News

Monday, February 6, 2012

LTE: Saltworks water

Published in the Palo Alto Daily News

Dear Editor: The proposed use of desalination to solve the problem of providing water to the Saltworks development (The Daily News, Feb. 4) poses even more concerns. A 2003 Redwood City government white paper (www.redwoodcity.org/publicworks/pdf/Desalination_White_Paper.pdf) enumerates significant disadvantages of building a desalination plant in Redwood City, chief among them high operating costs that will remain long after the developer leaves town with huge profits.

Desalination is the most energy-intensive and expensive way of procuring water -- a desalination project in Marin has been delayed by environmental concerns and suffers from a lack of enthusiastic buyers for its much more expensive water. It is also a mistake to assume the desalinated water would only supply the Saltworks development. Who among us would willingly trade our pure Hetch Hetchy drinking water for Bay water?

John Cieslewicz,
Redwood City

read more >>

Saturday, February 4, 2012

Hold the salt: Developer explores using desalinated water for Saltworks project

By Bonnie Eslinger, Palo Alto Daily News

Among many challenges facing the controversial Redwood City Saltworks project, securing water for a community that may have as many as 12,000 homes is high on the list.

DMB Pacific Ventures, a new company owned by Arizona-based DMB Associates that wants to develop Saltworks on Cargill's salt flats, has promised not to tap into Redwood City's limited water supply to hydrate the massive 1,436-acre project, which also would include office buildings, stores, schools, playing fields and restored marshlands.

Until recently, DMB has been focusing on a complex maneuver to transfer the rights to 2.7 billion gallons of water a year purchased from a Bakersfield farming collective to a Bay Area water agency for delivery.

While the transfer strategy is still "on the table," the company also is examining whether delivering ocean or bay water stripped of salt and other minerals is feasible, said David Smith, DMB Associates' senior vice president. That process is known as desalination.

...

A DMB-funded consultant hired by Redwood City to do an environmental study of the Saltworks project began investigating desalination as a feasible option last June, said Blake Lyon, the city's senior planner. Questions such as where a plant would go, how big it might be and whether it should provide water only for Saltworks still have to be answered, he said.

"There's also a lot of work that needs to be done on the environmental implications, whether there's political support for it, and the funding aspects," Lyon said.

But the research was temporarily shelved in November when DMB Associates asked for a timeout while the developer reviews the most recent round of public comments and possibly revises the project.

Smith said the company intends to present a revised plan by "early 2012."

Josh Sonnenfeld, a campaign manager with Oakland-based Save the Bay, said DMB's struggles to secure water for the large-scale community prove the project is impractical.

"There's also enormous numbers of questions we have about desalination, the impacts on the bay, the potential costs to residents and the energy it needs."

The nonprofit has vigorously opposed the Saltworks development plan and advocated for restoration of the area's natural habitat.

read more >>

Monday, January 30, 2012

Developer pauses Saltworks development for internal review as community opposes project

By Vignesh Ramachandran, Pennisula Press

Opponents to one of the Bay Area’s largest proposed developments are not taking a back seat, despite months of silence from the developer.

Since early November, developer DMB Associates has been undergoing what it calls an “internal review” for its Redwood City Saltworks proposal.

“The applicant has asked the city to hold off on reviewing the proposal further until they make some determinations on their end, as to how they want to proceed with the project,” said Blake Lyon, acting planning manger for Redwood City. “So we’re currently awaiting further direction from the applicant.”

...

The proposal recently underwent a major “scoping,” or in-depth review process, and continues to generate controversy and opposition from environmentalists and advocacy groups.

...

Resident retaliation

Last September, a few community members formally got together and created Redwood City Neighbors United. Today, that group has grown to more than 300 people, according to the opposition group’s co-chair and longtime Redwood City resident, Dan Ponti.

“We felt that there was a need for a group that could really kind of take the perspective from Redwood City residents and bring that forward to the community and use that as a sounding board for expressing concerns about the development,” Ponti said.

