Madera County 2007-2008 Grand Jury Final Report Book

Conclusions 18

• CL1
  A. County responsibilities were to clear sloughs in District pursuant to Madera County Contract No. 156-C-63 dated November 5, 1963 between County and District (the"1963 Contract"), whichprovides for County's cIeaning ofsloughs in the [District] for the purpose ofprotecting County roads, rights of way and easements." It also provided for District to reimburse the County for its costs offuel and equipment operator compensation, but not "any other costs or expenditures." The 1963 Contract was superseded when the Reclamation Board acquired easements for levees, the Army Corps ofEngineers constructed flood protection levees and the Agency accepted responsibility for operation and maintenance ofthe local project (flood channels) when the Agency entered into the 1970 Agreement with the Reclamation Board. B. Agency's responsibilities are: a. to maintain and operate the channel ofthe Chowchilla River to the bifurcation ofthe Ash and Berenda Sloughs in a manner that restores and preserves the channel capacity as of 1959, in accordance with the Agreement between the Agency and The Reclamation Board ofthe State of California ("Board") dated April 7, 1970 ("1970 Agreement") b. to maintain and operate the local project (Ash and Berenda Slough flood channels and levees from the Bifurcation Structure to the East Side By Pass) Page 1 of2 ~;f"Apr., I'r111ntv 42 or any unit thereof upon completion of the project, substantially in accordance with the Maintenance Manual of the U. S. Army Corps ofEngineers for Chowchilla River: Ash and Berenda Sloughs Channel Improvement and Levee Construction ("Corps Manual") c. to provide local agency/interests assurances to the State of California, its Reclamation Board and the United States that will hold those government entities harmless from claims arising out ofthe project on the Chowchilla River and those sloughs, in accordance with the 1970 Agreement. d. to reimburse District for its maintenance ofthe bifurcation structure described in the Corps Manual per the Agreement between the Agency and District dated December 6, 1977 ("1977 Agreement"). C. District's responsibilities are: a. to accept title to, and operate, the bifurcation structure at the division of the Ash and Berenda Sloughs ("Sloughs") for flood control purposes in accordance with the Corps Manual, as set forth in the 1977 Agreement. b. to maintain that bifurcation structure, at the cost and expense of the Agency, in accordance with the 1977 Agreement. c. during flood periods, to patrol the banks of the levees along the Sloughs to detect breaks in those levees, and to the extent the District has personnel and equipment available, make emergency small repairs in those levees, all at the District's expense, in accordance with the 1977 Agreement. D. District's responsibilities do not include: a. long term maintenance, repair or replacement ofany portion of those levees, per the terms ofthe 1977 Agreement. b. any other obligation regarding the clearing, maintenance, repair or replacement of those levees or the slough channels. c. in spite ofDistrict's having made, on one or more occasions, a contribution of in-kind services to assist the Agency in its responsibility to maintain the sloughs, the District has no responsibility to make any similar contributions in the future.
