LAFCO

Lassen County Water Works District 1 (Bieber) Water and Sewer Service MSR & SOI - 12/9/13 (MSR), 2014 (SOI)

Local Agency Formation Commissions · lassen-msr-2013-adopted-lassen-wwdis1bieber-2013-12913 · Soi · 2013-12-09

Read the report at Local Agency Formation Commissions ↗

LASSEN LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) LASSEN COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT 1 (BIEBER) WATER AND SEWER SERVICE MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW (MSR) AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (SOI) Adopted Service Review Resolution 2013-0010 Sphere of Influence Resolution 2014-0011 December 9, 2013 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 LAFCO's Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Municipal Service Review Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.3 Lassen LAFCO Policies and Procedures Related to Municipal Services . . . . . 2 1.4 Preparation of the MSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.5 Description of Public Participation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.6 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.7 Sphere of Influence Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.8 SOI Amendments and CEQA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 BIEBER COMMUNITY AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1 Bieber Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2 Bieber History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3 Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.4 Churches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.5 Medical Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.6 Fire Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.7 Bieber Population Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.8 Lassen County Population Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.9 Big Valley Groundwater Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.9.1 Big Valley Groundwater Basin Boundaries and Hydrology . . . . . . . . 9 2.9.2 Big Valley Hydrogeologic Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.9.3 Big Valley Groundwater Level Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.9.4 Big Valley Groundwater Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.9.5 Big Valley Groundwater Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.10 Water Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.10.1 Water Supply, Treatment and Distribution Background . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.10.2 Water Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.11 Wastewater Treatment Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3 LASSEN COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.1 History of Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.2 Contact Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 3.3 Board of Directors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.4 Financial Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.4.1 Financial Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 3.4.2 Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.4.3 Independent Audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.5 Lassen County Waterworks District 1 Water System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.5.1 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.5.2 Water Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.6 Wastewater Collection and Treatment Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.6.1 Lassen County Waterworks District 1 Wastewater Treatment System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.6.2 Waste Discharge Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 A. Discharge Prohibitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 B. Discharge Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 C. Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 D. Pond Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 E. Reclaimed Water Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.6.3 Septage Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.6.4 Sewer Service Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 1 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 4 COMPARISON OF WATER AND SEWER SERVICE RATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.1 Comparison of Water Service Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.2 Sewer Service Cost Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5.1 Growth and Population Projections for the Bieber Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5.1.1 Lassen County Population Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5.1.2 MSR Determinations on Growth and Population for Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.2 MSR Determinations on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.2.1 Determination of Bieber Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.2.2 MSR Determinations on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities near Bieber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 5.3 Capacity and Infrastructure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 5.3.1 Infrastructure Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 5.3.2 MSR Determinations Regarding Capacity and Infrastructure for Lassen County Waterworks District 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 5.4 Financial Ability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 5.4.1 Financial Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 5.4.2 MSR Determinations on Financial Ability for Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 5.5 Opportunities for Shared Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 5.5.1 Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) Facilities . . . . . . . . . . 32 5.5.2 MSR Determinations on Shared Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 5.6 Government Structure and Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 5.6.1 Government Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 5.6.2 MSR Determinations on Government Structure and Accountability for Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (SOI) DETERMINATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6.1 Sphere of Influence Requirements and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6.1.1 Sphere of Influence Required Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6.1.2 Possible Approaches to the Sphere of Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6.2 Sphere of Influence for Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) . . . . . 36 6.3 Present and Planned Land Uses in the Bieber Area, Including Agricultural and Open Space Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 6.3.1 Bieber Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 6.3.2 SOI Determinations on Present and Planned Land Use for Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 6.4 Municipal Services—Present and Probable Capacity and Need . . . . . . . . . . 36 6.4.1 Water and Wastewater Treatment Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 6.4.2 SOI Determinations on Facilities and Services: Present and Probable Need for the Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) 36 6.5 The Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services Provided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 6.5.1 Capacity of Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 6.5.2 SOI Determinations on Public Facilities Present and Future Capacity for the Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) . . . . . . 37 6.6 Social or Economic Communities of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 6.6.1 Bieber Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 6.6.2 SOI Determinations on Social or Economic Communities of Interest for the Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) . . . . . . 37 2 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 6.7 Present and probable need for public facilities and services of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within the existing Sphere of Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 6.7.1 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities near Bieber . . . . . . . . 38 6.7.2 SOI Determinations on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities near Bieber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 APPENDIX A LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 1 Municipal Financial Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 1.1 California Local Government Finance Background . . . . . . . 39 A. Proposition 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 B. AB 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 C. Proposition 98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 D. Proposition 172 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 E. Proposition 218 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 F. Proposition 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 G. Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 H. Development Impact Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 1.2 Financing Opportunities that Require Voter Approval . . . . . . 41 1.3 Financing Opportunities that Do Not Require Voter Approval 41 2 Public Management Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 3 Public Participation in Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 APPENDIX B CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 PREPARERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 3 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 1 INTRODUCTION This Municipal Service Review is prepared for the Lassen County Waterworks District 1 in Lassen County which provides water and wastewater treatment services to the community of Bieber. The Municipal Service Review (MSR) includes the following information: • LAFCO requirements for MSRs • Bieber background • Description of service provided by Lassen County Waterworks District 1 • Analysis of Lassen County Waterworks District 1’s capability to serve existing and future residents in the area 1.1 LAFCO's Responsibilities Local Agency Formation Commissions are quasi-legislative local agencies created in 1963 to assist the State in encouraging the orderly development and formation of local agencies. The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code §56000 et seq.) is the statutory authority for the preparation of an MSR, and periodic updates of the Sphere of Influence of each local agency. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research has issued Guidelines for the preparation of an MSR. This MSR adheres to the procedures set forth in the MSR Guidelines. A Sphere of Influence is a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the affected Local Agency Formation Commission (Government Code §56076). Government Code §56425(f) requires that each Sphere of Influence be updated not less than every five years, and §56430 provides that a Municipal Service Review shall be conducted in advance of the Sphere of Influence update. 1.2 Municipal Service Review Requirements The statute as amended by AB1744 and regulations call for a review of the municipal services provided in the county or other appropriate area designated by the LAFCO. The LAFCO is required, as part of the MSR, to prepare a written statement of findings of its determinations with respect to each of the following: 1. Growth and Population 2. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUC) 3. Capacity and Infrastructure 4. Financial Ability 5. Shared Facilities 6. Government Structure and Accountability 1 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 1.3 Lassen LAFCO Policies and Procedures Related to Municipal Services Lassen LAFCO adopted policies and procedures related to municipal services. 1.4 Preparation of the MSR Research for this Municipal Service Review (MSR) was conducted during the first half of 2011 and updated in 2013. This MSR is intended to support preparation and update of Spheres of Influence, in accordance with the provisions of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act. The objectives of this Municipal Service Review (MSR) are as follows:  To develop recommendations that will promote more efficient and higher quality service patterns  To identify areas for service improvement  To assess the adequacy of service provision as it relates to determination of appropriate sphere boundaries While LAFCO prepared the MSR document, LAFCO did not engage the services of experts in engineering, hydrology, geology, water quality, fire protection, accounting or other specialists in related fields, but relied upon published reports and Lassen County and Lassen County Waterworks District 1 staff for information. Therefore, this MSR reflects LAFCO’s recommendations, based on available information during the research period and provided by Lassen County Waterworks District 1 staff to assist in its determinations related to promoting more efficient and higher quality service patterns; identifying areas for service improvement; and assessing the adequacy of service provision for Lassen County Waterworks District 1. Additional information on local government issues in found in Appendix A at the end of this report. 1.5 Description of Public Participation Process The LAFCO proceedings are subject to the provisions California’s open meeting law, the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Sections 54950 et seq.) The Brown Act requires advance posting of meeting agendas and contains various other provisions designed to ensure that the public has adequate access to information regarding the proceedings of public boards and commissions. Lassen LAFCO complies with the requirements of the Brown Act. Lassen LAFCO has discussed and considered the MSR process in open session, and has adopted a schedule for completing the various municipal service reviews and sphere of influence updates for districts in Lassen County. Each municipal service review will be prepared as a draft, and will be subject to public and agency comment prior to final consideration by the Lassen LAFCO. 2 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 1.6 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The Municipal Service Review is a planning study that will be considered by Lassen LAFCO in connection with subsequent proceedings regarding the Lassen County Waterworks District 1 and the Sphere of Influence. The Sphere of Influence review or update that will follow has not been approved or adopted by LAFCO. This MSR is funded in the Lassen LAFCO’s 2013-2014 Budget. This MSR includes an analysis, to the extent required by Section 15262 of the CEQA Guidelines, of the environmental factors that may be affected by the Municipal Service Review process, but will not include the preparation of an environmental review document. 1.7 Sphere of Influence Requirements In determining the Sphere of Influence for each local agency, LAFCO must consider and prepare a statement of determinations with respect to each of the following: 1. The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. 2. The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. 3. The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which the agency provides, or is authorized to provide. 4. The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. 5. The existence of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the SOI 1.8 SOI Amendments and CEQA LAFCO has the discretion to limit SOI updates to those that it may process without unnecessarily delaying the SOI update process or without requiring its funding agencies to bear the costs of environmental studies associated with SOI expansions. Any local agency or individual may file a request for an SOI amendment. The request must state the nature of and reasons for the proposed amendment, and provide a map depicting the proposal. LAFCO may require the requester to pay a fee to cover LAFCO costs, including the costs of appropriate environmental review under CEQA. LAFCO may elect to serve as lead agency for such a review, may designate the proposing agency as lead agency, or both the local agency and LAFCO may serve as co-lead agencies for purposes of an SOI amendment. Local agencies are encouraged to consult with LAFCO staff early in the process regarding the most appropriate approach for the particular SOI amendment under consideration. 