LAFCO
Service Review Comment Log
Read the report at Local Agency Formation Commissions ↗
Log of Comments
Lake County Watershed Conservation District Service Review: Internal Review Draft
Comment # Commenter/Agency Date Page Section Comment Response
MSR COMMITTEE COMMENTS ON DOCUMENT
1 MSR Committee 2/19/2014 p. 2 -‐ 2nd paragraph Altered order of commissioners. No change.
2 MSR Committee 2/19/2014 p. 3 -‐ 1st paragraph 'The District Board of Directors' has been added. Added.
3 MSR Committee 2/19/2014 p. 3 -‐ 5th paragraph Paragraph has been added. Added.
The following paragraph has been deleted: 'Thank you to the MSR Committee for your hours of
effort and research, as well as extensive time spent at meetings and reviewing the draft report.
4 MSR Committee 2/19/2014 p. 3 The Committee consisted of the following individuals..' No change.
5 MSR Committee 2/19/2014 p. 4 -‐ 2.1 subtitle Title has been changed to 'Lake County's Regional Water Supply Services'. No change.
Recommend adding content on the Eel River, Upper Cache Creek, and Upper Putah Creek
6 MSR Committee 2/19/2014 p. 4 Watersheds, as well as Lake County's Local Water Services and Socio-‐Economic Setting Added content on the watersheds.
7 MSR Committee 2/19/2014 p. 6 -‐ 1st paragraph Paragraph has been deleted. No change.
p. 6 -‐ 2nd & 3rd Content added to the degree possible based on existing
8 MSR Committee 2/19/2014 paragraphs Paragraphs have been added. content outline.
The following paragraph has been deleted: 'The boundaries of Lake County are a logical
description of a region, as the County boundaries are essentially the watershed boundaries for
the headwaters of the Eel River, Cache Creek and Putah Creek. Cache Creek water has been fully
appropriated and Putah Creek water has been adjudicated, limiting options available for water
supply development. Because a majority of surface water rights have been granted to out-‐of-‐
County interests, local water use is primarily from groundwater basins that are fully contained This describes the extent of water supply available within the
9 MSR Committee 2/19/2014 p. 6 within the County.' County. No change made.
10 MSR Committee 2/19/2014 p. 8 -‐ 1st paragraph 'Shoreline impairments' has been inserted. Added.
11 MSR Committee 2/19/2014 p. 10 -‐ 4th paragraph 'Clean Lakes Implementation Plan' has been highlighted. No change.
The Following sentences have been delete: 'developing and managing domestic water supplies
12 MSR Committee 2/19/2014 p. 11 -‐ 5th paragraph and' and 'and storm'. Added conserving.
13 MSR Committee 2/19/2014 p. 12 -‐ 1st paragraph 'Impose and collect fees' has been highlighted. No change.
The LAFCO approved bounds of the District do not exclude
any areas within the County. The District's "service area" may
differ from its bounds; however, that does not change the
legal description of the agencies bounds. This section is
correct as stated. No change.
History of District's formation already discussed in previous
14 MSR Committee 2/19/2014 p. 12 Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 have been added. section. No new content added.
15 MSR Committee 2/19/2014 p. 13 All paragraphs have been added. Content on codes added.
Content added to governing body description. No deletions
16 MSR Committee 2/19/2014 p. 14 Paragraphs 1 and 2 have been delete. made.
17 MSR Committee 2/19/2014 p. 14 Paragraphs 3 through 8 have been added. Content on RMC added.
19 MSR Committee 2/19/2014 p. 17 -‐ 2nd paragraph Bullet point ' Westside Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (2013)' has been added. Added.
MSR COMMITTEE NUMBERED COMMENTS
"Determinations" become "findings" but "findings" are not "proposals." They are All references have been changed to determinations for
20 MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 3 -‐1st paragraph "recommended" actions that would be "mandates" if they were legally binding. consistency.
§56127 provides that an agency listed in Subsection (c) of
56036 may apply to LAFCo for a determination that is exempt
from LAFCo control of protest proceedings. Such application
must be made by resolution of the legislative body adopted
prior to any application for a change of organization. §56128
then sets forth the criteria for the Commission’s making such
determination. It says that the Commission shall find such an
agency exempt unless it provides certain services. Those
services include being a retail provider of water, wastewater
treatment, solid waste, police or fire services, and highway
Please confirm if the District provided their determination to participate in the review in maintenance or operation. Because the Lake County
writing. If not, did the LAFCo EO provide a report to the Commission to that effect that is Watershed Protection District does not provide retail water to
reflected in its minutes? Please confirm if applying to LAFCo doesn't not ensure certainty of end users, nor any of the other services listed in §56128, if an
exemption. There were several possibly conflicting government codes involved in the letter to application were made by the District, the Commission would
Mr. De Leon and it appeared that the District was not exempt from those. In any case, please probably be required to find that the District is exempt from
21 MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 3 -‐ 4th paragraph clarify if the Commission would have to make a decision itself. LAFCo and CKH protest procedures.
