📋
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.

Mendocino County Grand Jury • 2002-2003

Response: Board of Supervisors

Published: June 30, 2003 1 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 22 findings

F1
CCWD has no water right permits. CCWD's single well is insufficient to meet its demands, and it is out of compliance with State requirements.
F2
With a current storage volume of 250,000 gallons, CCWD is deficient in the amount of water storage necessary to meet California Water Works Standards.
F3
In the past five years, CUUD usage has significantly exceeded its Pre-1949 water rights during the dry season.
F4
Based on water use in the year 2000, CUUD storage is inadequate, amounting to less than 50% of SWRCB requirements.
F5
CUUD is exploring the possibility of using treated wastewater for the Municipal Golf Course, City Parks and the Cemetery District.
F6
There is no backup power for the pumps, the filtration system or the wells with a potential public health risk. A June 2001 compliance order requires that there be no more connections and water use must decline for existing connections.
F7
RRFCD sends water to MCWD in spite of the lack of any contractual agreement.
F8
MCWD sells water to unauthorized users such as CCWD.
F9
MCWD could be subject to a $500 a day fine from SWRCB due to its non-compliance with SWRCB requirements. 23
F10
RVCWD has sidestepped contract law by using non-licensed contractors and putting them on the District payroll.
F11
In 1999, RVCWD was cited by the State Department of Health for using a non-permitted chemical for vegetation removal. When ordered to get rid of the treated water, the water was dispersed into the domestic water lines.
F12
An examination of the financial records at the Redwood Valley Water District headquarters showed that payments for services and materials were made prior to authorization by the RVCWD Board. Payments were made for services not yet rendered.
F13
There is good working relationship in Ft. Bragg between the county’s AC&CD branch office there and private animal shelters.
F14
The City of Ft. Bragg is satisfied with the contracted services with AC&CD.
F15
The practice of AC&CD charging the same animal room and board fees, charged to the public, before releasing an animal to the Humane Societies, seems to be contrary to the mission statement of “care and control”. Humane Societies are charitable institutions with very limited funds.
F16
AC&CD has no pro-active policy for adoption or referral to Humane Societies or other animal rescue agencies.
F17
All citizens may impound, at their own risk and cost, stray cats or dogs and notify AC&CD for pick up.
F18
In order to prosecute animal cruelty cases, there must be at least one witness who is willing to sign a complaint and appear before the court to testify. An officer who witnesses such cruelty can cite the offending person.
F19
The surrender fee to accept an animal is $40.00.
F20
The AC&CD must abide by state regulations for animal care and handling without state appropriations.
F21
The director is planning a program to enhance services for control and care of animals. A volunteer program is planned to involve public participation with the operation of the shelter.
F22
A computerized microdot program will be installed and scheduled for operation May 1, 2003. All animals that leave the shelter will be identifiable by means of any microdot reader.

Recommendations 21

Conclusions 1

Comments 9

No Responses Found 4

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Fort Bragg City
Mendocino County County
Westport County Water District Special District
Willits City