Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.    U.S. Constitution: First Amendment

 

Town offers to head up sewer plant construction

By Mark Wheeler and Jimmy Biggerstaff / Hi-Desert Star
Published: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 4:01 PM CDT

YUCCA VALLEY — Representatives from the Hi-Desert Water District and Town of Yucca Valley shared ideas on how a sewer system might be moved from planning to reality in the near future during a meeting in the community center Tuesday morning.

After being told by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board recently that Yucca Valley’s waste water discharge is on track for strict regulation by the board, the Town and utility officials had strong incentive Tuesday to produce results.

Town Manager Andy Takata made a three-part proposal in the meeting’s early stages. He suggested the Town and district form a Joint Powers Authority for wastewater management, that both entities commit money to get started, and that the Town be the lead agency, “because we’re equipped to do that.”

Noting that the district has just lost its general manager and a board member, Takata reasoned that the utility needs time to restore its leadership.

Council representative at the meeting Frank Luckino reinforced the manager’s suggestion with: “We’re in a better position to move this project.”

Water district board member Wade White called the Town manager’s proposal “interesting,” and proceeded to offer a variation of his own. In White’s scenario, the water district would follow through on its plans for a municipal sewage system, and the Town would take responsibility for the non-centralized sewage facilities, in particular, the package treatment plants being installed by many new developments.

Town representatives demonstrated an eagerness for quick action. Luckino repeatedly referred to the need for a sewer system as “urgent,” and Takata said some businesses are declining to settle here because the Town doesn’t have a system.

Council representative Lori Herbel described the sewer issue as a “crisis.”

Water board president Bob Stadum took exception with Herbel’s term, saying the crisis was political in nature and not based on an immediate threat to groundwater safety.

Although he agreed with the need for expediting the construction of a system to prevent contamination in the future, he considered the current crisis to be only a result of the Quality Control Board telling the Town it had to get a system in place without further delay.

Luckino described the sewer issue as a two-part process: build and operate. Speaking for the town, he said, “We don’t want to operate a facility.” Stadum dovetailed into the council member’s statement by offering, “We’re willing and capable of running a facility.”

Joint powers a possibility.

Committee meetings like Tuesday’s gathering are for discussion purposes only and are meant to give the district and Town governors a forum for exchanging ideas.

No action is taken, although the council or district board may take action based on information generated in the meetings.

One agreement reached by this group that likely will go before the water board and Town Council in the near future is the formation of a joint powers authority between the two. Everyone tended to agree such an arrangement could prove practical, although discussion also indicated there would be some differences in the details.

Whereas the Town contingent made a spirited offer to take the lead in the project, the water district members preferred more discussion and pointed out the district has already committed significant resources.

Showing definite differences in thinking, the Town showed a preference for a single wastewater department to govern all wastewater facilities, including package treatment plants. The district members, on the other hand, suggested it might be more practical to commit package-plant operations and maintenance to a contract agency.

On the subject of funding, both sides agreed this was a critical issue. Neither group could state dollar amounts, but the Town did indicate its readiness to commit money “up front.” District members were not so forthcoming, although the district has already invested some money in the sewer system by way of land acquisition and engineering.

Another meeting is scheduled for June 19. In the meantime, both groups will be discussing this matter in their own chambers. The Town Council will talk about it at its strategic planning meeting 6 to 9 p.m. Thursday in the Mesquite Room at the community center.

 

 

 

   


CARPOOL - BUS - GIVE A RIDE TO LAFCO

HomeWho We Are - Position Statement  -  What's New?  -  Municipal Advisory Council (MAC)  -  Before and After Review of Town of Yucca Valley Records Sent to LAFCO  -  News/Media/Articles  -   What is a SOI?  -    Register for Updates and Quick Action    -  How to Protest  -  Register to Vote  - The LAFCO Process  -   Yucca Valley Town Council Excerpts  -  Town Council Economic Interests - Frequently Asked Questions  -  What You're  Saying  -   Beware of Trojan Horses   -   Supporters' Letters  -  Links

Stop Yucca Mesa Annexation Coalition
P.O. Box 399
Yucca Valley, CA  92286

Stop Yucca Mesa Annexation Coalition - E-Mail

Click HERE for Stop HDWD Water and Money Grab - Part 2

Stop Yucca Mesa Annexation Coalition - E-Mail

This website designed, maintained, and donated by a private party.

Note:  The Stop Yucca Mesa Annexation Coalition is NOT a division of the Yucca Mesa Improvement Association (YMIA) or the Homestead Valley Community Council (HVCC).  These organizations are NOT the legal representative government for the Community of Yucca Mesa.