3 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence Certain types of SOI amendments are likely exempt from CEQA review. Examples are SOI expansions that include territory already within the bounds or service area of an agency, SOI reductions, and zero SOIs. SOI expansions for limited purpose agencies that provide services (e.g., fire protection, levee protection, cemetery, and resource conservation) needed by both rural and urban areas are typically not considered growth- inducing and are likely exempt from CEQA. Similarly, SOI expansions for districts serving rural areas (e.g., irrigation water) are typically not considered growth-inducing. Remy et al. write In City of Agoura Hills v. Local Agency Formation Commission (2d Dist.1988) 198 Cal.App.3d480, 493-496 [243 Cal.Rptr.740] (City of Agoura Hills), the court held that a LAFCO’s decision to approve a city’s sphere of influence that in most respects was coterminous with the city’s existing municipal boundaries was not a “project” because such action did not entail any potential effects on the physical environment.1 Since the recommendation is for the Sphere of Influence for the boundary of the Lassen County Waterworks District 1 to remain the same, there will be no environmental impacts from the adoption of the Sphere and no environmental document is required. 1 Remy, Michael H., Tina A. Thomas, James G. Moose, Whitman F. Manley, Guide to CEQA, Solano Press Books, Point Arena, CA, February 2007, page 111. 4 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 2 BIEBER COMMUNITY AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2.1 Bieber Location Big Valley is located in beautiful, rural, northeastern California. Big Valley consists of four small towns: Nubieber, Bieber, Lookout and Adin. Surrounded by picturesque mountain peaks, Big Valley lies within Modoc and Lassen Counties. Captivating views of Mt. Shasta and Mount Lassen can be seen from the Big Valley area. The communities border the Ash Creek Wildlife area which covers more than 14,100 acres. About 3,000 acres are natural wetlands that are fed by the flow of seasonal streams. This provides habitat for a variety of wildlife including large, long-legged Sand Hill Cranes and Bald Eagles. Some of the wildlife viewed in Big Valley includes geese, hawks, mule deer, antelope, quail, sage grouse, owls, and coyotes.2 Bieber is in the center of Big Valley and is located on the Pit River, 55 miles northwest of Susanville. The Bieber area is famous for trophy fishing streams, hometown fair, championship golf course and beautiful surroundings. Bieber is served by State Highway 299, 50 miles east of Mount Shasta and 70 miles northeast of Redding.3 The elevation of Bieber is 4,124 feet.4 Elevations range from 3,000 to 7,000 feet on surrounding peaks.5 The Bieber area has a population of 579. 2.2 Bieber History Known to the Modoc Indians as "the smiles of God," the Big Valley area is one of the State's best-kept secrets. Although Hudson Bay Company fur trappers explored the area as early as the 1820s, the area wasn't really noticed until 1849. That was when the gold rush forged the Lassen and Noble Emigrant Trails through the region. In 1854 Isaac N. Roop established a trading post in Honey Lake Valley. Two years later, a gold rush a few miles to the south caused this trading post to become the area's first permanent settlement, which would eventually be called Susanville. As the gold rush died, settlers stayed put, spreading out over the region. This expansion provided the impetus for the town of Bieber to be founded. The arrival of the railroad in 1880 solidified Bieber's spot in the community.6 Bieber (formerly, Chalk Ford) sprang up at the Pit River ford in 1877. The first post office at Bieber opened in 1877. The community was named for Nathan Bieber, store owner and its first postmaster. Bieber was a major junction between the Great Northern Railroad and the Western Pacific Railroad for north-south traffic, now owned by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad.7 The Big Valley Museum in Bieber features displays and collections relating to area settlement and exhibits of area pioneer life and Native American artifacts.8 2 State of California, http://www.dfg.ca.gov/lands/wa/region1/ashcreek.html, August 18 2013. 3 http://bieber-ca-real-estate.com/, February 15, 2011. 4 http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Bieber+Califronia&fr=chr-att, February 15, 2011. 5 http://bieber-ca-real-estate.com/, February 15, 2011. 6 http://www.bieber-ca-real-estate.com/history.htm, February 15, 2011. 7 Durham, David L. (1998). California's Geographic Names: A Gazetteer of Historic and Modern Names of the State. Quill Driver Books. p. 356. ISBN 9781884995149. 8 http://www.bieber-ca-real-estate.com/amenities.htm, March 1, 2011. 5 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 2.3 Schools The location of the schools serving the community of Bieber shows that the residents are part of a larger rural area. Bieber is part of the Big Valley Joint Unified School District (Phone 530-294-5266) with schools as follows: Big Valley Primary School, Adin: Grades K-3rd Big Valley Intermediate School, Bieber: Grades 4th - 8th Big Valley High School, Bieber: Grades 9th - 12th The two schools located in Bieber are served by the Lassen County Waterworks District 1. The closest community colleges are as follows: Shasta College Office: 530.242.7500 Shasta - Tehama - Trinity Joint Community College District 11555 Old Oregon Trail PO Box 496006 Redding, CA 96049-6006 Lassen College Office: 530.257.6181 Lassen Community College 478-200 Hwy 139 Susanville, CA 96130 2.4 Churches9 There are four churches in Bieber which are served by the Lassen County Waterworks District 1: • Grace Community Bible Church • St. Stephens Catholic Church • Baptist Church • Seventh Day Adventist Church 9 http://www.bigvalleychamber.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=22&Itemid=35, March 1, 2011. 6 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 2.5 Medical Facilities There are medical facilities located in Bieber at the Big Valley Health Center 554-850 Medical Center Drive, Bieber, CA 96009, Office Phone: 530.294.5241. The Center is open Monday to Friday from 8am to 5pm and Saturday for walk in appointments from 8am - 1pm. Other medical facilities used by members of the community include the following: 1) Mayers Memorial Hospital PO Box 459 Fall River Mills - 43563 Highway 299E, Fall River Mills, CA (Estimated distance, 25 to 35 miles from Big Valley.) Office Phone: 530.336.5511. 2) Modoc Medical Center, Alturas10 (Estimated distance, 50 miles from Big Valley.) 2.6 Fire Protection The Big Valley Fire Protection District (FPD) was formed in 1984 and was formally established by the Lassen County Board of Supervisors under enabling legislation set forth in §13800 of the California Health and Safety Code. The Big Valley FPD is located in Big Valley, in most northerly section of Lassen County and extends to the Lassen/Modoc County line. The Big Valley FPD serves the unincorporated communities of Bieber and Nubieber and the unincorporated lands in the immediate vicinity. The population of the Big Valley FPD service area is approximately 510 people (in Bieber and Nubieber). However, several ranches and homes located outside of these two towns are also within the Big Valley FPD and include an estimated additional 50 to 75 people. These communities are not subject to significant seasonal fluctuations in the resident population. Because these communities are unincorporated, there are no official estimates on the number of residences or structures in the service area. 10 http://bieber-ca-real-estate.com/, February 15, 2011 7 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence Though unincorporated, Bieber is within the Lassen County Waterworks District 1. There are 32 fire hydrants are well distributed throughout the community.11 This community municipal water system is sufficient for emergency fire needs but does not meet the highest standard. The ISO Commercial Risk Services, Inc. tested the following hydrants:12 ISO COMMERCIAL RISK SERVICES, INC. HYDRANT FLOW DATA SUMMARY BIG VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, MAY 1995 Type of Test Location Flow- Pressure Flow at 20 PSI District GPM PSI Static Residual Needed Available Commercial Bridge & Water 800 40 32 1750 1300 Commercial Hy. 299 & Market 450 40 32 1250 750 Commercial Bridge & First 680 42 36 2500 1400 Residential 3rd & Juniper 620 40 30 1000 900 Even though the hydrant pressure and flow did not meet the highest standard; the Bieber area still received an ISO Rating of 5 (1 is the highest, 9 is the lowest) due to the availability of water from Lassen County Water Works District 1. The remainder of the Big Valley Fire Protection District has an ISO Rating of 9.13 Although the study was done in 1995; there is no reason to think that the results would be substantially different if a new test were done. The ISO Rating prior to the test was 8 for the Bieber area. 2.7 Bieber Population Data The 2010 US Census reported that Bieber had a population of 312. There were 123 households, out of which 41 (33.3%) had children under the age of 18 living in them. There were 34 households (27.6%) made up of individuals and 12 (9.8%) had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54. There were 84 families (68.3% of all households); the average family size was 3.05. The Bieber population was spread out in age as follows: Bieber Population Age Groups 2010 Under the age of 18 78 people 25.0% Aged 18 to 24 27 people 8.7% Aged 25 to 44 77 people 24.7% Aged 45 to 64 88 people 28.2% 65 years of age or older 42 people 13.5% The median age was 38.4 years. For every 100 females there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 105.3 males. There were 148 housing units of which 90 (73.2%) were owner-occupied, and 33 (26.8%) were occupied by renters. The homeowner vacancy rate was 4.2%; the rental 11 Lassen County Waterworks District 1, Steve Jackson, Manager, Phone: 530-294-5524, May 24, 2011. 12 ISO Commercial Risk Services, Inc. PO Box 5126 San Ramon, CA 94583, Report to Big Valley Fire Protection District, December 15, 1995. 13 ISO Commercial Risk Services, Inc. PO Box 5126 San Ramon, CA 94583, Report to Big Valley Fire Protection District, December 15, 1995. 8 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence vacancy rate was 10.8%. There were 237 people (76.0% of the population) living in owner-occupied housing units and 75 people (24.0%) living in rental housing units. 2.8 Lassen County Population Data The Lassen County population declined from 34,895 in 2010 to 33,658 in 2012, a decline of 3.5%, according to the US Census Bureau.14 This number is actually lower than the 33,828 population of Lassen County in 2000. 15 The population of California increased during this same period. Lassen County is similar to the State of California in the percentage of persons with a high school diploma or higher close to 80% for both. However, the percentage of persons with a Bachelor’s degree or higher is much lower in Lassen County at 12.4 % than for the State of California at 30.2%. The median value of owner-occupied housing units in Lassen County is only $199,200 compared to $421,600 for the State of California. The difference in Median Household Income is not so great with $61,632 for the State and $52,484 for Lassen County. 2.9 Big Valley Groundwater Basin The following information on the Big Valley Groundwater Basin is presented because the Lassen County Waterworks District 1 uses groundwater to supply water to the District. The Big Valley Groundwater Basin is described by the State of California as follows: Big Valley Groundwater Basin16 • Groundwater Basin Number: 5-4 • County: Lassen, Modoc • Surface Area: 92,000 acres (144 square miles) 2.9.1 Big Valley Groundwater Basin Boundaries and Hydrology Big Valley is a broad flat plain extending about 13 miles north-to-south and 15 miles east-to-west consisting of a series of depressed fault blocks surrounded by tilted fault block ridges. The basin is bounded to the north and south by Pleistocene and Pliocene basalt and Tertiary pyroclastic rocks of the Turner Creek Formation, to the west by Tertiary rocks of the Big Valley Mountain volcanic series, and to the east by the Turner Creek Formation. The Pit River enters the valley from the north and exits at the southernmost tip of the valley through a narrow canyon gorge. Ash Creek flows into the valley from Round Valley and disperses into Big Swamp. Near its confluence with the Pit River, Ash Creek reforms as a tributary at the western edge of Big Swamp. Annual precipitation ranges from 13- to 17-inches. 14 US Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06035.html, August 16, 2013. 15 State of California, Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2001-2009, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2009. 16 California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118, Big Valley Groundwater Basin, Updated 2/27/04. 9 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 2.9.2 Big Valley Hydrogeologic Information Water-Bearing Formations The primary water-bearing formations in Big Valley are Holocene sedimentary deposits, Pliocene and Pleistocene lava flows, and the Plio- Pleistocene Bieber Formation. The following summary of water-bearing formations is from DWR (1963). Holocene Sedimentary Deposits The Holocene sedimentary deposits include basin deposits, intermediate alluvium, and alluvial fans - each having a thickness of up to 150 feet. Basin deposits, located predominately in low-lying areas in the central part of the valley, consist of unconsolidated interbedded clay, silt, and organic muck, all having low permeability. These deposits are not considered to be a significant water-bearing formation. Intermediate alluvium, found along the perimeter of the valley, consists of unconsolidated silt and sand with some clay and gravel. These deposits are generally moderately permeable with gravel zones being highly permeable. Alluvial fans consist of unconsolidated poorly stratified silt, sand, and gravel with some clay lenses. Because the fans occur in only a few small areas, they are not considered a significant source of water. Locally they may yield moderate amounts of water to wells. Pliocene to Pleistocene Volcanic Rocks Pliocene volcanic rocks consist of jointed and fractured basalt flows occurring to the north and south of Big Valley. Deposits range in thickness to 1000 feet. The lavas are moderately to highly permeable and serve as recharge areas in the uplands and contain unconfined and confined zones in the valley. Pleistocene volcanic rocks consist of jointed and fractured basalt flows having moderate to high permeability. Deposits range from 50- to 150- feet thick. These flows serve as recharge areas and yield moderate to large amounts of confined and unconfined groundwater to wells in the southern part of the valley. Plio-Pleistocene Bieber Formation The Bieber Formation consists of lake deposited diatomite, clay, silt, sand, and gravel. These interbedded sediments are unconsolidated to semi-consolidated and are moderately permeable. The formation ranges in thickness from 1000- to 2000-feet and underlies all of Big Valley. The principal water-bearing zones consist of white pumiceous sand and black volcanic sand and yield large amounts of water to wells where there’s sufficient thickness and continuity. 10 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 2.9.3 Big Valley Groundwater Level Trends Water levels of the confined aquifer system declined 12- to 15-feet during the period between the mid-1980’s and the early 1990’s. Water levels through 1999 had recovered 10- to 12-feet. 2.9.4 Big Valley Groundwater Storage Groundwater Storage Capacity Storage capacity for the Big Valley Groundwater Basin is estimated to be 3,750,000 acre-feet to a depth of 1,000 feet (DWR 1963). DWR (1963) notes that the quantity of useable water in storage is unknown. Groundwater Budget (Type B) Estimates of groundwater extraction are based on a survey conducted by the California Department of Water Resources during 1997. The survey included land use and sources of water. Estimates of groundwater extraction for agricultural and municipal/industrial uses are 29,000 and 300 acre-feet respectively. Deep percolation from applied water is estimated to be 7,900 acre-feet. 2.9.5 Big Valley Groundwater Quality Characterization Sodium-magnesium bicarbonate and sodium bicarbonate type waters are present in the basin. The concentration of total dissolved solids ranges between 141- to 633-mg/L, averaging 260 mg/L (DWR unpublished data). Impairments Two hot springs and one well with sodium sulfate type water have been identified in the basin east of Bieber. Locally, high nitrates, manganese, fluoride, iron, sulfate, conductivity, calcium, adjusted sodium absorption ratio, and total dissolved solids occur in the basin. Some water is high in ammonia and phosphorus. Big Valley Water Quality in Public Supply Wells Constituent Group1 Number of wells Number of wells with a sampled2 concentration above an MCL3 Inorganics –Primary 7 0 Radiological 5 0 Nitrates 9 0 Pesticides 3 0 VOCs and SVOCs 3 0 Inorganics-Secondary 7 4 1 A description of each member in the constituent groups and a generalized discussion of the relevance of these groups are included in California’s Groundwater– Bulletin 118 by DWR (2003). 2 Represents distinct number of wells sampled as required under DHS Title 22 Program from 1994 through 2000. 3 Each well reported with a concentration above an MCL was confirmed with a second detection above an MCL. This information is intended as an indicator of the types of activities that cause contamination in a given basin. It represents the water quality at the sample location. It does not indicate the water quality delivered to the consumer. More detailed drinking water quality information can be obtained from the local water purveyor and its annual Consumer Confidence Report. 11 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence Big Valley Well Characteristics Big Valley Well yields (gal/min) Municipal/Irrigation Range: 100 – 4000 Average: 880 (35 Well Completion Reports) Total depths (feet) Domestic Range: 14 – 885 Average: 190 (154 Well Completion Reports) Municipal/Irrigation Range: 47 – 1025 Average: 485 (161 Well Completion Reports) Big Valley Active Groundwater Monitoring Data Agency Parameter Number of wells /measurement frequency DWR Groundwater levels 18 wells semi-annually DWR Miscellaneous Water Quality 9 wells biennially Department of Miscellaneous Health Services Water Quality 10 Big Valley Groundwater Basin Management Groundwater management: Modoc County adopted a groundwater management ordinance in 2000. Water agencies Public Lassen County WD No. 1 Lassen-Modoc County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 2.10 Water Service 2.10.1 Water Supply, Treatment and Distribution Background Small community water treatment has posed an enormous problem for the drinking water regulatory community, drinking water professionals, and the people living in these communities. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and subsequent regulations require that all water in the distribution system and at every tap connected to the distribution system comply. Water treatment usually consists of filtration and disinfection. Water treatment standards essentially mandate central treatment for drinking water prior to entering the distribution system. No water that exceeds a primary standard may be used for drinking water. Primary standards have been developed to protect human health and are rigorously enforced by the California Department of Health Services. For very small communities, this may be a cost that poses an undue burden. Often it could be a cost that has negative public health implications. For a very low-income family, the money spent on water treatment may not be available for other essentials. 12 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence Rather than spend that money, a community may apply for a variance or exemption.17 Exemptions and variances are intended to be temporary solutions to regulatory compliance. They may, however, extend indefinitely leaving a community with no water that meets the regulation.18 Secondary standards are intended to protect the taste, odor or appearance of drinking water. California Code requires that, if a community water system experiences an exceedance of certain secondary standard, quarterly sampling must be initiated. Compliance is then determined based upon the average of four consecutive quarterly samples. Non-compliant water must then be treated to meet the secondary standards.19 Water distribution systems carry water for both domestic use and for fire protection. The distribution system should be sized to perform both functions simultaneously, delivering sufficient water volume and pressure. Pipes should be made of durable and corrosion- resistant materials, and alignments located in areas that are easy to access for repairs and maintenance.20 Fire hydrants should be placed a maximum of 600 feet apart along the water mains and a maximum of 500 feet from the end of water lines.21 Some water loss in the distribution system can be expected. Water loss is the difference between the volume of water pumped from the water supply well and the volume of water sold to users. A loss of water from 5% to 15% is considered acceptable.22 2.10.2 Water Conservation The Best Management Practices for water conservation recommended by the California Water Association are as follows:23 1. Water Survey Programs for Single-Family Residential and Multi-Family Residential Customers 2. Residential Plumbing Retrofit 3. System Water Audits, Leak Detection and Repair 4. Metering with Commodity Rates for All New Connections and Retrofit of Existing Connections 5. Large Landscape Conservation Programs and Incentives 6. High-Efficiency Washing Machine Rebate Programs 7. Public Information Programs 8. School Education Programs 17 A Variance or an Exemption is a State Department of Health Services permission to exceed an MCL or not comply with a treatment technique under certain conditions. 18 NSF International, “Feasibility of an Economically Sustainable Point-of-Use/Point-of-Entry Decentralized Public Water System Final Report”, March 2005, p18. nsf.org/business/.../pdf/GrimesFinalReport_Dec05.pdf 19 Brelje & Race Consulting Civil Engineers, “Preliminary Engineering Report Bonanza Springs Water System CSA #7 Lake County Special Districts”, December 2006, p 8. 20 Brelje & Race Consulting Civil Engineers, “Preliminary Engineering Report Bonanza Springs Water System CSA #7 Lake County Special Districts”, December 2006, p. 10 21 Brelje & Race Consulting Civil Engineers, “Preliminary Engineering Report Bonanza Springs Water System CSA #7 Lake County Special Districts”, December 2006, p. 11 22 Brelje & Race Consulting Civil Engineers, “Preliminary Engineering Report Starview Water System CSA #18 Lake County Special Districts”, December 2006, p. 4. 23 http://www.calwaterassn.com/conservation.htm, July 26, 2010. 13 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 9. Conservation Programs for Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Accounts 10. Wholesale Agency Assistance Programs 11. Conservation Pricing Home 12. Conservation Coordinator 13. Water Waste Prohibition 14. Residential ULFT (ultra-low-flow-toilet) Replacement Programs 2.11 Wastewater Treatment Overview Wastewater is the water that drains from sinks, showers, washers, and toilets. Wastewater also includes water used for some outdoor purposes, such as draining chlorinated pool water, commercial car washes and industrial processes. Underground sanitary sewer pipelines carry sewage to a wastewater treatment plant, where it is treated, sanitized and discharged. Wastewater Treatment demand management strategies include the following: • Sewer infiltration and inflow (I&I) control • Industrial pretreatment and recycling • Water conservation Service providers can reduce infiltration and inflow with capital improvements, such as pipeline rehabilitation, manhole cover replacement, and root eradication. They can also address sources on private property, such as broken service lines, uncapped cleanouts and exterior drains, through public education, incentives and regulatory strategies. Communities use various techniques to prohibit discharge of unwanted pollutants or to reduce the quantity and strength of wastewater discharged to sewers. These techniques include the following: 1) Permit limitations on the strength and contaminant levels of industrial and commercial wastewater 2) Increased rates or surcharges on high-strength wastes 3) Incentives or requirements for water recycling and reuse within the industrial or commercial operation. Water conservation measures are effective for reducing average wastewater flows, but have less impact on peak flows, which are usually strongly influenced by infiltration and inflow contributions. Water conservation has little or no impact on organic loading to the treatment plant. 14 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 3 LASSEN COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT 1 (Bieber) 3.1 History of Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) The Lassen County Waterworks District 1 provides water storage, distribution and reclamation and sewage disposal services to the community of Bieber.24 Lassen County Waterworks District 1 was started in 1932 to supply the inhabitants of the District with water for irrigation, domestic and fire purposes.25 There are 170 services, 140 are active.26 All services are metered.27 In 1954, land was annexed to the Lassen County Waterworks District No. 1.28 In 1971, the Board of Supervisors granted Lassen County Waterworks District a loan of $7,000 as provided in section 5503 of the California Water Code.29 In 1988, the sewage treatment facility of 16 acres was annexed to the Lassen County Waterworks District 1.30 In 1993, The California Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted Waste Discharge Requirements for Lassen County Waterworks District 1. On April 25, 1997, the Cease and Desist Order No. 93-072 was rescinded by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 3.2 Contact Information The Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) mailing address is as follows: PO Box 363, Bieber, CA 96009. The phone number is 530-294-5524. The Manager is Stephen Jackson. The part-time Secretary is Cindy Fulfer. 3.3 Board of Directors The Board of Directors for the Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) is as follows:31 Don Colvin, Chairman Term Expires January 31, 2015 Richard Patek, Vice-Chairman Term Expires January 31, 2015 Jennifer Thompson Term Expires January 31, 2017 Curtis Darnell Term Expires January 31, 2015 Vacant Term Expires January 31, 2017 24 Lassen LAFCO, File #12-05-84, Adoption of sphere of Influence for Lassen County Waterworks District No.1. 25 Lassen County Board of Supervisors, Resolution, April 4, 1932, Recorded Volume 185, Page 393, November 27, 1963. 26 Lassen County Grand Jury, Interview with Steve Jackson, April 11, 2013. 27 Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), Stephen Jackson, Manager, Phone: 530-294-5524, March 1, 2011. 28 Lassen County Board of Supervisors, Resolution, July 6, 1954, Recorded Volume 185, Page 391. 29 Lassen County Board of Supervisors, Resolution 2030, August 9, 1971. 30 Lassen LAFCO File # 88-03, Sewer Pond Annexation to Lassen County Waterworks District No. 1. 31 Lassen County Board of Supervisors, Minutes, March 22, 2011. 15 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence The Board meetings are held on the third Tuesday of each month at 5:00 p.m. at the District Office.32 Every effort should be made to fill the vacancy on the Board of Directors. It can become very difficult for a district to conduct business when there is a vacant seat on the board. 3.4 Financial Background 3.4.1 Financial Management The Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) keeps all funds with Lassen County. All vouchers are signed by three Board Members and submitted to the County for payment. The County Auditor does not do the required audit for the District. The District has a contract with an independent auditor for this service. The State Law is clear that an audit is required and the District should budget sufficient funds for this expense. 3.4.2 Budget The budget for Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) is shown below. The budget shows that employee costs are reasonable. If the present employees were to leave the District might find that it would be more expensive to replace them or that it would have to contract with another public agency for these services which could also cost more. Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) Projected Revenue 2010-201133 2012-1334 2013-1435 Water $77,000 $76,000 $71,000 Sewer $52,000 51,000 $55,000 Interest Water $500 100 50 Interest Sewer $500 100 50 Miscellaneous $4,000 1,000 500 TOTAL $134,000 $128,200 $126,600 The Grand Jury Report notes that there are ten customers that are behind on their bills for a total of $16,221.36 The District needs to work with the Lassen County Tax Collector to have these bills added to the Tax Bill for these customers so that they funds can eventually be collected by the County as a lien against each property. The table below shows the personnel expenses for Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber). The District no longer pays for health insurance for the employees. 32 Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), Stephen Jackson, Manager, Phone: 530-294-5524, August 29, 2013. 33 Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), Projected Revenue for 2010-2011, June 22, 2010. 34 Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), Projected Revenue for 2012-13, June 26, 2012. 35 Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), Projected Revenue for 2013-2014. September 10, 2013. 36 Lassen County Grand Jury Report 2013. 16 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence LASSEN COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT 1 (BIEBER) BUDGET PERSONNEL 2010-2011 2012-2013 2013-2014 Salaries Manager 29,450 38,991 38,991 Secretary 8,866 8,866 8,866 Total $38,316 $47,857 $47,857 Employee Benefits Survivor Benefits 126 126 126 Social Security Employer 596 596 596 Social Security Employee 596 596 596 Training Tax 14 14 14 State Compensation 1,840 1,663 1,663 EDD Unemployment 120 120 120 IRS Federal Tax 1,512 2,688 2,688 EDD Federal Tax 217 390 390 Health Insurance 12,609 - Retirement Employer 2,388 4,301 4,377 Retirement Employee 2,694 3,252 3,252 Medicare Employer 634 808 808 Medicare Employee 634 808 808 Total $23,980 $15,362 $15,438 Total Salaries/Benefits $62,296 $63,219 $63,295 The table below shows the expenses for Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber). The District is trying to keep costs in line; however, some costs cannot be controlled by the District. For example, fuel costs are rising. 17 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence LASSEN COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT 1 (BIEBER) BUDGET EXPENSES 2010-2011 2012-2013 2013-2014 Professional/Specialized Services Audit 1000 250 250 FGL environmental Laboratories 1000 1,000 1,000 Water Quality Control 10,000 12,300 7,000 Office of Drinking Water 1000 1,000 1,000 Total $13,000 $14,550 $9,250 Insurance $3,485 $3,122 3122 Maintenance/Vehicle $1,000 $500 500 Transportation/Travel $4,000 $6,000 $5,000 Utilities PG&E 14,500 14,000 15,000 Don Harbert Oil 700 700 1,000 Surprise Valley Electric 144 144 144 Total $15,344 $14,844 $17,144 Communications $1300 $1,300 $1,300 Maintenance/Equipment $8,000 $5,000 $9,000 Memberships $700 $550 $600 Structures and Improvements 0 0 0 Special Department Expense Chem Quip (Wt. House) 2,000 3,000 4,000 Hach Company 40 40 40 Miscellaneous 100 100 100 Total $2,140 $3,140 $4,140 Office Expense Supplies 758 758 758 Stamps 1,080 1,080 1,080 Petty Cash 300 300 300 Total $2,138 $2,138 $2,138 Equipment 0 0 0 Bond Principal Water 8,505 9,377 9,377 Sewer 3,075 0 0 Total $11,580 $9,377 $9,377 Bond Interest Water 4,119 3,247 3,247 Sewer 150 0 0 Total $4,269 $3,247 $3,247 TOTAL BUDGET $129,252 $126,987 $125,113 18 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 3.4.3 Independent Audit The Independent Audit presented the following information for the year ended June 30, 2011: LASSEN COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT 1 (BIEBER) FINANCIAL REVIEW FISCAL YEAR 2010-201137 Beginning Balance, July 1, 2010 $48,465.77 INCOME ACTUAL BUDGET COMPARE TO BUDGET Water 71,644.21 77,000 5,356 under Sewer 47,761.55 52,000 4,238 under Interest 265.14 1,000 735 under Other 350.00 4,000 3,650 under Total $120,020.90 134,000 1,397 under EXPENSE Salaries and Benefits 62,833.67 62,296 538 over Operating Expenses 63,678.92 66,956 3,277 under Total *$126,512.59 129,252 2,739 under Net Income (Loss) ($6,491.96) 4,748 11,240 under Ending Balance 6/30/11 $41,974.08 *Includes $1,060.92 Stop Payment Order to match Ending Balance 3.5 Lassen County Waterworks District 1 Water System The water system has two wells and a tower water storage tank which holds 30,000 gallons. The storage tank was constructed in 1939 and refurbished in 1978. The water treatment system uses chlorine to control sulfides and a sodium tripolyphosphate sequestering agent for iron and manganese control. All connections are metered.38 3.5.1 Water Quality The Lassen County Waterworks District 1 uses FGL Environmental Laboratories to test the water samples as required by the State of California. The 2009 Consumer Confidence Report shows no problems with public health standards. The Report notes the following:39 “The Lassen County Water District #1 supplies water that exceeds drinking water standards for iron and manganese. These standards for iron and manganese are secondary standards that are not based on health effects. Secondary standards are based upon aesthetic concerns that arise when these values are exceeded in a public water supply. To help combat this problem, the water district adds a chemical to help reduce these unwanted quality effects.” The Consumer Confidence Reports for 2011 and 2012 are included in Appendix B at the end of this report. The presence of iron and manganese noted above continue. 