Error
  • JUser: :_load: Unable to load user with ID: 62
Tuesday, 14 November 2006 02:11

1985 Agreement Called For Prison To Build New Tertiary Plant At Mule Creek- It Was Never Built

Written by 
Rate this item
(0 votes)
The heat is on in Ione regarding the wastewater disposal, or lack thereof, for Mule Creek State Prison.

slide2Amador County, the City of Ione and the Amador Regional Sanitation Authority involved in aspects of a conflict with the state over who is responsible for increasing wastewater capacities for the state facility with locals now asking; is the state really a good neighbor to citizens in Ione. This after multiple violations of the state regional water quality control rules for waste waster processing and disposal were discovered at the prison.

The violations so blatant and flagrant that raw sewage was found leaking onto the ground near the prison facility. After these violations of water quality rules and regulations were discovered the Central Valley State Regional Water Quality Control Board has stepped in and under pressure the state has said maybe the best solution is a cooperative, regional solution to the wastewater problems. However, documents recently disclosed show that many years ago a different solution was attainable. According to the papers dated September 1985, an agreement was signed between the state of California, Amador County, the City of Ione and the Amador county Unified School District. The contract calls for a 1700 bed facility, up from the original 1200 bed facility proposed. The agreement also provides for the facility to have an overcrowding allotment of 3200 prisoners. This contract, with amended findings, was necessary because the state was increasing the size and level of the facility to hold more inmates with higher level security needs.

The state also wanted to be exempt from meeting the strict and lengthy California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) standards that would apply to a project of this scope and size. These amended findings and contract were necessary for the state to obtain legislation necessary to speed up the process to build the prison. The first item in the contract is that the state, through the then department of Corrections, will , in a timely manner, carry out and implement completely all of the conditions and mitigation measures in the amended or changed findings regarding the projects impacts on the community and the entire county.

slide8Interestingly enough the mitigated findings state that the Department of Corrections shall build a new sewage treatment plant capable of treating effluent to secondary and tertiary levels of treatment. The contract is so specific it evens commits the Department of Corrections to building the plant on a specific 5 acre parcel located on Collings Road. The contract requires that the plant be operational by the time the prison population hits 1700- a mark that was reached many years ago.

Also, the contract requires that the Department of Corrections help the Amador County Unified School district by accommodating the district with help on reasonable requests from the district at the state level. In the event that traditional methods of state school financing are unavailable, specifically mentioned are Developer Fees, Lease-Purchase Agreements, Mello-Roos bonds and state funding options the Department will seek legislation to provide temporary classroom space until traditional funding methods are available. Once the legislation is passed the department will either purchase or construct the classrooms. The contract also contains many other provisions that have gone unfulfilled by the state, including monitoring of traffic impacts from the prison on local roads. According to County Counsel John Hahn, the state may be off the hook for any of the provisions in the contract because there is a four year statute of limitations on these type of agreements.

According to other local legal experts, “They did not do what they were supposed to under the contract”. The question is now what will the state do in terms of the multiple issues surrounding the state’s new desire to expand the prison once again.

Read 1295 times Last modified on Friday, 14 August 2009 03:17