Last updated April 8, 2013
Log of Comments
Lake County Watershed Conservation District Service Review: Internal Review Draft
Comment # Commenter/Agency Date Page Section Comment Response
Add footnote with the following link:
http://www.sacriver.org/aboutwatershed/roadmap/watersheds/westside/cache-‐creek-‐
22 MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 4 -‐ 5th paragraph watershed www.westsideirwm.com Recommended content not added. No change.
Add footnote with the following link:
http://www.sacriver.org/aboutwatershed/roadmap/watersheds/westside/putah-‐creek-‐
23 MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 4-‐ 7th paragraph watershed Recommended content not added. No change.
Add footnote excerpted from later draft paragraph: "Cache Creek water has been fully
appropriated and Putah Creek water has been adjudicated, limiting options available for water
supply development." Insert "surface" before "water supply development." Note that "surface
water supply development" is a limitation potentially affecting groundwater recharge and storm
24 MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 4-‐ 7th paragraph water pollution prevention. Added "surface" to clarify.
Add footnote with the following links:
(a) Proposed sales tax ordinance (www.co.lake.ca.us, posted link on "front page").
(b) Sacramento River Basin Plan Amendment for control of nutrients in Clear Lake (Resolution
25 MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 5 -‐ 7th paragraph No. 2006-‐0060, CVRWQCB). Added footnote to proposed ordinance.
Add footnote with the link to "Causes & Control of Algal Blooms in Clear Lake." (Not available
26 MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 5 -‐ 8th paragraph on County DWR website.) Added footnote.
Add footnote with the link to "Westside Integrated Regional Water Management Plan" (2013) -‐
www.westsideirwm.com.
The Committee disputes the County's assumed "authority" for groundwater management based
on the "Lake County Groundwater Management Plan" (2006?), and challenged the language in Clarified that the District conducts groundwater
the WIRWMP [provide quote and citation -‐ follow up]. Also, check the reference to the GWMP management. No determination made whether the
27 MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 7 -‐ 4th paragraph cited in first paragraph. District is the "authority" for groundwater in the County.
28 MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 8 -‐ 2nd paragraph This is not the main problem in the Upper Cache Creek watershed. Noted.
The Lake County Municipal Code Chapter 29, Stormwater Management (based on Ordinance No.
2772, 5-‐16-‐2006) states in the "Definitions" (Article Section 29-‐3) that "The Director of
Community Development or such other department head designated by the Board" is
responsible for enforcement of this chapter. The "Stormwater Management Agreement" found
on the Lake County Clean Water Program web page states that the Flood Control & Water
Conservation District is the program coordinator or the implementation of the NPDES
stormwater management permit.
[http://www.co.lake.ca.us/Government/Directory/Water_Resources/cwp/documents.htm] It is already stated here that the District manages NPDES
29 MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 8 -‐ 5th paragraph This matter needs to be addressed in the Findings section. compliance. No change.
See the previously cited web page -‐ note that there are three elected officials or their designated
voting members, staff
from each of the co-‐permittees, and the "Chair" of the Advisory Council who is also "appointed"
30 MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 9 -‐ 1st paragraph by the Board of Supervisors. This confusion needs to be addressed. Clarified.
Recommendations are made to the co-‐permittees which
are the land use agencies in the County -‐ comprised of the
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 9 -‐ 1st paragraph
This statement is not accurate. Recommendations to the Board of Supervisors -‐-‐ ought to be the County (Board of Supervisors) and the two cities. No
31 board of directors of the WPD anyway -‐-‐ and city councils. change.
This statement is not accurate either. Betsy Cawn is the volunteer work group coordinator for
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 9 -‐ 4th paragraph the last 2 minimum control measures, appointed by the Advisory Council in October, 2011. (This Caveated that this may not be carried out presently.
32 does not have to be stated, but it substantiates Ms. Cawn's assertion.]
(a) Please clarify where the term "Clean Lakes Implementation Plan" came from and what http://www.water.ca.gov/floodmgmt/fpo/sgb/fpcp/prop13/p
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 10 -‐ 4th paragraph actual document it refers to. roposals/4006_MiddleCreek/Clean_Lakes_Implementation_Pl
(b) Please indicate where the recommendations have been incorporated into the area plans, and an.pdf
33 what has actually be implemented as a result. No in scope of project. No change made.
