LAFCO
Resource Conservation District – Final MSR
Read the report at Local Agency Formation Commissions ↗
FINAL REPORT
COUNTY OF MERCED
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Prepared for:
Merced County Local Agency Formation Commission
Prepared by:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
As Approved by LAFCO April, 23 2009
EPS #17053
1
P:\17000s\17053MercedMSR07\Report\ResConFinal_07‐10‐09.doc
Note: A version of this report titled “Administrative Draft” was approved by LAFCO
on April 23, 2009. No changes have been made to this version other than updating the
report’s title to “Final Report.”
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
II. RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS.........................................................................5
East Merced Resource Conservation District...........................................................5
Grassland Resource Conservation District...............................................................9
Los Banos Resource Conservation District.............................................................12
San Luis Resource Conservation District................................................................14
III. DETERMINATIONS........................................................................................................16
Explanation of Determinations.................................................................................16
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Resource Conservation Districts..........................................................................2
Figure 2: East Merced Resource Conservation District.....................................................8
Figure 3: Grassland Resource Conservation District.......................................................11
Figure 4: Los Banos Resource Conservation District.......................................................13
Figure 5: San Luis Resource Conservation District.........................................................15
I. INTRODUCTION
In 1997, the State Legislature convened a special commission to study and make
recommendations to address California’s rapidly accelerating growth. The Commission
on Local Governance for the 21st Century focused energies on ways to empower the
already existing County Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs). The
Commission’s final report, Growth within Bounds, recommended various changes to local
land use laws and LAFCO statutes. The Commission’s recommendations were
encompassed in Assembly Bill 2838 (2000), which amended the Cortese‐Knox‐Hertzberg
Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (“Reorganization Act”).
One of LAFCO’s new responsibilities requires regional studies of municipal services
(Municipal Service Reviews, or MSRs) every five years, in conjunction with reviews of
city and district spheres of influence (SOIs). Government Code Section 56425 directs
LAFCOs to review and update agencies’ SOIs, as necessary, every five years. Section
56430 requires MSRs to be conducted before or in conjunction with the sphere updates.
A recent change to the Reorganization Act reduced the number of factors to be
addressed in MSRs from nine to six. According to current state law, this MSR addresses
the following six factors:
1. Growth and population projections for the affected area.
2. Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services,
including infrastructure needs or deficiencies.
3. Financial ability of agencies to provide services.
4. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities.
5. Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure
and operational efficiencies.
6. Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by
commission policy.
Merced LAFCO retained Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) to develop the MSRs
for resource conservation districts in Merced County. Each provider was contacted to
request information and documents such as master plans, budgets, and maps. EPS used
information obtained from the jurisdictions to write provider profiles and the six
determinations required by law for each provider. The profiles and determinations
were submitted to each service provider for its review. The districts’ comments were
incorporated into the report.
California’s resource conservation districts (RCDs) are organized under the state Public
Resources Code, Division 9. As shown in Figure 1, there are four regional RCDs serving
areas primarily within Merced County. Each district is run by a locally elected or
appointed volunteer board of directors, which is made up of landowners in that district.
The purpose of these RCDs is to develop and enact programs promoting the
conservation of natural resources within each district. Each district works closely with
1
P:\17000s\17053MercedMSR07\Report\ResConFinal_07‐10‐09.doc
R E S O U R C E C O N S E R VAT I O N D I S T R I C T S
City Limit
of Merced County
SUDPs Figure 1
EAST MERCED RCD
FIREBAUGH RCD
SNELLING
GRASSLAND RCD
GUSTINE - ROMERO RCD 59
S TA N I S L A U S
LOS BANOS RCD
C O U N T Y EAST
BALLICO
MERCED RESOURCE
M A R I P O S A
PANOCHE RCD CONSERVATION DISTRICT
DELHI C O U N T Y
CRESSEY
SAN BENITO RCD
HILMAR
SAN LUIS RCD
LIVINGSTON WINTON
CASTLE
UC
99 MERCED
ATWATER
59
UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
STEVINSON
MERCED
FRANKLIN
140
140 140
CELESTE TUTTLE
PLANADA
165
GUSTINE
EAST
MERCED RESOURCE
LE GRAND
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
33
GUSTINE - ROMERO
99
RESOURCE
59
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
GRASSLAND
5
RESOURCE
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
EL NIDO
SAN LUIS RESOURCE
CONSERVATION
VOLTA DISTRICT
SANTA NELLA
152
S A N TA C L A R A
LOS BANOS
C O U N T Y VILLAGES 152
OF LAGUNA
