📋
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.
⚠️ 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.
Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F8, F9, F10
Findings and Recommendations 14 findings
F1
Page 1
EH issues permits for Small Public Water Systems
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Page 1
12. EH does not currently have sufficient staff or funding technician and testing done by an accredited labora- to locate and oversee the sealing of abandoned wells. tory.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Page 1
EH employs Registered Environmental Health Spe- cialists as field inspectors. (INVESTIGATIONS: Small Public Water Systems-
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Page 1
EH water samples are tested at the county Public 2000–2001 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT When water is found to be contaminated and unsafe understaffed. EH employs the equivalent of 1.6 full-
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Page 1
would enable EH to fully meet its legal obligation antagonism if more than one regulatory agency has to protect water quality in Yolo County, at a cost of authority over a water system or associated systems, $70,000 a year. if the operator needs different permits from different
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Page 1
17. There were no confirmed cases of illness attributable complaint. to contaminated water in Yolo County in the two years preceding the Grand Jury's investigation.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Page 1
At the time of our investigation, only one formal (INVESTIGATIONS: Yolo County Procurement- training session had been held. 2000–2001 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT The technology the county uses for procurement
No recommendations for this finding
F11
Page 1
EH attempts to verify whether in fact users have been only after at least two consecutive water samples test notified appropriately, but staffing constraints limit negative for contaminants. how much follow-up the department can do. Water sampling must be performed by an accredited 2.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
Page 1
EH does not currently have sufficient staff or funding technician and testing done by an accredited labora- to locate and oversee the sealing of abandoned wells. tory.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
Page 1
At the time of the Grand Jury investigation, EH was
No recommendations for this finding
F14
Page 1
EH lost four employees in 2000 to nearby counties agencies, and if the agencies themselves enforce that can offer better compensation. different standards. EH appears on the whole to
No recommendations for this finding
F15
Page 1
EH's operating budget is $1.3 million; of that total, maintain good working relations with the other agen- 80 percent comes from user fees, 14 percent from cies that have parallel or related authority, but it is the county general fund, and the remainder from possible that more could be done to alleviate the federal grants and state funds. Water user fees bring potential for system operators to misunderstand their the department just over $104,000 a year. obligations and the reasons for them.
No recommendations for this finding
F16
Page 1
EH is legally constrained from raising permit fees. The Grand Jury found no evidence to support the 6.
No recommendations for this finding
F17
Page 1
There were no confirmed cases of illness attributable complaint. to contaminated water in Yolo County in the two years preceding the Grand Jury's investigation.
No recommendations for this finding