HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - June 2, 1982 (38)M
v
EASTERN SAN JOAQUIN City Manager Glaves presented a letter from George Barber,
COUNTY GROUND WATER County Supervisor and President, East San Joaquin County Water
STUDY ENDORESED Users Association, asking the City of Lodi to formally endorse
the County's proposed "eastern San Joaquin County Ground Water
Study. It is estimated that the study will cost $300,000 -
$350,000. It is proposed that these funds be raised through
benefit assessments based on laixi areas within the study zone
(352,000 acres) . It is proposed that the total assessment be
applied over a 2 •- 3 year period and would amount to approximately
$0..50 for an average Lodi Lot. Council adopted the following
resolution.
RES. NO. 82-54 RESOLUTION NO. 82-54
RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE COUNTY'S PROPOSED "EASTERN
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY GROUND WATER STUDY".
l
i@
EASTERN SAN JOAQUIN City Manager Glaves presented a letter from George Barber,
COUNTY GROUND WATER County Supervisor and President, East San Joaquin County Water
STUDY ENDORESED Users Association, asking the City of Lodi to formally endorse
the County's proposed "eastern San Joaquin County Ground Water
Study. It is estimated that the study will cost $300,000 -
$350,000. It is proposed that these funds be raised through
benefit assessments based on laixi areas within the study zone
(352,000 acres) . It is proposed that the total assessment be
applied over a 2 •- 3 year period and would amount to approximately
$0..50 for an average Lodi Lot. Council adopted the following
resolution.
RES. NO. 82-54 RESOLUTION NO. 82-54
RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE COUNTY'S PROPOSED "EASTERN
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY GROUND WATER STUDY".
MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Public Works Department
TO: City Manager
FROM: Public Works Director
DATE: May 27, 1982
SUBJECT: Eastern San Joaquin County Ground Water Study
Attached is a letter from George Barber, County Supervisor and President,
East San Joaquin County Water Users Association, asking the City of
Lodi to formally endorse the County's proposed "Eastern San Joaquin
County Ground Water Study."
The area to be included in the study is shown on the attached plan.
It is estimated that this study will cost $300,000 - $350,000. It is
proposed that these funds be raised through benefit assessments based
on land areas within the study zone (352,000 acres). It is proposed
that the total assessment be applied over a 2 - 3 year period, and would
amount to approximately $0.50 for an average Lodi lot.
The Board of Supervisors has set a public hearing date of June 16, 1982,
at 7:00 p.m., to review the Engineer's Report outlining the proposed
Ground Water Study for your information. A copy of the Engineer's
Report is in City of Lodi Public Work's files.
Jack L. Ronsko
PAlic Works Director
Wachments
JLR:dmw
0
T KTON EAST WATER DISTRICT
2520 LAST FXV&ONT ST. P.O. BOX 5157 STOCKTON, CA 95205.0157
OWACTC"
�Ww W. EILEM
JoBEPfa LDONMao
JACK H. TONE
PERRY &L TAINT
4 DO21ANO
nuvvw
1Q82 APJW
�yg
AL NERAL
200
CITY OF T%
April 28, 1982
STOCKTON CITY COUNCIL
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CITY OF LODI .
CITY OF MANTECA
CITY OF TRACY
MEMBERS, BAST SAN JOAQUIN WATER USERS ASSOCIATION
SAN JOAQUIN FARM BUREAU
NEWS MEDIA
An initiative measure known as the "Water Resources
Conservation and Efficiency Act" (Water Resources
Initiative), is currently being circulated for signatures
in the State. This initiative, if passed by the voters
in November, would have a major impact on basic water
policy and water rights throughout the State.
Transmitted herewith is a copy of a Resolution
opposing the Water Resources Initiative, adopted by the
Board of Directors of the Stockton -East Water District
on April 20, 1982.
Also transmitted is a copy of an article appearing
in the March 18, 1982, Newsletter of the California
Water Resources Association describing their opposition
to said initiative. A number of other water organiza-
tions and agencies in the State, including the .
Association of California Water Agencies, have adopted
similar resolutions opposing this initiative.
Please feel free to contact me if I can be of
further service.
very truly yours,
.IUD &.CL
AMSS D. BEARD, II
eneral Manager
gbs
encs.
-2-
i
N
The California Water Service Company, the East Bay
Municipal Utility District, the Department of Water
Resources, and the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, have
already endorsed the proposed Eastern San Joaquin County
Ground Water Study. In addition, the Lodi Chamber of
Commerce recently endorsed the need for the study.
