Tehama County Grand Jury
2024-2025
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
- Inequitable Fees Disagrees Adequate
F2:
- Inadequate Communication from the GSA Disagrees Adequate
F3:
- Internal Debt Repayment Disagrees Adequate
F4:
- The GSA Extended It’s Authority Beyond Groundwater Priority Subbasins Disagrees Adequate
F5:
- Accountability for Approval of GSPs Disagrees Adequate
F6:
- Antelope Subbasin Groundwater Plan is Incomplete Disagrees Adequate
Additional Recommendations
13
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
- Return Well Registration Program Fees Further Analysis Adequate
R2:
a concern that the procedural requirements were the bare minimum; 3) a concern that the fees were imposed in relation to property size; 4) a concern that some landowners were not assessed the fee; 5) a concern that the fee was beirig used to document all the wells within the county and not just those within a priority basin; and, conversely, 6) a concern that the fee was imposed countywide were intended to cover the costs of identifying wells within the priority subbasin. Even though these last two seem in conflict and, as best as the District reads the last paragraph on of the report, it will attempt to respond to each concern in turn. 3.1.a -;-,,, C: g_ ,,, Cl) a:: i'.' :::, .., 'ti C: e (!) M N 0 N 3: IL "' 0 LO "' ~ Cl) ,,, C: 0 C. ,,, Cl) a:: ~ ..; C: Cl) E .c: " ! Packet Pg. 4 91
R2a:
- Improve Public Communication Already Implemented Adequate
R2b:
- Maintain Public Outreach Program Agrees Adequate
R3:
- Debt Repayment Strategy Disagrees Adequate
R4:
- Align GSA Authority with SGMA Groundwater Subbasins Disagrees Adequate
R5:
- Enforce the Contract Scope for the GSP Consulting Services Disagrees Adequate
R6:
b Install Additional Groundwater Monitoring Wells The Grand JQry recommends the GSA install additional·groundwater monitoring wells for the Antelope Subbasin to better track groundwater fluctuation in the dry well affected area(s) and provide a more robust database for dry well remediation. The District's Response to R6b: The recommendation will be implemented, but its timing will require further analysis. Expansion of groundwater monitoring is necessary in all basins and areas that feed them, this will be ongoing into the foreseeable future. While the District is looking at the institution of a dry well mitigation program, it is unlikely that the program will include mitigation for wells that went dry due to the Federal Government's actions prior to the institution of SGMA.
R6a:
- Research Dry Well Correlation to Diversion Dam Decommissioning Disagrees Adequate
R6b:
- Install Additional Groundwater Monitoring Wells Agrees Adequate
R6c:
- Develop Wastewater Master Plan (WWMP) Disagrees Adequate
R6d:
- Develop Groundwater Recharge Program Already Implemented Adequate
R6e:
- Incorporate Recommendations into Antelope GSP Agrees Adequate 90 February 16, 2024 Honorable Laura S. Woods Judge of the Superior Court 1740 Walnut Street Red Bluff, CA 96080 TEHAMA COUNTY FlOOO CONTIIOLANO WATEII CONSEIJVATIO'I OISHllCT www.TehamaCountyWater.org Re: Response to Grand Jury 2023 Report The Tehama County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has received and reviewed the 2023 Grand Jury Report. We thank the members of the Grand Jury for their service to the community by providing a thorough investigation and thoughtful findings and recommendations. The Grand Jury requires the following responses, pursuant to Penal Code §§933 and 933.05: • Board of Supervisors of the County of Tehama shall respond to Finding F4 and Recommendation R4. • Board of Directors of the Tehama County Flood Control and Water Conservation District shall respond to Findings Fl, F2, F3, FS & F6; and Recommendations Rl, R2a & 2b, R3, RS and R6a through R6e. The Board of Directors has reviewed the below responses and will refer to them as applicable. Fl. 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. The District's Response to Fl: The District partially disagrees with the finding. The report is unclear on what facts it uses to establish the conclusion of inequity or inconsistency. There appear to be six issues identified: 1) a concern that the criteria relating to a de minimis water user in 10730(a) have not been met; 2) a concern that the procedural requirements were the bare minimum; 3) a concern that the fees were imposed in relation to property size; 4) a concern that some landowners were not assessed the fee; 5) a concern that the fee was beirig used to document all the wells within the county and not just those within a priority basin; and, conversely, 6) a concern that the fee was imposed countywide were intended to cover the costs of identifying wells within the priority subbasin. Even though these last two seem in conflict and, as best as the District reads the