Santa Barbara County Grand Jury
2015-2016
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (19)
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Siltation is continuing to decrease the storage capacity and the safe yield of Lake Cachuma as defined in United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995. ID No.1 Response to #1: Partially agree with the finding to the extent that there are many elements affecting the storage capacity of a reservoir and the safe yield of the Cachuma Project. For instance, the modifications to and extension of the radial gates in 2004 increased the capacity of the lake by 9,300 AF for fisheries, while conversely, siltation decreased the storage by 2,000 AF from 2008 based on a bathymetric survey conducted in 2014. With that qualification, siltation is a naturally contributing factor that reduces the capacity of the Cachuma Project. Related to the safe yield finding; although "Safe" yield is not defined in Contract No. 175r-1802R, there is P.O. BOX 157 • 3622 SAGUNTO STREET, SANTA YNEZ, CA 93460 (805) 688-6015 • FAX: (805) 688-3078 • WWW.SYRWD.ORG reference to the "Project" yield as 25,714 AF in Section 6(a)(1)(A) line 15, as an assumed annual "Project" yield for water delivery purposes. This is also considered the "operational" yield based on the EIS/EIR for the Cachuma Project Contract Renewal which provided for reductions in deliveries at certain lake levels to extend the life of the water supply during shortage conditions; thus the "operational" yield. A "safe" yield is the amount of yield that provides water supply without shortages and on a reliable basis through wet and extended or prolonged dry period.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the safe yield from Lake Cachuma as defined in United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995, be recalculated and used in the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency taking into account lost storage capacity due to siltation. ID No.1 Response to #1: Partially agree with the reference to Safe yield and the finding to the extent that there are many factors affecting the safe yield recalculation for the Cachuma Project. As stated above, "Safe" yield is not defined in Contract No. 175r-1802R, but there is reference to "Project" yield as 25,714 AF in Section 6(a)(1)(A) line 15, as an assumed annual "Project" yield for water delivery purposes. Many elements would be used to calculate the new safe yield including evaporation factors, competing sources for water (e.g. Fisheries), changes in the purpose of use, operations, diversions, seepage, and siltation. Agree with a new recalculated safe yield is necessary for the Cachuma Project Water supplies.
F2:
Downstream water rights are protected in the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995 and must be considered when calculating the safe yield. ID No.1 Response to #2: Agree. The downstream water rights and protection of those rights are a condition of the Cachuma Project congressional Authorization and Water Rights Orders. However, disagree that the downstream water rights water would be included in the "safe" yield of the Cachuma Project under that Master Contract and calculated in the amount of allocation of Cachuma Project water for diversion. The Downstream Water Rights water is separate from the diversion and allocation of the Cachuma Project water.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency must continue to emphasize the importance of downstream water rights and be used in the calculations of the safe yield. ID No.1 Response to #2: Agree. The new Master Contract must emphasize the importance of downstream water rights and protection of those rights as they are a condition of the Cachuma Project congressional Authorization and Water Rights Orders. However, disagree that the downstream water rights water would be included in the "safe" yield of the Cachuma Project under that Master Contract and calculated in the amount of allocation of Cachuma Project water for diversion. The Downstream Water Rights water is separate from the diversion and allocation of the Cachuma Project water.
F3:
The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995 was written prior to the 2000 National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion and does not include the requirement to release water under the auspices of the Endangered Species Act. ID No.1 Response to #3: Agree.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3a:
That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency include the required water releases for the protection of fish habitat under the 2000 National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion. ID No.1 Response to #3a: Disagree. The Biological Opinion was issued by National Marine Fisheries Service to the United States Bureau of Reclamation for the operation and maintenance of Bradbury Dam (the Cachuma Project) on the Santa Ynez River and those effects of the Dam on O.mykiss and downstream habitat. The new Master Contract will be for the water supply to the Cachuma Members Units.
R3b:
That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency add language to include the amount of water that will be required to be released by the new Biological Opinion from the National Marine Fisheries Services when it is released. ID No.1 Response to #3b: Disagree. The future Biological Opinion addressing those effects of the Dam on O.mykiss and downstream habitat has yet to be issued by National Marine Fisheries Service to the United States Bureau of Reclamation for the operation and maintenance of Bradbury Dam (the Cachuma Project) on the Santa Ynez River. This is a separate matter under the Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation process. The new Master Contract separate negotiations with USBR and will be for the water supply to the Cachuma Members Units.
