Notice to all interested parties and/or Bear Valley residents, originally posted by Dianne Lundquist:
Public Workshop Saturday 12/29/07 5:30 pm Perry Walther Building regarding Bear Valley Water District Assessment District/Rate Increase. BV Homeowners who care about their wallets should attend. Documents discuss a 75% rate increase or an assessment of thousands of $$ per property. Check out web-site: [WWW]
![[WWW]](/wiki/eggheadbeta/img/moin-www.png){kind=small}
http://www.ecologic-eng.com/project_links.htm username "bvwd" password "tertiary".
Here is the text from the link above:
Bear Valley Water District
Bear Valley Water District Phase I Tertiary Facilities (2006-2008)
In 2005, the Bear Valley Water District obtained a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) for seasonal discharge to Bloods Creek. The District found that it needed a way to discharge treated effluent during and following heavy winter seasons in order to avoid uncontrolled spills. This requirement is due to limited storage capacity in the District’s effluent storage reservoir and is further impacted by limitations in disposal capacity following a late spring melt. The NPDES permit requires the District to construct tertiary filtration facilities by October 2008 so that all effluent discharged to the reservoir meet equivalent Title 22 tertiary filtration requirements. Therefore, the District has been evaluating alternative treatment methods, facilities planning, and performing the prerequisite California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) investigations. The District is currently forming an assessment district to finance construction of the Phase I Tertiary Facilities project with an objective of constructing facilities by the fall of 2009. The District is currently working with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to revise the 2008 compliance date to 2009.
For access to the Bear Valley Water District project site, please contact Tia White at the Bear Valley Water District at (209) 753-2112.
You may want to read the specific underlying studies at this
site and use the username/password "bvwd"/"tertiary". If you'd like to discuss this, please enter your text below (click Edit button above) or leave a comment.
Comments:
Note: You must be logged in to add comments2007-12-21 13:26:44 There is more to it than handling future development... The St of Calif is mandating an engineered tertiary treatment plant. I will get Phil Davis to explain...as he serves on the Board. NO ONE likes any of the alternatives, especially ones hitting the pocketbook. —SusiLewis
2007-12-21 13:35:07 Phil doesn't necessarily have to explain here on this forum and then again at the workshop, but it would be nice if he could engage with us here as we have questions. One thing for sure I have a huge question about is why has the current situation been OK for so long, and now all of a sudden we're facing $$$s of assessments, esp when there is all this new development being planned and, to me, is the agent of change causing this to surface. —TonyZuccarino
2007-12-21 23:55:22 Tony, The current situation has not been OK. During heavy winters, we have 2 problems. First of all we have too much water, in our system, for several reasons. Secondly, the time to dispose to land, happens much later, during heavy winters, because the snow is still on the ground in June and July. We can not dispose to land until the land is dry. So the result is a waste water storage reservoir that can, and has overflowed during heavy winters. It was always argued that this occurs, when no one was here in May and June, so the water entering our system, was mostly snowmelt, and therefore mostly clean water. We collect a quarter of a million gallons a day, during peak runoff, and as little a 10 thousand gallons a day during dryer times. It all depends on how much the ground is saturated, and how many feet of snow are sitting on top of the ice in our reservior in a heavy winter. —PhilipDavis
2007-12-22 00:11:09 So if we want to live, where we can have 30 feet of snowpack, we have to figure out a way to dispose of all that water, when it goes to melting. The 300 or so more empty condos, proposed by the current developers, will have little impact on the millions of gallons collected into our system during heavy winters, when the runoff peaks in June. We all own a little bit of that snowmelt, when it enters our collection system. Doing laundry, taking showers and flushing toilets, is not what is causing our problems. Snowmelting in June, is like the tide coming in, there is not much we can do about it. —PhilipDavis
2007-12-22 09:19:26 Phil, last winter was pretty much a blight, this one certainly isn't looking like a monster either, and with the forecast for freezing altitudes rising, seems to me the risk of back to back huge snowpack winters is becoming less probable, not more. Secondly, it seems odd to deal with a good thing like snowmelt water by spending money on wastewater capacity. Moreover, why do we BV residents bear responsibility for a completely natural and unrelated (to our land use) phenomena of snowmelt? —TonyZuccarino
2007-12-22 09:51:30 You can find a history of the sewer issue on the BVRI website.
