Sacramento County Grand Jury
• 2021-2022
DEL Paso Manor Water District Flooded with Public Safety Dangers November 5, 2021 Del Paso Manor Water District Well
⚠️ 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 7 findings
F1
The DPMWD has abdicated its mission to “provide safe drinking water in accordance with California and federal regulations and to maintain a reliable water supply for water consumption and fire protection.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The DPMWD should publish and distribute district-wide a report, to meet its public transparency obligations, disclosing the extent of the District’s immediate and longer- term water quality, delivery, and fire flow infrastructure improvement needs, and the resulting cost impact to water district ratepayers. This report should be the subject of a Special Board Meeting as well. The Grand Jury recommends that this work should begin immediately and be completed
F2
The DPMWD has deferred action on the District’s 2009 Water Master Plan, the 2011 LAFCO Municipal Service Review, the 2021 HydroScience Strategic Water Solutions Technical Memorandum, and the July 2021 General Manager Final Recommendations Report, all of which outline the urgent need to address the District’s critical infrastructure needs for repair or replacement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The DPMWD should address the findings and recommendations of the May 2021 HydroScience Strategic Water Solutions Technical Memorandum, originally authorized by the DPMWD as a Proposed Update to its 2009 Water District Master Plan; formal public involvement should be documented to meet the requirements of the Brown Act. This process should begin immediately and be completed
F3
The DPMWD Board of Directors awarded a $56,830.00 contract to HydroScience Strategic Water Solutions, to complete a Water District Master Plan Update, without officially taking a public re-vote at its December 2020 board meeting to authorize the contract as required by the Sacramento County District Attorney.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
A Municipal Service Review should be performed by LAFCO to study and analyze information about the Water District’s governance structures and efficiencies. The Grand Jury also recommends that DPMWD fully cooperate with LAFCO to initiate this process by January 31, 2022 for completion of a new Municipal Service Review
F4
During its October 20, 2020 general meeting, the DPMWD Board of Directors failed to provide all of the meeting documents in its board packets to the public. Upon request from the public for the materials, the Board president denied their release to the public as required by both the Brown Act and the Public Records Act.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The DPMWD should notify ratepayers in the required timeframe for any Notice of Violation, including when a water sampling test result exceeds the water Maximum Contaminant Level, along with its corrective actions. The DPMWD Board of Directors and staff should be trained on the public notification requirements and procedures. A new section in the DPMWD Policy Manual should be added to address these public notification requirements. The Grand Jury recommends that the DPMWD complete this training by January 31, 2022, and the Policy Manual should be updated accordingly
F5
The DPMWD failed to follow the California State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water guidance in publicly reporting notable Maximum Contamination Level violations in the required timeframe. Additionally, the DPMWD did not follow the prescribed reporting requirements in the Consumer Confidence Reports (2018, 2019).
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The DPMWD should prepare its 2021 Consumer Confidence Report and all subsequent annual reports to fully comply with the requirements issued by the State of California. The DPMWD should request that its draft 2021 Consumer Confidence Report be reviewed by DDW to ensure that it meets all of the State requirements before its final release. The review of this draft public document should be completed in May 2022.
F6
The agendas for the public meetings of the DPMWD Board of Directors have provided inadequate and vague descriptions of the items to be discussed or acted upon at its General and Special meetings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
The DPMWD board meeting agendas and minutes should be reviewed by their legal counsel to ensure that the documents have clear and unambiguous descriptions. The Grand Jury recommends that reviews begin immediately and continue for every meeting.
F7
The ambiguous agenda item descriptions of the DPMWD Board of Directors meetings violate the intent of the Ralph M. Brown Act, which is designed to properly inform the public of the business to be undertaken at public meetings by public officials and to encourage their participation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
The DPMWD board members and staff should attend annual and detailed Brown Act training sessions with an emphasis on developing unambiguous agenda descriptions. That Brown Act training could include participation in the California Special District Association's Certificate of Excellence Program for District Transparency. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Directors conduct its first training session by January 31, 2022, particularly as more than half of the Board members are new.
Additional Recommendations 1
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R8The DPMWD board members and staff must ensure that all materials in the board meeting packets are available to the public 72 hours prior to any Board meeting to avoid any Brown Act violations. The Grand Jury recommends that this begin immediately and continue for every meeting.
