DOCSLIB.ORG

Countywide Reclamation Services

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Countywide Reclamation Services Countywide Reclamation Services Municipal Service Review/Sphere of Influence Update (2nd Round) – FINAL Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission Approved November 18, 2015 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO PREPARED FOR: CONTRA COSTA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION _____________________________________________________________________________________ COMMISSIONERS Don Tatzin, City Member Rob Schroder, City Member Federal Glover, County Member Mary Piepho, County Member Donald Blubaugh, Public Member Michael McGill, Special District Member Igor Skaredoff, Special District Member ALTERNATE COMMISSIONERS Tom Butt, City Member Candace Andersen, County Member Sharon Burke, Public Member Stan Caldwell, Special District Member STAFF Lou Ann Texeira, Executive Officer Kate Sibley, Executive Assistant/LAFCO Clerk CONSULTANT TEAM Project Resource Specialists: Harry Ehrlich, SDA, Principal Aldrich and Associates: Robert Aldrich, Project Manager E Mulberg and Associates: Elliot Mulberg, Technical & Services Specialist 1 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Table of Contents I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 10 II. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 16 Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) .................................................................................... 16 Municipal Service Reviews ...................................................................................................................... 16 Spheres of Influence ............................................................................................................................... 17 Scope of 2015 Reclamation Districts MSR/SOI Update .......................................................................... 18 Exhibit 2-1, Contra .............................................................................................................................. 19 III. THE SACRAMENTO/SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ............................................................................................ 20 Overview – History/Function .................................................................................................................. 20 The Delta Boundary ................................................................................................................................ 21 Table 3-1, Contra Costa County Reclamation & Municipal Improvement Districts by Delta Zone .... 21 Challenges ............................................................................................................................................... 21 Demographics – Projected Growth ......................................................................................................... 22 Table 3-2, Delta Counties and California Population Growth, 2015 – 2050 ....................................... 23 IV. RECLAMATION DISTRICTS OVERVIEW.................................................................................................. 24 Reclamation Districts - History ................................................................................................................ 24 Recent Interest in the Delta and Reclamation ........................................................................................ 24 Protecting California’s Water Supply ...................................................................................................... 25 The Delta’s Fragile Ecosystem ................................................................................................................. 25 The Delta as a “Place” ............................................................................................................................. 26 2 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Maintenance of Delta Levees ................................................................................................................. 26 Reclamation Districts and LAFCO Oversight ........................................................................................... 26 Recent Legislative Efforts ........................................................................................................................ 27 V. RECLAMATION DISTRICTS – FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES ....................................................................... 28 Table 5-1, Contra Costa County Reclamation & Municipal Improvement Districts and Funding Sources ................................................................................................................................................ 28 Property Tax ............................................................................................................................................ 28 Special Assessments................................................................................................................................ 29 Warrants ................................................................................................................................................. 29 Grant Funding Sources ............................................................................................................................ 29 Grant Funding Programs and Projects .................................................................................................... 31 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Programs ............................................................................ 34 Other Agency Grant Programs ................................................................................................................ 35 Summary of Future Grant Funding Opportunities .................................................................................. 36 VI. AGENCY PROFILES/MSR-SOI DETERMINATIONS .................................................................................. 38 Table 6-1, Contra Costa County Reclamation District’s Progress Comparison, 2009-2015 ................ 39 Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District ........................................................................................... 41 Background/Growth/Sphere of Influence .............................................................................................. 