“Del Paso ManorWater

The DPMWD has abdicated its mission to “provide safe drinking water in the accordance with California and federal regulations and to maintain a reliable water supply for water consumption and fire protection.” Response to F1. I disagree with the finding. As I articulated in the Introduction, for the period time during which I served on the Board, the District had been taking responsible steps towards infrastructure replacement and had been derailed by a failed 218 in 2017, and a wholesale change in Board majority after the 2018 election. I respectfully defer to the District response to this finding for a more robust explanation.

The DPMWD has deferred action on the District’s 2009 Water Master Plan, the 2011 LAFCO Municipal Service Review, the 2021 HydroScience Strategic Water Solutions Technical Memorandum, and the July 2021 General Manager Final Recommendations Report, all of which outline the urgent need to address the District’s critical infrastructure needs for repair or replacement. Response to F2. I agree in part, and disagree in part, with this finding. During the time in which I served on the DPMWD Board, the District actively pursued the capital infrastructure strategy outlined in the 2009 Water Master Plan. Additionally, the 2011 LAFCO Municipal Service Review indicated that our operations were “adequate.” Given that I was not a member of the Board during the period in which the HydroScience Technical Memorandum, nor during the tenure of the previous General Manager Adam Coyne, I respectfully defer to the District response to this finding for a more robust explanation.

The DPMWD Board of Directors awarded a $56,830.00 contract to HydroScience Strategic Water Solutions, to complete a Water District Master Plan Updated, without officially taking a public re-vote at its December 2020 board meeting to authorize the contract as requested by the Sacramento County District Attorney. Response to F3. I was not a member of the DPMWD Board at this time, so I respectfully defer to the District response to this finding for a more robust explanation.

During its October 20, 2020 general meeting, the DPMWD Board of Directors failed to provide all of the meeting documents in its board packets to the public. Upon request from the public for the materials, the Board president denied their release to the public as required by both the Brown Act and the Public Records Act. Response to F4. I was not a member of the DPMWD Board at this time, so I respectfully defer to the District response to this finding for a more robust explanation.

The DPMWD failed to follow the California State Water Resources Control Board, division of Drinking Water guidance in publicly reporting notable Maximum Contamination Level violations in the required timeframe. Additionally, the DPMWD did not follow the prescribed reporting requirements in the Consumer Confidence Reports (2018, 2019). Response to F5. I was not a member of the DPMWD Board at this time, so I respectfully defer to the District response to this finding for a more robust explanation.

The agendas for the public meetings of the DPMWD Board of Directors have provided inadequate and vague descriptions of the items to be discussed or acted upon at its General and Special meetings. Response to F6. I was not a member of the DPMWD Board at this time, so I respectfully defer to the District response to this finding for a more robust explanation.

The ambiguous agenda item descriptions of the DPMWD Board of Directors meetings violate the intent of the Ralph M. Brown Act, which is designed to properly inform the public of the business to be undertaken at public meetings by public officials and to encourage their participation. Response to F7. I was not a member of the DPMWD Board at this time, so I respectfully defer to the District response to this finding for a more robust explanation.