November 2020 Election: Candidate for San Lorenzo Valley Water District, Director
Gail Mahood [Retired Geology Professor]
Filing Statement:
A Felton resident, I am currently a member of the District’s Engineering Committee. If elected to the Board, I will bring scientific expertise and leadership skills I developed during 40 years as a Professor of Geology at Stanford University. In addition to teaching and research, I was extensively involved with university governance and administration, including serving as Associate Vice Provost of Graduate Education, Chair of the Faculty Senate, and Chair of the board that evaluates all faculty appointments and promotions. I was also a member of the University budget and strategic planning group and the Board of Trustees Land and Building Committee. These roles gave me an understanding of multi-year budgeting, capital planning, and human resource issues. They also honed my communication skills, and taught me how to run meetings effectively and forge plans of action on contentious issues. I hope to apply these skills and my knowledge of the geologic structure, geohydrology, and natural hazards of the District’s watershed to fulfilling the Board’s responsibility to ensure a reliable supply of high-quality water for the future, and to representing the District’s interests in the development of the state-mandated sustainability plan for the Santa Margarita groundwater basin.
Website:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/3156631771125571
Instagram: gailmahood
Linked In: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gail-mahood-7844a273/
Stanford University: https://profiles.stanford.edu/gail-mahood
Response to FSLVW Questionnaire:
[Received 9/21/20]
Topic 1. Emergency Preparedness
The CZU Lightning Complex Fire demonstrated the need for the SLVWD to address emergency preparedness for its vulnerable infrastructure and to cooperate with other regional agencies responsible for wildfire and fuels management in SLV. Seven storage tanks, all 7.5 miles of raw water supply lines and transmission water mains between tanks were destroyed in the wildfire. Electrical lines and equipment as well as communications lines and equipment vital for operations were also damaged or destroyed. These damages led to loss of fire-fighting water as well as degraded water quality for many District ratepayers after the fire, with undefined consequences for basic needs.
• What suggestions would you make to address not only wildfire but also earthquake and mega-rainstorm preparedness in the permanent repairs to this infrastructure?
Wildfire. The highest priority is to replace all lines adjacent to storage tanks and treatment plants with ductile iron and bury them, thereby avoiding catastrophic loss of water storage and chimneying of VOCs and soot into tanks. Where long runs or difficult topography make the installation costs of ductile iron too costly (e.g., 5-mile line transporting stream intake water to storage tanks) either bury HDPE pipes or create defensible space around pipelines. Smaller outbuildings such as creek intake facilities or pump houses at groundwater wells should be rebuilt using rebar-reinforced cinder block and high-fire-rating composite roofing material. Finally, create defensible space around essential facilities.
Earthquake. Where iron is used for pipes, use ductile iron, which is less likely to break in an earthquake.
Mega-rainstorms. Following the CZU fire, all facilities on the east side of Ben Lomond Mountain are going to be subject to debris flows (a fast-moving slurry of rainwater, mud, sand, rocks, fallen logs and roots) during high-intensity rain events. While the biggest debris flows are expected in the first rainy season, experience from previous intense fires demonstrates that watersheds take 1-3 years to recover. This mostly affects the decision of when and where to reconstruct stream intake structures. Current plans are to reconstruct the Foreman Creek facility this coming spring, after the heavy rains. I think more thought should be given to whether it would be better to postpone construction of creek intakes until after the second winter, in the meantime using more well water.
Ultimately, the District should consider whether there should be less dependence on surface water. Groundwater is much less subject to damage from natural hazards. Rather than replacing all the surface water intakes, we may want to consider whether it would be better to drill a new production well.
• What funding sources would you recommend to help pay for these repairs?
FEMA will reimburse the District 75% for replacement and repair of facilities. Because FEMA reimburses after the fact, the District will need to obtain a bridge loan. It will also need to request State help in paying the remaining 25% and/or appealing to the federal government to have the matching requirement waived.
