,
Please let us know your travel plans. Check those that apply.
__ I will be participating in the field trip on the first day.
__ I will be attending the evening reception at 6 p.m. on the first day.
__ I will be attending the informational and networking meeting on the second day.
__. I will be staying at the Hilton hotel (please make own reservations).
__ I will not have a car and will need transportation to/from the Hilton hotel and meeting
locations.
RETURN TEllS REGISTRATION FORM, WITH YOUR CHECK, TO BE RECEIVED
BY MAY 30, 2001, TO:
Dr. Darleen Stoner
College of Education
California State University
5500 University Parkway
San Bemardino, CA 92407
(If needed, fax to 909-880-7013 by May 30 and send check separately.)
You are encouraged to register early. Conference is limited to 60 participants.
After due date, call 909-880-5690 to check on conference availability.
PRESENTATION REQUEST FORM
Water Education Committee Meeting
June 13-14, 2001 - San Bernardino
MUST BE RECEIVED BY: May 30, 2001
FAX TO: 909-880-7013
OR
EMAIL INFORMATION TO dstoner~csusb.edu
Please submit this presentation request form if you want a scheduled presentation time on
June 14, 2001. If you want to discuss your presentation before sending this form, please
call Dr. Darleen Stoner at 909-880-5640.
Presenter's Name(s)
Job title(s)
Agency
Phone Fax
Email
Title of presentation
Length of time desired: 15 minutes 30 minutes 45 minutes __ Other__
Audio Visual needs: overhead projector VHS player & TV Other
Your information will be used to develop the agenda. Thankyou.
Please be sure to also complete the "Water Education Committee Member Update Form"
about your presentation. Please bring this completed form with you to the meeting so that
the information can be included in the minutes compiled for this meeting..
Please complete and brinl~o meeting. ~.,
WATER EDUCATION COMMITTEE I
Member Update Form
I
Meeting Date Phone No.
Contact Person
Title
Agency
Address
Activities Update
(Briefly list your 3 latest projects)
For Board Members, Treasurers, Manggers, Finance Officers,
Operation Managers, and Secretaries
of Special Districts, Cities, Counties, and Non-Profits
A Special District Institute Seminar
· The best seminar on district finance
· Completely updated -- the latest information, revised this year
· Addresses your needs with practical advice you can use immediately
This is the second in a series of three seminars designed to give you the tools needed to deal with the
challenges facing your district. Obtain valuable information to guide your agency through today's maze
of increasing costs, costly facilities, and complex regulations.
A Must Attend Seminar For Newly Elected Officials
Caesars Tahoe
South Lake Tahoe
"June 21-22, 2001 :
Accompanying Workshops offered June 20~h andJune'23~'t :
Special District Finance is designed to cover the full
spectrum of the financial information requirements
needed by today's financial management team.
7:30 - 8:00 a.m.
Special District Finance takes the participant step- 8:00-8:15 Introductions & Opening Remarks
by-step through the entire financing process. The 8:15-9:15 Fiscal Leadership and Strategic Financial Plannin
seminar provides the policy maker and manager 9:30- 10:30 Understandinl~ Your District's Audit
with the essentials of a long-range debt and revenue 10:45 - 11:45 Workshop 1 - Financial Planning
management system, and provides a solid foundation Workshop 2 - Auditing Issues
in financial planning techniques, including: 12:00 - 1:30 Keynote Luncheon
1:45- 2:45 Preserving Your District's Assets
· Capital Requirements Planning 3:00-4:00 Control Cost and Cash
· Budgeting 4:15 - 5:15 Workshop 1 - IMrastmcture Self-Assessment
· Debt Financing Workshop 2 - Financial Control
· Revenue Analysis 5:15- 6:15 Networking Reception
· Cash Management
~1~ · Investment Management 7:30 - 8:00 a.m.
