⚠️ 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 8 findings
F1
NRRD is not now performing, and never has performed, the essential levee control and maintenance responsibilities for which it was created.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2
NRRD and NCLAFCO should take all steps necessary to ensure that NRRD has all enforcement and funding authority necessary to perform the levee maintenance, rehabilitation and construction functions for which it was created. Alternatively, NRRD should be reformed so that it is responsible only for providing sewer services.
R4
If NRRD continues to be responsible for reclamation and flood control services, NCLAFCO should consider reforming the NRRD Board to include independent, non- resident members should it become apparent that an all-resident board is reluctant to take actions to ensure the enforcement and funding necessary to bring all levees into compliance and to maintain them. As an alternative, the Board of Supervisors could consider creating a revenue source for NRRD at the county level.
F2
All parties with oversight of NRRD either know or should have known of NRRD’s continued failure to perform. These parties include the NRRD Board of Directors, NCLAFCO Executive Director(s) and Commissioners, and Napa County Counsel‘s office.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Despite being aware of NRRD’s failures, all stakeholders–including NRRD residents and directors–have failed or refused to remedy the situation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
If NRRD continues to be responsible for reclamation and flood control services, NCLAFCO should consider reforming the NRRD Board to include independent, non- resident members should it become apparent that an all-resident board is reluctant to take actions to ensure the enforcement and funding necessary to bring all levees into compliance and to maintain them. As an alternative, the Board of Supervisors could consider creating a revenue source for NRRD at the county level.
F4
Despite NRRD clearly not performing its essential levee maintenance function, County dollars have been spent to partner with NRRD on various stop gap projects such as sand bag facilities and dewatering pumps.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
A. If NRRD floods, County facilities (Milton Road) could be damaged, first responders (fire, EMS, etc.) could be at risk serving NRRD residents, and the district's underground sewer system could fail, possibly causing a serious health and safety issue to residents and responders, as well as significant public or private property damage. B. In the event of a flood in NRRD, it is unclear what the responsibility and liability would be for Napa County and its taxpayers. During its investigation, the Grand Jury became concerned that the county would have to pay for the flood damages because state and federal agencies likely would not pay for the errors of local authorities in failing to make sure that NRRD was empowered and funded to take necessary precautionary steps. 9
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The County BOS should direct County Counsel to render a written opinion, that will be made public, on the respective liabilities and responsibilities of NRRD and the County arising from NRRD's failure to perform its essential function(s).
F6
Geologic information the Grand Jury reviewed and witness testimony indicate that, due to subsidence and rising levels of the Napa River and surrounding wetlands in coming years, existing levees within NRRD will be inadequate to protect properties in the district.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
NRRD contracts with the County for its legal services. Counsel assigned by the County to NRRD refused to participate in a Grand Jury interview without a subpoena, and, upon appearing, refused to answer some basic questions. Therefore, the Grand Jury has been unable to ascertain important information as to NRRD’s legal responsibilities and liabilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The County BOS should direct County Counsel to render a written opinion, that will be made public, on the respective liabilities and responsibilities of NRRD and the County arising from NRRD's failure to perform its essential function(s).
F8
NCLAFCO has not timely reviewed NRRD as to “Sphere of Influence,” “Municipal Services,” or “Governance” and NCLAFCO Commissioners have not followed well- reasoned staff recommendations in reviews that have been done.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
NCLAFCO should, within the next six months, complete comprehensive Sphere of Influence, Municipal Services and Governance reviews of NRRD.
No Responses Found 2
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Napa County
County
Napa County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office