District staff is described in more detail under
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 11 -‐ 1st paragraph
34 Please clarify who the 'District Staff' is. management. No change made.
Development and management of domestic water supplies
is a summary of powers as outlined in the District's
Please note that Flood Control and Water Conservation District responsibilities do not include Enabling Act, which states that the District is empowered
"development" and "management" of domestic water supplies. That is an added scope of work to "develop waters within or without said district for
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 11 -‐ 5th paragraph
introduced in the Westside Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, the Ground Water domestic, irrigation, industrial, and recreational uses, and
Management Plan, and other planning documents produced by the Lake County Department of construct works therefor, including works for storage and
Water Resources. Please follow up (cite source definition -‐-‐ see the next page of the draft, delivery of water." California Water Code §62-‐5 Part 5. No
35 quoted Water Code language). change made.
Please note that the terms "impose and collect fees" is a much narrower definition than is
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 12 -‐ 1st paragraph No change.
36 described in the legislation.
Last updated April 8, 2013
Log of Comments
Lake County Watershed Conservation District Service Review: Internal Review Draft
Comment # Commenter/Agency Date Page Section Comment Response
Please add the lack of public participation and disappearance of advisory inputs in Finding.
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 14 -‐ last paragraph Added determination.
37 Please add 'Balderdash' in footnote #13.
38 MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 15 -‐ 3rd paragraph Please indicate where this information from. As reported by agency.
Consider the following as Finding: Watershed Protection District would benefit from passage of
p. 16 -‐ Management a local enabling ordinance (and including updates of all other related ordinances as needed), as Unable to make this determination at this time. No change
MSR Committee 2/27/2014
Section 3.4 was implemented by the Ventura County Watershed Protection District (MSR Committee has made.
39 copies of their ordinances if helpful).
40 MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 16 -‐ 2nd paragraph Please note there is no "Deputy Director of Water Resources." Clarified that position is vacant.
Note the Director of the Department of Public Works is also the Director of the former
Department of Water Resources and the manager of the Watershed Protection District
(according to his original job description, circa 2010). The nomenclature is confusing. The
former "Department of Public Works, Division of Water Resources" was separated officially in
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 16 -‐ 2nd paragraph 2010 and named "Department of Water Resources" (rather than "Water Resources Clarified.
Department." After Scott was promoted to be Director of the Department of Public Works (1/4-‐
time as Director of Department of Water Resources), the DWR was semi-‐officially dissolved and
restored to its former reporting structure within DPW, but how this happened is not clear (have
41 no documentation).
This statement is included for clarity that the funds would
continue to be tracked separately even though the lakebed
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 16 -‐ 2nd paragraph
This statement is not necessary. Note that tracking of funds in separate budget units does not management functions will now be under the umbrella of
42 prohibit administration of the individual budget units under a single management unit. the District. No change made.
43 MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 16 -‐3rd paragraph Please describe the organizational chart of the Department of Water Resources. Added.
Please note there is no "Deputy Director of Water Resources" (see previous nomenclature
comments about "department"/"division" terminology). A" water resources
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 16 -‐ 3rd paragraph Clarified.
engineer" is repeated twice, please confirm if there are there two or if there is a different title
44 required in the second reference.
"Sharing of resources" includes sharing of costs, which need to be identified in District budget
Sharing of resources is identified to the extent necessary to
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 16 -‐ 3rd paragraph units for which contractual agreements between the County of Lake and the District should be
make determinations. No additional content added.
45 executed (annually).
Consider lack of capacity for development of volunteer participation programs (and lack of
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 16 -‐3rd paragraph Determination added.
46 support for CLAC) as Finding.
47 MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 16 -‐ 5th paragraph Should be pretty easy to determine program costs, in that case, for accountability. Noted.
Lack of clear financial reports occludes any reader's ability to understand what the District's
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 17 -‐ 3rd paragraph Content already included in text. No change.
48 resources, planning, performance, and capacity needs are.
If the information provided (already produced by the "department") to the Auditor-‐Controller
for inclusion in the County's "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report" is reviewed separately, It is recommended that the Board determine whether a
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 17 -‐ 3rd paragraph
and a separate financial report is created from it, please indicate how much more costly it will separate audit is necessary. No change.
49 be. How much is clarity and accountability worth?
The Auditor-‐Controller's report of "1%" Property Tax Revenues includes allocation of funds to
"Flood General" (paid for by all property owners in flood zones -‐-‐ including within the Cities of
Clearlake and Lakeport). Legislative officials or their designated staff do not participate in
distribution of these revenues for programs and projects benefiting incorporated area flood Outside of scope of this current review. To be considered
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 17 -‐ 4th paragraph
control and water conservation services. The following should be considered as a Finding: City for future review.
officials and the WPD Board of Directors should be responsible for fair distribution of these
revenues to include planning for compliance with NPDES permit and lakebed management
50 authorities.