SAN LUIS DOS PALOS Y
FIREBAUGH RESOURCE
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
FOX HILLS
GRASSLAND
33
(FRESNO COUNTY)
RESOURCE
CONSERVATION
165
DISTRICT
M A D E R A
DOS PALOS
POSO RESOURCE
C O U N T Y
LOS BANOS RESOURCE CONSERVATION
CONSERVATION DISTRICT DISTRICT
SAN BENITO RESOURCE
(FRESNO COUNTY)
CONSERVATION 5
DISTRICT
(SAN BENITO COUNTY)
FIREBAUGH
RESOURCE
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
(FRESNO COUNTY)
PANOCHE RESOURCE
CONSERVATION F R E S N O
DISTRICT C O U N T Y
S A N B E N I TO
(FRESNO COUNTY)
C O U N T Y
8
SAN BENITO RESOURCE
CONSERVATION
DISTRICT
(SAN BENITO COUNTY)
0 2 4 8 12 16
Miles
2
Final Report
Merced Co. Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review
As Approved by LAFCO April 23, 2009
the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service to
address a wide variety of conservation issues including forest fuel management, water
and air quality, wildlife habitat restoration, soil erosion control, and conservation
education.1
In addition to the four RCDs in Merced County that are included in this report, there are
several nearby districts which serve small areas in Merced County in addition to the
primary regions that they serve in neighboring counties. Because the bulk of these
districts are located in other counties, it is the responsibility of those LAFCOs to prepare
the MSRs. These districts include the Gustine‐Romero RCD in Stanislaus County,
Firebaugh RCD in Fresno County, Poso RCD in Panoche County, and San Benito RCD in
San Benito County (shown in Figure 1).
GOVERNANCE AND OPERATIONS
Merced County has a total of four independent resource conservation districts; each of
the responding districts is governed by its own Board of Directors. The RCDs receive
the majority of their operations funding from grants.
INFRASTRUCTURE, FACILITIES, AND SERVICES
The purpose of the RCDs is to address a wide range of conservation and resource‐
related issues, but each district focuses on issues of primary significance to landowners
within their districts. The East Merced Resource Conservation District is primarily
concerned with soil erosion and watershed problems. The Grassland Resource
Conservation District is primarily concerned with discouraging the urban encroachment
that threatens habitat land. Los Banos Resource Conservation District and San Luis
Resource Conservation District are principally concerned with promoting water
conservation within their service areas. Because many of the services provided by the
RCDs are educational or political in nature, none of the responding RCDs maintain
facilities or infrastructure.
DEMAND AND CAPACITY
District staff report that existing levels of funding and staff are not adequate to meet
current or future needs. Funding scarcity is a common problem among resource
conservation districts because the majority of them depend upon unreliable grant
revenue to fund their programs. It should be noted that although resource conservation
issues are exacerbated by growth, an increase in growth does not necessary directly
1 California Association of Resource Conservation Districts website, <www.carcd.org>.
3
P:\17000s\17053MercedMSR07\Report\ResConFinal_07‐10‐09.doc
Final Report
Merced Co. Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review
As Approved by LAFCO April 23, 2009
correspond to an increase in service provision. The majority of services provided by
EMRCD are educational; therefore, levels of service remain relatively constant.2
OTHER ISSUES
Due to the similarity of educational services provided, the absence of land and facility
ownership, and relatively small staffing and budget levels, the Commission may want to
consider investigating the consolidation of the agriculture‐oriented RCDs in the western
portion of the County similarly to the way those in the East Merced County have been
consolidated. Candidates for consolidation may include the Los Banos Resource
Conservation District and San Luis Resource Conservation District.
2 Communication from EMRCD Board Secretary and Grant Administrator, Karen Whipp, 1 Oct 2007
4
P:\17000s\17053MercedMSR07\Report\ResConFinal_07‐10‐09.doc
II. RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
EAST MERCED RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
GOVERNANCE AND OPERATIONS
The East Merced Resource Conservation District (EMRCD) was formed in 1997 through
the consolidation of five smaller districts: La Paloma RCD, Ballico RCD, El Nido RCD,
Stevinson RCD, and Lone Tree RCD. Its purpose is to develop and further programs to
conserve natural resources in Eastern Merced County. The District’s service area
includes 190,840 acres in Merced County primarily east of the San Joaquin River (shown
in Figure 2). Within its primary service area, EMRCD has identified three main land use
regions, which are considered vital to the health and functioning of local watersheds.
These include the Lower Merced River Corridor, the intensive agriculture areas between
Highway 59 and the San Joaquin River, and the rangelands and vernal pools in eastern
Merced County.3
EMRCD does not employ any staff members. Currently, personnel are hired on a
contract basis to fulfill the work associated with grants that are awarded. The District
reports that future staffing needs include an administrative assistant, a grant writer, and
an executive director. EMRCD is governed by a seven‐member Board of Directors.4
Board meetings are held on the third Wednesday of each month.5
The District’s budgeted expenditures for the FY 2007‐2008 are $918,316. The single
largest expenditure is for the professional services of Stillwater Sciences, an
environmental consulting firm, which accounts for nearly $800,000. Revenues for this
fiscal year total $981,416. The District’s primary funding sources are grants.
