Mendocino County Grand Jury
• 2005-2006
• Agency Response
Water, Water Everywhere, but... Mendocino County Water Districts Report May 4, 2006
⚠️ 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 37 findings
F1
There are some 20 agencies, including Special Districts, involved with water resources within the entire County. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding. Response (Interim CEO): The Interim Chief Executive Officer agrees with this finding. Response (Water Agency): The Water Agency agrees with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The Ukiah Valley and Potter Valley (UV/PV) area alone has nine Mendocino County water agencies and/or special districts. They are: City of Ukiah Calpella County Water District Mendocino County Water Agency (CWD) (MCWA) Millview CWD Mendocino County Inland Water and Potter Valley Irrigation District (PVID) Power Commission (IWPC) Redwood Valley CWD Russian River Flood Control and Willow CWD Water Conservation District (RRFCWCD) In addition there are a number of private water companies; the largest is the Rogina Water Company. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding. Response (Interim CEO): The Interim Chief Executive Officer agrees with this finding. Response (Water Agency): The Water Agency agrees with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
In accordance with the Mendocino County Water Agency Act, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) acts as the Board of Directors for MCWA, and to the extent that the BOS may deem expedient or economical, MCWA is charged “to control flood and storm waters and other waters within the District [County] and the flood waters of streams outside the District, which flow into the District; to conserve such waters by storage in surface reservoirs, to divert and transport such waters for of 13 uses within the District; to release such waters from surface reservoirs to replenish and augment the supply of waters in natural underground reservoirs and otherwise to reduce the waste of water and to protect life and property from floods within the District; and to do any and every lawful act necessary to be done that sufficient water may be available for any present or future beneficial use or uses of the lands or inhabitants within the district…” (California Water Code, §54-3.q) Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding. Response (Interim CEO): The Interim Chief Executive Officer agrees with this finding. Response (Water Agency): The Water Agency agrees with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
MCWA operates with a full-time equivalent staff of 2.8 persons. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding. Please see the response provided by the Water Agency. Response (Interim CEO): The Interim Chief Executive Officer agrees with this finding. Please see the response provided by the Water Agency. Response (Water Agency): The Water Agency agrees with this finding and notes that shortly after the Grand Jury report was released on May 4, 2006 the Water Agency’s full-time equivalent staff was increased to 3.0 persons.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The City of Ukiah, RRFCWCD, PVID and Redwood Valley CWD comprise the Joint Powers Agency (JPA) that makes up IWPC.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
RRFCWCD does not physically provide water directly to any individual user.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
RRFCWCD wholesales water to water providers and agriculturists for beneficial use within the Ukiah Valley, but not Potter Valley.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
Current water agencies/special districts in the UV/PV area originated as a result of an unplanned and uncoordinated history of water events, local and distinctly separate community and neighborhood interests, needs and demands. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors can neither agree nor disagree with this finding as it does not have sufficient information. Response (Interim CEO): The Interim Chief Executive Officer can neither agree nor disagree with this finding as it does not have sufficient information. Response (Water Agency): The Water Agency has no information or belief sufficient to agree with or contradict this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Continual growth and development, together with increased population demands, have resulted in some overlap of interests, influence and competition between various UV/PV area water districts. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors can neither agree nor disagree with this finding as it does not have sufficient information. Response (Interim CEO): The Interim Chief Executive Officer can neither agree nor disagree with this finding as it does not have sufficient information. Response (Water Agency): The Water Agency has no information or belief sufficient of 13 agree with or contradict this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
State law and codes that mandate the organization and structure of water agencies/special districts are involved and complex. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding. Response (Interim CEO): The Interim Chief Executive Officer agrees with this finding. Response (Water Agency): The Water Agency agrees with this finding, the formation of a water agency or special district typically requires professional expertise in law and occasionally other disciplines.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
Water districts are largely autonomous and governed by elected boards of directors serving a specific defined geographical area and population. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding. Response (Interim CEO): The Interim Chief Executive Officer agrees with this finding. Response (Water Agency): The Water Agency agrees with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
Unification or consolidation of water districts, a complex process, requires that all parties or districts concerned must approve such action. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding. Response (Interim CEO): The Interim Chief Executive Officer agrees with this finding. Response (Water Agency): The Water Agency agrees with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
Except for the City of Ukiah, accurate measurement and/or metering of water usage (industrial, agricultural, and residential) within most water districts varies widely. Currently, it is not possible to know exactly how much water is actually being used in the UV/PV area because of the multiple systems of accountability in use, as well as a degree of undocumented use.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
The amount of water used by many water purveyors is known and available from those required to file Statement of Use with State Water Resource Control Board (WRCB). Reporting has been haphazard, with no current consequence for non- compliance.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
RRFCWCD is currently operating under a Cease and Desist Order from WRCB over questions about water usage measurement.
