The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 03091993 - WC.3 WC.3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 'or Contra FROM: WATER COMMITTEE Costa SUPERVISOR SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK, CHAIR 4° SUPERVISOR TOM TORLAKSON County DATE: MARCH 9, 1993 SUBJECT: REPORT ON BALDWIN SHIP CHANNEL MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY, EAST COUNTY AREA SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Direct the Community Development Department and the County Administrator Office to prepare a cost-benefit analysis related to County assumption of Baldwin Ship Channel maintenance responsibility in east County. 2 . Direct the County Administrator Office to work with County Counsel on the best method to insure financial liability over time by industry related to County assumption of local sponsorship responsibility of maintenance for the Baldwin Ship Channel, east County area. FISCAL IMPACT Staff costs, as well as any costs incurred by the County, (should the County elect to assume maintenance responsibility for this section of the channel) , will be paid by County industry using the channel. BACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS At the request of industry, the County has been pursuing assumption of local sponsorship responsibilities for maintenance of the Baldwin Ship Channel in the east County area. Early this month a CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : Supervisor Sunne W. McPeak, Chair Supervisor Tom Torlakson ACTION OF BOARD ON 2'1rRL�.C2 `�.—1 9 9 3 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT Z TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Roberta Goulart (510/6462071) ATTESTED 9 q cc: Community Development Dept. (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF County Administrator THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RG:gms BY , DEPUTY wag:\bo\Maintain.BSC Report on Baldwin Ship Channel Maintenance Responsibility, East County Area Continued - Page Two joint letter from the County and the Port of Stockton was sent to the Army Corps of Engineers-Sacramento District requesting the Corps to split local sponsorship responsibilities between the County and the Port. Included in the letter were suggested amendments to the existing Local Cooperation Agreement (LCA) (currently held between the Corps and the Port) , to accomplish dual sponsorship, rather than total responsibility by the Port. To date, the Corps has not formally replied to this request, although the Corps has indicated preference for co-sponsorship to occur through a separate agreement between the County and the Port rather than through the Corps LCA process. Should the Corps agree to amend the existing LCA and if these agreements are signed by the County and the Port, local sponsorship for a portion of the channel would then be the responsibility of the County. Such responsibility may incur costs (to be paid by industry) , particularly if upland disposal should be required at a future date. At this time, in-bay disposal of sediments is occurring, at no cost to the local sponsor. This may not always be the case, due to controversial aspects of in-bay disposal, as well as planning efforts to site less environmentally sensitive disposal areas. It is recommended that some research be completed by the County at this time to determine an estimate of costs associated with possible upland disposal. Preliminary cost estimates associated with evaluation of geographic alternatives, environmental documentation, engineering and construction costs for an upland disposal site should be outlined, should this become necessary. Costs incurred by the County for staff time should also be included, in order to provide industry and the County with essential background information prior to the signing of final agreements. Also recommended is identification of the most appropriate contractual obligation or other method (such as an assessment district) to provide financial assurance to the County that costs will be borne by industry using the 35' ship channel. Although industry has provided documentation indicating intent to provide financial assurance, it is recommended that alternatives be evaluated to indicate the most appropriate method offering financial assurance over the long-term. RG:gms wag:\bo\Maintain.HSC .9 Board of SupervisorsBa PhiBatchelorContra Clerk of the Board and County Administration Building County Administrator 651 Pine St, Room 106 Costa (510)646-2371 Martinez, California 94553 County Tan Powers.let District JaN Smhk 2nd District Gayle Blishop,3rd District Suns WftM UcPeak 4th District Tom Todakem 5th District :7 V'1D1 FF V! IAR 1 5 1993 March 9, 1993 ii, UE14K BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1 CO V—PA COS.-f/-1,Co. Mr. Tom Mumley Associate Water Resources Control Engineer Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region 2101 Webster Street, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 Dear Mr. Mumley: Today, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors authorized this letter in order to request a determination on potential inconsistency between federal non-point source discharge (urban run-off) requirements, and use of reclaimed water. Contra Costa County has two ordinances currently in place which encourage use of reclaimed water. Ordinance No. 91-19, adopted April 9, 1991, allows dual water systems and use of reclaimed water to be considered as part of development if water agencies determine that it is feasible and desirable to do so. Projects within a dual water system area, projects of a certain size, or other projects with potential for reclaimed water use are referred to the respective water agency for their determination on reclaimed water use potential. The Ordinance stipulates that the County would not approve a development application until water agency requirements for dual piping and other specifications are included. Ordinance No. 92-20, in conjunction with Ordinance No. 91-24, is an urgency ordinance requiring construction use of reclaimed water for dust control and compaction purposes. The Ordinance was adopted during a period of drought for a one-year time frame, and was subsequently extended until April 30, 1993. This Ordinance will be allowed to terminate on that date, but standard Community Development Department Conditions of Approval will be in place in order to require reclaimed water use where available and where use does not cause other potentially significant environmental impacts. The Conditions of Approval would continue the requirement for reclaimed water use where appropriate. In addition, the Board has r_ Mr. Tom Mumley Date: March 9, 1993 NPDES -2- directed Community Development staff to research and propose a long-term ordinance requiring use of reclaimed water in this manner. It has come to the attention of the Board that some inconsistency may exist with use of reclaimed water and regulations pertaining to non-point source run-off. County efforts to require use of reclaimed water, whenever possible,needs to be evaluated against any conflicts with existing NPDES regulations, therefore, a request has been made for a determination by your agency on this issue. Any direction you could provide, as well as relevant background information on this issue would be appreciated. Please contact Roberta Goulart of our staff at (510) 646-2071 if you have any questions. Thank you for any clarification you can provide. Copies of the Ordinances are enclosed for your information. Sincerely yours, Tom Torlakson, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors RG:gms wa2:Mun-JeAP.DES Enclosures (3) cc: Don Freitas, Public Works Department Stormwater Pollution Control Manager