Within this framework. I would encourage the governing
Board's of each of your organizations to carefully
consider the Engineer's Report, and would welcome your
formal support in the form of an appropriate resolution.
Owing to the short time frame between now and the
June 16, 1982, public hearing, any correspondence
regarding this matter should be sent directly to the
attention of James D. Beard, II, Secretary -Treasurer,
East San Joaquin Water Users Association, P. O. Box 5157,
Stockton, CA 95205.
We look forward to your support in this matter, and
if we can answer any questions regarding the Engineer's
Report, please feel free to contact me or Mr. A.N. Murray,
(916/443-2593) directly.
Jt)B/gbs
enc.
•
r truly yours,
GEORGE L. BARBER, PRESIDENT
EAST SAN JOAQUIN WATER USERS
ASSOCIATION
BOUNDARY v
INVESTIGATION
.. .. ZONE NQ i
G
( .f' r �' '' . N• Y'M•? '�• '• '
.. i ..-•• r.v .•. r • •-e4
v .:ice y .. � ...y � ....M ...r _ _ •� Zi � � � .
PLATE A
I
SAN JOAOUIN COUNTY
GROUND NATER iNVEST.GaT]ON
i; BOUNDARY
INVESTIGATION ZONE NO. 1
-6-
-J -
•CITY COUNCIL 0
FRED M RE ID, Mayor
ROBERT G. ML1 PHY. CITY OF L O D I
Mayor Pro Tempore CITY HALL. 221 WISI PINE STREET
EVELYN M OLSON POST OffiCE BOX 120
JAMES W. PINKERTON. It LODI. CALIFORNIA 95241
JOHN R (Randy) SNIDER (209) 314-5634
June 14, 1982
Mr. C. E. Dixon
County Administrator
222 E. Weber Avenue
Room 707
Stockton, CA 95202
Dear Mr. Dixon:
Enclosed please find an original and one copy of the
agreement between the City of Lodi and San Joaquin
County for data processing services re parking viola-
tion citation information.
Please execute this agreement and return the original
to our office.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
do not hesitate to contact this office.
HENRY A CLAVES. Jr.
C ity Manager
ALICE M. REIMCHE
City Clerk
RONALD M. STEIN
City Attorney
Very truly yours,
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
AR: dg
Enc.
3. Service and equipment under this agreement are
limited solely to the ongoing services, systems,
and equipment listed in Attachments "A" and "B"
which are in operation on the effective date of
this agreement. Services and equipment not covered
in this agreement may be provided to CONTRACTOR at
COUNTY'S OPTION SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
a. CONTRA"TOR must submit a written re-
quest ivr the additional services
and/or equipment which has been signed
by the appropriate agency official,
and
b. Additional services and/or equipment
shall be provided at the current
rates of compensation and shall be
billed as additional items over and
beyond the total estimated annual
amount of compensation designed in
this agreement.
Maintenance in connection with the equipment
provided under this agreement is included in the
rate of compensation for equipment and will not be
billed as an additional charge to CONTRACTOR.
4. The term of this contract shall be one year
beginning July 1, 1982, and ending June 30, 1983.
5. This contract may be terminated by either party
upon thirty (30) calendar days advance written
notice to the other party. Services provided for a
portion of a month shall be paid for by CONTRACTOR
on the basis of the actual services utilized.
6. All rental equipment in the possession of
CONTRACTOR shall be returned to COUNTY in the same
condition as it was delivered to CONTRACTOR, less
normal wear and tear. COUNTY shall be compensated
by CONTRACTOR for all loss or damage to said
equipment which is not the result of a wilful or
negligent act by COUNTY and which does not
constitute normal wear and tear.
The CONTRACTOR agrees that it shall indemnify and
hold harmless the COUNTY, the members of its Board
of Supervisors, its officers, agents, and
employees, from and against all demands, claims,
CON 01-02 -2-
M
damages, losses, expenses, and costs including
attorneys' fees and court costs arising out of
and/or resulting from the performance of the
activities and services contemplated by this
agreement, except for demands, claims, damages,
losses, expenses, and costs resulting from the sole
and exclusive negligence of the COUNTY.
The CONTRACTOR at its own expense and risk shall
defend against any and all demands, actions, suits,
claims, or other legal proceedings that may be
brought or instituted against the COUNTY, the
members of its Board of Supervisors, its officers,
agents, or employees, arising out of and/or
resulting from the performance of the activities
and services contemplated by this agreement, except
those demands, actions, suits, claims, or other
legal proceedings resulting from the sole and
exclusive negligence of County or those brought by
employees or agents of County concerning their
employment or agency relationship.