37 Lassen County Waterworks District 1, Financial Review 2010-2011, Prepared by Phillips Financial Services, Dr. James A. Phillips, CFP,EA, 213 Poplar Street, Alturas, CA 96101, Phone 530-708-0850, August 21, 2011. 38 Lassen County Waterworks District 1, Steve Jackson, Manager, Phone: 530-294-5524. May 3, 2011 39 Lassen County Waterworks District 1, 2009 consumer Confidence Report, July 1, 2010. 19 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 3.5.2 Water Rates The water rates for Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) are as follows: Water Rates for Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber)40 USE MONTHLY QUOTA- RATE GALLONS Domestic 35.00 40,000 Churches 30.00 26,000 Lassen County Memorial Park 225.00 272,00 Commercial Business/public use of facilities/no restaurants 40.00 50,000 Commercial Establishments 35.00 50,000 Laundromat 65.00 98,000 CDF 260.00 272,000 Hotels, Motels and Dorms 107.00 138,000 Equipment Shops, County Co-op Yard 45.00 52,000 Mobile Home Park/RV Trailers 250.00 400,000 School 335.00 436,000 Nursery 50.00 50,000 Concrete Mix Plant 50.00 50,000 Restaurant, Bar 65.00 84,000 Fire Protection District 30.00 26,000 Pool 25.00 40,000 Medical Center 50.00 50,000 Fire Hydrant Charge 12.00/year Commercial Building 4.00 1,000 Baseball Field 2.00 1,000 The monthly rate schedule for unmetered use shall be 50% more than the monthly rate for the corresponding use above. For metered rates, the rates for water use in excess of the amount permitted by the flat rate above is hereby established at $1.50 per thousand gallons of water or any portion thereof. The water rates shown above may need to be increased. Water rates from various agencies are shown below in Chapter 4. Several districts charge a similar amount for the base rate but the amount of water included for the base rate is substantially lower. 40 Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), Ordinance 09-2, An Ordinance amending the Ordinance Establishing the Rate for Water Service by the Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), June 16, 2009. 20 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 3.6 Wastewater Collection and Treatment Service 3.6.1 Lassen County Waterworks District 1 Wastewater Treatment System The Lassen County Waterworks District 1 operates and maintains the wastewater treatment facility for Bieber. The wastewater collection system has five lift stations. There is one back-up generator and a gas pump on the main lift station.41 Approximately 40,000 gpd (dry weather flow) of domestic sewage is discharged into two facultative treatment ponds of a combined 3.05 acres. Wastewater from the ponds is discharged in to two shallow evaporation ponds of a combined 8.33 acres. The evaporation ponds are used to lower the water level of the two facultative ponds prior to the wet season. The ponds are 2,000 feet south of Bieber with surface drainage to the Pit River.42 The facility has had problems containing wastewater within the designated disposal area beginning in 1975. In March 1993, wastewater was observed to be discharging from Pond No. 4 directly into the Pit River. Review of monitoring data indicates wet weather flows increase by 400 to 600% during the winter as a result of I&I to the collection system. The Discharger has proposed to increase the storage capacity of the evaporation ponds and has requested the requirements be revised to allow the use of effluent for irrigation of adjacent lands.43 Waste Discharge Requirements were adopted in 1985 and were amended in 1993 to allow discharge of effluent for irrigation from April 15 through October 14. There was a Cease and Desist Order against the District but the Order was rescinded April 25, 1997.44 3.6.2 Waste Discharge Requirements The Waste Discharge Requirements established in Order 93-071 for Lassen County Waterworks District 1 are as follows: 45 A. Discharge Prohibitions 1. The direct discharge of wastes to surface waters or surface water drainage courses either by direct discharge or runoff from irrigation areas is prohibited. 2. The by-pass or overflow of untreated or partially treated waste is prohibited. 3. The discharge of treated waste to irrigation fields from 15 October through 15 April is prohibited. 41 Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), Steve Jackson, Phone 530-294-5524, May 3, 2011. 42 California, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, Order No. 93-071, Waste Discharge Requirements for Lassen County Waterworks District no. 1 Bieber Sewage Treatment Facility, Lassen County, May 21, 1993. 43 California, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, Order No. 93-071, Waste Discharge Requirements for Lassen County Waterworks District no. 1 Bieber Sewage Treatment Facility, Lassen County, May 21, 1993. 44 State of California, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, Minutes, April 25, 1997. 45 State of California, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, Minutes, April 25, 1997. 21 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 4. The discharge of waste classified as ‘hazardous’ or ‘designated’, as defined in Sections 2521(a) and 2522(a) of Chapter 15, is prohibited. 5. The discharge of waste containing any carcinogen or reproductive toxin listed by the Governor pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 25249.5 through 25249.13, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65), where such chemical passes or probably will pass into any source of drinking water, is prohibited. B. Discharge Specifications 1. Neither the treatment nor the discharge shall cause a nuisance or condition of pollution as defined by the California Water Code, Section 13050. 2. The discharge shall not cause degradation of any water supply. 3. The discharge shall remain within the designated disposal area at all times. 4. The Discharger shall maintain a minimum one foot of freeboard in the treatment and evaporation ponds at all times. The ponds shall have sufficient capacity to accommodate allowable wastewater flow and design seasonal precipitation and ancillary inflow/infiltration (I&I). Design seasonal precipitation shall be based on total annual precipitation using a return period of 25 years, distributed monthly in accordance with historical rainfall patterns. 5. On 15 October of each year, available pond storage capacity shall at least equal the volume necessary to comply with Discharge Specification B.4 (above). 6. The 30-day average daily dry weather discharge flow shall not exceed 40,000 gallons. 7. The discharge to irrigation shall not contain constituents in excess of the following limits: Constituent Unit Monthly Mean Maximum BOD1 ml/l2 60 120 Settleable Matter ml/l --- 0.5 _________________ 1 Five-day 20°C biochemical oxygen demand. 2 Milliliters per Liter 8. Reclaimed wastewater satisfying Discharge Specification B.7 (above) may be used for irrigation of pasture, fodder, fiber, or seed crops. 9. Stormwater runoff from the irrigation field shall not be discharged to any surface water drainage course within 30 days of the last wastewater application. 10. Public access shall be precluded from the treatment and disposal area by a satisfactory combination of fencing, signing, and irrigation management practices or some other acceptable methods. 22 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 11. Collected screenings, sludges, and other solids removed from liquid wastes shall be disposed of in a manner that is consistent with Chapter 15 of Title 23 CCR, and approved by the Executive Officer. 12. Ponds shall be managed to maintain the integrity of the pond embankments and to prevent breeding of mosquitoes. Weeds and tree growth shall be controlled by harvesting or herbicides. Dead algae, vegetation, and debris shall not accumulate on the water surface. 13. The dissolved oxygen content of treatment ponds shall not be less than 1.0 mg/l for 16 hours in any 24-hour period. C. Provisions 1. The discharger may be required to submit technical reports as directed by the Executive Officer. 2. The Discharger shall comply with Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 93-071, which is part of this Order, and any revisions thereto as ordered by the Executive Officer. 3. The Discharger shall comply with the “Standard Provisions and Reporting requirements for Waste Discharge Requirements”, dated 1 March 1991, which is attached hereto and by reference a part of this Order. This attachment and its individual paragraphs are commonly referenced as “Standard Provisions(s).” 4. The use of effluent for irrigation must comply with the provisions of Title 22, Division 4, CCR, Section 60309. The Discharger must obtain written approval from the Executive Officer prior to the use of effluent on adjacent lands. 5. The Discharger shall report promptly to the board any material change or proposed change in the character, location, or volume of the discharge. 6. The Discharger shall provide certified wastewater treatment plant operators in accordance with regulations adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board. 7. In the event of any change in control or ownership of land or waste discharge facilities presently owned or controlled by the Discharger, the Discharger shall notify the succeeding owner or operator of the existence of this Order by letter, a copy of which shall be forwarded to this office. 8. The Board will review this Order periodically and may revise requirements when necessary. 23 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence D. Pond Monitoring The following shall constitute the monitoring program: LASSEN COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT 1 POND MONITORING Parameter Unit Type of Sample Sampling Frequency Flow Gallons -- Daily Dissolved Oxygen mg/l Grab Weekly Liquid Depth and Freeboard Feet Visual Weekly E. Reclaimed Water Monitoring During periods of reclamation, the following constituents shall be monitored: LASSEN COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT 1 RECLAIMED WATER MONITORING Constituent Unit Type of Sample Sampling Frequency Reclaimed Water Flow gpd --- Daily 20°C, BOD mg/l Grab Weekly 5 Settleable Solids mg/l Grab Weekly The Discharger shall keep a log of irrigation field observations and include said log in the monthly monitoring report. The log should include the dates of wastewater application and the quantity of wastewater applied. The log should also include the type of crop being irrigated. 3.6.3 Septage Disposal The Lassen County Waterworks District 1 assists the larger community by disposing of septage from the Big Valley Septic Company. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region allows this with the following conditions:46 1. The companies delivering the septage waste make full disclosure of the septage deodorant/disinfectant or any other chemical known to be in the septage. 2. All septage waste deliveries are report in the monthly monitoring report. 3. All septage waste deliveries are from domestic sources (human sanitary wastes). 4. Regional Board staff is notified when a new septage waste company plans to deliver to the facility. 46 State of California, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, Letter to Lassen County Waterworks District 1, October 30, 1997. 24 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 3.6.4 Sewer Service Rates The sewer service rates for Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) are as follows: Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) Sewer Service Rates47 USE MONTHLY CHARGE Domestic Normal Use-Minimum $25.00 Restaurants, Bars 40.00 Commercial Business allowing Public use of facilities (Red Barn) 50.00 Churches 20.00 Laundromats 55.00 Commercial Establishments-daytime use only (public not allowed 25.00 use of facilities Hotels, Motels, Dormitories over 14 units 100.00 Dormitories not exceeding 14 persons 42.00 Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) Sewer Service Rates48 SPECIAL MONTHLY CHARGE CDF (CALFIRE)* 165.00 Pit River Resource Conservation District 6.00 Big Valley Joint Unified School District 265.00 Memorial Building and Library 150.00 Mobile Park 150.00 RV** Park 14 or more units (without showers or laundry facilities) 35.00 RV Park 14 or more units (with showers or laundry facilities) 56.00 Medical Center 140.00 Big Valley Power 120.00 Pool 36.00 Rate for dumping into Sewer ponds, Minimum $10.00, over minimum $0.07/gallon *California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection **RV Recreational Vehicle The sewer service rates are probably low. For example, the City of Willows, California charges $40.19 per month for residential service compared to Lassen County Waterworks District 1’s charge of $25.00. Considering that improvements to the system may be required and that the cost of personnel will probably increase a yearly increase should be considered. 47 Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), Ordinance 09-1, An Ordinance Amending the Ordinance Establishing the Rate for sewer services by the Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), June 16, 2009. 48 Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), Ordinance 09-1, An Ordinance Amending the Ordinance Establishing the Rate for sewer services by the Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), June 16, 2009. 25 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 4 COMPARISON OF WATER AND SEWER SERVICE RATES 4.1 Comparison of Water Service Rates The following table is included to compare the cost of water rates from different districts in Northern California. It is difficult to compare one district with another because the base rates include different amounts of water. Where the base amount of water is low, the average bill will almost always be higher than the base fee shown. COMPARISON OF DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE RATES NORTHERN CALIFORNIA District/County Number of Connections Monthly Water Rate (Base Rate) Arbuckle PUD/Colusa 792 (mostly unmetered)49 $15.0050 Artois CSD/Glenn 59 metered51 $39.00 (16,000 gallons) Callayomi County Water 450 (366 active, 84 $35.00 (6,000 gallons) District/Lake inactive)52 California Pines CSD/Modoc 131 metered (April 30 to $32.25.54 October 31) 53 Clear Creek CSD/Lassen 156 unmetered55 $27.0056 CSA 1 Century Ranch/Colusa 112 metered $39.22 (8,000 gallons)57 CSA 2 Stonyford/Colusa 91 metered $45.58 (10,000 gallons)58 Elk Creek CSD/Glenn 90 metered59 $44.00 (14,961 gallons) Maxwell PUD/Colusa 400 (meters, not read) $32.00 (unlimited)60 Lassen Co. Waterworks 1, 170 metered61 35.00 (40,000 gallons)62 Bieber/Lassen Little Valley CSD/Lassen 50 unmetered $23.0063 Westwood CSD/Lassen 765 metered $35.78 (30,000 gallons)64 City of Colusa/Colusa 2088 metered $21.76 (300 cubic feet*)65 City of Susanville/Lassen 4200 metered $23.65 (300 cubic feet*)66 City of Williams/Colusa 1321 $15.72 (500 cubic feet)67 *(100 cubic feet of water = 748 gallons) 49 Arbuckle PUD, Small Water System 2011 Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program for year Ending December 31, 2011. 