How to resolve AdBlock issue?
The unanimous board vote to approve the first of four alternatives came after a few hours of discussion and public comment, and was notable for going against a June 2 vote of the Spring Valley Community Service Area's advisory board, which chose alternative four, a $2 million plan to drill new wills along Old Long Valley Road.
The process so far has cost a lot of time, money and – at least on the part of the valley's residents – patience.
“It's like purgatory, wondering which way it will go,” said Helen Mitcham, an advisory board charter member who said the committee's June 2 vote had surprised her, and that the community didn't want to roll the dice on the potential for litigation over the well drilling proposal.
The discussion would lead Board Chair Anthony Farrington to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, noting “We know the worth of water when the well is dry.”
Issues with Spring Valley's water system have been ongoing. In 2006 the Board of Supervisors adopted an urgency ordinance for water conservation restrictions, and in November 2008 implemented a hookup moratorium for the valley's drinking water system, as Lake County News has reported.
In July 2009, the state Department of Water Resources included Spring Valley in a list of small water systems vulnerable to drought.
Special Districts Administrator Mark Dellinger told Lake County News on Wednesday that the process of getting to a decision has been a long because the well field alternative required additional biological and archaeological studies.
“We also completed a groundwater resource assessment that included well canvassing, an extended pump test and creation of a hydrological model to assess impacts from the project on Old Long Valley Road residents,” he said.
“The report also recommended monitoring and mitigation measures – all of which we agreed to,” he added. “We held two meetings with the residents to discuss the project and the results of the hydro report.”
Dellinger went to the supervisors Tuesday requesting they direct staff to pursue either alternative one or alternative four, one of which was needed because the Spring Valley water system is under a state compliance order to make improvements.
Of the four alternatives, alternative one, at approximately $1,831,500, is the least expensive. It calls for installing a slow sand filtration system, with an annual projected operation and maintenance cost of $261,173, compared to $324,182 for alternative four.
Other proposals were alternative 2A, rapid sand filtration, $2,656,500 with annual operation and maintenance costs of $359,722; alternative 2B, rapid sand filtration and slow sand filtration, $2,545,500, annual operation and maintenance, $359,722; and alternative three, microfiltration, $3,118,500, annual operation and maintenance costs, $368,333.
Dellinger said that once an alternative is selected, a rate increase for Spring Valley's residents will be refined.
Projected bimonthly rates for the alternatives were $130.70 for No. 1, $188.63 for No. 2, $202.02 for No. 3 and $141.66 for No. 4. The current system costs rate payers $129.01 bimonthly.
He told the supervisors that at the June 2 advisory board meeting, community members who attended were almost unanimously in favor of alternative one, while the advisory board itself voted for alternative four. That, he suggested, might make the supervisors' decision harder.
“I don't think we can afford to wait too much longer on this,” he said.
While Dellinger noted that the well drilling proposal made excellent sense, he also didn't believe the county could afford time delays and possible litigation that might result from it, which also were concerns for District 3 Supervisor Denise Rushing.
“It was disappointing to me that we didn't all agree,” said Rushing of the June 2 advisory board meeting, which she attended.
A letter to Rushing from Spring Valley resident William Tett, and included in the supervisor's Tuesday packet, stated that at the June 2 meeting Old Long Valley residents stated that they had hired an agricultural law firm to stop the loss of their aquifer – which would be impacted by alternative four.
Rushing reportedly had asked for a straw poll of community members at the advisory board meeting, with more than two dozen of them supporting alternative one, according to e-mails the supervisors received from Mitcham and Cherylyn Nutting.
Advisory board members – including board chair James Hershey and secretary Toni Field – who spoke to the Board of Supervisors Tuesday emphasized their concerns about having a safe and plentiful water supply for the community's future, which they believed alternative four offered.
Hershey said the fourth alternative would help address carcinogens in the community's water sources – in this case, trihalomethanes – while Field said the community needed a second source of water.
An e-mail Hershey sent to Rushing on June 17 also pointed to “a somewhat regular pattern of periodic drought occurring in the Indian Valley Reservoir drainage.”
The advisory board got support in its viewpoint from Tim O'Halloran, general manager of Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, which holds the water rights to Clear Lake, and owns and operates Indian Valley Reservoir, Spring Valley's primary water source.
O'Halloran sent a letter to Dellinger and also appeared at the meeting to speak in favor of the well field alternative, saying he believed strongly that the more reliability and redundancy in the Spring Valley water system, the better for the community.
He added, “Reliability is more than just supply.”
Rushing said she didn't believe there was enough community support to get a rate increase passed for alternative four, adding that she was leaning toward option one and staff's recommendation to “get on with it.”
Farrington also was concerned about going down a path without community support.
“I really think that alternative one is the only option that would be palatable to the voters and the residents,” he said.
Supervisor Jeff Smith said he didn't like seeing the problem transferred from Spring Valley to the Old Long Valley area. He said he wanted to see the problem worked out in the community where it existed.
Dan McMullen, who owns the area where the proposed wells would be located along Old Long Valley Road, offered the water affordably to the board.
He also submitted a list of 10 “good reasons” for choosing the well proposal, including the ability to meet current and future regulatory requirements, better quality water and less electricity to produce the water per gallon.
Rushing moved to give staff direction to pursue alternative one, despite the advisory committee's suggested course of action.
“I wouldn't blame 'em all for wanting to quit after this,” she said of advisory board, adding that the group had put a lot of work into considering solutions for the water system.
Smith seconded Rushing's motion, which the board approved 5-0, receiving a round of applause from the gallery filled with Spring Valley residents.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews and on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf.