http://www.bvri.org/Sewer.htm. I’m a civil engineer. I work with NPDES permits and waste discharge every day. Here’s how it reads to me. If I’m working on incorrect information, please tell me what part of this record is wrong. In 2000 the District was fined and received a cease and desist order, limiting future development until the problem of spills to Bloods Creek due to snowmelt overflows was solved. In 2002 the district took a number of measures, which did NOT include obtaining an NPDES permit, the State was satisfied, and lifted the order. According to these notes, "Eco-Logic's latest study show that measures taken since the C & D Order was levied on Bear Valley appear to guarantee no further overflows of the effluent reservoir. They calculate that the District can now survive 6 successive years with 100 year storm events." —DianeLundquist
2007-12-22 09:52:07 We then learn that "At its January 2003 meeting, the Bear Valley Water District Board heard a report from their engineer, Neal Calwell, that they only have capacity for 50 more hookups." They again decided to pursue the NPDES permit, which would allow discharge to the creek (under the existing situation, all effluent is stored and discharged to land, no NPDES permit, no tertiary treatment requirement) A condition of the NPDES permit, when granted in 2005, was the addition of tertiary treatment to the process, which is the cost the district now faces. So according to the District's previous calculations, the previous precipitation problems were solved by measures taken in 2002. —DianeLundquist
2007-12-22 09:52:18 The NPDES permit was pursued to allow additional connections, and tertiary treatment needed as part of the NPDES permit. Connect the dots.....to say that it's a bummer but it is state-mandated does not tell the entire story. Was Eco-Logics wrong in 2002, or has the driver behind the need for the NPDES permit changed now that it is time to pay for it? —DianeLundquist
2007-12-22 15:29:15 Dianne, if I am reading your analysis correctly, then it is the additional planned development that has triggered this assessment possibility? btw, I am not against some assessment, as the planned development I believe will increase general values around the area, but I don't see that BV residents have to bear costs to the tune of thousands of dollars per year, if that's what it amounts to. —TonyZuccarino
2007-12-23 08:30:10 Wow, where do I begin! Yes, I do recall the 6 back to back heavy winters cacluations. But the winter of 05/06 (?) proved those to be wrong, as we almost overflowed, after a single very large winter. We put sandbags at the spillway, and got the sprayfields out just in time. We originally persued a permit to discharge secondary treated water, as is done in many places, with the idea that when we need to discharge, it is very clean water, and we could slect the level, where the water is the cleanest. This would have saved us a tremendous amount of money. There were others who argued we should just spend the aditional money and build the tertiary plant now, because it would be required someday anyway. Those arguments were heard, as well as our proposal, and the Regional Water people gave us the discharge permit with the stipulation that we build the new treatment plant by October 2008 —PhilipDavis
2007-12-23 09:26:45 We were advised of this decision, hours before the meeting where our request was being heard, so ther was little time to make the decision, do we refuse this permit, and go get in line to have our original argument heard again? The decision was made on the spot to accept this permit and it's conditions, with the later approval of our board of directors anticipated. With much discussion, the Board approved this permit on a vote of 4 in favor and one opposed. So now the Board is struggling with the means to finance a project that started out as a milion dollar project. Then it went to 5 million, then more recently, it became a 10 million dollar project, and at our last meeting, a new 15 million dollar path was disclosed. So how do we pay for it? I feel that the burden of figureing out how to pay for this, falls on those who first argued that this was the best path. It is a difficult road we are on, and I suspect it would be even more difficult to turn back. —PhilipDavis
2007-12-24 12:41:58 This assessment district is being presented to the existing customers as something they just must accept, because the state requires it. However the state requires it as a condition of the NPDES permit, which the district apparently pursued in response to capacity issues which limited new hookups. The district pursued this condition voluntarily, not under any state mandate. Without the NPDES permit, there is no way large future developments would be approved. Reference for example the environmental impact report (the EIR is a requirement for development) for the Black Forest condo project, which touts the NPDES permit as allowing the capacity needed for their project, and the full buildout of BV’s master plan.
http://www.alpinecountyca.gov/files/2006-32blackforest.pdf page 25. It seems fair to say that the beneficiaries of the NPDES permit and the avenues it opens to allow additional connections are those who wish to make those connections, and there the cost burden should lie. —DianeLundquist
2007-12-24 12:42:43 Yes, this is a difficult situation. It appears that this permit was accepted without an understanding of the financial impact, or a plan for how it would be funded, including some engagement with the customers who are now expected to pay for it. We are just now being engaged on a requirement which has been known since 2005. The notice which the district sent out with the 1Q08 bills advising them of the upcoming workshop gave no warning of the potential impact that this would have on each customer. If it had warned folks to expect an assessment in the $10,000 – 15,000 per EDU range (my guess based on figures I’ve seen, not a published number – I have not seen that in any of the District’s documents so far) so you should show up at this meeting , they would take more notice. —DianeLundquist
2007-12-24 12:42:55 Perhaps residents are happy to be led blindly down this path and will just write the big checks. Hopefully employees renting condos and apartments won’t mind paying the additional rent that gets passed on. But they should understand what is happening and why. —DianeLundquist
2007-12-25 01:17:44 So aside from the pro/con of this (and it's hard for me to see the pro's here..), do the residents just have to take it, is this up for a vote, or exactly how does this possible assessment proceed? In other words, is this fait accompli already or can we do something about it? —TonyZuccarino
2007-12-25 14:42:31 Diane and Tony, Thank you for your comments. Our district meetings are open to the public, and I have always encouraged ratepayers to attend meetings. Susi is often there as is Eric Jung, and once in awhile someone will come in for a meeting, and suggest we get a new Engineer, and New Developers, and tell us that the water tastes bad! Then we have also had some comments and figures from people knowledgeable in the construction fields, telling us we can do this for much less, but they never get to the part of how do we fund the project. Our current engineering firm, Eco Logic, have funding experts, along with legal assistance, that bring to the table a method that seems like a clear path to a solution. It is difficult to find alternatives, when those that have been brought to us, have missing components. There is a very large picture here, and our Engineer is dealing with more than just building a tenistiary treatment plant. —PhilipDavis
2007-12-26 14:43:39 Phil, No doubt you are subject to much Monday-morning quarterbacking, in a difficult situation, and you have historically added input looking out for the little guys. I wish the regular Board meeting timing worked better for more people to attend. I know you are one of the good guys in Bear Valley and have often seen or heard tell of you busting your tail on this or that to keep something important working. It’s not unnoticed or unappreciated, even by us part-timers. Many political winds blowing in BV right now, and sizing filters and pipe is the easiest part of this project compared to those forces. Hopefully the existing homeowners will stand up for themselves, as I’m sure the development interests already have. Saturday should be a lively discussion… —DianeLundquist
2007-12-26 21:20:14 Can someone pls answer this question: is this whole discussion moot because it's already fait accompli, and if not, what is up for discussion? Whether to do this at all? Or what exactly? —TonyZuccarino
2007-12-26 22:39:57 Thanks for the feedback Diane. Yes the monday morning quarterbacking is quite interesting sometimes. We had an issue this summer with the line from the ski area, and jumped right on it, doing what we thought was the right thing, given the knowledge we had at that time. It turns out we were wrong on a couple of things, one being that this line, down the backside of Koala, is actually the ski area's line. I passed along what I knew on the subject, in good faith, hoping they could understand better, what the solution could be, but they not only did not acknowledge my comments, they now claim that what we did initialy, was wrong, and hindered their efforts to correct the situation. Therefore they are not willing to pay, for some of what we initially did. I was at the site, when this first happened, and what our staff did, was the right path, given the knowledge we had at the time. The monday morning quarterbacks, ruled a foul, however. —PhilipDavis
2007-12-26 22:54:32 Tony, Your question is a good one. I'm not really the finance guy on our board, I am more into the construction end of things, but it seems to me, it is a question of who has the greatest potential of benifiting from this. If the undeveloped land, has the potential of having more toilets, than the developed land, then the developers could hold all the cards. Some people have undeveloped lots, that they have no intention of developing, so from their point of view, they would be helping to fund a facility, that they would never use for those properties. However, if you plan to sell that property someday, you would surely want to be able to have this facility available to that property. So I guess it depends on if you are a potential developer of property that you own. It does appear that developers have the most to gain, as well as the most votes. But I could be wrong. —PhilipDavis
2007-12-27 23:22:16 I certainly echo the thoughts of Phil Davis in welcoming the input from BVWD's users and non-users who would be affected by the proposed Assessment District. I am, however disapointed at the expert opinions being rendered without ever attending one of the many district meetings these very difficult decisions have been discussed and alternatives reviewed at length. If Ms. Lundquist is aware of any similar mountain communities who have been successful at renewing their permits without having to go to tertiary treatment, I know the board would be most anxious to hear and to be able to compare permit conditions for equitable treatment by the Sacramento Regional Board. —JimBissell
2007-12-27 23:22:27 I certainly hope that all understand that while the move to tertiary treatment may be well and good for the environment, it comes at a huge price to existing rate payers. That is why the board chose to review other alternatives including the present which takes advantage of pending development and spreads the burden to ALL property owners. Because of permit requirements, all equipment must have a redundant piece in place as a backup, therefore the plant and new building is in the order of $10 million. To double the treatment capacity for build out increases the cost by less than 20%, resulting in a much lower $/gallons cost of construction and results in the opportunity to equitably spread the assessment to all future as well as current users. I believe that all board members are looking out for the rate payers as the highest priority such that development pay all costs associated with their proposed projects. That is demonstrated by the recent huge increase in connection fees recently adopted as well. —JimBissell
2007-12-28 08:15:52 I am certainly not an expert on this, but I see a coincidence in timing between this BVWD capacity issue and all the new development. Hence I naturally feel that the cost for expanding capacity should fall to those who are incurring the new additional load on the system. Not the current users who bought into the area with the understanding that living costs would be at a certain level, perhaps rising modestly over time. Nothing I've read here explains to me why the existing owners need to cough up huge dollars for additional capacity they are not themselves incurring. Perhaps there is a rationale, but I haven't heard it yet. I look forward to somebody explaining it at the meeting on Sat. —TonyZuccarino
2007-12-28 08:50:37 Jim, I don’t question whether tertiary treatment is a requirement of the NPDES permit; they are very restrictive and would never be approved without. Nor am I questioning the design components or cost estimate. My question centers around the driver for obtaining an NPDES permit with its associated tertiary treatment requirement. If BVRI’s website summary is correct, it appears that the land disposal maximization measures taken in 2002 addressed the Cease and Desist order for the snowmelt, and it was a capacity for new hookups shortage in 2003 that fueled the permit application. As I stated in a previous posting, if this summary is not correct, and this was not the reason for the permit, please set the record straight. From the documentation I have seen, the NPDES permit is what is mandating the tertiary treatment. Are there mandates from other directions requiring tertiary treatment? I think these are fair questions for ratepayers to ask.—DianeLundquist
