HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDvariousb2Subject : Agenda Item : Water Reliability Reserve RED FILE
From :rschmidt@rain .org MEETING AGEND A
Date :Tue, January 5, 2010 1 :40 pm DAT~~~~l/~,ITEM #~~To : dromero@slocity .or g
jamarx@slocity .or g
acarter@slocity .or g
asettle@slocity .or g
jashbaugh@slocity .or g
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Re : Water Element revision to eliminate water reliability reserve .
Dear Council Members ,
To modify the Water and Wastewater Element to eliminate the wate r
reliability reserve is unethical, immoral, and probably illega l
(litigable at the very least).
The water reliability reserve was created by the People of the City o f
San Luis Obispo . It is thus not in your prerogative or staff's
prerogative to continue to ignore it, let alone eliminate it . When th e
people voted to create the reserve, they were told it would be 2,00 0
acre feet, and that it would be in perpetuity -- i .e ., there would b e
2,000 acre feet of unallocated but available water .
Why? Because we'd just endured a prolonged multi-year drought wit h
severe and onerous mandatory rationing . The reserve was sold to th e
people by some of you who were politically active at that time as a n
inviolable buffer against future droughts .
When the city signed up for Nacimiento water, it bought 2,000 acre fee t
more than it needed for envisioned growth on the pretext that wate r
would become the reserve .
Now this scheme to ignore the Will of the People, Enshrined in th e
Charter, and thereby to create a huge cesspool of water for developmen t
beyond anything envisioned in our General Plan .
This is subversion of good government, due process, and fiduciar y
responsibility . It is, in short, unethical .
I urge you not only to vote no on this staff-concocted scheme, but t o
take those staff responsible for it to the woodshed .
Sincerely,
k'--es CoP~G~np ~L_/COUNCIL E-CDD DI RI AB girt /N6■e-Et-FIN DI REAe+e CrYnge12-FIRE CHIE F[3—ATTORNEY C-PW DI RTrCLERK/ORIG Et-POLICE CH F'] DEPT HEADS 1EC DI R',---PI6 C'OTIL DI R~7ii2i ,,xi&.0 HR DI R
NC20 Tunes — CDu,ve L
'—La&Ti1 fVh ,Q
Richard Schmid t
RECEIVE D
JAN 5 2010
SLO CITY CLERK
From :Brett Cross [mailto :brettcross@yahoo .com ]
Sent :Tuesday, January 05, 2010 12 :56 P M
To :Council, SloCity
Cc : janmarx@stanfordalumni .org ; Richard Schmidt ; Andrew Carter ; John Ashbaugh ; Romero ,
Dave ; brettcross@hotmail .co m
Subject:Item B-2 WATER RELIABILITY RESERVE AND SUPPLEMENTAL WATE R
This has to be one of the most shameful and shameless staff reports I seen i n
awhile . There is a lack of honesty and a complete lapse in ethics regardin g
the"back door "approach proposed by staff to eliminate the"reliabilit y
reserve" contained in the City's Charter which was approved by City voter s
in 1996 .
It's pretty apparent that despite all the "language" in the policy changes an d
additions- which by the way are written so vague and ambiguous that they
are impossible to actually explain, the outcome will be that all of the 338 0
acre feet of water that the City will receive from the Nacimiento pipeline al l
will be available for new development . Let me remind you that only abou t
1200 acre ft . were needed to meet General Plan build-out, so that additiona l
2000 acre feet will become available to new development beyond what i s
considered in the General Plan . It's as simple as that and I doubt that is an y
revelation to any of you .
The public for whatever reason, whether it was ensure that additional wate r
supplies beyond what would be needed for General Plan buildout would be
used to create a reliability reserve or to limit potential growth from th e
acquisition of additional water supplies nonetheless approved Measure P i n
1996 . The whole staff report is an attempt to "end run" around the voter s
wishes- and it's not right .
There is also a significant issue regarding CEQA and the growth inducin g
impacts . or lack thereof, from obtaining 3200 acre feet of new water . Som e
how there are not any growth inducing impacts because why?. I think from
reading the staff report it appears that there will be some policy amendment s
that won't allow it?. "Staff is comfortable that the recommended polic y
amendments will provide the policy support necessary for the City to
participate in the Project at Council's desired participation level, and wil l
provide reasonable assurance that participation in the Project will no t
become a growth inducement beyond that growth identified in the City's
General Plan ." That's laughable, you realize that . It's probably violates
CEQA requirements as well . And I really doubt that the follow analysis i s
congtEC E Iv EQ_requirements .
JAN 5 201 0
SLO CITY CLERK
"Staff has prepared an Initial Study'of Environmental Impacts for th e
proposed WME amendment s
and is recommending a Negative Declaration . The initial study wa s
approved by the Communit y
Development Director on April 12, 2004 . The Community Developmen t
Director has determine d
that the proposed amendments will not have growth inducing impacts ,
because the City allocate s
water to new development based on the projected water demand of th e
City's build-out population ,
which is listed in Table 2 of the Land Use Element . Water is not allocate d
to new developmen t
based solely on the availability of supply . The proposed policies that
encourage the development o f
new water supplies cannot be seen as encouraging growth unless they are
used as a basis o r
justification for amending the City's projected build-out population . N o
such change is anticipate d
at this time ."
The staff report also indicates that it is too costly to develop a "reliabilit y
reserve". (I should remind Council that the City was a nanosecond awa y
from approving a $20+ million dollar desalination plant during th e
drought .) The figure used in the staff report is $1550 per acre foot . There
are a couple of issues . One, who is paying the current cost associated with
the Nacimiento pipeline up until the water is allocated?. Ok, that's a
rhetorical question . Current rate payers are paying . So if Nacimiento wa s
too expensive for a reliability reserve why wasn't it too expensive for curren t
residents to saddle up until such time as there were some users of th e
water?. What if there are no users identified in the future?. Why shoul d
water rate customers pay for a project that appears to be destined for futur e
development that exceeds the General Plan build-out figures?. Staff s
argument is ridiculous, it doesn't hold water-- pun intended . So current rate
payers are going to be paying for water too costly for an indeterminat e
amount of time . That's basically it, right?. It must be because there are n o
growth inducing impacts but the the costs are still too high to create a
"reliability reserve". I think I got that right .
The staff report also indicates that even if 2000 acre ft . of Nacimiento wate r
were set aside as a "reliability reserve" it wouldn't provide that much of a n
insurance-- well except during a drought . Duh!. The other argument that i s
scattered throughout the report is that there is already a built in reliabilit y
reserve in the actual verses factored water use . Now that "paper" reserve i s
somehow much more reliable . An actual reserve not so much . That is jus t
an intellectually dishonest argument .
It's time for a little honesty from the staff and from you the Counci l
Members . If you don't believe a "reliability reserve" is a good idea put th e
issue back on the ballot and let the community decide . It's that simple .
Sincerely ,
Brett Cross