📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
Nevada County Grand Jury
• 1999-2000
Donner Lake Water Company Reason for the Investigation An article appeared in the Sierra Sun, dated August 12, 1999*
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 14 findings
F1
The Del Oro Water Company purchased the Donner Lake Water Company in August, 1993. It also owns six other water companies/districts in California, and is in the process of buying others.
F2
The Donner Lake Water Company supplies approximately 1200 customers in the Donner Lake area with water from Donner Lake, wells, and from Greenpoint Springs, the latter under influence of surface water. The water is chlorinated prior to distribution.
F3
Donner Lake Water Company was notified by the State of California on October 30, 1991 and again on July 22, 1992 that it must provide a plan and schedule for modification of its existing treatment facilities by June 29, 1993. The company failed to meet this deadline, and as a result, was issued Compliance Order No. 06-001 on August 13, 1993.
F4
The existing treatment did not, and does not, comply with California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Chapter 17 Surface Water Filtration and Disinfection Treatment Regulations.
F5
Del Oro Water Company purchased Donner Lake Water Company immediately following issuance of the Order.
F6
The new owner was granted a rate increase from the PUC on September 25, 1995 to pay for a feasibility study to evaluate alternate options in meeting the conditions of the Compliance Order, and at the same time was given an extension to December 1, 1997 for compliance.
F7
The new owner was granted a second rate increase on September 3, 1997 by the PUC to pay for engineered plans and specifications, and construction of system improvements necessary to meet the Regulations, and was given another compliance extension to December 1, 1998 to complete construction.
F8
The plans for system improvements included moving the treatment facility site to a more esthetic (owner's opinion) location. This resulted in local (Town of Truckee Planning Commission) opposition and legal action to prevent right-of-way easements for intake pipes from Donner Lake. The new owner has filed condemnation action which is now working its way through the courts.
F9
Del Oro Water Company applied for a low interest (2.8%) loan from the State Revolving Fund for construction of the new treatment plant as well as repairs to existing storage tanks and delivery pipes. Approval of the loan has been delayed due to challenges of the environmental data supplied by the company. A May 10, 2000 hearing, called by the Town of Truckee Planning Commission, was scheduled to resolve this issue, but didn't. The State was represented at this meeting but refused to comment.
F10
Under the revised compliance order, issued September 24, 1999 Del Oro Water Company was granted another extension to December 1, 2000 to provide a treatment facility that will comply with Chapter 17 of the CCR mentioned in Finding No. 4.
F11
Until such time as the water system is in full compliance with the Regulations, this Compliance Order requires that Del Oro Water Company must: a. Notify, on a quarterly basis, the State and Donner Lake Water Company customers that it remains out of compliance using mandatory language required in CCR Section 64666, and describe the Company's program and time table for complying with the Regulations. b. Collect twice-weekly samples of raw water on separate days, and report the analysis for total and fecal coliform organisms to the State on a monthly basis. c. Measure and report the turbidity of the water entering the system from the surface water intake source at four-hour intervals as required by the Regulations. d. Continuously maintain a free chlorine residual minimum of 3.0 mg/l in the water entering the system from the surface water intake system. e. Maintain a chlorine residual analyzer to monitor the surface water intake source and to shut off the surface water intake source in case of a chlorinating failure. f. Adhere to the construction schedule of all facilities necessary to meet the regulations. The Company must notify the State immediately if the time schedules established by this Order will not be met and explain the reason for the delay. Failure to do so may subject the Company to additional enforcement action, including civil penalties as specified in Section 116725 of the California Health and Safety Code.
F12
A Tahoe Forest Hospital spokesman stated that the hospital has no experience on record that would attribute any reported illness directly to the drinking water supplied to Donner Lake residents by the Del Oro Water Company.
F13
A customer of the Donner Lake Water Company wrote to the State on April 10, 2000 urging the State and the Nevada County Health Department to take firm action to resolve the water quality issue. While the letter mentions 25 to 30 customer complaints, information supplied by Del Oro Water Company shows that during calendar year 1999, the California Department of Health received 18 complaints covering chlorine odor, dirty water, low pressure, and taste. Del Oro Water Company responded to each complainant..
F14
On April 26, 2000 Del Oro Water Company was notified that their quarterly notice of non-compliance to customers did not meet the requirements of CCR Title 22, Article 8, Section 64666 "Consumer Notification". Del Oro Water Company is revising their notices to bring them into compliance. CONCLUSIONS
Recommendations 9
-
R1The California Department of Health Services should take a more rigid position with Del Oro Water Company regarding compliance with deadlines and should refrain from granting further extensions for completion of the new water treatment facility. Further violations of the compliance schedule should be dealt with under Section 116725(b) of the California Health and Safety Code and maximum penalties levied as allowed under the Code.
-
R2The Nevada County Health Department should be more assertive in its responsibility for protecting the health of Nevada County residents. It should bring maximum pressure to bear both on the California Department of Health Services and on the Company to assure full compliance with the construction schedule included in the Compliance Order for the new water treatment facility.
-
R3Del Oro Water Company should do a better job of keeping its customers informed of the construction progress, and assure them that it is fully meeting the conditions of the Compliance Order. Until such time as the new water treatment facility is operational, it should do everything possible to make certain that the present system supplies its customers without interruption, adequate, dependable, pure, wholesome, safe, and potable water. REQUIRED RESPONSE Nevada County Health Department, September 30, 2000 REQUESTED RESPONSES State of California, Department of Health Services, September 30, 2000 Del Oro Water Company, September 30, 2000 State Of California, Public Utilities Commission, September 30, 2000
-
R4Suspension of a portion of Donner Summit Ordinance 81-09, and supplemental changes thereto, which regulated sales, maintenance, repair and debt service of sewer hook-ups, were recommended by Donner Summit General Manager and approved by the Board in the January 19, 1999, regular meeting. This action allowed negotiation of referenced bulk sales to continue pending a new ordinance, 99-01.