2007-12-29 21:08:52 My thoughts on the meeting tonight: Interesting meeting. I certainly wasn't compelled by Ecologic's presentation nor any of the 'for' comments thereafter. If I understand the board and Ecologic, the main purpose of the $14m spend is to absolutely avoid illegal spills into the Bloods Creek. That $14m is the right amount to spend for this 'insurance' was certainly not sold to most homeowners in attendance. Many questions from homeowners, e.g.getting second opinions in addition to Ecologic, other alternatives to a tertiary plant, ensued the Ecologic presentation. If the only issue was the cost of being fined for illegal spills, then I might rather take my chances that we won't have huge winters that, so far, only caused one illegal spill in the last 8 years (pls correct me if I heard that wrong). After all, the $14m quoted did not include operational expenses... who knows what the real number will be. But if the issue is actually helping big development concerns foot the bill for increasing tapped out sewage infrastructure, and Sacramento's conditions for granting permits to new dev requires something specific and costly to be done (e.g. the tertiary plant), then I am agreeable to paying some, as I would benefit in real estate appreciation from investors fixing some of the areas blatant deficiencies. But I was not compelled to write a check for the amount they are asking, especially so given that the investors could back out of their committment, and leave us homeowners holding the bag on the bond commitments, possibly doubling costs? Also, what bothered me is the statement that 16 'parcels' essentially hold 59% of the vote (>50.0% required to win)... this all could be moot... it's not hard to imagine that a significant majority of home, condo and lot owners be against the assessment yet be out voted by a handful of parties. On one hand, they would be paying half... looking at it the other way, they could force us to pay for the other half.—TonyZuccarino
2007-12-29 21:19:18 If I have misstated any facts, pls correct me anyone. I also want to mention that my perception of the board was one of utmost desire to do the right thing for the total sum of interests. —TonyZuccarino
2007-12-29 23:05:27 Tony, I believe you stated the "facts" as presented, but what troubles me is the apparent superficiality of what was presented. Surely there may be a problem, but even that may be arguable. There was only a superficial treatment of the trade-offs of the alternatives and their respective costs. My main concern is equity. There should be a commercial rate per SSU. Does it make any sense to anybody that the rate for service unit (Toilet) that services 5,000 people a day ( the ski slope) should be the same as a homeowner who uses his facility a couple times a month? Strange..... —PhillCoffman
2007-12-30 08:11:36 Phill, if it was you that raised that point last nite re ski area vs an average part time resident, then your point was well made. I still am unclear about the nature of the problem. I understand the occasional clean snowmelt flood issue. Is there also a capacity issue? I suspect that if it was only about heavy snowmelt that there might be other solutions, but if the problem was two fold: snowmelt AND we've ran out of capacity for new hookups, then I see why they're going for the tertiary plant. Again, I am not opposed to being assessed for either scenario, but I would like to understand exactly which problem set we are trying to solve and ways to structure who is going to pay what. —TonyZuccarino
2007-12-30 08:14:49 btw, can someone tell me how parcel owners are being notified of these issues? Had Dianne not posted this notice on this wiki, I would never have known anything about the whole issue. Were notices mailed out? We don't even have a mailbox here in town anyway. —TonyZuccarino
2007-12-30 09:11:26 Notices were mailed out with your last billing for Sewer Service, and it was posted in the Cub Reporter. I was glad to see such a good turnout of homeowners and the 2 principal developers. There were many good points made, that the board took notice of, and will be discussing in future meetings. We meet on the third Monday of each month, at the district offices, at 1PM. The meeetings are open to the public, and always begin with an oportunity for public comment. Please attend and stay until the end. —PhilipDavis
2007-12-30 20:50:37 Phil, can you remind me the email address for assessment feedback to BVWD board? I didn't take a copy of the presentation that had the contact info. —TonyZuccarino
2007-12-30 21:08:11 It's at the very top of this page. —PhilipDavis
2007-12-30 21:10:55 Sorry, Try this: bearvalleywater@sbcglobal.net —PhilipDavis
2007-12-31 10:38:59 Thank you. —TonyZuccarino
2008-01-01 19:23:22 The postings after the meeting seem to ignore the statement by Patti that the USFS is not happy about having wastewater sprayed on USFS land and that USFS wants to terminate the temporary use permit on the additional 40 acres in 2011. That additional 40 acres of sprayfield got us out of our reservoir problem for the past several years, but when we lose that land we will go back to the pre-2002 situation of not having enough land for disposal by spray irrigation. Without the extra sprayfield we will not be able to empty the pond unless we have a controlled tertiary discharge. And we have seen in 2005-2006 that even with an empty pond at the beginning of the winter we can fill the pond to the point of sandbagging the spillway. Had the pond not been empty to start, we would have spilled. Sandbagging violates conditions placed on us by the Division of Dam Safety. —PhilipDavis
2008-01-01 19:29:11 Patti would also like to stop spraying on the original 40 acres. That use permit will also expire soon. —PhilipDavis
2008-01-01 19:31:56 The ski area quarterly billing is based on the percentage of their wastewater volume to the total wastewater volume treated, not on EDUs. The USFS is also billed on their percentage of total volume treated. Those percentages are directly applied to our expected costs to determine their user fees. The ski area is billed for about 10% of our costs and the USFS is billed about 5% —PhilipDavis
2008-01-01 20:18:13 Phil, —TonyZuccarino
2008-01-01 20:22:24 Phil, I caught that comment by Patti. The permits might expire soon, but might the permits also be renegotiated? What if the USFS was to take in $1-2m from the BVWD assessment district? Would that get us the 80ac back? You've probably gone thru this alternative, but I don't remember it mentioned at the meeting, and it could cost a lot less to lease the sprayfields from USFS than to do the tertiary plant. Just seems like status quo is worthy of more consideration... are back to back heavy winters all that probable? —TonyZuccarino
2008-01-03 00:02:20 Tony, We have to plan for back to back heavy winters, and we have to get off the Forest service land. The forest service is going to go to vault toilets and divorce us, if they can. In my opinion they have a huge responsibliity for allowing a development in this environment in the first place. Now that we find ourselves in a tight spot, they want to cut and run. —PhilipDavis
2008-01-03 00:14:42 But the Forest Service is only trying to figure out how to do this, with no money in their budget. So getting as far away from us, as possible, seems to be a reasonable way to not spend money, that they don't have. —PhilipDavis
2008-01-03 09:14:17 thanks Phil. otoh, if the board is wanting to write a $14m check, and people generally approve of spending money, then could we not pay the USFS to extend the lease and get off overall cheaper? —TonyZuccarino
2008-01-03 21:58:37 The Forest Service is not likely to extend our lease, nor can they sell us the land. One developer promised us land, if we ever went to tertiary treatment but then cleaverly never put it in writing. So the disposal to land, that we currently depend on, will be minimized, if and when the Forest Service takes the land back. I suspect that if they go ahead and convert the campgrounds to vault toilets, then they will no longer be contributing sewage to our system, and therefore no longer feel any need to contribute land for sprayfields. —PhilipDavis
2008-01-06 10:44:57 Thanks to Phil, Tony and Dianne who are about the only three people in Bear Valley who feel this topic is important. Thanks for caring. —DanAhlborn
2008-01-06 12:04:39 Phil Davis and Jim Bissell, Page 11/58 of the ECO:LOGIC BVWD Draft Preliminary Financial Assessment Report, section 1.2.4 conatins a recommendation to the District to achieve what appears to be a higher quality of tertiary treatment. That is, ECO:LOGIC is designing to Title 22 standards and not to the lesser standards of the NPDES permit. ECO:LOGIC should quantify in dollars who much mor additional cost is associated with the higher level of treatment. What possible uses does the BVWD have for "recycled" water? Is there a planned commercial development of property that requires recycled water use? —JohnDralla
2008-01-06 12:27:20 Phil Davis and Jim Bissell, Page 11/58 of the ECO:LOGIC BVWD Draft Preliminary Financial Assessment Report, section 1.2.4 conatins a recommendation to the District to achieve what appears to be a higher quality of tertiary treatment. That is, ECO:LOGIC is designing to Title 22 standards and not to the lesser standards of the NPDES permit. ECO:LOGIC should quantify in dollars who much mor additional cost is associated with the higher level of treatment. What possible uses does the BVWD have for "recycled" water? Is there a planned commercial development of property that requires recycled water use? —JohnDralla
2008-01-06 18:40:17 I'd like to echo Dan's appreciation for this forum and its contributors. I'm sure however that there are many more homeowners who are interested in this subject, or will be when they learn of the proposed assessment of $9000 or more plus the as-yet unknown increase in fees for operation and maintenance of this beast! —BrianThurston
2008-01-06 19:10:10 For what it's worth, I found the arguments (as presented on 12/29) for the need to accept the NPDES permit, with a tertiary requirement, to be unconvincing. My sense was that alternatives which would directly address the problem of snowmelt inflow or pond capacity were prematurely dismissed by the Board because they thought that tertiary treatment could be achieved at about 1/10 of current estimates, and the Board may have been in a hurry to get the NPDES permit to satisfy development interests. The Board may still entertain minor design tweaks, but I got the impression nothing else is "on the table". Anyone have any thoughts on whether and how individual homeowners can have any meaningful influence on what the Board is doing? —BrianThurston
2008-01-06 20:38:09 I think we all should submit our thoughts in writing to the email address to the BVWD. Other than Phil Davis who visits here, the other board members may not, and so we all should submit an email to the address Phil posted below. Other than that, I don't see much else to do, other than vote yes or no when this comes to ballot. Though if there is enough opposition, they may decide not put this out for ballot, or they may do the math and see that enough parcels will vote yes to make this pass. I know I myself want the development to move forward to plan. I understand that the current water treatment solutions are not viable going forward, and that we will need to pay something. I think the problem everyone is having is the bulk amount. —TonyZuccarino
2008-01-06 20:40:19 Brian, I queried (a few) other homeowners and were they aware of this issue, and it appears that not everyone is aware, and when they become aware, not everyone seems interested in getting involved. I was surprised. —TonyZuccarino
2008-01-06 21:20:22 Tony, I too have sensed that some homeowers are not eager to understand the impact of issues such as this proposed tertiary water treatment plant. I reminded some of the meeting and after they said they would attend, they did not. It seems as if the limited time they spend in BV, they want to be enjoyable and not contentious. It seems reasonable to have the water treated to a level that leaves the land uncontaminated. Having recently travelled down the Yangtze river in China, I understand how extreme pollution can be. However, it is possible to over engineer a solution and it is also possible that future development might not share the burden of the cost. For example, a property in the BV Master Plan, but not in the BVWD assessment, i.e., the meadow. —JohnDralla
2008-01-06 21:23:53 One more point. This Wiki site is really great. I routinely used the webcam tab to see what the snow conditions are. It was only yesterday that I saw the discussion topic on the sewer assessment. Volunteers on the BVRI website put a lot of effort into maintaining their site. I would like to see the BVRI website link to this site and reference the key topics. Maybe this has already been done, but I don't think so. —JohnDralla
2008-01-06 22:44:18 I truly don't think this should be viewed as a referendum on contaminating the environment. Even the small spills of secondary treated waste to the Stanislaus during peak runoff periods (which could be eliminated with control of meltwater inflows and/or added pondage) had impacts on water quality far below any measurable limits; I am less familar with the full implications of applying secondary treated water to spray fields, but wouldn't characterize it as contamination. Still, I think the consideration of project alternatives is moot at this point - the Board has set a course, the major developers and business interests support it, and they have the votes to pass it even if most homeowners were opposed. —BrianThurston
2008-01-06 22:56:07 The one aspect of the Board's proposals that ought to be in play is the way capital and O&M costs are distributed. At a minimum, I think that there should be a differentiation between "commercial" sewer service units (including any planned condo-hotel units, but especially the ski resort, campgrounds, lodges, and restaurants) versus "residential" units, given the average homeowner's family probably only uses their cabin or condo a few weeks total each year (and certainly don't emit waste as intensively as, say, the users of the ski resort bathrooms). —BrianThurston
2008-01-06 23:01:54 While not a referendum on contamination, TBH Partners has declined to have any water sprayed on the meadow that is not Tertiary treated and the NPS really does not want the spray on its land. Therefore discharge to a NPDES limit is a reasonable alternative. In 2000, the projected cost of the Tertiary plant was $350K. Now it is $14M plus O&M. If the cost was reasonable, almost all would vote yes. Some consider the assessment no real cost at all. Others (at the meeting) said the assessment might require a second job. There has been discussion that the NPS might want to pull out of the assessment district. Then, what would be the pro rata share? —JohnDralla