F4:
The 2011-2016 drought is far worse than the "design drought" of 1947-1952 used in the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995 for Lake Cachuma. ID No.1 Response to #4: Agree with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency calculate new water entitlements for member units using the current 2011-2016 worst case drought as its "design drought". ID No.1 Response to #4: Partially agree to the extent that the water entitlement percentages of each Cachuma Member Unit are preserved but the annual yield of the Project water is calculated to reflect the worst-case design drought.
F5:
The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995 extending from 1995 to 2020 (25 years) is too long a period and includes no review and revision clauses to recalculate the "safe yield" of the Cachuma Project. ID No.1 Response to #5: Agree with the finding.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5a:
That the term of the new contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency be less than 25 years in length. ID No.1 Response to #5a: The duration of the Master Contract is a term and condition of the Bureau of Reclamation.
R5b:
That the new contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency include periodic mandatory review and revision clauses on the order of every five or six years to recalculate the "safe yield" of Lake Cachuma and to make any other necessary contract changes. ID No.1 Response to #5b: Partially agree. The safe yield of the Project should be reviewed and recalculated as a term and condition of the new Master Contract. Other Contract changes would be subject to legal consideration.
F6:
Safe yield from Lake Cachuma in the current United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995 is based on a static volume per year. ID No.1 Response to #6: Partially agree. The 1995 Master Contract defines the "Available Supply" as the maximum quantity of Project Water the Contacting Officer (USBR) is authorized to deliver to the Cachuma Member Units. The Operational Yield of 25,714 AFY was calculated for rate setting purposes and to extend the duration of water supplies in dry years; delivery shortages were to occur at certain lake levels as part of the that operational yield.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency include a new safe yield in Year One after Lake Cachuma spills, and, in subsequent years, use either a sliding scale or specify mandatory reductions. ID No.1 Response to #6: Agree with recommendation.
F8:
Conservation policies and drought declarations differ from one member unit to another, possibly confusing water users. ID No.1 Response to #8: Agree with Finding.
Related Recommendations (2)
R8a:
That the member units, in conjunction with the Santa Barbara County Water Agency, create consistent policies and procedures that govern conservation efforts especially during times of a severe drought and that these are documented in the subcontracts between the Santa Barbara County Water Agency and the member units. ID No.1 Response to #8a: Partially agree. The Master Contract term provides that the County Water Agency and each of the Cachuma Member Units develop and implement water conservation plans. Coordination between the agencies is expected to continue; However, each Member Unit has differing water supply profiles and economic factors which the Cachuma Member Unit governing Boards must consider in making independent policy and procedural decisions regarding water conservation.
R8b:
That the policies and procedures in Recommendation 8a be announced to the community by all member units at the same time. ID No.1 Response to #8b: Disagree. Each Cachuma Member Unit works cooperatively with the County Water Agency; However, each Member Unit has differing water supplies and economic factors which the Cachuma Member Unit governing Boards must consider in making independent timing decisions regarding water conservation.
F11:
Member units approve new water service by issuing, can and will serve letters, intent to serve letters, water service availability documents, or other documents, without expiration dates to citizens and developers. ID No.1 Response to #11: Agree with Finding that ID No.1 issues Can & Will Serve letters and other documents for water service.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
That all member units include expiration dates for their water service approval documents. ID No.1 Response to #11: Agree, ID No.1 will develop policy to provide an expiration date once the restriction on issuance of Can & Will Serve letters for new and additional water service is rescinded due to the water supply shortage emergency.
F12:
Member units utilize can and will serve letters, intent to serve letters, water service availability documents, or other documents to grant new water service that are approved based on water availability during a "normal" year's water supply. ID No.1 Response to #12: Partially agree. ID No.1 bases its issuance of Can & Will Serve letters for new and additional water service on current year water supply and total demand on annual production capability.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
That member units change their policies to begin approving new water service on the water available during a "worst case" drought year. ID No.1 Response to #12: Partially agree. ID No.1 utilizes many factors in determining water service and supply availability. Drought conditions are one of those factors along with current year water supply and total demand on annual production capability. We thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Grand Jury report. Please let us know if there is anything further that you require. Sincerely, Chris Dahlstrom General Manager
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
A Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education member twice voted on pay increases that benefited his spouse.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1a:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education require that the spouse’s pay increases be reimbursed to the Lompoc Unified School District.
