Riverside County Grand Jury • 1999-2000

Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District*

Published: December 06, 1999 2 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 6 findings

F1
Following the December 6, 1999, board meeting, five senior employees resigned. Additionally, three senior supervisory employees were laid off in February 2000, due to a reorganization.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
In February 1998, an inspection of the Upper Edgar Reservoir revealed that the 500,000-gallon water tank had not been inspected, properly maintained, or cleaned in many years. There were dead rodents, leaves, pine needles, and other debris detected. Also, there was an oily film floating on the surface of the water. Following cleaning, the inspection/cleaning team suggested that the reservoir be inspected again in 2001.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
The Board of Directors passed a budget measure in the summer of 1999 allowing for the construction of a new 1.2 million-gallon reservoir. In December 1999, or early January 2000, the board rescinded the previous approval of the 1.2 million-gallon tank and approved a smaller 750 thousand gallon tank. A larger tank is necessary in order to allow for both growth and fire fighting within the Edgar Canyon.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
At the present time, there are both an 8-inch and a 3-inch water line running directly under two homes within the district which is in violation of State Codes and County Ordinances. There have been breaks in the water lines in the yards of both homes. This is a potentially dangerous situation, since the water lines are over twenty years old and could break at anytime.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Funds have been used indiscriminately to cover obligations. There are no reserves or operating budget on the books, meaning that there is basically only a General Fund.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
On January 15, 2000, a proposed operating budget for the year 2000, with projected income of $2,408,000 and operating expenses of $1,902,000, was approved.
No recommendations for this finding

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.