HomeMy WebLinkAboutS01-Council Office
CI'! Y OF SAN BERNARDI 0 - REQUE If FOR COUNCIL AC1 DN
From: Councilman Ralph Hernandez
Subject: Discussion relative to document
principles of legislation for
upper Santa Ana River Groundwater
Management Agency
Dept: Council Office
Date: December 3, 1986
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
NONE.
Recommended motion:
To discuss formation of groundwater management agency.
~ C\:.;~
Contact person:
Councilman Hernandez
Phone:
5333
Supporting data attached: Yes
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount:
Source:
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262
Agenda Item No.
$-1
\ .
......
,
, ,/.'
--
.j
"
/
~
PRINCIPLES OF LEGISLATION FOR
UPPER SANTA ANA RIVER GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY
PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION: FORMATION OF
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY FOR SHORT TERM
LOWERING OF HIGH GROUNDWATER IN PRESSURE AREA
Groundwater levels in the San Bernardino Basin area have
risen over the past five years to create undesirable conditions of
flooding and structural damage to buildings.
Approximately
240,000 acre-feet of this water need to be removed to lower the
ground,.,ater levels sufficiently to prevent such conditions from
occurring.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF LEGISLATION AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
1.
Formation of Groundwater Manaqement Aqency.
A ground-
water management agency shall be formed and such agency shall be
known as the Upper Santa Ana River Groundwater Management Agency.
2,
Protection of Existing Water Rights.
Management of the
ground\,;ater resources must be with the consent and responsible
participation of both those with rights to the water and of those
with the legal responsibility for management of the resource, No
person should gain or lose water rights as a result of groundwater
removal through this legislation and ground\-,ater management pro-
gram.
3, Preservation of the 1969 Western and Orange County
Judgments.
The terms of these two judgments were arrived at to
settle litigation along the entire Santa Ana River.
'The manage-
ment program will be consistent with the terms of the judgments,
except that temporary modifications for short-term removal, if
approved by the court, may occur.
4 .
Optimum Groundwater Levels for Whole Basin.
Groundwater
resources in the .San Bernardino Basin area should be managed to
provide the optimum water levels for all areas of the Basin, High
groundwater levels which create a public health or safety problem,
or cause property damage, should be lowered to a safer level
cons is tent with the economic use of the groundwater resource.
Groundwater levels should not become so low that pumping costs are
unreasonably high or the water supply to a community is unneces-
sarily diminished.
5. Protection of Water Quality. Removal of the high ground-
water must also preserve and protect existing good quality water
in the Basin and not cause additional water quality problems, such
as contamination by nitrates and toxics,
5, Management District Control by a Consensus GrOUD of
Producers and Oversight Agencies.
~ Groundwater ~lanagement Agency
shall be created, governed by a Board of Directors, comprised of
water producers ~n the San Bernardino Basin area, and the San
Bernardino Conservation District, the San Bernardino Flood Control
--
::>
District, the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, and
Western Municipal Water District, will be formed for high ground-
water removal and a consensus of such agencies shall be necessary
to implement a removal program.
6. Development and Implementation of Groundwater Manaqement
Proqram.
The management agency shall prepare and adopt a
management program for groundwater removal. The management agency
shall designate the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
to administer the groundwater removal program, subject to the
right of the agency to subsequently change such administration to
another agency.
7. CEQA - NEPA Compliance and Mitiqation of Adverse Effects.
':'\.....
nu
enV.lronme:i.ta:
analysis,
wnich
sha:l
~ncluQe dn
-' . .
.;.;.n V1.i: O:~Z1:<;:!:lC2. ~
Impact Report, shall be performed upon any program to be adopted
by the Management Committee for the removal of high groundwater
from the San Bernardino Basin area, and the removal plan shall
adopt measures to mitigate adverse environmental impacts of the
project. ~
9. Disposition of Excess Groundwater. !Excess ground',,,ater
in the San Bernardino Basin area which needs to be removed for
oublic health and safety reasons shall be allocated for distribu-
cion in the following priorities:
A. First, such excess water shall be offered to all
of those producers with water rights 1n the Basin, 10
proportion to average production.
The amount.of such wa~er
- 3 -
:'
which cannot be put to their own beneficial use by such
entities, excluding resale or transfers, shall revert to the
pool for distribution.
B. A second priority for such water shall be to other
entities in the Santa Ana Watershed which can put the water
to their own beneficial use, excluding resale or transfer to
other entities.
C. Third, if after first offering such water to those
with water rights in the Basin, and second, to other entities
on the Santa Ana River, there should remain additional water
that needs to be disposed of, it shall be offered to any
other entity, regardless of geographical position, which can
pU'C. the ~,./a ter
to beneficial
U3e.