last paragraph on of the report, it will attempt to respond to each concern in turn. 3.1.a -;-,,, C: g_ ,,, Cl) a:: i'.' :::, .., 'ti C: e (!) M N 0 N 3: IL "' 0 LO "' ~ Cl) ,,, C: 0 C. ,,, Cl) a:: ~ ..; C: Cl) E .c: " ! Packet Pg. 4 91 1) Water Code section 10730 exempts de minimis extractors from any fees imposed pursuant to section 10730 unless those users are subject to a regulation imposed pursuant to Part 2.74 of Division 6 of the Water Code. Pursuant to Part 2.74, a "de minim is extractor" means a person who pumps, for domestic purposes, two acre-feet or less per year. In order to be a de minimis extractor, a person must pump groundwater. Resolution 9-2022 requires that all wells within the County of Tehama be registered with the District. The only way that a person could qualify as a de minim is extractor would be to use a groundwater extraction facility registered with the District. Therefore, the criteria the grand jury was concerned about has in fact been met. 2) Resolution 9-2022 is NOT an assessment subject to California Constitution Article XIIID because fees associated with groundwater management are NOT fees for a property- related service. (See City of San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation Dist. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1191.) The well registration fee funds a regulatory investigation pursuant to Water Code Section 10730 and falls within the exceptions outlined in Proposition 26's definition of "tax." Although the District believes that the public meetings including phone and internet broadcasting, posters, news media, publishing in the newspaper and by website were more than sufficient to meet due process requirements, it agrees with the Grand Jury that the District met the minimum standard for institution of the regulatory fee. 3) Generally, large property owners in the County own many different APNs, require the most assistance with determining what parcels contain wells, the most clarification on use types, the highest mailing and distribution costs and the highest confirmation costs. A property owner that receives a total fee of $30,000 would have to own greater than 100,000 acres, likel1/ containing 100s of APNs of various sizes all needing to be cataloged, confirmed and managed in a database even if that owner did not have a single well, which is unlikely. There seems to be an implication that the fee should have been related to the number of wells on a property. Many wells existing throughout the County do not have any records associated with them. A regulatory investigation to determine who uses groundwater, and for what purpose, cannot be based on the outcome of the investigation it is to fund. As a result, the number of wells that a specific APN does or does not have cannot be used to determine if the fee is applicable, or equitable until we have an accurate count of wells. 4) Consistent with the Assessor's office policy of not placing assessments on very small or low value properties due to the cost of placing the assessment being greater than the revenue from the assessment, the District did not charge fees to smaller parcels that would ultimately cause an increase in the overall cost of the investigation and an increase in the per acre fee. The level of effort to document the wells on these smaller parcels is not justified by groundwater use that likely to be de minim is in nature. The highest rate of response was from these smaller parcels and accounts for the differences in our database totals and figures referenced in the report. This may be what led to the idea that the fee was applied in an inconsistent manner. However, it is applied both consistently and in alignment with the Assessor's policy. Upon completion of the well registration process, the total number of wells, and of each type, will be. public information and can be the basis of future efforts to protect groundwater in the County for all who rely on it. 3.1.a Packet Pg. 5 w "' i:: 0 ll. "' " 0:: ~ :, -, ,, i:: ~ (!) M N 0 N a: "' 0 "' "' ~ " "' i:: 0 ll. "' " 0:: a: .;.; i:: " E .r: " ! 92 5) and 6) the fee is imposed countywide because it covers the costs of an investigation to identify wells throughout the County. Rl. 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 29Cper acre well registration program fee. Fees assessed and collected under this current well registration fee program should be returned to the landowners. The District's Response to Rl The recommendation requires further analysis. The District is currently involved in active litigation the outcome of which will allow the District to determine whether this recommendation will be implemented.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The BOS meetings are a cause for concern due to the inability of the Board to operate as a cohesive team.