2008-01-06 23:05:38 I was also interested by one commenter's proposal at the 12/29 meeting that costs should to some extent be recovered in proportion to the water consumed, since that is probably a pretty good measure of the waste generated. I was bothered that one Board member shut down this line of thought by noting that the Old Subdivision, the downhill ski resort, and Lake Alpine don't have water meters; but the cost of putting these meters in is probably small compared to the $15 million (and climbing?) capital cost, and high O&M cost, of the new tertiary plant. I'm sure a way could be found to get such meters installed. —BrianThurston
2008-01-06 23:13:59 John, according to my handout from the meeting, the USFS campgrounds have 112.7 sewer units and an estimated assessment of $329K. I don't know if the USFS threat to refuse an assessment has any bearing on the Lake Alpine Cabins and the Lake Alpine Lodge(?). —BrianThurston
2008-01-06 23:19:36 BTW, I have to say I find it amusing that the USFS is reportedly disturbed by the concept of the sprayfield but is fine with the aesthtics of vault toilets! —BrianThurston
2008-01-07 10:11:20 Brian, I generally agree with your comments about meters and apportionment. It was not clear to me at the meeting whether this relatively straighforward set of measurements is possible. There were some comments made by the Board on this issue, but I was not totally clear on what they concluded about monitoring flows. This effluent flow is like a tree pattern. Small 4" lines at homes, ski mountain toilets, commerical building hookups, etc. connect to larger feed lines and finally join to (I assume) one main feeder line to the primary treatment plant. So, with a small number of judiciously placed flow meters you should be able to at least understand the bulk flow from the various different commercial entities. I do not think anyone proposes putting a costly sewer meter on each home or business. But you can make the agrguement that since we have all paid for incoming water meters, that this should fairly represent the outflow from a home. —JohnDralla
2008-01-07 10:16:29 Dianne, in your intro at the top of this page, you say "The NPDES permit requires ... all effluent discharged to the reservoir meet equivalent Title 22 tertiary filtration requirements. As I stated in my comment below, that is not what ECO:LOGIC says in its report. Title 22 is a higher standard required for the NPDES permit. Can you resolve this point? —JohnDralla
2008-01-07 10:21:35 Those of us at the meeting were directed to the ECO:LOGIC website for further information on our situation. Well, the site contains 8 documents with 404 pages. Some might say a long, boring novel. However, some of us have to become an informed electrorate to make sure the decisions that affect us are made in our best interests. Is anyone else reading these docs so that that we can share comments, criticism and suggestions? —JohnDralla
2008-01-07 10:27:08 One more point about apportionment. This is a conservation of mass issue. What goes into a closed system is either stored or comes out. I heard a comment at the meeting about pipe leaks. Is there really a hydrostatic pressure that is positive to the outside of the pipe (pipe submerged and below a water table?)? I would have thought that, if anything, the effluent would be under positive pressure within the pipe and leak out (Ouch). Dianne could you help with this point? —JohnDralla
2008-01-07 18:38:14 ... keeping in mind that if you home owners get screwed, we renters are toast: every clerk, cook, busser and maid will be flushed out of BV. —DanAhlborn
2008-01-07 19:17:32 Busy busy busy with the return of the real world today! (I hate vacation being over!) I'll take a look at your comments and add any insights in the next day or so. I'm not an expert on tertiary treatment by any means, but I work with NPDES permits and I understand the process. It is indeed a lot to read; these permits are long and complicated... —DianeLundquist
2008-01-07 20:06:24 John, your comment is interesting. The amounts of sewage has to closely approximate the amount of water used by each home, and yes, we all had new RF water meters that allow efficient drive-by collection of data. Presumably it would be pretty easy to determine how much of the current waste product is originating from residences ? —TonyZuccarino
2008-01-08 13:06:39 Tony, It doesn't matter what originates from your residence. It is a very small percentage. What matters, is what shows up at the treatment facility. The treatment of the water that finds it's way to the treatment facility, must be paid for. We all own this system of collection pipes, manholes, pumps and the treatment facility. If one person feels they shouldn't pay, then someone else will have to pay. Who exactly, should pay expences of treating the water that is collected in our system? —PhilipDavis
2008-01-08 13:20:17 John, The only time sewage is under positive pressure is when it is pumped uphill, as in the line coming from the Lake Alpine basin, until it reaches the gravity portion. The preasure lines are different from the gravity lines. The gravity lines are often empty, with a stream of sewage travelling by gravity to the main pump station, as it is discharged into the lines. Your water supply lines are full of water all the time, and under pressure, while the waste lines and the sewer leaving your house are empty until you put some water in them. Then they are sloped to allow gravity to carry away the water in a stream which will rarely, if ever, fill the pipe. So the pipes are much, much more likely to infiltrate water from the saturated surrounding ground, than to leak any sewage out. —PhilipDavis
2008-01-08 14:34:50 Phil, thanks for the information. Is this the I&I that people refer to? —JohnDralla
2008-01-08 21:42:07 Tony. Thanks for pointing this out to me. I finally checked out the report and learned that our house has 6 Fixtures, and hence a charge that is nearly twice that of the average BV homeowner. I have not read the report in detail. But I do have some basic questions... What is a fixture? Who makes the determination of how many fixtures you have? Why is it that I have 6 fixtures and there are plenty of full time homeowners with families that have 3 fixtures? Surely they contribute more to the sewage system than we do as sometime residents? Also I see my neighbor has 6 fixtures as well and they are hardly ever there. They are probably asking more questions than I am. What is the process to challenge the assessment that has been made? Please help educate us.... —SteveTroyer
2008-01-09 07:16:01 Why hasn't BVRI been active in informing the property owners of this situation that drastically affects all property owners? Are they still representing the property owners in Bear or not? —BillBort
2008-01-09 19:10:03 Steve: FYI I know a six fixture sometime-homeowner whose assessment was $17,00.00. And, yes, they're asking questions. —DanAhlborn
