CONTRA COSTA WATER
DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
REGULAR MEETING
March 18,
2009
REVISED
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
President
Campbell called to order a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the
Contra Costa Water District at 6:30 p.m., at 1331 Concord Avenue, Concord,
the regular meeting place of the Board.
ROLL
CALL
Directors Present: Joseph
L. Campbell, President
Karl
L. Wandry, Vice President
Elizabeth
R. Anello
Bette
Boatmun
John
A. Burgh
General Manager: Walter
J. Bishop
Legal
Counsel: Robert
B. Maddow
District Secretary: Sharon L. Burris
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Watershed and Lands Manager Peter Colby led the pledge of allegiance.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Mr. Bishop reported that there were no changes to the
agenda. There was a memo before the
Board with minor changes to Agenda Item No. 1.a. – Minutes – February 18,
2009.
President Campbell then explained the Board meeting process
to the members of the public.
PUBLIC COMMENT
President Campbell noted that he had one speaker’s card and invited Mr. Douglas Hutchins, a Briones
resident, to the podium. He advised Mr.
Hutchins that the Board had received the copies of the letter he had provided
earlier. Mr. Hutchins provided background
information as to why he was addressing the Board. He stated his grandfather, Mr. Joe Casaglio, and
Citation Homes had developed the Shannon Hills Subdivision. His grandfather paid $910 per lot in 1986
with the understanding that this would pay for water service for six lots. He had been advised that it would now cost
$16,000 per lot to establish water service and did not feel that this was fair. The rules had changed and he was not notified
of the increase; it would now cost approximately $105,000 to establish water to
the lots. He noted that he had spoken
with staff and was now appealing to the Board.
President Campbell advised that staff had kept him briefed
on the issue. The money now owed
represented the difference between what was paid in 1986 and now. He
advised that the Board could not make any decisions at this meeting. The public must be notified 72 hours in
advance of an agenda item and this item was not noticed on the agenda. He
also noted that the Board’s policy for adding an item to the agenda was for a Boardmember
to request the item be added and that would need to be seconded by another
Boardmember. He queried the Board for
interest to place the item on a future agenda.
There was no interest from the Board.
Mr. Bishop reported that the District had been working with Mr.
Hutchins. President Campbell noted that a
fair offer was made, crediting him with the money he had on deposit with the
District plus interest.
Mr. Hutchins referenced Water District Title 5, Regulations
Chapter 5.12.010. He stated that a 5/8”
meter charge shall be charged at $.537 cents per day irrespective of quantity
use. He opined that the $.537 cent meter
charge should only apply from the date the regulation went into effect. Prior to the new regulation there was a flat
monthly meter charge. President Campbell
commented that this would mean adjusting other customers’ rates back to that
point also and it was not a practical way to handle the situation.
Director Burgh commented that the connection fees were
arrived at through the cost of facilities, allowing for depreciation, during the
last 22 years. This figure was based on
what other ratepayers had invested in the system. He opined that all customers needed to be treated
fairly.
Mr. Bishop commented that $2 billion in capital facilities had
been built since 1986 and the District had one of the lowest facility reserve
charges in the area. He advised that a
meeting would be setup as soon as Mr. Hutchins was available to discuss
alternative financing.
President Campbell asked if anyone else who would like to
speak under public comment. There were
no other comments.
CONSENT
1. Approve
the minutes of February 18, 2009.
2. Approve the warrant register dated March
19, 2009.
3.
Authorize an increase in Contra Costa Water District’s funding
contribution from $289,000 to $329,000 as needed for project closeout pursuant
to the terms of the Joint Funding Agreement for the Railroad Crossing
Improvements Project.
MOTION: Boatmun/Burgh to
approve the consent calendar. The motion
carried by a unanimous voice vote.
ACTION
4.
Increase in Contract Authority – Canal Levee Elimination
and Flood Mitigation Project, Phase 1
a.
Authorize an increase to the FY09 Canal Levee Elimination
and Flood Mitigation Project, Phase 1 Project budget in the amount of
$1,144,000;
b. Authorize
an increase in the amount of $1,124,000 in construction contract authority to
the contract with Marques Pipeline for a revised total amount not to exceed
$9,457,750; and
c. Authorize
an increase in the amount of $20,000 in the design services agreement with
Brown and Caldwell for a revised total amount not to exceed $2,820,000.