Specifically, EMRCD obtains funding from the CalFed Watershed grant program
administered by the State Water Resources Control Board, a grant from the Department
of Conservation. In addition, EMRCD receives funding from property and
supplemental taxes.
INFRASTRUCTURE, FACILITIES, AND SERVICES
Eastern Merced County is generally acknowledged to support the largest unfragmented
block of high‐density vernal pool grasslands remaining in California. These vernal
pools contain numerous rare and endangered species such as fairy shrimp, tadpole
shrimp, and several rare Orcutt tribe grasses. EMRCD’s purpose is to promote the
conservation of natural resources within the District’s service area. It coordinates
3 East Merced Resource Conservation District Website, <www.emrcd.org>.
4 Currently, there are six board members and one vacancy. Source: Communication from EMRCD Board
Secretary and Grant Administrator, Karen Whipp, 29 Aug. 2007.
5 East Merced Resource Conservation District Website, <www.emrcd.org>.
5
P:\17000s\17053MercedMSR07\Report\ResConFinal_07‐10‐09.doc
Final Report
Merced Co. Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review
As Approved by LAFCO April 23, 2009
available technical, financial, and education resources, so that they can effectively be
used to benefit the public and landowners by advancing efforts to conserve soil, water,
air, habitat, and other natural resources.6
The District’s conservation activities in the Lower Merced River area included
facilitating the Merced River Stakeholders, a forum for the exchange of information on
the Merced River Corridor. Along with the Merced River Stakeholders, the District also
participated in the Merced River Alliance, a partnership that focuses on watershed
education and biological surveying of the river.7 In addition, EMRCD is working with
Stillwater Sciences along with numerous other organizations and stakeholders to
implement floodplain restoration plans along the Lower Merced River corridor.
EMRCD has also been involved in conservation projects in its rangelands/ vernal pools
regions, which provide habitat for numerous rare and endangered species such as fairy
shrimp and Orcutt tribe grasses. Efforts in this area include the publication of a
reference book on vernal pool plant and wildlife ecology; the Vernal Pools Program,
established in 1998 to increase local awareness of vernal pool issues; and ongoing work
with organizations such as The Nature Conservancy and the Natural Resource
Conservation Service to establish rangeland conservation easements and educate the
community about the importance of rangeland and vernal pool conservation.8
The District has existing partnerships with the Chowchilla/Red Top Resource
Conservation District, the Mariposa Resource Conservation District, the Grasslands
Resource Conservation District, and the Northern San Joaquin Valley Weed
Management Area.
DEMAND AND CAPACITY
Critical natural resource issues include agricultural land conversion, population growth,
air, water, and soil quality concerns, as well as the loss of habitat land. Critical
geographic areas include watersheds and the conversion of farmland due to
development around urban centers, the University of California, Merced area and in
unincorporated areas of the County. Though resource conservation issues are
exacerbated by growth, an increase in growth does not necessary directly correspond to
an increase in service provision. The majority of services provided by EMRCD are
educational; therefore, levels of service remain relatively constant.9 District staff report
that current funding levels are not adequate to meet current needs.
6 East Merced Resource Conservation District Five‐Year Plan, 2006‐2011.
7 East Merced Resource Conservation District Website, <www.emrcd.org>.
8 East Merced Resource Conservation District Website, <www.emrcd.org>.
9 Communication from EMRCD Board Secretary and Grant Administrator, Karen Whipp, 1 Oct 2007
6
P:\17000s\17053MercedMSR07\Report\ResConFinal_07‐10‐09.doc
Final Report
Merced Co. Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review
As Approved by LAFCO April 23, 2009
The administrative projects that the District aims to address include an annexation.
Following the annexation, the EMRCD will encompass the bulk of the land east of the
San Joaquin River plus a small area west of the Merced River. It is not anticipated that
this annexation would significantly increase service demand. Priority educational
projects include programs to educate youth on endangered species, work with
landowners to have public workshops and brainstorm habitat resourcing, plan and hold
education workshops on the benefits of riparian habitat, develop programs addressing
food and farmland security. Other priority actions include involvement in the update of
the Merced County General Plan and grading ordinances for developers, and
addressing the issue of urban expansion.10 The order in which these priority action