Please refer to the document Ms. Cawn produced for correction of the proposed tax ordinance
approved by the BoS on January 28. Confusion of language contained in the proposed (and
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 18 -‐ 5th paragraph Proposed Measure L used as reference. No change made.
approved) ordinance reflects the confusion of the District management with Department of
51 Water Resources "programs." [See email + PDFs sent to Anita Grant, et al, January 27, 2014.]
Revenues and expenditures reported in the following table
on page 22. Determinations include a recommendation for
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 21 -‐ 2nd paragraph
Please provide a financial report that clearly shows District revenues, reserves, and a clear summary of the District's funds in the budget and
52 expenditures. audit. No change made.
Comment unclear as the table summarizes the District's
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 22 -‐ figure
revenues and expenditures as requested. No change made.
53 Please include information from financial report in this table, as well.
Provide clear explanations of each program and the ordinances, policies, plans, and permits Services summarized to the extent possible within the
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 23 -‐ 4th paragraph driving each one. Rewrite this whole section (including tables on pages 24-‐25-‐26) based on scope of this project. A more detailed description could be
54 available/unavailable content. considered in the next review. No change made.
Last updated April 8, 2013
Log of Comments
Lake County Watershed Conservation District Service Review: Internal Review Draft
Comment # Commenter/Agency Date Page Section Comment Response
Relevance of implementing existing policies and
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 27 -‐ 1st paragraph Section implies actual local collaboration occurs with the District, which is extremely limited. ordinances with collaboration practices is unclear. No
55 Add paragraph explaining prior obligations to implement existing policies and ordinances. change made.
LCWPD plans are discussed in the Management section of
this document. Land use planning policies and documents
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 29 -‐ Finding 1-‐3
See the descriptions of ordinances in previous additions. Clarify the "LCWPD plans and are discussed in the Growth section. No change made.
56 objectives" and the "land use planning policies and documents".
Note that the District's operations are mandated by federal, state, and local regulatory Clarified.
instruments. Additional services defined by local "demand" are optional to meeting the
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 29 -‐ Finding 1-‐4 requirements of the legal structures in place. This description implies that the District is
operating on the basis of "popular" pressure, which it does appear to be doing, rather than
57 prioritizing operations based on analysis of resources to meet regulatory requirements.
"Limited financing for lakebed management services" is the consequence of District Due to the elimination of County general fund monies to
management neglect for developing authorized legal revenue sources and inadequate capacity supplement lakebed activities, as discussed in the
for obtaining available state and federal funds to meet prioritized regulatory requirements. Financing section, and the spending down of reserves in
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 30 -‐ Finding 3-‐1 Lakebed management for private property owners' benefit is not a legitimate use of public the Lakebed Management funds, it is apparent that an
funding; where the necessity for abating non-‐native weeds is deemed a requirement by local additional funding source is necessary.
government, the compensation for delivery of services is provided by public funds that
58 supplement insufficient fees from shoreline property owners and supporting businesses.
Please provide the documentation sources for these statements. "Based on the breadth and Determinations are made by the author based on analysis
quality of services provided," is questionable in light of the District's minimal management of the of various indicators of service levels/adequacy, capacity
NPDES storm water permit coordination, coordination of planned annual lakebed management etc. The chosen indicators are generally listed where
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 30 -‐ Finding 3-‐2
processes that omit public notification or optional notification processes, almost zero "outreach appropriate. Recommended improvements to service are
and coordination with stakeholder groups," and a very bad "invasive mussel prevention" listed. No change.
59 program implementation process.
Note: the "LCWPD" is not a "well-‐managed agency." As a structured district with policies,
procedures, contracts for services, financial reporting that is accountable for revenues, reserves,
and expenses compared with program objectives and regulatory compliance measures, no
"agency" exists. Functions performed by the Department of Public Works, Division of Water
Resources, such as floodplain and stormwater management, lakebed management, and invasive
species programs are funded in part by property tax ("1%") revenues paid by parcel owners in
the Cities, for which no County flood control management services are provided. Spending of The author made these determinations based on the list of
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 30 -‐ Finding 3-‐3
administrative funds that coordinate with the Cities on all related issues is invisible. Consider chosen indicators of "well managed" listed in the
saying that the County staff and contracted services fulfilling the previous definition of the determination. Areas in need of improvement are also
California Water Code Chapter 62 and State Lands Commission legislation of 1973 are listed. Added that the District could improve upon
performed adequately, given the lack of needed management resources. The Westside Integrated assessing its success in meeting program objectives.
Regional Water Management Plan (2013), the cited documentation used by the LCWPD to Please not the District does not have a strategic plan, that
substantiate its capacities are not adequate to support that claim. Clarify what the District's is why it is recommended that the District develop one
60 strategic plan is. here.
The physical area of the "Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System" operational area
includes all drainage conveyances in a yet-‐to-‐be-‐defined boundary encompassing all flows
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 30 -‐ Finding 3-‐4
entering the "receiving water body" (Clear Lake). This is a N.P.D.E.S. permit compliance issue;
61 unknown status of negotiations with C.V.R.W.Q.C.B. Noted.
Revenues and expenditures are reported in the financing
section for each budget unit and summarized for the entire
district. Typical of other MSRs, the agency is heavily relied
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 30 -‐ Section 4.4
Please indicate the basis of these findings. District does not have explanations of revenues, upon to indicate whether financing is adequate or
reserves, expenses, and project/program results to measure the "financial ability" and District adequate to provide services in conjunction with author
62 does not have project/program goals and objectives to use for determining cost efficiencies. analysis.
"Historical lakebed management service levels" do have a reliable, continuous revenue stream" Due to the elimination of County general fund monies to
from permits, leases, and fees (compliant with the State Lands Commission authorized supplement lakebed activities, as discussed in the
remuneration scheme described in the 1973 legislation, Chapter 639 of the Statutes). Like Financing section, and the spending down of reserves in
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 30 -‐ Finding 4-‐1
several permit revenue generators for public service (cost of planning review of a major use the Lakebed Management funds, it is apparent that an
permit is only about $400, for example), the cost of service has not been codified to include additional funding source is necessary. Clarified that this
63 annual increases to keep up with actual costs. would be an additional funding source.
The District should provide a separate annual audit for ease of everyone's understanding -‐-‐
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 30 -‐ Finding 4-‐3
64 especially its board of directors. Stated in Determination 4-‐5. No change.
Last updated April 8, 2013
Log of Comments
Lake County Watershed Conservation District Service Review: Internal Review Draft
Comment # Commenter/Agency Date Page Section Comment Response
As stated in the text of the document, there is a concern
that the District is double counting revenues and
expenditures associated with administration. For clarity it
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 31 -‐ Finding 4-‐4
is recommended that the District assess this practice to
Please note: if "administration" is a cost for District management, it should be included in the ensure it is accurately reporting its resources to the public.
65 budget, audit, and annual report. No change made.
See comments 45 and 46, above. The District is largely funded by public monies; transparency
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 31 -‐ Finding 4-‐5
66 and accountability are paramount. Noted.
Clarify how "benefit from efficiencies" were identified and analyzed.
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 31 -‐ Finding 5-‐1
67 As reported by agency.
The "Resource Management Committee" is an existing body formed by the Lake County Board of
Supervisors; two County Supervisors are assigned to it in 2014. The District would benefit from
its operations to provide "enhanced collaboration among stakeholder agencies" and
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 31 -‐ Finding 5-‐2 incorporation of other organizations and citizen participation as in the originally formed body
created by memoranda of understanding in 1990 and forward. The District does need to
"coordinate" the RMC process, and use its participants for accomplishing the District's strategic
68 plan, when it has one. Noted.
69 MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 31 -‐ Finding 5-‐2 Note that teleconferencing and webinar technology is abundant. Noted.
The first sentence is correct; however, the governing body seats for District operations are held
by the same elected officials who serve as the Board of Supervisors, who have been charged with
the District's proper operation since its inception in January, 2005, and who have allowed the
District to operate at inadequate levels of service and accountability since that time. The
governing body of the District should include representatives of the agencies that fund it and
that should be receiving proportional shares of its services (i.e., the Cities of Clearlake and
Lakeport).
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 31 -‐ Finding 6-‐1 A "clear list" of all services provided by the District must include more than just the name of a
project/program/service. Identification of each is the purpose of a strategic plan and
governance policy guideline.
The District's website should be updated following structural organization of its functions,
funding, accountability, and prioritized programs are defined. See Option for a different governing body discussed in
previous comment. (Website for the Ventura County Watershed Protection District is an Determination 6-‐3. No change. Clarified what a "clear list"
excellent model that could be easily copied for this purpose.) would entail. Added content that should be included on
70 See comments about budget, audit, and annual report in items 45, 46, and 47, above. the District's website.
Further study of all of the elements of District management as cited above and exploration of the
appropriate board of directors is strongly warranted. See the report from Napa LAFCo on the
success of the multi-‐agency governance of the successful sales tax initiative that provided
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 31 -‐ Finding 6-‐2
funding for the Napa River Restoration Project. All jurisdictions that participated were direct
recipients of the benefit resulting from flood protection, improving real property values and
71 property tax revenues as a consequence. Similar to Determination 6-‐3. No change.
