Tule Lake Irrigation District MSR and SOI

MODOC LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT SERVICE REVIEW AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ADOPTED June 9, 2015 Service Review: Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: Resolution 2015-0005 View looking north showing excavation for pumping plant. Rock in drain has not been removed to grade; October 21, 1958; Photo by K. J. Greene http://digitallib.oit.edu/cdm/ref/collection/kwl/id/3369, August 19, 2014 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 Role and Responsibility of LAFCO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Purpose of a Municipal Service Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 TULELAKE AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1 Tulelake Irrigation District (TID) Location, Climate and Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1.1 TID Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1.2 TID Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1.3 TID Topography and Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2 Tulelake Irrigation District Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3 Tule Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.4 Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.5 Tule Lake Reclamation History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.6 Tule Lake Subbasin Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.6.1 Background Information on Tule Lake Subbasin Groundwater . . . . . . 7 2.6.2 Tule Lake Subbasin Boundaries and Groundwater Hydrology . . . . . . 8 2.6.3 Hydrogeologic Information for Tule Lake Subbasin Groundwater . . . . 9 2.6.4 Restrictive Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.6.5 Recharge Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.6.6 Groundwater Budget (Type B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.6.7 Groundwater Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.1 Contact Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.2 History of Tulelake Irrigation District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.3 Irrigable acreage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.4 Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.5 Tulelake Irrigation District Facilities and Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.5.1 Water Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.5.2 Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.6 Tulelake Irrigation District Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.6.1 TID Water Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.6.2 TID Water Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.7 Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.8 Audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.8.1 Net Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.8.2 Revenues and Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.8.3 Cash Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.8.4 Cash and Cash Equivalents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.8.5 Retirement Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.8.6 Capital Assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.8.7 Apportionment of Revenues and Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.8.8 Risk Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.8.9 Klamath Water Users Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 1 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 4 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4.1 Growth and Population Projections for the Tulelake Irrigation District Area 29 4.1.1 Tulelake Irrigation District Area Population Projections . . . . . . . . . . 29 4.1.2 MSR Determinations on Growth and Population Projections for the Tulelake Irrigation District Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4.2 Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUC) within or Contiguous to Tulelake Irrigation District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4.2.1 Determination of Tulelake Irrigation District Area Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4.2.2 MSR Determinations on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities near Tulelake Irrigation District . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 4.3 Capacity and Infrastructure Tulelake Irrigation District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 4.3.1 Tulelake Irrigation District Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 4.3.2 MSR Determinations on Infrastructure for Tulelake Irrigation District 31 4.4 Financial Ability to Provide Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.4.1 Financial Considerations for Tulelake Irrigation District . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.4.2 MSR Determinations on Financing for Tulelake Irrigation District . . . 32 4.5 Status of and Opportunities for Shared Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.5.1 Tulelake Irrigation District Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.5.2 MSR Determinations on Shared Facilities for Tulelake Irrigation District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.6 Accountability for Community Service Needs, Government Structure and Operational Efficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.6.1 Tulelake Irrigation District Government Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.6.2 MSR Determinations on Local Accountability and Governance . . . . . 33 5 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE . . . . . . . 34 5.1 SOI Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 5.1.1 LAFCO's Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 5.1.2 SOI Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 5.1.3 Possible Approaches to the SOI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 5.1.4 SOI Update Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 5.1.5 SOI Amendments and CEQA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 5.1.6 Recommendation for Tulelake Irrigation District Sphere of Influence 37 5.2 Present and Planned Land Uses in the Tulelake Irrigation District Area, Including Agricultural and Open Space Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 5.2.1 County General Plan and Zoning for Tulelake Irrigation District SOI Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 5.2.2 SOI Determinations on Present and Planned Land Use for Tulelake Irrigation District Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 5.3 Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services in the Tulelake Irrigation District Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 5.3.1 Municipal Service Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 5.3.2 SOI Determinations on Facilities and Services Present and Probable Need for Tulelake Irrigation District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 5.4 Present Capacity of Public Facilities Present and Adequacy of Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 5.4.1 Capacity Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 5.4.2 SOI Determinations on Public Facilities Present and Future . . . . . . . 38 2 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 5.5 Social or Economic Communities of Interest for Tulelake Irrigation District 38 5.5.1 Tulelake Irrigation District Community Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 5.5.2 SOI Determinations on Social or Economic Communities of Interest for Tulelake Irrigation District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 5.6 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 5.6.1 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 5.6.2 Tulelake Irrigation District Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 PREPARERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 3 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Role and Responsibility of LAFCO The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, as amended (“CKH Act”) (California Government Code §§56000 et seq.), is LAFCO’s governing law and outlines the requirements for preparing Municipal Service Reviews (MSRs) for periodic Sphere of Influence (SOI) updates. MSRs and SOIs are tools created to empower LAFCO to satisfy its legislative charge of “discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open-space and prime agricultural lands, efficiently providing government services, and encouraging the orderly formation and development of local agencies based upon local conditions and circumstances (§56301). CKH Act Section 56301 further establishes that “one of the objects of the commission is to make studies and to obtain and furnish information which will contribute to the logical and reasonable development of local agencies in each county and to shape the development of local agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of each county and its communities.” Based on that legislative charge, LAFCO serves as an arm of the State; preparing and reviewing studies and analyzing independent data to make informed, quasi-legislative decisions that guide the physical and economic development of the state (including agricultural uses) and the efficient, cost-effective, and reliable delivery of services to residents, landowners, and businesses. While SOIs are required to be updated every five years, they are not time-bound as planning tools by the statute, but are meant to address the “probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency” (§56076). SOIs therefore guide both the near-term and long-term physical and economic development of local agencies their broader county area, and MSRs provide the near-term and long- term time-relevant data to inform LAFCO’s SOI determinations. 1.2 Purpose of a Municipal Service Review As described above, MSRs are designed to equip LAFCO with relevant information and data necessary for the Commission to make informed decisions on SOIs. The CKH Act, however, gives LAFCO broad discretion in deciding how to conduct MSRs, including geographic focus, scope of study, and the identification of alternatives for improving the efficiency, cost-effectiveness, accountability, and reliability of public services. The purpose of a Municipal Services Review (MSR) in general is to provide a comprehensive inventory and analysis of the services provided by local municipalities, service areas, and special districts. A MSR evaluates the structure and operation of the local municipalities, service areas, and special districts and discusses possible areas for improvement and coordination. The MSR is intended to provide information and analysis to support a sphere of influence update. 1 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 A written statement of the study’s determinations must be made in the following areas: 1. Growth and population projections for the affected area; 2. The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence; 3. Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence; 4. Financial ability of agencies to provide services; 5. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities; 6. Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. The MSR is organized according to these determinations listed above. Information regarding each of the above issue areas is provided in this document. 