Nevada County Grand Jury
• 2003-2004
Wastewater Treatment in Western Nevada County Reason for Investigation Recent local newspaper articles have covered
⚠️ 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: F6
Findings and Recommendations 20 findings
F1
All wastewater treatment plants that discharge to surface waters are issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit that sets specific discharge requirements to ensure protection of public health and water quality. These permits are renewed every five years by the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards. At each renewal, the permit renewal process may incorporate new treatment objectives and discharge regulations that might require upgrades or modifications to the facility.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
In the last year, testing of effluent (output) at wastewater treatment plants within Sanitation District No. 1 has revealed levels of contaminants that exceed CTR water quality criteria.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Regional Water Quality Control Board Orders implement EPA standards and require all treatment plants within Nevada County to meet a higher quality of water discharge to maintain their permits. Current plants will not remove trace contaminants as required by the new standards. Failing to meet discharge requirements may subject the plants to fines.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The LAFCO report indicates that given the current land use patterns and projected growth areas, it is impracticable to have one centralized regional wastewater system within Nevada County.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The report also states that it is inefficient and costly for the wastewater agencies to service projected growth through a series of small “package plants” and agencies/zones as has been done in the past. 6. “Package plants” must also meet the same water quality standards as large plants and, as a result, typically have higher costs and charges for property owners. The government structure is also affected. Since adoption of an ordinance in 1982, Nevada County has required some wastewater systems be operated by a public agency or to annex to an existing public agency. The result has been that either a very small district is formed or annexation to a public agency is required. A majority of the annexations has been to the Nevada County Sanitation District No. 1, which now operates some systems with comparatively few customers.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
The Board of Supervisors should direct the Department of Transportation and Sanitation to address wastewater processing in western Nevada County with a master plan. Efforts to address individual wastewater treatment upgrades that are not cost-effective should be abandoned once the master plan is implemented.
R2
The Board of Supervisors should evaluate the LAFCO report’s recommendation that: “The western Nevada County wastewater agencies should also consider ways to provide regional wastewater services either through an informal group or a long-term, legal arrangement such as a joint powers authority (JPA). Even if existing systems could not be shared, regional services that could be shared or coordinated might include developing approved standards lists, standardizing specifications and drawings, and agreeing on design manuals in order to have a standardized regional system. Wastewater providers could also act as a single unit for lobbying, funding/grant efforts, preparing master plans, and outsourcing services such as engineering, legal services, information services, lab testing, printing, insurance, audits, landscaping, billing, and vehicle purchase/maintenance in order to realize costs savings.”
F7
LAFCO’s report also noted that “package plants” cannot achieve the economies of scale required for efficient and cost-effective processing of wastewater.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
The Board of Supervisors should direct the Department of Transportation and Sanitation to address wastewater processing in western Nevada County with a master plan. Efforts to address individual wastewater treatment upgrades that are not cost-effective should be abandoned once the master plan is implemented.
R2
The Board of Supervisors should evaluate the LAFCO report’s recommendation that: “The western Nevada County wastewater agencies should also consider ways to provide regional wastewater services either through an informal group or a long-term, legal arrangement such as a joint powers authority (JPA). Even if existing systems could not be shared, regional services that could be shared or coordinated might include developing approved standards lists, standardizing specifications and drawings, and agreeing on design manuals in order to have a standardized regional system. Wastewater providers could also act as a single unit for lobbying, funding/grant efforts, preparing master plans, and outsourcing services such as engineering, legal services, information services, lab testing, printing, insurance, audits, landscaping, billing, and vehicle purchase/maintenance in order to realize costs savings.”
