HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04061993 - 1.53 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
a � U.S.ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT,SACRAMENTO
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1325 J STREET
REPLY TO SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95814-2922
ATTENTION OF March 17, 1993 RECEIVED
Executive Office
MAR 2 219M
f CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
v/Mr.. Tom Torlakson, Chairman CONTRA COSTA CO.
Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, California 94553-1290
Mr. Alexander Krygsman, Port Director
Stockton Port District
Post Office Box 2089
Stockton, California 95201
Gentlemen:
I have reviewed with interest your letter of February 2,
1993 requesting a modification of the existing Local Cooperation
Agreement (LCA) between this office and the Stockton Port
District for the San Francisco Bay to Stockton, California (John
F. Baldwin and Stockton Ship Channels) Project, Avon to Stockton
(the "Project") . Although the letter addresses the basic
parameters of your proposal, various questions arise which would
be material to the responsibilities of all parties under the
proposal. Such considerations must be first fully investigated
before I may reach a position on your proposal. To this end, a
meeting among the parties would be beneficial to sort the various
issues.
Some issues already identified regard dredged material
disposal' areas, levee and bank protection maintenance, division
of geographical responsibilities, and the downstream sponsor' s
liability for impacting upstream project interests .
Alternatively, it is reasonable to question whether it would not
be more appropriate and beneficial for the parties if the
Stockton Port District and Contra Costa County entered into their
own separate agreement to accommodate their respective needs.
Specifically, our LCA obligates the Stockton Port District
to maintain levees and provide disposal areas for the project.
Yet, the proposed modification may complicate -the division of
this duty to the extent that Contra Costa County may be required
to perform work which is outside the County' s physical
boundaries. Failure to carry out such responsibility could
severely impact the project.
C D]- Lvu4Pr C e.
-2-
The proposed geographical division of each sponsor' s
responsibility is not in accordance with the Sacramento
District' s jurisdictional boundaries . If the division of
sponsor' s responsibility were moved downstream to accord with the
Sacramento District and San Francisco District boundaries, it
would allow each Corps District office to work with only one
sponsor and vice versa. This would reasonably ease the more
complicated scenario of working with two organizations for the
same project.
Under the LCA modification, the project' s benefits to the
Stockton Port District become dependant on Contra Costa County' s
fulfilling its contractual obligations. Events could arise which
might delay or stop the County' s performance. This could place
the Sacramento District in an awkward position vis-a-vis its
obligations to each respective sponsor.
These issues are not intended to be an exhaustive list of
potential concerns. However, they illustrate some of the areas
which need to be addressed in further discussions. I believe this
outline could be used as a background agenda for a meeting at a
mutually convenient time and location among our representatives.
Accordingly, I suggest you contact Mr. John Saia, Deputy
District Engineer for Project Management at (916) 557-7490 for
arrangements to meet. I look forward to working with your offices
on this matter.
Sincerely,
V
a rence R. SadoCff
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer