Get a chance to see this morning’s Moon? Yup, I couldn’t resist trying the old “hold the camera to the telescope lens” trick. Much better clarity than with the video camera zoom.
MBTYAY, Lew
Get a chance to see this morning’s Moon? Yup, I couldn’t resist trying the old “hold the camera to the telescope lens” trick. Much better clarity than with the video camera zoom.
MBTYAY, Lew
http://www.youtube.com/embed/0yAYa3x_Axs?hl=en&fs=1“
Perhaps it’s best to hear the words
Spoken by some folks,
Just a test of possibilities
Performed by a choir of croaks.
Pretty hard not to notice the change in air quality the last several days. Know why?
EXPLANATION FOR SMOKEY HAZE IN DON PEDRO
Last week a fairly good night’s sleep was interrupted with the smell of smoke at 3 o’clock in the morning. First question? Where’s the fire? Although there is usually a fire burning somewhere in the state this seemed rather close. Check out this article by the National Park Service….sure answered my question.
http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/current_fire.htm
MBTYAY, Lew
0530hrs: Beats me why, but lately the Moon has held special interest. Here are a few shots taken with my camera held close to the eyepiece of the telescope.
My best to you and yours, Lew
BIGGEST COMPLAINERS RECEIVING BENEFITS
The incorrect billing for the Waste Water Facility for the last several years represents a lot of water that some called “water loss” while blamming the CSD for failing to respond to leaks in a timely manner. I’m sorry, but I don’t believe it a coincidence that some of those doing the loudest complaining were in actuality receiving a benefit from the under billing because their homes are located in the special benefit sewer zone around the golf course.
Does this situation sound familiar? I mean, particular individuals [and/or businesses] complaining about something perceived as wrong or unfair to them, attributing the cause to something or somebody else as a distraction from their own participation in receiving, or attempting to receive, a hidden benefit?
[“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” Hamlet]
Unfortunately, I do not believe for a nano-second this will be the final example of such preferential water deals that all ratepayers have unknowingly covered financially for years.
CSD TO RUN WASTE WATER FACILITY?
Do you know our CSD was supposed to assume the responsibilities of the original waste water facility back in the 1980’s but due to equipment problems with that system it never occurred? When that facility was finally replaced with the one further down on Ranchito Drive near the golf course, it was still understood that our CSD would manage that facility, but once again, due to system difficulties that did not happen. In April of this year the Mariposa County Board of Supervisors approved $111,000 (and change) for replacement of motors, pumps and other equipment at the waste water facility. Was such equipment replacement normal for a facility only five years old?
WASTE WATER FACILITY ON RANCHITO DRIVE [OVER LOOKING GOLF COURSE]
During the campaign of “lost water” (as the major problem facing CSD) many residents questioned the regular observance of tanker trucks in the area along with the possibility of large amounts of water being surreptitiously shipped out of Don Pedro for some reason. Of course nothing could have been further from the truth because water was not being transported out, but rather, LEACHATE was being transported in from the Mariposa County landfill for processing at the Don Pedro waste water plant. [Could that program have anything to do with the plant’s expensive equipment replacement?]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leachate]
Anyway, I do not know if the county still plans for our CSD to assume management of the waste water facility (sewer plant). Seems to me supplying safe and affordable drinking water for this community is the most important issue but only time will tell.
This is such a beautiful area with great potential. Maybe everything will be taken over by another entity? Water, sewer, and other services our CSD can legally provide? Who knows? Who cares? Do you?
My best to you and yours, Lew
I’ve been doing some research on the SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board) website and have greatly increased my understanding of the serious water issues facing California. Truly, it is the new California liquid gold. Perhaps the best starting point would be Article X of the California Constitution which outlines the state’s policy regarding beneficial use and an avoidance of waste.
oCALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 10 WATER SECTION 1. The right of eminent domain is hereby declared to exist in the State to all frontages on the navigable waters of this State. CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 10 WATER SEC. 2. It is hereby declared that because of the conditions prevailing in this State the general welfare requires that the water resources of the State be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable, and that the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented, and that the conservation of such waters is to be exercised with a view to the reasonable and beneficial use thereof in the interest of the people and for the public welfare. The right to water or to the use or flow of water in or from any natural stream or water course in this State is and shall be limited to such water as shall be reasonably required for the beneficial use to be served, and such right does not and shall not extend to the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use or unreasonable method of diversion of water. Riparian rights in a stream or water course attach to, but to no more than so much of the flow thereof as may be required or used consistently with this section, for the purposes for which such lands are, or may be made adaptable, in view of such reasonable and beneficial uses; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be construed as depriving any riparian owner of the reasonable use of water of the stream to which the owner's land is riparian under reasonable methods of diversion and use, or as depriving any appropriator of water to which the appropriator is lawfully entitled. This section shall be self-executing, and the Legislature may also enact laws in the furtherance of the policy in this section contained. CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 10 WATER SEC. 3. All tidelands within two miles of any incorporated city, city and county, or town in this State, and fronting on the water of any harbor, estuary, bay, or inlet used for the purposes of navigation, shall be withheld from grant or sale to private persons, partnerships, or corporations; provided, however, that any such tidelands, reserved to the State solely for street purposes, which the Legislature finds and declares are not used for navigation purposes and are not necessary for such purposes may be sold to any town, city, county, city and county, municipal corporations, private persons, partnerships or corporations subject to such conditions as the Legislature determines are necessary to be imposed in connection with any such sales in order to protect the public interest. CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 10 WATER SEC. 4. No individual, partnership, or corporation, claiming or possessing the frontage or tidal lands of a harbor, bay, inlet, estuary, or other navigable water in this State, shall be permitted to exclude the right of way to such water whenever it is required for any public purpose, nor to destroy or obstruct the free navigation of such water; and the Legislature shall enact such laws as will give the most liberal construction to this provision, so that access to the navigable waters of this State shall be always attainable for the people thereof. CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 10 WATER SEC. 5. The use of all water now appropriated, or that may hereafter be appropriated, for sale, rental, or distribution, is hereby declared to be a public use, and subject to the regulation and control of the State, in the manner to be prescribed by law. CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 10 WATER SEC. 6. The right to collect rates or compensation for the use of water supplied to any county, city and county, or town, or the inhabitants thereof, is a franchise, and cannot be exercised except by authority of and in the manner prescribed by law. CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 10 WATER SEC. 7. Whenever any agency of government, local, state, or federal, hereafter acquires any interest in real property in this State, the acceptance of the interest shall constitute an agreement by the agency to conform to the laws of California as to the acquisition, control, use, and distribution of water with respect to the land so acquired.
