Protect the Historic Amador Waterways

PHAW's CEQA Lawsuit

PHAW's CEQA lawsuit challenged the competency and technical accuracy of the agency's Final Environment Impact Report (FEIR) for the Transmission Pipeline Project. The Agency's FEIR concluded the pipeline project would have no significant impact on the creeks and environment. PHAW and others believe this to be completely incorrect, and have supporting data including creek flow information and California Department of Fish and Game's letter. The Agency's own data clearly shows that streams will be dewatered when the Amador Canal is closed. This change in the existing environment will have significant adverse effects on local streams and vegetation that grows along these streams' courses.

In 2004, PHAW won a similar suit at the Appellate Court level and the AWA was ordered to set aside its certification of the EIR and approval of the pipeline project. The ruling ordered AWA to revise its EIR. This revision took about 9 months and significant new information was added, yet the public only had about 20 days to comment on it.

In August 2005, the AWA board unanimously voted to adopt a resolution recertifying the EIR and reapproving the transmission pipeline project. Despite the environmental concerns and the technical flaws in the EIR, the AWA voiced nothing but praise for EIP consulting, authors of the EIR. Two board members (Dan Brown and Ted Novelli) stated that if the pipeline caused ANY damage to person, property or the environment, then the AWA would be reponsible for remediating that damage. Other board members stated that development is the solution to obtaining funding for infrastructure improvements, and that the pipeline is necessary for development.

In April 2006, the Amador Water Agency and PHAW entered into settlement negotiations in order to seek resolution of their differences over the Agency’s decision to build the Amador Transmission Project and to install a small diameter pipeline in the Amador Canal. AWA and PHAW agreed to work together on a Jackson Creek Watershed Collaborative Process to explore a watershed management and conservation program for certain portions of the South Fork of Jackson Creek and New York Ranch Gulch, as well as other areas within the Jackson Creek Watershed as may be agreed-upon by the parties. The goals of this collaborative effort include the development of conservation strategies that will maintain and facilitate sustainable riparian and wetland resources in the agreed-upon creek reaches of the Jackson Creek Watershed.

In March 2007, the AWA and PHAW announced their successful resolution of a year-long collaborative process to resolve legal and policy differences over the Agency’s decision to build the Amador Transmission Project and to install a small diameter pipeline in the Amador Canal. In exchange for dismissal of PHAW’s litigation, the AWA Board agreed to provide the Amador Community Foundation (PHAW's fiscal agent) with $150,000 in funds to prepare and implement the Jackson Creek Watershed Management and Conservation Plan. The purpose of the Plan is to identify specific management and conservation strategies and projects that provide for the long term sustainability of the riparian and wetland resources and agricultural operations in the Jackson Creek Watershed.

Click Here for a Detailed CEQA Lawsuit Timeline with Supporting Documents

PHAW Sues to Void AWA's Reservoir Agreement

On June 21, 2005, the Amador Water Agency adopted a resolution for an agreement with the Foothill Conservancy, Central Sierra Resource Conservation and Development, Inc., the AWA and the California Department of Fish and Game (DF&G) to turn over the New York Ranch Reservoir once the transmission pipeline is completed. The timing of this agreement was disturbing -- before release of the AWA responses to EIR comments, and before recertifying the EIR and reapproving the project. The agreement was made without notification to adjacent landowners, and as a result on July 28, 2005, PHAW and adjacent landowners filed suit in Amador County Superior Court challenging the AWA's action in this matter. The suit alleged that the defendants violated due process and CEQA law in adopting the resolution. DF&G was also named as a defendant because DF&G stated that the agreement would serve to satisfy its remaining concerns regarding development of the pipeline. This directly contradicted DF&G's earlier comments about the adverse effects of the pipeline. PHAW council William Yeates sent a letter to DF&G asking the department to immediately send a letter to the AWA to clarify that DF&G's participation in a future plan for NY Ranch Reservoir does NOT negate all of the department's previously stated concerns about the impacts of the transmission pipeline project.

In March 2007, the AWA and PHAW announced their successful settlement of this case. In exchange for dismissal of PHAW’s litigation, the AWA Board agreed to provide funding to complete an important site-specific management plan for a New York Ranch Reservoir.

PHAW Protests AWA Rate Hikes and Their Impact on Jackson Ratepayers

The 2007 AWA Financial Plan and Water Rate Study shows a 12% increase to treated water customers in each of the next two years (July 2008 and July 2009). The City of Jackson looked to pass this increase on to its customers, but met with stiff resistance from the ratepayers. After proposing water rate increases of 22.5% and sewer rate increases of 17.5%, the City of Jackson did not clearly notify customers of the protest procedure. The Jackson City Council agreed to re-notice all customers, but after being unable to get an accurate tally of the hundreds of protest votes received, the Council voted unanimously to toss out the current proposals for the rate hikes, and begin the process anew with a Sewer and Water Advisory Committee.

Prior to the current round of increases, back in January 2004 the Amador Water Agency released a 2004 Financial Plan and Rate/Fee Study which projected a 70% rate hike to pay for the ballooning cost of the Transmission Pipeline Project. The same report also revised the projected cost of the pipeline to $18.8 million, representing a 276% increase over the original estimate.

At the 3/31/04 AWA Board meeting, despite strong criticism and opposition from the public, the AWA board voted unamimously to adopt a resolution raising water rates and participation (hookup) fees effective July 2004. This rate increase was passed on to secondary AWA customers, such as the City of Jackson.

• Click here for a copy of the City of Jackson's 2004 rate hike letter to customers (PDF, 268KB)
• Click here for a Ledger Dispatch article with details on the 2004 increases

PHAW Attends Jackson City Council Meetings

The City of Jackson is the single largest customer of the Amador Water Agency. Plus, the city's precious creeks are at risk if the Amador Canal is dewatered. Here are some of the City Council's actions:

PHAW Opposed AWA's Pursuit of a DHS Low-Interest Loan

Due to PHAW's actions, the Amador Water Agency's low-interest loan from the Department of Health Services was denied. The loan request by Amador Water Agency did not qualify because the pipeline project's increased capacity greatly exceeded state and federal guidelines for this type of loan. Federal regulations allow for funding of water projects, including conveyance improvements, allowing a 10% growth factor above current water demand. The Amador Water Agency pipeline project provided additional capacity of more than 100% of current needs; therefore, according to federal law, the project was ineligible for any loan amount.

PHAW Fought for Property Rights of Private Landowners

The Amador Water Agency sued the first 5 of 32 non-consenting PHAW landowners (the "Jackson 5") for the right to bring a variety of third parties, including appraisers and environmental consultants, onto private land under the guise of 'research activities'. PHAW believes AWA has a variety of other motives, including beginning pre-condemnation work to acquire the necessary easements, and possibly also backfilling the enviromental impact study to satisfy the Department of Health Services' low-interest loan requirements. Superior Court Judge Harlan has granted permission to AWA to bring up to 10 specifically named individuals onto the private land of the 5 named parties to the suit. The AWA will have the right to enter the designated properties no more than 4 times in a period of 6 months, with no earth sampling to be done.

Previously pending issues have been resolved as follows:

• EIP and Associates can only enter land along the proposed transmission pipeline route, if that route is altered.
• The Agency shall name each respondent (property owner) as an additional insured on their liability insurance policy.
• Copies of any reports created by AWA consultants will be delivered to affected property owners.
• No permanent markers or monuments can be set, or any other action taken, which would require the filing of a survey on landowner's property, without first obtaining a Superior Court order.