R1b:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education members recuse themselves from discussing and voting on issues that give rise to the perception of a conflict of interest.
F2:
The Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education does not have adequate control of how expenditures of the General Fund are being allocated and tracked.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education obtain an independent, specific audit of 5 http://www.localethics.fppc.ca.gov/login.aspx 7 the General Fund expenditures to clarify the use of public funds.
F3:
A Lompoc Unified School District employee traveled to a conference with her spouse, a Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education member, and she failed to reimburse expenses as required by “Travel Expenses” AR 3350.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3a:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education enforce the Lompoc Unified School District travel policy as required by “Travel Expenses” AR 3350.
R3b:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education prepare appropriate forms or put in place a tracking system so that the business office has a method to collect pre-paid travel expenses from employees.
F4:
The Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education has allowed a hostile work environment to exist.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4a:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education add a policy prohibiting all District employees, Board members, and officials from engaging in abusive conduct as defined in Government Code section 12950.1, subdivisions (b) and (g)(2) [“conduct of an employer or employee in the workplace, with malice, that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business interests. Abusive conduct may include … verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating, or humiliating, or the gratuitous sabotage or undermining of a person’s work performance.”]
R4b:
That, after the Lompoc Unified School District adopts the policy described above, the District post, distribute, and provide training on that policy throughout the organization, and enforce it.
F5:
The Lompoc Unified School District does not adequately account for the presence of its staff and management during work hours.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
That the Lompoc Unified School District enforce an attendance policy for staff and management to ensure they are present and accounted for during work hours.
F6:
The Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education does not include its members in the “Employment of Relatives” Policy BP 4112.8/4312.8 (See Appendix D).
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education revise its Policy, BP 4112.8/4312.8, to 8 include members of the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education.
F7:
Members of the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education are not required to receive ethics training.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education adopt a policy to require ethics training for Board members on par with AB1234 “Local Ethics Training” requirements.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff is using an antiquated paper system for maintaining inmate medical records at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff implement a computerized medical record system for maintaining inmate medical records at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail.
F2:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff Staff, has not always followed procedures, policies, and protocols pertaining to the intake process of arrestees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff follow the established procedures, policies, and protocols pertaining to the intake process of arrestees.
F3:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff does not have adequate oversight methods in place for ensuring Corizon Health staff are following their medical intake procedures at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail before the inmate is transferred to custody officers for classification.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff update Appendices A and B and add two signature blocks, one for medical clearance staff the other for the custody officer prior to classification at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail. .
F4:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff medical intake prescreening questionnaire is now being conducted by Corizon Health registered nurses; however, the Medical Process Overview Chart does not reflect this.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff continue to use Corizon Health registered nurses to conduct all medical intake screening of arrestees entering the Jail and include this provision in all future contracts and in the Medical Process Overview Chart.
F5:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Custody Operations Policy and Procedures Manual regarding the intake process needs revision.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff update the Custody Operations Policy and Procedures Manual to reflect the new changes being implemented to the intake process.
F6:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff staff has not always confirmed arrestees were medically cleared by Corizon Health staff prior to classification and placement into the Jail population.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff initiate a procedure to ensure that all medical intake procedures are properly completed prior to classification and that inmate classification not be allowed to occur without verification of the completion of medical evaluation and clearance.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The City of Santa Barbara has at least 38 commissions, committees, and boards, some of which may have outlived their purpose. No review process exists concerning their relevance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
(Sunset Rule) That the City of Santa Barbara City Council review at least every five years the functioning, productivity, and relevance, of all advisory groups and continue, merge, or delete their mandates.
F2:
The City of Santa Barbara’s website does not make a clear distinction between decision making and advisory bodies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the City of Santa Barbara City Council makes a clear distinction which Committees and Boards have decision-making mandates and those that are advisory only to the City of Santa Barbara City Council.