50 Arbuckle PUD, Water Rates as of January 1, 2009. 51 Artois Community Services District, Jack Cavier, Jr., President, March 1, 2012. 52 Callayomi County Water District, Secretary Janet Mondragon, E-Mail: janetccwd@mediacombb.net, January 10, 2013. 53 California Pines CSD, Vera Sphar, June 12, 2009. 54 California Pines CSD Service Rates Effective June 2006. 55 Clear Creek CSD, Pat Mudrich, Manager, August 22, 2012 56 Clear Creek CSD, Lassen LAFCO Questionnaire June 6, 2012. 57 Colusa County Ordinance No. 673, An Ordinance of the Colusa County Board of Supervisors Increasing water service Fees; authorizing administrative Fees; providing for the Collection of Delinquent Charges; and Directing That No New Water Hook-ups Be Permitted for County Service Area Number 1-Century Ranch, March 16, 2004., 58 Colusa County Ordinance No 674, An Ordinance of the Colusa County Board of Supervisors Increasing Water Service Fees; Authorizing Administrative Fees; Providing for the Collection of Delinquent charges; and Directing That No New Water Hook-ups be permitted for County Service Area Number 2-Stonyford, March 16, 2004. 59 Elk Creek Community Services District, Arnold Kjer, Water Plant Operator, September 28, 2011 60 Maxwell PUD, Diana Mason, Phone 438-2505, August 8, 2012. 61 Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), Stephen Jackson, Manager, Phone: 530-294-5524, September 2013. 62 Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), Ordinance 09-2, An Ordinance amending the Ordinance Establishing the Rate for Water Service by the Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), June 16, 2009. 63 Little Valley CSD, Director Devora Kelley, March 19, 2012. 64 Westwood Community Services District, Resolution 2011-01, A resolution of the Westwood Community Services District Increasing Water Rates, June 6, 2011. 65 City of Colusa, Water Department, Phone 458-4740 Ex100, August 7, 2012. 66 City of Susanville, 530-252-5111, August 3, 2012. 67 City of Williams, Greg Endeman, gendeman@cityofwilliams.org, October 1, 2012. 26 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence The water rate for Lassen County Waterworks District 1 includes substantially more water in the base rate than most of the other districts listed. 4.2 Sewer Service Cost Comparison The following table shows sewer service rates in various places in northern California. It is difficult to compare the rates because some jurisdictions have had to install expensive upgrades to their wastewater treatment plants to meet the requirements of the State Water Quality Control Board. COMPARISON OF DOMESTIC SEWER SERVICE RATES District/County Number of Monthly Sewer Service Rate Connections (Base Rate-Single Family Residential) Arbuckle PUD/Colusa 820 $15.0068 Lassen Co. Waterworks 17069 $25.0070 District 1(Bieber)/Lassen Maxwell PUD/Colusa 400 $48.00 plus $358.62/year71 Westwood CSD 781 $34.2272 City of Colusa/Colusa 2082 $65.7773 City of Willows/Glenn 2255 $40.1974 Susanville Sanitary 3747 $15.1575 District/Lassen City of Williams/Colusa 1360 $74.2776 The Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) has room to increase the sewer service fees and still be considered a low fee district. 68 Arbuckle PUD, PO Box 207, Arbuckle, CA 95912, Phone: (530) 476-2054, Fax: 530-476-2761, E-Mail: apud@frontiernet.net 69 Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), Stephen Jackson, Manager, Phone: 530-294-5524, September 2013. 70 Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), Ordinance 09-1, An Ordinance Amending the Ordinance Establishing the Rate for sewer services by the Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), June 16, 2009. 71 Maxwell PUD, Maxwell, CA, Diana Mason, Phone: 438-2505, August 7, 2012. 72 Westwood CSD, Susan Coffi, E-Mail: office@westwoodcsd.org, September 6, 2012. 73 City of Colusa, Water Department, Phone 458-4740 Ex100, September 12, 2012. 74 City of Willows, Skyler Lipski, Public Works Director, Phone: 530-934-7041, September 5, 2012. 75 Susanville Sanitary District, PO Box 162, Susanville, Ca 96130, Phone: 530-257-5685, Fax: 530-251-5328, September 11, 2012. 76 City of Williams, Greg Endeman, gendeman@cityofwilliams.org, October 1, 2012. 27 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Lassen LAFCO is responsible for determining if an agency is reasonably capable of providing needed resources and basic infrastructure to serve areas within its boundaries and, later, within the Sphere of Influence. LAFCO will do the following: 1) Evaluate the present and long-term infrastructure demands and resources available to the District. 2) Analyze whether resources and services are, or will be, available at needed levels. 3) Determine whether orderly maintenance and expansion of such resources and services are planned to occur in-line with increasing demands. Determinations are provided for each of the six factors, based on the information provided in this Municipal Service Review. 5.1 Growth and Population Projections for the Bieber Area Purpose: To evaluate service needs based on existing and anticipated growth patterns and population projections. 5.1.1 Lassen County Population Growth The 2010 population for Lassen County is shown below: Lassen County Total Population 201077 Lassen Lassen County Population Type City of Susanville County Total Total Population with Group 18,458 17,431 35,889 Quarters Group Quarters 1,541 8,525 10,066 Total Population without 16,917 8,906 25,823 Group Quarters Lassen County adopted a General Plan in 2000 and expects to have population growth as follows: LASSEN COUNTY POPULATION GROWTH78 Year 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Population 27,800 35,700 39,900 44.000 47,000 51,800 Clearly the population growth for 2010 has not materialized, probably due to the Economic Recession of 2007-2012. The 2012 population of Lassen County was 33,65879 so the population is declining rather than growing. This decline includes the City of Susanville with a 2012 population of 16,616.80 77 Lassen County, http://www.co.lassen.ca.us/govt/dept/planning_building/planning_division/census_demographics.asp, February 12, 2010. 78 Lassen County, General Plan 2000, September 1999, Page1-12 79 US Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06035.html, August 16, 2013 28 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence Based on 2.59 persons per household81 and 126 residential connections82 the population of the Lassen County Waterworks District 1 is estimated to be 326. 5.1.2 MSR Determinations on Growth and Population for Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) 1-1) The population in Bieber is not expected to grow. 1-2) The population in Bieber is expected to remain the same and will require continued sewer and water service. 5.2 MSR Determinations on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUC) Purpose: To comply with the State Law to examine any unincorporated areas which could be provided with better services by annexing to an adjacent city. 5.2.1 Determination of Bieber Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Status In addition to a consideration of population growth, the State Law (SB 244) requires LAFCO to consider whether or not an area is a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC). A DUC is an area where the Median Household Income is less than 80% of the State of California Median Household Income of $61,632.83 Eighty percent of the 2010 California Median Household Income would be $49,306. Disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) are defined as “a territory that constitutes all or a portion of a ‘disadvantaged community’ including 12 or more registered voters or some other standard as determined by the commission.” In California Government Code Section 65302.30 (a) “Community” means an inhabited area within a city or county that is comprised of no less than 10 dwellings adjacent or in close proximity to one another. The Median Household Income in Lassen County for 2007-2011 was reported as $52,484 which is greater than 80% of the State of California Median Household Income as noted above. To determine the Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community status of Bieber would require a separate income survey. It is likely that Bieber is a disadvantaged community because there are at least ten Lassen County Waterworks District 1 customers who are behind on their payments for water and sewer service.84 However, there is no incorporated city nearby which could help the community of Bieber by annexation. 80 US Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0677364.html, September 20, 2013. 81 US Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06035.html, May 31, 2011 82 Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), Stephen Jackson, Manager, Phone: 530-294-5524, March 1, 2011. 83 US Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06035.html, August 16, 2013. 84 Lassen County Grand Jury, Interview with Steve Jackson, April 11, 2013. 29 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 5.2.2 MSR Determinations on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities near Bieber 2-1) The community of Bieber cannot be officially classified as a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community without an income survey specific to the community. 2-2) There is no incorporated city that the community of Bieber could be annexed into. 5.3 Capacity and Infrastructure Purpose: To evaluate the infrastructure needs and deficiencies in terms of supply, capacity, condition of facilities and service quality. LAFCO is responsible for determining that an agency is reasonably capable of providing needed resources and basic infrastructure to serve areas within the District and later in the Sphere of Influence. It is important that such findings of infrastructure availability occur when revisions to the Sphere of Influence and annexations occur. In the case of this Municipal Service Review, it is prudent for Lassen LAFCO to evaluate the present and long-term infrastructure demands and resource availability of the District. Further, LAFCO needs to see that resources and services are available at needed levels and orderly maintenance and expansion of such resources and services are made to coordinate with increasing demands. 5.3.1 Infrastructure Background The infrastructure for Lassen County Waterworks District 1 is described above in this report. 5.3.2 MSR Determinations Regarding Capacity and Infrastructure for Lassen County Waterworks District 1 3-1) The infrastructure for the water system is adequate for the District but a Master Plan and Capital Improvement Plan is necessary to determine what improvements will be needed and the cost. The Water Tank is in need of refurbishing.85 3-2) The water system has good water quality and the Consumer Confidence Report on water quality is available to the public upon request; however, the District should consider a website to make this report available to all. 3-3) The infrastructure for the wastewater collection and treatment system is adequate for the District but a Master Plan and Capital Improvement Plan is necessary to determine what improvements are needed and the cost. 3-4) The wastewater collection system would benefit from back-up generators for each lift station. 85 Lassen County Grand Jury Report 2013. 30 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 5.4 Financial Ability Purpose: To evaluate factors that affect the financing of needed improvements and to identify practices or opportunities that may help eliminate unnecessary costs without decreasing service levels. LAFCO should consider the ability of the District to pay for improvements or services associated with annexed sites. This planning can begin at the Sphere of Influence stage by identifying what opportunities there are to identify infrastructure and maintenance needs associated with future annexation and development, and identifying limitations on financing such improvements, as well as the opportunities that exist to construct and maintain those improvements. LAFCO should consider the relative burden of new annexations to the community when it comes to its ability to provide public safety and administrative services, as well as capital maintenance and replacements required as a result of expanding District boundaries. Rate restructuring may be forced by shortfalls in funding, but the process may also reflect changing goals and views of economic justice or fairness within the community. LAFCO should evaluate the impact of SOI and Annexation decisions on existing community assessments for public water and sewer service. 5.4.1 Financial Considerations The fee schedule and budget for Lassen County waterworks District 1 are shown above in this report. 5.4.2 MSR Determinations on Financial Ability for Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) 4-1) The Lassen County Waterworks District 1 maintains a balanced budget and fee schedule barely adequate to support the budget. 4-2) The Lassen County Waterworks District 1 should maintain a website, or a page on the Lassen County website, to show the financial information to the public. 4-3) The District has a contract with an independent auditor to provide the required audit for the District. 4-4) The District should have a water and sewer master plan and a capital improvement plan. 4-5) The District should study the fee schedules to make sure that the fees will be adequate in the future to pay for increased personnel costs and improvements. 31 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 5.5 Opportunities for Shared Facilities Purpose: To evaluate the opportunities for a jurisdiction to share facilities and resources to develop more efficient service delivery systems. In the case of annexing new lands into a district, LAFCO can evaluate whether services or facilities can be provided in a more efficient manner if the District can share them with another agency. In some cases, it may be possible to establish a cooperative approach to facility planning by encouraging agencies to work cooperatively in such efforts. 5.5.1 Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) Facilities The Lassen County Waterworks District 1 facilities are described above in this report. 5.5.2 MSR Determinations on Shared Facilities 5-1) The community of Bieber is not located near enough to any other community to allow shared water or wastewater treatment facilities. 5-2) The District keeps all funds on deposit with Lassen County. 5-3) The District should examine ways to share administration costs, perhaps by working together with another small district to share personnel. 5-4) The District should explore ways to share a website with Lassen County or another agency. 5-5) The District provides fire flows for the Big Valley Fire Protection District. 5-6) The District should investigate ways to increase the fire flows and grant funding to pay the costs. 32 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 5.6 Government Structure and Accountability Purpose: To consider the advantages and disadvantages of various government structures that could provide public services, to evaluate the management capabilities of the organization and to evaluate the accessibility and levels of public participation associated with the agency’s decision-making and management processes. One of the most critical components of LAFCO’s responsibilities is in setting logical service boundaries for communities based on their capacity to provide services to affected lands. Lassen LAFCO may consider the agency’s record of local accountability in its management of community affairs as a measure of the ability to provide adequate services to the Sphere of Influence and potential annexation areas. 5.6.1 Government Structure The government of the Lassen County Waterworks District 1 is described above in this report. 5.6.2 MSR Determinations on Government Structure and Accountability for Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) 6-1) The District is fortunate to have willing four volunteers to serve on the Board of Directors; every effort should be made to fill the remaining position. 