📋
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.
⚠️ 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.
Findings and Recommendations 12 findings
F1
Page 56
California Proposition 50, Bonds for water projects passed November 2002, provides for funding of public water systems through grants and loans. [www.grantsloans.water.ca.gov/ ]
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Page 56
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund is part of the Safe Drinking Water Act, amended 1996, a federal program, to provide funds to small and disadvantaged communities for infrastructure improvements. Monies are distributed to the states by allotments. [water.epa.gov/grants_funding/ ]
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Page 56
The Federal and California Safe Drinking Water Acts are the statutes for drinking water. Title 22 of California Code of Regulations provides the details for waterworks standards and water monitoring requirements.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Page 56
Information gathered from interviews with Public Health, Water Resources and Special Districts Administration indicated good cooperation, communication, and strategizing on issues of emergency preparedness. 2013-2014 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Page 56
Lake County General Plan September 2008, Section 5.2 Water Supply, Policy PSF-2.6, PSF-2.7, PSF-2.8; pages 5-4 to 5-5.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Page 56
Special Districts Administration operates under the jurisdiction of California Regional Water Control Board, Central Valley Region. California Health and Safety Code and California Water Code are the statutes regarding water pollution, sewage treatment and spill reporting. Title 23 of California Code of Regulations gives the specific law for Waste Discharge to Land program. County requirements for sanitary disposal of sewage are in County of Lake Ordinance Code, Chapter 9, Article III.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Page 57
See 2013-14 Budget, Special District Administration
No recommendations for this finding
F8
Page 57
Lake County Rules and Regulations for On-site Sewage Disposal, revised 2010, Table 1. Dates and information provided by interview with Environmental Health Division.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Page 57
The Civil Grand Jury’s oversight role of County government participation in Clear Lake water quality included studying the major restorative projects such as the Mercury Mine Cleanup Super Fund (2005-06 and 2006-07) and the Middle Creek Reclamation Restoration Project (2006-07 and 2013).
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Page 57
See also Discussion and Analysis, Water Resources Department, Parts One and Two.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
Page 57
See also Discussion and Analysis, Water Resources Department, Parts One and Two.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
Page 57
Blue Water Satellite is a provider of algorithmically-enhanced satellite images. Useful in Lake County when natural color images are filtered and interpreted for phosphorus, chlorophyll-a and cyanobacteria for both land and water area. http://wwww.bluewatersatellite.com Request for Response: Environmental Health, Division of Health Services, through the Board Of Supervisors (90 days) Public Works and Water Resources through the Board of Supervisors (90 days) Board of Supervisors (90 days) 2013-2014 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 46 Appendix A Excerpt from Record Bee The illness and subsequent euthanization of a dog who had been swimming in Clear Lake the summer of 2013 demonstrated the intradepartmental response to emergency situations. The County Health Officer, Karen Tait, M.D. made the public aware of the safeguard measures in water recreational activities where cyanobacteria bloom is present. Water Resources and Public Health made arrangements for water sampling and testing from the site where the dog had been swimming and necropsy of the dog with special focus on mycostins and related toxins. Public access areas of Clear Lake that showed signs of algal bloom, were posted with signage stating standard precautionary measures. The EHD was available to assist with signage for lakefront property owners. The special testing ruled out cyanotoxins as cause of the dogs illness. To date, no confirmed link between a pet death and cyanotoxins has been documented for Clear Lake. For the full story see: Lake County Record Bee, Tuesday, August 6, 2013, page A1, Updates by Terry Knight R-B Outdoors Writer Lake County Record Bee, Thursday, August 15, 2013, page A1, Officials investigate possible algae link to dog illness, Staff report 2013-2014 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 47 This page intentionally left blank 2013-2014 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 48 Appendix B Lake County, California Water Systems 2013-2014 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 49 Appendix C: Pipeline History In the 1980s, LACOSAN found its wastewater systems in need of treatment and disposal upgrades because of growth pressures. At the same time, the region's geothermal industry began to experience productivity declines in the nearby Geysers steamfield. Approximately seven percent of California's electricity has been generated at the Geysers since the 1970's, but power plant steam usage was exceeding the steamfield's natural recharge rate and steam production was falling. The geothermal heat source remained constant, but injection of additional water was needed to convey the geothermal heat to steam production wells. A survey was conducted in 1990-91 of potential injection water sources available in the region, including surface water, groundwater, and wastewater. That survey concluded that surface and groundwater supplies were already committed to other uses, but that wastewater could achieve two critical objectives at once: first, as a continuous supply of steamfield recharge water that could help mitigate Geysers productivity declines; and second, as an effluent disposal method that would be environmentally- superior to conventional surface water discharge or land irrigation methods. Once the effluent injection concept emerged, the key stakeholders formed a public/private partnership to confirm project feasibility and pursue implementation. This core group included LACOSAN and the main geothermal operators in the southeast portion of the Geysers, including Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), Calpine Corporation, Unocal Corporation, and Pacific Gas & Electric Company. (Calpine has since acquired Unocal's and PG&E's interests in the Geysers). Phase 1 groundbreaking for the project was held on October 6, 1995, and following two years of construction, the pipeline was formally dedicated on October 16, 1997. The total construction cost was $45 million, including $37 million for the pipeline and $8 million in wastewater system improvements. Construction costs were shared by the core participants, known as the Joint Operating Committee (JOC), with additional funding from the California Energy Commission, California Water Resources Control Board, U.S. Department of Energy, US Department of Commerce, US Department of the Interior, and US Environmental Protection Agency. Phase 2 of the project began in 1999 with extension of the pipeline from LACOSAN's Southeast Treatment Plant to the Clearlake Oaks' treatment plant at a cost of approximately $1 million. The Oaks treatment plant is operated by the Clearlake Oaks County Water District, who shared construction costs with the California Water Resources Control Board and LACOSAN. Phase 2 proceeded in 2000 with the construction of the project's first wetland at Lyons Creek near Lakeport. This 22-acre facility contains four wetland cells and a system of interpretive trails and signage for wildlife viewing and education. The Lyons Creek construction cost of $600,000 was shared by LACOSAN and US EPA. The 20-mile Phase 2 pipeline was finished in early 2003 at a total cost of approximately $30 million, which was shared again by the system's co-funding partners. The JOC members have entered into a 25-year operating agreement wherein LACOSAN operates the pipeline as far as the Middletown Wastewater Treatment Plant/Bear Canyon "0" Pump Station, after which it is industry-operated to its terminus in the southeast Geysers steamfield. LACOSAN pays an annual operation and maintenance (O&M) cost share equivalent to conventional effluent disposal, and the industry partners pay remaining O&M costs based on the quantity of effluent they each receive at their injection wellheads. LACOSAN is responsible for operating the project's wetlands at the NW facility. See more at: http://www.co.lake.ca.us/Government/Directory/Special_Districts/Wastewater_ Notes: Lake County is part of the world’s foremost geothermal resource areas. Today, the Geysers is the largest complex of geothermal power plants in the world. 2013-2014 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 50 Appendix C: Pipeline History 2013-2014 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 51 Appendix D Sample Blue Water Images 2013-2014 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 52 Public Safety Committee 2013-2014 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 53 The Public Safety Committee conducted oversights of the following departments and found no significant issues at this time: Konocti Conservation Camp South Lake County Court Holding Facility Office of Emergency Services 2013-2014 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
No recommendations for this finding