Mr. Bishop reported that the project would replace approximately
1,900 feet of unlined canal with a pipeline between the District’s Pumping
Plant No. 1 and Marsh Creek. The canal
was isolated at Marsh Creek in October 2008 to comply with environmental permit
conditions and was scheduled to be back in service in November 2009. The District was in a third dry year
resulting in significant draw downs on the Los Vaqueros (LV) Reservoir. Installation of a bypass pump system would
restore canal operations and preserve approximately 11 thousand total acre-feet
of storage in LV. The project was done under a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) and required an addendum to the MND. There were no significant impacts as a result
of this addition to the project that were not already addressed within the
MND. Comparing the cost of this storage
at $125 per acre-foot to $300 per acre-foot for the State Water Bank, showed
that the project was cost effective.
President Campbell advised that the Board had previously
discussed this project. He asked if
there were any questions for Mr. Bishop.
There were no questions.
President Campbell asked if there were any public comments
on the matter.
Mr. Walter Pease, Assistant Director of Public Works for
the City of Pittsburg,
addressed the Board and complimented staff on the supplemental water options
including East Contra Costa Irrigation District and Bethany-Byron Irrigation
District. He also commended staff on the
water quality from LV.
The Board thanked Mr. Pease for his comments.
President Campbell asked if anyone else in the public would
like to comment. There were no other
comments.
MOTION: Wandry/Boatmun to a) authorize an
increase to the FY09 Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Mitigation Project,
Phase 1 Project budget in the amount of $1,144,000; b) authorize an increase in
the amount of $1,124,000 in construction contract authority to the contract with
Marques Pipeline for a revised total amount not to exceed $9,457,750; and c)
authorize an increase in the amount of $20,000 in the design services agreement
with Brown and Caldwell for a revised total amount not to exceed $2,820,000. The motion carried by a unanimous voice
vote.
5.
Review Proposed Drought Management Program and Conduct
First Reading
of Ordinance No. 09-01 Establishing Drought Management Program Rules and
Regulations
a.
Review and provide feedback on the proposed Drought
Management Program;
b.
Introduce and conduct the first reading of Ordinance No.
09-01 describing the Drought Management Program rules and regulations; and
c.
Set April 1, 2009 for second reading of the Ordinance, the public
hearing, and consideration of adoption of the Ordinance.
President Campbell reviewed the process for addressing
agenda items with the audience. He
advised that the Board had requested that the program be as fair as it could be
considering that the government had cut back the District’s water allocation.
Mr. Bishop advised that Assistant General Manager of
Planning/Operations and Maintenance Jerry Brown would be making a presentation
on the District’s water supply. Assistant
General Manager of Administration Kurt Ladensack would be making a presentation
on the proposed Drought Management Program.
He reported that the item was not before the Board for action at this
meeting. The decision to implement a
voluntary or mandatory program would depend on how much the District’s
allocation was reduced by U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau).
Mr. Brown reported that, although conditions had improved, the
reservoirs were still at low levels due to the previous two dry years. The District received most of its water from
the Central Valley Project (CVP). Storage
was approximately 75% of average, with Lake Shasta
approximately 68% full. The Bureau was
allocating 50% to municipal and industrial contractors and no water allotment
for agriculture. This was the same information
presented to the Board at the March 4 meeting.
Mr. Brown reported on the water demands vs. supplies. The normal demand for the District was
approximately 130,000 acre-feet (af). Considering
a CVP allotment at 50%, with a mandatory 25% reduction program, the District would
be required to purchase water from the drought water bank to meet the demand. The voluntary reduction program with a 60% allotment
from CVP would not require a drought water bank purchase, if the customers met
the 15% reduction goal.
Mr. Bishop noted that CVP water would cost approximately
$43/af, the transfer water would cost in excess of $100/af, and the drought
water bank would be approximately $150/af.
The District was reducing its revenue with mandatory rationing and
incurring $4 million to $5 million in excess costs for a mandatory 25%
reduction program for its customers. The
drought water bank costs would be eliminated if the District implemented a
voluntary program. He advised that a
rate increase was not being recommended.
President Campbell advised that the Board had been
reviewing the documents for several days and that extra copies of the staff
report were available for the public at the back of the Board Room.
Mr. Brown reported that the Bureau had not made an
allocation commitment. A decision from
the Bureau was anticipated in the next week, which would allow for definite
information to be presented to the Board at the April 1 meeting. He reported that the District was prepared
for either the mandatory or voluntary program.
