Santa Cruz County Grand Jury • 2003-2004

Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District

Published: November 04, 2003 8 pages
View Original PDF

Findings 24 findings

F1
There are many applications for federal and state grant money. For example, the California Department of Fish and Game alone receives about 400 proposals for projects each year.
F2
Santa Cruz County funds the RCD with approximately $40,000 annually to cover miscellaneous expenses.
F3
The district brings in grant money for projects worth millions of dollars.
F4
The SCCRCD operates with a staff of two full-time and six part-time employees.
F5
The district’s charter establishes it as a non-regulatory agency.
F6
Proposals must be available for assessment, enhancement and implementation of a project before a grant application can be submitted.
F7
Grants are awarded for various purposes: for studies, designs, plans and reports as well as for implementation. Grant funds can be used for the stated purpose only.
F8
Each granting authority has stringent auditing requirements for both labor charges and report contents. Labor hours are audited on each submittal.
F9
Permits currently can take up to two years to process. A single stream project may require as many as five separate permits from different agencies before it can proceed. They include the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the Army Corps of Engineers, the National Marine Fisheries Services and several county agencies.
F10
Landowners and the SCCRCD see the permit process as a daunting problem.
F11
The SCCRCD has many years’ experience in dealing with these agencies and understands the permit process.
F12
The SCCRCD received a $4.5 million grant from the California Coastal Conservancy to take on a new role of coordinating projects through their design and permit phases. The Coastal Conservancy gave the following reasons for selecting the SCCRCD: • It is a non-regulatory agency and thus not threatening to property owners nor conflicting with other regulatory agencies. The non-regulatory requirement eliminated many other potential choices. • The SCCRCD’s jurisdiction is the unincorporated area of the county. • The SCCRCD already successfully completed several watershed projects and is “considered to be a great grant manager.”3
F13
SCCRCD recommends contractors and consultants from an approved list of specialists. Final selection is with the user.
F14
The California Department of Fish and Game has worked with SCCRCD for more than 20 years.
F15
The Natural Resources Conservation Service has worked with SCCRCD for 63 years. California Coastal Conservancy.
F16
The SCCRCD publicizes its resources through brochures, handouts, press releases, newspaper articles, radio, word of mouth, e-mail list servers, direct mailing or personal recommendations. The SCCRCD uses its own newsletters or it may be included in other newsletters as a technical resource.
F17
The SCCRCD receives numerous contacts from road associations, landowners and land managers who have learned about it from the various ways the agency publicizes itself. The Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau Newsletter’s monthly article, written by the SCCRCD or the Natural Resources Conservation Service, often refers growers and landowners to the SCCRCD.
F18
Landowners are often referred to the SCCRCD by agencies or community groups or other landowners as a source of technical assistance and information. The SCCRCD recently created a Web site and has an intern making it more user- friendly. The district has noticed that other groups have links to its Web site as well.
F19
Critics say the money spent on reports would be better spent on projects.4
F20
The district cannot use grant money specified for reports to implement projects.
F21
Critics say that the SCCRCD makes decisions without public input.
F22
Public input is not required by most granting authorities dealing with the district.
F23
Critics allege that some landowners have illegally diverted water or otherwise violated water and environmental resource law. These critics say that the SCCRCD should release the names of these landowners.
F24
The district’s non-regulatory status does not allow it to become involved in enforcing the law. Conclusions

Recommendations 5