Comments 3
-
CO1System Improvement Prioritization Report: Jeff Nelson, Engineering Consultant, July 28, 2020 https://www.delpasomanorwd.org/files/8ace3e4f7/Board+Packet+28JULY20.pdf
-
CO2HydroScience Strategic Water Solutions Technical Memorandum, May 21, 2021 https://www.delpasomanorwd.org/files/ce893f556/May+25th+Special+Meeting+Board+Packet.pdf
-
CO3General Manager's Final Report; Adam Coyan, July 21, 2021 https://www.delpasomanorwd.org/files/63e4fa0f3/Board+Packet+06JUL21.pdf District Governing Structure and Oversight The DPMWD is overseen by a five-member Board of Directors elected at large by the registered voters who reside within the District. However, currently all board members have either been appointed by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors or assumed their position without a ballot election. All Board members must live within the District's boundaries. Water Districts are considered "Special Districts" by the State of California. The DPMWD must operate under numerous federal, state, and local laws and regulations governed by such agencies as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California State Water Resources Control Board to ensure water quality and availability. The Board has also adopted its own Policy Manual which is available on its website: https://www.delpasomanorwd.org/. Financial reviews are conducted by the California State Controller's Office. Additionally, LAFCO is required by law to prepare periodic MSRs for all local governmental services, including water districts. The DPMWD is also a member of the Sacramento Water Forum, which works with organizations regarding regional water issues such as groundwater management, water supplies, and water conservation. In July 2009, the District formally issued the Del Paso Manor Water District Master Plan. This was the first time a comprehensive document of this nature had been prepared and adopted by the District. This now 12-year-old Master Plan continues to stand as the District's operational working strategy. In its introduction, this 2009 document clearly states that, "There is an increasing infrastructure liability as the aging wells reach the end of their useful life..." While the scope of the Master Plan focuses on a 25-year horizon, it sets 5, 10, and 25-year milestones for replacing water wells, upgrading equipment, and completing other operational actions. For example, the 2009 Water Master Plan states that all ratepayers will be metered by 2025; to date, no action has been taken. However, in recognition that the 2009 Water Master Plan needs revision, the DPMWD Board of Directors did fund a 2021 Master Plan Update. This draft was completed in May 2021 but has not been approved. A DPMWD MSR was last completed by LAFCO in 2011. At that time, the review noted that, "... continued water line replacement, water meters, and infrastructure are necessary to sustain current levels of service and meet future demands." Despite recent attempts by LAFCO to conduct a new Service Review, the DPMWD Board of Directors has not approved such an effort, and work on the new MSR has stalled. Annually, the DPMWD is required by the EPA to provide a Consumer Confidence Report (CCR). The Water District issues this report to its ratepayers as a document titled, "Annual Water Quality Report." Likewise, the California State DDW prepares a Compliance Inspection Report annually; water districts must respond to this Inspection Report and complete recommended operational and maintenance work, if required. The DPMWD is also subject to executing water quality sampling. The results of such testing must be reported through a variety of means including: data sheets, sample siting plans, and monitoring plans. Further, when a water district proposes an action subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), it must follow the public participation requirements laid out in the CEQA statutes. Other common state laws governing water districts include the Urban Water Management Plan Act and the Ground Water Management Act. In each instance, the DPMWD is obliged to explain its activities and involve the public. The Brown Act: A Mandate for Transparency In tandem with residential and commercial ratepayers and other residents, the Board has the responsibility for decisions impacting the health and safety of the community and its water supply. As a local quasi-legislative body, all members are required to conduct business under the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code (GC) §§ 54950-54963, hereinafter "the Brown Act"). This California law was passed in 1953 to ensure public access to meetings of California local government agencies. A host of provisions under the Brown Act specify the requirements on a gamut of public meeting elements which includes meeting notices, agendas, access to meeting materials, and other related matters. For example: The Brown Act (GC §54954.2) specifically requires that meeting agendas must provide a • brief general description (approximately 20 words) of all matters to be discussed or considered in order for members of the public to determine whether to monitor or participate in the meeting. In line with the Brown Act, the DPMWD Policy Manual (Policy #3205) specifies that, "... all board agendas shall include an unambiguous description of each item on the agenda to be discussed," and that "... description gives notice to the public of the essential nature of business to be considered." And yet, the agenda descriptions for the posted DPMWD board meetings have typically been vague and general in nature. The Brown Act (GC §54957.5) further requires that written material distributed during a public meeting and prepared by the local agency must be available for public inspection at the meeting. This requirement is reiterated in the DPMWD Policy Manual (Policy #3205.5) which states that, "Agenda packages, except for closed session materials, shall be made available to the public once distributed to the Board and posted on the District website (www.delpasomanorwd.org)." This was not the case for a special meeting held on October 20, 2020, when the DPMWD Board did not share documents pertaining to the awarding of a contract using ratepayer funds in the amount of $56,830 to update its Water Master Plan. The requirement for public commissions, boards, councils, and other agencies to provide public transparency is considered so vital that a substantial overhaul was made to the Brown Act in