Montebello dependent on imported Water Supply

Posted in the Bell Forum

First Prev
of 12
Next Last
Trash talk

Los Angeles, CA

#1 Aug 13, 2013
Unanswered questions in water tunnels analysis: Thomas D. Ellias

By Thomas D. Elias, The San Gabriel Valley Tribune

Posted: 08/12/13, 7:18 PM PDT |

Backers of the water tunnels at the heart of the proposed $25 billion plan for updating and replumbing the delta of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers thought they had played a trump card the other day when they presented a 244-page economic impact report.

The analysis authored by UC Berkeley economist David Sunding puts the state’s profits from building the tunnels at $84 billion over the first 50 years after the project is completed ( http://ht.ly/nEobp ). Long before it’s finished, the project would be a jobs bonanza, Sunding asserted, producing 177,000 jobs over 10 years of construction.

There was confirmation, too, that this expensive plan would not produce much more water than comes through the delta today, somewhere between 4.7 million and 5.2 million acre feet of water yearly. The difference, said Sunding and his sponsor, California Natural Resources Secretary John Laird, is that the flow would be steady — everyone involved knowing from year to year how much water to expect.

Listening to them and Alan Zaremberg, California Chamber of Commerce president, hype the project via press conference and conference call, it was clear they hadn’t thought much about the great Peripheral Canal battle of the early 1980s.

“We didn’t write this report at all with a perspective on the 1980s,” said Sunding. Maybe he and his co-authors should have. Adding to their analysis a few considerations inspired by that fight might give the new plan, dubbed “peripheral tunnels” by some, a better chance.

For the Peripheral Canal, pushed then as now by Gov. Jerry Brown, became the ultimate regional issue in California, and there is a paucity of regional analysis in the new economic study.

After Brown and the Legislature approved the canal, a ballot referendum killed the project. The anti-canal vote was near unanimous in the San Francisco Bay area and other parts of Northern California. In Southern California, the canal got 65 percent backing. That stark regional division might play out again over the tunnels.

That’s why any useful tunnels analysis must indicate which areas benefit and how much. When the economic analysis says the project would produce 117,000 jobs, would almost all involve construction work between the tunnel intake near Sacramento and the big pumps near Tracy that move water south? How many white-collar engineering jobs would the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas get?

The same with benefits from the steadier water supply the project is supposed to ensure. Statewide, the economic analysis valued increased water supply reliability, better water quality and reduced flooding and earthquake risk at $18 billion over the 50-year life of the project, compared with a cost of $13 billion (before interest). That’s a net benefit of almost $5 billion.

But there’s no clue who will profit or how much. Will it be Central Valley farmers, fishermen, operators of recreational facilities in the delta or urban water users? Or all of them?

Similarly, while the analysis notes that water users will pay back the project bonds (with interest bringing total costs to $25 billion), there is no clue about which users will pay most. Farmers would get the lion’s share of the water, as they do today. But would they bear most of the costs?

Or would most costs fall to residential and industrial water customers in Southern California and the San Francisco Bay area, even if they get only a minority share of the water?

Said Sunding,“The costs and benefits for each water agency (and its customers) are not yet determined.”

That means the latest economic analysis is simply not very useful, despite its high profile and page count. Which leaves the jury still out on the entire tunnels plan.

Thomas D. Elias is a writer in Southern California. tdelias@aol.com
Opinion SGV Tribune

Los Angeles, CA

#2 Aug 13, 2013
Steve Scauzillo: Killing the water zombie within
http://www.sgvtribune.com/article/zz/20130713...

One of my favorite columns featured me in a zombie-like trance standing ankle deep in brown lawn with a thumb stretched over the gushing garden hose.

"Close mind, open spigot" told the tale of suburban waterers who mindlessly drench parched summer lawns with a vacant stare. Worse are the folks who flush concrete driveways with an ocean of household H20, thinking they are earning high marks for cleanliness.