6-2) The District could benefit from a website of a page on the Lassen County website, to post agendas and minutes of meetings, fee schedules and other information on the District. 6-3) The District should consider a publication that can be inserted into water bills to enhance communication with ratepayers. 6-4) The District has been reducing costs to balance the budget but costs may have to be increased to maintain the systems and the personnel to maintain them. 6-5) The District needs to consider long-term planning projects such as a water and sewer master plan and a capital improvement plan. 33 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 6 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (SOI) DETERMINATIONS 6.1 Sphere of Influence Requirements and Options The determination of Sphere of Influence Plans is the most important planning function given to LAFCO by the State Legislature. Spheres of Influence are described by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act as an important tool for “planning and shaping the logical and orderly development and coordination of local governmental agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of the county and its communities.” Spheres serve a similar function in LAFCO determinations as general plans do for cities and counties. Consistency with the adopted sphere plan is mandatory, and changes to the plan require careful review. It is intended that written determinations adopted by LAFCO and the Sphere Diagram will together guide the provision of Library services for Lassen County. While LAFCO encourages the participation and cooperation of the subject agency, the Sphere of Influence Plan is a LAFCO responsibility, and the Commission is the sole authority as to the sufficiency of the documentation and the Plan’s consistency with law and LAFCO policy. 6.1.1 Sphere of Influence Required Determinations In determining the Sphere of Influence for each local agency, LAFCO must consider and prepare a statement of determinations with respect to each of the following: 1. The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands 2. The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area 3. The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which the agency provides, or is authorized to provide 4. The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency 6.1.2 Possible Approaches to the Sphere of Influence LAFCO may recommend government reorganizations to particular agencies in the county, using the SOIs as the basis for those recommendations. Based on review of the guidelines of Lassen LAFCO as well as other LAFCOs in the State, various conceptual approaches have been identified from which to choose in designating an SOI. These seven approaches are explained below: 1) Coterminous Sphere: A Coterminous Sphere means that the Sphere of Influence for a city or special district that is the same as its existing boundaries of the city or district. This is the recommendation for the Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber). 2) Annexable Sphere: A sphere larger than the agency’s boundaries identifies areas the agency is expected to annex. The annexable area is outside the district boundaries and inside the sphere of influence. 34 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 3) Detachable Sphere: A sphere that is smaller than the agency’s boundaries identifies areas the agency is expected to detach. The detachable area is the area within the agency bounds but not within its sphere of influence. 4) Zero Sphere: A zero sphere indicates the affected agency’s public service functions should be reassigned to another agency and the agency should be dissolved or combined with one or more other agencies. 5) Consolidated Sphere: A consolidated sphere includes two or more local agencies and indicates the agencies should be consolidated into one agency. 6) Limited Service Sphere: A limited service sphere is the territory included within the SOI of a multi-service provider agency that is also within the boundary of a limited purpose district which provides the same service (e.g., fire protection), but not all needed services. Territory designated as a limited service SOI may be considered for annexation to the limited purpose agency without detachment from the multi-service provider. This type of SOI is generally adopted when the following conditions exist: a) The limited service provider is providing adequate, cost effective and efficient services b) The multi-service agency is the most logical provider of the other services c) There is no feasible or logical SOI alternative d) Inclusion of the territory is in the best interests of local government organization and structure in the area Government Code §56001 specifically recognizes that in rural areas it may be appropriate to establish limited purpose agencies to serve an area rather than a single service provider, if multiple limited purpose agencies are better able to provide efficient services to an area rather than one service district. Moreover, Government Code Section §56425(i), governing sphere determinations, also authorizes a sphere for less than all of the services provided by a district by requiring a district affected by a sphere action to “establish the nature, location, and extent of any functions of classes of services provided by existing districts” recognizing that more than one district may serve an area and that a given district may provide less than its full range of services in an area. 7) Sphere Planning Area: LAFCO may choose to designate a sphere planning area to signal that it anticipates expanding an agency’s SOI in the future to include territory not yet within its official SOI. 35 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 6.2 Sphere of Influence for Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) The Sphere of Influence for Lassen County Waterworks District 1 should be the same as the District boundary. The area where the sewer ponds are located was annexed into the District in 1988.86 A map of the District is shown at the end of this report. 6.3 Present and Planned Land Uses in the Bieber Area, Including Agricultural and Open Space Lands 6.3.1 Bieber Area The area around Bieber is designated for “Intensive Agriculture” and “Extensive Agriculture” according to the Lassen County General Plan.87 This means that the area is not going to increase in population due to growth and development. 6.3.2 SOI Determinations on Present and Planned Land Use for Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) 1-1] The community of Bieber is not expected to grow so the boundaries of the District will not need to be increased. 6.4 Municipal Services—Present and Probable Capacity and Need 6.4.1 Water and Wastewater Treatment Services The water and wastewater services are described above in this report and are adequate for the community. 6.4.2 SOI Determinations on Facilities and Services: Present and Probable Need for the Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) 2-1] The facilities and services of the Lassen County Waterworks District 1 are adequate to serve the community of Bieber. 2-2] The small number of connections to the system (170 connections of which 126 are residential) make it difficult to maintain the system and to meet all the requirements of the State of California. 2-3] The need for the District will continue. 86 Lassen LAFCO, File No. 88-03, Sewer Pond Annexation, Lassen County Waterworks District 1. 87 Lassen County, “Lassen County General Plan 2000”, Page 2-21, September 1999. 36 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 6.5 The Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services Provided 6.5.1 Capacity of Facilities The capacity of the facilities for Lassen County Waterworks District 1 is adequate to meet the needs of the community. Since the community is located in an area with severe winters it would be desirable to have as much back-up power as possible in the event of a power outage. 6.5.2 SOI Determinations on Public Facilities Present and Future Capacity for the Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) 3-1] Since the community is not expected to grow the present capacity of the system will be adequate for the future. 6.6 Social or Economic Communities of Interest 6.6.1 Bieber Community The community of Bieber is the focus of the Big Valley area and is both and economic and social community. 6.6.2 SOI Determinations on Social or Economic Communities of Interest for the Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) 4-1] The community of Bieber is both a social and economic community and the Lassen County Waterworks District 1 should remain in place to serve this community. 4-2] The Lassen County Waterworks District 1 serves not only the immediate community of Bieber but also the surrounding community by supplying water for fire protection and sewage treatment for septage from septic tanks and by serving facilities such as schools and churches that are used by the wider community. 4-3] The Lassen County Waterworks District 1 is an economic benefit to the community because the homes would have no economic value without the sewer and water service. 37 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 6.7 Present and probable need for public facilities and services of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within the existing Sphere of Influence 6.7.1 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities near Bieber The community of Bieber would require specialized income survey data to officially qualify as a disadvantaged unincorporated community. However, it is likely that the community is disadvantaged. 6.7.2 SOI Determinations on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities near Bieber 5-1] The Lassen County Waterworks District 1 is doing the best possible job to serve the people of Bieber.88 5-2] There is no incorporated city in the area that could help Bieber if it were to be officially recognized as a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community. 88 Lassen County Grand Jury, Interview with Steve Jackson, April 11, 2013. 38 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence APPENDIX A LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUES 1 MUNICIPAL FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS Municipal service providers are constrained in their capacity to finance services by the inability to increase property taxes, requirements for voter approval for new or increased taxes, and requirements of voter approval for parcel taxes and assessments used to finance services. Municipalities must obtain majority voter approval to increase or impose new general taxes and two-thirds voter approval for special taxes. Limitations on property tax rates and increases in taxable property values are financing constraints. Property tax revenues are subject to a formulaic allocation and are vulnerable to State budget needs. Agencies formed since the adoption of Proposition 13 in 1978 often lack adequate financing. 1.1 California Local Government Finance Background The financial ability of the cities and special districts to provide services is affected by financial constraints. City service providers rely on a variety of revenue sources to fund city operating costs as follows: • Property Taxes • Benefit Assessments • Special Taxes • Proposition 172 Funds • Other contributions from city or district general funds. As a funding source, property taxes are constrained by statewide initiatives that have been passed by voters over the years and special legislation. Seven of these measures are explained below: A. Proposition 13 Proposition 13 (which California voters approved in 1978) has the following three impacts: • Limits the ad valorem property tax rate • Limits growth of the assessed value of property • Requires voter approval of certain local taxes. Generally, this measure fixes the ad valorem tax at one percent of value; except for taxes to repay certain voter approved bonded indebtedness. In response to the adoption of Proposition 13, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 8 (AB 8) in 1979 to establish property tax allocation formulas. B. AB 8 Generally, AB 8 allocates property tax revenue to the local agencies within each tax rate area based on the proportion each agency received during the three fiscal years preceding adoption of Proposition 13. This allocation formula benefits local agencies, which had relatively high tax rates at the time Proposition 13 was enacted. C. Proposition 98 Proposition 98, which California voters approved in 1988, requires the State to maintain a minimum level of school funding. In 1992 and 1993, the Legislature began shifting billions of local property taxes to schools in response to State budget deficits. Local property taxes were diverted from local governments into the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) and transferred to school districts and community college districts to reduce the amount paid by the State general fund. 39 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence Local agencies throughout the State lost significant property tax revenue due to this shift. Proposition 172 was enacted to help offset property tax revenue losses of cities and counties that were shifted to the ERAF for schools in 1992. D. Proposition 172 Proposition 172, enacted in 1993, provides the revenue of a half-cent sales tax to counties and cities for public safety purposes, including police, fire, district attorneys, corrections and lifeguards. Proposition 172 also requires cities and counties to continue providing public safety funding at or above the amount provided in FY 92-93. E. Proposition 218 Proposition 218, which California voters approved in 1996, requires voter- or property owner- approval of increased local taxes, assessments, and property-related fees. A two-thirds affirmative vote is required to impose a Special Tax, for example, a tax for a specific purpose such as a fire district special tax. However, majority voter approval is required for imposing or increasing general taxes such as business license or utility taxes, which can be used for any governmental purpose. These requirements do not apply to user fees, development impact fees and Mello-Roos districts. F. Proposition 26 Proposition 26 approved by California voters on November 2, 2010, requires that certain state fees be approved by two-thirds vote of Legislature and certain local fees be approved by two- thirds of voters. This proposition increases the legislative vote requirement to two-thirds for certain tax measures, including those that do not result in a net increase in revenue. Prior to its passage, these tax measures were subject to majority vote. However, majority voter approval is required for imposing or increasing general taxes such as business license or utility taxes, which can be used for any governmental purpose. These requirements do not apply to user fees, development impact fees and Mello-Roos districts. G. Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 allows any county, city, special district, school district or joint powers authority to establish a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (a “CFD”) which allows for financing of public improvements and services. The services and improvements that Mello-Roos CFDs can finance include streets, sewer systems and other basic infrastructure, police protection, fire protection, ambulance services, schools, parks, libraries, museums and other cultural facilities. By law, the CFD is also entitled to recover expenses needed to form the CFD and administer the annual special taxes and bonded debt. A CFD is created by a sponsoring local government agency. The proposed district will include all properties that will benefit from the improvements to be constructed or the services to be provided. A CFD cannot be formed without a two-thirds majority vote of residents living within the proposed boundaries. Or, if there are fewer than 12 residents, the vote is instead conducted of current landowners. In many cases, that may be a single owner or developer. Once approved, a Special Tax Lien is placed against each property in the CFD. Property owners then pay a Special Tax each year. If the project cost is high, municipal bonds will be sold by the CFD to provide the large amount of money initially needed to build the improvements or fund the services. The Special Tax cannot be directly based on the value of the property. Special Taxes instead are based on mathematical formulas that take into account property characteristics such as use of the property, square footage of the structure and lot size. The formula is defined at the time of formation, and will include a maximum special tax amount and a percentage maximum annual increase. If bonds were issued by the CFD, special taxes will be charged annually until the bonds are paid off in full. Often, after bonds are paid off, a CFD will continue to charge a reduced fee to maintain the improvements. 