Tehama County Grand Jury

2023-2024

1 reports

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings
F1: Inequitable Fees The Grand Jury finds the procedures for assessing well registration fees to support the GSA and to inventory the County’s wells is inequitable and inconsistent in its implementation and administration.
F2: Inadequate Communication from the GSA The Grand Jury finds the GSA outreach program was inadequate for broadly informing landowners (large and small) across Tehama County, and therefore ineffective in communicating the status of planned official actions related to implementation of groundwater management.
F3: Internal Department Debt Repayment The GSA borrowed $634,000 from the Road Department in FY 22/23 while developing the well registration funding plan22. During interviews and recorded meetings it has been stated that repayment would be made from grants, or would come from future landowner fee assessments. The former is an unauthorized use of grant funds, the latter an inappropriate assessment to property owners.
F4: The GSA Extended It’s Authority Beyond Groundwater Priority Subbasins The priority groundwater subbasins designated under SGMA are the boundaries where the GSA’s authority ought to be limited. The GSA did not have authority over the entire county until the TCFC&WCD BOD passed Ordinance No. 2118 in May of 2022.
F5: Accountability for Approval of GSPs The consulting fees paid for preparation and submission of the GSPs should include the follow-on corrections, resubmittal, approval and acceptance by the State, as outlined in the scope of services of the consulting contract between the County and LSCE.
F6: Antelope Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan is Incomplete Many groundwater wells within the Antelope Groundwater Subbasin have gone dry apparently as a result of the decommissioning of the Diversion Dam. The GSA appears not to have taken into consideration public information regarding the effects the Diversion Dam had on groundwater recharge in the Antelope Subbasin, both during and after its decommissioning, when drafting the Antelope Subbasin Sustainability Plan. 22Fromaccountingrecords:Account603isGSAandAccount604isRoadDeptorLevee. 27
Additional Recommendations 14

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Return Well Registration Program Fees The TCFC&WCD BOD should abandon Resolutions 9-2022, 4-2023, and all other Resolutions, Ordinances or other declarations pertaining to the GSA’s current 29¢ per acre well registration program fee. Fees assessed and collected under this current well registration fee program should be returned to the landowners.
R2: By April 1, 2023 Tehama LAFCo Commissioners and staff should implement a regular meeting schedule, at least quarterly, to help all participants remain aware of current issues, updated legal responsibilities and Commission appointments. Response to Recommendation: The recommendation has been implemented; LAFCo has calendared a schedule of regular meetings on the second Wednesday of every month at 2 p.m. for 2023 In the Tehama County Board Chambers. LAFCo concurs that it should not go two to three years without holding a meeting. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: YES
R2a: Improve Public Communication We recommend the GSA provide mailed communication detailing SGMA-related fees and assessments to all affected landowners, and that printed communication include the web addresses to obtain further information, and allow sign-up for the “Interested Party List”.
R2b: Maintain Public Outreach Program We recommend the GSA continue public meetings and related outreach programs for groundwater management related actions, as had been done previously.
R3: Debt Repayment Strategy We recommend that the TCFC&WCD identify a repayment plan to reimburse the $634,000 borrowed in FY-22/23 from the road department to fund GSA activities. The repayment plan should not rely on unauthorized use of grant monies, nor inequitable landowner fees, particularly on properties that are not within the priority groundwater subbasins.
R4: Align GSA Authority with SGMA Groundwater Subbasins. The Grand Jury recommends the BOS re-evaluate, and amend or abolish Ordinance 2118, and restrict the GSA area of authority to the priority groundwater subbasins defined under SGMA, and described in DWR Bulletin 118.
R5: Enforce the Contract Scope for the GSP Consulting Services The Grand Jury recommends the BOD direct their staff to have the consultant revise and update the GSPs as indicated in the State DWR review letters, and in accordance with their consulting contract with the TCFC&WCD, at no additional fee. 28
R6: a Research Dry Well Correlation to Diversion Dam Decommissioning The Grand Jury recommends the TCFC&WCD, in cooperation with the County Environmental Health, research the dry well areas in the Antelope Subbasin. The question should be answered whether there is a correlation between dry wells in the Antelope subbasin and decommissioning of the Diversion Dam. This research should cover an appropriate period of time before and after the decommissioning, as well a representative radius of influence from the dam and Lake Red Bluff.