· Operations and Maintenance Requirements 8:00- 9:00 Setting Rates, Charges, Fees, and Assessments
· Auditing 9:15-10:15 Market Your Budget Successfully
10:30 - 11:45 Workshop 1 - Successful Budget Formats
Workshop 2 - Favorable Bond Ratings
REGISTER NOW - 800-457-0237 12:00-1:00 Luncheon: Presentation ofCertificates
I:15-2:15 Debt Financing versus Pay as You Go
2:30- 3:45 Raising Revenue Without Being Lynched
Thousands have attended this valuable 'an nual 4:00 - 5:00 Workshop 1 - Raising Revenue Without Litigation
program oyer :thel past 30years. AIl in~tmst0rs Workshop 2 - Investment Practices and Trends
' 5:00 - 5:15 Sessiou: Finance
are experienced and practicing authorities in
the field of Special District Finance.
8:00-4:00
Two Optional Workshops Offered -...
T YOU'LL LEARN... WHAT YOU'LL LEARN...
~n-depth analysis of implications of GASB 34 * How to plan, prepare, conduct, and document meetings
· What GASB 34 will do to 7our district · Effective strategies to identify, prioritize, and schedule issues
· How to account for flxed assets and related depreciation · Ensuring full and fa/r discussion and debate by all
· Your district's financial options · California special meeting requirements
· Case Study - Sample Agency's Financial Statements * Confidence in a contentious environment
Katherine Buie is an Associate with Reiter Lowry Consultan~s and concentrates on long-range £mancial forecasting and rate stuc[ies
~r"or water, sewer, and cemetery districts. Kathy has over 20 years of hands-on experience in accounting, auditing, budgeting, and
records management.
Robert Campbell joined the San Diego County' Water Authority as its Chief Financial Officer in January 199 I. In 1997, Robert
was appointed Executive Assistant to the General Manager. Robert is presendy responsible for developing and managing the water
transfer and exchange contracts and has managed the financial at:lSdrs of the Authority ir;duding the £mance, treasury; accounting,
budgeting, information systems, purchasing, and warehousing operations.
Mark J. Capell is an Associate Director in Fitch's public £mance group. Mark joined Fitch in 1998 and is responsible for credit
analysis of municipal debt, including general obligation, lease-revenue, tax increment, and revenue bonds. Mark is currendy
responsible for business development of redevelopment transactions in the western region.
James Cervantes is an Investment Banker with St6ne and Youngberg, underwriters of municipal bonds. Jim has speciali2ed in
California public agenc7 £mancings since 1986. His experience includes Mello-Rons and assessment llnancings, water and sewer
enterprise bonds, lease-backed certificates of participation, and tax-exempt redevelopment bonds.
Greg Leddy serves as Consulting Acting Assistant General Manager, Finance and Administration, for the City of Anaheim, Public
Utilities Department and as Consulting Financial Manager for Southern California Public Power Authority. The former Chief
Financial Officer of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Greg has experience in debt issuance and managing
portfolios exceeding $1 billion. Greg has also served as an expert witness in trial cases regarding financial matters.
Gregg A. Lowry is a Principal and Co-Founder of Reiter Lowry Consultants. He is a registered civil and environmental engineer'
specializing in £mancial management models, project management, and maintenance and infrastructure planning and management.
With almost three decades of experience, Mr. Lowry has held various management positions in the U.S. Navy and Southern
California Special Districts. He has developed a widel7 used model for district application in planning, management, and facilities
md equipment control.
Dr. Stephen Morgan is an Application AnalTst in Government Financials for PeopleSoft. A director and past president of the
San Ramon Valle7 Fire Protection District, Steve is a recognized expert who has conducted extensive research in special district
consolidations and ptivatizarion issues. Steve is a lecturer at the University of Southern California and at California State University.
Janet Morningstas' is a Partner in the firm of McCormick, Kidman & Behrens in Costa Mesa, specializing in public law, water
law, and real estate matters. She is General Counsel for Rowland Water District and Associate General Counsel for Municipal
Water District of Orange County. Janet has fifteen 7ears experience in advising governing bodies of local agencies and special
districts in such areas as the Ralph M. Brown Act, the Political Reform Act, the Public Records Act, and the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Steven Wi. Northcote is Managing Partner with Leaf and Cole, a San Diego-based CPA firm specializing in auditing water districts
and other special districts in California. With over twenty years experience in governmental accounting and auditing, Steve is a
member of the AICPA and the California Society of CPAS. Steve has received the Certificate of Educational Achievement in.