items are addressed is dependent upon funding obtained.11
10 East Merced Resource Conservation District Five‐Year Plan, 2006‐2011.
11 Communication from EMRCD Board Secretary and Grant Administrator, Karen Whipp, 29 Aug. 2007.
7
P:\17000s\17053MercedMSR07\Report\ResConFinal_07‐10‐09.doc
Figure 2
East Merced Resource Conservation SOI
TTuuoolluummnnee CCoouunnttyy
SSttaanniissllaauuss
MMaarriippoossaa CCoouunnttyy
CCoouunnttyy
KEYES RD
SNELLING
EAST AVE
C
K RD
TURLO
59
O D
A R
BRADBURY
BA
R
L
D
LICO KDALE
RD N G
ME RCED RIV T E G N E
R R
D
ER
AU
H
G
R I I
U B
L V
S L
M E
O T
R A
S R
R R
S D
D
AVE D
W
E
E
L
S
H
L T I
I
S V ID IN F E G S B T S V TO W N ALN 9
S
9
A
U
N
T
TA
AV F E E D R S H A F F E R
R D
CASTLE 59 LA U S
N
K C
E L
E
LI
M YO ER SE C M E I D TE
ATWATER TUNIVERSITY
S
FRANKLIN - GCOMMUNITY
140 STEVINSON 140 BEACHWOOD S T M S T OLIVE AVE D R 140 M R D
R
MERCED A A
D PLANADA H
E G
L D N
GUSTIN S A E N T A 165 G U R R R D R D Y L H E A A R B O 99 L AI N S B U R G R LE GRAN S C U N NI A D N T R A D
F E G R SANDY M 5 U 9 SH RD P F E A V E
D
SAN
D JO A
R Q
HENRY MILLER AVE
I
S
L
A
N D U IN R
R
D
IVER
WASH
E
IN
L
G
N
C
T
H
I
O
D
O
N
O
W
R
C
D HILLA
RIVER
MMaaddeerraa
VOLTA E R A N CCoouunnttyy
H N A
ST R
U
DI
ST LOS BANOS152 T I N TTuuoolluummnnee
I CCoouunnttyy
PIONEER RD S A DOS PALOS Y
N
LO F S O X BA H N I O L S LS 165 T A FE G R D D 3 O 3 S L M A V E A N A A V E SStt CC aa o n o n u i u iss nn ll t a t a yy uuss MM CC aa oo rri u i u pp nn oo tt s y s y aa
RESERVO E IR ast Merced RCD SOI P M ALOSP A N DI YO L S A E K M E ITE
ST I
County Community
5
City Limit P
O
L
E
L
Parcels IN O
Lakes E R D C F C Fr o r o ee uu ss nn nn tt o y o y RES L S E U A R I N S VO F I O R N R E E I B L AY
LOS
BANOS MMaaddeerraa
RESERVOIR CCoouunnttyy
Major Roads
FFrreessnnoo
Rivers SSaann CCoouunnttyy
BBeenniittoo
CCoouunnttyy
8
0 2.5 5 10 15
Miles
LAFCO RESOLUTION 1076 12/05/1996
of Merced County 8
Final Report
Merced Co. Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review
As Approved by LAFCO April 23, 2009
GRASSLAND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
GOVERNANCE AND OPERATIONS
The Grassland Resource Conservation District (GRCD) was formed under Division 9 of
the Public Resources Agency. The District officially adopted its current name in January
1972. Before that, GRCD was known as the Grassland Soil Conservation District, which
was formed in 1959 by order of the Board of Supervisors of Merced County. The District
contains approximately 75,000 acres and is composed of private hunting clubs and other
privately owned wetland areas, as well as several state and federal refuges including
Kesterson National Wildlife Reserve, Volta Wildlife Area (WA), Los Banos WA, Freitas
Unit, Salt Slough Unit, Blue Goose Unit, and Gadwall Unit. Its original boundary was
created by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for the purposes of purchasing
conservation easements. The District’s boundaries are shown in Figure 3. It overlaps
with the majority of the 51,530 acres that make up the Grassland Water District (GWD);
GRCD is also entirely contained within the 179,000‐acre Grassland Ecological Area.12
This area contains a third of all remaining wetlands in California’s Central Valley and is
considered to have international importance as migratory waterfowl habitat. The
habitat provided by the Grassland RCD is ranked as the most important complex of
wetlands in the San Joaquin Valley.13
GRCD does not employ any staff members. The GRCD shares the GWD’s management,
and the GWD pays some of its staff members to carry out tasks that fall under the
responsibility of the GRCD. It is governed by a five‐member Board of Directors made
up of representatives from local duck clubs. Board meetings are held on the fourth
Tuesday of each month.14
GRCD’s budgeted expenses for FY 2007‐2008 are $7,600. About 60% the budgeted
expenditures for this period cover transportation and travel expenses. The District does
not charge any fees and is entirely funded by the Grassland Water District. It reports
that current funding levels are adequate to continue service provision.15
INFRASTRUCTURE, FACILITIES, AND SERVICES
The most significant environmental issue facing GRCD is the habitat that is threatened
by expanding cities such as Los Banos. The urban encroachment intensifies agriculture,
air pollution, and water pollution. GRCD works with partners on the United States
12 Grassland Resource Conservation District Website, <www.grasslandwetlands.org/about/grcd.php5>.
13 Grassland Resource Conservation District Website, <www.grasslandwetlands.org/about/grcd.php5>.
RCD Watershed Information Sharing Project Website, <www.carcd.org>.
14 Grassland Resource Conservation District Website, <www.grasslandwetlands.org/about/grcd.php5>.
15 Communication with Victoria Woodruff of the Grasslands Water District, 29 Aug. 2007.
9
P:\17000s\17053MercedMSR07\Report\ResConFinal_07‐10‐09.doc
Final Report
Merced Co. Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review
As Approved by LAFCO April 23, 2009
Department of Agriculture Farm Bill to advocate a strict limit on urban expansion. In
addition, the District promotes the preservation of farmland, which serves as a buffer
between urban uses and habitat land.
GRCD works closely with the GWD on issues such as urban encroachment, which are of
interest to both parties.16 GRCD derives its resources from the GWD. GRCD does not
maintain any of its own facilities.
The GWD contains approximately 165 separate ownerships, most of which are hunting
or duck clubs. Perpetual easements have been purchased by the Fish and Wildlife
Service to help preserve wetland‐dependant migratory bird habitat on approximately
31,000 acres serviced by the GWD. These easements authorize the Service to restrict
land uses that would diminish wetland habitat values.17
Lands within the RCD are primarily managed for waterfowl habit. The management
objectives of the Grassland RCD include an active program to encourage natural food
plant production (such as swamp timothy, smartweed, and wildlife millet) and habitat
protection. Land uses include seasonally flooded wetlands, moist soil impoundments,
permanent wetland, irrigated pasture, and croplands.18
DEMAND AND CAPACITY
There is no anticipation of growth in the GRCD, and there are currently no plans for
annexations. District staff reports that current levels of funding are adequate to continue
service provision.
16 Communication with Veronica Woodruff of the GWD, 1 Oct 2007.
17 Grassland Resource Conservation District Website, <www.grasslandwetlands.org/about/grcd.php5>.
18 Grassland Resource Conservation District Website, <www.grasslandwetlands.org/about/grcd.php5>.
10
P:\17000s\17053MercedMSR07\Report\ResConFinal_07‐10‐09.doc
Figure 3
Grassland Resource Conservation SOI
140 140 13TH 2
S
1
T
ST ST
MERCED
GERARD AVE
165
GUSTINE D
R
R
R
GUN CLUB RD U
G
59
S SANDY MUSH RD
A
N
T
A
F
E
G
R
D
IN
G O D EL NIDO
M A R N D R SAN JO AQUIN WASHINGTON RD
V
G R
O
D
LT
D
A
HENRY
S
M
A
N
ILLER AVE
E
R I
S L A
IN
D
R IV E
R
CHOWCHILLA RIVER
O L T A
R
B ST
T A
F E G R T U R
N IA
N R A FRE S N O
V LOS BANOS D D R
I ST
152
IV
E
R
PIONEER RD D DOS PALOS Y
R MMaaddeerraa
FOX HILLS S A N O Z
ZI CCoouunnttyy
T A C 33
FE
G EUCALYPTUS AVE
R
D
165
DOS PALOS
VALERIA ST
SHAIN RD
M
ST
5
TTuuoolluummnnee
CCoouunnttyy
P O SStt CC aa o n o n u i u iss nn ll t a t a yy uuss MMaarriippoossaa
L E CCoouunnttyy
L IN EAGLE FIELD RD
E LAKE
Grassland RCD SOI R YOSEMITE
D
FFrreessnnoo
County Community CCoouunnttyy
City Limit
SSaannttaa
CCllaarraa
Parcels
CCoouunnttyy
NE
O
IL
SANFOREBAY
LUIS
RESERVOIR
Lakes BA LO NO S S MMaaddeerraa
RESERVOIR CCoouunnttyy
Major Roads
FFrreessnnoo
SSaann CCoouunnttyy
Rivers BBeenniittoo
CCoouunnttyy
8
0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10
Miles
LAFCO RESOLUTION 1042B 07/22/1999
of Merced County 11
Final Report
Merced Co. Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review
As Approved by LAFCO April 23, 2009
LOS BANOS RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
GOVERNANCE AND OPERATIONS
The Los Banos Resource Conservation District (LBRCD) was established in 1944 by the
Merced County Board of Supervisors. The majority of its 340,549 acres is located in the
foothills, west of Los Banos (shown in Figure 4). The District’s primary objectives are to
address water issues such as conservation and management of water resources as well
as maintaining water quality. 19
The District is governed by a five‐member Board of Directors, which meets quarterly.20
LBRCD recently sold its farming equipment, which was rented to local farmers to
generate income. As a result, the District’s only source of revenue is interest income.
