HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-15-2015 Item 17 SchmidtLomeli, Monique
From: Richard Schmidt <slobuild@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 6:02 PM
To: Marx, Jan; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John; Christianson, Carlyn; Rivoire, Dan; Mejia,
Anthony
Subject: Agenda Item 17 -- More Nacimiento Water
Attachments: Council Naci 2000 AFY increase.doc; Council Naci 2000 AFY increase.pdf
Dear Council Members,
Please see the attached letter on this subject which I've appended in both Word and pdf formats for
your convenience.
Thank you for your consideration of this very serious issue staff is presenting as non -controversial
and mundane.
F�ECEIVED
SEP 15 2015
1_C7 CITY C Lr --P K
COUNCIL MEETING,1
l
ITEM NO.:
Re: Agenda Item 17, September 15 council meeting.
Dear Council Members,
I am utterly amazed to find a staff recommendation for the city to increase its already
copious and costly water supply by a whopping 20% appear, out of the blue, tucked
away as Item 17 on a long council agenda, presented in a brief, superficial, and totally
uncritical staff report, as if this were a completely inconsequential and non -controversial
matter —.when water is one of the most Politically explosive issues this city has ever
dealt with!
Folks, what in the world is going on here?
In addition to that global question regarding public process and its integrity, I also have
a number of more specific questions.
1. What is this water for? The city already has as much water as it needs for ultimate
general plan buildout. Or at least staff claimed that it did in LUCE Appendix 1, where it is
stated
"a sufficient water supply is available for the project. The total water supplies
available to the City during normal, single❑dry, and multiple❑dry years within a
20❑year projection will meet the projected water demand under the project in
addition to the demand of existing and other planned future uses, including, but not
limited to, agricultural uses."
So, if the city has all the water it needs for all plans it has for future use, why do we
need 2,100 acre feet more?
In fact, staff is being modest in its appraisal that there's "enough." The city actually has
far more water than it needs for any planning on the books, according to credible
independent analysis. http://www.newtimesslo.coTiiZnews/3891/how-dry-were-notl
So, again, since we have all we need, or too much, what is this additional water for? Is it
part of a secret plan to bust the general plan's buildout wide open? A lot of people are
starting to think that is the plan of Team Lichtig. Remember, they removed the long-
standing concept of ultimate buildout from the LUCE, and it took Council action to put it
back in. So residents have every right to be paranoid.
2. Who is it for? Residents have done a good job of conserving. They do not need an
enlarged water supply. Safe annual yield from our major potable sources is 10,320 acre
feet per year. In the past year, residents have used less than 4,900 acre feet, or less
than half of the vield available to them!
At that rate of usage, an additional 2,100 acre feet of water would be enough to supply
about 19,000 persons beyond the city's buildout population. Why are we doing that?
So, again, who are these people we're obtaining additional water for?
3. Who pays for it? There's no free water. Ultimately, the buck stops on the backs of
current rate payers. Staff alleges the cost will be offset by "short-term sales" of the
admittedly unneeded water. Really? To whom would those "short-term sales" be made
and for what purpose? To developers who want to fill Price Canyon with sprawl? To
developers who want to destroy Wild Cherry Canyon? To farmers and wineries outside
our watershed? To whom? For what? There's no clue in the staff report, but I'm sure
wondering what staff have in mind. And once those "short-term" sales are made, can
they ever actually be cut off? Just how do you shut off the tap to a bonafide user who
has grown dependent upon our water? Even if an agreement were signed that such use
was "short-term," don't you suppose some clever attorney could involve the city in costly
litigation that would make it impossible to shut off the water? And then what happens?
The city becomes a public utility providing service outside its boundaries, outside its
watershed, forever? Why should we saddle ourselves with the risk of that?
And when the governor orders the city to reduce usage by 25% or suffer daily fines,
how do we do that if we're selling unneeded water to outsiders to make the water
affordable? This is not a hypothetical question, is it?
On the other hand, the city could just stick the current rate payers with paying for this
surplus water for which they have no need, and from which they gain no benefit, just like
the city has already done with the existing surplus from Nacimiento. The estimated
costs included in the staff report suggest you'd need to tack on $25 per year or more of
added water charges to each residence in the city to cover this water. Is that what you
really want to do?
4. Do we need the water for drought security? The staff report makes reference to the
impact of the "uncertainty of future climatic conditions" on our water supply as
justification for seeking this added water. That's very nice, but staff had a totally different
story to tell in Appendix / of the LUCE, where it is stated as fact that "climatic conditions
such as prolonged drought do not impact the City's water supply." (Page 1-4) In yet
other places, staff contends we have all the water we need in drought reserve since our
per capita water usage "planning" quantity is higher than our actual usage, and thus
provides an adequate buffer within the allocated supply. It seems staff can't get its story
straight about drought impacts on water supply, which leaves residents like myself very
confused since these conflicting and contradictory statements cannot simultaneously all
be true.