California state Watershed Emergency Response Teams (WERTs) have been deployed after the fire to assess damage and formulate initial emergency responses to mitigate hazards from debris flows, flooding, erosion, and rock falls. This work can be funded by FEMA or the California Natural Resources Conservation Service. The latter will also provide funding for restoring the forest on District lands.
But we don’t want to simply replace infrastructure that was there; we want to end up with a system that is less susceptible to flooding and debris flows and is more resilient to fire, including larger distribution pipes that will provide fire flows to outlying districts and structures that are more fire-resistant. A Hazard Mitigation Program under Section 404 of the Stafford Act allows for hazard mitigation projects during the recovery process, including removing standing burned trees, creating defensible space, installing barriers to trap sediment, and reseeding hillsides. In particular Item (14) specifies “replacing water systems that have been burned and have caused contamination”. This item may help pay for upgrades to our pre-existing system. We may want to consider reducing future fire and debris flow hazards by reconfiguring surface water intakes and drilling a well on District property (e.g., at Bull Creek, where there is abandoned infrastructure and the bedrock is Lompico Formation, a known aquifer in the basin).
Topic #2: Financial Status
Water rates have increased dramatically in the past decade in water districts across the country driven by escalating costs and years of insufficient investment in critical infrastructure. Despite this increase, long-term revenue is projected to fall short of long-term expenses for the SLVWD and other water districts throughout the nation.
• What specific actions do you support or oppose to increase revenue or decrease operating costs? Please include your opinion on rate increases.
All utility rates increase with time; the job of the Board is to work with SLVWD staff to limit the size of those increases. Salaries and benefits (about $4M/yr) are the lion’s share of the costs to run the District, so the only way to substantially reduce operational costs is to reduce staffing. The SLVWD staff is about twice the size of the Scotts Valley Water District staff. This is due to the greater complexity of our system (9 surface intakes, melding of different water systems, multiple groundwater wells), the greater age of the system, which results in frequent breaks and leaks, and geography (our district covers a much larger area, with households commonly spread far apart, in a steep terrain full of landslides served by narrow winding roads that make access difficult). Producing and distributing water in the San Lorenzo Valley is always going to be more expensive than it is in flatter, more densely populated areas.
That said, capital improvements to upgrade and simplify the system, would over time allow for a decrease in the number of field technicians servicing facilities and fixing leaks. Another way to reduce staffing is to reduce the number of administrative staff by outsourcing certain activities, such as billing or payroll, or to join forces with other local water districts to accomplish these tasks. All these things are best accomplished by allowing management to engage in long-term planning rather than cope with arbitrary across-the-board 5% cuts to annual budgets. To this end, the District should adopt multi-year budgeting that encourages management to put into place actions that over a period of years would reduce operational costs or at least flatten the annual increase.
Sale of surplus properties can generate revenue, but in the end only a modest gain is expected because most of the properties are small and of little value. Moreover, it is a one-time infusion of cash best used for capital expenses.
Prior to the fire, Lew Farris and I had discussed the potential for raising revenue through selling excess winter flows to Scotts Valley Water District, so they could rest their wells for at least part of the winter. This would have been possible because the District has been operating under capacity due to conservation by ratepayers, and because there is an existing intertie.
Topic #3: Ratepayer Assistance Program
The State of California has recognized safe and affordable water as a fundamental human right, but it has not yet provided any funding to help impoverished ratepayers cope with increasing water rates. A District-funded Ratepayer Assistance Program (RAP) is an immediate way to address the needs of low-income ratepayers.
• Do you support the District’s newly implemented, pilot RAP plan, and what specific next steps would you support or oppose?
I was in favor of the District implementing the RAP, though I suspected that the amount of assistance offered was too small to attract many takers. That has proved to be the case, as the program is under-subscribed. Under ordinary circumstances I would have advocated doubling the assistance, and making it revenue-neutral by a slight increase in connection fees. But after the fire, the Board and staff have more urgent matters to attend to, so I think that, for now, the RAP should remained unchanged.
