📋
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.
Lake County Grand Jury
• 2020-2021
Civil Grand Jury 2020/2021 We the People We all know these words. They are the introduction to our Constitution which
⚠️ 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 and Recommendations 17 findings
F1
Page 94
Multiple County agencies failed to adequately respond to a serious sewage/pollution spill into the Lake. This lack of response occurred despite assertions of staff that ‘strike teams’ had been established to be deployed when necessary.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Page 96
The Board of Supervisors should direct responsible County departments to fulfill their commitments to ensure the safety of the Lake. (F1)
F2
Page 94
Repeated meetings and communications by the property owners and County departments failed to produce any discernable results or decisions over a 14-month period.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Page 94
The property owners were given, and trustingly accepted, statements and implied assurances by both elected officials and senior County staff. These were, in some cases, unable to be fulfilled because of lack of knowledge of the system procedures; or in other cases by conscious decisions made not supporting those statements and assurances.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Page 96
Commitments from elected officials to the public, even implied ones, should be based on practical procedural realities and a willingness to ensure those commitments are met. (F3, F4)
F4
Page 94
The property owners were misguided into submitting a claim with the County despite the property owners’ several statements of not wishing to do so. The citing of ‘gift of public funds’ was utilized incorrectly as the California State Constitution adds the explanatory language that when the main beneficiary of public funds is a public domain (such as our Lake that all commenting Supervisors stated was their greatest concern), any secondary benefit to an individual shall not be considered cause for prohibition.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Page 96
Commitments from elected officials to the public, even implied ones, should be based on practical procedural realities and a willingness to ensure those commitments are met. (F3, F4)
F5
Page 94
Responsible County staff failed to ensure legal aspects of the claim procedure were being consistently followed by the retained out-of-county service handling claims.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Page 94
Multiple procedural mistakes were made in the processing/notification to the citizen regarding this claim.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Page 94
The initial 3rd party engineering report, despite early assurances, was not made available to the property owner for six months after it was completed. (April 2021)
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Page 96
County departments and staff should be directed to comply with legal requests, and ‘best practices,’ and fulfill commitments in the utilization of publically financed documents. (F7, F8, F9, F10, F12, F13) 96
F8
Page 94
The initial engineering report was revised based on ‘new information’ supplied by the County. This was completed in January 2021. Eight of the ten items of ‘new information’ were deemed unsupported by documentation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Page 96
County departments and staff should be directed to comply with legal requests, and ‘best practices,’ and fulfill commitments in the utilization of publically financed documents. (F7, F8, F9, F10, F12, F13) 96
F9
Page 94
The revised report was made available to the property owners simultaneous to the initial report. (April 2021) 94
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Page 96
County departments and staff should be directed to comply with legal requests, and ‘best practices,’ and fulfill commitments in the utilization of publically financed documents. (F7, F8, F9, F10, F12, F13) 96
F10
Page 95
Four months after the issue had been extensively discussed in an open Board of Supervisors meeting, it was then – multiple times – brought back to the Board in closed sessions (in December 2020) under two California Government Code references – one of which (i.e. “significant exposure to litigation”) does follow procedures expected in review/discussion of any filed claim –and the second (i.e. “threat of litigation”) being incorrect and potentially misleading to the Board members.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4
Page 96
County staff, when dealing with claims, should provide the Board members with accurate and complete information to allow them to make informed and deliberative decisions. (F10, F11)
R5
Page 96
County departments and staff should be directed to comply with legal requests, and ‘best practices,’ and fulfill commitments in the utilization of publically financed documents. (F7, F8, F9, F10, F12, F13) 96
F11
Page 95
The Board members were not informed that there had separately been an initial report and then a subsequent revision; nor did they know the circumstances (additional County inputs) leading to the revision and supplemental conclusions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Page 96
County staff, when dealing with claims, should provide the Board members with accurate and complete information to allow them to make informed and deliberative decisions. (F10, F11)
F12
Page 95
A County department initially failed to provide to the Grand Jury documents, which, per the California Penal code, the Grand Jury has the right and the responsibility to inspect.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5
Page 96
County departments and staff should be directed to comply with legal requests, and ‘best practices,’ and fulfill commitments in the utilization of publically financed documents. (F7, F8, F9, F10, F12, F13) 96
R7
Page 97
rd Party independent engineering reports (both original and revised). (F12, F13, F15, F15, F16, F17) Request for Responses: Pursuant to Penal Code section 933(c), the following responses are required: Board of Supervisors (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6) (90 days) 97 98 99 100 101 102
F13
Page 95
County Counsel initially advised the County department to not provide the documents pending a review. If such a review was actually accomplished, no results of that review were provided to the Grand Jury by either County Counsel or the County department.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5
Page 96
County departments and staff should be directed to comply with legal requests, and ‘best practices,’ and fulfill commitments in the utilization of publically financed documents. (F7, F8, F9, F10, F12, F13) 96
R7
Page 97
rd Party independent engineering reports (both original and revised). (F12, F13, F15, F15, F16, F17) Request for Responses: Pursuant to Penal Code section 933(c), the following responses are required: Board of Supervisors (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6) (90 days) 97 98 99 100 101 102
F14
Page 95
By eight months after the extended Board meeting presentation and the required submission of a claim by the County, the only ‘compromise’ proposal proffered to the property owners had all responsibility assigned to Park A for financing and work based on a complicated set of criteria and including potential financial assistance that would be in violation of County departmental rules. (ergo, unlikely to actually be approved.)