Evaluation of actual District service capacities, defined areas of required services for state
permit compliance, possible "growth" areas that are appropriate to include in the Sphere of Any issues not addressed in the MSR that are essential to
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 33 -‐ Section 5
Influence and analysis of unfunded costs to accomplish that desired growth must be included in updating the District's SOI will be addressed in the SOI
72 the MSR so that the SOI can be congruent with its determinations. Report.
References will need to be modified for the final draft; must be completed to include documents
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 p. 35 -‐ section 6.2 not available or referenced in the MSR text as supporting claims and determinations (where
73 such claims and determinations are not supported by referenced documentation). References will be finalized in final adopted report.
MSR COMMITTEE META-COMMENTS
The MSR appears to describe a District that has no defined structure, but that has been
operating for nine years on the basis of previous statutory code and local ordinances without
establishing policies, organization, staffing requirements, budgets and annual audit reports,
74 MSR Committee 2/27/2014
program effectiveness measurements, and responsibilities for legal compliance with new Recommenations for improved services that relate to these
regulatory requirements for which the original enabling act was modified in 2004 (i.e., Chapter concerns are made in determinations 3-‐2, 3-‐3, 3-‐4, 4-‐1, 4-‐
62 of the California Water Code as amended by SB 1136). 3, 4-‐5, 5-‐2, 6-‐1, 6-‐2, and 6-‐3. No changes made.
Because of new requirements imposed in the state's water quality permitting process (under
Water Quality Order 2013-‐0001-‐DWQ and others), the District must identify its resource
75 MSR Committee 2/27/2014 allocations for compliance (annual budget). Noted.
Last updated April 8, 2013
Log of Comments
Lake County Watershed Conservation District Service Review: Internal Review Draft
Comment # Commenter/Agency Date Page Section Comment Response
A significant compliance decision currently under consideration by the Central Valley Regional
Water Quality Control Board is exactly what land area constitutes the regulated "Small Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)" surrounding the designated "receiving water body" (Clear
Lake) and exactly what type of monitoring will be required to demonstrate compliance with a
companion regulation issued in 2006 by the CVRWQCB (Resolution No. 2006-‐0060) for control
of nutrients in Clear Lake (TMDL).
The established TMDL for control of nutrients as found by the CVRWQCB Resolution identifies
the "Responsible Parties" whose portions of the prohibited "waste load allocations" comprise
the greater bulk of the nutrient load that enters the receiving water body through the MS4.
Neither the implementing agency (Lake County Watershed Protection District and the three "co-‐
76 permittees" -‐-‐ County of Lake, City of Clearlake, and City of Lakeport) nor the state regulatory
agency (State Water Resources Control Board, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control
Board) have authority to enforce the requirements for nutrient load
reduction in either federal lands or local "irrigated" agricultural lands. The federal land owners
have different compliance requirements than the local "irrigated lands" agricultural land
owners, but are collectively responsible for meeting the CVRWQCB allocation reduction
requirements. The mapping of the effective implementation area for District services to meet
water quality mandates is not settled between the state agencies and the co-‐permittees at this
time. Relieving the Watershed Protection District and the co-‐permittees from responsibility for
ensuring waste load reductions deriving from lands out of their control would clearly ascribe the
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 District's scope of work and funding requirements. Status of this to be confirmed by District.
A local enabling ordinance defining the Watershed Protection District policies, services,
resources, management structure, and statutory regulations under its authority is needed. The
existing ordinances (as Lake County Municipal Code Chapters) that require updating to provide
consistency with a new District ordinance include but are not limited to:
a. Chapter 25 -‐ Floodplain Management
b. Chapter 23 -‐ Shoreline Protection
c. Chapter 29 -‐ Stormwater Management
d. Chapter 15 -‐ Recreation; Article IX -‐ Water Vessel Inspection Program
e. Chapter 28 -‐ Groundwater
In addition, parts of the Grading Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance may need to reflect
changes in Watershed Protection District ordinances.
Review of all relevant ordinances relating to implementation of the NPDES storm water
management permit is a requirement of the Water Quality Order 2013-‐0001-‐DWQ, currently in
"year one" of its five-‐year regulatory cycle. Inasmuch as that task is a responsibility of the
Watershed Protection District anyway, double duty would be achieved by the conduct of that Option for a new ordinance discussed in Determination 6-‐
77 MSR Committee 2/27/2014 updating review. 4.
The District's responsibilities for flood control and water conservation, lakebed management,
and oversight of groundwater supplies and surface water quality must be integrated into
78 emergency response and natural hazard mitigation plans, just as all local plans (water districts,
fire protection districts, municipalities, etc.)need to include elements addressing environmental
MSR Committee 2/27/2014 hazards and response plans for maintenance of critical public health and safety services. Noted.
Responsibilities for coordination of District programs are identified in at least one of the job
descriptions provided by the Department of Water Resources (which is now the Department of
Public Works, Division of Water Resources, as it was prior to 2010). The need for a separate
"director" (as Deputy Director of the DPW/DWR cited in the draft) was identified in the 2013-‐
2014 Annual Budget for the County of Lake, adopted in August 2013. No job description has
been provided to enable recruiting for the position; the Human Resources Department has not As reported in the document, the Deputy Director position
79 MSR Committee 2/27/2014 identified a deadline for that task. is presently vacant. No change made.
When the complete set of information resources is available, the draft should be revised to
reflect actual District capacities, needs, and recommendations to achieve the defined The MSR outlines areas in which the District is in need of
responsibilities with a set of "SMART" goals for getting there. Development of the District's improvement. It is the District's responsibility to
"Strategic Plan" is essential to understanding its management objectives, available/needed implement these recommendations in the manner chosen
80 MSR Committee 2/27/2014 resources, and prioritization of resource allocations. by the agency.
COUNTY COMMENTS
81 Lake County 4/9/2014 p. 4 -‐ 1st paragraph Population is 'approximately 64,000', not 58,000. Corrected.
The following sentence has been deleted: 'Recent rapid growth, especially in the southern
82 Lake County 4/9/2014 p. 4 -‐ 1st paragraph portion of the County, has been due to an influx of commuters, retirees, and second homes.' Deleted.
Last updated April 8, 2013
Log of Comments
Lake County Watershed Conservation District Service Review: Internal Review Draft
Comment # Commenter/Agency Date Page Section Comment Response
This section is intended to give a very general idea of the
83 Lake County 4/9/2014 p. 4 -‐ 2nd paragraph Please consider writing more about water supply in this section. sources of water in the County. No change made.
The following sentence was deleted: 'a widespread, noxious, and persistent algal bloom
occurred during the summer of 2009' and replaced with 'aquatic weeds and algal blooms are
still a common problem during the hottest period of the year'. This point needs to be clarified in
84 Lake County 4/9/2014 p. 4 -‐ 7th paragraph this context. Clarified.
85 Lake County 4/9/2014 p. 5 -‐ 2nd paragraph Corrected spelling of 'Callayomi'. Corrected.
Correction: Lake County's population has not slowed but 'has remained relatively steady over
86 Lake County 4/9/2014 p. 8 -‐ 2nd paragraph the past five years'. Clarified.
Correction: Clearlake's population has not declined between 2010 and 2013, but 'has remained
87 Lake County 4/9/2014 p. 8 -‐ 2nd paragraph flat in the last several years' Population has declined slightly. No change made.
Correction: the City of Lakeport is 'now the only jurisdiction with a decline in population to
88 Lake County 4/9/2014 p. 8 -‐ 2nd paragraph below 2000 levels Clarified.
Correction: 'Population growth throughout Lake County has slowed significantly, consistent with
overall state and national trends' instead of 'most likely will not rebound until the housing
market revives'
89 Lake County 4/9/2014 p. 8 -‐ 2nd paragraph Added text.
The following sentence has been deleted: 'Findings from these plans were incorporated into the
Lake County General Plan'
90 Lake County 4/9/2014 p. 8 -‐ 4th paragraph Deleted.
As mentioned in the text, the DWR data can identify larger
disadvantaged communities, but not smaller communities
that have 12 or more registered voters as defined for
91 Lake County 4/9/2014 p. 9 -‐ 4th paragraph Please explain why the DWR cannot identify disadvantaged communities. LAFCOs in Government Code Section 56046. No change.
The following sentence has been deleted: 'items are heard and considered by the Board of
92 Lake County 4/9/2014 p. 10 -‐ 7th paragraph Supervisors, the Board adjourns and reconvenes as the Board of Directors of LCWPD. Clarified.
The following sentence has been deleted: 'The Board had discretion to appoint between 7 and
23 members from nine local and state agencies and organizations to the committee. All Board
appointments were for a two-‐ear period. The committee was designed to meet monthly, This section gives some background on the committee. No
93 Lake County 4/9/2014 p. 11 -‐ 1st paragraph alternating between Lakeport and Clearlake locations. change made.
Please confirm if this is accurate: 'Until recently, the Water Resources Department managed
94 Lake County 4/9/2014 p. 12 -‐ 1st paragraph district services and what is referred to as Lakebed Management as separate functions.' Rephrased.