No recommendations for this finding
F16
Users with riparian rights, those whose property is immediately contiguous to a water source, are required to file a Statement of Use with WRCB. The requirement to report is currently not enforced, and many do not file. Currently, there is no requirement to report usage locally.
No recommendations for this finding
F17
Projections of population growth and development within the County and specifically the UV/PV area, indicate that continued availability of adequate water resources will be problematic. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding. Response (Interim CEO): The Interim Chief Executive Officer agrees with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F18
Increased demand for potable water within UV/PV area would require of 13 new water sources, conservation of existing sources, and the construction of new treatment, storage or supply facilities. Construction of these facilities could have significant environmental effects. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding. Response (Interim CEO): The Interim Chief Executive Officer agrees with this finding. Response (Water Agency): The Water Agency agrees with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F19
The majority of UV/PV area water districts have adequate emergency and water management plans for responding to local emergencies, such as power outages, local and system-wide contamination, and/or distribution interruptions. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors can neither agree nor disagree with this finding as it does not have sufficient information. Response (Interim CEO): The Interim Chief Executive Officer can neither agree nor disagree with this finding as it does not have sufficient information. Response (Water Agency): The Water Agency has no information or belief sufficient to agree with or contradict this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F20
Except for the City of Ukiah, the plans of most UV/PV area water districts for responding to earthquakes and multi-year droughts are marginal to non-existent. Response (Water Agency): The Water Agency has no information or belief sufficient to agree with or contradict this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F21
New contracts for water from RRFCWCD require agencies and individuals using its water to develop water conservation programs. To date, this requirement has not been enforced by RRFCWCD. Response (Water Agency): The Water Agency has no information or belief sufficient to agree with or contradict this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F22
While there may be some arrangements between various water districts for water sharing, there is no official comprehensive plan or legal agreement among water districts for sharing water resources. Response (Water Agency): The Water Agency has no information or belief sufficient to agree with or contradict this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F23
The Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) and the Inland Water and Power Commission (IWPC), the local sponsoring agency, are studying methods to improve flood control and increase water storage for the UV/PV area. Response (Water Agency): The Water Agency agrees with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F24
The Coyote Valley Dam Feasibility Study will consider various options for increasing water supplies and storage. Raising the water level behind Coyote Dam or raising the dam itself are two of those options. Response (Water Agency): The Water Agency agrees with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F25
ACE has completed its initial Reconnaissance Study and is prepared to proceed with the next phase of the Coyote Valley Dam Feasibility Study, which will of 13 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses. Response (Water Agency): The Water Agency agrees with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F26
The current cost for the complete Coyote Valley Dam Feasibility Study is estimated to be approximately $6,000,000 and will take five or more years to complete; $3,000,000 of that cost will consist of local matching funds. Response (Water Agency): The Water Agency agrees with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F27
In the past, nearly $300,000 in ACE’s annual appropriations for the Study have been lost due to local entities’ inability to furnish the required matching funds. Response (Water Agency): The Water Agency agrees with this finding. Because no contractual agreement between a local sponsor and the ACE existed, the local entities could not furnish the required matching funds.