Topic #4: Environmental and Watershed Protection
In the past two years, the District has significantly reduced funding for environmental programs. The District has also reduced environmental staff hours and responsibilities from one full-time management position to part-time duties of other staff.
• In what specific environment-related initiatives and partnerships do you think the District should increase or decrease its investment?
I think the award-winning, environmentally sensitive way in which the Probation tank was constructed is an example of the most substantive way in which the District can express its commitment to good environmental stewardship.
The CZU fire has makes more urgent the need to complete the District fire management plan, so I think this should be fast-tracked.
Linking up with environmental groups to mobilize volunteers to help maintain District lands (e.g., remove invasive species from District sand hills properties, trash removal on the Zayante properties) could help the District and provide opportunities for informal education about District lands and activities.
We don’t have the staff to engage in extensive outreach activities, but we could gain some of the same benefits by having researchers come to us by inviting them to work on projects of interest to the District (e.g., regrowth in burn areas; effect of the fire on salmon habitat in Fall Creek; more fine-grained studies than provided by the U.S. Geological Survey of debris flow hazard in the creek drainages that supplied District surface water; numerical modeling of run-out and inundation zones of debris flows of a range of volumes using FLO-2D and LAHARZ programs; geochemical modeling of well waters to determine sources of ions that affect palatability or are toxic; additional computer runs of ModFlow 6 to test the effects on groundwater levels of a range of increased pumping rates of District wells; social and economic barriers to rebuilding destroyed homes in the Valley).
• Do you support the disposal or sale of the Zayante watershed properties?
I don’t have enough information to make a decision. As I understand it, the District Manager wants to surplus these properties because we don’t have the water rights, and they create nuisance maintenance problems and potential liability due to trespassers. If we were to sell them, I am concerned that construction or tree removal by a new owner might degrade Zayante Creek in such a way that it indirectly limits withdrawals from our Quail Hollow and Olympia wells fields to meet SMGWA’s groundwater sustainability plan benchmarks. This is a good reason to retain the properties if the nuisance costs are fairly small. If the properties are to be sold, I favor selling the property with a conservation easement in place (e.g., Sempervirens Fund) that would severely limit construction and tree removal.
Topic #5: Santa Margarita Ground Water Agency (SMGWA)
The California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 requires local water agencies to achieve sustainability within 20 years. Since that time, the SLVWD, the Scotts Valley Water District, and the County of Santa Cruz have worked on a plan to address the overdraft of the Santa Margarita aquifer.
• What do you see as top priorities for SLVWD in engaging in the SMGWA negotiations, and what relevant expertise can you contribute?
My top priorities in engaging with the SMGWA are (1) to critically assess the quality and accuracy of work by consultants on groundwater basin modeling and climate modeling; (2) to clearly communicate the technical aspects of the deliberations to other Board members and ratepayers; and (3) to make sure that decisions about groundwater management in the Basin do not impose costs on the District out of proportion to the potential benefits to the District.
With a Ph.D. in geology and experience with water issues, I can evaluate the technical aspects of the data, modeling, and results. My more than 40 years as a Professor teaching earth sciences make it easy for me to explain these things clearly to others. To this end, for the last year I have been informally advising the two Directors representing SLVWD on the SMGWA Board.
We need to make sure that the SLVWD does not pay a disproportionate share of solutions that largely benefit Scotts Valley Water District. The SLVWD wells do not have as serious a problem with overdraft as the SVWD wells. Similarly, we need to make sure that solutions proposed for the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Association that are familiar to the Santa Cruz members of SMGWA are not “imported” to the SMGWA, because the geologic settings and hydrologic problems are quite different. For example, an idea that has been floated is to drill a very expensive managed aquifer recharge well to raise groundwater levels in the Lompico aquifer in the eastern part of the basin, based on a decision to drill such a well in Mid-County in a different aquifer for a different purpose.
