HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions 9686 N.C.S. 02/22/1983~-.. ; '~~;.
; ~ = _~ ; ;
Resolution No.9686: ~ N. C. =S.
of the City of Petaluma, California
~C
FFR ;? ~ ~O~
9Q~2~
A RESOLUTION REQUESTIPIG SENEITOR KEENE AND
• ASSEMBLYMAN FILANTE TO SPONSOR
LEGISLATION TO AMEND SECTION 6004 QF THE WATER CODE.
WHEREAS, 5ection 60.04 of the State~ Water - Code contains ambiguities
with respect to the precise definition of a dam and has been the subject of
varying interpretations by various agencies; and,
WHEREAS, to achieve uniform administration and application of Section
6004 et. seq. of the Water Gode, it is necessary to expand the category of
facilities exempt from the definition of a dam to include wastewater oxidation
ponds, aerated lagoons, stabilization ponds and wastewater storage ponds;
and,
WHEREAS, it is the goal of public entities to achieve maximum water
reclamation to help meet the growing water requirements of the State in a
cost effective manner;
NOW, 'THEREFORE, BE
requests that Senator Barry
and support appropriate legi
to clarify the definition of
exempt from the definition
IT RESOLVED that the City Council earnestly
Keene and Assemblyman William Filante author
slation to amend Section 6004 of the Water Code
a dam and expand the category of facilities
of a dam in order to permit greater water
reclamation for agricultural purposes.
the power .and
of said
I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was "introduced .and adopted. by the
Council of`tfie City of Petaluma at a(Regular.) QL~jA~tK~6MdCj ~9~~ meeting
on the _ 22nd.... _ Februar .__._, 83
........ day of .................. ........•Y...•--• .•••-••••••-•-•, 19.._._•_, by the
following vote: ~
aXES:Balshaw, Battaglia, Cavanagh, Harberson, Vi.ce May.or Perry
~voES: None
ABSEraT: Bo , yo r M
- A'I"I'ES1': ..- • •--- .. . . ..:.; ,• ._•• - • :.......................
city.cierk Patri~ci~a- E. Bernard Vice
co~Gu r~i~.....~~~~~.,.....------•-
Form CA 2 7/81 Res. No .................................
..._. ~`...~'d°...~!~~ ~~ ,. _, . ..,., -------~
~
Mayo=. Wi l l i am A. Perry, J~r ,
/ ~-
FFR ~ ~ ~o~~
, ,
AMEND SEC 6004 WATER CODE
The People, of the State of California do enact as follows :
SECTION 1. Section 6004 of the Water' Gode is amended to read:
6004, No obstruction in a eanal used to raise or
lower water therein or divert water therefrom,
no levee; including but not limited to a levee
on the bed of a natural lake the prima~ry pur-
pose of wh'ich levee is to control flood waters,
no railroad fi11 or structure, and no road or
highway fill or structure, no cir.cular tank
constructed of steel or conerete or of a com-
bination thereof, no tank elevated above the
ground, and no barrier which "is not across a
stream channel, water course, or natural drain-
age area and which has the principal p.urpose
of impounding water for agricultural use or
use as a sewage sludge drying facility, or
wastewater oxidation pond, or aerated .lagoon,
or stabiliaation pond, or wastewater storage
pond, or a combination thereof, to be utilized
for water reclamation shall be considered a dam.
In addition, no obstruction in tlie cliannel
of a stream or water course which is fifteen (15')
feet or less in height from the lowest elevation
of the obstruction whieh has the single purpose
of spreadi,ng water within the bed of the sfream
or water course upstream from the obstruction for
percolation underground shall be consiclered a
dam.
SECTTON 2,. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the
immediate preservat'ion of the public peace, health, or safety within the
meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect.
The facts constituting the necessity:
Water Gode Section 6004 definition of a dam is subject to
Reso,. 9686 NCS Ex. 1 of 4
FEB ~ ~ 1~83 ~~'
varying interpretations throughout the 5tate. Section 6004
fails to~ articulate definite criteria. upon which to deter-
mine which sewage faciTities connect'.ed with agricuFtural use are
exempt from the definition of a dam.
This bill is intended to resolve the existing ambiguities in the statute,
with the goal of clarifying for cities, counties, water and sewer districts,
which type of facilities are to be elassified as dams. Iri order to achieve
uniform administration and application of the statute by the Department of
Water Resources at the earliest possible time, it is essential that this act
take effect immediately.
Reso. 96`86 NGS Ex. 2 of 4
F~'p ? n ~~R~ l~-
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OE AMEND'MENT
Pursuant to. Chapter 7, Article 1 of the W'ater Code-Water Reclamation
Law, Section 13510:
...the People of the State have a primary interest in the
development of facilities to reclaim water containing
waste to supplement existing surface and underground
water supplies and to assist in meeting the future water
requirements of the state.
Under Section 13511:
The Legislature further finds and declares that the utili-
zation of reclaime'd water by local c.ommunities for agri-
cultural...purposes will contribute to the peace, health,
safety and welfar-e of the people of the State.
Under Section 13512:
It is the intention of the Legislature that the state
undertake all possible steps to encourage development of
water reclamation facilities so that reclaimed. water
may be made available to help meet the growing water requirements
of the state.
In light of the above statutes, it is clear that in keeping with the
policy of the State to reclaim wastewater,, particularly for agricultural use,
wastewater oxidation .ponds, aerated lagoons, stabilization ponds, and
wastewater storage ponds which make major eon€ributions to water
' reclamation should be encourage'd.
Accordingly, the impositi'on of stringent and expensive requirements
for the constr-uction of dams, as articulated in Section 6000 et. seq. of the
Water Code, impairs the ability of public eritities to reclaim wastewater. As
a matter of reality, public entities cannot afford to construct expensive
facilities to store water and still pursue viable reclamation. The question
then becomes:
"ShouTd the category of facilities exempt from the definition
of a dam be_ expanded to permit greater water reclamation for
agricultural. purposes?"
Reso,~. 9686 NCS Ex. 3 of 4
~EB 2~~~ ~~°
. . ~, -
The facilities which we are proposing for exemption are quite similar
to the already exempt facilities which have a primary purpose of impounding
water for agricultural use, i. e. , private: agricultural dams. Further, they
are similar to the presently exempt sewage sludge drying facilities .
Therefore, by logical extension, the above-proposed facilities should also be
excluded from the definition of a dam as this would permit public entities to
expand their reclamation programs.
Moreover, by adopting the proposed amendment, the Department of
Water Resources will be provided with a specific definition of sewage
facilities exempt from the definition of. a dam. Accordingly, the Department
will be able to pinpoint with certainty and efficiency which projects are
subject to its jurisd'iction. This will save considerable administrativ.e time
and expense.
Based upon the foregoing reasons, we respectfully submit that Water
Code Section 6004 be amended to expand the category of facilities exempt
from the definition of a dam. as outlined above.
Reso.. '96$6 NCS'. Ex. 4 of 4