2 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 2 TULELAKE AREA 2.1 Tulelake Irrigation District (TID) Location, Climate and Soils 2.1.1 TID Location The Tulelake Irrigation District (TID) is located within the Upper Klamath Basin. The northern boundary is contiguous to the border between California and Oregon and extends from the Oregon-California state line south about 14 miles to the lava beds. TID includes lands in both Modoc and Siskiyou counties and is bounded on the west by High Rim and Barn Top Mountains and extends east about 12 miles. The exterior boundary includes 96,000 acres. Tule Lake and the Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge (TLNWR) lie within the boundaries of TID.1 2.1.2 TID Climate2 The average elevation with TID is 4,030 feet. The climate is cold in winter with mild summer temperatures. Typically, the growing season begins in mid-April and ends in early October. Summer temperatures average about 60 degrees with some highs above 90 degrees. Below freezing temperatures can and do occur in the summer at night. The average winter temperatures range from the low 30s to occasional lows below -10 degrees. Although there is normally a growing season of 100 days, there is no month that is frost- free. The average annual precipitation in the California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) Station Tule Lake FS No. 91 located at the University of California Field Station is approximately 12.1 inches. The majority of the precipitation is from October through April. 2.1.3 TID Topography and Soils3 The topography of TID is extremely flat with some exception in the northeast portion. Most of the lands within TID are within the original historical bed of Tule Lake, with the lowest portion being near the current Tule Lake sump. The predominant soil type within TID is Tulebasin mucky silty clay loam. As defined by NRCS, Tulebasin soils are generally 60 inches deep. The first 14 inches is a mucky silty clay loam. The following 18 inches is generally silty clay which is followed by another 28 inches of either silty clay or silty clay loam. Drainage is very poor and the depth to the water table is typically less than one foot if not ponded. Because of the poor drainage characteristics of the soil, landowners must carefully regulate application of irrigation water. The biggest challenge in the majority of TID is maintaining the water table below the root zone. 1 Tulelake Irrigation District, “Water Management & Conservation Plan, 2011 Update” September 2011, Pages 1 and 2. 2 Tulelake Irrigation District, “Water Management & Conservation Plan, 2011 Update” September 2011, Pages 22 and 23. 3 Tulelake Irrigation District, “Water Management & Conservation Plan, 2011 Update” September 2011, Pages 22. 3 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 4 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 2.2 Tulelake Irrigation District Communities The Tulelake Irrigation District area includes the communities of Newell and Tulelake. A brief description of each community is shown below. Newell (Modoc County) Newell is a census-designated place located 50 miles west-northwest of Alturas at an elevation of 4,042 feet. The community is located along State Route 139 south of the community of Tulelake and south of the Oregon border. The town was named in honor of Frederick Haynes Newell, director of the United States Reclamation Service.4 The 2010 US Census reported that Newell had a population of 449. There were 136 households, out of which 69 (50.7%) had children under the age of 18 living in them, 23 households (16.9%) were made up of individuals and 8 (5.9%) had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 3.30. There were 106 families (77.9% of all households); the average family size was 3.68 people. The Newell population was spread out in age as follows: NEWELL AGE DISTRIBUTION 2010 Under the age of 18 167 people 37.3% 18 to 24 36 people 8.0% 25 to 44 116 people 25.8% 45 to 64 90 people 20.0% 65 years of age or older 40 people 8.9% Total 449 people 100.0% The median age of the Newell population was 29.4 years. For every 100 females there were 110.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 108.9 males. There were 209 housing units of which 83 (61.0%) were owner-occupied, and 53 (39.0%) were occupied by renters. The homeowner vacancy rate was 1.2%; the rental vacancy rate was 8.6%. There were 259 people (57.7% of the population) living in owner-occupied housing units and 190 people (42.3%) living in rental housing units. There are many grain and horseradish storage facilities in or near Newell. Tulelake Municipal Airport features a 3,500-foot paved runway. The site of the World War II U.S. Army facility named the Tule Lake War Relocation Center is near the north end of the community. The center was a prison camp for interned Japanese nationals, and U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry, during a portion of the war. The Union Pacific Railroad Modoc Subdivision tracks run along the west side of town and parallel to SR139. Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, a unit of Klamath National Wildlife Refuge, is northwest of the town. 4 Durham, David L. (1998). California's Geographic Names: A Gazetteer of Historic and Modern Names of the State. Quill Driver Books. p. 404. ISBN 9781884995149 5 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 6 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 Tulelake (Siskiyou County) Tulelake is at an elevation of 4,066 feet above sea level. The town is named after nearby Tule Lake. The population was 1,010 at the 2010 census, down from 1,020 at the 2000 census. The 2010 US Census reported that 1,010 people lived in 347 households, out of which 158 (45.5%) had children under the age of 18 living in them, 93 households (26.8%) were made up of individuals and 43 (12.4%) had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.91. There were 240 families (69.2% of all households); the average family size was 3.58. The population was spread out in age as follows: TULELAKE AGE DISTRIBUTION 2010 Under the age of 18 340 people 33.6% 18 to 24 102 people 10.1% 25 to 44 244 people 24.2% 45 to 64 222 people 22.0% 65 years of age or older 102 people 10.1% TOTAL 1010 people 100.0% The Tulelake median age was 29.4 years. For every 100 females there were 102.4 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 100.0 males. There were 437 housing units in Tulelake of which 173 (49.9%) were owner-occupied, and 174 (50.1%) were occupied by renters. The homeowner vacancy rate was 6.0%; the rental vacancy rate was 12.1%. There were 473 people (46.8% of the population) living in owner-occupied housing units and 537 people (53.2%) living in rental housing units. There are two schools in the Tulelake Basin Joint Unified School District, located in the town of Tulelake. 2.3 Tule Lake Tule Lake is an intermittent lake covering an area of 13,000 acres, 5.0 miles long and 3.0 miles across, in northeastern Siskiyou County and northwestern Modoc County. Tule Lake is fed by the Lost River. The elevation of the lake is 4,035 feet. Tule Lake is located 1.5 miles southwest of the town of Tulelake. 2.4 Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge 5 Tule Lake Refuge is located in the fertile and intensely farmed Tule Lake Basin of northeastern California. It was established in 1928 by President Calvin Coolidge as a “preserve and breeding ground for wild birds and animals.” This 39,116-acre refuge is mostly open water and crop land. 5 US Fish and Wildlife Service, http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Tule_Lake/about.html, October 15, 2014 7 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 Approximately 17,000 acres are leased for potato, onion, horse radish, alfalfa, and cereal grains within the Public Lease Lands program administered by the U.S Bureau of Reclamation. Permit holders farm an additional 1,900 acres in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).The endangered Lost River and short-nose suckers live in or use this refuge. The refuge is a significant staging area for migrating waterfowl during spring and fall migrations. It is used primarily by white-fronted geese, snow geese, Ross geese, and cackling Canada geese, all of which nest in the Arctic tundra. Tule Lake hunting opportunities consist of two large marsh units accessible by boats, a spaced-blind hunt in dry fields, and open free-roam areas offering field hunts over harvested grain and smaller marsh units. A 10-mile auto tour route allows for wildlife observation throughout the year. 2.5 Tule Lake Reclamation History6 In 1902, Congress enacted the Reclamation Act. The Secretary of the Interior authorized development of the Klamath Reclamation Project on May 15, 1905, under provisions of the Reclamation Act of 1902 (32 Stat. 388). Construction of the Klamath Reclamation Project began in 1906. Prior to the construction of the Klamath Reclamation Project most of the land within the boundary of the Tulelake Irrigation District was submerged. The submergence of this land created a body of water known as Tule Lake. To reclaim this area and drain Tule Lake, two outlets were constructed at the southern end of the Lake that would direct the flow into lava beds. The flow to drain Tule Lake began in October 1909 and continued until 1912 when the Lake level dropped below the elevation of the drains. Construction of the Klamath Reclamation Project continued during the early 1900s and by 1910, Clear Lake Dam7 was completed. By the spring of 1912, the Lost River Diversion Dam and Channel were complete. These facilities diverted water from the Lost River to the Klamath River and reduced flows into Tule Lake. By 1916, approximately 5,900 acres within the previously submerged region of Tule Lake had been exposed and work began on the Tule Lake portion of the Klamath Reclamation Project with the construction of distribution and drainage systems for exposed lands along the northern portion of the Lake. In 1917, the first Tule Lake lands opened to homestead entry. By 1921, the exposed lakebed had increased to about 20,000 acres. 6 Tulelake Irrigation District Groundwater Management Plan, April 2013, Page 3. 7 Clear Lake Dam and Reservoir on the Lost River in California, about 19 miles southeast of Malin, Oregon, provide storage for irrigation and reduce flow into the reclaimed portion of Tule Lake and the restricted Tule Lake Sumps in Tulelake National Wildlife Refuge. The dam is a roller compacted concrete structure with a height of 42 feet and a crest length of 840 feet. The reservoir has a capacity of 527,000 acre-feet. US Bureau of Reclamation, http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Klamath%20Project, October 21, 2014. 8 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 In 1920, Anderson-Rose Dam8 was constructed. Work also began on the J-Canal which was completed in 1923. During the 1920s and 1930s, work continued on the distribution, levee and drainage systems within the Tule Lake Unit of the Klamath Reclamation Project. By 1923, the continued diversion of Lost River water to the Klamath River and diversions for irrigation resulted in approximately 85,000 of the 90,000 previously submerged acres within the Tule Lake Unit being available for farming. During the late 1920s approximately 50,000 acres were farmed. In 1940, work began on the D-Pumping Plant, This pumping plant and the Tule Lake Tunnel were completed in November 1941. During World War II, about 44,000 acres owned by the United States within Tule Lake were leased for farming. The Copic Bay region of Tule Lake was opened to homesteading in 1947 and 1948. By the 1950s, about 44,000 acres had been homesteaded. In 1952, the Tulelake Irrigation District was formed. 