SWRCB
The SWRCB, or State Water Board, is the regulatory agency for water use. Every user must have a legal right to secure and use water and our CSD obtains this right through Merced Irrigation District (MID) License 11395 which was approved on August 15th, 1983.
Currently we have a contract for 5,160 afa (acre feet per annum, sometimes expressed as afy, acre feet per year.)
L11395 states:
“Irrigation of 131,953 acres within a gross area of 154,394 acres within the boundaries of the Merced Irrigation District and a 55 acre golf course within the service area of Sierra Highlands Water Company.
Domestic use at homesites within the service area of Sierra Highlands Water Company and at homesites and recreational facilities adjacent to Lake McSwain and Lake McClure including McClure Point, McClure Boat Club and Barrett cove.
Fish culture at Licensee’s salmon spawning channel and at a privately operated trout farm. Recreational use and fish and wildlife enhancement in and around lakes McClure and McSwain.
The places of use are shown on map entitled “Official Map of the Merced Irrigation District – 1973” and other maps filed with State Water Resources Control Board.”
WHERE’S SIERRA HIGHLANDS?
SIERRA HIGHLANDS was the original subdivision developed by Boise Cascade that subsequently became the Lake Don Pedro Owners’ Association subdivision. I contacted the SWRCB to obtain the 1973 map but was advised it (1973) had been revised in June of 1978 and the June 1978 map was the official place of use retained by the state. Here’s a photo of that map on a display board I created for a past meeting. The red line identifies the boundary between Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties. The subdivision is represented with the shaded blue line.
NOTE: Just left click the map if it appears “stretched”.
Here’s another map of the area. This particular one was prepared in 2008 by our own CSD while we still had the GIS equipment to plot large maps.
Notice some MAJOR DIFFERENCES?
HOW DID THE CSD DISTRICT BOUNDARY EXPAND BEYOND THE WATER LICENSE LIMITATIONS?
Likely a number of reasons, but primarily because the area was not developing as anticipated and other properties “close by” required water and didn’t want to sink expensive (and often unreliable) ground water wells in this foothill geology. Surely the fledgling water company could use all the paying customers it could acquire, so little by little, differing CSD administrations turned a blind eye to the requirements of L11395 and connected and supplied Lake McClure pumped water to outside MID POU (Merced Irrigation District Place of Use) properties.
Around 1992 MID determined these outside MIDPOU connections were illegal which forced the Lake Don Pedro Community Services District to drill the Ranchito Well to replace water furnished to illegal connections. Technically this is called, Ground water substitution for surface water transfers”. You see, for our area Lake McClure water was intended ONLY FOR THE SUBDIVISION PROPER and the GOLF COURSE (paperwork states a 55 acre golf course yet the map identifies it as a 155 acre course). This is why the 1978 map shows an area shaped as it is….it follows the subdivision perimeter.
NOTE: THE South Shore Club project on Bonds Flat Road between La Grange and the subdivision is the only State approved change in Place of Use I have seen for this area. WR-1993 [2003]. The 2,010 acres was planned as another golf course and residential community for which the SWRCB allocated 772 afa to be supplied by the LDPCSD, however, a number of requirements had to be met which have not occurred and the project appears to be languishing.
Below is a transparency sheet I created and placed over the CSD map indicating in red those areas that are technically ouside the allowed MIDPOU which are required to have their delivered water offset by pumping an equal or greater amount from the Ranchito Well. [Typically water lines were simply extended from within MIDPOU to the adjacent property often indicated by the fact the meter address is within the MIDPOU but water usage is outside.] Unfortunately, CSD has often failed to fulfill that requirement of water substitution – potentially placing us in a breach of contract situation. The Ranchito well (CSD’s only well) is going to require a fairly expensive production capacity inspection and report by the engineers so we know where we stand. Long over due.
NOTE: Left click to view entire map.
Recognize this? Been around here for quite sometime…..
Yup, it’s the same old bull!
My best to you and yours, Lew
2011-002b 🙂
Been a while huh? The March 15th, 2011 “Bright New Look For CSD” article was the last to be exact.
Notice the new format? (That’s a story we’ll get into at some later date.)
Needless to say, this site will be “under construction” for a while as I learn new software. So much has, is, and will be happening in this community there is no convenient way to simply “jump0 back in” to current events. Let’s start this new chapter of the continuing saga of Lake Don Pedro with some public information, namely, The 2010-2011 Mariposa County Grand Jury Final Report. This publication is something every current and potential district customer should be aware.
The section dealing with our LAKE DON PEDRO COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT (LDPCSD) is on page 32.
Here’s the link to the county website [I’ll also place it on the top menu]:
http://ca-mariposacounty.civicplus.com/DocumentView.aspx?DID=7446
My best to you and yours, Lew
2o111- 001b