() r~
/ /'
..:':/,."{:"'-:- ~0' ~ y-C:"
/--- /
--r t:1 .,"L.{ r..:;
Li..Je
,
10.
Cost of Water.
Water distributed through this program
shall be delivered at cost, which shall include any costs of
adverse impacts identified in the Snvironmental Impact Report,
pumping costs, wheeling costs, depreciation, a basin management
fee, or any other costs directly related to pumping.
11. Payment of Costs to Manaqement Committee or Administra-
ti ve Aqency.
Payment shall be made directly to the management
agenc~:l, ',..r:-:ich shall redistri~ute it as necessary to reimburse
costs.
12. Term of Leqislation.
The term of this legislation shall
be for seven (7) years after which it shall automatic,,] 11' ter-
minate.
.
- , -
,-,"". . ....... --. - . - - . - -. --
.-
McDONOUGH, HOLLAND & ALLEN RECEIVED
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 95~
Sacramento, CA 95814 NUV -) p) :14
Telephone: (916) 444-3900
Rapicom I (916) 444-8334 S.D.V.M.W.O.
TELECOPIER COVER LETTER
PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES TO:
Name: MR. JACK A. BEAVER
Firm: c/o SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNI. WATER DIST.
City: SAN BERNARDINO, CA
Phone Number: (714) 824-2530
From MARTIN McDONOUGH
Total number of pages (including cover letter) :f
If you do not receive all the pages, please call back
as soon as possible.
phone: (916) }~4-390?
Operator ~/~~
exQ?:)r 304
We are transmitting from:
L:7 Xerox 400 manual telecopier
~ Rapicom 3300 automatic telecopier
THlE:
11__ :j-8't,
3:/0
DATE:
/
, "'~ClO..ov~'"
...,OIItO.,....."'O
MJCrr AUI.lll
't U,ll\DWCO"
,lOU"K1 (OOIlI.,lll
O"VI'.l vonl'wOOO
01"''''10 o ,,(I\'
-'\C)u..-Q.. """0"1
00."1.0 ( l'OOl.ot
11C",UOtl 0\("
llICK.UOI,UJfOf
CUf' 1.0VllhOGt
QII(-.-:I~'"
-cld, h. . ,UUll)l
cAVIOlll' ,I'OtT
Su1U1 . lOU"
1ltVCII&(0000000GW
",,,,,"'''...0-(''
04Yl01 HAm
..uc:r .... .oooTUO
IiIIC)UII.Yroc.All."
Nun t. MUU.. ,Ill.
OIIW,.- DC C\At
'iii'" OCQnltLI.
aoeclT . O"(.OIilHOA
JU'Ul.JCl'l1l
T .."'-.ltT M..C'''S
,."". CJ.56('~'
,TvdY l.$Q4Il:-'CI'l
, .a.o.nu... ~UlU 00l0~'
t ,..nil ~ "'W '0" 9"\'
0"''''''''' COU
'llUO...' .on_.
DO"""". ,\.-,00.
k/UIIl \. K\ol<X""
1"\".1.19<;
0....'0"..1.(..
."t(j.JlU.A Chl""L
,lUUL LII'
litUl,UA nlUUA
,UIlJ(IIOIl.UOTf
II"'" lI'O.UI'..'O"'(
Wl\.\,I." .. ..-=..hG
l........'CIAIl.-oAC.I:JIO
N,"'IMI,..I'lU
10""otOJ QUI""J'
00'" ( 'IIU"
"'''Cy' \[1
UI.CiO.nOfl
UACU a.c:ULL'f
ouul......~'
....,'0\.0(...
~~, orval!' S-ll.tuO
W/II 0 SCw011AG
~o.U/'nu.ItSlr>>11il1
~IUT...UIl"
_!CHArI... t..,...",.
(.UTIII CAIl".U sew.un
WllU.Ut C WILIO'l. Jt
'AU\. I IINlII~lr
HcDo:-;~t;GH. HOI.!..A.-";D & "'.LE:>
... It.'.O...... cO.'O"'''f1c;
ATTOR~~YS
..<<...0.' ICAC" 0.. ~c
.C'" ....~........." .0101...."...0. '....re o.
..I....o.f I("C". '.....Fa...'.. ....0
I',.' '.'01"0
.50 CA~I'OI. w...........vlft 110
IAC"'.AMINTO, '.......'0"'1o?i1... ....1.
I'..' "'.....1.00
0........'0" CC
. 0 10" )....
~..v'.
9J I..hli 3, 1986
O.4......'.C..1. '0....'.. '.'0'
,,,," '.'.010.
",IIT..",_ ... tlA""lfl:''''
.'.........
via telecopier
Mr. Jack A. Beaver
1127 Kimberly Place
Redlands, CA 92374
Dear Jack:
Subjec t;
B-C negotiation
I read the 'Principles for Removal of Ground....ater"
....hich you received irom Mr. Cologne on Cctobcr ~:. : note ,D~~
they are said to be additional principles, whereas some of
them apparently modify the earlier proposal.