2.6 Tule Lake Subbasin Groundwater9 2.6.1 Background Information on Tule Lake Subbasin Groundwater The State of California, Department of Water Resources describes the Upper Klamath Basin, Tule Lake Subbasin as follows: Groundwater Basin Number: 1-2.01 County: Modoc, Siskiyou Surface Area: 85,930 acres (135 square miles) An important note on the status of the groundwater resources in the Tule Lake Subbasin, is that, historically, groundwater use in the basin has been relatively minor. Since about 1905, when the Bureau of Reclamation began building the Klamath Project to provide surface water to agriculture on reclaimed land in the Klamath Basin, abundant surface water supplies have been available. In the 2001 Klamath Project Operation, water requirements for two sucker fish species in the upper basin and the coho salmon in the lower basin led the USBR to reduce surface water deliveries to the farmers to 26 percent of normal. The already existing drought conditions were further exacerbated by the operational drought. In 2001, drought emergencies were declared for the Klamath Basin by the governors of both California and Oregon. Governor Davis called upon California’s legislature to fund an Emergency Well Drilling Program in the Tulelake Irrigation District (TID). The governor also requested funding for a Hydrogeologic Investigation to evaluate new and future groundwater 8 Anderson-Rose Diversion Dam, on Lost River about 3 miles southeast of Merrill, Oregon, diverts water to serve the lands reclaimed from the bed of Tule Lake. The dam is a reinforced concrete slab and buttress structure with a height of 23 feet and a crest length of 324 feet. US Bureau of Reclamation, http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Facility.jsp?fac_Name=Anderson-Rose+Diversion+Dam, October 21, 2014 9 California Department of Water Resources, California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118, Upper Klamath Basin, Tule Lake Subbasin,, Last Update 2/27/04. 9 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 development. The emergency measures were taken because the TID had no alternate water supply for the nearly 75,000 acres in the district and farmers were faced with economic disaster. 10 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 Ten large-capacity irrigation wells were constructed within the irrigation district for the emergency program. Four of the ten wells produce 10,000 gpm and greater. The lowest yielding well produces 6,000 gpm. At the same time the TID wells were being constructed, individual growers were also having their own wells drilled resulting in an additional 25 to 30 private irrigation wells. It is unknown what effect the new development of groundwater in the Tule Lake Subbasin will have on the aquifer system. The Hydrogeologic Investigation that DWR is currently conducting will address some of the questions regarding the nature and extent of the aquifer system, sustainable annual yields, the amount and nature of annual recharge, and the possibilities for conjunctive use in the subbasin. A significant amount of new data will be available when a progress report is completed. Because the evaluation of the recently collected data is in progress, and not yet available, the following summary of hydrogeologic and well information is based on published reports. 2.6.2 Tule Lake Subbasin Boundaries and Groundwater Hydrology The Tule Lake Subbasin is a portion of Upper Klamath River Groundwater Basin located in California and Oregon. The subbasin is bounded to the west by the Gillems Bluff Fault which extends beneath and is a major structural feature of the Medicine Lake volcanic highlands. The fault forms the steep eastern escarpment of Sheepy Ridge, which separates the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath subbasins. The subbasin is bounded to the east by the Big Crack fault, a north-trending normal fault which forms the western edge of the block faulted mountains between Tule Lake and Clear Lake Reservoir. The reservoir is the headwaters of Lost River, which is the primary surface water entering the Tule Lake Subbasin. Lost River flows north into Oregon, and meanders through the Poe and Langell valleys before it flows south into California and ends at the Tule Lake sump. The subbasin is bounded to the south by the low-lying volcanic fields on the north slope of the Medicine Lake Highlands. Medicine Lake occupies the crater at the peak of this large, relatively young shield volcano. To the north, the basin extends into Oregon and is bounded by northwest trending normal faults on the south side of the mountain block dividing Poe Valley from the Tule Lake Subbasin. Approximately two thirds of the subbasin are in California. For the purposes of this update of Bulletin 118, the subbasin is bounded by to the north by the state boundary of Oregon and California. Average annual precipitation within the basin is estimated to be 11 inches. 11 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 2.6.3 Hydrogeologic Information for Tule Lake Subbasin Groundwater Water-Bearing Formations The principal water-bearing formations in the subbasin include Tertiary to Quaternary lake deposits and volcanics Pleistocene Upper Basalt. This unit is an unweathered, vesicular, olivine basalt that is generally highly permeable due to extensive fracturing. The basalt flows of this unit are generally above the saturated zone in upland areas but serve as recharge areas where fractured. Some areas have exposures of massive, unfractured flows. The fractured flows readily yield water to wells. These flows border the subbasin on the south (to the west of the Peninsula) and outcrop as a subbasin boundary to the southeast of Copic Bay along the north flank of the Medicine Lake Highlands. Pleistocene Intermediate Basalt. This unit is a series of reddish brown to black, thin-bedded flows of Pleistocene diabasic olivine basalt. These rocks border the subbasin to the south and east and interfinger with lakebed deposits at the edge of the basin. These rocks are generally highly permeable due to well- developed columnar jointing and the abundance of bedding planes. Wells developed in these rocks will often yield moderate to large quantities of water ranging from 2,000- to 4,000-gpm with specific capacities of 50- to 250-gpm per foot of drawdown if sufficient fractures, fracture interconnections, and saturated depths are encountered. Some well yields are low where extensive cross faulting has created barriers to groundwater recharge and flow. In the Panhandle region, the thickness of the unit is greater than 400 feet with well yields ranging up to 9,500 gpm with specific capacity up to 395 gpm per foot of drawdown. In the vicinity of Prisoners Rock and the Peninsula, the unit reaches a thickness of at least 400 feet with estimated well yields of 500- to 3,100-gpm. Pliocene to Holocene Lake Deposits. The lake deposits consist of sand, silt, clay, ash, lenses of diatomaceous earth, and semi-consolidated shale. Poorly sorted deposits have very low permeability and may act as a confining layer where interfingered with basalts. Wells developed in the sedimentary deposits are usually less than 150 feet deep and yield only small quantities of water in the range of 30 gpm. Pliocene to Miocene Lower Basalt. The older basalt ranges from green- black ophitic olivine basalt to a gray- black porphyritic basalt. It often exhibits weak columnar jointing and fracturing in surface exposures. This is typically a highly permeable aquifer that is commonly confined within the subbasin where it underlies 12 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 lake sediments. Surface exposure of the unit occurs east and west of the subbasin and forms the northeastern basin boundary. Where exposed in the uplands surrounding the basin, the unit is an important source of recharge. The depth to the older basalt beneath the lake sediments varies due to the region's extensive block faulting. New deep irrigation wells drilled in 2001 on the California/Oregon border show that the basalt is encountered at depths ranging from 810 feet on the east side of the basin to 1,190 feet several miles to the west, and to 190 feet on the far west side. These differing depths probably represent individual blocks offset by steep, normal faults. The depth to good production zones in these wells varies from 800 feet to 1,200 feet to 245 feet in the same east to west order. On the east side of the subbasin well yields range from 4,000- to 7,000-gpm, whereas, yields mid-basin and on the west side range from 9,000- to 12,000-gpm. 2.6.4 Restrictive Structures The western boundary of Tule Lake is marked by a prominent north-south trending normal fault, downthrown to the east. The displacement is unknown but is probably is in the range of several hundred feet. The east side of the Tule Lake Subbasin is bounded by a normal fault downthrown to the west. The water-transmitting properties of these faults are not fully understood. 2.6.5 Recharge Areas Infiltration of surface water from the channels, lakes and sumps of the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake basins along with underflow from the adjacent, rapidly-replenished volcanic rocks are probably the principal sources of recharge in this basin. Because infiltration rates are very slow in the sedimentary deposits, underflow from adjacent volcanics is probably of major significance. The area surrounding this basin and its extension into Oregon primarily consists of Holocene to Miocene volcanic rocks that capture most of the incipient precipitation and intermittent streamflow by infiltration through fractures. These rocks probably function as a single, continuous water-table aquifer that extends across faults and surrounds the basin. Hence, the two principal sources of recharge are: underflow from the rapidly replenished and permeable unconfined system of the adjacent volcanic rocks; and less significantly, the very-slow vertical infiltration of surface water through marginally permeable sedimentary deposits. The general pattern of groundwater movement is from the north to the south. 