95 Lake County (Scott De Leon) 4/9/2014 p. 12 -‐ 1st paragraph Added 2nd paragraph on page 12. 'The District was administered as a part of the County…' Incorporated.
96 Lake County 4/9/2014 p. 12 -‐ 3rd paragraph Note that the Deputy Resource Director position is vacant. Clarified.
97 Lake County 4/9/2014 p. 12 -‐ 3rd paragraph Deleted 'water resources engineer' Deleted.
98 Lake County 4/9/2014 p. 12 -‐ 4th paragraph Added the following sentence: ' Provides fiscal and auditing support' Added text.
Clarified that the District does not regularly evaluate its
own performance. While not required, it is a
Confirm if the statement 'Overall functions of the District are not regularly reviewed or recommended practice of professionally staffed agencies.
99 Lake County 4/9/2014 p. 13 -‐ 3rd paragraph evaluated on a regular basis by an outside agency' is true. No change.
Please add 'the District also sends an Annual Financial Report to the State Lands Commission'
100 Lake County (Scott De Leon) 4/9/2014 p. 13 -‐ 3rd paragraph right after the second sentence. Added text.
Consider changing the language in the sentence regarding benchmarking. . County states that it’s While not required, it is a recommended practice of
not statutorily required. They collaborate with other similar service providers through our professionally staffed agencies to conduct evaluations and
participation with the County Engineers Association of California (CEAC) and our partnership remain informed of best management practices. No
101 Lake County (Scott De Leon) 4/9/2014 p. 13 -‐ 3rd paragraph with the Westside Group’ change.
102 Lake County 4/9/2014 p. 13 -‐ 5th paragraph The Lake County Redevelopment Agency' has been deleted. Deleted.
103 Lake County (Scott De Leon) 4/9/2014 p. 14 -‐ 1st paragraph Department of Public Works has been replaced with Department of Water Resources. Corrected.
Please confirm if the contributions from the County's general fund were not available for Fys 12-‐
104 Lake County 4/9/2014 p. 15 -‐ 1st paragraph 13 and 13-‐14. Clarified.
Consider revising the sentence: 'The District is searching for additional financing sources and as
a result the Board of Supervisors has placed a ½ cent sales tax measure on the June 2014 ballot.'
105 Lake County (Scott De Leon) 4/9/2014 p. 15 -‐ 1st paragraph Remove reference to Mr. De Leon's email to Ms. Cawn on July 3, 2013. Revised.
Last updated April 8, 2013
Log of Comments
Lake County Watershed Conservation District Service Review: Internal Review Draft
Comment # Commenter/Agency Date Page Section Comment Response
The following part has been deleted: 'Because revenues reported into this fund are from other
budget units, these funds may be more appropriately tracked as a transfer, as opposed to
revenues. Because these charges for services are categorized as revenues and the related
expenditures are further itemized within this budget unit, the funds are considered additional
revenues and expenditures to the District when reporting totals. As an accounting mechanism,
this strategy is a common practice. However, when reporting aggregates for the purposes of the The County has not provided evidence to the contrary and
audited financial statement and the State Controller’s Office, it may be appropriate to exclude the "double counting" of revenues and expenditures as a
the revenues and expenditures attributed to this budget unit in order to clearly depict actual result of the County's accounting practices continues to be
106 Lake County 4/9/2014 p. 17 -‐ 1st paragraph district resources for the public.' a concern. No change made.
107 Lake County 4/9/2014 p. 24 -‐ 4th paragraph 'At present' changed with 'Due to the current extreme drought conditions'. Changed.
Note that 'Until the housing market revives' has been replaced with 'significantly for some time'.
Also, the Department of Finance projects approximately one-‐percent annual growth through
108 Lake County 4/9/2014 p. 25 -‐ Finding 1-‐2 2050 and not 47%. Clarified.
Add additional finding to clarify that "There may be
additional smaller communities that meet LAFCOs
definition of a disadvantaged unincorporated community,
which were not identifiable with the Department of Water
109 Lake County 4/9/2014 p. 25 -‐ Finding 2-‐1 Discrepancy between this finding and content of document Resources’ data."
110 Lake County 4/9/2014 p. 27 -‐ Finding 4-‐4 Deleted. No change.
Note that a separate audit will not really enhance transparency or accountability. County
111 Lake County 4/9/2014 p. 27 -‐ Finding 4-‐5 suggests a better summary of the Bus in the County budget. Added text.
Last updated April 8, 2013