F8
The western Nevada County review commissioned by LAFCO estimated the current cost to meet CVB’s discharge requirements for Nevada County Sanitation District No. 1, including only Lake Wildwood, Lake of the Pines, Penn Valley, and Cascade Shores, at over $12 million.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Nevada County Sanitation District No. 1 projected maintenance and capital improvements at a higher cost than LAFCO. The cost for maintenance and capital improvement to meet CVB’s revised standards in Lake Wildwood (LWW), Lake of the Pines (LOP), Penn Valley (PV), North San Juan (NSJ), Cascade Shores (CS), Gold Country (GC), and Mountain Lake Estates (MLE) was estimated in May of 2003 to be in excess of $15 million, and in April of 2004, in excess of $23 million, as shown in the following chart. Estimates for Eden Ranch (ER), Dark Horse (DH), and Higgins Village (HV) were not included in either total. Fiscal All Zones LWW LOP PV NSJ CS GC MLE E D H Total Year R H V 2003/04 $284,592 $317,000 $526,700 $26,006 $5,000 $22,000 $4,000 $3,000 $1,188,298 2004/05 $1,256,515 $782,696 $30,000 $5,000 $78,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,159,211 2005/06 $843,315 $6,758,472 $8,000 $5,000 $429,500 $4,000 $3,000 $8,051,287 2006/07 $5,560,000 $5,974,109 $8,000 $5,000 $229,500 $4,000 $3,000 $11,783,609 Total $284,592 $7,976,830 $14,041,977 $72,006 $20,000 $759,000 $16,000 $12,000 $23,182,405 Source: Nevada County Sanitation District No. 1, April 16, 2004
No recommendations for this finding
F10
The Lake Wildwood Wastewater Treatment Plant currently discharges into Deer Creek, which during many months of the year has little or no flow below the Lake Wildwood Dam. CTR standards must be met at the point of discharge. The consultant’s
No recommendations for this finding
F11
The Lake Wildwood plant must comply with a new discharge permit by 2007. To have facilities constructed and operational by that time, the Nevada County Sanitation District No. 1 projects that it must select a treatment and disposal alternative, establish a new fee structure, start environmental studies and documentation, begin engineering during 2004, and complete design of those facilities by early 2005.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
The current proposal for Lake Wildwood would require a minimum upgrade to the treatment facility and would encapsulate Deer Creek’s flow for much of the year in a pipe at a cost estimated at $5 million. The effluent would be transported around Deer Creek and thus conform to CVB’s current point of discharge rule.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
Lake Wildwood individual sewer charges are projected to increase from $315 to $843 per year in order to comply with CVB’s new requirements.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
The current proposal to meet the long-term needs of Lake of the Pines is to upgrade the treatment plant at its current location. The upgraded facility will discharge year-round to Magnolia Creek but provisions will be made to resume seasonal pastureland dispersal should it become desirable in the future.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
Estimates for sewer charge increases to fund the Lake of the Pines wastewater treatment plant upgrade are not firm at this time. The estimated construction costs to upgrade the Lake of the Pines wastewater treatment plant could cause individual sewer charges to increase from the current $315 to $1035 per year in 2006/07.
No recommendations for this finding
F16
The Cascade Shores wastewater treatment consists of a stream discharge system into Gas Canyon Creek. Built in 1996, it met the effluent discharge requirements then in effect. The wastewater discharge permit is up for renewal and requires the treatment plant be upgraded by 2006 to meet the new CVB requirements. In March 2004, Cascade Shores’ charges increased from $910 to $1795 per year by order of Nevada County Board of Supervisors acting as the Board of Directors of the Sanitation District in ordinance No. SD-46. Proposed disposal options are still being evaluated.
No recommendations for this finding
F17
The County is handing the cost of meeting toxic rule requirements to those communities that have separate water treatment plants.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The Board of Supervisors should vigorously assert their influence with state and federal legislators as to the financial impacts to county residents as cities and counties and especially smaller treatment plants react to meet the more stringent requirements for wastewater treatment.
F18
Nevada County is charging for wastewater treatment improvements on residents' tax bills. The California Attorney General warns that such charges do not have a "direct relationship to property ownership." There is legal uncertainty in the State as to whether such charges constitute a tax increase (forbidden by various propositions) or a permissible fee for service assessment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Board of Supervisors should evaluate alternative ways of recovering the costs of wastewater treatment services, e.g., attaching the charges to water bills as some percentage of water used.
F19
Grant funds were reported by County-employed consultants to be unavailable on September 16, 2003 at a Lake Wildwood community outreach meeting. An article in The Union on November 20, 2001 alluded to an $85,000 grant requested by the Nevada County Resources Conservation District of the David and Lucille Packard Foundation. The grant had been turned down due to a lack of 50 percent matching funds. On January 27, 2003, The Union reported that the Yuba Watershed Council “had received $1.2 million in grants from the $1 billion Clean Water Act passed in 1996.” On March 8, 2003 The Union reported that Nevada City was “applying for a U.S. Department of Agriculture rural development grant” to improve their wastewater treatment plant. The same consultants reported grant funds to be under study on March 9, 2004.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The Board of Supervisors should direct the Department of Transportation and Sanitation to seek out grant money to assist in meeting the challenges facing the County with renewal of treatment plant permits.
F20
Funding to meet these requirements is unbudgeted. If the county cannot obtain federal or grant funding, the current plan is to pass on the costs of each project to the property owners served.
No recommendations for this finding
F21
The United States Code, previously cited, states that it is the national policy that Federal financial assistance would be provided for wastewater treatment plant upgrades. CONCLUSIONS
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 5
-
CL1 Page 5The County’s efforts at addressing a solution for the smaller wastewater treatment plants in Sanitation District No. 1 are fragmented and not cost-effective.
-
CL2 Page 5Even if the Lake Wildwood proposal was acceptable to county residents on Deer Creek below Lake Wildwood, there is every possibility that such a discharge, even if Lake Wildwood property owners would approve expending $5 million, would be unacceptable to the CVB in the future given planned and approved major housing developments west of the Nevada County line.
-
CL3 Page 6The current Lake of the Pines proposal is likely to be expensive for property-owners and not at all cost-effective.
-
CL4 Page 6The residents of Cascade Shores, threatened by the CVB with substantial fines, are being penalized with cost increases that are unconscionably high to support one small “package plant.”
-
CL5 Page 6Charges for wastewater treatment applied to residents' tax bills may eventually be found to be an illegal tax increase in the interpretations of Propositions 13, 62, and 218. Thus, Nevada County may be inviting expensive and prolonged litigation.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Nevada County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office