BUDGET: The County is holding its breath to see
what the State does with its budget. California is now $44 billion in the hole. The State
Controller has advised that he is running out of cash to pay the bills. He will continue
to pay K-12 education, debt service, Medi-Cal, Healthy Families, SSI and other federal
benefits. But he will defer other payments to Counties and others for at least a month.
The list of deferred payments can be found here:
http://www.sco.ca.gov/eo/fiscalissues/payments01-2009a.shtml
At this time, it is not known whether the State legislature will come
up with a budget for 18 months, or just the rest of the year. We are told to expect at
least a 1.5% temporary increase in sales tax, and likely a 1% increase in vehicle taxes.
We should also anticipate some loosening of CEQA – particularly for flood control and
transportation projects.
In the longer term, we are told that the Williamson Act subventions
are in jeopardy. The Williamson Act is a state law that preserves agricultural lands by
reducing property taxes in exchange for a 10 year revolving contract to keep the lands
under ag use. About 415,000 acres are enrolled in the program Siskiyou County, and the
State subvention payments normally run around $780,000. Failure of the State to pay
subventions, could stick the County with a long term revenue loss for a State program and
jeopardize its continuation.
We were also informed that rural funds for the Sheriff may be in
jeopardy. There is also the real possibility that Medi-Cal coverage for psychology, dental
and optometry services may be on the long term cutting board. The most serious concern is
with a proposal the Governor has made to defer payments to the Counties for up to seven
months for Human Services and other programs. This would have a severe impact on the
pooled funds that the County maintains with the schools, college and special districts and
would likely involve borrowing to keep the programs running. Several Counties have already
indicated that they will close doors and return unfunded programs to the State if that
happens.
FERC DAM MEETING: Confusion reigned at last week’s Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) meeting on the Klamath River dams as the Commission tried to
figure out how it fit with the Agreement In Principle (AIP) signed by PacifiCorp, The
Dept. of Interior and the States of California and Oregon. The AIP establishes a set of
conditions under which the U.S. Secretary of Interior would do the necessary studies and
cost/benefit analysis to decide whether four dams are to be removed on the Klamath River.
Dr. John Mudre gave a presentation on six actions that the Commission
is authorized to take under the Federal Power Act. (1) It can issue a license to operate
the hydropower facilities. (FERC has already done the necessary work to issue the license,
has established the conditions for relicensing and now awaits a clean Water Act
certification from the two States to finalize. It is presumed that getting this will be
difficult.) (2) It can deny the license and refer to license surrender proceedings. (3)
After studies are done, surrender proceedings may result in dam removal. (4) It can
transfer a license. (5) it can issue a non-power license for just a dam. (6) It can
proceed with a federal take over of the facility.
Mudre also explained that FERC established a policy in 2006 regarding
“Settlement Agreements” by interested parties. These are contractual agreements
worked out by affected parties rather than going to court. FERC favors such agreements,
but does not automatically accept them and must make a determination that they are in the
public interest. They also must be focused on provisions within the jurisdiction and
authority of the FERC and enforceable by the Commission. FERC should be involved in the
development of such agreements and they must be brought before the Commission for
approval.
It was determined that the only provisions being worked on that would
qualify as a “Settlement Agreement,” under FERC were interim measures to be
taken to protect endangered coho and sucker fish while the AIP was in progress. The vast
bulk of the KBRA (Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement) is entirely outside the
jurisdiction of FERC and Siskiyou County remains opposed to this agreement. I raised the
issue, then, whether the secretive meetings of selected interests required to sign
confidentiality and good faith agreements favoring dam removal were allowable under FACA
– Federal Advisory Committee Act, since these weren’t settlement agreements
under FERC. The DOI Representative indicated he would get back to me on that.
It became very clear that the whole relicensing/dam decommissioning
issue is being removed from the normal FERC process and, through anticipated Congressional
Legislation, will become an administrative decision under the Secretary of the Interior.
After significant study, should he decide that the benefits of dam relicensing outweigh
the costs, then the FERC process will go back to the point where it is presently, with a
legislative waiver of Clean Water Act certification. If he decides that the costs outweigh
the benefits, then ownership of the dams will be transferred to a third party and they
will be removed by 2020-2025.
Because the process has moved out from under FERC, the protections in
that act for public input are no longer in place. The current AIP is essentially a
negotiation between PacifiCorp and the Federal and State governments to establish a
framework on how to proceed along this new (to be legislated) Administrative path. Our
input is to ensure that various impacts to Siskiyou County are properly mitigated, health
and safety concerns are fully addressed, and that the science is sound. In response to my
concerns expressed at the meeting that a public process be preserved, I received
assurances from the Dept. of Interior representative that the decision making process
would be subject to NEPA – the National Environmental Policy Act. |