F3:
The City of Santa Barbara’s website does not contain current information about committees, boards, and commissions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the City of Santa Barbara City Council update the section of the website dealing with committees, boards, and commissions.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
Siltation is continuing to decrease the storage capacity and the safe yield of Lake Cachuma as defined in United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the safe yield from Lake Cachuma as defined in United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995, be recalculated and used in the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency taking into account lost storage capacity due to siltation.
F2:
Downstream water rights are protected in the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995 and must be considered when calculating the safe yield.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency must continue to emphasize the importance of downstream water rights and be used in the calculations of the safe yield.
F3:
The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995 was written prior to the 2000 National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion and does not include the requirement to release water under the auspices of the Endangered Species Act.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3a:
That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency include the required water releases for the protection of fish habitat under the 2000 National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion.
R3b:
That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency add language to include the amount of water that will be required to be released by the new Biological Opinion from the National Marine Fisheries Services when it is released.
F4:
The 2011-2016 drought is far worse than the “design drought” of 1947-1952 used in the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995 for Lake Cachuma.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency calculate new water entitlements for member units using the current 2011-2016 worst case drought as its “design drought”.
F5:
The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995 extending from 1995 to 2020 (25 years) is too long a period and includes no review and revision clauses to recalculate the “safe yield” of the Cachuma Project.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5a:
That the term of the new contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency be less than 25 years in length.
R5b:
That the new contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency include periodic mandatory review and revision clauses on the order of every five or six years to recalculate the “safe yield” of Lake Cachuma and to make any other necessary contract changes.
F6:
Safe yield from Lake Cachuma in the current United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995 is based on a static volume per year.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency include a new safe yield in Year One after Lake Cachuma spills, and, in subsequent years, use either a sliding scale or specify mandatory reductions.
F7:
The Montecito Water District does not have an updated Urban Water Management Plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
That the Montecito Water District update its Urban Water Management Plan.
F8:
Conservation policies and drought declarations differ from one member unit to another, possibly confusing water users.
Related Recommendations (2)
R8a:
That the member units, in conjunction with the Santa Barbara County Water Agency, create consistent policies and procedures that govern conservation efforts especially during times of a severe drought and that these are documented in the subcontracts between the Santa Barbara County Water Agency and the member units.
R8b:
That the policies and procedures in Recommendation 8a be announced to the community by all member units at the same time.
F9:
The City of Santa Barbara has started to rebuild its desalination facility and has been in intermittent discussions with the Montecito Water District on sharing use of the facility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
That the City of Santa Barbara and the Montecito Water District continue discussions on options that could optimize the desalination facility as a regional one.
F10:
The Carpinteria Valley Water District no longer participates in the Cachuma Conservation Release Board yet continues to reap the benefits of negotiations paid for by the remaining agencies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
That the Carpinteria Valley Water District, as a benefiting party, rejoin and participate in the Cachuma Conservation Release Board.
F11:
Member units approve new water service by issuing, can and will serve letters, intent to serve letters, water service availability documents, or other documents, without expiration dates to citizens and developers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
That all member units include expiration dates for their water service approval documents.