Ponti cited concerns about how the project addressed traffic issues and the water supply, and he questioned how Saltworks would coexist with the city’s port and nearby heavy industries. The debate needs to be reframed, he said, adding that the largest problem is that the proposal runs contradictory to Redwood City’s General Plan, adopted in 2010.

“There was a vision in that general plan that was a community-driven process,” Ponti said.

That plan said Redwood City’s urban development should occur along existing transportation corridors and in the city’s recently revitalized downtown, according to Ponti. He said housing is not appropriate for the Cargill-owned land and believes the new development would shift the city’s growth away from the existing city center and infrastructure.

Ponti said that “the ink isn’t really even dry” on the city’s General Plan. “We should be focusing energy on implementing this. You don’t encourage infill development downtown, if you’re going to encourage a development somewhere else.”

“As part of the application the developers have requested a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment,” Lyon said in a written statement. “These entitlements would need to be granted in order for the proposed project to be developed.”

While the community waits for the developer’s next move, Redwood City Neighbors United is not resting. It is still trying to gain momentum.

Echoing Lewis’ claim, Ponti said: “What we’re finding is that the more people are learning about the project, and all of the scope of the project, the less people like it.”

read more >>

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

OP-ED: Cargill-Redwood City water grab

By Philip Erro

An essential element of Cargill’s proposed development in Redwood City is the diversion of millions of gallons of water from the Bakersfield area to Redwood City. Cargill is offering Redwood City enough water to enable the city to increase its population by 33 percent...

But instead of opting for Cargill’s version of sprawl in Redwood City wetlands and marshes, we could restore those wetlands over time and use the water Redwood City already has more effectively to enable population growth.

I am a resident of Redwood City, but I am a native of Fresno and own an almond orchard in Fresno County. My almond orchard consumes about 600 acre-feet of water to produce 450,000 pounds of almonds (An acre-foot is the amount of water that would cover an acre one foot deep, and is the approximate annual water use of a suburban household). The 8,400 acre-feet of water that Cargill proposes to take from Kern County would produce six million pounds of almonds per year — enough for a handful of almonds a day for every San Mateo County resident for 134 days.

But almonds aside, water is the lifeblood for cities and counties. The 8,400 acre-feet is enough water for 6,000 households. Why should the city of Bakersfield and Kern County be deprived of that revenue so Redwood City can benefit from them? What is the rationale to justify this water grab and resulting fiscal impact on Kern County?

The state of California faces a limited if not fixed water supply. We dedicated the first half of the last century building dams and canals, but we have learned in recent decades of the many negative ecological effects of this approach. We have to think of ways of using our existing water supply more efficiently to support reasonable population growth.

...

As Redwood City residents, I believe we need to opt for water conservation and smart growth, and reject the false lure of Cargill’s “growth water” for our city. The Cargill option would cause extreme ecological damage in our Bay wetlands and fiscal privation of our fellow communities in Kern County. The Cargill marsh sprawl model would destroy wetlands habitat and wrest water away from other California urban and rural water users. We can grow city and county tax revenue here with smart, vertical growth without inflicting local environmental damage and fiscal injury in Kern County.

Philip Erro is a third generation Fresno County farmer, past president of the San Joaquin Valley Resource Conservation and Development Council and past president and current director of the Westside Resource Conservation District. His greatest conservation concern is the wise use of California’s water.

read more >>

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Getting Nickel and dimed in the water world

By Lois Henry, Columnist with The Bakersfield Californian

It seems Kern River water is causing a bit of mischief up and down the state. Specifically, I'm talking about the Nickel water, so named because it is owned by the Nickel Family LLC, which has sold it hither and yon over the years.

...

A portion of the Nickel water was being dangled as the water source for a 12,000 home development in Redwood City proposed by developer DMB Associates.

DMB bought 8,900 acre feet of Nickel's water under a 70-year agreement.

Their plan was to get the water to Redwood City through a series of swaps with several northern California water agencies.

