Small-time Sewage is a Big-time Challenge Reason for Investigation The 2003-2004 Nevada County Civil Grand Jury

Conclusions 11

• CL1 Page 7
  Annual sewage rates in SD#1 have been increasing markedly in recent years, and are projected to continue increasing. From fiscal years 2001/02 to 2005/06 (a four-year interval) rates increased by an average of 168% (were 2.68 times larger) for the 5,587 customers in then existing Zones 1 through 9. From fiscal years 2005/06 to 2008/09 (a three-year interval) rates are forecast to increase by an average of 39% for the 5,689 customers in Zones 1 through 11. The average annual sewer bill across zones will have increased from $299 to $1,133 in the total seven-year interval. The largest increases have been in the three stream-discharge zones, which are upgrading their wastewater treatment plants to meet ever stricter water quality requirements.
• CL2 Page 7
  Although the DOTS Wastewater Operations organization chart, complete with names, titles and phone numbers of each SD#1 staff member, is included in annual reports to the Grand Jury 0506 COUNTY Nevada County Civil Grand Jury Page 7 of 10 www.civilgrandjury.com CVB for each of the three stream-discharge WWTPs, there appears to have been considerable doubt on the part of the CVB as to who was the on-site person in charge at various stages of the Cascade Shores landslide and spill.
• CL3 Page 8
  Large fines (Administrative Civil Liabilities), such as the $574,000 proposed against the Cascade Shores Wastewater Treatment Plant, are a real possibility at Lake Wildwood and Lake of the Pines.
• CL4 Page 8
  Little consideration is given for the special circumstances of small, rural communities served by small Wastewater Treatment Plants. For example, fixed Mandatory Minimum Penalties impact rural sewage service ratepayers significantly more than they impact ratepayers in larger districts, resulting in an unfair burden on rural customers. A $3000 fine levied against Cascade Shores would translate to $36.14 for each of its 83 ratepayers, whereas the same fine for the same violation levied against Los Angeles would translate to a small fraction of a penny for each of its more than two million ratepayers.
• CL5 Page 8
  The complexities of water quality control regulations put a severe burden on small Wastewater Treatment Plant staffs.
• CL6 Page 7
  Projected annual capital improvement expenditures to upgrade Sanitation District No. 1 (SD#1) wastewater treatment plants (paid by ratepayers, not with County funds) are larger than the total Nevada County budgeted capital improvements for FY 2005/06 and FY 2006/07.
• CL7 Page 7
  SD#1 policy of staffing the Cascade Shores Wastewater Treatment Plant only part time puts a premium on equipment reliability, an emergency holding tank, and automatic accident control systems.
• CL8 Page 7
  Effective communications between SD#1 staff and the California Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board appear to have broken down during the immediate aftermath of the Cascade Shores landslide.
• CL9 Page 8
  It is unlikely that LWW or LOP would qualify as a low median income area, as is Cascade Shores, in order to apply any fines toward required upgrades of their WWTPs; thus, fines may result in increased LWW and LOP sewage rates.
• CL10 Page 8
  Because there was no running log of violations until recently, the SD#1 Board of Directors and the County Executive Officer did not have sufficient information to make appropriate management decisions and to address the mounting potential financial impact of the Mandatory Minimum Penalties.
• CL11 Page 8
  The $350,000 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board penalty in December 2003 against the Colfax Wastewater Treatment Plant should have provided a warning to the SD#1 Board of Directors that similarly large cumulative penalties could be imposed against the three stream-discharge plants in SD#1.

No Responses Found 2

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