📋
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.

Score: 0 (1/0/1)
Contra Costa County Grand Jury • 2015-2016

Compliance and Continuity Committee Review of 2014-2015 Reports 1601

Published: June 17, 2016 350 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 14 findings

F1 Page 46
With the exception of Community and non-Community wells, the County is not
F2 Page 46
Improperly maintained wells or wells that are located too close to surface
F3 Page 46
Improperly abandoned wells or undocumented wells can threaten groundwater
F4 Page 46
The lack of a comprehensive and readily accessible County database of wells
F5 Page 46
EHD and the County Assessor can access DWR well log data, water district
F6 Page 46
Residents of the County who live in disadvantaged communities are more likely to
F7 Page 46
A “Groundwater Advisory Council” may coordinate stakeholders to help achieve the
F8 Page 46
There is insufficient data to confirm either a maximum sustainable withdrawal rate
F9 Page 46
The County can choose to support the formation of GSAs for “low” and “very low”
F10 Page 46
GSAs can be helpful in elucidating how much available groundwater exists
F11 Page 47
Three GSA agencies are in the early stages of formation: one for the East Bay
F12 Page 47
Approximately $100 million has been allocated by Proposition 1 (2014) to
F13 Page 47
Based on historical records and more recent hydrological studies, the City
F14 Page 47
To help establish the Pittsburg Plain basin’s sustainable yield and storage

Recommendations 9

Conclusions 6

Agency Responses 7

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.