Governmental Accounting and Auditing from the AICPA.
Martin Rauch is President of Rauch Communication Consultants. He has directed and implemented successful publi~ invulvement
programs for many public agencies statewide. An expert on media, Martin directs a team that produces dozens of newsletters,
brochures, presentations, and bulledus every year for man7 district clients. He has been a trainer and speaker for several-statewide
associations and conferences.
Robert Rauch is a Principal Consultant for Ranch Communication Consultants. With over 150 special districts, local agencies,
other organizations as clients, Robert is widel7 known throughout California. He specializes in planning and implementing focused
public information programs, providing management consulting, and conducting strategic planning retreats. With over 30 7ears
~.xperience, Robert was privileged to serve as a consultant to the White House.
~lll~Glerm M. Reiter is a Principal in Reiter Lowry Consultants, a San Diego-based engineering, computer, and financial consulting fi.tm,
founded in 1981. He has over 40 years experience in local government and special districts. Glenn has been General Manager and
Chief Engineer of a large southern California water district and a Director on the San Diego County Water Authority Board. He
specializes in financial planning, the setting of rates and fees, including the financing of capital improvements. A co-founder oft:he
California Special Districts Association and the Special District Institute, Mr. Reiter is a registered CaLifornia civil and professiona/[
engineer and Life Member of the American Water Works Association and the National Association of Independent Financial Advisors.
cai Leadership and Strategic Financial Planning Setting Rates, Charges, Fees, and Assessments
~ Glenn M. Reiter, Reiter Lowry Consultants Glenn M. Reiter, Reiter Lowry Consultants
· . Tough choices and ~'esponsibilifies of fiscal leade~'shlp · Keys tO establishing the necessary dollars fieeded to
· Me~eiy accounting for things won'~ c~tt ~t anymore : provide the desired l~ei of service
· Planning for the increasing demands for public services * Setting rates!n todayi litigious d!maie .
with decfeasing and restricted revenue sources ' * Gain support and approval of the cost by yolar board,'
constituents, and business customers: ' .
Understanding Your District's Audit
Steve Northcote, Leaf and Cole Market Your Budget Successfully
· How:well is your districts money managed. Glenn M. Reiter, Reiter Lowry Consultants
· Meaningful tools to help judge the peffoi'mance of your Robert Ranch, Rauch Communication Consultants
m~nagement team ' . 'i "' ~ * ThC budget, the board, and,the pubiid -ivoid
· Understand the importance and Value of the audit process confusion with your district's annual plan . ~ ·
· · Highlights on the requirements of GASB 34 * Components Of an effective budget
· Explaining your district's budget- effective
Workshops - Case Studies communication skills to avoid misunderitandings
1. Financial Planning - fiduciary respo/~sibilitles and · 'Build support for your district's financial ~Uccess.
challenges. Presented by Glenn M. Raker
2. Auditing Issues -: how to select an auditor and Workshops - Case Studies
c0fiduct an audit. Presdnted by Steve No~thcote
' 1..Successful Budget Formats` - review of successful ' --
: budget formats. What works and what doesn'tl
[ Preserving Your District's Assets · Presented by Glenn M. Reiter and Robert Rauch
. ~ Gregg A. Lowry, Reiter Lowry Consultants 2. Favorable Boad Ratings - techniques to imp~o,Je your
dismct s bond raung. Presented by Mark J. Capell
~' * Er~st~re that the district' assets don'tl deteriorate
· 'ImPOrtance of maintaining the district~~capital invem'nin~s
· Planning for the impact 0f growth and service needs on Debt Financing versus Pay As You Go
. facility i~npr0(;ern~nt; replacement, ahd capic, al Outlay James Cervantes, Stone and Youngberg
· Co~mprehe..n~iye planning ~ from acquisition, constmcfi0n, · L~gal pr0vis!?n~ ?vhi~ allow distticts to inc=r debt. --
oper4ti~t~, and mainienance to repair and r~placement · Advantages ~d :disadVantages Of debt ~inanchag
versus pay is yqu go" 5 ' ~ ·
Control Cost and Cash . Alternative fln~n~i~xS s~r~U~es whi& -i~- befiifidal'
Robert Cmmpbell, San Diego County Water Authority
· Reosonable~ C0sk savings expe~c~itians fo~?6t/r ~tglCt:. Revenue Without Being Lynched
'. MaintainingiSrhacreasingservic~levelswhllereducingc~Sr'' Martin Rauch, Rauch Communication Consultants
· Tr[id and true cost reduction methods and procedur'eS;
~d iffectiye cash ~an~emi/~t p?ocedUres ~nd policies
Workshops - Case Studies · Apply your knowledge with a piactical ekercise
E Infrastructure Self-Assessment - is your infrastructure
adequate, reliable and properly maintained? Workshops - Case Studies
Presented by Gregg A. I-~wry and Katherine Buie
Z Financial Control - interactive session on cost control 1. Raising Revenue Without Litigation - procedures for
adopting various types of fees, charges, and assessmene;.
methods. Presented by Robert Campbell Presented by Janet Mornlngstar
tdents and Guests Networking Reception 2. Investment Practices and Trends - review of internal
~l~ versus external management of public funds.
Presented by Greg Leddy
Wrap-up Session: Successful District Finance
One of the 3 Seminars Needed [or Certification
%esars Tahoe, South Lake Tahoe - Hotel Accommodations...
irons and ironing boards, refrigerators,
Each Participant Receives...
Comprehensive handbook, all class materials, continental breakfast each day, refreshment breaks, lunch each day,
networking with instructors and peers. Tuition does not indude lodging or other meals.
Certification Program...
By attending this seminar, you are automatically enrolled as a candidate for the Certificate Program in Special District Leadership
and Management. There is a $35 administrative fee that will be charged with the enrollment of your third Seminar. Seminars can
be taken in any order and must be completed within a three-year period.
Guest Meal Package...
lests may join you for all meal functions provided a separate meal package is purchased in advance. Your guest will be given a
~ffame badge that will allow admittance to all meal functions.
Discounts Available...
Special Car Rental Discount...
Ente~rise Rent-A-Car - special arrangements have been Avis Rent-A-Cax - discounted rates are available. Call Avis
made for discounted car rentals. Call Enterprise in Reno at at 800-331-1600 reference Account No. D900923 and Rate
775-329-3773 and reference Code No. CD8818. Code: Daily or Weekly ~ OO.
Special Airline Discounts with...
United Airlines offers discounted alrfares for this event. Southwest Airlines is offering a 10% discount on most
Call United 800-521-4041 to book your reservations and of its already low fares, for travel to and from this event.
receive a 5% discount off the lowest applicable discount fare, Call the Southwest Airlines Group and Meeting Reservations
including First Class, or a 10% discount offmid-week coach at 800-433-5368. Reservations must be made at least 5 days
fares. An additional 5% discount will apply if tickets are prior to travel. Discounts are subject to terms and availability.
purchased at least 60 days in advance of travel date. Use Use Meeting ID No. B7049.
Meeting ID No. 594PJ.
ancellations and Refunds...
Tuition is fully refundable if written cancellation is received on or before May 1, 2001. Cancellations received in writing afZer May 1, 2001 but
prior to June 4, 200I are subject to a fee of $50. Full payment is required if cancellafion is received on or after June 4, 2001 - no refunds and no
credits for furore events will be granted. However, substitutions may be made at any time.
SDI reserves the right to make changes in programs and speakers, or to cancel programs when conditions beyond irs control prevail. Every effort will
be made to contact each enrollee ifa program is cancelled, ifa program is not held, SDI's liability is limited to the refund of the program fee only.