But like smoking in restaurants, those days are gone. Or they should be.
Trash Talk

Los Angeles, CA

#3 Aug 22, 2013
Tougher federal stormwater permit fees could cost L.A. County cities millions

One of the goals of the more stringent requirements is to be less reliant on importing water from other sources.

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/government-an...

The total cost to fund the permit in Los Angeles County over the next 20 years is estimated to be between $18 billion and $120 billion

The permit sets limits on the amount of pollutants that can be present in different bodies of water throughout Los Angeles County. The last permit took into account three pollutants. The new permit has guidelines on 33, which is why the permit has become so expensive to implement, Lutz said.

One of the goals of the more stringent requirements is to be less reliant on importing water from other sources.

“I sense we will make great progress in reducing stormwater pollutants in the next 20 years,” said David Smith, a manager with the EPA Region 9.

Most of the 86 cities within L.A. County are collaborating to achieve compliance with the permit, forming 18 different groups, according to Angela George, assistant division engineer with the county’s Department of Public Works.

Smith, of the EPA, encouraged municipalities to adopt planning tools that would aid in implementing the permit like asset management plans for stormwater infrastructure needs as well as integrated planning tools that include stormwater and waste water needs.

MONTOBELLO NEEDS TO BEEF UP ITS PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND GET TO WORK ON A NEW GENERAL PLAN
Trash Talk

Los Angeles, CA

#4 Aug 23, 2013
Before I bug out for the weekend I want to remind everyone that water costs are going up significantly.
There is a multi year drought
The Upper Basin is pumped lower than it should be already.
The Colorado river is over allocated and Arizona is asking for it's share.
No progress on Peripheral canal or whatever to save the Delta
Water system is outdated and needs replacement.
New Storm drain costs- see above post
and today's news:

California becomes first in the nation to propose chromium-6 safe water limit

http://www.sgvtribune.com/20130822/california...
and there is more to come
agitate for a new General Plan NOW
Water Management

Los Angeles, CA

#5 Aug 24, 2013
Home to 38 million people, California wouldn’t exist without a vast array of reservoirs, aqueducts, canals, pipelines and pumping plants that distribute water.

Much of Southern California is a desert-like climate. Snowfall can top 500 inches in the craggy Sierras on the state’s eastern edge, but only about 15 inches of rain fall in the Los Angeles area in an average season — and that can drop to single digits in dry ones.

This year, the state recorded its driest January through March since record-keeping began in the mid-1890s, portending another year of shortages.

excerpted from
http://www.sgvtribune.com/environment-and-nat...

“Hilltop Park Above All”

Since: Sep 08

Montebello, CA

#6 Aug 26, 2013
Water, or more precisely, the lack of water, will figure mightily in Montebello's future development.
Wonder why

Los Angeles, CA

#7 Aug 27, 2013
42 yr North Mtb resident wrote:
Water, or more precisely, the lack of water, will figure mightily in Montebello's future development.
Or lack of same. The future will bring many tough choices. Water Companies have been raising water rates because of water shortages, low reservoir levels etc. Residents are urged to conserve water. Yet the San Gabriel Valley Water Company has previously supplied a water availability study for the proposed Montebello Hills development in which they state that there's plenty of water available. Shortly after supplying this document the water company applied to the overseeing state agency for permission to raise rates due to pending water shortages.

Water drains that would be caused by the proposed Montebello Hills project include having to water down areas subject to disturbance (grading, bulldozing etc.) every three hours to maintain an 18% humidity ratio. And the estimate for time length of site preparation and construction is 10 years. There's also landscape maintenance and residential water use to consider. Should there be another Montebello Hills oilfield fire, would there be enough water available to fight it? Or enough water pressure for that matter?

BTW, does anyone know if Tom Calderon is still employed as a consultant for the San Gabriel Valley Water Company?
Trash talk

Los Angeles, CA

#8 Aug 28, 2013
No idea about the Calderons "Consultant" = payoff
same with Cidillo

Water rates are going to go up
Time for some planning so the Citizens are not blindsided
The following will be passed on to the Citys real soon now.

County loses appeal in storm water cleanup case

http://wavenewspapers.com/news/local/culver_c...

"U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that untreated storm water and urban runoff discharged into various watercourses has resulted in excessive levels of aluminum, copper, cyanide, zinc and fecal bacteria in the Los Angeles and San Gabriel rivers."

The Rio Hondo runs into the Los Angeles River
Montebello stormdrains discharge stormwater into the Los Angeles River.

Good read Wave

“Hilltop Park Above All”

Since: Sep 08

Montebello, CA

#9 Aug 28, 2013
Trash talk wrote:
No idea about the Calderons "Consultant" = payoff
same with Cidillo
Water rates are going to go up
Time for some planning so the Citizens are not blindsided
The following will be passed on to the Citys real soon now.
County loses appeal in storm water cleanup case
http://wavenewspapers.com/news/local/culver_c...
"U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that untreated storm water and urban runoff discharged into various watercourses has resulted in excessive levels of aluminum, copper, cyanide, zinc and fecal bacteria in the Los Angeles and San Gabriel rivers."
The Rio Hondo runs into the Los Angeles River
Montebello stormdrains discharge stormwater into the Los Angeles River.
Good read Wave
They forgot another disturbing pollutant found in the Rio Hondo: Boron. This is a common chemical found in and around oil field operations.
Not fit to drink

Montebello, CA

#10 Aug 28, 2013
Wonder why wrote:
<quoted text> Water drains that would be caused by the proposed Montebello Hills project include having to water down areas subject to disturbance (grading, bulldozing etc.) every three hours to maintain an 18% humidity ratio. And the estimate for time length of site preparation and construction is 10 years. There's also landscape maintenance and residential water use to consider.
Ever heard of reclaimed water?
Trash Talk

Los Angeles, CA

#11 Aug 28, 2013
The developer has not included reclaimed water.
We must demand that they do so.
I would insist on both a blue and a purple water system with both available for firefighting as current plan is totally inadequate to service the new code required sprinkler systems.
The reclaimed may used pumped water but water for fire fighting, hydrants, and sprinklers MUST come from adequate gravity, seismic hardned storage tanks.
Currently Tankage is also inadequate as well as being below grade.
BTW most reclaimed water is "fit to drink" and better than most downriver cities get in the Midwest.
The Central Basins reclaimed water pipeline is available but that contract is another story.
Who is going to end up paying for it?
Let's ask Vasquez, the Calderons, Cedillo and candidates for Montebello City council
Wonder why

Los Angeles, CA

#12 Aug 28, 2013
Not fit to drink wrote:
<quoted text>
Ever heard of reclaimed water?
Reclaimed water is still water upon which demands long term are excessive for supply. Engaging in projects that require major earthwork which will result in destruction of a community's scenic resource as well as utilizing large quantities of water, reclaimed or otherwise, is simply unwise.
Not fit to drink

Montebello, CA

#13 Aug 28, 2013
Wonder why wrote:
<quoted text> Reclaimed water is still water upon which demands long term are excessive for supply. Engaging in projects that require major earthwork which will result in destruction of a community's scenic resource as well as utilizing large quantities of water, reclaimed or otherwise, is simply unwise.
The last thing that hill is is a scenic resource. It's an eyesore and doesn't do anything that benefits the city.
Trash Talk

Los Angeles, CA

#14 Aug 28, 2013
Open Space benefits the city more than any other use other than a Park.
Especially more than Condos which are a no win for anyone except the developer.
By "benefits the City" I include property values of neighboring single family residences in La Merced and Racquet Mountain and North Montebello and South San Gabriel/ Rosemead. By "benefits the City" I could also mean the costs versus revenues from the project, taxes vs expenses.
The School district also gets the short end of the stick as there are no long term support provisions.
Which school, access, transportation.
Can you picture the traffic nightmare for all parents using cars to get to Potrero Heights or La Merced?
What ever happened to the slide to La Merced idea :)
Aha

Alhambra, CA

#15 Aug 28, 2013
Not fit to drink wrote:
<quoted text>
The last thing that hill is is a scenic resource. It's an eyesore and doesn't do anything that benefits the city.
Why does the developer call the hills a "scenic resource?" Are they lying?