Accordingly I am enclosing some additional principles
to supplement the principles which you submitted earlier,
continuing the t....o text style, at least for the present.
If and when we go to a SNT, we will have to address
concerns about the new body which would be created. In
addition to the policy question, any creation of a new
agency to exercise ground water removal powers, instead of
to give advice, raises at least the following questions:
1. The Cologne proposal obviously contemplates the
inclusion of some private ag~ncies, since it has not
incorporated your limitation to public agencies. In any
joint powers agreement the voting parties must all have
individually the power that they share in common; and it is
not clear that each of the proposed members will have that
power.
/
/
Mr. Jac~ A. Beaver
November 3, 1986
paqe Z
2. Necessary groundwater removal may be unprofitableJ
in order to do a comprehensive job the new agency will have
to raise money somehoW; even it it is profitable it may be
necessary to build works first, requiring financing. Valley
would not want to, and probably could not, agree in advance
to implement whatever the other entity came up with.
3. A two-thirds vote as a requirement for action, as
distinguished from a two-thirds to override, can be a very
severe limitation; and of course two-thirds of the membership
is more severe than two-thirds of the vote cast. I do not
know of a public body operating successfully under such a
rule.
4. Although the limitation against action is now
imposed only on Valley in the COlogne drafts, it is only
logical to prevent the City, the County, Riverside, and the
COnservation District, as well as others, from taking any
independent action that Valley cannot take. In other words,
the logical conclusion is t~~t nc one can remove ground
water without the consent of the super agency by a super
majority. .
5. As the Central valley Project has demonstrated,
anyone who imports water must also occasionally remove it.
It would be cumbersome to have one agency deciding when to
bring in water and a separate agency determining when to
take it out, in operating the basin.
Sincerely yours,
Martin McDonough
Attorney
MMcD/jd
ene.
cel James W. Dilworth, Esq.
Mr. G. Louis Fletcher
I
j"__ n
- . -- .
dra ft 11/3/86
(Note: These principles
presente~ by Mr. Beaver,
are in addition to the draft
and do not replace them.)
SUFPLEMENTAL PRINCIPLES FOR REMOVAL OF GROUNDWATER
1. In any new entity created under these principles,
members whose rights have been determined by the Western
and/or Orange County Judgments, and who are located or use
water outside the basin, shall have no voting power.
2. In any neW entity created under these principles,
~embers shall be entitled to vote in proportion to the
damage which lands within them may suffer from high
grour.d...a ter.
3. Valley shall be entitled to remove an amount of
groundwater equal to that which it hae previoUsly delivered
to the basin -and not consumed by others with its consent,
without sharing the proceeds of the sale of such water, if
any, with others, in order to reduce the high cost of
importing State water.
4. The term of the agreement will be five years,
after which it shall automatically terminate.
(- ....
NOTE: THESE PRINCIPLES ARE IN ADDITION TO OUR FIRST DRAFT, AND
DO NOT REPLACE THEM
PRINCIPLES FOR REMOVAL OF GROUNDWATER
1. Any operation of the groundwater basin may affect the
users of groundwater, those who spread for the users, those who
need higher qualities of water and those who can operate with
lower qualities, those who want to pump the water for their own
use, and those who want the water removed for the stability of
their buildings, and safety in the event of future earthquakes.
It is desirable to set up a management plan that is sensitive to
those concerns,
and which incorporates the ability to make
difficult decisions.
2. An agency will be formed to provide groundwater basin
policy and management within the boundaries of the basin to be
described.
Appropriate mechanics approved by the parties having
an interest in the basin shall be established to manage excess
groundwater conditions in the basin.
The Agency membership shall
consist of those entities having rights to appropriate water from
the basin, and those public agencies with an interest in ground-
water management of the basin.
3. The Agency shall develop policy and a program for
groundwater management and for removing groundwater.
The program
shall include the arrangements by which the facilities of others
J.
I
are to be utilized, the locations to which the water shall be
removed, the details of any payments to be made by entities
benefiting from such removed water and compensation for costs and
adverse effects. The Valley District shall be the administrative
body designated by the Agency to carry out the program and
policies adopted by the Agency.
4. Valley may submit an initial draft of a program to the
Agency for consideration. The Agency shall study each submitted
portion of the plan and hold one or more noticed public hearings
to consider the plan, and any comments by interested parties, and
shall make such changes in the plan as it shall determine proper.