No recommendations for this finding
F15
Page 95
The proffered ‘compromise’ hinged on statements that the lateral entered into the main sewer line at a 90° angle. There is no supporting evidence (industry standards, construction documentation, direct video examination by the county) to indicate that is factual. Visual inspection and reporting by the commercial firm retained for the April 9, 2019 spill by the property owner directly refutes that notion.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
Page 97
rd Party independent engineering reports (both original and revised). (F12, F13, F15, F15, F16, F17) Request for Responses: Pursuant to Penal Code section 933(c), the following responses are required: Board of Supervisors (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6) (90 days) 97 98 99 100 101 102
F16
Page 95
While no other ‘major spill’ has occurred at the specific site since April 2019, based on significantly reduced rainfall (which can be a large contributing factor) it is possible another occurrence could happen if circumstances alter significantly in the upcoming years. 95
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
Page 97
rd Party independent engineering reports (both original and revised). (F12, F13, F15, F15, F16, F17) Request for Responses: Pursuant to Penal Code section 933(c), the following responses are required: Board of Supervisors (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6) (90 days) 97 98 99 100 101 102
F17
Page 96
The State documented 15,000 gallons of raw sewage entered the Lake. This occurred during the 24-hour period between the first reporting of the leak to the County department and the completion of the State inspection and report. Water usage by Park A averaged less than 3000 gallons a day (established by water bills) and an assumed equal amount is expected for similar sized Park B. The combined 6,000 gallons per day is significantly short of the 15,000 gallons documented. Raw sewage from the main system had to be ‘back flowing’ into the lateral and became the largest percentage of the material entering the Lake.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
Page 97
rd Party independent engineering reports (both original and revised). (F12, F13, F15, F15, F16, F17) Request for Responses: Pursuant to Penal Code section 933(c), the following responses are required: Board of Supervisors (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6) (90 days) 97 98 99 100 101 102
Additional Recommendations 2
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R3Page 96A procedural review and periodic independent inspections should be conducted of the retained out-of-county arbiter service to ensure full compliance to the California Government Code laws as pertains to claims against the County. As claims are filed with the Board of Supervisors, their responsibility for proper handling does not go away by assigning the task to a staff department. (F5. F6)
-
R6Page 97To forego a new spillage problem occurring, but with deference to the legal complexities surrounding a final resolution, a temporary solution comprised of: a) reclassify the multi-property lateral as ‘public’ pending final outcome (as concluded by the 3rd party independent engineering report.) A sunset date can be placed on this action. b) assign responsibility for dealing with back-ups/overflows of this lateral to the Special Districts that has the equipment and trained staff to deal with such issues. This should be tied to the final outcome. A sunset date can be placed on this action. c) obtain written approval for 24/7 access to the lateral manhole/maintenance opening on Park A property from the property owner. d) a means of stopping backflow leakage from the lateral access point to the affected storm drain (as simple as sized metal plates held in place by sand bags) should be planned and developed for potential future lake pollution occurrences at this site. The County, and – as necessary – the several property owners should work towards a final plan and proposal to be met before the expiration of the sunset date. (F14,