41 Table 6-2, Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District Snapshot .................................................. 43 Exhibit 6-1, Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District Boundary and SOI Map .......................... 44 Finances: Funding Sources, Opportunities............................................................................................. 44 Table 6-3, Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District Revenues and Expenditures .................... 45 Facilities: Present/Planned Capacity ....................................................................................................... 46 Table 6-4, Bethel Island MID Services and Facilities ........................................................................... 47 Cooperative Programs/Shared Facilities ................................................................................................. 48 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ....................................................................................... 48 Accountability/Government Structure Alternatives ............................................................................... 49 Other Issues ............................................................................................................................................ 50 Recommended Municipal Service Review Determinations .................................................................... 50 Recommended Sphere of Influence Recommendations ........................................................................ 52 Reclamation District 799 (Hotchkiss Tract) ................................................................................................. 54 Background/Growth/Sphere of Influence .............................................................................................. 54 3 Countywide Reclamation Services MSR/SOI (2nd Round) Contra Costa LAFCO Table 6-5, Reclamation District 799 (Hotchkiss Tract) Snapshot ........................................................ 55 Exhibit 6-2, Reclamation District No. 799 (Hotchkiss Tract) Boundary and SOI Map ......................... 56 Finances: Funding Sources, Opportunities............................................................................................. 57 Table 6-6, RD 799 Revenues and Expenditures .................................................................................. 57 Facilities: Present/Planned Capacity ....................................................................................................... 58 Table 6-7, RD 799 (Hotchkiss Tract) Services and Facilities ................................................................ 58 Cooperative Programs/Shared Facilities ................................................................................................. 59 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ....................................................................................... 59 Accountability/Government Structure Alternatives ..............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 0 5 10 15 20 Miles Μ and Statewide Resources Office
    Woodland RD Name RD Number Atlas Tract 2126 5 !"#$ Bacon Island 2028 !"#$80 Bethel Island BIMID Bishop Tract 2042 16 ·|}þ Bixler Tract 2121 Lovdal Boggs Tract 0404 ·|}þ113 District Sacramento River at I Street Bridge Bouldin Island 0756 80 Gaging Station )*+,- Brack Tract 2033 Bradford Island 2059 ·|}þ160 Brannan-Andrus BALMD Lovdal 50 Byron Tract 0800 Sacramento Weir District ¤£ r Cache Haas Area 2098 Y o l o ive Canal Ranch 2086 R Mather Can-Can/Greenhead 2139 Sacramento ican mer Air Force Chadbourne 2034 A Base Coney Island 2117 Port of Dead Horse Island 2111 Sacramento ¤£50 Davis !"#$80 Denverton Slough 2134 West Sacramento Drexler Tract Drexler Dutch Slough 2137 West Egbert Tract 0536 Winters Sacramento Ehrheardt Club 0813 Putah Creek ·|}þ160 ·|}þ16 Empire Tract 2029 ·|}þ84 Fabian Tract 0773 Sacramento Fay Island 2113 ·|}þ128 South Fork Putah Creek Executive Airport Frost Lake 2129 haven s Lake Green d n Glanville 1002 a l r Florin e h Glide District 0765 t S a c r a m e n t o e N Glide EBMUD Grand Island 0003 District Pocket Freeport Grizzly West 2136 Lake Intake Hastings Tract 2060 l Holland Tract 2025 Berryessa e n Holt Station 2116 n Freeport 505 h Honker Bay 2130 %&'( a g strict Elk Grove u Lisbon Di Hotchkiss Tract 0799 h lo S C Jersey Island 0830 Babe l Dixon p s i Kasson District 2085 s h a King Island 2044 S p Libby Mcneil 0369 y r !"#$5 ·|}þ99 B e !"#$80 t Liberty Island 2093 o l a Lisbon District 0307 o Clarksburg Y W l a Little Egbert Tract 2084 S o l a n o n p a r C Little Holland Tract 2120 e in e a e M Little Mandeville
    [Show full text]
  • Transitions for the Delta Economy
    Transitions for the Delta Economy January 2012 Josué Medellín-Azuara, Ellen Hanak, Richard Howitt, and Jay Lund with research support from Molly Ferrell, Katherine Kramer, Michelle Lent, Davin Reed, and Elizabeth Stryjewski Supported with funding from the Watershed Sciences Center, University of California, Davis Summary The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta consists of some 737,000 acres of low-lying lands and channels at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers (Figure S1). This region lies at the very heart of California’s water policy debates, transporting vast flows of water from northern and eastern California to farming and population centers in the western and southern parts of the state. This critical water supply system is threatened by the likelihood that a large earthquake or other natural disaster could inflict catastrophic damage on its fragile levees, sending salt water toward the pumps at its southern edge. In another area of concern, water exports are currently under restriction while regulators and the courts seek to improve conditions for imperiled native fish. Leading policy proposals to address these issues include improvements in land and water management to benefit native species, and the development of a “dual conveyance” system for water exports, in which a new seismically resistant canal or tunnel would convey a portion of water supplies under or around the Delta instead of through the Delta’s channels. This focus on the Delta has caused considerable concern within the Delta itself, where residents and local governments have worried that changes in water supply and environmental management could harm the region’s economy and residents.