• CL2
  County, Agency and District may be willing to enter into an Agreement that clarifies these responsibilities and provides for the efficient and effective operation and maintenance of the Ash and Berenda Sloughs which results in flood protection for Madera County residents as was originally planned. Page 2 of2 r,..fnnpr:l f'nllntv 43 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD PROTECTION BOARD 3310 EI Camino Ave., Rm. LL40 SACRAMENTO, CA 95821 (916) 574-0609 f=AX: (916) 574-0682 PERMITS: (916) 574-0653 FAX: (916) 574-0682 March 21,2008 Madera County Grand Jury P.O. Box 534 Madera, CA 93639 Re: Grand Jury Final Report, Flood Control Dear Members of the Grand Jury: The State of California, Central Valley Flood Protection Board (Board), successor to the Reclamation Board, has received the Madera County Grand Jury report entitled, "2007-2008 MADERA COUNTY GRAI\ID JURY FINAL REPORT, MAINTENANCE OF THE FLOOD CONTROL WATERWAYS AS AGREED TO IN 1977." The transmittal letter sent with the report requests a response from the Board "in accordance with California Penal Code Section 933.05(a) and (b)," and characterizes the Reclamation Board as one of the agencies from whom a response is due. The Central Valley Flood Protection Board respectfully disagrees that it is required to respond pursuant to Penal Code Section 933 or 933.05. Section 933 (a) provides that the grand jury shall submit a final report of its findings and recommendations "that pertain to county government matters." The final report may be submitted for comment to responsible officers, agencies, or departments, including the County Board of Supervisors, which in context means, the officers, agencies, or departments of the county. Section 933(c) provides that no later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report "on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority [emphasis added]," the governing body of the public agency shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under its control. The State of California, including the Central Valley Flood Protection Board, is not subject to the reviewing authority of the Madera County Grand Jury. (See 76 Ops.CaI.Atty.Gen.70 (1993) [grand jury is given oversight powers with respect to county, city, and district affairs, but State agencies are outside the scope of Penal Code sections 925, 928, and 933]). Since the Board is not subject to the reviewing authority of the Madera County Grand Jury, it is not required to respond to the findings and recommendations of the report. Nonetheless, in a spirit of cooperation, the Central Valley Flood Protection Board offers the following responses to those findings and recommendations which pertain to the Board: Findinq: On April 7,1970, an agreement was reached between the Madera County Flood Control and Water Conservation (Agency) and the Reclamation Board to clear the waterways and return the water flow capacity to the 1959 standards (the Chowchilla River Project (CRP). This project was assigned to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). • 44 Madera County Grand Jury March 21, 2008 Page 3 Response: The Board agrees with the recommendation that the Agency review existing agreements with the Reclamation Board, now the Central Valley Flood Protection Board, and take immediate action to comply with provisions of said agreements. If you have any questions, please contact Dan Fua, Supervising Engineer, at (916) 574-0698. Sincerely, Hf- Benjamin F. Carter President 45 ., '. "'. < ! ­ '. THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and bet~een THE RECLAMATION BOARD of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as the "Board") and the MADERA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CON­ SERVATION AGENCY (hereinafter referred to as the "Agency"), on the ~ day of April 197__0__, in view of the following cir­ cumstances: WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States, by Public Law 87­ 874 approved October 23, 1962, authorized the Buchanan Reservoir, Chowchilla River, California, substantially in accordance with the
• CL3
  The Agency shall operate and maintain the channel of the Chowchilla River from Buchanan Dam to the local project in such ,~anner as to provide in said c~:...:l=--t,,-,h:..::.e::..--=-c-=-a-<;.p.:::a-=c-=i:.:t~y--..:t::..:h.=.:e::.:r=-e=-o=f~p-=r.:.e:..:v.:.a:..:i::l:.:~:.:·n:.:.g~ t' in 1959. In the event the present capacity of the ChOY7chilla River channel from Buchanan Dam downstream to the local project is less than that prevailing in 1959, the Agency shall restore the capacity to that prevailing in 1959.
