Amador County – The Amador County General Plan update panel worked on language in water goals and policies Wednesday, including cleaning up wording for a “gray water” system. They moved toward promoting reuse of water without mandating it. They changed a water policy to say: “Where available, new development should participate in the extension of reclaimed water facilities (either off-site or on-site) for beneficial use.” Planning Commissioner Ray Ryan said as a grape grower, he saw some problems with requiring the gray water participation. He said grape farmers already conserve water and use “best management practices.” He proposed promoting the gray water system, and not mandating it. Commissioner Andy Byrne said he is doing a remodel at his house and “would love to use gray water,” but he does not know how to do so. He said he would like to seek Amador County as a resource for that information. Supervisor Richard Forster said the gray water systems should be encouraged but not mandated, because “one size does not fit all.” Amador County Planner Susan Grijalva agreed, saying they would not take such a system over miles. She said the county and planning department “can deal with specifics in implementation.” Byrne said it would not matter until such a recycling and reuse system was in place. Supervisor Brian Oneto opposed the best management practices, saying the term was too broad. Oneto said he didn’t “want to be responsible for going and telling someone that they are not farming the right way.” Forster said if they were “going to adopt best management practices, it should be adopted by the Board of Supervisors and the Amador Water Agency.” Supervisor John Plasse noted that Amador Environmental Health asked who would be responsible for development and implementation of those practices. They changed the policy to say: “In consultation with the county’s water suppliers, develop reasonable best management practices for water conservation in the county.” They also removed a phrase that would “incorporate the California State Water Plan,” after consultant Jeff Goldman of EDAW said he did “not know that incorporating the entire (state) plan by reference would be adequate.” They also made a blanket move to take out references to the Amador Water Agency, instead choosing to generally refer to water suppliers in water goals and policies. Byrne said that developers of wells worked in association with the public health department, and they added a reference to agencies as well. Story by Jim Reece. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Amador County – The Amador County Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission joint panel reconvened on the county General Plan update Wednesday, to discuss water goals and policies. They considered recommendations by various agencies and organizations and made decisions, on staff direction for the document’s revision. One policy was aimed at monitoring groundwater in a “groundwater management plan.” The panel voted 6-2 with one abstention by Supervisor Chairman Ted Novelli to remove the policy. Earl Williams of Farm Bureau said he was concerned about monitoring ground water and did not thing the county needs to get into state work and the cost involved. Jeffrey Gibson of the Amador County Grape Growers Association said he was a small member of the Sacramento/Amador Water Quality Alliance, which monitors the Cosumnes River and Dry Creek watersheds. He said the coalition spends about $500,000 dollars a year on monitoring. When the group finds a problem, they fix it. He said “do you really want to regulate and monitor the Shenandoah Valley?” He said he first heard of this idea, suggested by the Amador Water Agency, but he and none of the people he knows in the Shenandoah Valley heard of the idea. Gibson said “if they want to do stuff for us and help us, why don’t they come and talk to us?” Commissioner Andy Byrne said ground water was an important issue, and the number of parcels on wells in the county meant that the county doesn’t “even know about potentially half of our water source.” Commissioner Ray Ryan said they were talking about monitoring water pulled from private wells, and he asked if they “get to the point where you dictate how much water people can draw out?” Supervisor Brian Oneto said he has lived here a long time and seen springs come and go, with the rocky underground fissures, and the water flow constantly changes. He said it would be hard to tell the sources of underground water. Ryan said it amounted to “looking for data so you can restrict” the water being taken from wells. Ryan, Oneto and Supervisors Richard Forster and John Plasse joined commissioners Dave Wardall and Ray Lindstrom in voting to remove the policy in its entirety. Byrne and Commissioner Denise Tober voted against the removal. Story by Jim Reece. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Amador County – Sutter Creek City Council on Monday heard the city’s wastewater master plan update, which included enlarging Henderson Reservoir and the inevitable replacement of the city wastewater treatment plant. Councilman Pat Crosby asked about a bond issuance to rebuild the plant, and said he did not want to do that. City Manager Rob Duke talked about the Amador Regional Sanitation Authority master plan update and said the city treatment plant has a “finite life,” expected to expire in about 5 years, then the city will have to rebuild it. And when that happens, he recommended rebuilding to the size the city already is permitted for. Part of that is capacity, and he said ARSA might lose its storage contract at Preston reservoir. If that happens, Henderson would not be enough storage, and ARSA would not have enough water to give to Castle Oaks Golf Course. Some in the audience asked about Ione City Manager Kim Kerr’s statement that a 5-year notice must be given to break an agreement between Sutter Creek and Ione. Duke said it was true, but Ione did not have to supply Sutter Creek with a “plan.” Duke said “at the end of the day,” he would like to “still be connected to them,” so in wet years, the city can ask Ione for storage, and in dry years, Sutter Creek can help Ione with supply. Duke said ARSA’s plan looked at using reservoirs for storage in the region, but preferred keeping and expanding Henderson Reservoir. He also recommended using property as a poplar plantation for ARSA’s entire sprayfield, to keep property together and minimize manpower. He said “if every piece of pipe needs to be replaced in the ARSA system,” it would cost about $28 million dollars. Mayor Pro Tem Tim Murphy said he thought Henderson was going to be replaced, not enlarged. Duke said ARSA was able to get a 30-year lease of Henderson with the state, through 2028, though it still must get state approval. He said “abandonment doesn’t appear to be cost effective,” though Henderson does need work. Mayor Gary Wooten said they must eventually take action, but put staff to study the master plan and report back to the council. Wooten said “Whether or not people like growth, you have to plan for the future.” Duke said improving Henderson, working with small reservoir owners and installing a 40 to 50 acre poplar plantation would probably cost under $10 million dollars. Story by Jim Reece. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Amador County – The Sutter Creek City Council heard updates to 2 wastewater master plans Monday, then sent them to staff attorneys for review. The council considered the new city wastewater master plan and also the Amador Regional Sanitation Authority plan. City Manager Rob Duke said changes included developer fees based on dwelling units, in a “new refinement of processes” that is “specifically looking at the sizes of developments.” The “Large” project, 500 units or more, would be required to pay for needed wastewater improvements at the treatment plant. “Medium High” projects, of 101 to 499 units, would pay upfront for each 100-unit phase, and would get approved “only if the capacity exists” at the wastewater treatment plant. “Low Medium” projects, 26 to 100 units, would make an upfront purchase of sewer fees, and “Small” developments, 1 to 25 units, would pay a building permit equal to sewer fees. Duke said a phased improvement of the wastewater plant would be activated by approval of a “Large” project, and have phases based on unit numbers of the development. The first phase (including Gold Rush Ranch & Golf Resort) would create a wastewater treatment plant capacity of 700,000 gallons a day. The second phase would take it to 1 million gallons a day. “Build-out” of the plant was tentatively set to the year 2050, at an engineer’s cost estimate of $9 million to $11 million dollars, with a lot of “contingencies.” If it included Gold Rush, the plant would need capacity expanded to 2.3 million gallons a day. Duke “estimated it will be about 2020 before we will have (water) recycling programs going on at Gold Rush.” Councilwoman Linda Rianda asked about phasing, and what initiated Phase 2. Duke said they cannot build phase 2 homes until they build phase 2 of the treatment plant. He said the master plan phasing was not tied to Gold Rush, but “just so happens that it works that way.” Duke said the master plan “looks at one of those big developments getting approved.” Mayor Pro Tem Tim Murphy said he thought before the project is approved, developers should commit to fully building the treatment plant expansion. He said they could just come and build 100 units, and only pay fees, then the city “would get no new capacity.” Duke said: “We don’t know what’s happening with the economy,” but he thought they “should be looking at that,” and if a developer needs the city to reserve 100,000 gallons of capacity, they “need to pay for that up front.” Duke said “if they drop 800 units to 100, they would have to go through the whole entitlement process for the next 100 units.” Story by Jim Reece. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.