    [Show full text]
  • GRA 9 – South Delta
    2-900 .! 2-905 .! 2-950 .! 2-952 2-908 .! .! 2-910 .! 2-960 .! 2-915 .! 2-963 .! 2-964 2-965 .! .! 2-917 .! 2-970 2-920 ! .! . 2-922 .! 2-924 .! 2-974 .! San Joaquin County 2-980 2-929 .! .! 2-927 .! .! 2-925 2-932 2-940 Contra Costa .! .! County .! 2-930 2-935 .! Alameda 2-934 County ! . Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2013 Calif. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Area Map Office of Spill Prevention and Response I Data Source: O SPR NAD_1983_C alifornia_Teale_Albers ACP2 - GRA9 Requestor: ACP Coordinator Author: J. Muskat Date Created: 5/2 Environmental Sensitive Sites Section 9849 – GRA 9 South Delta Table of Contents GRA 9 Map ............................................................................................................................... 1 Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... 2 Site Index/Response Action ...................................................................................................... 3 Summary of Response Resources for GRA 9......................................................................... 4 9849.1 Environmentally Sensitive Sites 2-900-A Old River Mouth at San Joaquin River....................................................... 1 2-905-A Franks Tract Complex................................................................................... 4 2-908-A Sand Mound Slough ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Transitions for the Delta Economy
    Transitions for the Delta Economy January 2012 Josué Medellín-Azuara, Ellen Hanak, Richard Howitt, and Jay Lund with research support from Molly Ferrell, Katherine Kramer, Michelle Lent, Davin Reed, and Elizabeth Stryjewski Supported with funding from the Watershed Sciences Center, University of California, Davis Summary The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta consists of some 737,000 acres of low-lying lands and channels at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers (Figure S1). This region lies at the very heart of California’s water policy debates, transporting vast flows of water from northern and eastern California to farming and population centers in the western and southern parts of the state. This critical water supply system is threatened by the likelihood that a large earthquake or other natural disaster could inflict catastrophic damage on its fragile levees, sending salt water toward the pumps at its southern edge. In another area of concern, water exports are currently under restriction while regulators and the courts seek to improve conditions for imperiled native fish. Leading policy proposals to address these issues include improvements in land and water management to benefit native species, and the development of a “dual conveyance” system for water exports, in which a new seismically resistant canal or tunnel would convey a portion of water supplies under or around the Delta instead of through the Delta’s channels. This focus on the Delta has caused considerable concern within the Delta itself, where residents and local governments have worried that changes in water supply and environmental management could harm the region’s economy and residents.
    [Show full text]
  • Workshop Report—Earthquakes and High Water As Levee Hazards in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
    Workshop report—Earthquakes and High Water as Levee Hazards in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Delta Independent Science Board September 30, 2016 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Workshop ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Scope ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Structure ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Participants and affiliations ........................................................................................................ 2 Highlights .................................................................................................................................... 3 Earthquakes ............................................................................................................................. 3 High water ............................................................................................................................... 4 Perspectives....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
    comparing futures for the sacramento–san joaquin delta jay lund | ellen hanak | william fleenor william bennett | richard howitt jeffrey mount | peter moyle 2008 Public Policy Institute of California Supported with funding from Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation ISBN: 978-1-58213-130-6 Copyright © 2008 by Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. Summary “Once a landscape has been established, its origins are repressed from memory. It takes on the appearance of an ‘object’ which has been there, outside us, from the start.” Karatani Kojin (1993), Origins of Japanese Literature The Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta is the hub of California’s water supply system and the home of numerous native fish species, five of which already are listed as threatened or endangered. The recent rapid decline of populations of many of these fish species has been followed by court rulings restricting water exports from the Delta, focusing public and political attention on one of California’s most important and iconic water controversies.
    [Show full text]
  • Workshop Report—Earthquakes and High Water As Levee Hazards in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
    Workshop report—Earthquakes and High Water as Levee Hazards in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Delta Independent Science Board September 30, 2016 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Workshop ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Scope ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Structure ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Participants and affiliations ........................................................................................................ 2 Highlights .................................................................................................................................... 3 Earthquakes ............................................................................................................................. 3 High water ............................................................................................................................... 4 Perspectives....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2. the Legacies of Delta History
    2. TheLegaciesofDeltaHistory “You could not step twice into the same river; for other waters are ever flowing on to you.” Heraclitus (540 BC–480 BC) The modern history of the Delta reveals profound geologic and social changes that began with European settlement in the mid-19th century. After 1800, the Delta evolved from a fishing, hunting, and foraging site for Native Americans (primarily Miwok and Wintun tribes), to a transportation network for explorers and settlers, to a major agrarian resource for California, and finally to the hub of the water supply system for San Joaquin Valley agriculture and Southern California cities. Central to these transformations was the conversion of vast areas of tidal wetlands into islands of farmland surrounded by levees. Much like the history of the Florida Everglades (Grunwald, 2006), each transformation was made without the benefit of knowing future needs and uses; collectively these changes have brought the Delta to its current state. Pre-European Delta: Fluctuating Salinity and Lands As originally found by European explorers, nearly 60 percent of the Delta was submerged by daily tides, and spring tides could submerge it entirely.1 Large areas were also subject to seasonal river flooding. Although most of the Delta was a tidal wetland, the water within the interior remained primarily fresh. However, early explorers reported evidence of saltwater intrusion during the summer months in some years (Jackson and Paterson, 1977). Dominant vegetation included tules—marsh plants that live in fresh and brackish water. On higher ground, including the numerous natural levees formed by silt deposits, plant life consisted of coarse grasses; willows; blackberry and wild rose thickets; and galleries of oak, sycamore, alder, walnut, and cottonwood.