INFRASTRUCTURE, FACILITIES, AND SERVICES
LBRCD provides conservation education services to customers within the District
boundaries. The primary educational program that the District sponsors is the FFA’s
annual conservation speech contest. Generally, LBRCD co‐sponsors this speech contest
with the San Luis Resource Conservation District.21
The District does not manage any facilities, but it has partnerships with other RCDs
including the San Luis Resource Conservation District as well as the Natural Resource
Conservation Service.22 District staff reports that current levels of funding are adequate
to meet its needs.
DEMAND AND CAPACITY
District staff reports that significant growth is not anticipated in the District and that
current levels of funding are adequate to continue service provision.
19 RCD Watershed Information Sharing Project Website, <www.carcd.org>.
20 Communication from Jennifer Gerstenberg of LBRCD, 11 Sept 2007.
21 Interview with Jennifer Gerstenberg of LBRCD, 16 Oct 2007.
22 Communication from Jennifer Gerstenberg of LBRCD, 11 Sept 2007.
12
P:\17000s\17053MercedMSR07\Report\ResConFinal_07‐10‐09.doc
Figure 4
Los Banos Resource Conservation SOI
SSttaanniissllaauuss
CCoouunnttyy
S
A
N
T
IN A
F
G E
O G D
M R D R
A R
N
D
HENRY MILLER R G D R D HENRY MILLER AVE S L A
SANTA NELLA VO
D
LTA S A
N E
R I
152 R T A N
T A F E U R
SS CC aa llaa nn rr tt a a a a V O L L H O S S T BA B N O ST S G R D T
CCoouunnttyy
152
VILLAGES
OF LAGUNA PIONEER RD
SAN LUIS S
A
N
T
FOX HILLS A
F
E
G
R
D
165
5
P
O
L
E
L IN EAGLE FIELD RD
E
R
D
TTuuoolluummnnee
CCoouunnttyy
SSaann BBeenniittoo CCoouunnttyy
SSttaanniissllaauuss
CCoouunnttyy MMaarriippoossaa
CCoouunnttyy
FFrreessnnoo
Los Banos RCD SOI CCoouunnttyyYO L S A E K M E ITE
County Community
City Limit
SSaannttaa
CCllaarraa
Parcels CCoouunnttyy NE O IL
SANFOREBAY
LUIS
RESERVOIR
Lakes BA LO NO S S MMaaddeerraa
RESERVOIR CCoouunnttyy
Major Roads
FFrreessnnoo
SSaann CCoouunnttyy
Rivers BBeenniittoo
CCoouunnttyy
8
0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10
Miles
LAFCO RESOLUTION 1044 06/28/1984
of Merced County 13
Final Report
Merced Co. Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review
As Approved by LAFCO April 23, 2009
SAN LUIS RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
GOVERNANCE AND OPERATIONS
The San Luis Resource Conservation District (SLRCD) was established in 1954 by
Division 9 of the Public Resources Code. SLRCD does not employ any staff members.
The District’s primary objectives are to address water issues such as conservation and
management of water resources.23
The District is governed by a five‐member Board of Directors, which meets quarterly.24
SLRCD is affiliated with the San Luis Canal Company and receives funding from the
San Luis Canal Company.
INFRASTRUCTURE, FACILITIES, AND SERVICES
SLRCD provides conservation education services to customers within the District
boundaries (shown in Figure 5). Generally, SLRCD co‐sponsors this speech contest with
the Los Banos Resource Conservation District.25
The District does not manage any of its own facilities, but it does engage in partnerships
with the Natural Resource Conservation Service and various RCDs, including the Los
Banos Resource Conservation District, in order to encourage resource conservation.26
District staff reports that current levels of funding are adequate to meet demand.
