Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout35- Water Department - CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION From: Bernard C. Kersey, General Manager Subject: REPORT AND OVERVIEW OF THE WATER RESOURCE AD HOC COMMITTEE WORK Dept: Water Department Date: June 29, 1998 OR1G1NAL Synopsis of Previous Council action: Establishment of the Water Resource Ad Hoc Committee Recommended motion: Receive and File C Sign ure Contact person: Bernard C. Kersey Phone: 384-5091 Supporting data attached: yes Ward: All FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: NA Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. Description) Finance: Council Notes: 7 6 9Y 75 0262 Agenda Item No. 35 w 'CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT The Water Resource Ad Hoc Committee is a council committee comprised of : Councilwoman Esther Estrada, Chairperson, Councilwoman Susan Lien, and Councilwoman Rita C. Arias. The committee has held six meetings to bring forward to the council various proposals dealing with the use of water in San Bernardino. The purpose of this report is to summarize the status of the committee to date . In addition to this report , a series of maps will be presented which provide a graphic illustration of the various proposals and projects . The first meeting was held on April 15, 1998 and at that meeting the Water Department presented an overview of high groundwater conditions and contamination of groundwater. Staff then presented information on programs and projects that are in place or proposed to mitigate their impacts. Staff of the Water Department was then requested to contact those parties who had presented concepts on the use of water. At the second meeting Councilwoman Susan Lien gave a presentation on the "Riverwalk Project" in San Antonio, Texas and showed the committee a book created by the students at Riley Elementary School entitled "For The Sake of the Lake" . Sam Catalano made a presentation on a lakes and streams concept between the Carousel Mall and Inland Center Mall . The presentation identified some of the major planning issues such as relocation costs, land assemblage, and technical feasibility and design. Edward "Duke" Hill gave a presentation on the importance of long-term strategic planning. Mr. Hill emphasized the need to highlight our positive attributes in marketing the area . At the third meeting of the committee, Patrick Milligan, Director, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, presented an overview of the district' s project and the impetus for the project . Mr. Milligan brought forward the formation of a joint powers authority between his district , the city, and the Inland Valley Development Agency to evaluate alternative water projects rather than each entity doing independent project alternatives and evaluations. Two of the committee meetings were used to go over various maps prepared by the Water Department that graphically depicted the boundaries of the Bunker Hill Basin, existing and past water 75.0264 'CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT courses that run through the city, and the pressure zone area within the Bunker Hill Basin. These maps were prepared so that members of the committee could visualize and gain a better understanding of the terrain of the valley floor and how facilities are currently used to move water out of the basin for flood control purposes . Feasibility of joint use of facilities and coordination with other agencies is an area that has to be explored further if use of their facilities is proposed. Water Department staff made a presentation at the June 10 , 1998 meeting of the proposed project to address high groundwater. The Water Department initiated meetings of the water producers in the Bunker Hill Basin, including: the Cities of Redlands and Riverside, Riverside-Highland Water Company, West San Bernardino County Water District, East Valley Water District, San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District, and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District . The meetings were held to have all of the agencies reach agreement on prioritizing the issues so we could all try to work together to find solutions . The highest priority of the agencies was mitigation of high groundwater in the Bunker Hill Basin. From those meetings, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District took the lead and developed the High Groundwater Mitigation Committee. Staff for all of the agencies have been working together to define the problem, review alternative solutions, identify existing facilities that could be used, and costs for implementation. The physical components for