Last summer, however, one of those agencies, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, got hinky and changed its policies so any such transfers would have to undergo a full board vote, which would bring public scrutiny.

"I believe we can't get in the middle of such a controversial or political fight over a development," Santa Clara Board member Linda LeZotee was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle. "It amounts to inadvertent, tacit approval."

Eh, DMB shrugged. Santa Clara was just one option.

In fact in a video made by DMB officials just last month, they boast that the company will become a water seller.

Couple of things.

Neither the Nickels, the Agency, nor any of the Nickel water buyers have ever done an environmental impact report on the benefits and drawbacks of that water leaving Kern County.

They've relied on one blanket negative declaration since 2001. The statute of limitations has passed on being able to sue over that negative dec.

But opponents of the DMB project (and others dependent on Nickel water) might be able to force a more thorough environmental accounting of the effects of permanently depriving Kern of this water, which could gum up the works.

Oh, and then there's the little issue of using publicly owned facilities to wheel water for private gain.

In fact, I think DMB may have gotten a little ahead of itself on that front.

According to that 2007 purchase agreement with the Nickels, DMB -- or any of its assignees -- assumes all of Nickel's rights including "the assistance and cooperation of the (Kern County Water) Agency in entering into contracts for the sale or transfer of the Acquired Water to third parties ... and efforts to obtain the approval and cooperation and assistance of the California Department of Water Resources and the State Water contractors in obtaining any necessary approvals from regulatory agencies to effect such sales or transfers."

Not so fast there, hoss.

I asked the Agency about that and they said no, DMB can't just make an agreement with Nickel and expect the Agency to hop to.

"From the Agency's point of view, our agreement is with Nickel and any assignment of that right to a third party requires our consent," said Agency attorney Amelia Minaberrigarai.

The Nickel/DMB agreement has "no legal weight" with the Agency, Minaberrigarai told me.

I agree. The Agency is, after all, a public agency.

Beyond that, it should mull over each request to wheel water individually, preferably via a public hearing so we can all understand more about how our water and our publicly owned water facilities are being used.

***

And now, turning south, the Nickel water is mixed up in yet another development fracas in the Santa Clarita Valley.

Newhall Land and Development was an early Nickel water buyer, grabbing 1,600 acre feet a year starting in 2001 under a 35-year contract with an option to renew for another 35. They've been banking most of that in the Semitropic Water Bank all these years.

Newhall has used that Nickel water, in part, to gain approval for its planned 21,000 home development.

At the same time, a plume of perchlorate has tainted groundwater and closed several wells in Santa Clarita, wells owned and operated by Valencia Water Company.

Valencia Water is a wholly owned subsidiary of Newhall Land.

Local residents and opponents to the Newhall development have complained that Newhall should not be allowed to hold on to the Nickel water for future residents of homes not yet built, when current residents are being served polluted water.

Newhall spokeswoman Marlee Lauffer dismissed the arguments, saying the water is being treated and no one is getting bad water.

Beyond that, Newhall has more than adequate groundwater supplies for the first 15 to 20 years of its planned buildout.

"There is no supply problem," she said.

Dan Masnada, general manager for Castaic Lake Water Agency, echoed Lauffer's confidence. Castaic is a state water contractor and will be the one to move the Nickel water when the time comes.

"The Nickel water belongs to Newhall, they paid for it," he said. "There isn't a need for Newhall to give it to the public, but if they did, they would want to realize the value from it."

In other words, they would have to pay extra for it.

Meanwhile, opponents are discussing the legalities of designating a necessary public resource to be used by specific residents for private gain.

"This is an example of the slow move toward privatization of our water supply," said activist Lynne Plambeck.

Neither of these are Bakersfield's fights. But they do make me wonder about the bigger picture of how Kern River water is being used.

Frankly, I'm not seeing a greater benefit here or elsewhere when our water goes on the road. Maybe we'd all be better served if it just stayed home.

read more >>

Page 12 of 15 pages ‹ First  < 10 11 12 13 14 >  Last ›