In any case, mere allegation of the need for this extra water for drought security is not
actual evidence of such need. At this point the evidential case has not been made.
5. Should _this _water be sought for the charter -mandated "reliability reserve?"
Staff apparently doesn't think so. They speak disparagingly of the reserve, and dismiss
need for it, even though it is a valid and continuing mandate of city voters and part of
our city charter.
Here's the background on this matter since several of you may not be familiar with it.
In 1993, just as the last major drought ended, the city amended the Water and
Wastewater Management Element (WWME) to include a reliability reserve of 2,000 acre
feet to provide a buffer against future drought emergency. According to a staff report (by
Glen Matteson, one of the most intelligent and honest public planners I've ever met),
"The 'reliability reserve' is intended to help meet any shortfall due to an existing or
proposed source not being able to deliver the anticipated amount of water... The.
reliability reserve will not be a basis for planning additional development capacity." The
intent that this would be an emergency -only source was very clear in all documents and
discussions of the reserve. Here's the whole report:
httpJjopengov.slocity.org/weblink8/1/doc/22420/Pagel.aspxx
(For background: Residents had just survived years of mandatory rationing, people
were angry at a city that had the temerity to continue development full speed ahead in
the middle of that drought, resulting in a referendum (1991) overwhelmingly rejecting
one large development, and despite drought hysteria and rationing voters also had the
good sense to reject the fool's gold of "state water's" paper water twice in two years
(1991, 1992), the second time by a larger majority than the first. Time has proven the
voters' wisdom about "state water" correct: the system has been utterly incapable of
delivering the water contracted and paid for. Subsequently, voters booted out a bunch
of business -first council members, a new council that cared more about residents'
welfare was seated, and it was in that context that the city decided to look after the
water needs of residents first. The "reserve" was part of that effort.)
In 1993, it wasn't clear where this 2,000 acre feet would come from. Matteson's staff
report stated the reserve water would most likely come from either Nacimiento or the
"Salinas expansion" (though ground water from Dalidio would have been a less costly
possibility -- that basin has a 2,000 AF/year safe yield even during droughts because it
is shallow and refills with even moderate rain and creek flow -- and the city could have
purchased it for a comparative pittance -- Grossman paid $19 million for the Dalidio land
with its water -- rather than the $170 million cost of the Naci pipeline plus the on-going
energy bills to pump water through it). The Salinas expansion, which involved raising
the dam, was abandoned both because of technical problems and because it would
have been an environmental atrocity in everybody's face as the lake rose and flooded
popular recreational areas and readily accessible upstream habitat. Also, the city
figured there would be extensive litigation with downstream users over the city's right to
take yet more Salinas water. It was a huge mess. Years later the city went for
Nacimiento. But that's ahead of where this story is situated in time.
In 1996, voters added the reliability reserve to the city charter, thinking they were
guaranteeing the reserve's permanence, again making clear this water was only for
emergency use, and referencing the 1993 WWME for the 2,000 acre foot quantity.
A few years later, in the early 2000s, about the time it was moving forward on
Nacimiento, the city pulled a fast one on voters by eliminating the 2,000 acre foot
reserve from the WWME, thinking that by so -doing it could undo the intent of the voters.
This was certainly unethical, and probably would be found unlawful if anybody cared to
challenge it, since the city can't unilaterally undo the mandate of voters by deleting
something after the fact from a referenced document that forms the basis for an
adopted ballot measure.
So, today we have a voter -mandated "reliability reserve" with no water in it.
It seems interesting that the missing reliability reserve fill is within a few acre feet of the
water staff now wants to grab from Nacimiento. Yet staff apparently sees no connection
between the two.
If, and only if, every drop of this additional Nacimiento allotment were to go to filling the
reserve, and if it was made clear this water would be touched only in emergencies and
never for development, would it seem possibly ethical for the council to take any more
Nacimiento water. I emphasize "possibly ethical." I truly don't know if such a case can
be made given the surplus we already have.
Otherwise, taking it will look like even the council has no respect for a voter mandate or
for the grand buildout bargain that's shaped the city's planning documents for nearly 40
years.
You need to think very carefully about whether this proposal has any merit at all.
Unfortunately, judging from how this has been presented staff doesn't seem inclined to
help you with that critical thinking.
This project is certainly not a bandwagon the council should be jumping on tonight.
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt