Sutter Creek – California Proposition 84 has a staggering $5.38 billion earmarked for regional water projects, and the Amador Water Agency heard from its regional board that $2.1 million of that money could be fast-tracked for an Amador and Calaveras county water program. They heard the news Thursday form Rob Alcott, executive officer of the Upper Mokelumne River Watershed Authority, of which the AWA is a member. Alcott said Prop 84 funds include $1.5 billion for water quality and regional water management, for which Amador County’s “leak detection and repair program” would qualify for an “expedited grant,” meaning it would not come as slowly from the state. But the expediting would be best possible by changing it to an Amador and Calaveras program, serving both counties. Alcott said he spoke with AWA General Manager Jim Abercrombie about expanding the leak detection program between Amador and Calaveras, and he noted that as a maintenance and replacement work, it would not need an Environmental Impact Report done. Alcott said Amador and Calaveras’ share would be $2.1 million. The AWA board approved its membership of the UMRWA Thursday, and that joint work plan, contingent on Amador County paying half the membership fee, and other member entities agreeing to Alcott’s hours being cut. Members of the UMRWA are Alpine, Amador and Calaveras counties; the East Bay Municipal Utility District; AWA, and Calaveras and Alpine water agencies; the Calaveras PUD; and the Jackson Valley Irrigation District. Alcott said part of membership is the “built-in organizational efficiencies.” He said UMRWA must still be recognized by the state as the official representative of the region, to qualify for funding from the “Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act,” as revised, effective March of this year. AWA District 3 Director Don Cooper said he hears about resource planning and thinks they should channel more of their energy toward conservation, and fulfilling the state mandated adoption of the governor’s best management practices, under AB 1420, for conservation. Cooper asked if Alcott and UMRWA could be the regional body to pursue those practices and their initiation, under AB 1420. Alcott said he saw “that as a maybe.” He said with “cost sharing and time to coordinate a set of foundational conservation requirements, UMRWA could serve that purpose.” He said “it would take time and effort, but yes it could.” Coopers said they could show the power they have as a group, by organizing to pay less and benefit from the work as a whole. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.