President Campbell asked if there were any questions for
the presenter.
Director Burgh commented on the high costs to purchase
water. He also commented positively on
the two proposed programs. He opined
that it was fair for customers who were high water users to pay an excess use
charge to offset the cost of purchasing the water. This would also make it fair to the customers
that conserved.
Mr. Ladensack addressed the Board and acknowledged
Assistant Director of Public Works Walter Pease from the City of Pittsburg and
the City of Martinez’ City Engineer Tim Tucker in the audience. He
reported that the District’s retailers had been cooperative in working to
ensure that there was consistency in the rules.
President Campbell asked Mr. Ladensack to define a regional
wholesaler. Mr. Ladensack reported that
the District provides untreated water on a wholesale basis to the cities of Pittsburg, Martinez and Antioch. These municipalities were subject to the
reduction programs that the Board was considering.
Mr. Bishop commented that there were also districts with
both treated and untreated water, which included the cities of Oakley and Brentwood.
Mr. Ladensack reported that he would be reviewing the
proposed voluntary and mandatory components of the Drought Management Program
for Board consideration. The decision to
implement voluntary or mandatory rationing would be made by the Board at the
April 1 meeting following a public hearing.
The programs were contained in Ordinance No. 09-01, which would have its
first reading at this meeting and the second reading on April 1.
Mr. Ladensack reviewed the key messages. He reported that the programs provided
flexibility to implement either a 15% voluntary or a 25% mandatory conservation
program depending on water supply and rates would not be raised under either of
the programs. The programs recognized
customer conservation efforts, and focused on outside water use and large water
users while minimizing impacts on jobs and the economy.
Mr. Ladensack reviewed the proposed 15% voluntary program. Using a chart, he identified customer classes
and noted that single family and multi-family residential, wholesale municipal,
public authority, and commercial would have a reduction goal of 15%. Industrial users would have a 5% reduction
and irrigation and agriculture would have a 40% reduction. The excess use charge would equal four-times
the normal quantity charge and was based on the cost to purchase supplemental
water. A historical average for years
2005, 2006 and 2007 would be used as a basis of comparison for water use during
the summer months.
Mr. Bishop noted that the plan would not impact that many
customers.
Mr. Ladensack reviewed the voluntary program excess use
charge. He reported that the excess use
charge would be $51 bi-monthly if a single-family residential customer with a historical
average usage of 600 gallons per day (gpd) increased usage by 10%. As another example, he reported that if a
single-family residential customer with a historical average usage of 1,000 gpd
and a water budget of 850 gpd exceeded the water budget by 10%, they would have
an excess use charge of $72 for a bi-monthly period.
President Campbell commented that customers reducing water consumption
would save money under the voluntary program.
Mr. Ladensack reported on the proposed 25% mandatory
program. Using a chart, he reviewed the
residential customer water use reduction goals.
Customers with a historical use of 125 gpd were considered efficient users. They would not be asked to reduce consumption
and their water budget would remain the same.
Using an example of a large water user using 1,500 gpd, he showed that they
would be asked to reduce 45% of their historical use. This would bring their water budget to 825
gpd. Customers who had used more water
historically would need to save more under this program. If the customer used less, they would be
asked to save less under this program.
Mr. Bishop commented that the program was targeted for
outside water use.
Mr. Ladensack reviewed the non-residential categories under
the mandatory program. He reiterated
that industrial users were being asked to reduce by 5% in order to not affect commerce
and employment levels. Wholesale
municipal customers would be asked to save 25% and would need to implement
programs with their own retail customers to accomplish the savings. The irrigation and agriculture savings goal
was 50%.
Mr. Ladensack reviewed the penalty charges and explained how
they would be implemented under the proposed mandatory program. Penalty charges were based on the unit cost
of the supplemental water the District would be required to purchase to meet customer
demands. The charges would be calculated
at either four or ten times the basic quantity charge to any customer who
exceeded their water budget. A single-family
customer who would need to reduce use by 40% and did not do so would be charged
a penalty charge on the amount over 40%.
The first increment of 10% over the water budget would be four times the
quantity charge. The remainder of the
amount over the 10% would be charged at ten times their quantity charge.
