Mendocino County Grand Jury
• 2009-2010
• Agency Response
Response Form Re: Report Titled: Lobbies, Lawsuits and Legislation Report Dated: June 3, 2010 Response Form Submitted
⚠️ 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: F2, F4, F8
Findings and Recommendations 10 findings
F1
The 2009 NOAA Biological Opinion, SWRCB, MCRRFC, MCIWPC and others, were instrumental in decreasing the water releases from Lake Mendocino. Without this decision the lake would have ended up much lower than it did.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
F‐10 & F‐14. PVID will not relinquish its water rights. The legal ramifications of this recommendation is in question. The MCIWPC is already addressing this issue. The MCLAFCO is to guide special districts, not control and dictate local community services.
F3
The correct description for the Eel River diversion is PG&E Project 77. It was the NMFS 2004 Biological Opinion and RPA that FERC followed and restricted the flows through the project.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The MCRRFC holds the water rights to 8,000 AF in Lake Mendocino.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Agreed. In progress as of 2009 with SCWA, MCIWPC, MCRRFC, the CORPS and others.
F6
Yes, management of Lake Mendocino storage is being reviewed. SWRCB Decision 1610 and the CORPS operational procedures are germane to this issue.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Based on a study performed strictly for the Russian River Watershed from Redwood Valley to Hopland. This is not Countywide value.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
PVID has been building off‐stream storage ponds for frost protection for over 25 years.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
A consolidated voice is already in place. The MCIWPC is a Joint Powers Authority. The possibilities are endless.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
Not true. You can’t compare apples and oranges. The SCWA is mainly concerned with one watershed. PVID effectively manages and budgets for capital improvement projects every year.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
The county currently lacks the funding needed to accomplish a lot of wanted projects. That doesn’t mean they can’t develop a plan to change this.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
The voluntary cooperation between water districts has been shown to work, 2009. The idea that a single outside entity could dictate to PVID how we should manage our water rights within our system, is ludicrous. It would ultimately diminish the level of service to our customers. 14. 15. 16. The MCIWPC is currently consolidating the available expertise that the members have to offer. Special districts are organized to provide specific services to local community needs. The overlapping of district geographical boundaries does not in its self mean an overlap of services. The inference, that Small Special Districts, formed under state law, are incapable of managing their affairs responsibly is out of line. 17. 18. No comment.
No recommendations for this finding