2.6.6 Groundwater Budget (Type B) 13 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 Estimates of groundwater extraction are based on a survey conducted by the California Department of Water Resources during 1997. Surveys included land use and sources of water. Estimates of groundwater extraction for agricultural and municipal/industrial uses are 8,700 and 830 acre-feet respectively. Deep percolation of applied water is estimated to be 9,100 acre-feet. 2.6.7 Groundwater Quality Characterization. Hotchkiss reports that the TDS content of groundwater generally increases in proportion to the thickness or proximity of the lake deposits. Waters from wells in volcanic rocks several miles from the lake deposits or from deep wells developed beneath the confining lake deposits typically contain low to moderate TDS. The water quality of groundwater in the basin ranges widely in response to its source and proximity to sources of surface and subsurface impairment. Water quality for wells constructed in the unconfined volcanic rocks within and adjacent to the subbasin is good with a sodium- bicarbonate character and a total dissolved solids ranging from 150- to 270-mg/L. A shift in water quality is observed with the unconfined volcanics that are proximate to lake sediments. The character shifts to a sodium/calcium/magnesium- bicarbonate/sulfate water that is much higher in total dissolved solids (600- to 800-mg/L), which generally increases in proportion to the penetrated thickness of interfingering lake deposits. Well Production characteristics Well yields (gallons/minute) Irrigation Range: 15 – 3,380 Average: 1,208 (14 Well Completion Reports) Well yields from newly constructed wells in the subbasin in 2001 range from 4,000 to 12,000 gallons per minute. Total depths (feet) Domestic Range: 15 – 445 Average: 115 (49 Well Completion Reports) Irrigation Range: 28 – 1,170 Average: 239 (15 Well Completion Reports) Active Monitoring Data Agency Parameter Number of wells /measurement frequency 14 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 DWR Groundwater levels 40 wells semi-annually USGS Groundwater levels 3 wells quarterly DWR Miscellaneous 8 wells biennial Water Quality Department Miscellaneous 5 of Health Water Quality Services Basin Management Groundwater management: Siskiyou County adopted a groundwater management ordinance in 1998. Modoc County adopted a groundwater management ordinance in 2000. Water agencies Public Tulelake Irrigation District Private 15 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 3 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT BACKGROUND 3.1 Contact Information The Tulelake Irrigation District (TID) was started in 1952. The District is managed by Earl Danosky (e-mail: tid@cot.net), Gerald D. Pyle, Assistant Manager, Brad C. Kirby, Assistant to the Manager, and Grace E. Phillips, Office Manager. The contact information for the Tulelake Irrigation District is as follows: Telephone: 530-667-2249 Fax: 530-667-4228 Physical Address: 2717 Havlina Road, Tulelake, California 96134-0699 Mailing Address: PO Box 699, Tulelake CA 96134 The District has 28 permanent employees and 10 seasonal employees. The District is governed by a five-member Board of Directors which meets at 8:00 pm on the second Monday of each month at the District Office.10 The Board of Directors is as follows:11 John F. Crawford, President Term expires 2016 James E. Havlina, V. President Term expires 2014 William J. Heiney, Director Term expires 2016 Sidney W. Staunton, Director Term expires 2016 Gary A. Wright, Director Term expires 2014 Legal Counsel for the District is Paul Simmons with Somach, Simmons & Dunn, 500 Capital Mall Suite 1000, Sacramento CA 95814. 3.2 History of Tulelake Irrigation District On September 10, 1956, the Tulelake Irrigation District entered into a contract with the US Bureau of Reclamation for repayment of the construction charges for the Klamath Reclamation Project and the transfer to the District of operation and maintenance of the facilities used to deliver water to the District lands.12 In 1957, the Board of Directors of the District approved the formation of West Side Improvement District #4, to operated and maintain the pumps, dikes, and drainage facilities already constructed by the landowners and to apportion all charges separately among the several landowners according to the acres of land owned.13 3.3 Irrigable acreage The irrigable acreage reflected on the District’s landowner database is approximately 64,000 acres, of which approximately 18,000 acres are owned by the United States, with 10 Tulelake Irrigation District, Modoc LAFCO Questionnaire, September 24, 2014. 11 http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/TID/groundwater/publichearing042513.htm, October 20, 2014. 12 Tulelake Irrigation District Groundwater Management Plan, April 2013, Page 3. 13 Tulelake Irrigation District Financial Statements December 31, 2013, Prepared by Aiello, Goodrich & Teuscher, PO Box 158, 205 N. Mt. Shasta Blvd., Suite 300, Mt. Shasta, California 9607, Phone: 530-926-3881, Fax: 530-926-6296, www.agtcpa.com, Page 6. 16 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 most of this acreage leased to private growers for crop production. These Federal Lease Lands are located in the lowest (generally below an approximate elevation of 4,035 feet above mean sea level) portion of TID. Homesteading of the current Federal Lease Lands was precluded by the 1964 Kuchel Act. In addition to the Federal Lease Lands, the Public Lands include certain areas used by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in farming and other uses.14 3.4 Crops The following table shows the acreage for the various crops grown within the District and the percentage of the total irrigated land represented by each crop. Since this information has been compiled, strawberries have also become an important crop in the District. REPRESENTATIVE CROPPING PATTERN (2005) FOR THE TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT15 Crop Type Acres Crop Percentage Estimated Net of Irrigation Total Acres Requirements Irrigated (Acre-Feet) 16 Alfalfa 16,928 26.7% 26,210 Cereal Grains (barley, wheat, oats, rye) 22,578 35.6% 38,670 Mint 2,226 3.5% 3,720 Onions 2,668 4.3% 5,040 Potatoes 7,536 11.9% 14,590 Pasture 1,641 2.6% 3,940 Other (peas, horseradish and hay-grasses) 9,777 15.4% 14,440 TOTAL 63,354* 100.0% 106,610 *Includes public and private lands. A more detailed list of crops and acreages is shown below: Tulelake Irrigation District Crop Production Crop 2013 Acres 2012 Acres 2011 Acres 2010 Acres Alfalfa 17,754 17,790 16,072 16,120 Other Hay 3,493 3,024 3,458 3,564 Barley 6,421 7,007 4,246 8,031 Oats 87 203 193 360 Onions 2,899 2,651 1,878 1,874 Pasture 1,042 1,014 979 1,314 Potatoes 7,529 8,362 8,739 5,770 Wheat 18,807 16,931 21,002 9,850 Garlic 18 25 0 0 Mint 2,306 2,656 2,919 3,035 14 Tulelake Irrigation District, “Water Management & Conservation Plan, 2011 Update” September 2011, Pages 1 and 2. 15 Tulelake Irrigation District Groundwater Management Plan, April 2013, Page 4. 16 Tulelake Irrigation District, “Water Management & Conservation Plan, 2011 Update” September 2011, Page 9. 17 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 Horseradish 462 408 358 358 Other 2,343 2,998 3,162 12,759 Total Acres 63,161 63,069 63,006 63,035 Production Value $96,023,918 $87,056,604 $94,909,405 $61,361,751 The production values of the crops shown above indicates a substantial contribution to the local economy due to the Tulelake Irrigation District. 3.5 Tulelake Irrigation District Facilities and Equipment 3.5.1 Water Facilities The District operates and maintains a diversion dam on the channel of the Lost River, known as the Anderson-Rose Dam, located less than one mile north of the California- Oregon State Line. The Anderson-Rose Dam is operated to deliver surface water into the District’s J-Canal, which distributes water to more than one-half of the District’s irrigated lands through turnouts and lateral canals. The J-Canal also conveys water to other canal systems for delivery to additional lands within the District. Water not diverted by the District at Anderson-Rose Dam flows through the Lost River and into the Tule Lake Sumps. Water regulated and stored within the Tule Lake Sumps may be diverted or re-diverted for irrigation within the District or discharged by the District’s D-Pumping Plan to the P-Canal, which serves the Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge (LKNWR) and the water users on the P-Canal system of the Project. The operation spills and tailwater resulting from irrigation within the District are conveyed through the District’s extensive drainage system, which utilizes gravity and pumped discharge into portions of the canal system or into the Tule Lake Sumps.17 The District operates the following facilities:18 Canals: 243 Miles Drains: 334 Miles Dikes: 26 Miles Pumps: 36 Pumping Plants, 65 Pump Units to pump 170,000 to 200,000 Acre Feet per year. Pumping Plant D: 3650 Horsepower (Three 750 HP units and two 700 HP units) pump 75 CFS/unit (33,660 GPM) or 48,470,000 GPD for a total of 323 CFS (145,066 GPM) or 208,800,000 GPD. Wells: 10 Well Sites, 5100 Horsepower (One 300 HP unit, two400 HP units, two 500 HP units and five 600 HP units) pump 182 CFS total (82,000 GPM) or 118,080,000 GPD. 17 Tulelake Irrigation District Groundwater Management Plan, April 2013, Page 5. 18 Tulelake Irrigation District, Modoc LAFCO Questionnaire, September 24, 2014. 18 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 Automation: 53 Automated Gates, 7 Sites with Telemetry and 6 Traveling Screens. 3.5.2 Equipment The TID equipment list is shown below: 19 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 Tulelake Irrigation District Equipment Number Year Description Use Condition Vehicles 1 -41 and 64-65 52 1950 Dodge P.W. 4WD limited Poor 71 2001 Int. W/Hydralift Crane maintenance Good 77 1991 GMC w/14 ton Crane maintenance Good 79 2012 International Dump Truck maintenance Good 81 1969 Ford Dump Truck maintenance Poor 84 1973 Ford Flat Bed/Dump Truck maintenance Poor 85 1975 Chev. 2 ton w/lift maintenance Fair 86 1989 Ford Dump Truck 10 yard maintenance Fair 87 1995 Ford Dump Truck 10 yard maintenance Fair 88 1979 Mack Truck Tractor maintenance Fair 89 1996 Chev. Spray Truck Weed Control Fair 90 1980 Freightliner (Big Earl) Poor 91 1991 Cat. 943 Traxcavator maintenance Poor 92 2003 Cat. Backhoe 430 D IT maintenance Good 93 2008 Ford F550 Spray Truck Weed Control Good 98 1989 Cat. D4H Dozer maintenance Fair 101 2000 Bush Hog Mower Poor 102 2004 Schulte Mower maintenance Fair 111 2009 Gradall maintenance Good 112 1974 41 Northwest Dragline maintenance Poor 113 1998 Gradall maintenance Poor 114 1993 JD 760 Road Grader maintenance Good 115 2002 322C Cat Excavator maintenance Fair 116 2006 M313 Rubber Tire Excavator maintenance Good 119 2007 Long Reach Excavator maintenance Good 123 1998 Trailmax Tilt Trailer maintenance Good 125 1994 Etnyre Lowboy Trailer maintenance Good 126 2000 Trailmax Tilt Trailer maintenance Good 129 Ranger Trailer Good 131 2010 Polaris Ranger 4X4 ATV Weed Control Good 136 2000 John Deere Tractor 6410 Weed Control Good 137 1968? Massey Ferguson/Loader D Plant Poor 138 1993 John Deere Tractor 6400 Weed Control Fair 139 2005 John Deere Tractor 6715 Weed Control Good 141 Hutchmaster Disk maintenance Good 2010 Crisafulli (Three) New 2013 Cat 953 Traxcavator maintenance New 2013 John Deere Mower maintenance Fair The District works to maintain the equipment and has a replacement budget for the equipment as shown below: 20 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 Tulelake Irrigation District Ten-Year Equipment Study September 2013 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Vehicles 10,100 71,000 73,000 75,000 77,000 79,000 81,000 83,000 85,000 87,000 1-41/ 64-65 98-1989 230,000 Cat D4H Dozer 111-2009 350,000 Gradall 115-2002 300,000 Cat Exca- vator 2013 Cat 229,000 953 Trax- cavator 2013 17,000 John Deere Mower Pump 67,000 69,000 71,000 73,000 40,000 42,000 44,000 60,000 60,000 Replace- ment Pump 6,000 4,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Starting Equip. Auto- 75,000 - 78,000 - 81,000 - - - mated Trash- racks Auto- 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 mation Misc. 14,000 4,000 4,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 Shop Equip. Misc. 4,000 4,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 Office Equip. TOTAL 361,000 397,000 594,000 475,000 257,000 148,000 233,000 156,000 174,000 176,000 ANNUAL COST RE- 688,000 627,000 530,000 236,000 61,000 104,000 256,000 323,000 467,000 593,000 SERVE BUDGET 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 CARRY- 627,000 530,000 236,000 61,000 104,000 256,000 323,000 467,000 593,000 717,000 OVER The District is better off with a long-term equipment replacement program even if it may be amended from time to time. 21 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 3.6 Tulelake Irrigation District Water 3.6.1 TID Water Supply19 Prior to the formation of the District, water was delivered by the US Bureau of Reclamation to the homesteaders and other landowners. Following the formation of the District, and the execution of Contract NO. 34-06-200-59554 with the United States, the District began providing water service to lands within the District. The Klamath River water rights for the Klamath Reclamation Project are currently being adjudicated by the State of Oregon. Contractually the US Bureau of Reclamation recognizes certain lands within the District as having a higher contractual priority to Klamath Reclamation Project supplies than other lands. Lands within the District also have rights to use water from Lost River. Although some Lost River water rights were adjudicated in 1918, a recent court decision ruled that the 1918 process had not adjudicated water rights in the Klamath Reclamation Project. There is some uncertainty on this issue. Some lands within the District may possess California riparian rights to Lost River or Tule Lake. The majority of the District’s surface water supply is from the Klamath River and is directed to the District through an intertie between the Klamath River and the Lost Rive, known as the Lost River Diversion Channel. The Klamath River water is diverted at locations on the Lost River Diversion Channel known as Station 48 and the No. 1 Drain during the irrigation season. These diversions provide Klamath River flows to the District and other water users. The District also receives tailwater from Klamath River water users located north of the California-Oregon State Line including lands within the Klamath Irrigation District. At times, the Lost River provides some surface water to the District. 3.6.2 TID Water Operations A summary of TID water operations is shown in the following chart: TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER OPERATIONS 2013 2012 2011 2010 Acre Feet Acre Feet Acre Feet Acre Feet Total Irrigation 228,318 260,556 257,518 140,326 Diversions Total J Diversions and 108,516 133,115 134,600 67,908 Rose Dam Pumping Plants A&N 9,628 17,463 21,391 1,230 D Plant Pumped 16,187 21,401 23,066 10,114 All Drain Plants Pumped 156,239 156,997 166,762 82,407 Station #48 Diversions 50,086 60,501 60,936 35,381 Spill at Lost River and 10,029 13,844 14,096 7,728 Rose Dam 19 Tulelake Irrigation District Groundwater Management Plan, April 2013, Page 5. 22 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 Drainage and water reuse are an important part of District water operations as shown in the above table. 3.7 Budget The Tulelake Irrigation District prepares two budgets, one using an accrual basis and one using a cash basis. Both budgets are shown below for 2013 and 2014. The District uses the calendar year as the budget year. TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT FINAL BUDGET FOR 2013 ACCRUAL BASIS TOTAL PRIVATE $64 PUBLIC $100 Carryover from previous years 9,039,375 8,245,363 794,012 Income Water Tolls 4,521,751 4,521,777 2,792,041 1,729,736 Other 520,770 1,102,179 1,093,018 9,161 TOTAL INCOME 5,042,521 5,623,956 3,885,059 1,738,897 Expenses Operations/Maintenance 3,595,079 3,701,098 2,513,337 187,761 Administration/Overhead 959,500 1,002,031 721,439 280,592 Reserved Works Expense 257,555 220,971 167,938 53,033 Depreciation 600,000 572,234 474,954 97,280 Insurance Reserve 10,000 - - - TOTAL EXPENSES 5,422,134 5,496,334 3,877,668 1,618,666 NET INCOME (Loss) 127,622 7,391 120,231 Carryover to following year 9,166,997 8,252,754 914,243 Cost per acre 88.75 93.55 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT FINAL BUDGET FOR 2013 CASH BASIS Operating Equipment Insurance Emergency Total Fund Reserve Reserve Reserve Funds Opening 3,940,466 687,739 249,750 100,000 4,977,955 Balances Income 5,923,916 Expenses (5,441,861) Advance to USBR (220,971) Equipment (372,385) purchases Insurance Claims Trans. funds 300,000 Equip. Replace Trans. funds for 250 Insurance Closing 4,201,550 615,353 250,000 100,000 5,166,903 Balances 23 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 The Accrual Budget shown above probably gives a more accurate picture of the District finances by showing the carryover to the following year. 24 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT * FINAL BUDGET FOR 2014 ACCRUAL BASIS TOTAL PRIVATE $64 PUBLIC $100 Carryover from previous years 9,166,997 8,252,754 914,243 Income Water Tolls 4,521,777 2,792,041 1,729,736 Other 615,851 604,951 10,900 TOTAL INCOME 5,137,628 3,396,992 1,740,636 Expenses Operations/Maintenance 3,824,523 2,317,736 1,506,787 Administration/Overhead 995,757 706,577 289,180 Reserved Works Expense 240,000 182,400 57,600 Depreciation 600,000 498,000 102,000 Insurance Reserve 10,000 6,791 3,209 TOTAL EXPENSES 5,670,280 3,711,504 1,958,776 NET INCOME (Loss) (532,652) (314,512) (218,140) Carryover to following year 8,634,345 7,938,242 696,103 Cost per acre 84.95 113.21 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT * FINAL BUDGET FOR 2014 CASH BASIS Operating Equipment Insurance Emergency Total Fund Reserve Reserve Reserve Funds Opening 4,201,550 615,353 250,000 100,000 5,166,903 Balances Income 5,137,628 Expenses (4,820,280) Advance to USBR (240,000) Equipment (397,000) purchases Insurance Claims Trans. funds 300,000 Equip. Replace Trans. funds for Insurance Closing 4,278,898 518,353 250,000 100,000 5,147,251 Balances The carryover for the 2014 budget is slightly less than the carryover for the 2013 budget but the District still has a strong financial position. 25 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 The following table shows the details of the 2014 Budget for the Tulelake Irrigation District. TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 2014 BUDGET 2013 Final 2014 BUDGET Estimate Total Private Public Land (60%) Land (40%) OPERATIONS /MAINTENANCE Wages 1,293,250 1,322,652 899,403 423,249 Payroll Tax, Pension, Insurance 810,848 856,371 582,332 274,039 Materials/Supplies 240,000 260,000 189,800 70,200 Equipment 235,000 250,000 160,000 90,000 Transportation 138,000 145,000 95,700 49,300 Power 992,000 1,000,000 400,000 600,000 Wages included but not O&M (5,750) (7,500) (7,500) - Payroll expenses not O&M (2,250) (2,000) (2,000) - TOTAL 3,701,098 3,824,523 2,317,736 1,506,787 ADMINISTRATION/OVERHEAD Salaries 177,063 178,456 121,189 57,267 Payroll Tax, Pension, Insurance 84,122 84,889 57,648 27,241 Outside Services 561,135 543,312 399,322 143,990 Office Supplies 4,000 5,000 3,396 1,605 Utilities 31,000 32,000 21,731 10,269 Other Administration 120,000 127,600 86,653 40,947 Insurance 26,161 27,000 18,336 8,664 Recovery of Admin. Exp. (1,450) (2,500) (1,698) (802) TOTAL 1,002,031 995,757 706,577 289,180 Reserved Works Expense 220,971 240,000 182,400 57,600 Depreciation 572,234 600,000 498,000 102,000 Insurance Reserve - 10,000 6,791 3,209 GRAND TOTAL ADMIN. 1,795,236 1,845,757 1,393,768 451,989 It is always a concern with budgets that the expenses rise but the income may not go up accordingly. 3.8 Audit The budget is a plan for spending but the Audit is a record of funds actually spent. The following information is for the Audit for the year ending December 31, 2013. The accounts of the District are organized on the basis of a proprietary fund type, specifically an enterprise fund. The activities of this fund are accounted for with a separate set of self-balancing accounts that comprise the District’s assets, liabilities, net position, revenues and expenses. 26 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 Enterprise Funds account for activities i) that are financed with debt that is secured solely by a pledge of the net revenues from fees and charges of the activity; or ii) that are required by laws or regulations that the activity’s cost of providing services, including capital costs (such as depreciation or debt service) be recovered with fees and charges, rather than the taxes or similar revenues; or iii) that the pricing policies of the activity establish fees and charges designed to recover its costs, including capital costs (such as depreciation or debt service). 3.8.1 Net Position The table below shows the Net Position for the District for the year ending December 31, 2013. Tulelake Irrigation District Statement of Net Position December 31, 201320 ASSETS Current assets: Cash and cash equivalents* $5,086,022 Interest receivable 3,342 Due from other governments 480,919 Accounts receivable, water tolls** 2,406 Inventory*** 175,155 Prepaid expenses and deposits 63,123 Total current assets 5,810,967 Capital assets:**** Non-depreciable 10,377,655 Depreciable, net 4,318,482 Total capital assets, net 14,696,137 Total Assets 20,507,104 LIABILITIES AND NET POSITION Current liabilities: Accounts payable 111,291 Payroll and accrued benefits 293,966 Accrued expenses 1,623 Unearned water tolls***** 114,745 Total current liabilities 521,625 Net position: Net investment in capital assets 14,696,137 Unrestricted 5,289,342 Total net position $19,985,479 *Cash and cash equivalents include all monies in banks, certificates of deposit and all highly liquid investments with maturity dates of less than three months. **Accounts Receivable consists of amounts due from customers for irrigation water and are recorded as revenue when earned; and reimbursements and legal expenses from the Klamath Water Users Association. No allowance for bad debts has been made as management considers all receivables to be collectable. 20 Tulelake Irrigation District Financial Statements December 31, 2013, Prepared by Aiello, Goodrich & Teuscher, PO Box 158, 205 N. Mt. Shasta Blvd., Suite 300, Mt. Shasta, California 9607, Phone: 530-926-3881, Fax: 530-926-6296, www.agtcpa.com, Page 3. 