ENROLLMENT F RM
FAX: 760-643-1761 * PHONE: 800-457-0237 or 760-643-1760
PO Box 769 * Bonsall, CA 92003-0769
Name: Tide:
Agency:
Mailing Address: For Official
Use Only
City: Stare: Zip:
Phone: Fax:
E-mail: Website:
Guest Name:
(A) $295 GASB 34 Workshop
(B) $295 Board Meeting Management Workshop
(C) $545 Special District Finance Seminar (Two Days)
(D) $745 Seminar + Workshop ($95 savings)
Select One: GASB 34 or__ Board Meeting Management
(E) $945 Seminar + bothWorkshops ($190 savings)
(F) $119 Order Handbook Only - GASB 34 Workshop
(G $119 Order Handbook Only - Board Meeting Management Workshop
(H) $199 Order Handbook Only - Special District Finance Seminar
(Handbooks will be shipped the week after the event)
~'(I) $ 50 Guest Meal Package for Workshop
(J) $100 Guest Meal Package for Seminar
· 10% Discount for attendance for 3 or more from same District
· $25.00 Early registration discount (must receive payment by 5/9/01)
Sub Total of Registration $ SpeciaI N~eds
Subtract 10% Discount for 3 or more $ (if applicable)
Subtract $25.00 Early Registration $ (if applicable)
Certification Fee ($35.00) $ (if applicable)
Total Registration Fee $
METHOD OF PAYMENT: Payable to Special District Institute
O Check Enclosed for $ [] Please Invoice PO#
Fl Charge: [] Visa [] M/C Card #
Signature Expiration Date:
"OBox7697 ', ' g- ~Y~ l0
~om~, ~ 920~0~9}'*~ Nr. Robe~ E Na~in
General Nanager/Secre~ 1561
_. Ea~ Valley Water Di~ri~ Naill
PO ~x 3427
San BemarOino, ~ 92413-3427
Ihh,,, hl'h'h"lh,lh,,Ih,h,h,hlh,,h,hlh,,hlh,I
WATER EDUCATION
FOUNDATION
717 I~ Street, Suite .517
5acramemo, CA 95814
phone: (916) ~.x.x. 6240
Fax: (916) 448-7699
Intemet: ww~.water--ed.org
The Bay-Delta Tour
June 27-29, 2001
Sponsored by the Water Education Foundation
All roads in California water policy lead to the Bay-Delta, heart of California's surface water delivm3, system
and a vital habitat for fish, birds and wildlife. It also is the focus of one of the largest ecosystem restoration
efforts in the nation - the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. This tour of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta Estuary provides the opportunity to view significant features Fasthand by bus and boat, and gain
~ better understanding of the challenging issues that must be resolved.
This fast-paced, three-day tour leaves Sacramento International Airport Wednesday, June 27, traveling
through the Delta and across the Bay, returning to the airport by 6 p.m. Friday, June 29. Travel is by air-
conditioned bus, Delta houseboats and the San Francisco Ferry. The tour is co-sponsored by the California
Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region.
On the tour you will learn about:
· The various state amd federal agencies that have a stake in Bay-Delta decisions
· The viewpoints of the major stakeholder groups - agricultural,
urban and environmental - as well as in-Delta users and those
who live in the watersheds above the Delta
· Levee subsidence and flood control
· Water project operations and efforts to protect fish
· Delta farming
· Water quality, salt intrusion, drinking water treatment and THMs
· The latest on CALFED
· Ecosystem restoration projects
· Industrial water use, wastewater treatment and discharge
· Wetlands and waterfowl
· Introduced species
The mitsion of the Water Education Foundation, an impartial, nonprofit organization, is to develop and imple-
We will visit the: · Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel
· Yolo Bypass Flood Control System/Wetlands
* Delta Cross Channel
· Delta islands and levees
· Mokelurnne River
· Cl~f~on Court Forebay
· State fish screens
· Harvey O. Banks Pumping Plant
· Los Vaqueros Reservoir
· An oil refinery
· U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Bay-Delta Model
· San Francisco Bay
· Grizzly Island Wildlife Refuge - Suisun Marsh
Registration fee for one person, single occupancy room, paid by June 8 - $525
Registration fee for two people, double occupancy room, paid by June 8 - $950
Single room registration fee paid after June 8 - $575
Double room registration fee paid after .June 8 - $1,100
t~eg~ster four or more people by June 8 and receive a $25 discount on each person's registration fee - single
occupancy rooms $500 each; double occupancy rooms $900 each.