A two-thirds vote of the Agency membership shall be .cequL:eu co
adopt the policies and the. groundwater management plan. A plan
may not be implemented by Valley which has been rejected or
approved conditionally unless implemented in accordance with the
conditions. This paragraph shall not apply to the plan adopted by
Valley in November 1985 if the courts shall finally hold that
such plan was adopted in accordance with the law.
5. Nothing in the structure of this program will interfere
with the rights of any member of the Agency to pursue any legal
remedies which it would otherwise have.
-2-
I
I
6. No person shall gain or lose water rights as a result
of groundwater removal.
7. The parties shall comply with the California Environ-
mental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, in carrying out any of the
plan for removal of groundwater.
8. The parties will attempt maximum payments from those
enti ties outside the Santa Ana Watershed who purchase removed
groundwater or are otherwise benefited by such removal, and after
deduction of costs, the balance shall be paid to the Agency to be
distributed to or for the benefit of its members as the Agency
shall determine, bearing some reasonable relationship to the
respective water rights in the basin and adverse effects incurred
by such removal, and groundwater management objectives.
9. Nothing in the agreement, or otherwise, shall be
construed as an impairment of any provision of the orange County
Water District or Western judgments, or the rights under the
judgments of Valley or any member of the Agency.
10. The Agency may, by a two-thirds vote of its members,
designate some other entity than Valley to perform the functions
of implementing the Agency policy hereunder.
-3-
fic~ d /J!JcavC7'-
October 22, 1986
//N ..%-~4 .9c:.u
g~. c..tj?-IYU.a .9,Q.J?.J
g~,.. (/'//1/ /-:p.J..J.9t?.J
Gordon Cologne, Esq.
4330 La Jolla Village
San Diego, California
Drive
92112
Dear Gordon:
The attached "Principles For
initial response to your draft
given to me on October 16.
I believe it is in the interest of helping our negotiating process
to have at least two proposals before us to suggest a negotiating
territory within which we may focus on the apparent differences of
our principals.
Removal of Ground Water"
of a suggested legislative
is an
remedy
In this light, I perceive it is our task to narrow those
differences to insignificance in the course of our labors, and
produce a jointly recommended plan, not only acceptable but
fundamentally equitable and mutually beneficial to all parties.
Unfortunately, I know of no short-cuts; however, to examine the
"essence of the conflict" appears an essential diagnostic process
if we are to find a cure.
stcerelY'
/k: ~
, I
// JACK A, BEAVER
, / Consul tant, SBVMWD
\.
JAB: j g
enclosure
PRINCIPLES FOR REMOVAL OF GROUND WATER
1. Valley has the statutory authority to acquire, control,
distribute, store, spread, sink, treat, purify, reclaim, recap~ure
and salvage any water in the district, and the right to acqulre,
construct, and operate facilities for the collection, treatment of
disposal of waste and storm waters therein. It has entered into a
contract for water from the state water Project which requires
payment of large sums of money whether water is taken or not, and
which therefore requires maximum utilization of such water to
protect against future droughts. And it has entered into
stipulated judgments with downstream interests which require main-
tenance of quality as well as levels in order to protect the
upstream area against the claims of such downstream interests.
Carefully coordinated operation of the basin is therefore
necessary to protect the interests of the present water users,
future water users, and the general taxpayers within Valley.
2. Valley is aware that operation of the ground water basin
may affect the users of ground water, those who spread for the
users, those who need higher qualities of water and those who can
operate with lower qualities, those who want to pump the water for
their own use, and those who want the water removed for the
stability of their buildings, and safety in the event of future
earthquakes. It is desirable to set up a management plan that is
sensitive to those concerns, and which incorporates the ability to
make difficult decisions.
3. Valley will continue to provide ground water removal as
required in the basins within its boundaries subject to the super-
vision provided for by a Ground Water Policies Review Agency to be
created by a joint powers agreement among the major public
agencies which have rights to appropriate ground water from the
basins under jurisdiction. The Agency may provide for associate
membership of both public agencies and private entities, as it
shall see fit, who shall have the right to participate in all
meetings, and to receive all proposals considered by it, but shall
have no power to vote. .
4. Valley shall submit to the Agency each new portion of its
plans for removing ground water at least three months before that
portion is to be implemented, whether such portion relates to
pumping from existing wells or pumping from proposed new wells.
The information furnished to the Agency shall include the arrange-
ments by which the facilities of others are to be utilized, the
locations to which the water will be removed, and the details of
any payments to be made by entities benefitting from such removed
water. The Agency shall study such submitted portion of the plan
Principles for Removal of Ground Water
Page 2
and make comments thereon to Valley, and Valley will discuss such
comments at a noticed public board meeting, and make such changes
in the portion of the plan as it shall determine. This paragraph
shall not apply to the plan adopted by Valley in November of 1985
unless the courts shall finally hold that such plan was not
adopted in accordance with law.
5. Any plan submitted by Valley shall be consistent with the
principle that any entity within Valley or owning pumps within
Valley shall be allowed to remove such portion of the excess
ground water as it will contract with Valley on a firm basis to
remove; but entities pumping for use outside Valley shall not be
entitled to remove more than 28% of the excess ground water except
with the consent of Valley.
6. Valley will not remove, nor permit to be removed, any
ground water which will cause ground water levels within Valley to
be lower than those specified in the 1981 and 1983 agreements with
Western and others.
7. If the Agency shall/prior to the effective date of the
portion of the plan sUbmitted/disapprove such submitted portion,
that portion shall not be implemented by Valley unless after a
public hearing the Board of Directors of Valley shall by a two-
thirds vote approve the plan notwithstanding the objections of the
Agency. In approving the plan after receiving the objections of
the Agency, Valley may make such changes in the plan as are
necessary in its opinion to correct the matters objected to by the
Agency.
8. If the Agency shall determine by a two-thirds vote that
the portion of the plan approved by the Agency under the next
preceding paragraph will substantially interfere with the rights
of any of the members of the Agency, the Agency may bring an
action in a court of competent jurisdiction for a declaratory
judgment to determine the extent to which, and upon what terms,
Valley may proceed with the execution of such portion of a plan.
9. Nothing in the joint powers agreement
the rights of any member of the Agency to
remedies which it would otherwise have.
will interfere with
pursue any legal
10. No person shall gain or lose water rights as a result of
ground water removal by Valley.
11. Valley shall comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970, as amended, in carrying out any of the plan
for removal of ground water.
GORDON COLOGNE & ASSOCIATES
GOveRNMeNT ReLATIONS
....J30 L.A .JOL.L.A VII.L.AG!: ORIVC
Gia ..l.... 5T"'CCT
SUITt: 230
SUITt: 11&0
BAN DIEOO, CA 92122
SACRAMENTO, CA. Q06l4
10lGI ....7...QI6
IDlel 44....5~3Z
November 6, 1986
Mr. Jack Beaver
1127 Kimberly Place
Redlands, CA 92374
Dear Jack:
Relative to our conversation today I wanted to put
several thoughts in writing. I don't want to make this a habit,
however, as I believe our best progress is made in informal
discussions.
I do want to include the private water companies in
any program we develop because I believe it is import we include
all the people having a real interest in the river.
As indicated I believe pumping should be a primary
factor in voting rights and these people have a very small right
to that. Obviously the private water companies would have a
minimal voice in the policy of the agency as they have minimal
pumping rights and might even have to combine their interests to
acquire a single vote. I'd rather leave that to our later
discussion. I do not, however, believe it advisable to offer a
program that excludes anyone. I am sure we would garner
considerable opposition from certain quarters if we attempted to
do that.
This is one reason I discarded the thought of a joint
powers agreement as it would preclude participation by those
entities.
Let me make it clear I never for a moment thought it
proper for Valley to finance this operation alone. If the agency
is going to work, everyone must participate. I would expect
each entity participating should be assessed up front costs and
expenses of administering the program probably again based on
pumping rights though I have not reached any conclusions on that
issue. I see no reason why Valley alone should have to finance
any project. If the group thinks it worthwhile the group should
be'willing to bear the costs. I believe if the costs, including
the cost of constructing any transfer facilities,
are spread in that way, no individual entity should find it a
real burden. Any income for the sale of water outside the area
should be used to reimburse those costs first. In any event
financing should be provided by the agency.
The two-thirds vote I referred to should be two-thirds
vote cast, not two-thirds of the membership. I believe the
restriction is not unreasonable. The state of California
requires a two-thirds vote for its budget and while it poses some
difficulties from year to year, we somehow seem to manage to keep
our state in business.
Next let me make it clear the "super agency" will not
have to approve removal of all groundwater. The judgments in
effect guarantee the right to certain quantities. I have made it
clear I would not for a moment suggest we interfere with those
guarantees or an entity's right to remove water provided in those
judgments. We are only talking about excess water to bring the
water table down to an appropriate level without damage to
legally guaranteed water rights.
I hope this clarifies some of your concerns.
GC:amc
,
.'.'10. .,oo..ou"..
.l~.[D ( HOlLA"lO
..vct' ILLr'"
V .Ut.O.....GOF'
.IO'S(~ [ COO..(S Jill
0''''10 J !.I'()TTI'jWOOO
O("""$OONtlL
."",A.O" NICHOLS
OO"'LO( I'OOl(
""M.UO W D'SEN
"'<:"'4.0 t ....HOt
GUt'LQV(lIllQGE
CO .I(H....O.ItOWH
M""'''ElI 'ltltlN
01.""0_ ..csT
SUSAN It tOliNG
'''UCt III(OO",OU(;H
Willi......\. 0""(101
OA.."or '[I.",
""..IC( ... _000',1.1I0
MItHAn T 'OOAIIIT1'
H"ltlN [ l4ULL. JlIl
ot"lNtS W OE CUllt
...N'" OCONH(I,.L
I'lOI[lIl' w oeONNOIII
JEt'," It JONES
/L
:>lcDo:-lot;GH. HOLLA:-ID & ALLEN
... ..O'IE:SS10N"L co"'''"o'''...,'o....