7. In the event of errors in data processing results
due to the failure of County's equipment, software,
circumstances beyond the control of County, or the
failure of County's employee(s) to operate the
equipment in accordance with County's standard
operating procedures, County's liability shall be
limited to, or County's inability to provide data
processing services due to circumstances beyond its
control, and Contractor's exclusive remedies shall
be:
(a) The correction of errors of which
County has received written notice
and proof or the performance of the
service, whichever is the situation;
or
(b) Where such correction or performance
of service is not practicable,
Contractor shall be entitled
to an equitable credit not to exceed
the charges invoiced to Contractor for
that portion of the service which
produced the erroneous result or for
that portion of the service which
could not be performed, whichever is
the situation.
County shall be liable for the loss, destruction or
damage to Contractor's supplied materials only if such
loss, destruction, or damages was due to the negligence
of County and Contractor's sole remedy shall be County
restoring the same, provided such restoration can be
reasonably performed by County and provided that
Contractor provides County with all source data
necessary for such restoration in similar form to that
normally presented to County under this Agreement.
CON 01-02 -3-
n
8. The CONTRACTOR, and the agents and employees of
CONTRACTOR, in the performance of this agreement,
shall act in an independent capacity and'not as
officers or employees or agents of COUNTY.
9. Without the written consent of COUNTY, this
agreement is not assignable by CONTRACTOR either in
whole or in part.
10. Time is the essence of this agreement.
11. No alteration, variation, or modification of the
terms of this contract shall be valid unless made
in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and no
oral understanding or agreement not incorporated
herein, shall be binding on any of the parties
hereto.
12. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the California Fair
Employment Practices Act (Labor Code Section 1410,
et seq.) and any amendments thereto.
This contract may, at the option of COUNTY be terminated
or suspended in whole or in part in the event CONTRACTOR
fails to comply with the nondiscrimination clause of the
contract. In the event of termination under this
paragraph, COUNTY shall be compensated for goods and
services provided to the date of termination.
Termination or suspension shall be effective upon
receipt of written notice thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this.
agreement the day and year first written above.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
GERALD A. SHERWIN
County Counsel
ByGL
R- 0/ "
F ECCA A.ZMVIS
Deputy County Counsel
CON 01-02 -4-
COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, a
political subdivision of
the State of California
By
C. E. DIXON
County Administrator
"COUNTY"
CI OF LODI
Title
"CONTRACTOR"
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF LODI
I. Estimated Annual Cost of Time and Materials
A. Labor Distribution System
B. County
Law Enforcement System
1.
Data Entry Time
5 hours of Data Entry Time
at $12.00 per hour
2.
Central Computer Time
50 hours of computer time
at $65.00 per hour.
3.
Teleprocessing Transactions
An average 66,000 transactions
per year at $.03 each
4.
Systems and Programming Time
5 hours of Systems and Programming
Time at $28.00 per hour
5.
Program Library Maintenance
5 Program complies at
$18.00 each
6.
Miscellaneous
Conversion costs to 9 programs
at $173.00 per program
TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL TIME
AND MATERIALS COSTS
CON 01-02 -5-
$ 60.00
$ 3,250.00
$ 1,980-00
$ 140.00
$ 90.00
1,557.00
$ 7,077.00
CITY OF LODI
II. Estimated Annual Cost Equipment
A. Terminals
One (1) ADM -2 CRT at $125.00
per month
B. Use Charge (Maine.)
Use Charge for 1 terminal and
1 Printer at $30.00 per month
C. Permanent .Data Storage
9 Cylinders of disc storage
at $24.00 per month
TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST
OF EQUIPMENT
CON 01-02 -6-
ATTACHMENT B
$1,500.00
$ 360.00
$ 288.00
$2,148.00
RESOLUTION NO. 82-54
RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
PROPOSED GROUND WATER STUDY
RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Lodi
does hereby endorse the San Joaquin County's proposed "Eastern
San Joaquin County Ground Water Study".