No recommendations for this finding
F28
In fiscal year 2006-2006, the Federal government has appropriated $100,000 to ACE for the next phase of the Coyote Valley Dam Feasibility Study, anticipating $100,000 of local matching funds. This appropriation will expire September 30, 2006 if local monies are not forthcoming. Response (Water Agency): The Water Agency agrees with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F29
While Redwood Valley CWD has not committed to the project, three of the four members of IWPC (City of Ukiah, RRFCWCD and PVID) are currently negotiating financial participation relationships and funding availability for the Coyote Valley Dam Feasibility Study, under critical time constraints. Qualification for Federal funds will depend upon successful completion of these negotiations. Response (Water Agency): The Water Agency has no information or belief sufficient to agree with or contradict this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F30
Funding for development and construction costs for the potential project coming out of the Coyote Valley Dam Feasibility Study, would consist of 75% from the Federal government and 25% local monies. Total costs are estimated to be in excess of $150 million. Response (Water Agency): The Water Agency has no information or belief sufficient to agree with or contradict this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F31
State, Federal, and local laws deal with environmental issues, water supply, water quality, and water rights, utilization and distribution. Response (Water Agency): The Water Agency agrees with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F32
RRFCWCD, ACE, and the Sonoma County Water agency (SCWA) are currently undertaking a Section 7 Consultation with NOAA-Fisheries to evaluate the effects of existing and proposed operation and maintenance activities (SCWA’s “Water Supply and Transmission System Project”) on the Russian River on listed salmonid species. Response (Water Agency): The Water Agency agrees with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F33
Agencies outside Mendocino County influencing decisions regarding UV/PV area water resources include: of 13 Sonoma County Water Agency Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) (SCWA) National Marine Fisheries Services, California Water Resources Control (NOAA-Fisheries) Board (WRCB) State and Federal courts California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) California Department of Health Services (DHS) Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding. Response (Interim CEO): The Interim Chief Executive Officer agrees with this finding. Response (Water Agency): The Water Agency agrees with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F34
There is universal agreement that the most efficient, inexpensive and environmentally sensitive method to increase water availability is to reduce demand through conservation. Response (Water Agency): The Water Agency partially agrees with this finding. While it may generally be true that the most efficient, inexpensive and environmentally sensitive method to increase water availability is to reduce demand through conservation, there may be instances, albeit rare, when conservation is not the most inexpensive method to increase water availability. Accordingly, the Water Agency proposes the following finding: “It is generally acknowledged that the most efficient, inexpensive and environmentally sensitive method to increase water availability is to reduce demand through conservation”.
No recommendations for this finding
F35
The authority and ability of the Board of Supervisors (BOS) to directly affect water resource policy is limited by statute and the nature of the autonomous organizational character of County Water Districts. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees in part with this finding. While the ability of the BOS to influence water resources management decisions by individual water districts – decisions pertaining to district operations – is limited, the BOS believes that existing State statute, such as the Mendocino County Water Agency Formation Act, does in fact provide the BOS with sufficient authority to formulate and implement county-wide water resources management policy. Response (Interim CEO): The Interim Chief Executive Officer agrees in part with this finding. Please see the response provided by the Board of Supervisors.
No recommendations for this finding
F36
There is in existence a Mendocino County Service Area #3 which has jurisdiction over the entire county. The BOS acts as its Board of Directors. Created in the 1950’s and last activated in 1991, it has been inactive and non-operational in recent years. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding. Response (Interim CEO): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding. Response (Water Agency): The Water Agency has no information or belief sufficient to agree with or contradict this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F37
The BOS has the authority to allocate monies for water projects within the County. of 13 Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding. Response (Interim CEO): The Interim Chief Executive Officer agrees with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
Comments 1
-
CO1Historically, instead of using a unified consensual approach, various County Water Districts have been embroiled in continual squabbles and infighting, petty territorial and philosophical conflicts, and competition, typically without accomplishing any meaningful results except to generate extraordinarily high legal costs for all involved. Strategic planning must be done now rather than waiting until a crisis develops. The process of developing new supplies in the face of ever increasing demand will be difficult and time-consuming, especially if there is a material decrease in imports from the Eel River Diversion. Additionally, the potential impact of a typical multi-year drought, as well as outside restrictions on Russian River water use, requires immediate and serious attention to both short and long range strategies. The Municipal Service Review of the Ukiah Valley/Russian River Watershed currently being written for the Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) may shed more light on the issues of water resources in the UV/PV area. A properly organized, single entity dealing with UV/PV area water issues can provide the appropriate direction and leadership for smaller independent agencies and special districts to follow in addressing and solving mutual water problems. There must be a top-down political will to accomplish any multi-agency unification among the various agencies and special districts, with the assistance of LAFCO. The agencies and special districts must be committed to the benefits of unification and consensus. Agencies and special districts should retain their individual water rights even as they work together. The BOS needs to play a pivotal role in the development of this Mendocino County Grand Jury 2005-2006 Page 12 of 13 political will and consensus among the diverse independent water entities within UV/PV. Beyond that, citizen involvement and engagement in development of this political will is equally essential. Because water development, improvement and infrastructure require large financial resources, a unified entity can better provide the financial leadership needed to negotiate with financial institutions about bond issues, as well as to negotiate with political groups and elected officials concerning revenues. Outside entities such as several State and Federal agencies, ACE and SCWA require an effective County negotiator. A single unified entity would provide a coherent and knowledgeable negotiating force.