• CL4
  Upon completion the Agency shall hold and save the United States, the State of California, and the Reclamation Board of the State of California, their successors or assigns, free and harmless from: -3­ 49 (a) Any and all claims arising out of or in connection with the aforesaid obligations assumed and agreed upon by the Agency with regard to the local project. (b) From damage due to the construction works as on ShOvffi the plans for the local project and as actually constructed and due to the operation and maintenance of s~id works and the local project from and after the awarding ·of any contract by the Corps of Engineers for construction pursuant to the plans or any portion of said plan. (c) The Agency shall defend the State of California and the Board in all proceedings upon claims for such damage on the written request of the Board. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agree~ ment on the date first hereinabove mentioned. THE RECLAMATION BOARD OF THE STbTE OF CALIFORNIA By ALFRED A. SOUZA Vice Pres. By RONALD R. HARRINGTON Sect'y MADERA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION AGENCY By HAROLD BAIMAT -..C.h.a"i,rm::a:n; -::~:::;:::::--~-------- Board of Directors ATTEST: EVELYN C. BRANSTETTER (SEAL) ief±A~ Clerk, Board of Dlrectors By VARnA PEZALIA Deputy Clerk -4­ 50 1 4 L .... . ~ l ~ . : . # . . . 1 . · .I1..'. "l_:'.\ ~ J. ) J 1 ,. " .. 7 ""'.'1-. ')• 7 !I.~~~"["lC~.r to CJ::,ocl.,te r.nid contract. 8 Tl.r­ foregoing lteDohltion Has adopted this 7th day of 9 ~ril __' 1970. by the follC!:Jing vote: 10 Director Sc1unit3 voted: l.'ES 11 Director n~lF~t vot~d: 12 Director Del BinncD voted: YES 13 Director tlcui:cld voted: YES 14 nirector Corm:cll voted: YES 15 H.l\nOLD EiAu.mT 16 Cl~~iJ.,.:.J.n 17 eo~rd of Directors 18 ATTEST: 19 20 21 VArlDA PEZALL.~ 22 ueputy CierI, 23 The foregoing instrument 1a a correct copy of tho original on file in this 24 office. 25 1\ttel3t'-­ A=p:.r.:::1~1c....:::9.L. -:1970 . EVEL1!N C. BRANSTETTER 26 County Clerk.end Clerlt of tile Board of n1rectoro, Madera County Flood 27 Control nnd Water Consorvation Agency in and for the·Cou...ty· of Hadara. State 28 of Cal _ ::: 11.'\ 29 30 31 32 51 EXTRACT Fi' 25 "AGENCY" ATTEST: 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 -4 ­ 56 .­ __ ,-----,~------_. :..r J.\"lt: (\l.- I ~,'\Lii':l)(n'JI!\ TH[-.: Hr.::)l::l. ir~~ l~'_; :",i .~:~: !t. "', ARNOLD SCHWAI{ithyo~;t2~eYf3IQPyourpathforward; Please contact Ms. Meegan N~gy; Acting Chief, Operations"Teehni!Za!Seotion at (916) 557-7257 for any questions or concerns. . .......i Attachments ------- - 63 .-­ 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF MADERA Mtl.Dl!.&\ cour-'J.'y aOV!lU'~,U.iJ'ol1 CE:-.Ilat :l.OO 4>'>1 S'tREBl'. MAUE.lU, CAllPOIl.!'lIA ~363i' MTIMIW'.IlS 01, 111H !lOARD '~:'o:l9;' ~)5-7100 i J'AX ~559J t>73-Htrl/ 'n)l~ {55~) 615-~nu F'MJ'K J31GaDW V!iR),I MOSS ~O~l'I DOMI~ICI !\ofAX ROOJHGU l!:l roM WTTF.F.T .ER RECEIVED JM~ 28 2008 JaLuary 22, 2C08 fIIADERA COUNlY GRAND JURY The H:on01:'abl~ Joh~). DeGL'ooL Presiding Judge Madera county .sup~r; or ~ou:rr_ 209 WeBt Yosemite Avenue Madera, California 93637 Subject: Response to the 2007-08 Grand Jury Final Report on the "Great Wall of Coar8egold.'· Dear HonQrable Jc..dge De3root.: In accordance with ~enal Code Section 933, the Madera Cour-ty Board of Su~~rvi~ors s~bnits tr-is respo~8e to the Fi~al RepQr~ of :.he Grand Jury. The Grand Jury has requested a response to RccommcnootioTIs in ~he. 200?-~B Madera County Grand ~ury Fina: ~eport on the --Great Wall of Coarge~old." (See Attachment #1). The follow~ng are t~e Grand J~ryls recommendations within their ~inal ~eport, and t~e Board'a response to eac~ recomnendaticn: Grand Jury RecommQndation #1 Violations at any projec:. t~at do ~ct conforrr to County bui. 1ding code:,:" :::JI; ~-rl;d ::.ag~ed I I dnd enfoI.-c.:ed iTI~ediately i= t~e ~~Not~ce to Comply" goes i~nored_ Grand Jury Recommendation #2 Enforcement of penalties and fine~ fo~ continued vi ..