SLVWD Board Meeting Summary

August 4, 2022

Mark Dolson

Highlights:

  • Conjunctive Use Project Description

  • Santa Cruz County Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

  • Political Activity During Election Season

  • Next Board meeting is at 6:30 PM on August 18th.

Preliminaries

There were no actions to report from Closed Session.

There was no non-agenda-related public comment (and four public attendees).

President Mahood reported on two items from the most recent Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency (SMGWA) meeting (on July 28th).  First, the SMGWA Board unanimously accepted a response to the recent Santa Cruz Civil Grand Jury report (on drought resilience) that was consistent with the SLVWD response.  Second, summaries of three proposed individual district projects were presented with Environmental Planner Carly Blanchard describing SLVWD’s plans for conjunctive use.

 

Unfinished Business

Conjunctive Use Project Description

Carly Blanchard explained that the goal of this agenda item was to obtain Board approval for an updated project description and tentative schedule for the District’s Conjunctive Use Plan (CUP) Environmental Impact Report (EIR)

The CUP was developed jointly by SLVWD and Santa Cruz County under a state grant administered by the County, completed in June 2021.   The CUP identified opportunities for improving the reliability of the District’s surface and groundwater supplies through conjunctively managing water resources while increasing stream baseflows for fish in the San Lorenzo River watershed.  As part of the grant’s deliverables a CEQA Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) was released for public review from July 28 through August 31, 2021.  Significant concerns were raised by the City of Santa Cruz, leading District staff and legal counsel to recommend a more thorough CEQA analysis through the completion of an EIR.  On November 4th, 2021, the Board approved a $30,000 payment to Rincon Consultants to complete an updated project description.  This description was provided for Board review along with a rough schedule spanning the next 18 months.  Next steps include coordinating with the City of Santa Cruz, working with regulatory agencies to begin permitting the associated water diversions, and determining which studies the District will need to pursue to support the EIR.

The Board members all supported moving forward on the CUP, but they had a number of concerns about the accuracy and clarity of the writing.  Director Smolley began by saying he was pleased that the revised project description was responsive to the two primary concerns raised by the Environmental Committee in its December 2021 review.  Director Fultz reiterated his strong support for enabling the District to take water from any source and deliver it to any destination within the District.  He was puzzled, though, by a vague statement that “significant public concerns” were raised during the public review period.  President Mahood agreed that this was misleading as the public was mostly in agreement with the CUP, and only the City of Santa Cruz objected.  Legal Counsel Gina Nicholls apologized for this “legalistic wording.”

Director Fultz urged Staff to expand the project description to make it clearer to the public what is at stake.  Director Ackemann agreed.  To maximize public understanding of the benefits of conjunctive use, she recommended that Staff attach an Executive Summary and engage with the media to clearly identify the purpose, benefits, and timeline for the CUP.  President Mahood and Director Hill voiced their strong support for this as well.  President Mahood also recommended that, in talking about the amounts of water available to be used, Staff should make it clear that this is above and beyond the amounts needed for fish.  (In other words, these are truly excess flows).  The CUP will benefit fisheries as, in drought years, a mere 0.5 cubic feet per second of added flow can make a critical difference to the salmon.

There were two public comments.  Cynthia Dzendzel requested that the CUP include guidance on when to inform the public that it is time to stop using water.  She voiced strong support for pumping water up into the North System where it will ultimately flow back into the river, and she asked about the delay time between water being used by customers and that same water returning to the river through septic systems.  President Mahood said the effluent flow back into creeks depends on the geology.  For granitic bedrock it takes years, but in other places it can take as little as a single year.  In either case, all septic water eventually contributes to the supply of groundwater.  She added that people would be happy to learn that, in the current year, the District only shifted from surface water to wells in June.  She agreed that it would be appropriate to message the public when the District switches to well water.  District Manager Rick Rogers said the District did engage in outreach (e.g., via social media) when it shifted to the Olympia wells this year.  Customers immediately recognize the higher mineral content associated with well water.  With regard to Cynthia’s suggestion, Rick noted that SLVWD customers have some of the lowest water use in the state, so asking them to conserve even more might begin to impact health and safety.  He felt that the District could provide information monthly, but he said that, in the long run, the best strategy was simply to use surface water first (without impacting fish) and to use Loch Lomond water next.

Jim Mosher said he supported the Board on its conjunctive use efforts and was dismayed by the City of Santa Cruz action.  He suggested that one area where the Board could help customers would be in the area of garden conservation.  He personally found it very educational to learn that certain times of the year are more important to conserve in.  Rick commented that the District was seeking additional grant funding for upgrading to the Badger water meters which provide customers with almost real-time (24-hour delay) visibility into their water use.

Board discussion resumed with both Directors Smolley and Fultz voicing their support for the addition of an Executive Summary.  With regard to encouraging further water conservation, Director Fultz said he thought there were still opportunities to reduce outdoor use.  He estimated that indoor use is in the vicinity of 35 to 40 gallons per person per day and may be difficult to reduce further.  (The current state target is 55 gallons maximum, but the median is around 48 gallons.)   He suggested that it would be helpful to provide comparative figures from a few decades ago to show people how much use has decreased.

Directors Fultz and Smolley called attention to some inaccurate labeling of water sources on a figure in the project description.  Director Fultz also asked some detailed questions about planned pipeline routes.

President Mahood summarized by saying the Board was very supportive of the current project description, but still wanted to see some further revisions.  She suggested that Board members submit their suggestions to Carly and Gina in the next two weeks.  Gina asked that Board members focus on conceptual recommendations rather than submitting extensive red-lining because there are multiple parties that need to reach agreement on the final document.  President Mahood confirmed via a voice vote that the Board unanimously supported this recommendation.

 

New Business

Santa Cruz County Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

Carly Blanchard introduced this agenda item.  She explained that the CAL OES Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) provides funding for communities to implement mitigation activities to reduce risk to life and property from natural hazards (wildfire, earthquake, drought, extreme weather, flooding, and impacts of climate change). In April 2022 the District submitted three sub-applications for a total of $7,149,251 in HMGP funding: fire hardening of three redwood and four polyethylene tanks, fire hardening of 3,600 feet of HDPE pipeline, and development of the District’s own Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.  SLVWD applied under the auspices of Santa Cruz County in order to meet the grant requirement for having already adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP).

Rick Rogers provided some further elaboration.  He said the selected projects were high-priority on the District’s Capital Improvement List, especially after the CZU Fire.  "Fire hardening" of tanks means complete replacement.  The above-ground HDPE pipelines are the Lompico line (in Lompico) and the Bennett Line (running down Ben Lomond Mountain high up on Empire Grade near the Lime Kilns).  The work would take place over a three-year period.  The 25% cost-sharing requirement would be met by appropriating $1.7 million from Capital Improvement.

Director Ackemann asked about the possible risk of landslide along the Bennet Line.  Rick and President Mahood explained that the gentler slope and granitic terrain made for minimal risk.

Director Fultz asked if there was any conflict of interest for Directors living in close proximity to the proposed projects.  Legal Counsel Gina Nicholls explained that there is no conflict because there is no material effect when the decision concerns repairs or replacement of existing facilities, and the Director isn't receiving a unique service.

Director Fultz said it occurred to him that one of the District’s major unfunded liabilities involves maintenance on its steel tanks, most of which are overdue for recoating.  He asked if the District could seek grant funding for this.   Carly said five years of maintenance were included in the application, but maintenance beyond that isn’t considered part of mitigating for a hazard.

Director Fultz noted that the HDPE pipeline from Zayante into Lompico predated the Lompico consolidation, and he confirmed that it was not covered by the assessment district fund.  Rick said it was a short distance that would be relatively inexpensive but was high-priority.

Director Fultz asked if the $1.7 million was budgeted, and Rick said only $25,000 was in the current budget.  Director Smolley asked if each project would be separately submitted to the Board for review and approval, and Rick said this would be the case.

Director Fultz closed with some further reflections on financing.  He said the District’s operating margin (the ratio of operating income to net sales revenue) this year was significantly lower than its target, primarily due to a reduction in water sales (due to the community reducing consumption by around 10%).  He expressed concern about this and about projections showing this margin decreasing further in the years ahead (because operating margin is the key number that allows the District to fund the loans that enable Capital projects to proceed).  President Mahood offered a partial rebuttal.  She said the Budget and Finance Committee recently found that the operating margin for the year to date was 0.27 (up from 0.17 during the CZU Fire year), and a value greater than 0.25 is generally considered to be very good. 

President Mahood noted that the grant has already been submitted with the County administering it, and she moved to authorize Rick Rogers to sign on behalf of the District.  Director Fultz seconded.  There was no public comment.  The motion passed 5-0.

 

Political Activity During Election Season

Gina Nicholls reminded everyone that she routinely makes a presentation at the beginning of each election cycle to call attention to ethical concerns that typically arise in conjunction with campaigns.  She included a memo in the meeting packet summarizing particularly relevant rules.  These rules were derived from government code but also reflect best practices.

One fairly obvious prohibition is on misuse of public funds (e.g., using District office supplies or mailing lists in conjunction with campaign mailers).  A more subtle prohibition is on misuse of office (e.g., using a photo of a government employee in uniform, sending campaign mailing from a District email address, or asking government employees to support a campaign).

Director Ackemann asked Gina to say a few words about the Brown Act in connection with public gatherings where multiple Board members are present.  Gina said the Brown Act prohibits Board communication that develops a consensus, but it is also important to think about how a conversation between Board members might be perceived.  Conversely, campaign-related comments should not be part of District meetings.

There was no public input, and the Board thanked Gina for her guidance.

 

Consent Agenda

There were no requests to pull any items, so the published minutes were accepted without objection.

 

District Manager’s Report

There was no report.

 

Department Status Reports

There were no questions or comments.

 

Written Communications

President Mahood’s letter to Supervisor McPherson (re: the County’s lack of attention to the District’s challenges involving Bear Creek wastewater treatment) elicited a rapid email response from J.M. Brown.  Rick said he has since spoken with J.M., and Public Works has now been contacted about including this issue in their discussions.  Rick characterized this as encouraging, but he said the District is still aggressively seeking support from other agencies (e.g., LAFCO) and meeting with representatives (including homeowners).  Director Ackemann added that she met last week with Senator Laird, and he agreed to send a letter and then decided to reach out directly.  She said others were reaching out to Assemblymember Mark Stone.

Director Fultz said he was glad to hear that there might be some movement in this area as it was clear that the community cannot afford a replacement of the existing technology.  Rick said Carly Blanchard had also spoken with the District’s grant writer, and they believe the state is funding consolidation of small wastewater districts, just as it is small water districts.  Everyone knows this will not be a cheap project, on the order of $2-3 million.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 PM.