Dated: June 2, 1982
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 82-54 was passed
and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in
a regular meeting held June 2, 1982 by the following
vote:
Ayes: Council Members - Olson, Snider, Pinkerton,
Murphy, and Reid
Noes: Council Members - None
Absent: Council Members - None
ALICE M. R MCHE
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 82-83-01
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE STOCKTON-
EAST WATER DISTRICT OPPOSING THE WATER RESOURCES INITIA-
TIVE PROPOSAL OF THE CALIFORNIA WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION
COUNCIL
WHEREAS, an initiative measure affecting California
Water Rights Law has been proposed by the California
Water Resources Protection Council; and
WHEREAS, the proposed initiative would effectuate
major changes in basic water policy which would not only
adversely affect the ability of responsible water supply
agencies to meet the future needs of the people they
serve, but would impose restrictions on the ability
of federal, state, and local agencies to utilize water
developed by existing facilities; and
WHEREAS, such restrictions could adversely affect
the ability of such agencies to repay costs which have
been incurred in the construction of such facilities;
WHEREAS, the inability to use such facilities in
a manner consistent with the purposes for which they were
authorized and constructed will unnecessarily restrict
the availability of water supplies necessary to meet
the needs of the people of California; and
WHEREAS, the initiative proposes procedures by which
water may be appropriated by any person for a variety of
"instream" purposes without regard to the availability
of water to meet other water requirements, thus destroying
our ability to weigh and balance competing uses of
water as currently required by California law; and
WHEREAS, the initiative would impose a new scheme
of state-controlled groundwater management on specified
"critical?y" overdrafted groundwater basins principally
in the San Joaquin Valley, but fails to recognize that
a condition of overdraft may only be corrected by the
importation of supplemental water supplies unless
substantial quantities of prime agricultural lands
are taken out of production.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of
Directors of the Stockton -East Water District that the
District opposes the initiative proposed by the
California Water Resources Protectaz Council;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Secretary is
directed to distribute copies of this Resolution to the
Stockton City Council, San Joaquin County Board of
Supervisors, members of the East San Joaquin Water Users
Association, City of Lodi, City of Manteca, City of
Tracy, San Joaquin County Farm Bureau, and the local
news media.
CWRA NEWSLETTER �r,,-' Page 3
CWRA OPPOSES NEW "WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND
EFFICIENCY ACT" INITIATIVE
An initiative measure being circulated by historic opponents of water development programs, known as the
Water Resources Conservation and Efficiency Act, would have a disastrous effect on water supplies in all parts of
the state and set up the 5 -member State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) as a virtual water czar
controlling California's economic future.
The CWRA board so decided in voting to adopt a resolution of opposition to this measure, sponsored by
the California Water Resources Protection Council.
This Council is headed by HARRISON DUNNING, a UC Davis law professor who was staff director for the
Governor's Commission to Review California Water Rights Law. The Council hopes to qualify the initiative for
the November If 82 ballot by collecting 346,119 registered voter signatures. Several Commission proposals have
been rejected by the Legislature.
"The title of this measure seriously misrepresents its impact on California's water resources," CWRA
charged.
"The measure would drastically limit utilization of additional amounts of California's natural water
resources. At the same time, it would impose serious legal and administrative inefficiencies on present water
supply management by attempting to centralize control of inherently diverse public water supply responsibil-
ities.
Objections cited in the resolution include:
1) The initiative would give use of water for fish and wildlife priority over all other uses.
2) The initiative would permit applications for all typ.s of instream uses, such as recreation, esthetic,
scientific, scenic and water quality uses. Present law authorizes the CWRCB only to grant permits to appropriate
water diverted from a stream. This would make it possible to secure a free moratorium on all new water
development projects by appropriating all the remaining riven in the state for instream purposes.
The resolution contended the initiative would "destroy Californians ability to weigh and balance
competing uses of water, particularly man's consumptive needs, and give the SWRCB unbridled authority over
local water use."
3) The measure would transfer ultimate control over community water supplies throughout the state from
local government to Sacramento, thereby creating major dislocations in local water management.
4) Provisions in the measure •;ould be interpreted to bar new water projects unless communities adopted
wager pricing, reclamation and conservation programs that the state deemed cost-effective. For instance, any
importation of additional water supplies into an area through interbasin transfers would be blocked until a
management program approved by the SWRCB was implemented. If the state determined that an alternative
local conservation project would cost less than the marginal cost of imported water, no new imported Water
could be allocated.
The initiative's definition of "interbasin transfers' embraces the State Water Project, Colorado River water,
the Central Valley Project, as well as the Los Angeles Owens Valley Aqueduct, San Francisco's Hetch Hetchy
Project, the East Bay Municipal Utility District's aqueduct and Russian River diversion projects.
5) Groundwater control provisions of the initiative would impose a new scheme of SWRCB-controlled
groundwater management in certain overdrafted areas, while failing to recognize the solution for such
overdrafting is importation of supplemental water supplies which would be made more difficult, if not
impossible, to develop under the initiative's water conservation provisions.
