Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout031899 Murrieta Creek Advisory Agenda City Clerk at 9909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure ~ccessibithy lo that meeting [28 CFR35.102.35.104 ADA Title Il} AGENDA MURRIETA CREEK ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING TO BE HELD AT City of Murrieta, City Hall Council Chambers 26442 Beckman Court Murrieta, CA 92562 (909) 698-1040 Thursday, March 18, 1999 - 1:00 p.m. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Jeannie Gillen, Chairperson Bob Buster, First District Riverside County Supervisor John Affolter, Riverside County Flood Control Commissioner Warnie Enochs, Murrieta Councilmember Jeff Stone, Temecula Councilmember I. lnlbrmation - Meeting Agenda was posted on February 26, 1999. 2. Roll Call 3. Public Comment - This time is provided so members of dae public can address ~he Committee on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to five (5) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Committee about items no__[ listed on the Agenda, a yellow "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Committee Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. 4. Minutes of January 14, 1999 to be submitted at a later date 5. Maintenance Subcommittee - Warnie Enochs (5 minutes) 6. Funding Subcommittee - Jeff Stone (5 minutes) 7. Scheduling Subcommittee - Bob Buster (5 minutes) 8. Murrieta Creek Pilot Project ~ Jeannie Gillen (5 minutes) 9. Phillip Williams & Associates - Jeff Haltiner 10 U.S. Army Corp of Engineers - James Adams, R:\KICAK\MURRCREE\99\031899agenda/AJ p Guest Discussions A. Third District - County Supervisor Jim Venable's Representative Riverside County Flood Control & Conservation District Dave Zappe & Frank Peairs C. Army Corp of Engineers - James Adams & Spencer Mac Nell D. California Department of Fish & Game - Dee Suddeth E. Regional Water Quality Control Board - Greig Peters F. United States Fish & Wildlife Service - Doreen Stadflander G. USMC Camp Pendleton, Office of Water Resources - Larry Carlson & Larry McKenney General Announcements Date of next meeting Adjuurnment Distribution: Army Corp of Engineers, James Adams & Spencer Mac Nell U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Doreen Stadtlander Calitbrnia Department of Fish & Game, Dee Suddeth Regional Water Quality Control Board, Greig Peters Riverside County Flood Control & Conservation District, Frank Peairs Senator Barbara Boxer, Leannah Bradley Senator Haynes, Tom Dryden Assemblyman Thompson, Fred Weishaupl Congressman Ron Packard Supervisor Bob Buster Supervisor John Tavaglione Supervisor Jim Venable Resource Conservatkm District, Bob Wheeler The Nature Conservancy, Bill Leahy Larry Markham, Markham & Associates William G. Hughes, City of Temecula, Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer Jim Miller, City of Murrieta, Development Services Director Larry McKenney, USMC Camp Pendletun 2 R:\KIC AK~M URRCREE\99\031899agenda/AJl' MINUTES MURRIETA CREEK ADVISORY COMMITTEE JANUARY 14, 1999 Council Chambers - Temecula City Hall Meeting was called to order by Jeannie Gillen, Chairperson, at 1:05 PM. ROLL CALL Jeannie Gillen, Chairperson Bob Buster, First District Riverside County Supervisor John Aftblter, Riverside County Flood Control Commissioner Warnie Enochs, Murrieta Councilmember Jeff Stone, Temecula Councilmember 3. Public Comment - There were no comments. 4. Minutes of October 22, 1998 It was moved by Supervisor Buster, seconded by Councilmember Enochs, to approve the minutes of October 22, 1998. The motion was passed unanimously. 5. Maintenance Subcommittee - At,er thanking Riverside County Flood Control for cleaning the Creek, Councilmember Enochs asked Frank Peairs, Riverside County Flood Control, to bring the group up-to-date on maintenance issues. Frank Peairs, Riverside County Flood Control, reported: · Mowing completed on the Temecula, Murrieta and Santa Gertrudis Creeks. · The bank restoration taking place from Kalmia or Washington on down to Elm Street, which is under a Nationwide 31 permit, should be completed by the end of the week. · Flood Control has a contract with Genesis Construction of Hemet to remove 40,000 yards of accumulated sediment over approximately 3500 lineal feet in the Temecula section, the work is approximately 50% completed. 6. Funding Subcommittee Councihnember Stone reported he, Mayor Ford and Councilmember Roberts will be in Washington, D.C.. the week of March 5 to meet with legislators tbr funding of the ultimate project. 7. Scheduling Subcommittee Supervisor Buster reported Congressman Packard will schedule a meeting with the Committee tbr mid- February to discuss the recent State project certification, which needs to precede federal certification, creek funding, and studies. 8. Murrieta Creek Pilot Prnject Chairperson Gillen announced the park's ground opening and dedication was on November 6, 1998 and is now open to the public. R:\KICAKXMU RRCREE\O11499M[N 9. Phillip Williams & Associates Supervisor Buster read the Board of Supervisors' Minute Order vesting the responsibility/oversight of Santa Margarita Watershed issues to this Committee. Chairperson Gillen thanked Supervisor Buster and the Board of Supervisor for their confidence in this Committee and on behalf of the Committee, accepted the responsibility. Mr. Jeff Haltiner of Phillip Williams & Associates stated their scope of work was to identify what type of changes to the watershed would result from proposed development that is shown on all the various general plans and planning documents throughout the entire watershed; and then look at how those would affect the hydrology regime of the watershed, particularly the higher flows, the flows during the 2-year/200-year storms. The second phase, which will be ongoing for the next six (6) to eight (8) months, will address the potential effects of those hydrology changes on the various channel systems and on a very general scale, the biotic components of the channels. The goal of the project is to provide the various regulatory bodies with management options to alleviate some of the potential adverse effects and to direct their attention to areas in the watershed that those effects might be occurring. Mr. Haltiner mentioned that the report tbr the first phase has been distributed and a copy will be in the city library for public review. He stated the essence of this watershed study was the development of a rainfall run-off model for the entire watershed and the ATC-I model, a rainfall run-off model predicting the effects of large flow events. To test the changes in the watershed, three (3) conditions were looked at: natural (pre-human impact); existing; and future (buildout). A series of designed rainstorms was used to predict what the eft;eot would be and those results formed the basis for decisions on what the changes might be between the three (3) different conditions and the results fell within the range of other studies. Mr. Haltiner explained that on a general basis, they will look at how the changed flows in the various strealn systems might impact or change the form of the channel systems, how that changed erosion or sedimentation might change the biotic regime, and then develop management options to reduce the impacts. From a hydrological view, the conclusion was that future development is unlikely to have a dramatic effect or dramatic increase on the mainstream itself. He stated a refinement of the scope of work is proposed because: 1. It has taken a lot longer to get to this point and they are trying to streamline the second half of the study; and 2. The initial study was premised on the assumption that upstream development would result in downstream impacts on the mainstream of the river and this study has shown that it is more complicated so are broadening the fi~cus area to include the open watershed, but in a more general level. Supervisor Buster asked Mr. Haltiner to expand more on Murrieta Creek and its subbasins and how he sees natural, existing and future conditions affecting it. Mr. Haltiner stated that one of the prerequisites of the study was that they were not to look at individual projects: but intermediate level changes are predicted overall; and future development, particularly along Warm Springs and Santa Gertrudis, does have an effect on the system. In response to Supervisor Buster's question regarding initial conclusions being changed, Mr. Haltiner noted that they had not received much comment; and most of the input was technical in refining the model. 2 In response to Supervisor Buster's comment that there is no detail as to whether the higher or lower flows affect biota, erosion or sedimentation, Mr. Haltiner stated that in the next phase, they will look at the channel on the Murrieta side as it is more susceptible to erosion and widening than the Temecula side due to streams being cobble bedded and therefore more resistant to increased flows. Councilmember Enochs clarified that the study is saying work is needed on Murrieta Creek and its tributaries. Mr. Haltiner stated that as development occurs, the flows will change and the creeks will be at risk to erosion and the next phase of work will propose options for new development upstream to eliminate flooding problems that are experienced by existing development. Councilmember Stone questioned the significant changes within the large channels at buildout, Mr. Haltiner stated that between Temecula and the lower reach, there will be 15 to 20% flow increases t¥om where they are today and that may cause problems if there has been past damage to the watershed, i.e., vegetation removed; but overall the channel should be able to accommodate those flows. Councilmember Stone inquired whether the main problem was on the main channels of Murrieta Creek rather than its tributaries, Mr. Haltiner stated the tributaries are at greater risk, it cannot be concluded that inoney should not be spent to improve the channel because flood control problems may be experienced in places where the channel has the same amount of water as under natural conditions, but building to close to the channel that even under natural conditions, floods occur. The next Phillip Williams document will be tbr cities and county to use when development is proposed in the watershed areas and a determination can be made if one stream is more at risk than another. Chairperson Gillen asked if a 200-acre detention basin planned at Cherry Street was considered. Mr. Haltiner answered that they did not look at any detail of that scale and that would not change much, but a look at the aggregate of those type of facilities throughout the watershed is necessary. Mr. Peairs stated there were some differences between the County and the Phillip Williams Study on the hydrology, but the model is a good basic model and it was intended to be for comparison purposes. He memioned the Corps' hydrology report has come out and is pretty much in line with the study's numbers and Mr. Haltiner's flows with average reservoir conditions are not markedly different from the County's. Mr. Peaks mentioned the scope revision proposal has been discussed with Mary Butterwick and Prentice Williams of EPA and Coastal Conservatory and it is in agreement that the Phillip Williams' Study proposal on how to proceed is appropriate in view of the remaining funding and the changes that have come out of the study. Supervisor Buster questioned the amount spent to date, where it has come from and what is needed to complete the work. Bob Cullen, Riverside County Flood Control, answered $170,000 has been spent through Task 3 plus incremental work on further tasks to date and the budget through Task 3 was about $70,000 and Phillip Williams Study has been paid about $100,000. The original grant was for $270.000. The Phillip Williams Study has been authorized payment of $100,000 following approval of the revised scope for the additional work that has been done. There is approximately an additional $100.000 of work to be completed. Commissioner Aflblter inquired as to the cost to finish the project, Mr. Peairs replied the project costs tbr the Murrieta Creek flood control project has been estimated at approximately $45 million, depending upon the exact configuratkm. The conceptual project endorsed by the local communities, termed the locally preferred option by the Corps, which includes trails, parks and a habitat corridor has been given to the Corps. The Phillip William Study is not a part of the Murrieta Creek flood control project. 3 R:\KICAK\MURRCREE\O11499MIN Mary Butterwick, EPA. stated she is pleased the hydrology report has been realized and is looking tbrward to making the link between changes in the hydrology and the effects of those changes. This intbrmatkm will provide a meaningful tYamework for local planners and other interested watershed participants, for an understanding of the effects future development may have on these streams, and identifying effective options for avoiding and minimizing adverse effects. Dr. Bob Wheeler, Conservation District, commented he concerned that this study would be truncated clue to the lack of funds and he asked if the original scope of work can be completed with the remaining funding. Mr. Haltiner stated the proposed change in scope results from (I) funds remaining; and (2) the result of the first half of the work is different to what the initial scope showed. In the second phase, assessment of only the lower 27 miles of the mainstream was to be looked at, but the study shows that is not at-risk section; that there are other sections that are at risk. They are reducing the level of detail on the remaining part of the study, but also because the scope of the study has been expanded to tbcus on the upper watershed as well as the lower watershed. In the study, there will be recommendatiuns for additional studies that should be conducted as development occurs. Dr. Mary Ellen Harris, Harris Enved, stated she is concerned that the general conclusions may be taken out uf context and this is a simplistic model based on land cover and rainfall. The study indicates there is going to be reduced flow regimes in the watershed as development occurs, and this is not the case. base flows are going to increase with development because there will be more water in the watershed; i.e., irrigation water, and waste water flows. Help is needed to evaluate and interpret this study because the subbasin divisions are contrived for this study and it is difficult to analyze the data tbr a particular watershed and to duplicate the results. Mr. Haltiner stated that this study was focused on high tlows resulting from changed land use conditions, and some of the low flow comments were the result of the overall analysis. This study does not address water quality or low tlows in any complete way. He noted that both the original data collected from the Harvard Study, and additional data is being provided to Riverside County Flood Control. Larry McKenney, Office of Water Resources, Camp Pendleton, inquired about when existing cunditions occurred and Mr. Haltiner stated data was collected by the Harvard Study in 1991. Mr. McKenney asked about not including any of the lower basin discussions regarding scope and funds as Camp Pendleton was a member of the policy committee of the former Santa Margarita Watershed Management Program. Chairperson Gillen stated in the Board's order, there was a suggestion that Camp Pendleton be included or represented in any of these considerations a request to participate should be submitted. Supervisor Buster stated that he would go to the Board of Supervisors with a verbal recommendation from this Committee to put Camp Pendleton's participation on their agenda. Chairperson Gillen stated a letter t¥om the Base making that request should be sent to the Board and there was unanimous consensus by this committee to support that request. Mr. McKenney informed the Committee regarding meetings with Rancho California Water District, Riverside County Flood District, Mission Resource Conservation District, Nature Conservancy and Camp Pendleton who are doing water sampling in the watershed and it is envisioned that they agreed to luok at the feasibility of establishing a watershed-wide coordinated water quality monitoring program that might be more efficient and effective than individual monitoring. 4 R:\KJCAK\MURRCREE\011499MIN Dr. Wheeler reported a study to come up with management recommendations for Warm Springs Creek will he completed by the end of March 1999 and the Creek's most unique aspect is a wildlife corridor that ctmnects that side of the valley to the San Bernardino National Forest. There is an opportunity to obtain a mile long strip of land along the Creek above Murrieta Hot Springs Road, which the County trail maps shows horse and hiking trails locations. The lowest three (3) acres of the section is being dedicated to the City of Murrieta and Murrieta has agreed to do the maintenance on these trails. He is attempting to give these lands to Riverside County Regional Parks and Recreation. CORPS OF ENGINEERS James Adams, Corps of Engineers opened the Murrieta Creek Flood Control Study Public Workshop. His presentation included a description of the watershed, objectives and findings of the Reconnaissance Phase. objectives of the Feasibility phase, and Mr. Dave Cumpos discussed the NEPA/CEQA process. Mr. Adams then opened the workshop to questions and comments. Herb Smith, director with the Murrieta County Water District, 42545 Kalmia Street, Murrieta, expressed concern that many of the studies deal with surface water, but there is not much concern about ground water. His district, west of 1-15, relies 100% on ground water; Eastern Water District, 40%; and Rancho California, 50%. They received the Corps' questionnaire regarding real estate values and want to make certain a total environmental report is conducted. Ground water pumped costs about $110/acre tbot; imported Metropolitan water to replace ground water is $435/acre ft. with a projected increase uver the next l0 years to about $800/acre foot and he hopes the these situations are being considered in the financial analysis. Kang-shen Chen, 620 W. Graham Avenue, Lake Elsinore, stated the watershed problem is a problem tbr Riverside County and he inquired about the basic responsibility of the County Flood Control and the Corps to maintain the creek bank. Doreen Stadtlander, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, stated the Fish & Wildlife service will be providing comments in writing to the Corps by January 22, but wanted to make everyone aware that there is an additional process due to the Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act that includes a planning aid letter and a Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report. A scooping meeting is set up between the two (2) agencies to begin that process. Mr. Adams stated the Corps is looking at Fish & Wildlife Service to help meet the Corps' timelines. Larry McKenney, Office of Water Resources, Camp Pendleton, stated Camp Pendleton made comments at the June scooping meeting, but he had four (4) additional comments: (1) he met with the Corps in June to express concern regarding Camp Pendleton being able to participate effectively in the public process due to a litigation matter related to water resources, they are both federal agencies, and it was agreed that they would talk to each other freely. (2) Camp Pendleton's $30 million levee project downstream is under construction and will be completed in Spring 2000. (3) assumes that during the NEPA process, the Corps will look at sediment transport and Camp Pendleton has a contract underway, with the contractor hired tbr a sediment transport model tbr the lower basin, and they are coordinating with Flood Control. (4) Camp Pendleton is still interested in having a viable watershed type of Ibrum and he noted Mr. Adams' statement that there is still the possibility of someone taking advantage of the identified watershed management program by cost sharing such a study. 5 R:\KICAK\MU RRCREI~011499 MIN Mary Butterwick, U.S. EPA, Region 9, mentioned their comments have been faxed to the Corps. She wanted to encourage the Corps to consider the option of having an additional scooping meeting tbcusing exclusively on this project because this meeting notice was confusing, and to use the reconnaissance phase mailing list. Ms. Butterwick asked if the hydrology analysis has been completed, Mr. Adams replied the analysis will be completed by the end of this week and a baseline conditions report should be completed by the end of the month. Ms. Butterwick stated EPA would like to see opportunities to maintain and restore the natural floodplain function, not only along Murrieta Creek itself, but all the tributaries in your study. She also commented that it is unclear to determine the exact geographic scope of the Corps study. Mr. Adams stated the geographic scope is basically along the creek and in the 500-year floodplain area from McVickers Street in Wildomar to the gauge prior to the conflux south of Temecula Creek; a functional assessment of the creekbed is being done and areas along the creek that are prime candidates for environmental restoration, and tbr maintaining the structural/functional integrity of the system are being identified. Ms. Butterwick stated without looking at the tributaries and opportunities to maintain stream integrity along the tributary streams, options for dealing with the flood management issues on the mainstream may be restricted . Mr. Adams replied the Corps is not going upstream on the tributaries as the necessary funding is not available and to really assess the integrity of the watershed, a watershed study is needed which the Corps is recommending such a study be done. Ms. Butterwick stated any extent the Corps could elaborate on that process would be helpful because interested watershed entities need to realize what is at stake by not coming to the table with local match. Dr. Wheeler expressed his agreement with Ms. Butterwick's comments. His understanding from the June scooping meeting was that the economic analysis was being very narrowly construed and he suggested that the analysis be constructed very broadly because the implications to things like recharge for all the people who live in the area in terms of water, etc. He also noted it is essential when looking at wildlife and habitat aspects of these streams that the reparian corridor is looked at. Mr. Adams stated the Corps will be focusing on doing restoration-type activities along the stream basin and in the immediate vicinity of the streambed; looking at the option of a detention basin, and doing habitat develupment and restoration in the perimeters of the detention basin. He noted they will be tbcusing on the habitat along the creek itself as part of this study and that groundwater, etc are issues better addressed in a watershed-wide study, rather than a flood control study as the focus of a tlood control study is to justify a project to bring in federal dollars to help solve a problem a city is experiencing. Dr. Wheeler questioned the extent Cai Poly's design is going to be implemented since the intent of the third Murrieta committee and this committee is that that design be implemented. Chairperson Gillen stated she had also expressed concern that this seems more like a flood-driven study and there wouldn't be the recreational element recommended by the Cai Poly study, but that Dave Zappe tbund that the recreational element was included in the process. Mr. Zappe reiterated that Mr. Adams had stated environmental restoration and recreational opportunities were an integral part of this project. Mr. Adams clarified that the Corps will be looking at significant restoration along the creekbed; and recreation, the Corps is permitted, when developing a flood control project like a detention basin, to coordinate with cities and county to design the project in such a way that recreational aspects can be implemented by the locals. Dave Zappe, Riverside County FInod Control, stated the work done by Studio 606 for Cai Poly has been made available to the Corps ahmg with the work down by Flood Control and it is his understanding the Corps can participate in certain recreational amenities like trails, turf, irrigation systems, to about 10% of the total prqject costs, but there is a limit to the type of amenities and funds that can be contributed. 6 R:\KICAK\MURRCREE\O 11499MIN Herb Smith commented that this process is going to take time and the city and county representatives on this board should prevent development activities along the creek that are going to impact the ultimate goal. Councihnember Enochs expressed concern that Fish and Wildlife are not on board in this process and Mr. Adams stated the Corps will work with Fish and Wildlife and expedite any intbrmation they need. Mr. Adams stated a second scooping report based on these comments will be developed and distributed from their mailing list. A.. Third District - County Supervisor Jim Venable Rick Hoffman, Supervisor Venable's Office, stated Supervisor Venable supports the committee and its progress. B. Riverside County Flnod Cnntrol & Conservation District Mr. Peairs commented that the original scope of the Phillip Williams Study was developed by the Coast Conservatory in conjunction with the Riverside County Parks Department. The revised scope proposed by Mr. Haltiner is appropriate and Flood Control will bring the scope change betbre the Board of Supervisors to have the contract amended as soon as possible and this committee should address conformance with the scope. Councihnember Enochs inquired if a consultant has been hired for Line E and about the status for Line D. Mr. Pealrs replied that for Line D, the alternative analysis has been completed, city staff briefed, and the study is about ready to go with a 404 application. As for Line E, a contact has not yet been executed, but the scope has been agreed to. Mr. Zappe reported that the State of California has a flood control subvention program to reimburse local sponsors of federal projects, the District had $17 million in claims. In the legislative session that ended in September, a bill was introduced that provided subvention funding for the next four (4) years at $44 million/year to reimburse local entities for the outstanding claims. That same bill contains the provision that state approval must be ubtain betbre t~deral approval can be sought for a project, and if that does not happened, the right to state subvention is waived. This project's schedule has feasibility phase completed by February 2000 and in May 2000, the Chieffs Report, which confirms the study, is received. That schedule puts the project in good position betbre Congress adjourns in Fall 2000 and to be in WRDA 2000. However, before state authorization can be given, the Chieffs Report must be received which puts the project in jeopardy in getting to Congress in time. Riverside County is seeking support from our local legislators plus other flood control agencies. Mr. Zappe also noted that Governor Davis' submitted budget appropriated $0 for the flood control subvention fund. Chairperson Gillen asked if there was anything this committee can do to assist Riverside County's effi)rt and Mr. Zappe replied they need to make the situation known to the Calitbrnian delegation. Supervisor Buster suggested meeting with Assemblymen Thompson and Haynes. C. Army Corus nf Engineers - No further report given. D. Calih}rnia Department of Fish & Game - No report given. 7 R:\KICAK\MURRCREE[011499MIN E. Reginnal Water Quality Cnntrol Board Greig Peters stated he was impressed with the Phillip Williams Study and that several entities are working on different parts of the creek. Regarding the Corps of Engineers project, there is another person working on the Santa Margarita River Watershed and he is not current on what the Board's comments are. F. United States Fish & Wildlife Service - No further comment. G. USMC Camo Pendleton. Office of Water Resources - No further comment General Announcements Supervisor Buster had the following comments: The Cmnmittee has an opportunity to make recommendations back to the County and cities as various planning documents are being considered. The interest of Murrieta Creek and the whole watershed need to be part of the county's general plan effort. It is necessary to work together and outline major tracks of planning and other public exploration that should take place to enhance/protect the watershed. Perhaps there should be another liaison on the Committee, besides himself, knowledgeable about the County process. The Board has commissioned an analysis by Tettimer & Associates to see if they could raise funding t¥om others with a stake in the watershed. They recommended that the Santa Margarita River process should be firmly embedded in the County's general plan. The work that has been done should be summarized and the major opportunities and challenges should be outlined by this Committee and he will help with that effort. The next meeting is scheduled tbr Thursday, March 18, 1999, I:00 PM, Murrieta City Hall Council Chambers. It was moved to adjourn the meeting at 3:30 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. 8 R:\KICAK\MURRCREE\011499MIN Others Present: James Adams, Corps of Engineers Lee Backstrand, Friends of Santa Margarita River Nancy Backstrand, Friends of Santa Margarita River Ruth Beglin, Santa Margarita River Watershed Watermaster Mary Butterwick, CWTR-4, U.S. EPA Region 9 Larry Carlson, Office of Water Resources, Camp Pendleton Kang-shen Chert Dave Coupas, Corps of Engineers Bob Cullen, Riverside County Flood Control Mike Downs, KEA Environmental Tom Dryden, Senator Haynes' Office Steve Fuller, WTR-7, EPA Region 9 Jeff Haltiner, Phil Williams Associates Kathleen Hamilton Mary Ellen Harris, Harris Enved Rick Hoffman Joe Kicak, City of Temecula Richard J. Kramer, AC/S Environmental Security Tom Landis Bob Lemons, Riverside County Water District Rodney Lubojasky, West Consultants, Inc. Cuong Ly, Corps of Engineers Spencer MacNeil, Curps of Engineers Patti Magee, The Calitbrnian Larry McKenney, Office of Water Resources, Camp Pendleton Jim Miller, City of Murrieta David Minnesaug Greg Morrison Kathy Oien, Riverside County Flood Control Ron Parks, City of Temecula Mark Pavelka, U.S. Forest and Wildlife Service Frank Peairs, Riverside County Flood Control Greig Peters, Regional Water Quality Control Board Jacque Schoenecker, KEA Environmental Herb Smith Sonia Smokey, Army Corps of Engineers Steve Thomas, Riverside County Flood Control Gary Thornhill, City of Temecula Doreen Stadtlander, U.S. Forest and Wildlife Service Fred Weishaupl, Assemblyman Bruce Thompson's Office Bob Wheeler, EMA/RCD Dusty Williams, Riverside County Flood Control Dave Zappe, Riverside County Flood Control 9 of Temecula 0 Business Park DnVe · Temecula. CA 92590 · M~ilingAddre~: P C) Box 9033 · Temecula, CA 92589-9[ Steven J. Ford Mayor Jeffrey E. Stone Mayor Pro-Tem Jeff Comerchero Councilmember Karel F. Lindemans Councilmember Ronald H. Roberts Councilmember (909) 506-5100 FAX 694-6499 February 24, 1999 The Honorable David Kelley Senator, 37~ District Room 3082 State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Flood Control Subvention Dear Senator Kelley: The Murrieta Creek Advisory Committee has been working diligently to expedite flood control improvements in the Murrieta Creek, to protect the citizens of Temecula and Murrieta from flooding. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Feasibility Study for this project is to be complete by February 2000, which puts us in an excellent position to seek authorization for WRDA 2000. The provisions of Section 7 of AB 2784, however, now make authorization under WRDA 2000 nearly impossible. A delay in construction of this critical project would be unacceptable to the citizens whose property and lives are put at risk of flooding, and who all too clearly remember the $10 million in damages they experienced in 1993. We are seeking your support for rescinding Section 7 of AB 2784, and offer our assistance in any manner you deem appropriate. This Committee stands in support of Riverside County's position, and enclose a copy of their letter herewith. The Honorable David Kelley February 24, 1999 Page 2 As always, we appreciate your interest and consideration of this very important administrative hurdle. Sincerely, Jeannie Gillen, Chair Murrieta Creek Advisory Committee Advisory Committee Jeffrey E. Stone Mayor Pro Tern, Temecula Murrieta Creek Advisory Committee Enclosure cc: Murrieta Creek Advisory Committee Congressman Ron Parkard, 48th District Congressman Ken Calvert, 43'~ District Senator Ray Haynes, 36~ District Senator Jim Brulte, 31" District Assemblyman Bruce Thompson, 66th District Assemblyman Rod Pacheco, 60th District Assemblyman Jim Battin, 80m District Assemblyman Brett Granlund, 65~' District Supervisor Jim Venable, Chairman RCFC&WDC Board of Supvrs. Mayor Chuck Washington, City of Murrieta Mayor Steve Ford, City of Temecula Barbara Dunmore, County Executive Office DAVID P. ZAPPE General Manager-Chief Engineer RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT January 21, 1999 1995 MARKET STF RIVERSIDE. CA 91 909'955-1200 9091788-9965 FAX Honorable David Kelley California State Senate State Capitol. Room 3082 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Senator Kelley: Re: Flood Control Subventions Two recent developments have caused concern amongst local flood control agencies throughout the State with regard to the State's Flood Control Subvention program. Both I believe have a negative effect upon our District's efforts to protect our citizenry from flooding. A budget trailer bill signed into law last August, AB 2784 (Sections 7 and 8), impacts the subvention program. Section 7 introduces a new sequencing requirement that unless a project is authorized by the Legislature prior to Congressional authorization, the project will not qualify for the State subventions. Furthermore, a project has no standing with the State and legislation cannot be introduced to consider authorization until a favorable Corps of Engineers ChieFs Report is available. Most Corps projects require multiple Congressional authorizations (Reconnaissance Stud)', Feasibility Study and construction) as they proceed through the Federal process. Our District has generally sought State authorization either concurrently or after receiving Federal construction authorization. We have always considered the State's authorization as primarily ministerial. Federal construction projects are, with rare exception. authorized through the Water Resources Development Act (WP.DA), a bill that is traditionally on an even year biennial cycle. We currently have one very critical project. Murrieta Creek Flood Control Project, that is in the Feasibility Study phase w/th completion anticipated in February 2000, and the Chiefs Report expected in the Spring. That schedule puts us in an excellent position to seek authorization of the project in WRDA 2000, i.e., Summer/Fall 2000. The provisions of Section 7 of AB 2784, however, now make authorization under WRDA 2000 nearly impossible, first because the Legislature's bill deadline is late February and second, even if a "spot bill" could be introduced, deliberation by the Legislature would be in a shortened time frame during the Summer. Without a State authorized project by the time the deadline for WRDA arrives, we cannot proceed with Congressional authorization, as doing so would result in the loss of essential subvention funding. Honorable David Kelley - 2 - January 2 I, 1999 Re: Flood Control Subventions A delay in the construction of this critical project that results from the State's insistence that it be first to authorize the project, may be difficult to explain to the citizens whose property, and lives are put at risk of flooding, and who all too clearly remember the $10 million in damages they experienced in 1993. Section 8 of AB 2784 provides for a much needed plan to fund the current balance of subvention claims (estimated to be $172 million by the end of FY 1998-99) being held by DWR. from local flood control agencies that are sponsors of Federal flood control projects. Forty million dollars was appropriated in the current year budget to begin to pay off the claims and the bill further provides for the balance by stating that: "There is hereby annually appropriated forty-four million dollars ($44,000.000) for each of the following fiscal years from the General Fund to the Department of Water Resources: 1999-2000. 2000-2001, and 2001-2002." Governor Davis' budget released on January 8th has chosen to defer some of the spending proposals approved by the Legislature last session. It is not clear when or if the Governor intends to fund this critical program in the future, but the fact remains that there is no appropriation in the current budget proposal for the Flood Control Subvention program. The bottom line for us is that we are faced with further delays in implementing critical flood control construction. First because of a bureaucratic process that limits our flexibility to deliver projects in the most timely fashion and second because much needed funding is being withheld. It is interesting to note that for each dollar that the State expends on Federal flood control projects, the Federal commitment is between $1.50 and $2.50. With these obvious benefits, why is there such reluctance to fiscally support the program and tinker with its administration? I have not yet been able to ascertain the role that CSAC will assume in the above matter but obviously there are many other flood control agencies in the State that are impacted. My interest is to garner your support for rescinding Section 7 and to add funds to the budget to honor the commitment made in the last session to get the subvention program back on its feet. I believe that CSAC will coordinate a Statewide effort to that same end. If you believe that it would be helpful to discuss these matters, I would happy to do so with either you or your staff. And I certainly would appreciate your support in correcting what I believe are hindrances to us accomplishing our mission and protecting our citizens from the threat of flooding. ~eer. Honorable David Kelley - 3 - January. 21.1999 Re: Flood Control Subventions C~ State Senator Ray Haynes State Senator Jim Bmlte Assemblyman Bruce Thompson Assemblyman Rod Pacheco Assemblyman Jim Bar,in Assemblyman Brett Granlund Supervisor Jim Venable, Chairman RCFC&WCD Board of Supervisors Mayor Gary Smith, City of Murrieta Mayor Patxicia Birctsall, City of Temecula Jeannie Gillen. Chairman. Murrieta Creek Advisory. Committee Ray Barsch. Executive Officer. California Water Commission Jim Noyes, Chairman California Association of Flood Control Agencies Karen Keene. CSAC Michael Corbett, Michael Y. Corbett. Government Relations Barbara Dunmore, County Executive Office Mia O'Connell. LMRC DPZ:seb PC\55559