-:: 1at. i em of 11\11.1ding codes ~~hDUl d be in pIace _ Page -1­ 71 n3 arand Jury Recommendation Levy adtitional cnargee again8~ repea~ vio:ators fro cx~cnseG incu~~ed ~~ ~ rea~lt of frequent ~n8pections and admin~s~~ative co~ts. Gr~~~ Jury Recommendation #4 I~ pe~lmits expire, p~ojects ca~~ct go ignored withcut red flags being raise~. A means to monitor on a regular basis must be in place to ass~re no further activiLy Lak.es p':'9ce on site until. a resol1,;.t~on has be~n react-Ed. Grand Jury Recommendation ~5 Require all activity; inzluding violations and correspo~dence. be ~eported on the POSS3 program as a :::-eferencc 3"U1 dF. frn:- any quet-:;Lians. wh':'ch ma..y arise. Grand JuEY Recommendation #6 In the future, all Cou~ty buildi~q inGpec~ors and per8o::.~el of the RV..1'l. Bt'_ould be requi:::::ed to continually reV~eW ?OSSE changes a~~ upgrades as it relates ~o any given project .. GraDd Jury Recommendation #7 Cour.ty must put in place a follcw-up system that will insun~ GOrltrf,l"t.lI., -. Rt..ipul<'l::ioT_5 ~mC'h as additi~nal letters of c;l;edit ar:e ~C)[:l.pliec. wiLh. In Lh..is cage, none exist~~, resu~ting ~n the failu~e to mon~tor and obtain ~hc second letter of credit. for $1.00, C·OO. Bad ::.11i6 been closely monitored. irrnediate ac~ion ::o".1ld have bee~ taken =e8~lting i~ either pay~e~t or cancel~~g the contractua~ agreement. Board of supervisors' Response to Grand Jury ReCODlllleDdatiQnl:! ~he respo~ses of ~he Director of the Resource Management Agency Plunning Dep~rtmcnt ~o the above Paye -2­ ---------- 72 ~eccQmendations are considered appropriate and is subrn~t~ed as the Board of Supervisors' respo~se to t.hese Recornnendat.i ons. (See A.t.tachmcr_t. 1+2) Sincerely, Ro~n DCF.,inicl Chuirrnun Madera County 30ard of Supervisors Attachl.lenta Page -3­ -------------- 73 ATTACHMENT #2 ~ESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY ~~r~C~ve'andA~p.nue .>;~;1 t~;~;:7~621 " PLANNING DEPARTMENT .> <~ FAX {56!.!! 675·6573 ;} Rayburn Beach Director TDD f5l:i9} 675-8970 i'~'~' l MC...pIannlng@l'1arkra.o:luroL~·.CM1 ~.~~;~~~; ----­ DATE: December 19, 2007 TO: Stan Koehler Assistant Administrative Officer 4h FROM: RayBaach RMNPJarminitSirector SUBJECT: Grand Jury Report - "Great Wall at Coarsegold" I have revIewed the 2007-08 Grand Jury final report concernlng the "Great Wal' of Coarsegold" and have tl1a following response: The 2007M08 M.adera Counly Grand Jury Anal Report - "Great Wall ofCoarsegold" Grand Jury Recommendation #1 VioJations at any project that do not conform to County building codes, be "red tagged~ and enforced immediately if the ~Noth:::e to Comply" goes ignored. RMA Response to the Grand JUlY #1 RMA's current procedures fmptement the Grand Jury's recommendations. A policy is currently in place fur Stop Work Orders and ViolaMn Investigations. This is referred to as P&P #106. (See attached) . . . When a red tag is posted all the property, a red flag is entered into Posse. After 30 days a certified retter is sent to the property owner concerning the red tag. If the property owner does not contact RMA within another 30 days, the red tag is folWard ed to codeenforcementforaction. Grand JUry Recommendation #2 Et1foroement of penalties and fines for continued violation of bU.ifding codE!'s shou'd be in place. RMA Respopse to the GrnndJun' #2 The RMA currently enforces penalties and fjnes for continued violation of building codes. ~~-'-'--"'------ 74 Currently, investigative fees are in place for praje~ts started without permits. This is also known as double fees. Basrca.lly, we double the permit fees before the approved plans are Issued. See P&P # 106. Code Enforcement has a policy based on Madera County Code chapter 8.01 which stipulates the administrative citations and penalties which are currently el1forced. See attached. Grand Jyry Recommendation #3 Levy addit~onal charges against repeat violators for expenses incurred as a result of frequent inspections and administrative costs. RMA RespOnse to the Grand Jury #3 RMA currently has processes for implementing [he Grand JUry's
• CL5
  Waste comes into the facility at 341,000 gallons per day flow rate, and is put through a screen to separate out solids.