6) The initiative has statewide growth control implications by requiring that local economies shall be based
on "reliable, long-term water supplies` without taking into account that the State Water Project is not yet
assured of producing the 4.2 million acre-feet of contracted obligations to localities because of actions of water
program opponents.
7) "Reduction of demand" provisions of the initiative could be used as a basis for attempting to limit the
amount of land subject to irrigation or the kinds of crops which could be planted.
S COUNCIL OFFICER CRITICIZES STATE OFFICIALS
The a own Administration has "done everything to hurt us," an official of t AR Council,
which supports the illion SOFAR Project on the South Fork American Rii arged February 18 at a
CWRA Water and Energy Foru
The SOFAR Project, which wou . in meeting statew
hydroelectric energy and alleviate local water s s, i I
and the El Dorado Irrigation District.
demands, protect the Delta, produce
by the El Dorado County Water Agency
HALMAR MOSER, Public Relation ctor for the SOFA cil, said, ".We•have not seen one single
agency of the State of Califomi g a single good thing in behalf' of our t which is our only chance to
get water desperately ne y our citizens."
"Our prob ave been with the state agencies and the governor's office, which are is our
ut negative
questio ut the project," she said. "There is a concerted effort to destroy this project for the sake o
P.
4Fast San Joar
in Water Users Assoc0
O222
EAST WESER AVENUE. ROOM 701 • STOCKTON. CA 95202
Pt1ONE (203)9ad•31T3
t EMBERS
ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
ORT" SAN JO>OUI N WATER
CITY OF STOCKiO./
'� Si [tYATIOy DtSTAIGT
IDGE IRniGAi ION DISTRICT
CITY OF kODi
70OD3iIDOEYMT( RUSERy '
CALWOR-NIAWATER
S>` RYt6E COAIPAI�Y
CONSERVATION DW AIC i
:TOCrKON EASTWATERDISTRICI
EAST [SAY MWd:CIPAL
UtILITYaSrp:CT
:ENTRAL SAN .10AOUIN
WATEItt;ON.'.EkVA11014 DISTRICT
:AN JOAGUIN COUN rY it GOA CONTROL
6%vA1ERC0NSERYA110N DISTRICT
May 25, 1982
MEMBERS
ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
TECHNICAI, ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
EAST SAN JOAQUIN WATER USERS ASSOCIATION
On -January 19, 1982, the Board o Supervisors of the
San Joaquin County Flood Control & Water Conservation
District, unanimously adopted Resolution R-82-179, author-
izing and directing Mr. Angus Norman Murray to prepare
and file a report on a ground water study within Cround
Water Investigation Zone No. 1, of the San Joaquin County
Flood Control.& Water Conservation District.
Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Engineer's Report,
dated May 1.9, 1982, prepared in accordance with the above
referenced resolution.
At its meeting on Wednesday, May 19, 1982, the
Advisory Water Commission of the Board of Supervisors,
ordered that a public hearing date be set for June 16, 1982,
at 7:30 p.m.. in the Board of Supervisor's Chambers, on the
Engine,.r'_ Report.
As I have discussed with many of you in the past, it
is important that the public be informed on the need for
the ground water study,. and I believe that the necessary
information is contained in the Engineer's Report. With
this thought in mind, I would encourage each of you to
carefully review the Engineer's Report prior to the
June 16, 1982, public hearing.
RECEI'V'ED
'MAY 271982
C) CITY OF LODI--OVER--
►UsLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
'CITY COUNCIL
FRED M REID, Mayor
ROBERT C. MURPHY,
Mayor Pro Tempore
EVELYN M. OLSON
JAMES W. PINKERTON. It
JOHN R (Randy) SNIDER
CITY OF LODI
CITY HALL. 221 WEST PINE STREET
POST Of;ICE BOX 320
LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241
(209) 334-5634
June 4, 1982
George L. Barber, President
East San Joaquin Water Users Assn.
222 E. Weber Avenue
Room 701
Stockton, CA 95202
Dear President Barber:
HENRY A CLAVES. Jr.
City Manager
ALICE M RE IMCHE
City Clerk
RONALD M STEIN
City Attorney
Please be advised that your May 25, 1982 letter addressed
to the Members, Associate Members, Technical Advisory Commit-
tee Members, and East San Joaquin Water Users Assn. regarding
the Eastern San Joaquin County Ground Water Study was presented
to the Lodi City Council at its regular meeting of June 2, 1982.
The City Council by unanimous vote formally endorsed the County's
proposed "Eastern San Joaquin County Ground Water Study".
Should you have any questions concerning the actions of the
Council in this matter, please do not hesitate to call this
office.
Very truly yours,
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
AR: dg