Wednesday, April 23, 2014
PLACERVILLE, CALIFORNIA
99 CENTS

Water available to serve current, future customers

map

FUTURE WATER USE is shown, with central El Dorado Hills expected to use 400 acre-feet in 2025 and 450 in 2035; Dixon Ranch expected to use 152 acre-feet in 2015, 517 in 2025 and 482 in 2035; Lime Rock Valley expected to use 272 acre-feet in 2025 and 573 in 2035; and Marble Valley expected to use 1,285 acre-feet in 2025 and 2,177 in 2035. Courtesy image

By
From page A1 | September 02, 2013 | 32 Comments

A freshly minted Water Supply Assessment prepared by a consultant said there will be enough water to serve both current and future customers as well as four proposed developments that will require an amendment to the El Dorado County General Plan.

The report said the total normal water-year supply available in 2015 will be 77,900 acre-feet, rising to 107,890 in 2025 and 110,290 in 2035. In both a single dry year and multiple dry years that 2035 total is dialed back to 77,885, leaving a 7,225 surplus due to higher consumption of 70,660 predicted in a dry year.

The 2025-2035 figures include a forecast of increased use of recycled water for landscaping and 30,000 acre-feet from an agreement between the El Dorado County Water Agency and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. The 1964 agreement allows for 40,000 acre-feet from the White Rock penstock but the district’s recently completed Integrated Water Resources Management Plan forecasts only a demand for 30,000 acre-feet.

The water demand in 2025 is forecast to be 49,937 acre-feet and 67,295 in 2035.

The nearly $127,000 report by Tully & Young Consulting was accepted 4-0 by the El Dorado Irrigation District board Aug. 26. The report and EID staff time were paid 100 percent by the developers, though EID commissioned the study at the request of the county. A state law passed in 2003 provides for this kind of coordination to ensure adequate water supply.

Current customers will use 38,595 acre-feet of water in 2015. Adjusted General Plan Updated land-use will account for 581 acre-feet in 2015, 9,012 acf in 2025 and 25,766 in 2035.

Central El Dorado Hills planned use on a defunct nine-hole golf course is 400 acre-feet in 2025 and 450 in 2035.

Dixon Ranch would use 152 acre-feet in 2015, 517 in 2025 and 482 in 2035.

Lime Rock Valley next to Marble Valley would use 272 acre-feet in 2025 and 573 in 2035.

Marble Valley would use 1,285 acre-feet in 2025 and 2,177 in 2035.

“Most districts use a two-year dry-year period,” said EID General Manager Jim Abercrombie, though he added, “Most plan for three years.”

The most serious drought of the last 138 years was 1975-77, with 15.9 inches and 15.86 inches of rainfall each year. That drought was followed by a year that recorded 47.09 inches of precipitation. The 138-year average is 39.57 inches in Placerville.

EID has a drought management plan that would require water use reductions ranging from 15 percent voluntary to 30 percent mandatory  in the third year of a drought.

The Water Supply Assessment report does not require an environmental impact report because it “does not commit the district to a specific course of action,” according to the staff report.

Director George Osborne asked about the 15,000 acre-foot  drought back-up in the SMUD reservoir system.

“SMUD agreed to the facility. We have to go get the water,” said General Counsel Tom Cumpston.

“This does not mean that EID is approving these projects,” said Director Bill George.

“Also, it is not a commitment of water. Commitment is when someone applies for a water meter,” Cumpston said.

“Our task is to supply the utility whenever possible,” Osborne said.

Michael Raffety

LEAVE A COMMENT

Discussion | 32 comments

  • Gerald LillpopSeptember 01, 2013 - 5:58 pm

    Who is the consultant that is providing this report and who do they work for?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampSeptember 01, 2013 - 6:47 pm

    Gerald I'm trying to post a link with answers to your questions, but the link will not post. Look for "•2013 Integrated Water Resources Master Pla" in EID'd document library.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Foaming at the MouthSeptember 01, 2013 - 10:35 pm

    The answers to both questions are in the article. Duh.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Bill E.September 02, 2013 - 6:28 am

    Well, this should diffuse the no water argument and validates why new development should be within the EID service area. The cost debate will continue even though implementing state regulations continues to be ignored as a significant factor.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Fran DuchampSeptember 02, 2013 - 7:28 am

    Interesting...since this was one of the items continuously brought up against development down the hill. I would be checking this out many times over. since I know for a fact people dont always tell the truth in these articles...some write when they dont even go tot the meetings. I am sure CEDAC is happy to hear this...because of LUPPU--numbers are still wrong...but whatever.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • robertdnollSeptember 02, 2013 - 8:54 am

    that's great there is plenty of water,just be sure to keep plenty of drinking water in your vehicles.we will all need it everyday when stuck in gridlocked roads.just hope and pray the fire dept can reach your property before the roads become impassable

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Ken SteersSeptember 02, 2013 - 4:56 pm

    Sadly we all here are finite. Those like Mr Noll believe that the County was set aside for only him. Who'll replace him when he is gone?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Sue TaylorSeptember 02, 2013 - 5:28 pm

    So did this study include the 15,832 approved developable lots already in existence? Or those existing developable lots are just part of the commitment which means nothing until one actually applies for the water? Also the title of this story states “Water available to serve current and future residents” yet General Counsel Tom Cumpston states “SMUD agreed to the facility. We have to go get the water.” So which is it? Do we have the water in our possession or not? And if not how much is it going to cost us to get it? Another $400 million dollars in bond obligations again leading to the doubling of water rates? The scariest statement is Osborne’s “Our task is to supply the utility whenever possible”. Have any of these people ever had to balance a checkbook?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65September 02, 2013 - 6:15 pm

    Did anyone count the increase in wine vineyards over the last 20 years? http://www.kcra.com/news/water-dispute-bubbling-in-central-calif-wine-region/-/11797728/21749908/-/2a0i7f/-/index.html

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • WhattheheckSeptember 02, 2013 - 6:49 pm

    The report by Tully & Young Consulting needs to be looked at carefully and with skepticism. If you look at how this county comes to its facts (supposedly facts) one has to have a vivid imagination. If Tilden Park is developed in Shingle Springs it will add 4,500 more cars each day to Ponderosa Road and Hwy 50. Almost 10 years ago the county said that Ponderosa has a Level F (worst) traffic on this road. Over the last year the county has changed its mind and said that Ponderosa Road doesn't have Level F traffic, but it has gotten much better. Do you know how it got better? They moved the car counter 50 yards north of the intersection of Ponderosa and No. Shingle Road so that the bulk of the traffic is not counted. You judge how serious we should take this latest report.......personally I'm not even considering as even remotely accurate. Sue Taylor has asked important questions and now let's find out if the county has any answers.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Fran DuchampSeptember 02, 2013 - 7:14 pm

    I have been going to meetings for awhile now up and down the hill...and I just find that "all of a sudden" there is water. Now I have posted myself that i spoke with one of the delta people--and they admitted that the crowding of the forest is what is absorbing some of the water resources. Any thing that needs to be amended at this point--should be looked over twice--then looked at again. CEDAC is adding all sorts of items...same "things" that have not worked in other states. I have not met any one who has said "no" to all people moving in--it is how people come. Proper planning--not by the thousands....that doesnt even make sense. Plus numbers keep changing in people projections. They are all "guesses" folks--for all we know the next census will show we are down thousands--no work--so they left. Jobs first--how about hiring people to clean up the forest...like a lumber person. The wood could go to building crates to ship our wine products out--oh wait--I was told we dont have wine products...just wine. But keep those trails going by gosh. What a waste. Some people in this county should write a book on " How to Destroy a County " then after we are bankrupt--they can sell it to the next county going down--oh wait...are we already the last one in California to follow the New Economy? Why are we not banning the ideas that didnt work?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Foaming at the MouthSeptember 02, 2013 - 8:39 pm

    Sue has learned that asking poignant questions beats actually trying to find out the answers. A career in politics awaits.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Sue TaylorSeptember 02, 2013 - 10:10 pm

    Hey, it’s my dark shadow FatM… So I guess you feel that rather than asking affecting questions the ratepayers should just go along with funding more infrastructure for mega-developers. If EID continues to speculate on the back of the ratepayers our local farms and businesses will no longer be able to stay in existence. For them I’ll keep asking the distressing questions.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampSeptember 03, 2013 - 4:56 am

    Sue, if there is a "dirty little secret" at EID it is the fact that the water transmission infrastructure to west EDC is over committed NOW. "Over committed" means that at peak summer demand with coinciding line failure and pumping failure, i.e. the "MURPHY EFFECT", water storage at Reservoir 12, Bass Lake Tanks and Oak Ridge Tanks are insufficient to meet customer demand and fire reserve. The third line that you characterize as " more infrastructure for mega-developers" is needed YESTERDAY - LAST YEAR - TEN YEARS AGO. Only recently with SMUD's FERC relicensing has SMUD water become available to be diverted at the White Rock Penstock. EID's dirty little secret is that it has some catching up to do. It matters not what their water rights add up to. If EID's transmission system can't deliver significantly more than what it can today, and if the west county is ALREADY at risk from "MURPHY" then " more infrastructure for mega-developers" is the wrong call. The price of denying, more infrastructure for mega-developers is keeping present customers at risk. It's kinda complicated, Sue . . . catch 22, Sue.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • swileySeptember 03, 2013 - 7:03 am

    A pyramid scheme is a non-sustainable business model that involves promising participants payment or services, primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, rather than supplying any real investment or sale of products or services to the public.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Fran DuchampSeptember 03, 2013 - 7:28 am

    My fight is not with EID...my fight is with CEDAC--they are the ones saying how many units need to come in--based on "guesses"--Phil...is there water or not? Every other meeting i go to changes the answer. Fees and permits for any thing are too high. I know older people in Camino--renting out their rooms on their farms--so they dont lose everything. Sue asks questions. Sue also has some answers...if people just listen. People do not have to agree with everything she suggests...but one cant deny she does her homework. So is there water? And if the answer is yes..it is not about water--it is about the vehicle to move the water to new places and to keep it clean--is that correct?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • 1036-FrankSeptember 03, 2013 - 7:53 am

    The study was paid 100% by the developers who obviously paid for the conclusion they wanted. This has to do with their profits so they can develop and cut and run. These are the primary factors for the study. If a major drought occurs all of this developer paid forecast is meaningless as it was in the 1975-1979 drought, the major impacts of these developments are rejected now by a majority of residents who will continue to oppose high-density rezones of the remaining zoning in place and open space that should never have been approved for high density or bonus density in the first place.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Dink LaneSeptember 03, 2013 - 11:21 am

    So what was in your coffee at the Taxpayer's Breakfast meeting, Mike? ......... You know Westlands isn't going to let EDC get a drop without a fight..... So this looks like a bunch of smoke-and-mirrors.... to get those DEVELOPER'S $$$$

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Foaming at the MouthSeptember 03, 2013 - 12:13 pm

    Sue - call me Foaming. Here are some affecting questions for you. Have you read the reports you're criticizing? (Be honest, now.) How do you know they don't answer your questions? In what way is EID speculating on the backs of ratepayers and farms? (Be specific, now.). Do you agree with Greg Prada that EID favors developers over ratepayers? How will Greg Prada's desire to jack up EID's Ag water rates and lower residential rates help your agenda? Do you think EID's ratepayers should have paid for these reports, instead of the developers? Wouldn't that be speculating on the ratepayers' backs?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Sue TaylorSeptember 04, 2013 - 1:15 am

    FatM, you are all over the place. EID put the ratepayers into $400 million dollars of bonded indebtedness in order to facilitate future growth, which did not pan out, thus causing existing ratepayers to pay off the debt and I'm the one you put on trial? Thanks Phil for adding insight. I'm still not sure how continuing to build out when we don't have the financial well being to do so is going to save the existing ratepayers.. It would be nice to sit down and have a real conversation so you could explain that to me.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampSeptember 04, 2013 - 7:07 am

    Sue, your statement, "EID put the ratepayers into $400 million dollars of bonded indebtedness in order to facilitate future growth, " is flawed. Very little went in the direction you point. (I'll try to comment in more detail when I'm able to get off this darned iPhone limitation. - I can't logon forum from PC)

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynSeptember 04, 2013 - 10:17 am

    Testing to see if EID links will post. If YES, THIS is EID's 2012 Financial Statement.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Foaming at the MouthSeptember 04, 2013 - 10:37 am

    Shrew - I told you to call me Foaming. Way to dodge all of the questions by raising a false charge that Phil can authoritatively debunk. The reality is that developers were paying the EID ratepayers' freight until the gravy train got sidetracked in 2008. But go ahead and believe Greg Prada if that floats your boat. By the way, 1:15 am? Really?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Foamie Mouth®September 04, 2013 - 12:28 pm

    FatM FatM FatM Viva FatM, what a laugh. Some guy turns my name into the ridiculous Foaming something or other and gets all hot an bothered when it ain't spelled rite.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Foaming at the MouthSeptember 04, 2013 - 1:33 pm

    Imposter! Hey, I'm not the one posting comments in the wee hours.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Foamie Mouth®September 04, 2013 - 4:33 pm

    FatM has a crush on me and sez he's an imposter who sleeps all nite.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampSeptember 04, 2013 - 7:45 pm

    Sue, using your figure of 15,832 approved developable lots and multiplying by $30,000 per hookup we get $474,960,000. Throw in a few thousand more for Parker et al and we're talking about paying off some bonds!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Sue TaylorSeptember 05, 2013 - 12:15 am

    So Phil are you saying that EID already has the infrastructure and water in place for those 15,832 new dwelling units and all that needs to happen to pay off the debt is for for all those new houses to hook up? If that's true, then is that not just another way of saying that EID over built the system assuming that the development would follow and pay off the bill?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampSeptember 05, 2013 - 5:10 am

    No, Sue. I'm being sarcastic. My sarcasm was triggered by your assertion that $400,000,000 of indebtedness was incurred for future development. Such misrepresentations are as useless as my own sarcasm. (end of sarcasm) $400,000,000 went to unfunded mandates (tanks, training, certification, the Clean Water Act etc.), project 184, POM line replacement, the new headquarters building, reclaimed water projects, Deer Creek and WDH sewer upgrades, bloated staff/benefits and, IMHO, a poorly designed EDHWTP upgrade. Add to that the influence of Vargas and Kastan on the Board lowering water rates and acting like "Greg Prada mentors" and you have the situation primed for Anne Deister's radical spending swing in the opposite direction. Again, Sue, the west county needs for EID to do whatever it takes to access, treat and transmit the newly available SMUD water. Build the third line to the west. Pay with new development hook-us. Or increase rates. Or do both.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampSeptember 05, 2013 - 5:13 am

    ~ EDH sewer upgrades ~

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampSeptember 05, 2013 - 5:16 am

    "Pay with new development hook-us" (that's funny) should be "Pay with new development hook-ups".

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampSeptember 05, 2013 - 5:26 am

    required reading, Sue - LINK - How EID got to where it is now

    Reply | Report abusive comment
.

News

Herard over the back fence: Try fishing at Wakamatsu

By Bob Billingsley | From Page: B1

 
Downtown group coordinates painting, awnings

By Wendy Schultz | From Page: A1

 
More mountain lion sightings reported

By Dawn Hodson | From Page: A1, 8 Comments

Supervisor Nutting trial begins

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A1, 82 Comments | Gallery

 
Sanford murder case to jury

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A1 | Gallery

 
Gearing tax questions to correct office saves time

By Treasurer-Tax Collector | From Page: A3

.

Opinion

My turn: More than a buzzword

By Special to the Democrat | From Page: A4, 36 Comments

 
Building restored

By Mountain Democrat | From Page: A4

 
Outstanding dog

By Mountain Democrat | From Page: A4

.

Letters

Misquote

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 11 Comments

 
Altshuler framing

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 9 Comments

National Day of Prayer

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 3 Comments

 
‘Parents, be afraid’ letter

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 29 Comments

Ukranian situation

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 5 Comments

 
.

Sports

Outside with Charlie: Transitioning

By Charlie Ferris | From Page: A6

 
Pitching the ‘Root’ cause of Trojans’ victory

By Mike Bush | From Page: A6 | Gallery

Pedal power at the forefront next month

By Jerry Heinzer | From Page: A6 | Gallery

 
Sports Scene: April 22, 2014

By Democrat Staff | From Page: A7

Roundup: April 22, 2014

By Democrat Staff | From Page: A7

 
.

Prospecting

4-H’ers star at showcase

By Dawn Hodson | From Page: B1 | Gallery

 
At a glance: Look for fireballs

By Mimi Escabar | From Page: B2, 1 Comment

Authors to share their stories

By Pat Lakey | From Page: B2, 2 Comments

 
Church to host human trafficking conference

By Pollock Pines | From Page: B3

Grow For It! Flower of Easter

By Barbara Schuchart | From Page: B5

 
.

Essentials

Building permits 4/7-11/2014

By Michael Raffety | From Page: A2

 
Crime Log: April 1-3

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A2

Weather stats 4-22-14

By Michael Raffety | From Page: A2

 
.

Obituaries

Bobby Lloyd Bridges

By Contributor | From Page: A2

 
Harry Frank Harper

By Contributor | From Page: A2, 6 Comments

Marion “Wayne” Griswold

By Contributor | From Page: A2

 
.

Real Estate

.

Comics

Shoe

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
Sudoku

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Rubes

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
New York Times Crossword

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Flying McCoys

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
Speed Bump

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Tundra

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
Horoscope, Thursday, April 24, 2014

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Horoscope, Wednesday, April 23, 2014

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
Working It Out

By Contributor | From Page: A8

TV Listings

By Contributor | From Page: A8