F12:
Member units utilize can and will serve letters, intent to serve letters, water service availability documents, or other documents to grant new water service that are approved based on water availability during a “normal” year’s water supply.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
That member units change their policies to begin approving new water service on the water available during a “worst case” drought year.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R29-15:
reductions for urban water suppliers May 2015 Stage 2 Carpinteria Valley Water District Stage 3 City of Santa Barbara and Goleta Water District Sept 2015 Stage 2 Santa Ynez Water Conservation District ID No. Each stage of declared drought can mean something different at each water agency. Most drought stages set limits on outside water use. Unique among agencies enacting water use restrictions is the Montecito Water District. Rather than limiting water uses and adding a drought surcharge to water bills, which would compensate for some of the reduced revenue from decreased water use, MWD (in Ordinance 93) gave an allotment of water to each customer based on property size, enacted penalties for overuse, and added a moratorium on water service connections. Of concern to the Jury is the action taken by MWD, and the confusing message it sent to its customers with the passage of Ordinance 94, in March 2015. Ordinance 94 was enacted in response to a successful search to buy supplemental state water on the open market. In this ordinance, the MWD Board of Directors approved an increase in water allotments to their customers. This occurred just one month before the Governor of California enacted an unprecedented executive order for statewide mandatory water use reductions. Member units need to work together to send a clear message to their constituents, to reduce confusion and to emphasize the severity of the water shortages all residents are facing. Of benefit to the regional water community would be a consistent set of defined conservation measures that would be written into the subcontracts between the Agency and all member units, and that member units would enact within their jurisdictional areas in response to specific drought triggers. Regional Cooperation The Jury learned that during the previous drought period of 1986-1990, member units voluntarily agreed to a 20% decrease in their allotments when the Lake’s capacity reached 100,000 AF. A similar voluntary reduction was not agreed to by all members during the current drought. The Jury learned how such a decision is understandable. From the viewpoint of a water agency that has a diversified water portfolio, such as the Goleta Water District, it can opt to make decisions, based on financial reasons, to use up all of its allotment of inexpensive Lake water before dipping into its more expensive groundwater or State Project Water supplies, see Table 2. However, not all member units participating in the Cachuma Project are fortunate enough or have had the foresight to develop a diversified water portfolio. The member units that rely on surface water for up to 90% of their water supplies are more focused on keeping as much water in the Lake for as long as possible. The City of Santa Barbara has started to rebuild its desalination plant as one way to diversify its water supply. Montecito Water District relies almost exclusively (95%) on surface water with groundwater making up the remaining 5%. The Jury learned that Santa Barbara and Montecito are involved in discussions to participate as partners in the rebuilding of the City’s desalination plant. The Jury recommends that in light of regional cooperation, and obtaining a new reliable source of water for the South Coast, that these discussions continue. Cooperation among member units took a turn for the worse in 2011 when CCRB was transferred to COMB, which then began implementing the Fish Management Plan. When this happened, Santa Ynez ID No.1 lost some of their power in how the Fish Management Plan was implemented and has continuously objected to paying for their share of work they believe is outside the scope of the original fisheries Memorandum of Understanding and Biological Opinion. This conflict is beyond the scope of this report, but should be resolved within the existing organizational structure. At the same time, Carpinteria Valley Water District dropped out of CCRB for financial reasons. CCRB's activities are funded by its members, which in turn are funded by their water rate payers. Carpinteria stopped paying their share of CCRB’s operating costs while still retaining the benefits reaped from the advocacy activities of this group. This action has placed a greater financial burden on the other member units and their rate payers. Community Development Plans Control of growth within an area is, in part, the responsibility of planning and development departments. However, when a development is approved at the planning level, the developer is required to receive notification from the governing water agency in that area confirming that water is available to service the needs of the development. Each water agency does this in a slightly different way, whether through “Can and Will Serve” letters, “Intent to Serve” letters, or a similar document. The Jury learned that water agencies are loathe to be the limiting factor for development. However, they are the responsible agency when it comes to determining whether they have adequate water supplies to support the needs of their service areas. Until recently, developments continued to receive approval for water service. The Jury noted that most of these approvals have no expiration date. Documents issued by all member units that approve new water service must include language that limits the permit life. Developments that replace existing structures are approved with the understanding that water for the development is limited to the same amount as is being used under the existing structure. The Jury was told that in some cases, if low flow plumbing fixtures are installed and/or if landscaping is drought tolerant or restricted, water demand at the new development could be less than the existing demand. New construction is minimal in a city such as Santa Barbara that has little room for growth. However, in a newer city such as Goleta, new construction is taking place throughout the community. Citizens of Goleta continue to express their dismay within formal public arenas (such as newspapers, board meetings, and online chat websites) and less formally in casual conversations all over town, at the amount of development that is going on during the worst drought in history. The Jury learned that the Goleta Water District issues its “Can and Will Serve” letters on water resources they predict will be available during a normal weather year. No consideration