NEVADA IRRIGATION DISTRICT

Transcription

1 NEVADA IRRIGATION DISTRICT Engineering Committee MINUTES Approved June 19 th 2018 Committee Members Present: Committee Staff Members Present: Other Staff Members Present: Public Present: Nick Wilcox, Division V Scott Miller, Division III Gary King, Engineering Manager Doug Roderick, Senior Engineer Monica Reyes, Recreation Manager Susan Lauer, Communications Specialist Kris Stepanian, Board Secretary Ricki Heck, Division I John Voltz, Division II Ashley Overhouse, SYRCL Marin Lipowitz, resident of Grass Valley Michael Hill-Weld, resident of Nevada City George Olive, resident of Nevada City Mikos Fabersunne, resident of Nevada City Public Comment Item #1 Minutes of April 17, 2018, Regular Meeting Gary King, Engineering Manager, noted a correction needed on Page 6, Item #6, and stated that it should reflect FATR #8371, not #7013. Approved as amended. Mr. King, closed item number One and moved on to item number Two. Item #2 Centennial Water Supply Project Update (FATR # 7013) Doug Roderick, Senior Engineer, provided an update on the Centennial Water Supply Project. Additional budget information was added as requested at the previous meeting. Mr. Roderick provided the following update: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR): The District is continuing to work on the alternatives analysis and project descriptions. There are a couple of additional minor areas that are being surveyed, including the blooming and biological surveys. There are three or four properties that are being surveyed by the consultant. Design Efforts: There are no new design efforts with the road crossings or with the geotechnical site.

2 Page 2 of 6 Water Rights. The quarterly report was filed with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for the District's water rights application. Currently, there is no action involving the protestants pending the release of the DEIR. Water Storage Investment Program (WSIP): As directed by the Board of Directors, staff did not submit an appeal or any additional information to the California Water Commission (CWC). There was an item at the May 3, 2018 meeting where the staff was directed not to submit additional information in regards to the appeal. CWC determined that the District s application is not eligible for funding under their program. This item will be removed from the monthly update, and no new information will be discussed. Audit: The audit for the Centennial Water Supply Project is continuing, in addition to the District s regular financial audit. The completion date is unknown at this time. Website: The new site is now active, and requested revisions have been made. The layout is similar to the Regional Water Supply Project. AB52 Consultation: The AB52 consultation is still ongoing. The District is in consultation with three tribes. A meeting with the Colfax Todd Valley Tribe is scheduled for this month to discuss the results of the report. Property Acquisitions: The District will continue to consider property acquisitions as property owners approach the District requesting consideration to purchase or to appraise their property for potential acquisition. Future Meetings: There are currently no additional meetings scheduled. There will be a large number of public meetings related to the Raw Water Master Plan (RWMP) this Summer and Fall. Mr. Roderick asked if there were any questions. Director Miller requested that the item continue to be updated as information is added to the website. Mr. Roderick agreed. Budget Impacts: Mr. Roderick reviewed the two tables shown on Page 2 of the Staff Report. The first table shows 2018 expenditures for the Centennial Water Supply Project. The current budget expenditures for 2018 (as of 4/30/2018) are $909,475.11, and have been broken down as follows: o Consulting - $59, o Consulting Property - $7, o Staff - $17,141.06

3 Page 3 of 6 o Property - $825, Mr. Roderick noted that some expenses were from work performed in 2017 and had not yet been rectified to 2017 and are therefore currently shown as 2018 expenditures. The numbers will change slightly once these costs are rectified. Mr. Roderick explained that the next table reflects costs presented to the Board on December 13, 2018, and the Budget vs. Actual for the last four years, 2014, 2015, 2016 and These numbers may adjust as a result of the audit. The last column reflects 2018 Budget vs. Actuals. Currently $3,090, remains in the 2018 budget. Gary King, Engineering Manager, opened the item up for questions. Public Comment: George Olive, a resident of Nevada City, asked for the top few alternative analyses that are being pursued for the DEIR. Mr. King explained that this will be part of the RWMP. Director Miller commented that it would be driven partly by Hydrology. Mr. King explained that to promote one alternative would be biased. Director Miller added that there is no one solution and the Board is looking for advice. Mr. Olive asked for the definition of TAC. Mr. King explained that TAC is the acronym for Technical Advisory Committee. Director Wilcox stated that there will be three critical technical memorandums (TMs) forthcoming, and they have to do with hydrology, future supply, and future demands. These are critical areas that need to be addressed as a part of the RWMP. Mr. Olive asked if the information that results in the TM s comes from a broad collection of data and information from the public or if it comes from within NID. Director Wilcox replied that the information would come from the consultants, TAC, and the public. Mr. Olive asked if property acquisitions would stop until the completion of RWMP. Mr. Roderick clarified that District would continue to consider any property acquisition as property owners approach the District requesting consideration to purchase or appraise their property for potential acquisition.

