16 - April 23, 2015
DROUGHT from Page 1———
plan to the MWD reduction and pass that on to its member agencies. As Arant explained it: “What this means is, that in the SDCWA service area, the actual water supply availability from the SDCWA to the certified agricultural customers in the Transitional Special Agricultural Water Rate Program (TSAWR) will be reduced by 15% to 20%, and the water supply availability to the domestic-commercial customers will likely be reduced between 8% and 10%. However, based upon the SWRCB’s proposed regulations the mandated reductions to VCMWD will be 35%.” The district will have the formidable task of explaining to its customers why it is enforcing a 35% reduction in use while the water supply availability has only been reduced 8% to 10% to domestic-commercial customers and 15% to 20% to TSAWR. This potential scenario underscores the serious problem with and contradictory nature of what is being pushed forward by the Governor and the SWRCB Here is the sequence of events that will unfold over the next few weeks (some of which will have already happened by the time this newspaper is in your hands): April 13, 2015 – Deadline to submit the District’s comments on the SWRCB Proposed Regulatory Framework in which it will be pointed out that this approach penalizes a rural, agricultural, warm inland community like Valley Center with a 35% cut-back while requiring as little as a 10% reduction in water use for other urban, high density, cooler/wetter north coastal areas of the state. April 14, 2015 - MWD will be taking action to reduce deliveries to its member agencies by 15% (possibly 20%) effective July 1, 2015; April 17, 2015 - SWRCB will be releasing its draft Emergency Drought Regulations for review and comment, on which the District will submit comments; April 20, 2015 - Proposed revisions for Article 230, reflecting the provisions mandated by the SWRCB in March of this year will be brought back for VCMWD Board consideration and adoption; May 5 and/or 6 - SWRCB will be holding the hearing to adopt the final regulations, which happens to be the same time period that the ACWA Conference is being held in Sacramento. District staff will be attending and testifying to express the objections to the method of water use reduction. May 14, 2015 - SDCWA will be adopting its pass through of the MWD reductions; May 18, 2015 - VCMWD Board will take action in response to the SWRCB action on May 5 or 6, 2015 and the SDCWA action on May 14, 2015. June 1, 2015 - Effective date of SWRCB actions. Arant told the Times Advocate: “Through this period, VCMWD staff will be working to mitigate what must be seen as punitive action against Valley Center while it prepares for the implementation of whatever action is ultimately mandated by the SWRCB. Once the final decision is made in Sacramento (where water meters are not used to calculate monthly charges), there will be a very short time frame to notify customers of what will be required of them if the district is to achieve compliance with the SWRCB orders and reduction amounts.” If the District falls short of whatever target is finally established, it will be
subject to fines from the state of up to $10,000 per day of violation. The water district is advising its customers “to begin thinking of developing ways to further reduce water usage wherever possible. Even if the District’s efforts in amending the SWRCB regulations to bring more fairness to water usage reduction requirements, customers in the District service area will still be required to reduce usage at least 25% compared to usage in calendar year 2013. As soon as there is a final decision by the SWRCB, and the VCMWD Board takes action to implement the state directives, customer specific information about allocations and pricing mechanisms put in place to achieve the percentage of reduction required of the District forwarded to each and every customer.” In the meantime, customers are also advised to monitor the print and electronic media as this process moves forward. When it is known exactly what will be required in District service area, each and every customer will be notified directly by mail. The State Water Resources Control Board, in Sacramento, can be contacted through their Web-site, www.waterboards.ca.gov, and comments on the SWRCB intended action can be sent to Jessica.bean@ waterboards.ca.gov. Questions? Contact: Gary Arant, General Manager garant@valleycenterwater.org 760-735-4515 – Direct Office Line
The Times-Advocate
LHR from Page 1 — added, “The County of San Diego has received hundreds of pages of factual information from multiple attorneys that demonstrate the absence of many legal rights for the Project’s intended use of private roads and ROW [rights of way] for sewer and recycled water utility pipelines.” The project would require about 30 such ROWs, he said. Goodson countered that nowhere does his development suggest that eminent domain be used to acquire rights of way. The County requires the EIR look at various options. They include acquiring rights of way by eminent domain to make it possible for the roads serving the development to meet County requirements. He said he would be just as happy for the group to adopt a resolution supporting the project “as long as no eminent domain is used” to acquire a right-of-way. Several times Goodson repeated that if planners wanted to register objections to specific aspects of the project—such as the likelihood it would require acquisition of private property by eminent domain— that it should recommend that the project be approved, but without those objectionable items. “Say that you like the project,” he suggested, “and attach conditions.” The planning group’s position is that the County will not accept substandard roads as part of the project and that eminent domain will be required, whether or not it is actually called for in the project’s description.
This was the planning group’s one bite at the apple. Upcoming is the planning commission hearing sometime next month. The project is being fast-tracked so that the Board of Supervisors is expected to hear the project sometime next summer, possibly June. In a separate but related development, two days after the planning group hearing the Department of Planning & Development Services (PDS) sent out a memo that the April 22 report to the Board of Supervisors on possibly reevaluating LU-1.2 (Land Use Element 1.2 of the General Plan)—which has wording discouraging “leap-frog” developments “away from established villages,”—has been postponed. According to Sarah Aghassi, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer for the Land Use and Environment Group to the Board of Supervisors, the delay will give staff more time to further analyze the possible effect of LU1.2 on existing applications. According to the memo, “Staff will be conducting further outreach to all interested parties in the near future. Per Board direction provided at the March 4, 2015 hearing, these outreach efforts will not delay the processing of current applications.” Besides impacting the Lilac Hills Ranch project, altering LU-1.2 also affectS the proposed Warner Ranch in Pala.