2008-01-09 19:59:05 Phil Davis, would it be possible to post online here or elsewhere the powerpoint deck from the Dec meeting, so as to provide necessary background to affected people who weren't at the DEC meeting? —TonyZuccarino
2008-01-10 09:01:01 Tony, I have also requested Neal Colwell of ECO:LOGIC to post that pdf on the ECO:LOGIC BVWD web page, along with the other 8 docs. Either way. let' get it posted here as you suggest. —JohnDralla
2008-01-10 09:03:03 Steve, I have had the unfortunate task of informing a single Mom with a dependent child that her assessment will be over $17K. She was not at the meeting. —JohnDralla
2008-01-10 09:26:54 I would ike to advise anyone that may want to question the BVWD Board that since the BVWD is a public agency, it must operate under the restrictions of the Brown Act. Therefore, with respect to the BVWD Board, Tia White has clarified how we should pose questions to the Board: If you have a question, you may contact an individual on the Board and up to two Board members on our Board with questions. On our Board it takes three to make a quorum. You may contact our engineer with any questions that you might have. We go by the Ca, water code and by the Brown Act. If I send your e-mails to all Board members it could be considered Polling the Board. Which is a violation. Now, I assume that there is no problem with sending a COMMENT directly to all Board members. —JohnDralla
2008-01-10 09:27:45 Neal Colwell of ECO:LOGIC has already responded to me and he will post the Saturday sewer meeting pdf on the BVWD page. —JohnDralla
2008-01-10 12:01:51 Although it make be prelimary and requires a great deal of effort to keep it going, check out
http://www.bvdevelopmentwatch.org/. This assessment topic might benefit by having portions included in the BV Development Watch site. —JohnDralla
2008-01-10 12:05:15 Dianne, I received a detail answer from Neal Colwell of ECO:LOGIC today on the issue of Title 22 and NPDES design objectives. If you send me your email address, I will forward it to you, rather than post it here. jdralla@pacbell.net —JohnDralla
2008-01-10 13:40:20 I am just trying to understand some basic things first. What is a fixture? How does the Water District determine how many fixtures there are at each residence? —SteveTroyer
2008-01-10 15:36:54 let me know when the PDF is posted, I'll download and post it here, assuming BVWD is ok wtih it. —TonyZuccarino
2008-01-10 18:12:42 Steve, As I understand it, each kitchen or toilet is a “fixture” and 3 fixtures = 1 “equivalent dwelling unit” or EDU. So homes with an apartment, or many baths get hit with add’l EDUs. Phil notes above that the ski area pays based on water usage, about 10% of the districts total. It seems more fair to apportion the assessment the same way (of course the ski area would pay 1.5 MM then instead of $211,000) Quick toilet math; My home has an apartment and thus 2 EDUs and a 17.5k assessment; about 1/12 of the ski area. —DianeLundquist
2008-01-10 18:13:19 At the meeting someone said there were 90,000 skier days last year. At 3 flushes per skier-day (a guesstimate not reviewed by any medical experts), plus 30 employees x 3 flushes/day x 120 days in the season, I come up with 280,800 flushes per ski season. Since they’re paying 12 times more than me, I should get 1/12 this many or 23,400 flushes/year. If my guests and I were there 365 days per year, that would be 64 flushes/day. No matter how freely the brewskis are flowing, that’s not going to happen. I bet the commercial kitchens run more water than mine too. Point being, some distinction between commercial and residential should be made. It’s true that the old sub and condos don’t have water meters, but couldn’t we gather data from the couple hundred new sub homes that do to determine an average flow per residential fixture, and compare it to average flow per commercial, and apportion accordingly? —DianeLundquist
2008-01-10 20:28:33 all true, in concept, but flushes per day still don't add up to the snowmelt that affects our system.... it is huge. —SusiLewis
2008-01-10 21:35:35 I think Diane's point is that assuming a Tertiary plant is required, apportioning the cost based upon usage would be the fairest method. Therefore, what higher being should we charge for the snow melt/rainwater? - only kidding. However, there are many other opinions out there about how to be equitable. I just got an email earlier this evening from a neighbor who has different feelings. —JohnDralla
2008-01-10 21:49:39 now we are getting somewhere. Thanks Diane. We HAD an apartment but we have not rented it in 4 years. I don't think the sink has been used more than a handful of times since then and we have joined the unit to the rest of our house. All told we have 1 Kitchen, 3 toilets. To me that sounds like 4 fixtures, not the 6 that are listed on the report. How do I get this changed? —SteveTroyer
2008-01-11 07:16:54 Steve, you can probably contact the District on this and get it corrected. My plan is to put pay toilet mechanisms like you used to see at airports and such on each bathroom door and charge my guests by the flush. But I'm not sure if they make a version that accepts $100 bills.... :) —DianeLundquist
2008-01-11 08:53:28 Let me ask a question. If the snowmelt was NOT an issue, and if the sprayfield lease was not an issue.... what is the remaining capacity of the existing sewage treatment, given actual discharge by the sum of all existing users today? Are we near capacity or nowhere near it or? —TonyZuccarino
2008-01-11 10:53:43 I too have been confused by the comments above and by a Board member at the mtg, to the effect that the amount of actual waste a party puts in the system should have no bearing on cost allocation. If true, why does the number of EDU's matter? The record suggests the original decision to pursue the NPDES permit (subsequently accepted with the tertiary requirement) was motivated at least in part when engineers determined that only a limited number of new hookups could be made. Hookups were presumably restricted due to the expected increase in new sewage flows, not a miniscule increase in total flows. —BrianThurston
2008-01-11 11:01:23 BTW I loved Diane's comment about the pay toilets, as I had similarly reached the conclusion that at my current EDU usage rates, the amortized capital cost of my assessment (not to mention the still unknown O&M cost increase) will work out to about $3 for each and every flush or shower. —BrianThurston
2008-01-11 11:19:05 Tony, this forum is very helpful even if only as a way to vent, since the horse may have already left the barn. What do you think of setting up a similar forum for the still-open issue which I think is actually even more important, ie the fate of parking lots A&B? I am worried that we'll wake up one of these days and find that the big giveaway to the developer is a done deal, and homeowners will be left holding the bag with reduced, or more distant, parking. —BrianThurston
2008-01-11 11:22:14 ....or are the parking lots labeled B&C? I forget, but everyone should know which ones I mean.... —BrianThurston