~he tour begins at 8 a.m., Wednesday, June 27, at the Sacramento airport and ends by 6 p.m. Friday, June 29 at
the Sacramento ah-port. Travel will be by air-conditioned bus equipped with video monitors and restroom, Delta
houseboats and the San Francisco Ferry. Thc tour registration fee includes all lodging and meals while on the
tour including Thursday night dinner at the historic Alta Mira Restaurant in Sausalito overlooking the Bay.
Tour participants are responsible for their own transportation to and ~'om Sacramento.
This activity has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of
California in the amount of 20 hours. The Foundation certifies that this activity conforms to the standards for
apProved education activities prescribed by the rules and regulations of the State Bar of California governing
minimum continuing legal education. There is an additional charge orS100 to re~ster for MCLE credit.
Seating on this tour is limited. All reservations are on a first-come, first-serve basis. Reservations can be
made by completing the attached form and returning it to the Foundation with your payment. Faxed reserva-
tions will be accepted with credit card or purchase order payments.
Fee includes all meals, lodging, transportation while on the tour and
background material. On line registration at www. watereducation.org
also is available. Deadline to cancel and receive a full refund is 5 p.m.
June 15 due to hotel, meal and transportation bookings. Request for a
refund must be in writing. Substitutions ma3' be made at any time.
Additional tour information, complete itinerary and reference materials
will be mailed approximately one month before the tour.
Please notify the Foundation prior to the tour if you have a medical
condition or other special need we should be aware of to
accommodate you.
~.e Water Education Foundation~'~
2001 Bay-Delta Tour Registration Form
~'"~Name(s)
Title(s)
Organization
Address
City, State, Zip.
Phone No. E-mail
My $. fee is enclosed ($525 paid by June 8, $500 per person if4 or more are registering; $575
after June 8). Includes all transportation, meals and overnight lodging while on the tour, based on single
~erson occupancy per room.
Our $ fee is enclosed ($950 paid by June 8, $900 per room if4 or more people are registering;
$1,100 paid after June 8) for two people sharing a room.
__ Yes, register me for MCLE credits for aa additional $100 fee.
$ Total enclosed
For payment by [] Visa [] MasterCard F1 American Express:
Credit card number: .Exp. date __/__
Signature
(must be signed to process order)
We reserve as many non-smoking rooms as are available. If you WANT a smoking room,
please check here:
5 p.m. on June 15 is the last date to cancel and receive a full refund. Refund request must be in writing.
'ubstitufions may be made at any time.
Faxed reservations accepted with purchase order or credit card. Please make checks payable to the Water
Education Foundation and send check with completed form to 717 K St., Ste. 317, Sacramento, CA 95814;
916-d~l,1-6240; fax 916-448-7699.
A briefing for lawyers, water managers, government officials, business executives, public
interest groups and others interested in key water issues. Top policy-makers will address:
· Cmmmm~ 6 - What are the water management options in the face of this new challenge?
· ltXq>ROPOW~R MD zm~ EmmaY Cmsis - The tie that binds California with the Northwest.
· Tmrm IN W^TER PLnm, rrsa - What is a water district's role in land use planning? Are we
in danger of replicating the energy shortfall?
· Cn[XFOe. mA'S COLOe. X~O Rwe~ DmT - An insider discussion about the negotiations.
· WATE}t RIGHTS -- Will the Sacramento Valley/Delta agreement lead to new storage?
· SCIENCE AND WATER POLICY -- Hear fi.om Sam Luoma, CALFED's interim lead scientist.