-
R5This new Ordinance modified Ordinance 81-09 authorizing new financial arrangements for sewer hook-up bulk sales. It was approved and adopted by the Donner Summit Board at the regular meeting, March 16, 1999.
-
R6A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and an Agreement were signed by Donner Summit and Sierra Lakes in mid-April, 1999. Agreement was reached that Sierra Lakes and Donner Summit had 30 sewer hook-ups and 15 hook-ups respectively remaining for individual use. Any further need by Sierra Lakes prior to plant expansion was to be negotiated.
-
R7The MOU included redrafting of the existing Donner Summit/Sierra Lakes contract, commencement of plant expansion, the need for coordination regarding future capacity, and the need to develop a process to share plant expansion expenses.
-
R8The Donner Summit General Manager negotiated bulk sales with several ski resorts. However, evidence suggests that he did not complete a bulk sale with Donner Ski Ranch, the only ski resort in which he had an economic interest as reflected on his California Form 700, Statement of Economic Interest. Two Donner Summit Board members stated on their Form 700's an economic interest in ski resorts which did complete bulk sales of EDUs with Donner Summit. The Grand Jury found no evidence 24 that these members influenced these sales which were conducted solely by the General Manager and subsequently reported to the Board in open meetings.
-
R9The Donner Summit sewer ordinances are outdated and confusing. Over the years, individual ordinances (examples: 81-9, 84-2, 85-3. 86-1. 86-4. 90-4. etc.) have been enacted which modify sections of previous ordinances. In some cases, modified sections are again modified by a more recent ordinance. There is no indication that any of these ordinances have been rescinded. The current system requires that individuals must research through a large number of ordinances to insure they have the correct, up-to-date, information regarding a specific section of the Donner Summit sewer ordinances.
Conclusions 2
-
CL1 Page 3Donner Lake Water Company has been out of compliance with State Water Regulations for over seven years.
-
CL2 Page 3Neither the California Department of Health Services, the Nevada County Health Department nor the owner, Del Oro Water Company, has demonstrated a sense of urgency in resolving this matter: a. The California Department of Health Services has maintained a lenient position by excusing the company for missed deadlines and non- compliance and continuing to grant it excessive time extensions to complete the new water treatment facility without fines or penalties. b. Until recently, the Nevada County Health Department played a passive role because the company fell under the jurisdiction of the State and not the County. The County did not consider the matter as a public health issue, and, in fact, has not as yet permanently filled the vacant position of Public Health Officer who could be addressing the matter on a continuing basis. 21 c. The Company has shown an attitude of indifference in keeping its customers properly informed on a timely basis that it continues to be in non-compliance. The language of the quarterly notices minimizes the potential health risk to its customers and does not comply with the State regulations mentioned in Finding 14.
Comments 5
-
CO1 Page 2Under the revised compliance order, issued September 24, 1999 Del Oro Water Company was granted another extension to December 1, 2000 to provide a treatment facility that will comply with Chapter 17 of the CCR mentioned in Finding No. 4.
-
CO2 Page 2Until such time as the water system is in full compliance with the Regulations, this Compliance Order requires that Del Oro Water Company must: a. Notify, on a quarterly basis, the State and Donner Lake Water Company customers that it remains out of compliance using mandatory language required in CCR Section 64666, and describe the Company's program and time table for complying with the Regulations. b. Collect twice-weekly samples of raw water on separate days, and report the analysis for total and fecal coliform organisms to the State on a monthly basis. c. Measure and report the turbidity of the water entering the system from the surface water intake source at four-hour intervals as required by the Regulations. 20 d. Continuously maintain a free chlorine residual minimum of 3.0 mg/l in the water entering the system from the surface water intake system. e. Maintain a chlorine residual analyzer to monitor the surface water intake source and to shut off the surface water intake source in case of a chlorinating failure. f. Adhere to the construction schedule of all facilities necessary to meet the regulations. The Company must notify the State immediately if the time schedules established by this Order will not be met and explain the reason for the delay. Failure to do so may subject the Company to additional enforcement action, including civil penalties as specified in Section 116725 of the California Health and Safety Code.
-
CO3 Page 3A Tahoe Forest Hospital spokesman stated that the hospital has no experience on record that would attribute any reported illness directly to the drinking water supplied to Donner Lake residents by the Del Oro Water Company.
-
CO4 Page 3A customer of the Donner Lake Water Company wrote to the State on April 10, 2000 urging the State and the Nevada County Health Department to take firm action to resolve the water quality issue. While the letter mentions 25 to 30 customer complaints, information supplied by Del Oro Water Company shows that during calendar year 1999, the California Department of Health received 18 complaints covering chlorine odor, dirty water, low pressure, and taste. Del Oro Water Company responded to each complainant..
-
CO5 Page 3On April 26, 2000 Del Oro Water Company was notified that their quarterly notice of non-compliance to customers did not meet the requirements of CCR Title 22, Article 8, Section 64666 "Consumer Notification". Del Oro Water Company is revising their notices to bring them into compliance.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
County of Nevada
Agency
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.