Tlllt..'........,..!.
,.,......c.ssr.ll
stU.UTL'SOW"C'"
or.w.. H COlt
S"UO" 0 "OUNt
OO"""O It "'lltSO'"
WS.....L 5C)f()(""G
'III'S' ?toNG
OAVIOS ~L["
VltoGlI""" CA..llL
J."tSL tlET
.."..'tl'" ST[INE.
"nlCI,t,O Elllon
....., iII'O....tWS UIT()4N[
"'LL'....llCldIG
"'V"" CU.MlI'Ol'CtlliO
5(""" '"UNJoI[1Il
tOwu'O J OUtN'" JIt
00"'( C.IIIUN
",."""..Et
IUItlGOlIlTON
lIII..iltCl.~ULLT
'''UllII ""l,.L[,ItlE$TIIIA
0('.. S MAltGOllS
MAllY E OlOEN
CATMY OEUll(l SAlEIoIKO
ATTORNEYS
..[...-0... It..C.. o""'Ct
.0'" ..u,...'''''''. 10u~t.......o. ",V"e '0'
ss, CAPITO'" MA....... SUITE. g,O
"'t...~o.r It.CIoO, C"'U"O.Iol'. ."'0
17'.' 15'-"10
!....C"'...M[:NTO. C"'",'''ORNI... gSl!Il.
19",1 .......-3900
o...~~..u"o O"'C~
~. O. 10. J..'
o....\......? e...~"o."'.... ...0.
,.,11 IU.Oloe
Apr 11 22, .1986
....n..vlll...ltlll"'S'tl'"
0" COu...[~
Via Telecopier
A. L. Littleworth,-Esq.
Best, Best & Krieger
4200 ~range Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Subject:
Dewatering the Artesian Zone of the
San Bernardino Basin Area
Dear Art:
I~our conve:sation April 7 you ~~~ed t~at 'T~1!n1 =~~c~
or extend the 1985 agreement with Western and others to
provide for additional extractions in 1986, and perhaps
beyond, by the City of Riverside and other entities within
Western, here called collectively "Western entities". This
is consistent with the suggestion in Anne T. Thomas' letter
to Jim Dilworth dated January 13, 1986, which Valley has
not heretofore addressed due to the pending litigation.
The 1985 agreement is the latest of a series of agree-
ments between Valley and Western, and others, seeking the
help of Western entities to dewater the Artesian Zone. In
three 1981 agreements, provision was made for the removal
by Western entities of 10,000 acre-feet per year for ten
years; in a 1983 agreement, provision was made for removal
by Western entities of 40,000 acre-feet additional for six
years. The 1985 agreement provided for removal by Western
entities of additional unlimited quantities of water, but
that agreement expired at the end of that year.
According to the 1984 Water Master report, 1,148 acre-
feet was removed under the 1981 agreements in 1981, and
none in 1982 and 1983. Mr. Harriger has testified that
about 8,600 acre-feet was removed in 1984 under the 1981
agreement, and that the 1985 agreement resulted in the
A. L. Littleworth, Esq.
April 22, 1986
Page 2
removal, during calendar 1985, by Western entities of about
14,000 acre-feet. The 1983 agreement has not resulted in
the removal of any water, according to the petition for the
approval of the 1985 agreement.
Each of the agreements contains somewhat different
terms as to cost sharing and distribution of proceeds from
sales. I deduce that the reason the 1985 agreement was.
utilized by Westero entities in 1985 instead of the 1981 or
1983 agreements is that the economic terms of the 1985
agreement are more favorable to them.
Although the results of past agreements have fallen
substantially below Valley's hopes and expectations, Valley
desires the dewatering by Western entities to proceed, and -
believes that the economic provisions of the 1981 and 1983
agreements are fair and reasonable, and the quantities pro-
vided are at least as much as Western entities can remove,
und that no renewal or ~xt~nsion of ~he ~93S ~g:ee~ent is
necessary or desirable. Valley is faced, however, with the
probability that Western entities will remove little or no
water under the 1981 or 1983 agreements, or at all, unless
the economic incentives are increased.
Early in 1985, at the direction of Valley's Board, I
advised you that Valley was interested in creating a more
effective arrangement, with more predictable results than
previous agreements, and pursuant to that request we met as
a committee, with legal representatives of the City of
Riverside, Orange County Water District, East valley Water
District, and San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation
District participating, on several occasions, when we dis-
cussed various long run solutions to the problem. Meanwhile
the 1985 agreement was devised as an interim measure.
The meetings ceased in May of last year. My belief is
that this was because Western's representatives were there-
after unwilling to meet because of Valley's desire to con-
duct some dewatering measures of its own. I understand
that you may have some other explanation in mind, and it
probably does not 'matter why; it may be simply an incident
of a rather difficult negotiation.
A. L. Littleworth, Esq.
April 22, 1986
Page 3
It is my belief, and that of Valley's Board, that long-
run solution of the problem is needed, and should be nego-
tiated between the four major municipal water districts on
the River, with each responsible for reaching necessary
agreements with entities within it to support such a solu-
tion. Whether this can best be done through legal repre-
sentatives, or whatever format, is an open subject, but
since litigation is .historic and environmental, there is
some logic to participation by lawyers.
Accordingly I renew the invitation I gave you last
week to negotiate toward a long-term solution as soon as
you are ready, either through discussions between us and
our associates, or engineers or executives of our organiza-
tions. Such a long-run solution, Valley believes, must
provide for dewatering at critical times, like the present,
by both existing wells and present means of disposal, and
by new diversions and new means of disposal, and must not
leave tt-J.:> c:"lCzr!".gered zone. :Jubjeo:t to '"ishes and operatino
practices of entities outside of it, as past arrangements
may have done. If the entities having jurisdiction of the
endangered zone are not able to dewater the basin as needed
issues of substantial liability of the agencies which have
the responsibility to manage the groundwater basin arise.
Based on potential liability above, it is certainly possible
that Valley might need to construct and control dewatering
devices adequate for the entire operation, if no agreement
can be reached.
It is likely that this long-run solution cannot be
reached in time to be effective in 1986. In an endeavor to
provide some relief for the affected area quickly, and to
carryon a demonstration project for the negotiators, I
propose that Valley and Western enter into an agreement
effective only for the calendar year 1986, with the same
parties as the 1985 agreement, which the parties will agree
is not a precedent for any future occasion or agreement,
which will permit both Western and Valley to operate any
works they have or can provide to remove water from the
basin, and make any disposition of that water they choose,
subject to the maintenance of the well levels that have
been in previous agreements. Such an agreement would con-
tain the same economic incentives to Western as the 1985
A. L. Littleworth, Esq.
April 22, 1986
Page 4
agreement. At the same time the parties should agree to
negotiate diligently toward the desired long-run solution.
Please let me know whether you are prepared to nego-
tiate for your clients on this basis, or whether you have
some alternate basis to suggest.
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely yours,
y..,... ~ ~
Martin McDonough
Attorney
MMcD/jd
cc: G. Edward Fitzgerald, Esq.
Mr. G. Louis Fletcher
MEMO TO FILE
FROM:
Martin McDonough
November 19, 1986
FILE NO:
04168/001
DATE:
RE:
SBVMWD: proposed temporary
agreement, grounawater removal
in Bunker Hill basin
At the request of Mr. Jack A. Beaver, _.I_ have. prepared._._.
and transmit with this memo a draft of a possible agreement
___ .._ _ extending the agreement dated February. 25, 1985, _among
Valley District, Western, Orange District, Riverside, and
__n... San Bernardino. ..___._ _. _ _ ...___...._.___._ _.___...u__._______
____..__.. It may be ultimately desirable. to rewrite _the_1985_ -.-...
Agreement for 1987, for clarification, rather than extend it
--.--by. a separate agreement ,-but-the .latter_maybe.easier .to._use.____
for discussion purposes.
In preparing the draft I have had assistance from
.-----..-. p~rsonnel. of. "\Ialle~. Di strict, but. I-have.. nei ther-soughtnor-.--
obtained the approval of the District for the draft; it was
----prepared. solely. to-accomodate Mr ..-Beaver. - -----------
Except- where.- specified--inthe -draftr-I-have.- assumed ----
that the interests and desires of the parties are the same
as-they were when -the-.1985. Agreement-was entered-int<r. -1---
have not discussed the Agreement at all with representatives
.of-Western, Riverside,. Orange District-or San Bernardino.----.-.
-----.-MMcD/jd
enc.
cc: Mr. Jack A. Beaver
Arthur L. Littleworth, Esq.
Gordon Cologne, Esq.
< .
draft 11/19/86
AGREEMENT TO EXTEND THE 1985 AGREEMENT FOR 1987
\'
It is agreed by San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
District ("Valley District"), Western Municipal Water District
of Riverside County ("Western"), Orange County Water District
("Orange District"), CITY OF RIVERSIDE ("Riverside"), and
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ("San Bernardino"), that the "Agreement
to Produce Additional Water from the Artesian Zone of the
San Bernardino Basin Area and for Reimbursement of Costs"
("1985 Agreement") is hereby extended, subject to the following
additional provisions.
1. The term of the extension shall te ~~c~ ~~~~a~y :,
1987, to December 31, 1987, and all references in the 1985
Agreement to permitted and required activities during the
first six months of 1985 shall be construed as referring to
the twelve months of 1987.
2. The recitals in the 1985 Agreement are still true.
3. For purposes of Section 20 of the 1985 Agreement
as extended surface or subsurface water tributary to the
Artesian Zone may also be intercepted as "additional water"
provided it is used in compliance with Section 19 of the
1985 Agreement as extended.
4. In addition to the statements required to be
furnished to Orange District under the subdivision (c),
second sentence, of sections 13, 14, and 15 of the 1985
Agreement, each party shall supply all other parties with
the information relating to their production as specified in
Appendix "CO to this agreement (to be supplied after discussion).
5. The prices to be paid by Orange District under the
1985 Agreement as extended shall be those prices specified
in Appendix "B" to this agreement (to be supplied after
negotiation with Orange District).
6. Except as provided in this extension agreement the
"
provisions of the 1985 Agreement shall be in full force and
effect during the term of this extension.
7. . Valley District has as lead agency complied with
the California Environmental QuaE ty Act by filing a notice
of exemption pursuant to Section 15062 of the Guidelines
established pursuant to said act. If a legal challenge to
that decision is filed within the time specified by
subdivision (d) of Section 15062, the extension of the 1985
Agreement by this agreement shall not take effect.
8. The parties to the Western Judgment shall submit
this extension agreement to the court for approval under its
continuing jurisdiction in that matter as soon as possible.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement
as of the date indicated above.
SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL
WATER DISTRICT
By:
President, Board of Directors
2.
ATTEST:
Secretary, Board of Directors
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
EXECUTION:
. General Counsel
ATTEST:
Secretary, Board of Directors
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
EXECUT ION:
General Counsel
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
EXECUTION:
City Attorney
WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY
By:
President, Board of Directors
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
By:
Mayor
CITY OF RIVERSIDE
By:
3 .
Mayor
ATTEST:
Ci ty Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
EXECUTION:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Ci ty Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FOR.\! AND
EXECUTION:
City Attorney
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
By:
Mayor
4.
',y
/~ I~~
COMMITTEES
AG'''CULTU''E ANI 'E"
RESOUItCES
APPRoPftlATIONS
LOCAl.. GOVE"NMENT
REVENUE AND TAXATION
JOINT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT
COMMITTEE
JO'NT COMMITTEE ON
FAIRS AND ALLOCATION
LEGISLATI"'''' 400ft!:,.
/
.TAn: l\...... .x. - ROOM zoez
SACltAMENTO. CA 8581.
I.lel ..'-68"
~tnatt
DtST"K:T CWJ"'ICI: AOORESSES
- 50S N. ARROWHEAD AVENUE. BlaB
SUITE 100
SAN 8ERN..."0INO. Cot. 82401
17lA18840'31115
QIalifnrnia 1IJ.egislatur.e
as.!! so. EUCUO AVENUE
ONTARIO. CA 81782
1710&1983-3588
SELECT COMMITTEES
STATE PROCUREMENT
AND EXPENDITURE
PRACTICES
SMALL BUSINESS
ENTERPRlSES
RURAL ISSUES
RUBEN S. AYALA.
SENATOR
CHAIRMAN
AGRICULTURE AND WATER RESOURCES COMMITTEE
December 3, 1986
.
The Honorable Evlyn Wilcox
Mayor, City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Dear Mayor wilcox:
As you well know, I have once again introduced legisla-
tion calling for the creation of a management agency of the
underground water supply in the San Bernardino Valley.
This long and nagging issue is one that every elected
official in this area should be involved in attempting to
reach a solutiOn. The City of San Bernardino, because of its
primary location and direct impact, should be very much in-
volved in the drafting of the final version of the proposed
legislation. The health and safety of many residents who de-
pend on the quality of this water, as well as, the possible
disastrous economic catastrophy should a major temblor hit
this area, are the main reasons for creating such a managing
agency.
\"
The health and safety of our citizens should always be
the primary concern and not jurisdictional disputes as evidenced
in the past." Thus, I am asking that the City of San Bernardino
take a lead together with the County to attempt to reach an
amicable and satisfactory solution to this problem by using your
influence and leadership in this endeavor.
Please let me hear from you on this most important issue no
later than the first week in January.
RSA:mer
cc: San Bndo. City Council
San Bndo. Bd. of Supervisors
..... .
ctfully,
.5\ 04.J-. 0_
AYALA . "
34th District
--
::5-1