4 Page 4 of 6 Michael Hill-Weld, resident of Division 1, inquired about the relationship of the RWMP and the DEIR for the Centennial Water Supply Project. A discussion ensued about the timing of the RWMP, current revisions needed, and the DEIR for the Centennial Water Supply Project. Mr. King summarized that the RWMP was approved in 2013, and recent revisions will provide additional information for the alternatives analysis as part of the RWMP. Mr. Hill-Weld made a statement that he did not understand why the District would acquire any property until the Centennial Water Supply Project has been identified as a Project that would meet the needs that will come out of the new RWMP. Director Wilcox explained that the District has filed for the water rights for this Project. The Water Rights have been in existence since 1927 as a State filing, and as long as those water rights are assigned to the District, no one can get in line ahead of the District. If the District were to cease buying property, that could be interpreted by the State of California as a lack of due diligence in moving the project forward, and subject the District to a petition to forfeit the water rights that the District has filed on. If those water rights are forfeited, they may be applied for by any other entity in the state. If the District were to totally cease movement at this time, it puts the District at risk of forfeiting those water rights and having them fall into someone else s hands. He can think of many organizations that may be interested in these rights. It is a viable site from state water planners perspective. These water rights are in high demand. Any outside agency could partner with a local agency and build the project utilizing all of the work that the District put into this project. The District would lose the right to that water. Outside agencies could condemn the project out from under the District. The local community would lose those rights and would not have access to that additional flow in the Bear River forever. Our community would be compromised forever, and we would lose that option for our future supply. It is paramount that the District maintain these rights and work at whatever pace at moving this project forward and continue to demonstrate due diligence. A condition of maintaining a water right filing is the ability to demonstrate due diligence. Mr. Hill-Weld asked if someone approached the District about buying their property, is it incumbent on the District to purchase in order to preserve the water rights. Director Wilcox replied that it is not, yet it is helpful in providing a demonstration of due diligence to the state to be actively engaged in buying property in a willing Seller, willing Buyer basis. It shows that the District is moving forward however slowly on this issue. Director Wilcox continued to explain that the District can turn down an offer to buy property. The property is assessed at full market value, and the District can make an offer on the property that is equal to the full market value nothing more and nothing less. If it is satisfactory to the person offering the property to the District, then a deal can be struck.

5 Page 5 of 6 Director Miller interjected that the District has lost and turned down properties. Director Wilcox confirmed that the District has turned down properties and had offers denied. In some cases, people feel their property is worth more, and have gone on to sell their property to someone else. The District can only offer the full market value nothing more, nothing less. Mikos Fabursunne, resident of Nevada City, asked if the District acquired the rights in Director Wilcox clarified that the District did not acquire water rights. The State filed an application for this site that was created in 1927, along with state filings on many other sites in California. Most of the projects have been built. For example, Shasta and New Bullards Dam and Reservoir were both built off of the 1927 state filing. Those were filings that were for created in furtherance of the very first state water plan. They were reservations for future use so that areas of origin and counties of origin could build projects at a later time to their benefit local their communities. However, over the years, other outside agencies have filed on those reservations and taken the water elsewhere in the state. Mr. Fabersunne asked how long the District has been putting in an application for the rights to be applied to Centennial. Director Wilcox stated that the District filed for assignment of the State filing A discussion ensued regarding state water rights and filing dates in relation to the Centennial Water Supply Project. Mr. Fabersunne expressed several concerns regarding the RWMP and the alternatives analysis for the DEIR. He also expressed concerns regarding the Districts Aggregated Farm Gate Water Delivery Reports. He expressed concern that the reports are not actual measured values of water that is delivered vs. contracted amounts in addition to not meeting the State mandated reporting code AB1404 and SBX7-7. A discussion ensued regarding the District s irrigation water delivery, irrigation season, system operations, data collection, and reporting. Mr. Fabersunne asked that the District take a look at getting good data to have actual demand. Director Miller asked to have the enabling statute added to the to the Centennial Water Supply Project update. Mr. Roderick agreed.

6 Page 6 of 6 Marin Lipowitz, a resident of Grass Valley, asked if the line is being blurred between agricultural water and residential customers that are buying agricultural water for their landscaping needs. Mr. King explained that there are customers that have two accounts, treated and raw water and that they use their raw water as they need it. Some have a raw water account, which they use for their home, this is called a constructive conveyance parcel. A discussion ensued regarding the District s raw and treated water customer use. Ms. Lipowitz requested clarification that the District would only consider property acquisitions if approached by a property owner, and the District never solicits property owners. Mr. Roderick answered yes. Mr. Roderick confirmed that the District would only consider property acquisitions if approached by a property owner. The District never solicits property owners. Ms. Lipowitz asked to make a distinction between the public and other agencies in the RWMP consultation. Ms. Lipowitz requested collaboration with the public and other agencies. Michael Hill-Weld, a resident of Nevada City, asked if the proposal for the process of updating the RWMP will be presented to the Board reflecting the detail before work starts. Mr. King answered yes, and shared that the Board will be making the decision. Mr. Fabersunne requested that the recordings of the Engineering Committee become available under the Brown Act. Mr. King closed item number Two and moved on to item number Three. Item #3 Review the five-year Capital budget for the Recreation Department Mr. Gary King Engineering Manager, introduced Monica Reyes, Recreation Manager. Ms. Reyes reviewed the five-year Capital budget for the Recreation Department in preparation for 2019 budget and rate setting. Mr. King closed item number Three and moved on to item number Four. Item #4 Project Review - Information: Review the Project Status Report Reviewed the Project Status Report with Committee members as an informational item. CD