is given to the possibility of having to supply water to an ever growing community when water shortages occur over many years. The result of this type of approval is that Goleta Water District residents are asked to pay more for water, perhaps at the expense of their quality of life. Future commitments for water service for all water agencies must be based on the water available under the worst case water supply scenario, not under what would be a “normal” year, as there does appear to be a “new normal” emerging. CONCLUSION The 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury, made up of 19 citizens from throughout the County with a variety of backgrounds and a genuine interest in the operations of government within the County of Santa Barbara, found it difficult to unravel the complex web of water agencies, water contracts, water regulations, water purchases, water sales, water portfolios, and water management plans that are designed to supply a safe and secure water source to all people living on the South Coast. This report attempts to unravel portions of this web and to address those issues deemed most pressing and most able to be improved with a focus on the importance of Lake Cachuma. As the residents of the South Coast of Santa Barbara County come to terms with an ever limited supply of water for an ever growing community, the value of every drop of water has come to be appreciated. The Jury recommends that local water agencies work cooperatively to craft a new master contract with periodic mandatory review and revision clauses between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency for the operations of Lake Cachuma and include: the lost water storage capacity due to siltation, the increased demand for downstream habitat preservation, and the reality of more frequent multiyear droughts. The Jury also recommends that each member unit of the Cachuma Project improve their individual water portfolio and reassess their process of approving new water service in light of more limited water supply. For close to two centuries, providing a reliable and sufficient water supply to the residents and agriculture of Santa Barbara County has been a challenge. This challenge has been met year after year by sometimes contentious meetings as public officials try to come to terms with the stress of making sure their constituents have a safe and sufficient supply of water at a reasonable cost. Meeting this challenge in the future with the possibility of increasing multi-year droughts, will be ever more difficult. With the predicted population increase, the demands on this limited resource will also increase. Approximately 250,000 people, many without knowing it, are reliant on their local elected water officials and staff to work together to ensure that wherever they live in Santa Barbara County and regardless of their income, they will have enough water for their basic human needs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1 Siltation is continuing to decrease the storage capacity and the safe yield of Lake Cachuma as defined in United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995. Recommendation 1 That the safe yield from Lake Cachuma as defined in United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995, be recalculated and used in the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency taking into account lost storage capacity due to siltation. Finding 2 Downstream water rights are protected in the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995 and must be considered when calculating the safe yield. Recommendation 2 That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency must continue to emphasize the importance of downstream water rights and be used in the calculations of the safe yield. Finding 3 The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995 was written prior to the 2000 National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion and does not include the requirement to release water under the auspices of the Endangered Species Act. Recommendation 3a That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency include the required water releases for the protection of fish habitat under the 2000 National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion. Recommendation 3b That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency add language to include the amount of water that will be required to be released by the new Biological Opinion from the National Marine Fisheries Services when it is released. Finding 4 The 2011-2016 drought is far worse than the “design drought” of 1947-1952 used in the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995 for Lake Cachuma. Recommendation 4 That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency calculate new water entitlements for member units using the current 2011-2016 worst case drought as its “design drought”. Finding 5 The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995 extending from 1995 to 2020 (25 years) is too long a period and includes no review and revision clauses to recalculate the “safe yield” of the Cachuma Project. Recommendation 5a That the term of the new contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency be less than 25 years in length. Recommendation 5b That the new contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency include periodic mandatory review and revision clauses on the order of every five or six years to recalculate the “safe yield” of Lake Cachuma and to make any other necessary contract changes. Finding 6 Safe yield from Lake Cachuma in the current United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995 is based on a static volume per year. Recommendation 6 That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency include a new safe yield in Year One after Lake Cachuma spills, and, in subsequent years, use either a sliding scale or specify mandatory reductions. Finding 7 The Montecito Water District does not have an updated Urban Water Management Plan. Recommendation 7 That the Montecito Water District update its Urban Water Management Plan. Finding 8 Conservation policies and drought declarations differ from one member unit to another, possibly confusing water users. Recommendation 8a That the member units, in conjunction with the Santa Barbara County Water Agency, create consistent policies and procedures that govern conservation efforts especially during times of a severe drought and that these are documented in the subcontracts between the Santa Barbara County Water Agency and the member units. Recommendation 8b That the policies and procedures in Recommendation 8a be announced to the community by all member units at the same time. Finding 9 The City of Santa Barbara has started to rebuild its desalination facility and has been in intermittent discussions with the