R7: By April 1, 2023 Tehama LAFCo should annually develop a budget and seek adequate funding to allow accomplishment of annual work plans called for in Recommendations 6. MSR's and SOi's should be scheduled and budgeted over time to reduce the burden of costs, Response to Recommendation: The recommendation requires further study to determine what adequate funding post Grand Jury precipitated analysis reveals. The analysis will include whether or not it is appropriate for LAFCo to spend public funds on updating other independently funded agencies Spheres of Influence, which would trigger a Municipals Service Review on an as necessary basis or whether it would be considered a gift of public funds. Currently, as the state statue reads -The term "as Necessary" removes any requirement to update spheres of influence on a specific time frame after 2008 thereby in the Grand Jury's opinion (Section 2, Grand Jury Report) necessitating a "definition for when MSR or SOI reviews or updates are required or considered "necessary" (CKH Act GC 56425 and CKH Act GC 5630). If the CHK Law and Stature was clear, a definition would not be required. In fact the Legislation while crafting and adopting CHK laws states at a May 4, 2005 hearing that "as statutes go into effect, local officials often discover problems or inconsistencies in the language of the law". A plausible definition for "as necessary" could include- At the point and time the status quo of a City or Special Districts Sphere of Influence Boundary is changed. If this is determined to be an appropriate definition, then a city and/or special district will submit an application with a fee to update their Sphere of Influence based on an actual change to the size and/or shape of their current Sphere of Influence rather than an arbitrary review of a boundary line that will not move from its current state. During this analysis, Staff will still accept and process any application for a Sphere of Influence update pursuant to CHK Gov. Code 56017. 2(b) Application means any of the following-(b)states-A request for a sphere of influence amendment or update pursuant to section 56425. A study item will be agenized at a regular scheduled LAFCO meeting no later than July 1, 2023. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: YES
R8: By April 1, 2023 Tehama LAFCo should have updated information on their webpage which provides a complete inventory (i.e. special district name, service9s) provided, contract information. Etc.) of all the special districts in the County, as well as links to all the updated SOi's and MSR's that have been completed and should reference the CKH Act. Response to Recommendation: The recommendation requires further study to determine what level of information will be placed on the LAFCo webpage and what information will be provided through links to other resources already available on the internet. Tehama LAFCo only receives about 4 to 5 phone calls a year and about 5 to 6 emails a year, which justifies its current budget and resource a/location. The current information on the website along with the names of the LAFCo commissioners and staff may be adequate and meet the needs of the public based on the low public demand. A study item will be agenized at a regular scheduled LAFCo meeting no later July 2023. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: YES
R9: By April 1, 2023 Tehama LAFCo Commissioners should be required to have Grand Jury training and have subsequent refresher training at some interval to be determined. Response to Recommendation: The recommendation requires further study to determine what form,· if any, a Grand Jury Training would tako place and if it is warranted and required by law. These elements of the study will be presented to the Tehama LAFCo prior to July 1, 2023. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: YES
R10: By April 1, 2023 Tehama LAFCo should develop checklists, such as those created in Yolo County, to document when MSR and SOI reviews are conducted and if SOU updates are found to be deemed necessary or not. Response to Recommendation:The recommendation requires further study to determine what form, if any, would meet the organization needs of Tehama LAFCo. A study item will be agendized at a regular scheduled LAFCo meeting no later July 1, 2023. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: YES R 11. By October 18, 2023 Tehama LAFCo commissioners and staff should begin attending Annual CALAFCo Conference Workshops. The 2023 Conference will be held on October 18-23, 2023. Response to Recommendation: The recommendation requires further study to determine what form of training is most appropriate and feasible given individual's health concerns related to COVID and the various strains still evolving. LAFCo 101 training is readily available online and could be beneficial. A study item will be agendized at a regular scheduled LAFCo meeting no later July 2023. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: YES
R11: By October 18, 2023 Tehama LAFCo commissioners and staff should begin attending Annual CALAFCo Conference Workshops. The 2023 Conference will be held on October 18-23, 2023. Response to Recommendation: The recommendation requires further study to determine what form of training is most appropriate and feasible given individual's health concerns related to COVID and the various strains still evolving. LAFCo 101 training is readily available online and could be beneficial. A study item will be agendized at a regular scheduled LAFCo meeting no later July 2023. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: YES R12.By January 1, 2024 all Tehama LAFCo Commissioners and staff should receive formal training in the requirements of CKH Act. Response to Recommendation: The recommendation requires further study to determine what form of training is most appropriate and feasible given individual's health concerns related to COVID and the various strains still evolving. LAFCO 101 training is readily available online and could be beneficial. A study item will be agendized at a regular scheduled LAFCo meeting no later July 2023. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: YES BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF TEHAMA Recommendations: 2 Recommendation 4: "By April 1, 2023, Tehama LAFCo Commissioners should resume discussions to attempt to secure funding splits for the cities in Tehama County as required by the CKH Act." Response: Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05(b)(2), the recommendation has not yet been 42 implemented, but will be implemented in the future. It is unlikely that the implementation will occur by the April 1, 2023, date as this response is not due until after that time, but the City will diligently work towards implementation (engaging in discussions with LAFCo) soon thereafter. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: YES Recommendation 7: "By April 1, 2023, Tehama LAFCo should annually develop budgets and seek adequate funding to allow accomplishment of annual work plans called for in Recommendation 6. MSRs and SOis should be scheduled and budgeted over time to reduce the burden of costs." Response: Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05(b)(3), the recommendation requires further analysis, as the actions requested would be taken by the LAFCo Commissioners and not the City. The City certainly is willing to engage in discussions with LAFCO, as stated in response to Recommendation 4. However, the City has no control over LAFCo' s actions in developing a budget and seeking adequate funding and therefore cannot implement or represent that it will implement this Recommendation. The City is supportive of LAFCo's efforts to conduct a study regarding securing adequate funding and it is our understanding that further analysis will be completed within six (6) months. The City of Red Bluff appreciates this opportunity to respond to relevant portions of the 2022 Tehama County Grand Jury Final Report ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: YES CITY OF CORNING Recommendations: 2 Recommendation 4: "By April 1, 2023 Tehama LAFCo Commissioners should resume discussions to attempt to secure funding splits for the cities in Tehama County as required by the CKH Act." Response: Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05(b)(2), the recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. It is unlikely that the implementation will occur by the April 1, 2023 date as this response is not due until after that time, but the City will diligently work towards implementation (engaging in discussions with LAFCo) soon thereafter. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: YES Recommendation 7: "By April 1, 2023 Tehama LAFCo should annually develop budgets and seek adequate funding to allow accomplishment of annual work plans called for in Recommendation 6. MSRs and SOis should be scheduled and budgeted over time to reduce the burden of costs." Response: Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05(b)(3), the recommendation requires further analysis, as the actions requested would be taken by the LAFCo Commissioners and not the City. The City certainly is willing to engage in discussions with LAFCO, as stated in response to Recommendation 4. However, the City has no control over LAFCo's actions in developing a budget and seeking adequate funding and therefore cannot implement or represent that it will 43 implement this Recommendation. Further analysis will be completed within six (6) months. On a related point, the City of Corning coordinated and paid for a Municipal Services Review (MSR) in the later part of 2022. The responsibility for preparation of the· MSR is statutorily the responsibility of LAFCo, not the City. In effect, the City is presently already financially contributing to the responsibilities of LAFCo. The City of Corning appreciates this opportunity to respond to relevant portions of the 2022 Tehama County Grand Jury Final Report. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: YES 44 Response Letters to the Recommendations of the 2022 Grand Jury Report 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 How to File a Citizen Complaint TEHAMA COUNTY GRAND JURY P.O. Box 1061 Red Bluff, CA 96080 Tehama County Citizen Complaints - How to File a Complaint Any Tehama County citizen may address the Grand Jury to express concerns regarding all levels of misconduct of local officials or employees of inefficiencies in local government. Complaints can be submitted by completing a Grand Jury Complaint Form. Complaints are treated as confidential. The Grand Jury is NOT REQUIRED to investigate any or all complaints, but may choose whether to investigate as part of its watchdog duties. Complaint forms can be obtained as follows: ● Via the Superior Court of California County of Tehama website: https://www.co.tehama.ca.us/grand-jury , then click on Complaint Form. ● By calling (530) 527-3946, press “1”, to leave a message with your name and address for a form to be mailed to you. ● Citizens may also pick up a form at the Superior Court, 1740 Walnut St. Red Bluff, CA 96080. Complaints must be in writing, signed, dated and addressed to: TEHAMA COUNTY GRAND JURY P. O. Box 1061 Red Bluff, CA 96080 The 2023 Tehama County Grand Jury received, reviewed and acknowledged several complaints. All complaints were treated with the utmost respect toward the citizens of Tehama County. 67
R12: By January 1, 2024 all Tehama LAFCo Commissioners and staff should receive formal training in the requirements of CKH Act. Response to Recommendation: The recommendation requires further study to determine what form of training is most appropriate and feasible given individual's health concerns related to COVID and the various strains still evolving. LAFCO 101 training is readily available online and could be beneficial. A study item will be agendized at a regular scheduled LAFCo meeting no later July 2023. ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED: YES BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF TEHAMA Recommendations: 2