• CL6
  It is then pumped through a collection splitter to further separate the solids.
• CL7
  From the splitter it goes into sludge pools and into the in~tank aerators.
• CL8
  From the aerators it goes to the digesters.
• CL9
  It is then pumped from the digesters to a belt filter press to compact the sludge so that it can be stored more easily. This sludge is hauled away at the facility's expense to the Fairmead Landfill where it can be dumped for free. The rate is approximately 32 tons per day.
• CL10
  Fluids left from the press are then pumped up into a holding pond, gravity fed down and chlorinated.
• CL11
  The chlorinated water is then once again pumped uphill about 1 mile away and is used to irrigate some 80 acres for grazing land. There are also 2 ponding basins at the Oakhurst site; one at 100 acre feet, and one at 49 acre feet. These basins are there to handle any overages or extra waste that may come in. The Grand Jury also toured the Goldside lift station. It has been operational since the year 2000, The Homeowners Association for the area that they service governs this lift station and the other lift stations. The "fmal decisions" must also pass through the Madera County Board of Directors and the Board of Supervisors. These lift stations have their own facility for the number of homes they service and the flow rate of approximately 20,000 gallons per day based on 120 homes. These sites are run on generator power and have an automatic call-out system at each site should any problems occur. The process is much the same at all of the lift.stations, and the Grand Jury learned that the water after it is chlorinated at the Goldside location is sprayed onto the golf course that is located within it's community. CONCLUSION: The Oakhurst Water Treatment Facility is merely the "home" for a total of 48 different and individual facilities. The Grand Jury leamed there is far too much work for the four individuals who are employed there. In fact, the Grand Jury found that unless more staff is incorporated the newly built Oakhurst facility will begin to deteriorate rather quickly as there are not enough personnel to keep up the maintenance of the newequipment. The four employees do an outstanding job and with a few more employees they can do . nothing more than excel. The people that they serve should be very proud of these four individuals! 204
• CL12
  The 2006-2007 Madera County Grand Jury recommends that every effort be made to implement some new employees as soon as possible, including a state certified lab tech.
• CL13
  That there be a maintenance schedule made and followed to insure that all equipment and machinery is ruMing effectively and efficiently at all times.