F2:
Animosity between several of the BOS inhibits the ability to get county work done in a timely manner.
F3:
There are members of the public that continually make unsubstantiated allegations instead of focusing on the County business which slows down the BOS from getting county business done in a timely manner.
F4:
A member of the BOS has expressed intent to remove the CA, Personnel Director, and County Counsel. This has caused unnecessary tension within County Administration.
F5:
One of the BOS thinks the CA intimidates the DHPMs. Our interviews pointed out that 22 out of 24 DHPMs feel supported and work well with the CA. This discrepancy suggests a significant gap between the perception of one supervisor and the experiences of the majority of DHPMs.
F6:
Although paid by the county, BOS members are not county employees and are not bound by county personnel rules. This lack of enforceable standards for elected officials appears to reduce accountability and encourage poor behavior, undermining a respectful workplace. 69
F7:
All of the current BOS agreed that a Code of Conduct for the BOS would be beneficial. Implementing a Code of Conduct could enhance public trust, improve working relationships within the BOS, and set consistent expectations that support a respectful and effective governing environment.
F8:
There is confusion among Tehama County officials over which personnel rules should apply to whom. This ambiguity has led to questions about whether elected, appointed, and hired individuals are being treated consistently and fairly under county policies, highlighting the need for clearer definitions and uniform application of rules.
F9:
All of Department heads noticed the conflict between the Sheriff and the CA which has created an uncomfortable and challenging work environment. This tension has negatively impacted the effectiveness of county operations and must be resolved.
F10:
The TCGJ observed that the BOS sometimes goes beyond its policy-making role by micromanaging the CA, making it difficult for the CA to effectively carry out his responsibilities.
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The BOS shall hire an outside mediator to resolve differences between the Sheriff and the CA by October 1, 2025.
R2:
County Counsel will define clearly the job descriptions of the BOS and the CA at a BOS meeting with the public present by October 1, 2025.
R3:
The BOS shall adopt and sign the TCGJ’s suggested Code of Conduct, or institute their own version, by October 1, 2025. This Code of Conduct shall be reviewed and revised as needed and shall be signed annually by the serving BOS.
R4:
The BOS shall adopt the Public Code of Conduct suggested by the TCGJ, or write one of their own, by October 1, 2025. The Code shall be placed on the front of the BOS agenda that is available to the public. TCGJ also suggests it be projected on the screen prior to the official start of the BOS meeting.
R5:
TCGJ recommends the Public Comment period be moved from the beginning of the BOS meetings to the end of the meetings by October 1, 2025.
R6:
The TCGJ recommends that the BOS develop and use a speaker’s card system to better organize the public input during agenda items at BOS meetings. If no card is submitted, the individual should not be permitted to speak. This process will help ensure orderly, timely, and relevant public participation in Board proceedings. The system should be in place by October 1, 2025.
R7:
TCGJ recommends that the Personnel Director work with an Ad Hoc committee to clearly explain which personnel rules apply to hired, elected, and appointed county staff in the Tehama County Personnel Rules Handbook. Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, the following response is required: • Board of Supervisors of the County of Tehama shall respond to: o Findings: F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F10 o Recommendations: R1, R3, R4, R5 • Tehama County Counsel shall respond to: o Finding: F10 o Recommendation: R2 • Tehama County Personnel Director shall respond to: o Finding: F8 o Recommendation: R7 In accordance with California Penal Code Section 933.06, five members of the Tehama County Grand Jury have recused themselves from participating in the inquiry, deliberation, and preparation of this report due to a potential conflict of interest or other disqualifying circumstances. 71