Montecito Water District on sharing use of the facility. Recommendation 9 That the City of Santa Barbara and the Montecito Water District continue discussions on options that could optimize the desalination facility as a regional one. Finding 10 The Carpinteria Valley Water District no longer participates in the Cachuma Conservation Release Board yet continues to reap the benefits of negotiations paid for by the remaining agencies. Recommendation 10 That the Carpinteria Valley Water District, as a benefiting party, rejoin and participate in the Cachuma Conservation Release Board. Finding 11 Member units approve new water service by issuing, can and will serve letters, intent to serve letters, water service availability documents, or other documents, without expiration dates to citizens and developers. Recommendation 11 That all member units include expiration dates for their water service approval documents. Finding 12 Member units utilize can and will serve letters, intent to serve letters, water service availability documents, or other documents to grant new water service that are approved based on water availability during a “normal” year’s water supply. Recommendation 12 That member units change their policies to begin approving new water service on the water available during a “worst case” drought year. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated findings and recommendations within the specified statutory time limit: Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors – 90 days Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, 5b, 6, 8a, 8b Carpinteria Valley Water District Board of Directors – 90 days Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 12 Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, 5b, 6, 8a, 8b, 10, 11, and 12 City of Santa Barbara City Council – 90 days Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, 5b, 6, 8a, 8b, 9, 10, 11, and 12 Goleta Water District Board of Directors – 90 days Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 12 Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, 5b, 6, 8a, 8b, 10, 11, and 12 Montecito Water District Board of Directors – 90 days Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, 5b, 6, 7, 8a, 8b, 9, 10, 11, and 12 Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District ID No. Board of Directors – 90 days Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, and 12 Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, 5b, 6, 8a, 8b, 11, and 12
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department is inconsistent in its enforcement of grading violations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors review and revise the Santa Barbara County Grading Code, Chapter 14, to include language that ensures more consistent enforcement.
F2:
There is no present requirement for the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department inspectors to investigate questionable grading activities they observe unless a complaint is filed by a member of the community.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors mandate that the County Planning and Development Department inspectors investigate all questionable grading activities that they observe, or become aware of by any other means.
F3:
Because the Code is vague in its definition of time frame, grading inspectors for North and South County differ in their interpretation of how to enforce the Santa Barbara County Grading Code, Chapter 14, when processing Land Use Development Permit Applications that include grading of 50 cubic yards or more of earth.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors revise the Santa Barbara County Grading Code, Chapter 14, to further define its 50 cubic yard criterion; specifically, how it relates to time frame and/or permit.
F4:
The Grading Code, Chapter 14, (Sections 14-6, 14-8, 14-9.2) does not state how often a property owner can move less than 50 cubic yards of earth, which is exempt from the permitting process; allowing a property owner to move massive amounts of earth in multiple 49.9 cubic yard increments without any timeframe limitation. 6
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors revise the Grading Code to specify how many times within a given timeframe the property owner can move less than 50 cubic yards of earth without a permit.
F5:
The Grading Code, Chapter 14, (Sections 14-6, 14-8, 14-9.2) does not state what degree of compaction is used in defining what constitutes 50 cubic yards of earth.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors mandate that the County Planning and Development Department revise the Grading Code, Chapter 14, (Sections 14-6, 14-8. and 14-9.2) to further define 50 cubic yards of earth, as it applies to compaction.
F6:
Santa Barbara County Land Use Development Code Chapter 35 section 35.84.040 allows multiple permit revisions, which can incrementally and substantially expand the scope of a permit without notice or review by adjacent property owners.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
That the Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department to revise the Santa Barbara County Land Use Development Code Chapter 35 section 35.84.040 to notify neighbors whenever they consider revisions on active projects to ensure that all affected parties are included in the notice and review process.
F7:
Differences between the Santa Barbara County Grading Code and local Community Plans regarding definition of slope cause inconsistent grading and enforcement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
That the Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department to establish internal policies which eliminate inconsistencies between the County grading code and local Community Plans, regarding the definitions of slope.
F8:
The change does not affect easements for trails, public access, or open space.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The change does not affect easements for trails, public access, or open space.
F9:
The change does not increase the required number of parking spaces. If the proposed “minor” change does not conform to the guidelines identified above, the applicant should apply for a new planning permit. 14
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The change does not increase the required number of parking spaces. If the proposed “minor” change does not conform to the guidelines identified above, the applicant should apply for a new planning permit. 14
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F1:
The meeting minutes are far too detailed and are not submitted to and approved by the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors in a timely manner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors require that the minutes be succinct and submitted for acceptance at the next scheduled meeting.