• CL14
  That future Grand Jury members visit the facilities to insure that these
• CL15
  209 DEPARTMENT RESPONSE • RMA • PLANNING RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY • 2037 W. aeveland Avenue
• CL16
  Madera, CA 93637 "~~.~~~ • (559) 675-7821 Planning Department • FAX (559) 675-6573
• CL17
  It>O (559) 675-8970 CI'.~ ..\~" • [email protected] u " Raybum Beach, Planning Director DATE: May 21,2007 TO: Stanley Koehler Chief Assistant Administrative Officer FROM: Rayburn Beach RMA Director/Planning Directo RE: Final Report -DRAFT Grand Jury Recommendation # 1 "A thorough investigation and report by the I.T. Director and RMA Director be made to the Board of Supervisors identifying any deficiencies of use and how they will be resolved." This recommendation had already been implemented. The Resource ManagementAgency and Information Technology submitted a joint report to the Board of Supervisors detailing the analysis and findings. Ongoing evaluation of POSSE functions, as it pertains to RMA business functions and constituent requirements, will continue indefinitely. Written reports to the Board of Supervisors will be submitted as needed. Grand Jury Recommendation # 2 "1.T. should hold scheduled training sessions to keep employees current in use to assure effective utilization of the POSSE program." This recommendation has been implemented. Training on POSSE began April 2007, and will continue on a regular basis. Grand Jury Recommendation # 3 "RMA Department Heads, I.T. Analyst set in place monthly meetings to communicate current and future issues of concern and how to resolve." This recommendation has already been implemented and is ongoing. 210 DEPARTMENT RESPONSE ­ INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT 200 W. 4TH STREET PHONE (559) 661-5267 MADERA, CALIFORNIA 93637-3548 FAX (559) 675-4965 MEMORANDUM DATE: Monday, April 30,2007 TO: Stanley Koehler Chief Assistant Administrative Officer FROM: Robert Connal ~ Director of Information Technology Department RE: Response to Grand Jury 2006-07 Final Report Included in this Grand Jury report are responses to recommendations 1-3. Grand Jury Recommendation # 1 "A thorough investigation and report by the I. T. Director and RMA Director be made to the Board of Supervisors identifying any deficiencies of use and how they will be resolved." This recommendation has been implemented. Subsequent to the implementation of POSSE in the Resource Management Agency, and prior to the recommendation of the Grand Juries final report, a comprehensive analysis into the POSSE implementation was commissioned by the Board of Supervisors. At that time the Board of Supervisors directed the Information Technology Department and Resource Management Agency to perform the analysis and report findings to the Board of Supervisors once complete. A joint report was presented to the Board of Supervisors on January 10th 2006. In addition, a joint follow up report was made to the Board of Supervisors on October 31 51, 2006. This report outlined deficiencies of use with recommendations on how to resolve the issues identified. Grand Jury Recommendation # 2 "/. T. should hold scheduled training sessions to keep employees current in use to assure effective utilization oftha POSSE program." 211 This recommendation has been Implemented. The Information Technology Department in conjunction with the Resource Management Agency began formulating Informal training requirements In June, 2006. In December 2006 formal training coordination began, with the first training session occurring in April 2007. The training program has and will be comprised of two broad areas of concern. The first Is training relating to specific permit work flow enhancements and changes which will be conducted on an as needed basis. The second is training for new Resource Management Agency employees, and will be conducted on an as needed basis. This training will Incorporate basic as well as advanced user training. Both training categories are designed specifically to keep employees current, and to assure effective utilization of the POSSE program. Grand Jury Recommendation #3 'IRMA Department Heads, I. T. Analyst set in place monthly meetings to communicate current and future issues of concern and how to resolve." This recommendation has been implemented. Representatives from the Resource Management Agency, and Information Technology began meeting jointly in March, 2004 and were on-going until approximatel~ Mid-2007 when the two groups jointly agreed to cease the meetings. On December 8 2006 the meetings were re-started and have been on-going since that date. These meetings are designed to communicate current and future issues of concern and include information on how to resolve those concerns. ------ ------------------ 212
• CL18
  The Grand Jury found that 'Madera Ranch Inc.' represented itself as a bona fide California corporation to the Madera County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors 178 " when, in fact, the corporate entity had become invalid. With misinformation, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors entered into an agreement with the owners of 'Madera Ranch, Inc.', allowing it to commence operation of a rock quarry. The corporate entity originally known as 'Madera Ranch Inc.' was changed to 'Madera Quarry, Inc.' on March 29, 2006, yet the applicant did not disclose this to the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors, EIR agencies or citizens of Madera County unti I after approval of the application. This approval by the Planning Commission, the resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors and all documentation required to approve this project remained in the name of an entity that did not exist until January 2,2007, at which time a name change was approved in the form of a contract amendment. The entire process from application to certification was completed in the name of a corporation that did not exist.

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.