Loading...
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