FEE AND ENROLLMENT MCLE CREDIT
The briefing will be fi.om 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. July This activity has been approved for Minimum
19; 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. July 20. Registration fee Continuing Education Credit by the State Bar of
is $350 for Water Education Foundation major con- California in the mount of 10 hours (both days).
tributors ($100 or more annual contribution) and $400 The Water Education Foundation certifies that this
for non-contributors. Late (after July 10) and on-site activity conforms to the standards for approved
registration is $425. The fee includes course materials education activities prescribed by the rules and
- including a full set of Layperson's Guides - lunch regulations of the State Bar of California governing
and a hosted reception on July 19. To register, send MCLE credits.
the attached form with payment by July 10. Or,
register on line: www.watereducation.org CANCELLATION POLICY
Refunds (less a $25 administrative charge) will be
HOTEL RESERVATIONS given to registrants if written notice is received by
You may contact the Hyatt Regency Islandia at (800) 5 p.m. on July 10. Substitutions may be made at any
233-1234. Single and double occupancy room ratestime. No refunds after July 10.
are $139 plus tax per night. Be sure to say you are
attending the Water Education Foundation briefing. HOSTED RECEPTION
There will be a hosted reception on Thursday, July
PRESENTED BY 19, in.honor of distinguished water attorney George
Basye of Downey, Brand, Seymour & Rohwer.
Register by May 15, and receive a
free wetlands booklet.
WATER EDUCATION
FOUNDATION Watch your mailbox and our web page for
a full agenda with speakers.
717 K Street, Suite 317
Sacramento, California 95814
Water Education F ~:' ~iidation's Update on Water La' ~ Policy Briefing
Name
na~fitle
Affiliation
Street Address Email
City, State, Zip Phone
Enclosed is my registration fee:
$350 (WEF major contributor of $100 or more)
r-I $400 (noncontfibutor)
[] $425 (,payment after July 10 and on-site registration)
[] $275 (Thursday only)
[] Mastercard [] Visa [] American Express [] Purchase order #
Credit card number Exp. date __/__
Signature
(must be signed to process credit card order)
Water Education Foundation
717 K St., Ste. 317 Non-Profit Organization
U.S. Postage
Sacramento, CA 95814 PAID
916444-6240 Sacramento, CA
916-448-7699 Fax Permit No. 430
www.watereducation.org
~-' '~ PR ~.320 ~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~RUTO~'~3-DII;IT 923
ROBERT E MARTEN
~- ERST VALLEY ~O
"~ ~ PO BOX 3427
~ SAN BERNRRDrNO CA g2413-3427
Mark your calendar! Water Education Foundation
Water Law & Policy Briefing set for July 19-20
6dw; l d hil. t,
198 N. ARROWHEAD AVE.
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
May 9, 200 [ 909-383-8702
F~ 909-381-7610
1155 Del Rosa Avenue
San Bemmdino, Ca 92404
Attention: Robeff Matin
General Manager
Re:Request for approval of a single sewer lateral for 6 single-fmily homes
Aloe CouP, Highland, Ca
De~ Bob:
I appreciated the oppo~unity to discass our proposed sewer line plan, with you arid Paul Dolter.
As you are clearly aware, the option flor att ex[ension of~e sewer line to our lots on the easterly
side of Aloe Cou~ is verb. llimted. (The potential lots on the westerly side of Aloe Cou~ cay. be
individually se~'ed ~om Weaver Street.)
~ spite of~e fact ~at it is le*s expensive to use a septic ta~ system, we believe a sewer line is
such a superior waste system (~d the public does too) that a subst~tial increased cost is
w~ted.
Although it is my underst~ding that multiple co~ections to a single-fmily project are unusual,
it is ~equently used in multi residential development~.
Our request is for 6 co~ec~ions and we ~:re4n/re a~n ~asement acr~vs
We are fo~unate to obt~n ~ ~der~ound easement ~om Cornerstone Development.
We reco~ze also that we will be require~ to create a Homeowner's A~eement to ensure
regulm maintenance and repair. We do not expect this a~eement to be a dete~ent to m~ket
buyers.
Tha~ you for your mdemti0n of our sewer extension proposal.
~~ Hili,'j?.' -,.- : :~