the high groundwater were put on maps and presented top the committee for their information. Listed below are seven map titles. Color copies of the maps will be presented to the Mayor and Common Council at the July 6 , 1998 meeting. • Bunker Hill Groundwater Basin Boundaries • EPA Superfund Project • Pressure Zone Boundary Map • High Groundwater Mitigation Project Overview • Bunker Hill Basin Cross-section • Jerde Partnership Conceptual Lake Plan • San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Conceptual Lake Plan 75.0264 WATER RESOURCE AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT • FROM COUNCILWOMAN SUSAN LIEN MISSION The Water Resource Ad Hoc Committee set as its mission: to learn about the City's water resources and to sift through the different ideas for developing these resources to better manage them and to use them to the best advantage for a make-over of the City. The following two issues were addressed: • Bringing water `to the surface" to generate revitalization of property and economic development. • Designing a project that can permit the various water agencies to store and regulate water for sale or domestic use and aid in mitigating high groundwater and contaminants. There was a general consensus that the City's water resources should be harnessed to combine water resources management while significantly enhancing the quality of life in San Bernardino. • HISTORY Our City and the surrounding area is endowed with a great and precious resource in that it sits on top of an aquifer that holds more water than Lake Shasta. This abundance, in an otherwise and region, has been, over the years and right up to the present, the subject of litigation and political in-fighting. Like most resources of this kind, this great asset has caused problems as well as providing benefits. Over the years informal discussions have taken place in a number of segments of our community and at the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District concerning the building of lakes and water courses as a means of community enhancement for San Bernardino that would extend as a benefit to our neighboring cities. A 1974 general plan for San Bernardino does show two large lakes and a number of "pocket" lakes. More than 20 years ago the City Council adopted. as policy, the incorporation of San Bernardino's water resources as an important element in the City's development. More recently, beginning in the late spring of 1996 Duke Hill, of the San Bernardino Chamber of Commerce, triggered renewed interest for using the • City's water resources to revitalize San Bernardino that has been battered by 19.5 � t severe economic trauma and blight. Hill's interest in turn triggered renewed • and more formal interest at the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District which in the summer and fall of 1996 embarked on looking at various concepts that would combine water resources management with an opportunity for nothing short of a rebirth for San Bernardino. WATER CONCEPTS RELATING TO RESOURCES The Water District started out discussing a river walk concept and shifted gears to concentrate on a concept of water resources regulating a reservoir (lake) that would be an approximately 120 acre lake north of downtown. The lake concept was presented to the Redevelopment Committee and the City Council. The City Attorney was directed to explore a Joint Power Authority (JPA) agreement with the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, the Inland Valley Development Agency and the City of San Bernardino. The JPA would serve as the forum for public hearings and analysis with the added incentive of being able to better attract funding. It didn't take long for the rumor mills to start grinding away. Not surprisingly, given the history and the acrimonious intensity of water politics in the San Bernardino Valley, a firestorm of protest erupted. The price tag for the concept was variously given as between $300 and $500 million with no differentiation • made between the cost of the water resources component only; and overall development to go with it. Legitimate questions were raised about societal and technological concerns along side of some wild accusations. Old water war wounds were opened and the San Bernardino Water Department came out against the District's lake concept later joined by local water agencies in the San Bernardino Valley. Prototype Joint Powers Agreements were drawn up but were stalled in City Hall. And, of course, the concept got caught up in election year politics, particularly in late 1997 and the first month of this year. The Valley Municipal Water district declared that the lake that was studied does