DEMAND AND CAPACITY
District staff reports that significant growth is not anticipated in the District and that
current levels of funding are adequate to continue service provision.27
23 Interview with Jennifer Gerstenberg of SLRCD, 16, Oct 2007.
24 Communication from Jennifer Gerstenberg of SLRCD, 11 Sept 2007.
25 Interview with Jennifer Gerstenberg of LBRCD, 16 Oct 2007.
26 Communication from Jennifer Gerstenberg of SLRCD, 11 Sept 2007.
27 Communication from Jennifer Gerstenberg of SLRCD, 11 Sept 2007.
14
P:\17000s\17053MercedMSR07\Report\ResConFinal_07‐10‐09.doc
Figure 5
S a n L u i s R e s o u r c e C o n s e r v a t i o n S O I
MERCED
D D
R R
R
R
L
Y
U A
G 59 H E
SANDY MUSH RD
SAN
JOAQUI
N RIVER
S EL NIDO
A
N
T
A D
F R
E
G
R N
D WASHINGTON RD
D HENRY MILLER AVE I S L A HENRY MILLER RD CHOWCHILLA R IVER
R
S E
A N
N T A U R D R
K I S S T T LOS B B S A T NOS
F E
G R D
T A
A ID I N N
FRE
S N O R IV E
152 R
DOS PALOS Y
D
R MMaaddeerraa
ZI CCoouunnttyy
Z
S O
A C
N
T 33
A
FE EUCALYPTUS AVE
E V
E
G R V A
D A A
M N
L A
165
P
A DI
E N
DOS PALOSV I
A
N
T
A
Y
R
B
M FFrreessnnoo CCoouunnttyy
ST
5
TTuuoolluummnnee
CCoouunnttyy
SStt CC aa o n o n u i u iss nn ll t a t a yy uuss MM CC aa oo rri u i u pp nn oo tt s y s y aa
P
O LAKE
SanL E Luis RCD SOI YOSEMITE
L
IN
EAGLE FIELD RD
CountyE Community
R
D
City Limit
SSaannttaa
Parcels CC CC oo ll uu aa nn rra t a tyy SANFO N R E O E I B L AY
LUIS
RESERVOIR
Lakes LOS
RE B S A E N R O V S OIR MMaaddeerraa
CCoouunnttyy
Major Roads
Rivers BBe S e S n a n a i n i n ttoo C F C Fr o r o ee uu ss nn nn tt o y o y
CCoouunnttyy
8
0 1 2 4 6 8
Miles
LAFCO RESOLUTION 1045 06/28/1984
of Merced County 15
III. DETERMINATIONS
EXPLANATION OF DETERMINATIONS
The Cortese‐Knox‐Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires
LAFCOs to make six written determinations for municipal service providers. The
following factors28 provide examples of how Merced LAFCO will fulfill the
determination requirement.
Growth and Population Projections
Efficient provision of public services is linked to the ability of service providers to plan
for future need. For example, a water purveyor must be prepared to supply water for
existing and future levels of demand and also be able to determine where future demand
will occur. MSRs will give LAFCO, affected agencies, and the public the means to
examine both the existing and future need for public services and will evaluate whether
projections for future growth and population patterns are integrated into an agency’s
planning function.
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
This determination refers to the adequacy of existing and planned public facilities in
relation to how public services are, and will be, provided to citizens. Infrastructure can
be evaluated in terms of capacity, condition, availability and quality.
Financing Constraints and Opportunities
LAFCO must weigh a community’s public service needs against the resources available
to fund the services. Service reviews may also suggest innovations for contending with
financing constraints, which may be of considerable value to numerous agencies.
Opportunities for Shared Facilities
Public service costs may be reduced and service efficiencies increased, if service
providers develop strategies for sharing resources. Sharing facilities and excess system
capacity decreases duplicative efforts, may lower costs, and minimizes unnecessary
resource consumption. Options for plans for future shared facilities and services will
also be considered.
Evaluation of Local Accountability and Governance, Government Structure, and
Operational Efficiencies
Local accountability and governance refers to public agency decision making and
operational and management processes that (1) include an accessible and accountable
elected or appointed decision making body and agency staff; (2) encourage and value
28 Excerpted from North County Inland Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update Study,
San Diego LAFCO, September 2003.
16
P:\17000s\17053MercedMSR07\Report\ResConFinal_07‐10‐09.doc
Final Report
Merced Co. Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review
As Approved by LAFCO April 23, 2009
public participation; (3) disclose budgets, programs, and plans; (4) solicit public input
when considering rate changes and work and infrastructure plans; and (5) evaluate
outcomes of plans, programs, and operations, and disclose results to the public.
As a tool to evaluate government structure, the MSR comprehensively examines existing
and future public service conditions and to evaluate organizational options for
accommodating growth, preventing urban sprawl, and ensuring that critical services are
efficiently and cost‐effectively provided. LAFCO may examine efficiencies that could be
gained through (1) functional reorganizations within existing agencies, (2) amending or
updating SOIs, (3) annexations or detachments from cities or special districts, (4)
formation of new special districts, (5) special district dissolutions, (6) mergers of special
districts with cities, (7) establishment of subsidiary districts, or (8) any additional
reorganization options found in Government Code § 56000 et. seq.
