Published
in Rio Linda Elverta News May 27, 2004 - Scroll for other articles
by Chris Quackenbush
After reading a draft of this article, Jay O'Brien replied to me,
"Let me see if I have this right... (SAFCA says):
"We're taking over the dam, but don't worry, we'll observe your water
rights and your cost will remain the same".
"We're going to remove the dam, eliminating the pond. Instead, we're
going to build an infiltration gallery to extract your water for you.
But don't worry, we'll observe your water rights and your cost will
remain the same".
"By the way, we're taking title to your property to repay us for the
work we're doing for you. But don't worry, ... "
Jay understands.
After two years of talking, I received a proposed agreement from Tim
Washburn, Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency's Counsel, covering
Hayer Dam and the legal water rights for the lakes at Bell Acqua. The
reason for this project was stated to our community as the desire of
Fish and Game to allow the salmon to run free upstream, and to remove a
hazard from our community and the County's liability (both needs
disputed by the Hayers who owned this land for over 60 years). But this
new agreement is a complete change from the original concept as
presented by Tim Washburn.
The County and SAFCA decided to make a change to the Hayer Dam. They
took Hayer's race track and the Dam in spite of local protests. They
presented this change to all of us to be a neutral cost and a positive
change. Erwin Hayer's article May 13,
2004, in The NEWS, points out
that there was funding for this "renovation" allocated by a grant from
the State for over $2 million. An article
by SAFCA in The NEWS,
November 6, 2003, stated that the "project is funded by the
California
Department of Water Resources, SAFCA and County Parks." There was to be
no local charge for construction for the changes the County wanted, but
a usage charge about the same as before to maintain the Bell Acqua
Lakes and their benefit to the region.
Now they want the Bell Acqua Lake owners to pay nearly $500,000 for the
work SAFCA wants to do. They want to make us mortgage our property as
collateral for 30 years to fund their project! They already
removed the dam and the lakes have been fed by wells for over one year
in spite of our legal water rights to surface water in Dry Creek.
Following the levee work mandated by the State Board of Reclamation to
correct the damage SAFCA caused to Rio Linda by levees around North
Natomas, SAFCA was obliged to compensate for the lands they took for
their projects. The agreement they finally presented me recently
contained a provision that I must also agree to their Hayer Dam water
supply agreement for Bell Acqua (sight unseen). They have tried to
leverage me by holding out an agreement for my own resolution providing
that I promise to sign this agreement. Sensing trouble, I refused. They
have used what I would term "trickery" to try to legally obligate me to
their agreement, and now that I have seen the agreement, I know why. It
is my belief that we should get our group together and seek our own
counsel to fight this outrageous attempt by SAFCA.
SAFCA built an open, stagnant drainage ditch which is a health hazard
and breeding ground for West Nile Virus right in the middle of my
property during their required mitigation. I've been told this was pay
back for my part in the previous fight. After my vociferous objections,
they agreed to move it and put it in an underground pipe as it should
have been in the first place. Now they have changed their tune and are
holding that work hostage to this agreement as well. The two are
unrelated issues and must be treated separately. Now they refuse to
settle with me, knowing I will lose my pending sale. Their "bait
and switch" approach seems unfortunately consistent with their previous
efforts on "flood control" for our area.
The Original Fight
The County originally sent a letter to Bell Acqua homeowners (1995-96)
stating they wanted us to build a "berm" around our homes between us
and our lakes and charge us about $9,000 per homeowner to do this. We
were not in the flood zone, so this was very curious...until we
investigated and found they were raising levees downstream to provide
land speculators big profits, allowing them to develop the 20' deep
flood plain in North Natomas.
Their own engineering reports to determine which districts to assess
for their work, stated that our area would be damaged by their work,
and therefore should not be charged. SAFCA, however, denied this and
pretended that our area was unaffected. They voted to ignore us even
after we proved our case. We had to go to the State Reclamation
Board and the Governor to prevent the intentional flooding risk they
caused. This battle took about 2.5 years. It was costly to our team,
but the results for the entire community were important and worthwhile.