2008-01-11 12:11:03 Bill Bort, concerning you question about BVRI: I tend to think that in hindsight, the 2 Water Board members present at the RWQCB mtg (including Brian Neth, current BVRI Pres) should have declined the permit with the tertiary req't and enlisted the BVRI membership and others to press officials to consider less-major permit requirements. Even though this opportunity was foregone, it would indeed have been nice to have been alerted to this issue by informed folks in BVRI (via e-mail/website), when the cost estimates first started rising precipitously. BVRI certainly could now help represent homeowners on the cost allocation issues, eg in pressing for a higher commercial edu cost allocation. —BrianThurston
2008-01-11 12:33:26 I second Brian's suggestion about the B&C lots. —JohnDralla
2008-01-11 16:22:11 Tony, The ECO:LOGIC ppt presentation will be put on the ECO:LOGIC site next week. In the meantime, Neal has sent me a copy. How can I get it to you? I will double check with Neal on any IP. I assume they would be more concerned about the specific work product paid for by BVWD. I will determine if the 8 docs must be constrained to the ECO:LOGIC website. —JohnDralla
2008-01-11 23:22:49 If you think your fixtures are overcounted you should definitely make your case to BVWD. thanks to all who educated me! —SteveTroyer
2008-01-13 19:37:26 May I urge all who feel uninformed about all things Bv.... get a subscription to the Cub reporter. The editor has faithfully represented reports from all business meetings for many years. If other venues make you feel out of the loop, then, this is one way to keep abreast. If you can't be here, then read about it. Stuff around here isn't a secret, if you really want to know before, during and after, the Cub Reporter is a treasure. —SusiLewis
2008-01-13 22:30:16 I second Susi's suggestion... Eric's reporting I found is fair and accurate. On the parking lot issue, it's easy to setup another page for that... since I am not familiar with the issue... perhaps someone can create it, or I'll create it and someone can populate the initial article with the specifics of the issue. —TonyZuccarino
2008-01-13 22:32:26 John, assuming we have permission from the Board or ECOlogic or whomever we need permission from, we should just post a link to it, or I could upload it to this site and create a link without password. Let me know which way you want to go... my email can be found by clicking on my name after this post. —TonyZuccarino
2008-01-13 23:44:18 Tony, I tried tonyz@gmail.com, but got a failure to deliver. —JohnDralla
2008-01-14 09:37:05 John, sorry, the complete email addr is 'iamtonyz' at gmail dot com ... thank you. So we have permission to post the powerpoint then? —TonyZuccarino
2008-01-14 10:11:41 Tony, Tne presentation has not been posted nor do I have any word yet on permission. I will send it to you so that others may have access to it from you or me. —JohnDralla
2008-01-14 14:21:31 John, I have uploaded the two files you sent me and I can post links here when you give me the green light on permissions from the BVWD (for the ppt slides... I understand I can put the other link up w/o specific permission). —TonyZuccarino
2008-01-14 16:34:42 Unless you are interested in the details of revitalization of the existing sewer facility and connections with the NPDES permit and Tertiary Assessment Proposal, skip this. Per Neal at ECO:LOGIC, BVWD is soon to accept the Pipeline and Outfall phase 1/4 project. This project will be paid for by reserves and an F&M line of credit. The $550K line of credit may be refinanced through the assessment district. Next, the main pump station phase 4/4 needs to be protected from the high creek flows and extreme winter snow melt conditions. This is not considerd part of the Tertiary assessment proposal and a temporary earthen berm fix will be paid for partially by the collected connection fees. This has not been started. See BVWD06-001_MMRP_060531. —JohnDralla
2008-01-17 15:50:56 I am not sure that I understand John Drella's entry. I just finished reading the local Bear Valley paper and felt the assessment was a done deal. —JimClarke
2008-01-17 15:55:03 If there is ro be an assessment I believe (as I stated in the meeting) that the amount should be based on the amount of water coming into the residence not the number of bathrooms, kitchens, etc. —JimClarke
2008-01-19 11:21:50 Jim, I do not have the copy of the local newspaper (Cub Reporter?) you are referring to, but the Bear Valley Water District specifically said in their handout at the 12/29/07 meeting "Hold public hearing and receive ballots from assessed land owners." Therefore, who ever wrote the article and gave you the impression that it was a done deal was not factually correct. What the person might have tried to convey, is that there are a number of properties and developers that control a large amount of the vote. You should not let this opinion deter you from voicing your opinion and casting a vote - we still live in a democracy. —JohnDralla
2008-01-22 08:33:01 Did anyone attend the BVWD regularly scheduled public meeting yesterday? I would like to know what topics were covered and what was discussed. —JohnDralla
2008-01-24 12:39:55 BVWD/ECO:LOGIC 12/29/07 Assessment Presentation: For those not present or did not take a copy, it is now available in PDF on the ECO:LOGIC website listed at the top of this page. Use the username/password to gain access. —JohnDralla
2008-01-24 13:19:57 the assessment is most definitely not a done deal... the board is waiting for input from residents, as of the 12/29 meeting... now I am unclear what next steps are, but this will go to vote is my understanding. —TonyZuccarino
2008-01-24 22:44:51 BVWD/ECO:LOGIC 12/29/07 Assessment Presentation: For those not present or did not take a copy, it is now available in PDF on the ECO:LOGIC website listed at the top of this page. Use the username/password to gain access. —JohnDralla
2008-01-24 22:49:47 Tony, Why does hitting the refresh F5 key post a comment I have just previously written, a second time? —JohnDralla
2008-01-25 09:01:40 hi John, yes I have noticed that too... not sure why. —TonyZuccarino
2008-01-29 14:57:16 Tony, The Cal State Regional Water Quality board has directed BVWD to implement a water conservation plan to reduce the risk of secondary overflows into Bloods Creek and as part of the granting of the NPDES permit. BVWD has and is implementing these measures each year. I have a copy of the August 2002 plan in PDF. Is there a place we can put it as a reference document? —JohnDralla
2008-01-29 16:51:49 sure, basically you can email to me and I will host it here... see my email address by clicking on my name. Let me know if you have any problems. —IsabellaZuccarino
2008-01-29 16:52:28 that was me above actually... click on TonyZuccarino —IsabellaZuccarino
2008-01-31 12:48:40 courtesy of John D I have posted the ppt file from the BVWD presentation on Dec 29 in the forum.... click forum tab above to see the message and download. —TonyZuccarino
2008-01-31 14:08:30 New Bear Valley Water District
website: www.bearvalleywater.org Many thanks to Brian Neth for creating this website. Some pages are under construction so please be patient while it is populated. —JohnDralla