not have to be the key element of a water resource based concept and, that flexibility, in the best interest of San Bernardino and the surrounding cities, should guide any project. The Committee also heard up-dated presentations from Duke Hill and Sam Catalano but then shifted to studying the underground water issues under the guidance of the Water Department. Over the course of the Committee meetings, a noticeable improvement was seen in the tone of exchanges between the City Water Department and the • Valley Municipal Water District. This spirit of cooperation must continue to displace a narrow devotion to turf if San Bernardino and our neighbors are to • benefit. A water project that will permit the store and regulation of water flows for sale and domestic use and to mitigate high groundwater must be activated in relation to the high pressure zone and existing pumping infrastructure. Although differences still remain to be resolved, a great deal of progress was made. Based on these parameters, certain projects might have aesthetic purposes only. The best project will combine elements of both. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? The hearings by the Committee have thrown a lot of light on the issue of a water resources based development project for San Bernardino. At this, the Committee needs input from the full Council. Councilwoman Estrada has proposed continued community meetings to hear individual concepts and the possible formation of a technical advisory group. The purpose would be to eventually select a most-favored concept. Councilwoman Lien questions whether further planning would not better be addressed within the formation of a Joint Powers Authority. Such a step would • reduce community fear and confusion by placing the project with the body that must ultimately execute it. It is her recommendation that the full Council take the next step and join with the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District and the Inland Valley Development Authority in a Joint Powers Authority to determine if such a project is feasible and, if so, what form it should take to best benefit the City and our neighbors. The Joint Powers Authority (JPA) would be made up of the Mayor and two Councilmembers and the two Water District Directors who represent San Bernardino. Further, IVDA would be represented by the San Bernardino County Supervisor and the Mayor of San Bernardino would be the JPA Chair. In a spirit of regional cooperation and benefit and without any loss of independence or sovereignty to any member entity, the JPA would best be able to hold hearings and conduct analysis to enable a decision to be made for the benefit of the people of San Bernardino and the surrounding communities. • 3 U V C rr O m _o V M _ `m `m N n w U vE v _ d p V r � < C V R O � O d ^ 31 d � = I U coU Cl cn coW W 1i U) U 0 O � Q 00 U n� _0 i� O w o a) = W }' cn~ 0 ry Q � a) c 4-4 a0 m o a) -a c 0U m c Uj W m a) a W U v, co i N ca -1�-+ Q� ^ I..1. �L-+ � ' Q) V O cn O z C) U N 0 C/) U o O L z O Q N E W a) :a 0 Q co o C: o LL E U z a) cu a� a m U T. U t� {•1 1 CID a r`y'e a ' I � � k `.L r •�# �� '• ,} � 5 .5. • + r i- 1 L r .•.� r- Y r w' r� I Cl Im Z Y... till VJ r .. ' '11 'J'r'li I,�i1 ` •' , ss Ti4; Z � � e a � a LW Zy U i Ord O . ^ a v a � � U e � w pq zs 04 CK U i Y 4 ��ryy5 W 1 � b a z U 'M` k3J Illy LJJ zo CO T a is p t J +s t w y LL o `a " U w cn . i UON sL t' U� '/ L C � LU HaM LL J iul� �� ill c 3 z r_ It..�� U _ = a s 3 IIIP�N! L IiI��Y':: �lull w � A A I���•���il.�■ 1 m H S � Ib• f c Q y rn ` I � ±.� N O > N d L c :E Q m O c L. 4 ,� O U N (� O N O L ) U _ 5 O C U) O C- -� p 4-j � � a�'i v c� a U y � - U w D � 0 h n W � > ti _ O m O CL Z O 0 O a) cn C: '� '� O . 0 a) O �cn -�--� Q to (U C � }, > (D a) � oLm � � no U) U u) U yq1 � mom � r. � I1 V I ' � It ,•e � • r ��,uriss. 1� � ► — L� —G. `rig �iliji\F d•..v •. •.L���� ` •� _ - i .. MAM'io� 1 r • .- 9?! ujy y. i • �a�9 � I h 4 � s 1 ' I J •' �� ° y_I. - M 1 TIIMTi r• J 1 _. y i f i it ( 14 1j uj11°i1t• �� 1?/Y 1 � • � 1 J 4r VI U9 ra' J dj Qn W TC Is yy Q - y •. y 1� A� uj Lu T'- 1 , � 1'• , 1 l u f I G y C IN IR p ' k Z 7 44! AV r i t I _ At IT All, I �.41 le it 1_' t it FK a� ^ _' w — I- •.� jf 2 i lli�� J �.,..�i ^u - � - �''' 11 •My � F ; 1. .J- f '�•� Q �� ry LL per+ -rte,•' � I 1 ' �/� Jp ' Ate■ � , �1Q ! � p � •,- f H W f 1'1 � r •. ft�.. i k1. CN Is•Y i ' 'd� ? �2 O� d ! LL + '� II`I '! II +I' �a�1'I r . r l _ k„4' .-4` • ` fYi• '�i ;��" •r?, `�I — 1 !JT'f',f f1� �,11. 3a:1 } J � ,�k. ,nyq�.:. 1 '•.p ".) y1�� 1 i iS •f I Illl � 110 .. I� �Ej E it i �1 IN f' r _ • (n�1l!p� , kid ` _!► its 1,411t;P3,Wit �uJLG� �`.i 1��' •x' 4 9 li]i k � �- . �; ;p�y �� jj r 1 S '