📋
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.
Plumas County Grand Jury
• 2003-2004
Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
⚠️ 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 4 findings
F1
Page 18
Some approved expenditures of the initial installment have not been consistent with stated goals of the SA. Projects not aligned with the goals of the SA have included $10,000 for increasing the capacity of a well owned by the Grizzly Lake Resort Improvement District, $115,000 to the PCFC for the 2003-2004 budget expenditures, $452,000 to repay the general fund for loans to the PCFC for expenditures that had accumulated for several years (These expenditures are being reviewed by DWR).
F2
Page 19
Plumas County has a building permit moratorium in the Sierra Valley. This moratorium can be lifted only after the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) determines that an adequate Sierra Valley flood plain map has been developed.
F3
Page 19
The PCFC has recommended approximately $500,000 be allocated to a Sierra Valley flood plain study to develop a flood plain map of the county's portion of the valley.
F4
Page 19
Some approved expenditures are consistent with the goals of the SA. They include $75,000 for a vegetative management project contracted through Plumas Corporation and approximately $28,000 to develop a strategy document (Feather River Watershed Management Strategy) for using the SA funds.
Recommendations 5
-
R1Page 17The BOS/PCFC avoid the temptation to use the SA funds for projects or activities that offer short fixes but are not consistent with the stated goals. The BOS/PCFC has a unique opportunity to show it can be a responsible steward of these watershed improvement funds. To the extent funds are expended for watershed restoration the more likely business and citizens of Plumas County will receive an environmental and economic benefit.
-
R2Page 17The Sierra Valley flood plain study should not be funded with SA money because it is not in compliance with the goals of that agreement.
-
R3Page 17The BOS/PCFC should utilize the Feather River Watershed Management Strategy as a guide to prioritize and fund projects.
-
R4Page 17The BOS/PCFC seek opportunities to leverage these funds through partnerships with public agencies and private landowners, thereby increasing the benefit to Plumas County.
-
R5Page 17Appropriate use of the SA funds can demonstrate to the SWP that it is economically sound policy to fund additional programs beyond those authorized by the WF.