Santa Cruz County Grand Jury • 2005-2006

Central Water District

6 pages
View Original PDF

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F23

Findings 28 findings

F1
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.
F2
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.
F3
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.
F4
The average daily amount of residential water use in California is 138 gallons per day.
F5
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
F6
Irrigation consumption records show that consumption is not excessive and is comparable to the annual usage of homes with extensive landscaping.2
F7
A large portion of the Pleasant Valley area is irrigated to support apple and grape crops.
F8
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.
F9
Water quality meets state and federal health requirements.3
F10
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.
F11
The district is “upstream” in the aquifers so it is the last to feel the influence of a drought and the first to recover.
F12
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.
F13
The district has not experienced any seawater intrusion into its wells.4 1 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.
F14
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.
F15
The district’s conservation/drought plans consist of: • three-tier pricing based on usage; • voluntary water conservation; and • restricted irrigation.
F16
Central Water does not offer incentives for water conservation appliances such as low-flow toilets.
F17
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.
F18
Through the permit process, the County Planning Department controls the district’s service area.
F19
There is limited space for future growth, with the possible exception of restricted agricultural land being annexed to the district.
F20
If the Board of Supervisors decides to increase housing density in the service area, water capacity could reach buildout level.
F21
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.
F22
Presently there are no plans to increase density in the district. 23. “Senate Bill 1938 addresses modification to groundwater Assembly Bill 3030 plans, which are necessary to qualify for future groundwater project funding.”6
F24
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.
F25
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.
F26
Workers’ compensation insurance for district employees tripled this year.
F27
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. Central Water District personnel. Central Water District Annual Report, July 1, 2002-June 30, 2003. Central Water District Annual Report, July 1, 2002-June 30, 2003.
F28
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
F29
The water-rate structure may increase to offset the loss of the property tax revenue.7 Conclusions

Recommendations 4