coastal happenings
| February 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | |||
Lexington, Kentucky: Bluegrass FLOW
Thames in Stockton at Public Citizen
Montara Water and Sanitary District
Don Norman's suggestions on understanding "accidents"
Dekker, S. (2002). The field guide to human error investigations Burlington VT: Ashgate.
Vicente, K. J. (2003). The human factor: revolutionizing the way people live with technology Toronto: A. A. Knopf Canada.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR, Press/Banner December 18, 2003
Mr. Dugan's facts were wrong in a recent letter to the editor published in the Valley Press.
The Montara bond is for 24 years, not 29, and the increase in property taxes for Montara has not yet been set. Mr. Dugan's numbers for the amount of that increase are his speculation. The Montara board member who spoke at our meeting thinks they will be less.
When Mr. Dugan writes that Montara "shelled out millions in attorney's fees" he is missing the point. Montara PUC attorneys intervened in 4 separate docket items. In one case, their intervention will result in net savings to ratepayers of about $500,000 per year after after seven years.
There are important differences between the Felton and Montara water situations. Montara faces a water shortage severe enough that it once had a moratorium on water hookups. Felton has a surplus of water in non-drought years. When both districts were owned by CalAm, Montara residents paid more for water than Feltoners, and it is reasonable to expect that pattern to continue.
According to LAFCO, a typical Felton household now pays about $15 per month more than a typical SLVWD household. In addition, CalAm proposes to increase Felton water rates by more than $500,000 per year. Much of that money will leave our community, because CalAm is owned by a chain of holding companies based in New Jersey, the UK, and Germany.
It is likely that SLVWD can deliver water in Felton for the same rates that it delivers water in the rest of the San Lorenzo Valley, providing a savings that could be used to pay off a bond.
The statement that I am a "ringleader" who is "sending a message that private businesses and jobs in our are community are not welcome" is laughably inaccurate. Quite the contrary, I am working to hold down the water bills of those private businesses, along with the water bills for everyone else.
I also believe that our public water district, the one that sold watershed lands to Sempervirens, will make a better watershed steward than the private water company which overpumped the Carmel River.
Tod Landis
RWE's courtroom diversions continue... unsuccessfully
Instead of focusing on the issue of whether the Urban County Government can legally and affordably buy Kentucky American Water Company, and the company's fair market value, RWE, the foreign conglomerate that owns Kentucky American, is using a flurry of legal tactics to distract the court and the public. Fortunately, Fayette County judges have not been biting at RWE's bait.
On December 9, Special Judge Larry Raikes summarily dismissed RWE's motion to stop the Urban County Government's lawsuit to gain local control of our water supply. (see our December 11, 2003 update)
On December 12, Judge Lewis Paisley ended RWE's bid to open a second front in the courts. RWE attempted to challenge a loan the city might use to fund its efforts to gain local control of Kentucky American. The loan is expected to be repaid by the bond that will be issued to buy Kentucky American. Judge Paisley transferred that case to Special Judge Raikes, saving the cost of a second lawsuit. (see http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/news/state/7481904.htm)
RWE's efforts to keep the court from asking the central questions may mean that the company doesn't think it will like the court's answers.
Kentucky-American Water loses legal skirmish
LEXINGTON, KY Ñ The first major skirmish in the legal wrangle for ownership of Kentucky-American Water has been won by the Lexington-Fayette County Urban Government,
The Dec. 8 victory eliminated an issue that has stalled the controversial case since summer. Special Judge Larry Raikes summarily dismissed a water company counter-claim that the Urban County Council's resolution authorizing the condemnation lawsuit was invalid, the news station said.
Kentucky-American's lawsuit asks sought to declare invalid the Urban County Council's July 1 resolution authorizing a condemnation lawsuit against the water company.
Kentucky-American had claimed the condemnation notice was not properly published in certain newspapers as required by law. As it turned out, the city had its resolution printed in the newspaper of record serving nine of eleven counties where Kentucky-American operates, but not in the newspaper of record for Grant and Gallatin counties, according to the report.
Monterey Herald: Desal at Moss Landing?
The new water board will wait until March to decide the fate of a proposal to build a desalination plant at Sand City.
The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District board of directors voted Monday to wait for test results that are intended to show if it is possible to locate a plant near the dunes in Sand City. The tests will also reveal how large a desalination plant the water district could build.
The Sand City proposal was the favored water supply project of the previous water board. Two of the three new board members elected last month ran campaigns against the Sand City proposal, and in favor of a larger desalination plant proposed by the California-American Water Co. That plant would be constructed next to Duke Energy power plant at Moss Landing.
Board member Dave Potter said the Moss Landing proposal was just speculation at this point, because the water company has not yet submitted a formal proposal to build the plant. He said the Sand City proposal would give the water board a good opportunity to have a constructive dialogue with the public about desalination options.
The desalination issue looms largest of all the challenges facing the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. The Peninsula is under a state order to reduce its dependance on Carmel River water to save two threatened species, red-legged frogs and steelhead trout.
The desalination plant proposed by the previous water board would have supplied 8,409 acre-feet of water a year. That's just enough to satisfy the state board order. Cal-Am's proposal would supply 10,700 acre feet, supplying water for drought reserve and development of recorded lots on the Peninsula.
The test results scheduled to come back in March will measure the capacity of the groundwater under the Sand City coast to handle the demands of a desalination plant.
"As much as you can get, let's get it," said Board Member Alvin Edwards.
When the test results come back in March, the board will decide whether to move forward with the project. It could decide to order a new environmental impact report estimating the effects of a larger plant or it may move forward with the smaller plant proposal.
A draft environmental impact report for the smaller proposal was completed earlier this month and is ready for public circulation. That $1.3 million report concluded that the current Sand City proposal is the most environmentally sensitive water supply project proposed.
Cal-Am still has not filed a formal proposal for its plant at Moss Landing. Several interest groups are lobbying the water company to build an even larger plant then it has proposed. A large plant could supply desalinated water to the Peninsula, Moss Landing, North Monterey County and Fort Ord.