F2:
Neither the Board of Directors nor key employees have ever attended ethics training courses. The Board of Directors has the authority to mandate ethics training for key employees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors include biennial ethics training within the job descriptions of key employees including the Manager of Water/Sewer Operations and the Controller.
F3:
No job descriptions exist for Assistant Operator, Relief Secretary, Maintenance Worker, and Assistant Maintenance Worker.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors ensure job descriptions are prepared for all employees.
F4:
Job descriptions for Manager for Water/Sewer Operations and Controller have not been updated for several years.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4a:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors require the existing but obsolete job description for Manager for Water/Sewer Operations be updated to include licensing requirements, professional qualifications, and response time expectations, at a minimum.
R4b:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors require the existing but obsolete job description for the Controller be updated.
F5:
The Cuyama Community Services District Personnel Policy Manual has no policy addressing conflicts of interest such as nepotism.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors add a policy on conflicts of interest such as nepotism to its Personnel Practices Manual.
F6:
The Board of Directors has failed to follow its policy set forth in the Personnel Policy Manual Section XIV, Part 2 and allowed “Offensive, abusive, or persistent discourteous treatment of the public or fellow employees”.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors enforce Section XIV (Disciplinary Actions Against Employees) Part 2 of its Personnel Policy Manual.
F7:
The Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors has no succession plan for the positions of Manager for Water/Sewer Operations or Controller.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors establish an orderly succession plan for the positions of Manager for Water/Sewer Operations and Controller.
F8:
Required annual personnel performance reviews have not been conducted in accordance with Section XXIII of the Cuyama Community Services District’s Personnel Policy Manual.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors and Manager for Water/Sewer Operations conduct annual performance reviews of all employees.
F9:
The Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors has not enforced its delinquent account enforcement policy, CCSD Water Policy, Article 10 - Discontinuance of Service, 1-1003, Non-payment of Bills.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors enforce its delinquent accounts collection policy.
F10:
That the Cuyama Community Services District will need to increase its revenues to remain financially viable.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors implement the rate increases recommended in the October 2015 CCSD Water and Wastewater Rate Study by the Rural Community Assistance Corporation.
F11:
The public needs to be informed of the need for and implementation of future water and wastewater rate increases.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors initiate a public education program regarding the need for water and wastewater rate increases.
F12:
That the existing telephone system does not adequately support teleconferencing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors ensure an adequate teleconferencing system is available.
F13:
The Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors has not enforced CCSD Policy 91- 1 regarding the personal use of District owned vehicles.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors enforce its existing policy regarding the personal use of District owned vehicles.
F14:
The Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors does not receive any compensation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors consider compensating board members.
F15:
The heavy workload for the Controller position impacts the timely completion of some required functions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors make more frequent use of the Relief Secretary to reduce the workload of the Controller.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
No evidence could be found that a performance review of the contract was ever conducted.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office conduct regular performance reviews of the parking citation processing contract.
F2:
There is no option to pay in person or with cash.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office, in recognition of the need of some citizens to pay in cash, initiate a mechanism to pay in person or with cash.
F3:
Parking citations are not processed in a timely manner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office develop procedures to ensure parking citations are processed in a timely manner.
F4:
Some citations were sent to a debt collection agency even though payment was made within statutory guidelines as required by California Vehicle Code § 40207.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office develop procedures to ensure that parking citations paid within statutory timelines are not sent to debt collection agencies.
F5:
The most recent annual contract renewal with the vendor, CN13914, expired June 30, 2013.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
That the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office enter into a new contract with a qualified vendor that will consistently process parking citations expeditiously.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F2014:
2014-15 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 61 ____SANTA BARBARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT___ THIS PAGE INTERNATIONALLY BLANK 62 2014-15 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TRUANCY This is Where it Starts SUMMARY Santa Barbara County Grand Juries have a history of investigating school truancy and previous Grand Juries promoted intervention programs that are currently being used. These programs are showing continued success. While these programs cover all educational levels, the 2014-15 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) reviewed truancy reduction programs in the elementary schools. The Jury is particularly interested in the use of the Community Leadership in Achieving Student Success (CLASS) program as it relates to elementary students. The Jury investigated the reasons for chronic truancy at this level.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.