While protecting the financial interests of SLVWD, we need to use SMGWA to develop stronger cooperative relationships with SVWD and Santa Cruz Water Department so that we all three entities have greater flexibility in responding to emergencies such as faced by SLVWD following the CZU fire or to longer-term issues such as drought and climate change.
Topic #6: Infrastructure
Deferred maintenance on District infrastructure dates back through several generations of Directors. Problems include leaking pipes and tanks, insufficient storage during severe drought, compliance issues, and overdraft of the Santa Margarita Aquifer.
• Which elements of the District's infrastructure do you see as most and least critical to address?
Obviously a question posed before the fire! Had I answered it then, I would have said replacing 2” lines that are far below modern standards and lead to low water pressure and insufficient flows to fight fires. Then or now I would say that the least critical element of infrastructure to address is modernizing or consolidating the District’s administrative and operations buildings.
In the aftermath of the fire, the most critical repairs are blasting and recoating the Lyon and Little Lyon tanks (45% of the District’s storage capacity) to eliminate VOC contamination, and removing falling trees and burning roots around the Lyon tank and treatment facility and access roads that pose hazards to property and workers. Rather than replace all seven of the damaged or destroyed creek intake facilities near Boulder Creek, I believe the District should assess whether it would make more sense to drill a new production well, and shift more of the District’s water supply to groundwater, given that groundwater is less subject to damage by natural hazards. There is time to make these decisions because reconstructed surface water intakes near Boulder Creek cannot be used until Spring of 2021 at the earliest due to the likely debris flows brought down by intense rain events in the upcoming winter.
Topic #7: Board Role and Deliberations
The members of the current Board of Directors have been elected or appointed within the past two years. Working relationships and long-range plans are continuing to evolve.
• What is the role of the Board and the role of the Strategic Plan?
The role of the Board is to set District priorities, provide feedback and final approval of policies developed by staff, approve capital projects and major purchases, and adopt a budget and have oversight of the finances of the District. I have been impressed with the dedication and competence of the high-level staff I have observed at Board meetings, and believe the role of the Board should be largely one of “advise and consent” to the District Manager and staff, rather than to be micromanagers or policy originators. A major role of the Board is to ensure fiscal responsibility. In my opinion, the Board often gets bogged down on minor matters (the wording of a letter; the details of a policy), while breezing over decisions that have consequences in terms of lost revenue or increased costs amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I am not a big proponent of strategic plans unless an organization is undergoing a fundamental refocusing. Writing a strategic plan is a lot work, yet most get stuck on a shelf and rarely read. It seems clear that the one written in 2016 was rarely consulted. As we saw in 2019, there was much Sturm und Drang over writing a new strategic plan, and it came to naught. Both the 2016 and proposed 2019 plans were too long and too specific in their directives. Staff need direction from the Board, but it is largely up to the staff to figure out the best way to meet goals.
• How will you seek to impact the Board’s performance, and what specific experience will you draw upon?
I would work to make Board meetings more efficient by encouraging meetings to move along, with the amount of time devoted to an issue proportional to its importance. Rather than wordsmithing at Board meetings, I would suggest sending things back to staff or to District Committees for reworking. I would encourage use of Roberts Rules of Order to organize consideration of issues. Too often there is a motion on the table and then things devolve into discussions of finer points or of issues that should be taken up separately at a later date. I am results-focused, so will work to find a middle ground most members of the Board can agree to. And when a compromise can’t be reached, I would model respectful disagreement.
I would bring to the Board a wealth of experience from my administrative and leadership roles at Stanford University participating in high-stakes meetings (e.g., University Budget and Strategic Planning Committee) and chairing meetings of people with strongly held, widely divergent views (e.g., as Chair of the Faculty Senate). In my interactions with ratepayers I will draw on 45 years of teaching experience, in particular, introductory courses that wove geology, hydrology, human land use, and climate change to give students an understanding of the landscape they live on.