It was much more costly to SAFCA.
SAFCA's Board, which includes First District County Supervisor Roger
Dickinson, still talks about making Rio Linda citizens pay for "flood
control" projects they were forced to do here. They flood us, and now
we are supposed to pay for them to fix the flooding they caused? That
is why it is important that all of Rio Linda knows the history behind
our battle with SAFCA.
I hope all of you will once again join in support to prevent this
outrageous taking of our land and water rights. It seems SAFCA has not
learned their lesson that the people of Rio Linda will stand together
and fight. We won before, and together, we can do it again!
[Editor's note: Chris Quackenbush and family lived in Rio
Linda from 1994 to 2000. Chris served on the Water Board from 1997 to
1998. They own Bell Acqua water ski lake 3 and the Boat shop building.
They now reside in Ohio.]
The NEWS article about Insurance
Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush, 11/7/02
Published
in Rio Linda Elverta News May 27, 2004 - Scroll for other articles
Water
District budget discussed
Public hearing June 21
by Jay O'Brien
The Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District (RLECWD) Directors met
Saturday, May 22, at 5PM and reviewed the upcoming 2004-2005 budget in
detail.
Director Robert Blanchard stated the District is "not strapped" and
that the Board should not continue to go without pay. He asked that the
issue of restoring Board member pay be placed on the next meeting
agenda.
Director Blanchard said, "I think, I think the Board, in looking at
everything, and when we pay a quarter as much, for some little item, as
what the Board members get, I think it's saying that the Board is
worthless not to pay them anything. And I think we've taken six months
of nothing to put all these things together and I think when it's just
a, actually, it comes to a very small amount for the year, I don't
think the Board should go without pay. We're the only one in in the
district, I think we may be the only ones that ever done that. And
seeing I had some question as to the reasons of why it was really done,
I don't think I don't think it's something that we should maintain any,
any past the six months. We've gone six months without it, it shows
here, we're not, the Board, the District is not strapped, we're funding
many other things, and I think a Board that is unpaid is a worthless
Board. That's what you're saying to it. I don't really think that's
true."
RLECWD General Manager Dave Andres signed for pizza from Papa's
Pizzeria that was delivered during the meeting; all five Board members
participated and it was offered to the audience.
The meeting adjourned at 7:30 PM, after agreeing to continue the budget
discussion and action to a Public Hearing at the next scheduled Board
meeting, June 21, 2004, at 7 PM. There were three audience members,
including this writer, present during the meeting.
Published
in Rio Linda Elverta News May 27, 2004 - Scroll for other articles
Have the rules changed? Pizza okay now?
Remember our article describing the January 12, 2004 Rio
Linda/Elverta Community Water District (RLECWD) evening meeting? It
included the following...
"Director Harris again discussed employees, this time objecting to an
expense of $21.81 to buy food from Papa's Pizzeria for employees.
Andres explained that lunch is taken to workers when they cannot leave
a job site. Later, Andres determined the incident was a service line
leak on Hayer Circle, under pavement. To avoid a safety hazard and to
assure continuity of water service to the affected customer, the crew
worked through their normal lunch hour. An audience member said it
would cost more to hire someone to watch the open hole, and Harris
interrupted him, 'Oh come on, they can bring their lunch if they know
there's an emergency...' President Griffin stopped Harris' argument
with the audience."
The RLECWD met at 5 PM Saturday, May 22, to discuss the upcoming
budget. Pizza was brought in to the meeting at 6 PM from Papa's
Pizzeria, and Director Harris joined the others in enjoying the food.
General Manager David Andres signed for the delivery. Harris certainly
knew there would be a meeting, and could have brought her lunch, as she
suggested district employees should do. Apparently she took some
leftover pizza home for later consumption.
If it is good for the gander, shouldn't it be good for the goose?
Now some of you might call this back stabbing, but what would you call
it when she decried the pizza for the employees working through their
lunch hour?
jump to top of page