27 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 ***Inventories consist mainly of chemical and irrigation materials used in maintaining District assets. Inventories are valued at the lower of cost or market using the fist-in, first-out method. ****Capital Assets. It is the District’s policy to capitalize individual purchases of property and equipment costing in excess of $500. Purchased capital assets are capitalized at cost and donated or contributed capital assets are capitalized at fair market value at the date of donation or contribution. *****Unearned water tolls represent monies received for future years’ services and is not earned until the future year. 28 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 3.8.2 Revenues and Expenses The following table shows the District revenues and expenses and the change in Net Position for the year 2013. The District did well in 2013 to have revenues greater than expenses and thus to increase the Net Position. TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN NET POSITION DECEMBER 31, 201321 OPERATING REVENUES* Water Tolls, private $2,792,043 Water Tolls, public 1,729,736 Water tolls, improvement districts 23,943 Water Tolls, special contract 52,217 Water Tolls, well pumping 482,943 Special water rights 3,584 Surplus water sales 61,107 Total Water Sales 5,145,573 Pump drain water for Klamath Irrigation District 11,500 Penalties on delinquent tolls 673 Miscellaneous income 16,972 US Bureau of Reclamation lease revenue 426,196 Total Operating Revenues 5,600,914 OPERATING EXPENSES Pumping 777,965 Transmission and distribution 1,623,298 Well pump power 391,757 Operations and Maintenance (O&M) 220,971 Depreciation 572,610 Office and administration 1,862,747 Total operating Expenses 5,449,348 Operating income 151,566 NONOPERATING REVENUES Interest earnings 14,119 Rent of houses 9,150 Gain on sale of capital assets 2,535 Total nonoperating income 25,804 Change in net position 177,370 NET POSITION Beginning of year, January 1, 2013 19,808,109 End of year, December 31, 2013 $19,985,479 *Operating revenues and expenses consist of those revenues and expenses that result from the ongoing principal operations of the District. Operating revenues consist primarily of water tolls. Nonoperating revenues and expenses consist of those revenues and expenses that are related to financing and investing type of activities and result from nonexchange transactions or ancillary activities. When an expense is 21 Tulelake Irrigation District Financial Statements December 31, 2013, Prepared by Aiello, Goodrich & Teuscher, PO Box 158, 205 N. Mt. Shasta Blvd., Suite 300, Mt. Shasta, California 9607, Phone: 530-926-3881, Fax: 530-926-6296, www.agtcpa.com, Page 4. 29 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 incurred for purposes in which there are both restricted and unrestricted net position available, it is the District’s policy to apply those expenses to restricted net position to the extent such are available and then to unrestricted net position. 30 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 3.8.3 Cash Flows The following table shows the cash flow for the District. TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 201322 CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Receipts from customers $5,522,812 Payments to suppliers (3,412,342) Payments to employees (1,418,751) Net cash provided by operating activities 691,719 CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Interest earnings received 15,013 Rents received 9,150 Net cash provided by investing activities 24,163 CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES Proceeds from sales of capital assets 5,294 Payments for purchase of capital assets (613,109) Net cash (used) by capital and related financing activities (607,815) Net increase in cash 108,067 CASH Beginning of year 4,977,955 End of year 5,086,022 Reconciliation of operating income to cash provided by operating activities: Operating income 151,566 Adjustments to reconcile operating income to cash provided by operating activities: Depreciation 572,610 (increase) decrease in: Due from other governments (97,657) Accounts receivable, water tolls 16,803 Inventory 8,981 Prepaid expenses and deposits (4,529) Increase (decrease) in: Accounts payable 31,244 Payroll and accrued benefits 11,193 Accrued expenses (1,244) Unearned water tolls 2,752 Net cash provided by operating activities $691,719 The District does not have a problem with cash flow. 22 Tulelake Irrigation District Financial Statements December 31, 2013, Prepared by Aiello, Goodrich & Teuscher, PO Box 158, 205 N. Mt. Shasta Blvd., Suite 300, Mt. Shasta, California 9607, Phone: 530-926-3881, Fax: 530-926-6296, www.agtcpa.com, Page 5. 31 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 3.8.4 Cash and Cash Equivalents23 Tulelake Irrigation District cash and cash equivalents consisted of the following at December 31, 2013: Cash on hand $500 Cash in banks 412,392 Local Agency Investment Fund (State Pool) 4,673,130 Total cash and cash equivalents $5,086,022 The District manages is idle cash investments under the guidelines of the State of California Government Code Section 53601 which specifically authorizes investments in the following instruments: Treasury bills Treasury notes Federal agency securities Bankers’ acceptances Nonnegotiable certificates of deposit Commercial paper Negotiable certificates of deposit repurchase agreements. All investments activities are conducted with financial institutions approved by the Board of Directors. 3.8.5 Retirement Benefits24 The District provides a defined contribution pension plan for each eligible full-time employee. The District contributed 10% of each employee’s annual compensation, totaling $134,094 for the year ended December 31, 2013, into the Plan. There are no unpaid contributions outstanding at year-end. Upon retirement, generally at age 65, or upon separation from employment, the employee receives their vested interest in their segregated amount in the Plan. The District also maintains a deferred compensation plan for its employees in accordance with Internal Revenue Code Section 457. The Plan is available to all eligible employees and permits them to defer a portion of their compensation until future years. Employees may not withdraw from their deferred compensation account until retirement, termination, death, or an unforeseeable emergency. 3.8.6 Capital Assets25 23 Tulelake Irrigation District Financial Statements December 31, 2013, Prepared by Aiello, Goodrich & Teuscher, PO Box 158, 205 N. Mt. Shasta Blvd., Suite 300, Mt. Shasta, California 9607, Phone: 530-926-3881, Fax: 530-926-6296, www.agtcpa.com, Page 8. 24 Tulelake Irrigation District Financial Statements December 31, 2013, Prepared by Aiello, Goodrich & Teuscher, PO Box 158, 205 N. Mt. Shasta Blvd., Suite 300, Mt. Shasta, California 9607, Phone: 530-926-3881, Fax: 530-926-6296, www.agtcpa.com, Page 11. 25 Tulelake Irrigation District Financial Statements December 31, 2013, Prepared by Aiello, Goodrich & Teuscher, PO Box 158, 205 N. Mt. Shasta Blvd., Suite 300, Mt. Shasta, California 9607, Phone: 530-926-3881, Fax: 530-926-6296, www.agtcpa.com, Page 10. 32 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 Capital Assets activity for the year ended December 31, 2013 is shown on the following table: Tulelake Irrigation District Capital Asset Activity for the year ended December 31, 2013 Balance Additions Retirements Balance 12/31/12 12/31/13 Capital assets not being depreciated Irrigation system 10,209,115 - - 10,209,115 Construction in progress 43,381 125,159 - 168,540 Total Capital assets not being 10,252,496 125,159 - 10,377,655 depreciated Capital assets being depreciated Canal control installation 7,844,051 177,430 - 8,021,481 Bridge improvements 136,999 - - 136,999 Radio equipment 38,828 1,380 - 40,208 Transportation equipment 596,766 42,295 59,762 579,299 Trucks 564,927 - - 564,927 Heavy equipment 2,004,884 243,383 - 2,248,467 Shop and other equipment 116,800 2,607 - 119,407 Office equipment 39,390 2,821 6,037 36,174 Buildings and improvements 68,567 18,034 9,749 76,852 Total capital assets being 11,411,212 487,950 75,548 11,823,614 depreciated Less accumulated depreciation Canal control installation 425,619 377 - 4,634,045 Bridge improvements 136,469 530 - 136,999 Radio equipment 36,277 2,110 - 38,387 Transportation equipment 426,598 62,206 56,763 432,041 Trucks 451,551 13,881 - 465,432 Heavy equipment 1,536,196 95,604 - 1,631,800 Shop and other equipment 77,109 13,796 - 90,905 Office equipment 35,658 1,930 6,277 31,311 Buildings and improvements 48,834 5,127 9,749 44,212 Total accumulated depreciation 7,005,311 572,610 72,789 7,505,132 Net capital assets being 4,405,901 (84,660) 2,759 4,318,482 depreciated Total capital assets, net 14,658,397 40,499 2,759 14,696,137 Even though assets and equipment are depreciated, this is not money that is paid out. The depreciation is a cost to be considered in budgeting for future purchases of improvements and equipment. 3.8.7 Apportionment of Revenues and Expenses26 26 Tulelake Irrigation District Financial Statements December 31, 2013, Prepared by Aiello, Goodrich & Teuscher, PO Box 158, 205 N. Mt. Shasta Blvd., Suite 300, Mt. Shasta, California 9607, Phone: 530-926-3881, Fax: 530-926-6296, www.agtcpa.com, Page 11. 33 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 The Tulelake Irrigation District has apportioned revenues and expenses to private lands, public lands, and the improvement district as follows: 34 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 Tulelake Irrigation District Apportionment of Revenues and Expenses December 31, 201327 Private Lands Public Lands Improvement Total District Revenues $3,864,699 $1,738,076 $23,943 $5,626,718 Expenses $3,852,554 $1,581,653 $15,141 $5,449,348 Excess of revenues $12,145 $156,423 $8,802 $177,370 over expenses The revenues apportioned to public lands consist of actual operation and maintenance tolls charged on public lands within the District, plus penalties assessed on delinquent payments. Expenses are apportioned on the basis of costs attributable directly to locations as calculated from repair and maintenance work orders issued during the performance of the work. 3.8.8 Risk Management28 The Tulelake Irrigation District is exposed to various risks of loss related to damage to and/or destruction of assets. Claim expenses and liabilities are recorded when it is probable that a loss has occurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonable estimated. At December 31, 2013, the District had no known liabilities for such losses. The District is self-insured for property (fire and extended coverage) and general public liability, with the exception of automotive insurance, including public liability on automobiles. At December 31, 2013, the District had set aside $250,000 in cash and cash equivalents for self-insurance purposes. The District purchases various commercially available policies, and the following policies were in force at December 31, 2013: Tulelake Irrigation District Insurance December 31, 201329 Description Coverage Worker’s Compensation Statutory Automobile: Liability $1,000,000 Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist $100,000 Fire and Theft Actual Cash Value Public Officials Bond $5,000 27 Tulelake Irrigation District Financial Statements December 31, 2013, Prepared by Aiello, Goodrich & Teuscher, PO Box 158, 205 N. Mt. Shasta Blvd., Suite 300, Mt. Shasta, California 9607, Phone: 530-926-3881, Fax: 530-926-6296, www.agtcpa.com, Page 11. 28 Tulelake Irrigation District Financial Statements December 31, 2013, Prepared by Aiello, Goodrich & Teuscher, PO Box 158, 205 N. Mt. Shasta Blvd., Suite 300, Mt. Shasta, California 9607, Phone: 530-926-3881, Fax: 530-926-6296, www.agtcpa.com, Pages 11 and 12. 29 Tulelake Irrigation District Financial Statements December 31, 2013, Prepared by Aiello, Goodrich & Teuscher, PO Box 158, 205 N. Mt. Shasta Blvd., Suite 300, Mt. Shasta, California 9607, Phone: 530-926-3881, Fax: 530-926-6296, www.agtcpa.com, Page 12. 