    [Show full text]
  • Levee Decisions and Sustainability for the Delta Technical Appendix B
    Levee Decisions and Sustainability for the Delta Technical Appendix B Robyn Suddeth Jeffrey F. Mount Jay R. Lund with research support from Sarah Swanbeck August 2008 Description This document is an appendix to the Public Policy Institute of California report, Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, prepared by a team of researchers from the Center for Watershed Sciences (University of California, Davis) and the Public Policy Institute of California. Supported with funding from Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation The Public Policy Institute of California is dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research on major economic, social, and political issues. The institute’s goal is to raise public awareness and to give elected representatives and other decisionmakers a more informed basis for developing policies and programs. The institute’s research focuses on the underlying forces shaping California's future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns, including economic development, education, environment and resources, governance, population, public finance, and social and health policy. PPIC is a private, nonprofit organization. It does not take or support positions on any ballot measures or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. PPIC was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. Mark Baldassare is President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Thomas C. Sutton is Chair of the Board of Directors. Copyright © 2008 by Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included.
    [Show full text]
  • State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan 2007
    State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan 2007 Prepared by: The Governor’s Office of Emergency Services 3650 Schriever Avenue Mather, CA 95655 www.oes.ca.gov With support from: City and Regional Planning Department Community Safety & Sustainability Group Faculty Advisors and Consultants California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407-0283 Public Comment Draft Table of Contents Chapter 1 - The Planning Process ................................................................................... 1 1.0 Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................... 1 1.1 The Purpose of the Plan ............................................................................................ 2 1.2 Plan Overview........................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Planning Process Components.................................................................................. 5 1.3.1 Plan Update Procedure........................................................................................... 5 1.3.2 Coordination of Agencies and Departments.......................................................... 7 1.3.3 Integration with Other Planning Efforts .............................................................. 10 1.4 Public Involvement ................................................................................................. 14 1.5 Adoption by the State.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • San Joaquin River Delta, California, Flow-Station Network
    Innovation in Monitoring: The U.S. Geological Survey Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, California, Flow-Station Network The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 121˚45' 121˚30' 121˚15' installed the first gage to measure the flow 38˚ of water into California’s Sacramento–San 30' Sacramento Channel Joaquin River Delta (figs. 1, 2) from the River FPT Freeport Sacramento Sacramento- Sacramento River in the late 1800s. Today, r San Joaquin ve San Yolo Bypass i Delta s R a network of 35 hydro-acoustic meters Francisco ne m u s measure flow throughout the delta. This San o Francisco Sutter/ C region is a critical part of California’s Bay Hood Steamboat freshwater supply and conveyance system. San Elk Slough corridor Joaquin Sacramento Deep Water Ship With the data provided by this flow-station River SUT Delta network—sampled every 15 minutes and Sutter transfer Slough HWB flow updated to the web every hour—state Slough SSS SDC and federal water managers make daily 38˚ Creek DWS DLC Mokelumne 15' GES decisions about how much freshwater LIB Walnut Dry can be pumped for human use, at which RYI GSS Grove Steamboat NMR locations, and when. Fish and wildlife Yolo Bypass flow SMR River R scientists, working with water managers, ive r Mokelumne Rio Vista SRV River system also use this information to protect fish exchange Threemile Slough Lodi species affected by pumping and loss of MOK SDI TSL habitat. The data are also used to help LPS to en determine the success or failure of efforts Sacram OSJ SJJ FAL PRI to restore ecosystem processes in what has MAL San Joaquin been called the “most managed and highly Pittsburg ORO River/central delta exchanges altered” watershed in the country.
    [Show full text]
  • Delta Adapts Draft Flood Hazard Assessment Technical Memo
    DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL A California State Agency DELTA ADAPTS: CREATING A CLIMATE RESILIENT FUTURE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN RIVER DELTA CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT DRAFT FLOOD HAZARD ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL MEMO NOVEMBER 5, 2020 November 2020 1-1 Delta Adapts: Creating a Climate Resilient Future Chapter 1. Introduction CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. Introduction ........................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Purpose ......................................................................................................................1-2 1.3 Open Science and Key Assumptions ........................................................................1-5 1.4 Overview of Approach ..............................................................................................1-6 CHAPTER 2. Tidal Datums Analysis .......................................................................... 2-2 2.1 DSM2 Model Runs .....................................................................................................2-2 2.2 Methods ....................................................................................................................2-5 2.3 Results ........................................................................................................................2-6 CHAPTER 3. Peak Water Level Analysis ..................................................................
    [Show full text]