Seeing Is Believing

A deep respect for the land rests at the heart of the proposed Montebello Hills Community. After all, the Montebello Hills have been an important scenic resource for generations. The Montebello Hills Specific Plan recognizes the value of this scenic resource by embracing planning principles that seek to integrate the “existing topographic, geologic, and hydrologic site conditions to create a land plan that maintains and incorporates existing landforms...” The view simulations below demonstrate how the Montebello Hills appear today from the La Merced Neighborhood, and how they will appear when the new Montebello Hills Community is completed.

Montebello Life Magazine, Winter 2013
http://trendmag2.trendoffset.com/display_arti...
George Orwell

Los Angeles, CA

#16 Aug 28, 2013
I just love newspeak
How do you maintain and incorporate existing landforms when the tops of existing landforms are cut off and existing canyon landforms filled in.
There is the great landfill topped by the sterile concrete "scenic Promenade" with a great view of the firebreak.
Great view into the backyards and bedrooms of homes below.
montebello resident

Los Angeles, CA

#17 Aug 28, 2013
Not fit to drink wrote:
<quoted text>The last thing that hill is is a scenic resource. It's an eyesore and doesn't do anything that benefits the city.
ABSOLUTELY
Absolutely

Los Angeles, CA

#18 Aug 28, 2013
Remove all the Fire trap Eucalyptus, Mustard, Pampas grass, Castor beans, trees of heaven, black acacia, tumbleweeds, pepper trees, & etc. and plant in beautiful wildflowers, Southern California Black Walnuts, Oaks, Sycamores and open the hills again to the public as they once were.

“Hilltop Park Above All”

Since: Sep 08

Montebello, CA

#19 Aug 28, 2013
Not fit to drink wrote:
<quoted text>
The last thing that hill is is a scenic resource. It's an eyesore and doesn't do anything that benefits the city.
The current general plan, the Southland Arts Association and the developer's general plan all say that it is. There are lots of pretty Hill photos at the Save the Montebello Hills website.

http://www.saveourmontebellohills.com/...

Are you sure you are looking at the same Hills?
Wonder why

Los Angeles, CA

#20 Aug 29, 2013
Not fit to drink wrote:
<quoted text>
The last thing that hill is is a scenic resource. It's an eyesore and doesn't do anything that benefits the city.
Of course the city is benefited by our current open space hills. I wonder what "Not Fit to Drink" has been drinking when he/she forgets that these hills are an Active Oil Field producing (according to city documents) 1800 barrels of oil a day. Natural gas is also produced in this oilfield. That's why there's a "gas treatment plant" (oil company term) in the hills. I call it a mini refinery. The city gets 4% of the revenue made from the sale of each barrel of oil. Put families on top of this active oil field with its vibrations from injection drilling, noise etc. and just how long do you think it would be before the clamor starts to shut down the drilling?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 12
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bell Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
why is compton such a horrible place to live ? (Apr '10) 15 min Go Blue Forever 51
any teens in Los Angeles wanna hook up? 5 hr hey5482 1
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 5 hr BRUINS FOR TRUTH 28,481
is a afro life more valuable than a Hispanic life 12 hr who da fuhk 2
California Wind Farms Kilt All The Birds (Aug '11) 13 hr who da fuhk 4
American Sniper Goes Beyond Tradition to Take ... 13 hr who da fuhk 2
What Gwyneth Paltrow Has to Do With Saving the ... 13 hr who da fuhk 12

Bell News Video

Bell Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Bell People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Bell News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Bell

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 7:33 am PST