35 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 Director, Trustee, Employee, Committee Member $4,000,000 or Volunteer Liability 3.8.9 Klamath Water Users Association30 The District participates, with other water delivery districts within the Klamath Basin, in funding the Klamath Water Users Association. The participating districts provide funding through an additional per-acre assessment to the patrons of each district to offset the legal costs associated with environmental and other challenges to the operation of the Klamath Reclamation Project. The Klamath Water Users Association is located at 735 Commercial Street, Suite 3000, Klamath Falls OR, 97601; Phone: 541-883-6100, Fax: 541-883-8893. The Klamath Water Users Association includes the following districts: Ady District Improvement Co. Klamath Basin Improvement District Klamath Irrigation District Malin Irrigation District Pioneer District Improvement Co. Midland District Improvement Co. Shasta View Irrigation District Sunnyside Irrigation District Tulelake Irrigation District Van Brimmer Ditch Company Warren Act Contractors Westside Improvement District 30 Tulelake Irrigation District Financial Statements December 31, 2013, Prepared by Aiello, Goodrich & Teuscher, PO Box 158, 205 N. Mt. Shasta Blvd., Suite 300, Mt. Shasta, California 9607, Phone: 530-926-3881, Fax: 530-926-6296, www.agtcpa.com, Page 12. 36 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 4 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.1 Growth and Population Projections for the Tulelake Irrigation District Area Purpose: To evaluate service needs based on existing and anticipated growth patterns and population projections. 4.1.1 Tulelake Irrigation District Area Population Projections The Siskiyou County Housing Element adopted in August 2014 showed a decline in the population of the City of Tulelake as follows: City of Tulelake Population31 Year Population Decline 2000 1020 2010 1010 0.9% 2013 1000 1.0% The Siskiyou County Housing Element also predicted a 0.3 percent annual growth rate for the County. At this rate of growth it would take nearly seven years for the City of Tulelake to regain the year 2000 population of 1020. The General Plan for Modoc County was prepared in 1988 and describes a population decline for Newell from 1325 people in 1970 to 850 in 1980 even though the population in Modoc County increased during this period.32 The population for Newell has further declined to 449 in 2010. It is unlikely that the Tulelake Irrigation District will increase in population in the future because employment opportunities are limited. 4.1.2 MSR Determinations on Growth and Population Projections for the Tulelake Irrigation District Area 1-1) The population within the Tulelake Irrigation District is estimated by the TID to be approximately 1500 to 1800 residents. This is unlikely to increase. 1-2) The Tulelake Irrigation District should maintain in contact with the City of Tulelake and the counties of Siskiyou and Modoc Planning Departments to be aware of land use and zoning regulations which could affect the District. 31 Siskiyou County Community Development Department, 2014 Housing Element for the County of Siskiyou, August 2014, Page A-3. 32 Modoc County General Plan September 1988 Background Report, Page 156. 37 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 4.2 Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUC) within or Contiguous to Tulelake Irrigation District 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. 4.2.1 Determination of Tulelake Irrigation District Area Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Status On October 7, 2011, Governor Brown signed SB 244, which makes two principal changes to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. SB 244 requires LAFCOs to: (1) deny any application to annex to a city territory that is contiguous to a disadvantaged unincorporated community (DUC) unless a second application is submitted to annex the disadvantaged community as well; and (2) evaluate disadvantaged unincorporated communities in a municipal service review (MSR) upon the next update of a sphere of influence after June 30, 2012. The intent of the statute is to encourage investment in disadvantaged unincorporated communities that often lack basic infrastructure by mandating cities and LAFCOs to include them in land use planning. SB 244 defines disadvantaged unincorporated community as any area with 12 or more registered voters, or as determined by commission policy, where the median household income is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median. In California Government Code Section 65302.10 (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. SB 244 also requires LAFCOs to consider disadvantaged unincorporated communities when developing spheres of influence. Upon the next update of a sphere of influence on or after July 1, 2012, SB 244 requires LAFCO to include in an MSR (in preparation of a sphere of influence update): 1) The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere; and 2) The present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged unincorporated community within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. In determining spheres of influence, SB 244 authorizes LAFCO to assess the feasibility of and recommend reorganization and consolidation of local agencies to further orderly 38 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 development and improve the efficiency and affordability of infrastructure and service delivery. 4.2.2 MSR Determinations on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities near Tulelake Irrigation District 2-1) The median household income for Siskiyou County (2008-2012) was $37,948;33 well below 80% of the State of California Median Income which was $49,210. Thus, Siskiyou County could be considered disadvantaged. It is not known if there is a specific disadvantaged unincorporated community which could benefit from being annexed to an incorporated city such as the City of Tulelake. 2-2) The median household income for Modoc County (2008-2012) was $37,482;34 well below 80% of the State of California Median Income which was $49,210. Thus, Modoc County could be considered disadvantaged. There is no incorporated city that could annex a disadvantaged unincorporated area in the TID area in Modoc County. 4.3 Capacity and Infrastructure Tulelake Irrigation District Purpose: To evaluate the present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence.35 4.3.1 Tulelake Irrigation District Infrastructure The Tulelake Irrigation District infrastructure and facilities are described above in this report. 4.3.2 MSR Determinations on Infrastructure for Tulelake Irrigation District 3-1) The TID irrigation infrastructure was originally built by the US Bureau of Reclamation. The TID has maintained and improved the irrigation infrastructure and plans to upgrade pumping stations, install more traveling screens where needed and increase the number of telemetry sites.36 33 US Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06093.html, October 27, 2014 34 US Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06049.html, October 27, 2014 35 California Government Code Section 56430. (a)(3). 36 Tulelake Irrigation District, Modoc LAFCO Questionnaire, September 24, 2014. 39 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 4.4 Financial Ability to Provide Services37 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. 4.4.1 Financial Considerations for Tulelake Irrigation District The Tulelake Irrigation District provided a copy of the budget and audit. 4.4.2 MSR Determinations on Financing for Tulelake Irrigation District 4-1) The Tulelake Irrigation District prepares and adopts an annual budget. 4-2) The Tulelake Irrigation District has an independent auditor prepare an annual audit. 4-3) The Tulelake Irrigation District faces increasing power costs. The cost of power for drain and lift pumps has increased from $0.004 per kwh in 2005 to $0.13 per kwh in 2013. The cost of power per acre-foot of water pumped has increased from $0.36 per acre-foot in 2005 to $10.30 per acre-foot in 2013.38 4-4) The TID plans to maintain sufficient reserves so that loans will not be necessary. 4.5 Status of and Opportunities for Shared Facilities39 Purpose: To evaluate the opportunities for a jurisdiction to share facilities and resources to develop more efficient service delivery systems. 4.5.1 Tulelake Irrigation District Facilities The Tulelake Irrigation District works with federal agencies including the US Bureau of Reclamation and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The District cannot share facilities or water with other water or irrigation districts.40 4.5.2 MSR Determinations on Shared Facilities for Tulelake Irrigation District 5-1) The District cannot share facilities or water with other water or irrigation districts.41 37 California Government Code Section 56430. (a)(4) 38 Tulelake Irrigation District, Modoc LAFCO Questionnaire, September 24, 2014. 39 California Government Code Section 56430. (a)(5) 40 Tulelake Irrigation District, Modoc LAFCO Questionnaire, September 24, 2014. 41 Tulelake Irrigation District, Modoc LAFCO Questionnaire, September 24, 2014. 40 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 5-2) The TID participates in the Klamath Water Users Association. 41 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 4.6 Accountability for Community Service Needs, Government Structure and Operational Efficiencies42 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. 4.6.1 Tulelake Irrigation District Government Structure The Tulelake Irrigation District is governed by a five member board of directors. The Board meets on a regular basis and meetings are open to the public. 4.6.2 MSR Determinations on Local Accountability and Governance 6-1) The Tulelake Irrigation District Board of Directors complies with the Brown Act. 6-2) The Tulelake Irrigation District should consider developing a website where information could be made available to the public in a convenient way. 42 California Government Code Section 56430. (a)(6). 42 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 5 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE 5.1 SOI Requirements 5.1.1 LAFCO's Responsibilities 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 as necessary, and §56430 provides that a Municipal Service Review shall be conducted in advance of the Sphere of Influence update. 5.1.2 SOI Determinations In determining the Sphere of Influence for each local agency, LAFCO must consider and prepare a written 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. Present and probable need for public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing Sphere of Influence 5.1.3 Possible Approaches to the SOI LAFCO may recommend government reorganizations to particular agencies in the county, using the SOIs as the basis for those recommendations. 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. 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. 43 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 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. 44 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 45 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 5.1.4 SOI Update Process LAFCO is required to establish SOIs for all local agencies and enact policies to promote the logical and orderly development of areas within the SOIs. Furthermore, LAFCO must update those SOIs every five years, as necessary. In updating the SOI, LAFCO is required to conduct a Municipal Service Review (MSR) and adopt related determinations. LAFCO must notify affected agencies 21 days before holding a public hearing to consider the SOI and may not update the SOI until that hearing is closed. The LAFCO Executive Officer must issue a report including recommendations on the SOI amendment and update under consideration at least five days before the public hearing. 5.1.5 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. 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, zero SOIs and coterminous SOI’s. 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 46 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 existing municipal boundaries was not a “project” because such action did not entail any potential effects on the physical environment.”43 5.1.6 Recommendation for Tulelake Irrigation District Sphere of Influence The Sphere of Influence for the Tulelake Irrigation District should be the same as the District boundary. The District was formed based on the Bureau of Reclamation project. 5.2 Present and Planned Land Uses in the Tulelake Irrigation District Area, Including Agricultural and Open Space Lands 5.2.1 County General Plans for Tulelake Irrigation District SOI Area Both Siskiyou County and Modoc County recognize the importance of agriculture in their respective General Plans. The area within the TID is planned for agricultural uses and zoned accordingly. 5.2.2 SOI Determinations on Present and Planned Land Use for Tulelake Irrigation District Area 1-1] The Tulelake Irrigation District does not have land use planning authority so the District should maintain a relationship with the Siskiyou County Planning Department and the Modoc County Planning Department to make sure that General Plan maps and policies continue to support agricultural uses. 5.3 Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services in the Tulelake Irrigation District Area 5.3.1 Municipal Service Background The Tulelake Irrigation District was formed in 1952 to allow the District to operate the reclamation project which was built by the US Bureau of Reclamation starting in 1906. 5.3.2 SOI Determinations on Facilities and Services Present and Probable Need for Tulelake Irrigation District 2-1] The facilities of the TID are adequate and the need for the District will continue into the future. 43 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. 47 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 2-2] The 924 farm accounts within TID (713 for privately owned lands, 159 for publicly held leased lands, and 52 for surplus water) 44 depend on the TID to provide water now and in the future. 5.4 Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services 5.4.1 Capacity Background The Tulelake Irrigation District provides adequate irrigation water from surface water and reused water and has constructed ten wells to provide supplemental water in dry years in addition to the groundwater used by individual farmers. 45 5.4.2 SOI Determinations on Public Facilities Present and Future Capacity for Tulelake Irrigation District 3-1] The Tulelake Irrigation District has adequate facilities to supply irrigation water and drainage to the farmers in the District. 3-2] The water supply can be increased or decreased according to the amount of precipitation or regulatory action. 5.5 Social or Economic Communities of Interest for Tulelake Irrigation District 5.5.1 Tulelake Irrigation District Community Background The Tulelake Irrigation District serves the economic community of farmers using water from the District. The social community is centered around the City of Tulelake but the District is split by the Modoc-Siskiyou county line. The Lava Beds-Butte Valley Resource Conservation District also serves an area that includes most of TID. 5.5.2 SOI Determinations on Social or Economic Communities of Interest for Tulelake Irrigation District 4-1] The Tulelake Irrigation District serves the economic community of farmers who require water from the District to grow crops. 4-2] A website could be used to increase the sense of community within the District. 44 Tulelake Irrigation District, “Water Management & Conservation Plan, 2011 Update” September 2011, Page 6. 45 Tulelake Irrigation District Groundwater Management Plan, April 2013, Page 9. 48 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 5.6 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Status 5.6.1 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities A Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community is a small community that could benefit from annexing to an incorporated city for increased services. 5.6.2 Tulelake Irrigation District Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Status 5-1] Although the populations within Modoc and Siskiyou counties meet the income definition of “Disadvantaged” there are no Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within the TID that could benefit from annexing to an incorporated city. 49 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 ABBREVIATIONS AB Assembly Bill CA California CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFS Cubic Feet per Second CIMIS California Irrigation Management Information System CKH Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 District Tulelake Irrigation District DUC Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community DWR Department of Water Resources (California) FS Field Station GPD/gpd Gallons per Day GPM/gpm gallons per minute kwh kilowatt hour HP Horse Power LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission LAIF Local Agency Investment Fund O&M Operations and Maintenance mg/L milligrams per Liter SB Senate Bill SOI Sphere of Influence (LAFCO) TDS Total Dissolved Solids TID Tulelake Irrigation District TLNWR Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge US United States USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation 50 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 USGS United State Geological Survey 51 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 DEFINITIONS Acre-foot (acre-ft): The volume of water required to cover 1 acre of land (43,560 square feet) to a depth of 1 foot. One acre-foot of water is equal to 325,851 gallons or 1,233 cubic meters of water.46 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. 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. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR, Reclamation, BOR): The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public.47 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. Groundwater: Water under the earth’s surface, often confined to aquifers capable of supplying wells and springs. Groundwater Basin: A ground water reservoir, defined by an overlying land surface and the underlying aquifers that contain water stored in the reservoir. In some cases, the boundaries of successively deeper aquifers may differ and make it difficult to define the limits of the basin.48 Hydrology: The science concerned with the properties, distributions and characteristics of the water in relation to the earth. 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. 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. Surface Water: The water that systems pump and treat from sources open to the atmosphere, such as rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. Water year: 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.49 46 http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/dictionary.html 47 http://www.usbr.gov/library/glossary/#hmr 48 http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html 49 http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html 52 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 Watershed: The land area from which water drains into a stream, river, or reservoir. 53 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 REFERENCES California Department of Water Resources, California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118, Upper Klamath Basin, Tule Lake Subbasin,, Last Update 2/27/04. Durham, David L. (1998). California's Geographic Names: A Gazetteer of Historic and Modern Names of the State. Quill Driver Books. p. 404. ISBN 9781884995149 http://digitallib.oit.edu/cdm/ref/collection/kwl/id/3369, August 19, 2014 http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/dictionary.html http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/TID/groundwater/publichearing042513.htm, October 20, 2014. http://www.usbr.gov/library/glossary/#hmr Modoc County General Plan September 1988 Background Report, Page 156. 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. Siskiyou County Community Development Department, 2014 Housing Element for the County of Siskiyou, August 2014, Page A-3. Tulelake Irrigation District Financial Statements December 31, 2013, Prepared by Aiello, Goodrich & Teuscher, PO Box 158, 205 N. Mt. Shasta Blvd., Suite 300, Mt. Shasta, California 9607, Phone: 530-926-3881, Fax: 530-926-6296, www.agtcpa.com. Tulelake Irrigation District Groundwater Management Plan, April 2013 Tulelake Irrigation District, Modoc LAFCO Questionnaire, September 24, 2014. Tulelake Irrigation District, “Water Management & Conservation Plan, 2011 Update” September 2011, Page 6. US Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06093.html, October 27, 2014 US Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06049.html, October 27, 2014 US Fish and Wildlife Service, http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Tule_Lake/about.html, October 15, 2014 PREPARERS John Benoit, Modoc 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 54 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 Phone: 530-934-4597 E-Mail: christyleighton@sbcglobal.net 55 MODOC LAFCO Adopted June 9, 2015 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Service Review: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0004 Sphere of Influence: LAFCo Resolution 2015-0005 California/Oregon State Line California/Oregon State Line kj ¬« 139 kj ¬« 139 56 ytnuoC uoyiksiS ytnuoC codoM Tulelake Irrigation District State Line Rd Stateline Rd Co Rd 108 State Line Rd E H ill R d W K es dR ytnuoC a t n R dr d a dR regnaG Rd Oke dR sniksaH efe Rd B dR relsneF ergma dR esoR n Rd State dR nedlo R G oute 139 dR snikA dR tsoY C T o s Z u c l n a h tS niaM t b i y dR anilva r H e k R k W y d R r R i T d g d h u t l R e dR ttocS d lak dR oC e A 301 dR tseW tsaE niaM E 011 dR oC dR redniC deR Co C C R o o d R R 1 d d 0 4 1 1 0 0 1 7 11 dR oC 5 211 dR oC E C C o C o R o C R d R o d C 1 d o R 1 0 1 0 d 5 R 7 0 A d 1 A 4 0 1 6 02 Co C Rd o C 1 o R 0 8 311 dR d R C d 1 o 0 1 5 R 7 B 3 d 104 Co R d 114 Kowolowski Rd Co Rd 101 oC dR ytnuoC codoM State 21 1 dR oC Route 139 Co Rd 100 Co Rd 113A J Canal Horse Mountain Rd Co Rd 99 301 dR oC lanaC N C 111 dR oC o C R o d R 1 d 5 1 4 55 Co Rd 120 C S 4 t th 6 t A h 531 dR oC v A e ve Co Rd N 1 e 22 C w 121 dR oC o e R C l d o l C R 1 o 4 d 1 R 1 C d 2 o 3 1 R C 4 o d R 0 d 1 6 1 9 7 C 7 o Rd 140 Co Rd 111 Northern Rd G reat Co Rd 124 Co Rd 120 C C o o R R d d 1 1 3 2 2 9 Co Rd 131 Co Rd 193 Siskiyou County Tule Lake Rd 10 Modoc County Ir L ri o ga c t a io t n io S D n i is s t M k ri i c a y t p o s u (No O t t r o e M g S o o c d n a o le c ) Lyons Rd Craig Cave Rd Rim Rd Co Rd 128 Legend kj Tulelake Irrigation District ® Communities Tule Lake Irrigation District Sphere of Influence Adopted: June 9, 2015 and Sphere of Influence Modoc LAFCo Resolution: 2015-0005 County Boundaries Boundary 0 0.5 1 2Miles Source: Modoc LAFCo Map Modified 6/12/2015