40 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence H. Development Impact Fees A county, cities, special districts, school districts, and private utilities may impose development impact fees on new construction for purposes of defraying the cost of putting in place public infrastructure and services to support new development. To impose development impact fees, a jurisdiction must justify the fees as an offset to the impact of future development on facilities. This usually requires a special financial study. The fees must be committed within five years to the projects for which they were collected, and the district, city or county must keep separate funds for each development impact fee. 1.2 Financing Opportunities that Require Voter Approval Financing opportunities that require voter approval include the following five taxes: • Special taxes such as parcel taxes • Increases in general taxes such as utility taxes • Sales and use taxes • Business license taxes • Transient occupancy taxes Communities may elect to form business improvement districts to finance supplemental services, or Mello-Roos districts to finance development-related infrastructure extension. Agencies may finance facilities with voter-approved (general obligation) bonded indebtedness. 1.3 Financing Opportunities that Do Not Require Voter Approval Financing opportunities that do not require voter approval include imposition of or increases in fees to more fully recover the costs of providing services, including user fees and Development Impact Fees to recover the actual cost of services provided and infrastructure. Development Impact Fees and user fees must be based on reasonable costs, and may be imposed and increased without voter approval. Development Impact Fees may not be used to subsidize operating costs. Agencies may also finance many types of facility improvements through bond instruments that do not require voter approval. Water rates and rate structures are not subject to regulation by other agencies. Utility providers may increase rates annually, and often do so. Generally, there is no voter approval requirement for rate increases, although notification of utility users is required. Water providers must maintain an enterprise fund for the respective utility separate from other funds, and may not use revenues to finance unrelated governmental activities. 2 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT STANDARDS While public sector management standards do vary depending on the size and scope of an organization, there are minimum standards. Well-managed organizations do the following eight activities: • Evaluate employees annually. • Prepare a budget before the beginning of the fiscal year. • Conduct periodic financial audits to safeguard the public trust. • Maintain current financial records. • Periodically evaluate rates and fees. • Plan and budget for capital replacement needs. • Conduct advance planning for future growth. • Make best efforts to meet regulatory requirements. Most of the professionally managed and staffed agencies implement many of these best management practices. LAFCO encourages all local agencies to conduct timely financial record- keeping for each city function and make financial information available to the public. 41 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNMENT The Brown Act (California Government Code Section 54950 et seq.) is intended to insure that public boards shall take their actions openly and that deliberations shall be conducted openly. The Brown Act establishes requirements for the following: • Open meetings • Agendas that describe the business to be conducted at the meeting • Notice for meetings • Meaningful opportunity for the public to comment • Few exceptions for meeting in closed sessions and reports of items discussed in closed sessions. According to California Government Section 54959 Each member of a legislative body who attends a meeting of that legislative body where action is taken in violation of any provision of this chapter, and where the member intends to deprive the public of information to which the member knows or has reason to know the public is entitled under this chapter, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Section 54960 states the following: (a) The district attorney or any interested person may commence an action by mandamus, injunction or declaratory relief for the purpose of stopping or preventing violations or threatened violations of this chapter by members of the legislative body of a local agency or to determine the applicability of this chapter to actions or threatened future action of the legislative body. 42 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence APPENDIX B CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORTS 43 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 44 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 45 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 46 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 47 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence 48 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence REFERENCES Arbuckle PUD, Small Water System 2011 Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program for year Ending December 31, 2011. Arbuckle PUD, Water Rates as of January 1, 2009. Artois Community Services District, Jack Cavier, Jr., President, March 1, 2012. Brelje & Race Consulting Civil Engineers, “Preliminary Engineering Report Bonanza Springs Water System CSA #7 Lake County Special Districts”, December 2006, p 8. Brelje & Race Consulting Civil Engineers, “Preliminary Engineering Report Starview Water System CSA #18 Lake County Special Districts”, December 2006, p. 4. Callayomi County Water District, Secretary Janet Mondragon, E-Mail: janetccwd@mediacombb.net, January 10, 2013. California Pines CSD, Vera Sphar, June 12, 2009. California Pines CSD Service Rates Effective June 2006. City of Colusa, Water Department, Phone 458-4740 Ex100, August 7, 2012. City of Susanville, 530-252-5111, August 3, 2012. City of Williams, Greg Endeman, gendeman@cityofwilliams.org, October 1, 2012. City of Willows, Skyler Lipski, Public Works Director, Phone: 530-934-7041, September 5, 2012. Clear Creek CSD, Pat Mudrich, Manager, August 22, 2012 Clear Creek CSD, Lassen LAFCO Questionnaire June 6, 2012. Colusa County Ordinance No. 673, An Ordinance of the Colusa County Board of Supervisors Increasing water service Fees; authorizing administrative Fees; providing for the Collection of Delinquent Charges; and Directing That No New Water Hook-ups Be Permitted for County Service Area Number 1-Century Ranch, March 16, 2004., Colusa County Ordinance No 674, An Ordinance of the Colusa County Board of Supervisors Increasing Water Service Fees; Authorizing Administrative Fees; Providing for the Collection of Delinquent charges; and Directing That No New Water Hook-ups be permitted for County Service Area Number 2-Stonyford, March 16, 2004. Durham, David L. (1998). California's Geographic Names: A Gazetteer of Historic and Modern Names of the State. Quill Driver Books. p. 356. ISBN 9781884995149. Elk Creek Community Services District, Arnold Kjer, Water Plant Operator, September 28, 2011 http://bieber-ca-real-estate.com/, February 15, 2011 http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wweb/septslud.htm, May 24, 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwater_recharge 49 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence http://geology.com/dictionary/glossary-f.shtml http://www.maden.hacettepe.edu.tr/dmmrt/index.html http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Bieber+Califronia&fr=chr-att, February 15, 2011 http://www.bieber-ca-real-estate.com/history.htm, February 15, 2011 http://www.bieber-ca-real-estate.com/amenities.htm, March 1, 2011. http://www.bigvalleychamber.org/, March 1, 2011 http://www.bigvalleychamber.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=22&Ite mid=35, March 1, 2011. http://www.californiataxdata.com/A_Free_Resources/glossary_PS.asp#ps_08 http://www.calwaterassn.com/conservation.htm, July 26, 2010 ISO Commercial Risk Services, Inc. PO Box 5126 San Ramon, CA 94583, Report to Big Valley Fire Protection District, December 15, 1995. Lake County Watershed Protection District, “Lake County Groundwater Management Plan”, March 31, 2006. Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), Ordinance 09-2, An Ordinance amending the Ordinance Establishing the Rate for Water Service by the Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), June 16, 2009. Lassen County Waterworks District 1, 2009 Consumer Confidence Report, July 1, 2010. Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), Ordinance 09-1, An Ordinance Amending the Ordinance Establishing the Rate for sewer services by the Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), June 16, 2009. Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), Ordinance 09-2, An Ordinance amending the Ordinance Establishing the Rate for Water Service by the Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), June 16, 2009. Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), Projected Revenue for 2010-2011, June 22, 2010. Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), Stephen Jackson, Manager, Phone: 530-294- 5524, March 1, 2011; September 2013. Lassen LAFCO, File #12-05-84, Adoption of sphere of Influence for Lassen County Waterworks District No.1. Lassen LAFCO, File No. 88-03, Sewer Pond Annexation, Lassen County Waterworks District 1. Lassen County Board of Supervisors, Minutes, March 22, 2011. Lassen County Board of Supervisors, Resolution, April 4, 1932, Recorded Volume 185, Page 393, November 27, 1963. Lassen County Board of Supervisors, Resolution, July 6, 1954, Recorded Volume 185, Page 391. 50 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence Lassen County Board of Supervisors, Resolution 2030, August 9, 1971. Lassen County Grand Jury, Interview with Steve Jackson, April 11, 2013. Lassen County, http://www.co.lassen.ca.us/govt/dept/planning_building/planning_division/census_demog raphics.asp, February 12, 2010. Lassen County, “Lassen County General Plan 2000”, September 1999. Little Valley CSD, Director Devora Kelley, March 19, 2012. Maxwell PUD, Diana Mason, Phone 438-2505, August 8, 2012. NSF International, “Feasibility of an Economically Sustainable Point-of-Use/Point-of-Entry Decentralized Public Water System Final Report”, March 2005, p18. nsf.org/business/.../pdf/GrimesFinalReport_Dec05.pdf Remy, Michael H., Tina A. Thomas, James G. Moose, Whitman F. Manley, Guide to CEQA, Solano Press Books, Point Arena, CA, February 2007, page 111. Sawyer, Clair N., Perry L. McCarty, Gene F. Parkin (2003). Chemistry for Environmental Engineering and Science (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-248066-1. State of California, Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2001-2009, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2009. State of California, California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118, Big Valley Groundwater Basin, Updated 2/27/04. State of California, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, Letter to Lassen County Waterworks District 1, October 30, 1997. State of California, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, Minutes, April 25, 1997. State of California, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, Order No. 93-071, Waste Discharge Requirements for Lassen County Waterworks District no. 1 Bieber Sewage Treatment Facility, Lassen County, May 21, 1993. State of California, http://www.dfg.ca.gov/lands/wa/region1/ashcreek.html, August 18 2013. Susanville Sanitary District, PO Box 162, Susanville, CA 96130, Phone: 530-257-5685, Fax: 530- 251-5328, September 11, 2012. US Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06035.html, August 16, 2013. Westwood Community Services District, Resolution 2011-01, A resolution of the Westwood Community Services District Increasing Water Rates, June 6, 2011. 51 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence PREPARERS John Benoit, Lassen LAFCO Executive Officer PO Box 2694, Granite Bay CA 95746 Phone: 916-797-6003 E-Mail: johnbenoit@surewest.net Christy Leighton, Planning Consultant 555 East Willow Street, Willows CA 95988 Phone: 530-934-4597 E-Mail: christyleighton@sbcglobal.net 52 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence ABBREVIATIONS AB Assembly Bill BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand CA California CALFIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CCR California Code of Regulations also Consumer Confidence Report CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFD Mello-Roos Community Facilities District CFP Certified Financial Planner CKH Act Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 Co County CSA County Service Area CSD Community Services District District Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber) DHS Department of Health Services (California) DUC Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community DWR California Department of Water Resources EDD Employment Development Department EDU Equivalent Dwelling Unit ERAF Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund FCI Federal Correctional Institute FPD Fire Protection District FY Fiscal Year gal gallons gpd gallons per day GPS Global Positioning System I&I infiltration and inflow (wastewater collection) IRS Internal Revenue Service 53 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence ISO Insurance Service Organization LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission MCL Maximum Contaminant Level MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal Mg/L milligrams per Liter Min Minute ml/L milliliters per Liter MRDL Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level MRDLG Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal MSR Municipal Service Review (LAFCO) pCi/L picocuries per liter (a measure of radiation) PDWS Primary Drinking Water Standards PERS Public Employees Retirement System (California) PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company PHG Public Health Goal (water quality) ppb parts per billion or micrograms per liter (ug/L) ppm parts per million or milligrams per liter (mg/L) ppt parts per trillion or nanograms per liter (ng/L) psi pounds per square inch PUD Public Utility District RV Recreational Vehicle RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board (California) SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SDWS Secondary Drinking Water Standards SOI Sphere of Influence (LAFCO) SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compound TT Treatment Technique VOC Volatile Organic Compound 54 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence WD Waterworks District WDR Waste Discharge Requirement Permit (California) ULFT ultra-low-flow toilet US United States USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 55 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence DEFINITIONS Acre foot: The volume of water that will cover one acre to a depth of one foot, 325,850 U.S. Gallons or 1,233,342 liters (approximately). Agriculture: Use of land for the production of food and fiber, including the growing of crops and/or the grazing of animals on natural prime or improved pasture land. Alluvium: A general term for clay, silt, sand, gravel, or similar unconsolidated detrital material, deposited during comparatively recent geologic time by a stream or other body of running water, (1) As sediment in the bed of the stream or on its flood plain or delta, or (2) As a cone or fan at the base of a mountain slope; especially, such a deposit of fine-grained texture (silt or silty clay) deposited during time of flood.89 Aquifer: An underground, water-bearing layer of earth, porous rock, sand, or gravel, through which water can seep or be held in natural storage. Aquifers generally hold sufficient water to be used as a water supply. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is a chemical procedure for determining the amount of dissolved oxygen needed by aerobic biological organisms in a body of water to break down organic material present in a given water sample at certain temperature over a specific time period. It is not a precise quantitative test, although it is widely used as an indication of the organic quality of water. It is most commonly expressed in milligrams of oxygen consumed per liter of water sample during 5 days of incubation at 20 °C and is often used as a robust surrogate of the degree of organic pollution of water. Most pristine rivers will have a 5-day carbonaceous BOD below 1 mg/L. Moderately polluted rivers may have a BOD value in the range of 2 to 8 mg/L. Municipal sewage that is efficiently treated by a three-stage process would have a value of about 20 mg/L or less. Untreated sewage varies, but averages around 600 mg/L in Europe and as low as 200 mg/L in the US, or where there is severe groundwater or surface water Infiltration/Inflow. (The generally lower values in the U.S. derive from the much greater water use per capita than in other parts of the world.)90 Bond: An interest-bearing promise to pay a stipulated sum of money, with the principal amount due on a specific date. Funds raised through the sale of bonds can be used for various public purposes. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): A State Law requiring State and local agencies to regulate activities with consideration for environmental protection. If a proposed activity has the potential for a significant adverse environmental impact, an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared and certified as to its adequacy before taking action on the proposed project. Community Facilities District: Under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Section 53311, et seq.) a legislative body may create within its jurisdiction a special tax district that can finance tax-exempt bonds for the planning, design, acquisition, construction, and/or operation of public facilities, as well as public services for district residents. Special taxes levied solely within the district are used to repay the bonds. Community Services District (CSD): A geographic subarea of a county used for planning and delivery of parks, recreation, and other human services based on an assessment of the service needs of the population in that subarea. A CSD is a taxation district with independent administration. 89 http://www.maden.hacettepe.edu.tr/dmmrt/index.html 90 Clair N. Sawyer, Perry L. McCarty, Gene F. Parkin (2003). Chemistry for Environmental Engineering and Science (5th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-248066-1. 56 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence Flume: An open artificial water channel, in the form of a gravity chute that leads water from one place to another. A flume can be used to measure the rate of flow. Specific designs include the Parshall, Palmer-Bowlus, Trapezoidal, and H-Flume. Formation: A laterally continuous rock unit with a distinctive set of characteristics that make it possible to recognize and map from one outcrop or well to another. This is the basic rock unit of stratigraphy. 91 Groundwater: Water under the earth’s surface, often confined to aquifers capable of supplying wells and springs. Groundwater recharge: Groundwater recharge or deep drainage or deep percolation is a hydrologic process where water moves downward from surface water to groundwater. This process usually occurs in the vadose zone below plant roots and is often expressed as a flux to the water table surface. Recharge occurs both naturally (through the water cycle) and anthropologically (i.e., "artificial groundwater recharge"), where rainwater and or reclaimed water is routed to the subsurface. Groundwater is recharged naturally by rain and snow melt, though this may be impeded somewhat by human activities including paving, development, or logging. These activities can result in enhanced surface runoff and reduction in recharge. Use of groundwater, especially for irrigation, may also lower the water tables. Groundwater recharge is an important process for sustainable groundwater management, since the volume-rate abstracted from an aquifer should be less than or equal to the volume-rate that is recharged. Recharge can help move excess salts that accumulate in the root zone to deeper soil layers, or into the ground water system. Another environmental issue is the disposal of waste through the water flux such as dairy farms, industrial, and urban runoff.92 Impact Fee: A fee, also called a development fee, levied on the developer of a project by a county, or other public agency as compensation for otherwise-unmitigated impacts the project will produce. California Government Code Section 66000, et seq., specifies that development fees shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged. To lawfully impose a development fee, the public agency must verify its method of calculation and document proper restrictions on use of the fund. Infrastructure: Public services and facilities such as sewage-disposal systems, water-supply systems, and other utility systems, schools and roads. Land Use Classification: A system for classifying and designating the appropriate use of properties. Leapfrog Development; New development separated from existing development by substantial vacant land. Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO): A five-or seven-member commission within each county that reviews and evaluates all proposals for formation of special districts, incorporation of cities, annexation to special districts or cities, consolidation of districts, and merger of districts with cities. Each county’s LAFCO is empowered to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve such proposals. The LAFCO members generally include two county supervisors, two city council members, and one member representing the general public. Some LAFCOs include two representatives of special districts. 91 http://geology.com/dictionary/glossary-f.shtml 92 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwater_recharge 57 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. Primary MCLs are set as close to the PHGs (or MCLGs) as is economically and technologically feasible. Secondary MCLs are set to protect the odor, taste, and appearance of drinking water. Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG): The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs are set the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL): The level of a disinfectant added for water treatment that may not be exceeded at the consumer’s tap. Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal (MRDLG): The level of a disinfectant added for water treatment below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLGs are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mean Sea Level: The average altitude of the sea surface for all tidal stages. Mello-Roos Bonds: Locally issued bonds that are repaid by a special tax imposed on property owners within a community facilities district established by a governmental entity. The bond proceeds can be used for public improvements and for a limited number of services. These bonds are named after the program’s legislative authors. Ordinance: A law or regulation set forth and adopted by a governmental authority. Pleistocene Epoch: The first epoch of the Quaternary Period, beginning 2 to 3 million years ago and ending approximately 10,000 years ago.93 Primary Drinking Water Standards (PDWS): Maximum Contaminant Levels for contaminants. Proposition 13: (Article XIIIA of the California Constitution) Passed in 1978, this proposition enacted sweeping changes to the California property tax system. Under Proposition 13, property taxes cannot exceed 1% of the value of the property and assessed valuations cannot increase by more than 2% per year. Property is subject to reassessment when there is a transfer of ownership or improvements are made.94 Proposition 218: (Article XIIID of the California Constitution) This proposition, named "The Right to Vote on Taxes Act", filled some of the perceived loopholes of Proposition 13. Under Proposition 218, assessments may only increase with a two-thirds majority vote of the qualified voters within the District. In addition to the two-thirds voter approval requirement, Proposition 218 states that effective July 1, 1997, any assessments levied may not be more than the costs necessary to provide the service, proceeds may not be used for any other purpose other than providing the services intended, and assessments may only be levied for services that are immediately available to property owners.95 Public Health Goal (PHG): The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. PHGs are set by the California Environmental Protection Agency. Quaternary: The second period of the Cenozoic era, following the Tertiary; also, the corresponding system of rocks. It began 2 to 3 million years ago and extends to the present. It 93 http://www.webref.org/geology/p/pleistocene_epoch.htm 94 http://www.californiataxdata.com/A_Free_Resources/glossary_PS.asp#ps_08 95 http://www.californiataxdata.com/A_Free_Resources/glossary_PS.asp#ps_08 58 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence consists of two grossly unequal epochs; the Pleistocene, up to about 10,000 years ago, and the Holocene since that time.96 Ranchette: A single dwelling unit occupied by a non-farming household on a parcel of 2.5 to 20 acres that has been subdivided from agricultural land. Regulatory Action Level (AL): The concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment of other requirements which a water system must follow. Sanitary Sewer: A system of subterranean conduits that carries refuse liquids or waste matter to a plant where the sewage is treated, as contrasted with storm drainage systems (that carry surface water) and septic tanks or leech fields (that hold refuse liquids and waste matter on-site). Secondary Drinking Water Standards (SDWS): MCLs for contaminants that affect taste, odor, or appearance of the drinking water. Contaminants with SDWSs do not affect the health at the MCL levels. Septage: In the US, the partially treated waste stored in a septic tank is called septage. It generally consists of all the household wastes that are disposed of through a home's plumbing system that neither drain out into the soil nor are converted to gases by the special bacteria in the tank. Disposing of septage in the United States is becoming an increasing problem as people build homes outside of city sewer systems. Septage waste can be transported to local waste water treatment centers, used by farmers for fertilizer, or stored in large septage waste storage facilities for later treatment or use on crops. Septage is generally split into three parts in a septic tank as follows: 1) Scum which floats to the top and is generally where the bacteria live that treats the waste. 2) Effluent which is the semi-treated liquid that comprises the majority of the material in the septic tank 3) Sludge the solids which collect at the bottom of the tank Septage is the material pumped out of a septic tank or onsite sewage facility.97 Sludge is the residual semi-solid material left from wastewater treatment processes. When fresh sewage or wastewater is added to a settling tank, approximately 50% of the suspended solid matter will settle out in about an hour and a half. This collection of solids is known as raw sludge or primary solids and is said to be "fresh" before anaerobic processes become active. Once anaerobic bacteria take over, the sludge will become putrescent in a short time and must be removed from the sedimentation tank before this happens. Specific Capacity: The specific capacity of a water well depends on hydraulic characteristics of the aquifer and on the construction of the well. Specific capacity is determined by dividing the wells production by the drawdown that occurs during pumping. Higher specific capacities in wells tend to be indicative of higher aquifer production.98 Specific Yield: The specific yield for a water well is the percent of space in the ground that will drain by gravity when the water table drops. Specific yield is reported as a percent. Higher specific yields tend to be indicative of higher aquifer production. An example of a good specific yield is 7 percent, which is a typical average specific yield of aquifers in the Sacramento Valley.99 96 http://www.webref.org/geology/q/quaternary.htm 97 http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wweb/septslud.htm, May 24, 2011. 98 Lake County Watershed Protection District, “Lake County Groundwater Management Plan”, March 31, 2006, P. 2-4. 99 Lake County Watershed Protection District, “Lake County Groundwater Management Plan”, March 31, 2006, P.2-4. 59 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence Sphere of Influence (SOI): The probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of the county. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS): A quantitative measure of the residual minerals dissolved in water that remains after evaporation of a solution. Total Dissolved Solids is usually expressed in milligrams per liter. Abbreviation: TDS.100 Transmissivity: Transmissivity is a term used to define the ability of an aquifer to convey or transport water, similar to the capacity of a pipeline. Transmissivity is related to hydraulic conductivity and saturated thickness of an aquifer or groundwater basin. Hydraulic conductivity is that rate at which groundwater moves through the aquifer. More porous aquifers, such as sand and gravel aquifers, have high hydraulic conductivities. The saturated thickness is the total depth of groundwater in an aquifer or basin. The term transmissivity combines both these terms so it is a good overall indication of the capacity of a groundwater basin to produce water. Higher transmissivity values tend to be indicative of higher aquifer production. An example of a good transmissivity is 100,000 gallons per day per foot (gpd/ft), which is the average transmissivity of a productive aquifer in the Sacramento Valley.101 Treatment Technique (TT): A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water. Urban: Of, relating to, characteristic of, or constituting a city. Urban areas are generally characterized by moderate and higher density residential development (i.e., three or more dwelling units per acre), commercial development, and industrial development, and the availability of public services required for that development, specifically central water and sewer service, an extensive road network, public transit, and other such services (e.g., safety and emergency response). Development not providing such services may be “non-urban” or “rural”. CEQA defines “urbanized area” as an area that has a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile (Public Resources Code Section 21080.14(b)). Urban Services: Utilities (such as water, gas, electricity, and sewer) and public services (such as police, fire protection, schools, parks, and recreation) provided to an urbanized or urbanizing area. Variances and Exemptions: Department permission to exceed an MCL for drinking water or not comply with a drinking water treatment technique under certain conditions. Water Quality: Used to describe the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of water, usually in regard to its suitability for a particular purpose or use.102 Water Year: A water year is a continuous 12-month period for which hydrologic records are compiled and summarized. In California, it begins on October 1 and ends September 30 of the following year.103 Zoning: The division of a city by legislative regulations into areas, or zones, that specify allowable uses for real property and size restrictions for buildings within these areas; a program that implements policies of the general plan. 100 http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html 101 Lake County Watershed Protection District, “Lake County Groundwater Management Plan”, March 31, 2006, P. 2-4. 102 http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html 103 http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html 60 Lassen Co. WWD #1 Adopted December 9, 2013 Resolution 2013-0010 Service Review Resolution 2013-0011 Sphere of Influence MAP 61