default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Logout|My Dashboard

Big turnout, little action at North San Joaquin Water Conservation District board meeting

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Wednesday, January 5, 2011 12:00 am | Updated: 6:02 am, Thu Jan 6, 2011.

Verbal altercations, people speaking out of turn and audience members sitting on the floor were common sights during a densely populated meeting for the North San Joaquin Water Conservation District board on Tuesday evening. The two-hour session featured several outbursts and ultimately ended before all items on the agenda were addressed. The board also decided to wait to approve its operating budget for 2011 until the next meeting.

Board chairman Bryan Pilkington was chastised by directors and audience members for not elaborating on his plans for surface water use and for voting against points of diversion that would enable the district to fill waterways he advocates putting water in. Pilkington challenged that district accounting records are too vague for him to offer more detail about his plans.

"I'm not an engineer; I'm not a geologist," Pilkington said to district general manager Ed Steffani. "Your information is vague; no one could do it."

But his response did not satisfy one the audience member.

"This is the same plan you presented at a candidate forum before you were elected," said Joe Valente, former president of the San Joaquin Farm Bureau. "You wanted to overbear and talk over everyone else then, and what we would like to know is what your plan is now."

Pilkington responded that it was an issue for a later time and that all of the district's options need to be considered. The chairman was also questioned about his opposition to points of diversion that would enable the district to fill natural waterways.

In June 2007, the district petitioned to add two new points of diversion on the Mokelumne River. The decision on the district's request is still pending. Pilkington said he protested the points of diversion because he believed they wouldn't benefit the district. He feared they would be used to ship district water out of the area and could benefit the proposed Duck Creek Reservoir. The proposed reservoir is designed to be built in Pilkington's district, and he said he is fearful his voters could have parts of their land taken by eminent domain due to its construction.

Mel Lytle, water resources coordinator for San Joaquin County, said at the meeting the points of diversion Pilkington opposes have nothing to do with Duck Creek.

Ed Steffani attends meeting

Despite his insistence at the Dec. 7 meeting that he was finished serving the district, Steffani attended Tuesday's meeting.

"I wanted no harm to come to the district because of my selfish desire to retire," he said when asked why he showed up to the meeting. "I am retired, but I am helping out."

Steffani reported at the meeting the district was unable to deliver 3,000 acre-feet of water in 2010. If the district were able to use 3,000 acre-feet, it could impose an acreage charge and effectively double the district's operating budget.

He also reported the district put more than 1,000 acre-feet of water in the CAL FED Recharge Project, located on the north side of the Mokelumne River, in 2010. Steffani recommended that the district petition the state to increase the CAL FED recharge amount to 2,000 acre-feet a year.

Where the district goes from here

Cutting legal fees, possibly deferring the payment of bills to the county and working with other water districts are ideas board members said they need to consider. However, they cannot agree where to cut or what projects to explore.

Pilkington is firmly anti-tax and said he wanted to look toward grants for funding.

Lytle said that the district would have better chances at securing funding if it partnered with other water agencies, instead of going to the federal or state government by itself.

Postponing the budget approval

Towards the end of the meeting, the district's operating budget for the coming year was discussed. Steffani said that the district must either cut costs or look to collect delinquent fees assessed in 2007 and 2008 in order to have the money to function. According to Steffani, there are nine people who owe the district more than $5,000, and close to 1,700 who owe less than $5,000. He estimates that collecting delinquent charges could bring $400,000 to the district.

The board did not take any action on his suggestion.

Steffani also said the district should look to defer payment to the county for costs related to the recent elections because the district cannot afford to pay it.

Director Joe Petersen made a motion to delay approving the budget until the district received an answer on how much it would cost in fees and penalties to defer payment. The motion was approved, and Petersen said the district also needs to have more project items proposed on its budget.

"We need to show the state we are serious," he said.

Meeting adjourned

The meeting was forced to end early because the district only had the library's community room available until 8:30 p.m. Agenda items that weren't addressed during the meeting — such as a proposal to use district water at Tracy Lake and determining a process to replace the outgoing Steffani — will be rolled over into the next session.

Pilkington said he wanted to schedule a meeting within the next 30 days, but no date has been made official.

Contact reporter Jordan Guinn at jordang@lodinews.com.

More about

More about

More about

Reference Links

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don't pretend you're someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don't insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.

Welcome to the discussion.


  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:58 pm on Wed, Jan 5, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    I know this forum is for opinions and stating our thoughts... but I wanted to say personally, this blog was very well said, informative and very interesting to read.
    Im looking forward to more posts from you. Thanks!

  • Doug Chaney posted at 11:41 am on Wed, Jan 5, 2011.

    Doug Chaney Posts: 1232

    There was no mention of the fact that the NSJWCD has had talks with council reps Hansen or Johnson, or both, to discuss the partnering with the city of Lodi and the $40 million, figured mentioned, water treatment plant and that the district would also follow up with the Lodi public works dept. How would the district get tied into a deal like this? So they could charge Lodi more than the rumored $200K they already for merely pumping water for a few Lodians located in the small area it claims as its district? I don't mind my tax dollars to go to NSJWCD if they can change the practices of the past appointed board membersand become accountable with a system of honest accounting and bookeeping pracitices. The meeting was almost humorous with most audience members just finger pointing and blaming someone else, mainly Mr. Pilkington, for the past problems of which they all played a part in. It's like some expect to sit back and watch the problem solve itself tomorrow. The meeting had to be rescheduled for another 30 days or so because numerous audience members dwelled too long on one issue, agenda item 8, and ranted on and on with the same old rhetoric from at least two years ago. One thing sure, the attorney (s) got their two cents worth in and I'm sure were well paid for their time. It's no wonder the district is spending an overly amount of their funding and income on attornies alone to handle even the simplest issues of this district. Budgeting this funding for attorney costs would be a great start to increase revenues for this district.



Popular Stories


Should graduations return to the Grape Bowl?

Lodi Unified leaders are moving Lodi and Tokay high school graduations from the Grape Bowl to the Spanos Center at UOP in Stockton. They cite limited seating, costs and unpredictable weather at the Grape Bowl. But others say graduations at the Grape Bowl are an important Lodi tradition, and one reason many supported renovating the stadium. What do you think?

Total Votes: 187


Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists