Santa Cruz County Grand Jury • 2005-2006 • Agency Response
Response to: PDF of complete 2004-05 Grand Jury Final Report

Central Water District

Published: September 20, 2005 6 pages
View Original PDF

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F6, F7, F10, F11, F14, F23

Findings and Recommendations 22 findings

F1 Page 2
The Central Water District: • manages groundwater resources within its boundaries; • conducts a water quality monitoring program (since 1959); and • runs a backflow prevention program to ensure water quality within the system.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Central Water District management and board should be commended for its operation of the service area and resources that fall within the district’s boundaries.
F2 Page 2
As of June 30, 2003, Central Water added one new customer and three fire services, bringing the total number of active service connections to 831. This figure includes 48 fire and 12 irrigation services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Page 1
The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should keep the Central Water District Board informed of any future proposal to increase the density of the district. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation will be implemented. Current county policy and procedures require notification of all interested parties when such proposals are considered.
F3 Page 2
Due to the low population density in the district, there has not been a need to provide sewer service to the area. All residences use septic systems, and there is no export of wastewater to Monterey Bay.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Page 1
In order to manage growth with the available water supply, the county should adhere to its current zoning ordinances. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation is currently implemented. The county objects to the implication that the county does not always adhere to its zoning ordinances, especially in the absence of any finding to the contrary. It is county policy to always operate within its current zoning ordinances. All land-use jurisdictions must from time to time make interpretations with regard to the meaning of its complex land use regulations, and the county will continue to do that in the future, where appropriate.
F4 Page 2
The average daily amount of residential water use in California is 138 gallons per day.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Page 1
Water customers within the district should be made aware of the potential increase in rates due to the loss of property tax monies. Central Water District 2004 Newsletter and Consumer Confidence Report.
F5 Page 2
According to the 2002-2003 Central Water District Annual Report, average annual residential usage in the district is 53,465 gallons per acre (unaccounted water is lost through leaks before it is measured). Daily residential usage is 173.6 gallons per day. However, due to septic system recharge, a substantial portion of this water is recycled to the aquifer.1 6. Irrigation consumption records show that consumption is not excessive and is comparable to the annual usage of homes with extensive landscaping.2 7. A large portion of the Pleasant Valley area is irrigated to support apple and grape crops.
No recommendations for this finding
F8 Page 2
Central Water District has five water production wells currently in service. The vast majority of the water supplies comes from the Rob Roy Junction area and pulls from the Aromas Red Sands Aquifer. There are two other wells in the area but they are used minimally because of high iron and manganese content of the water. Well water is also drawn from the Purisima Aquifer.
No recommendations for this finding
F9 Page 2
Water quality meets state and federal health requirements.3 10. The Rob Roy Well Field reflected declines in the Aromas Red Sands Aquifer during periods of drought. The years of heavy rainfall that followed have increased water levels to within a few feet of the highest initial recordings. Central Water District Annual Report, July 1, 2002-June 30, 2003. Central Water District Annual Report, July 1, 2002-June 30, 2003. Central Water District 2004 Newsletter and Consumer Confidence Report. 11. The district is “upstream” in the aquifers so it is the last to feel the influence of a drought and the first to recover.
No recommendations for this finding
F12 Page 3
The district has seven storage tanks with a total capacity of 1.217 million gallons. According to State Health Department standards, the total storage capacity is adequate, not only for current needs, but also for the storage demand at buildout.
No recommendations for this finding
F13 Page 3
The district has not experienced any seawater intrusion into its wells.4 14. Central Water District is one of the only two districts in Northern Santa Cruz County capable of meeting the demand for water at buildout (projected at 944 service connections) with the facilities presently in place.
No recommendations for this finding
F15 Page 3
The district’s conservation/drought plans consist of: • three-tier pricing based on usage; • voluntary water conservation; and • restricted irrigation.
No recommendations for this finding
F16 Page 3
Central Water does not offer incentives for water conservation appliances such as low-flow toilets.
No recommendations for this finding
F17 Page 3
The Santa Cruz County Planning Department has designated the majority of land within district boundaries as Primary Groundwater Recharge, a designation that dictates a minimum parcel size of 10 acres for new land division.
No recommendations for this finding
F18 Page 3
Through the permit process, the County Planning Department controls the district’s service area.
No recommendations for this finding
F19 Page 3
There is limited space for future growth, with the possible exception of restricted agricultural land being annexed to the district.
No recommendations for this finding
F20 Page 3
If the Board of Supervisors decides to increase housing density in the service area, water capacity could reach buildout level. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The “buildout level” is the level of development envisioned by the current General Plan. It would not require any increases in density to accomplish that level of development and associated water demand.
No recommendations for this finding
F21 Page 3
In 2002-2003, the county zoning ordinance restricting development in a primary groundwater recharge area was “ignored in favor of the wishes of a popular community service organization.”5 District concerns were presented to the Planning Commission. Local public pressure and the threat of litigation persuaded the organization to relocate its facility. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The dispute that occurred in 2002-03 had to do with the board providing an interpretation of the current zoning ordinance with regard to allowed uses within a particular zone district. The issue of the site lying within a recharge area would have 4 Central Water District personnel. Central Water District Annual Report, July 1, 2002-June 30, 2003. needed to be addressed in the context of proper conditioning of the development application.
No recommendations for this finding
F22 Page 4
Presently there are no plans to increase density in the district. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. 23. “Senate Bill 1938 addresses modification to groundwater Assembly Bill 3030 plans, which are necessary to qualify for future groundwater project funding.”6 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The dispute that occurred in 2002-03 had to do with the board providing an interpretation of the current zoning ordinance with regard to allowed uses within a particular zone district. The issue of the site lying within a recharge area would have needed to be addressed in the context of proper conditioning of the development application.
No recommendations for this finding
F24 Page 4
A rate committee, which included the District Manager and Directors of the district, met to calculate current operating cost and estimate future operating and capital improvement cost. They concluded that the current financial condition of the water district was sound. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. The county has no knowledge of such activities by the district, so it is not in a position to agree or disagree with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F25 Page 4
Pacific Gas and Electric electrical surcharges increased by 50 percent over the previous year, causing the total budgetary expense for power to exceed $100,000. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. The county has no knowledge of the utility rates paid by the district, so it cannot agree or disagree with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F26 Page 4
Workers’ compensation insurance for district employees tripled this year. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. The county has no information regarding the district’s workers’ compensation rates and charges and is, therefore, not in a position to agree or disagree with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F27 Page 4
Rates and fees for customers have remained the same for the past nine years. Due to the power surcharge, the after-hour service fees have risen to $65, and a $25 return- check fee has been established.
No recommendations for this finding
F28 Page 4
Operational budget comes from rates and fees; the district also receives $60,000 in property tax revenue. With the current state budget shortfall, special districts may lose some or all of their property tax revenue.6 6 Central Water District Annual Report, July 1, 2002-June 30, 2003. Central Water District 2004 Newsletter and Consumer Confidence Report. 29. The water-rate structure may increase to offset the loss of the property tax revenue.7 Response: Central Water District AGREES. The water-rate structure may increase to offset the loss of the property tax revenue. Conclusions 1. The district is well managed and financially sound.
No recommendations for this finding

Conclusions 7