Management efficiency refers to the effectiveness of internal and external characteristics
of agencies to provide efficient, quality public services. Efficiently managed agencies
consistently implement plans to improve service delivery, reduce waste, eliminate
duplications of effort, contain costs, maintain qualified employees, build and maintain
adequate contingency reserves, and encourage and maintain open dialogues with the
public and other public and private agencies. The service review will evaluate
management efficiency by analyzing agency functions, operations, and practices—as
well as the agency’s ability to meet current and future service demands.
Other Matters Related to Effective Service Provision as Required by Commission
Policy
This determination provides flexibility for LAFCO to address other matters of concern
that may not be covered by the other factors.
17
P:\17000s\17053MercedMSR07\Report\ResConFinal_07‐10‐09.doc
Final Report
Merced Co. Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review
As Approved by LAFCO April 23, 2009
EAST MERCED RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Growth and Population Projections
EMRCD is working to annex some land located between Livingston and Hilmar, which
is not currently in an RCD, into EMRCD. It is not anticipated that this annexation would
significantly increase service demand.
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
No infrastructure needs or deficiencies have been identified.
Financing Constraints and Opportunities
Charging small program fees for each district’s educational conservation efforts would
supplement the grant revenue.
Opportunities for Shared Facilities
No opportunities for shared facilities have been identified.
Evaluation of Local Accountability, Government Structure, and Operational
Efficiencies
No opportunities to improve local accountability, government structure, or operational
efficiency have been identified.
Other Matters Related to Effective Service Provision as Required by Commission
Policy
No additional matters related to effective service provision have been identified.
18
P:\17000s\17053MercedMSR07\Report\ResConFinal_07‐10‐09.doc
Final Report
Merced Co. Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review
As Approved by LAFCO April 23, 2009
GRASSLAND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Growth and Population Projections
The most significant environmental issue facing GRCD is the habitat that is threatened
by expanding cities such as Los Banos. The urban encroachment intensifies agriculture,
air pollution, and water pollution. GRCD works with partners on the United States
Department of Agriculture Farm Bill to advocate a strict limit on urban expansion. In
addition, the District promotes the preservation of farmland, which serves as a buffer
between urban uses and habitat land.
There is no anticipation of growth in the District’s boundaries, and there are currently
no plans for annexations.
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
No infrastructure needs or deficiencies have been identified.
Financing Constraints and Opportunities
No financing constraints or opportunities have been identified.
Opportunities for Shared Facilities
No opportunities for shared facilities have been identified.
Evaluation of Local Accountability, Government Structure, and Operational
Efficiencies
No opportunities to improve local accountability, government structure, or operational
efficiency have been identified.
Other Matters Related to Effective Service Provision as Required by Commission
Policy
No additional matters related to effective service provision have been identified.
19
P:\17000s\17053MercedMSR07\Report\ResConFinal_07‐10‐09.doc
Final Report
Merced Co. Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review
As Approved by LAFCO April 23, 2009
LOS BANOS RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Growth and Population Projections
The District does not anticipate significant growth and, thus, states that staff and
funding will be adequate to meet future demand.
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
No infrastructure needs or deficiencies have been identified.
Financing Constraints and Opportunities
LBRCD’s only source of revenue is interest income. But, District staff report that
funding is sufficient to continue to provide current levels of service.
Opportunities for Shared Facilities
No opportunities for shared facilities have been identified.
Evaluation of Local Accountability, Government Structure, and Operational
Efficiencies
No opportunities to improve local accountability, government structure, or operational
efficiency have been identified.
Other Matters Related to Effective Service Provision as Required by Commission
Policy
The Commission may want to consider investigating the consolidation of the
agriculture‐oriented RCDs in the western portion of the County similarly to the way
those in the East Merced County have been consolidated.
20
P:\17000s\17053MercedMSR07\Report\ResConFinal_07‐10‐09.doc
Final Report
Merced Co. Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review
As Approved by LAFCO April 23, 2009
SAN LUIS RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Growth and Population Projections
The District does not anticipate significant growth and, thus, states that staff and
funding will be adequate to meet future demand.
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
No infrastructure needs or deficiencies have been identified.
Financing Constraints and Opportunities
No financing constraints or opportunities have been identified.
Opportunities for Shared Facilities
No opportunities for shared facilities have been identified.
Evaluation of Local Accountability, Government Structure, and Operational
Efficiencies
No opportunities to improve local accountability, government structure, or operational
efficiency have been identified.
Other Matters Related to Effective Service Provision as Required by Commission
Policy
The Commission may want to consider investigating the consolidation of the
agriculture‐oriented RCDs in the western portion of the County similarly to the way
those in the East Merced County have been consolidated.
21
P:\17000s\17053MercedMSR07\Report\ResConFinal_07‐10‐09.doc