Using a chart, Mr. Ladensack reviewed examples of how the
penalty charge would be implemented. A
300 gpd customer would be asked to reduce consumption by 10%, saving 30
gpd. Failing to meet their water savings
goal and exceeding it by 10% would result in an increase of $22 to their
bi-monthly bill. A customer exceeding
their budget by 20% would result in an $80 penalty charge for the bi-monthly
period. A customer using 1,000 gpd would
be asked to reduce by 35%, resulting in a water budget of 650 gpd. Exceeding the budget by 10% would result in a
$56 bi-monthly penalty charge and exceeding by 20% would be $192 for the bi-monthly
billing period. He emphasized that larger
water users have more aggressive savings goals and steeper penalty charges if
they fail to meet their water budgets.
Director Boatmun asked how repeat over users would be
handled. She also asked if the District
would be checking meters monthly and if restrictors were being
implemented. Mr. Bishop advised that meters
for the large users would be read monthly and they would receive a warning letting
them know what the penalties would be if they continue to ignore the
program. Water audits would be conducted
if the customer continued to use large amounts of water and a flow restrictor would
be put in place.
Mr. Ladensack emphasized that rates would not be raised
under this program. Customers who met
their water savings goal would be saving money.
He noted that a savings of $7 would be realized for a 300 gpd customer
cutting their consumption by 10% to 270 gpd.
A larger customer using 700 gpd who met the savings goal of 25% would realize
a $38 savings.
President Campbell commented that the Board had been
studying the subject for years because of a predicted drought. He commented that as of today there was no
more water storage in California
than there was the last time this type of drought occurred. Knowing all of that, the Board and the staff
had been planning this program.
Mr. Ladensack explained the exceptions process. He reported that customers could submit
written applications for exceptions to their water budget based on special
circumstances. Some of the examples
included medical needs, a new home built in 2007 with no historical use, or a
change in the number of residents in a house.
Mr. Ladensack reported that the District would revoke all
current hydrant meter authorizations.
Customer could apply for an exception based on special
circumstances. The District would be
advising developers that landscape for new development would be deferred until
after the water shortage condition had been declared over.
Director Boatmun asked if any homeowners’ wells had become
dry or unusable. Mr. Bishop replied, no,
not in our service area.
Mr. Ladensack reported that new irrigation services would
not be accepted until the water shortage condition had ended.
Mr. Ladensack reviewed the proposed customer outreach
program.
He reported that customer outreach included informational
bills and a drought guide explaining the program rules and regulations. These documents would be provided as advanced
notice of conservation goals, specific water budgets, and potential charges for
excess usage. Briefings would be
conducted by customer class and would include cities, school districts, major
industrial, large commercial, large irrigation, home owners associations, and
multi-family explaining the drought program.
Various public education materials would be prepared and made available
to all customers through water bill inserts, the On Tap publication, and the
Annual Water Quality Report. The
District’s website would include additional features related to water
conservation. Information about the
drought program rules adopted by the Board at the April 1 meeting would also be
added to the website. A hotline had been established for customers
to report any wasteful use of water.
Outreach would also be made available through newspaper advertising,
media packets and water savings tips.
Mr. Bishop commented that the District had been receiving
extensive website hits. President
Campbell commented that he had received phone calls concerning the drought
program and that he had also made customers aware of the information available
on the website.
Mr. Ladensack reported that the second reading of Ordinance
No. 09-01 and a public hearing was scheduled for Board consideration at the
meeting on April 1. Pending adoption of a
program, it would become effective May 1.
Mr. Bishop advised that meter reading would begin within
five days of the start of the program.
President Campbell asked if the Board had any questions for
the presenter. There were no
questions.
President Campbell invited Concord resident Paul Poston to the
podium. Mr. Poston advised that he was
the chairperson for the Sun Terrace Neighborhood Partnership. The information received at this meeting
would be emphasized at the next partnership meeting in April. He asked if there was a sliding scale used
for the customers using between the 300 gpd and 500 gpd. Mr. Bishop advised that there would be a
sliding scale. Mr. Poston advised that
he had been through droughts before and was opposed to watching his water and
seeing water run down the streets in Los
Angeles. He
wanted to know what would be happening with this situation this time. Mr. Bishop advised that the press release
today announced that Los Angeles
would be delivered 20%. President
Campbell advised that Governor Schwarzenegger had declared a state of
emergency. Mr. Poston advised that he
had already reduced his water consumption and was in the 300-350 gpd
range.
Director Boatmun advised that his average water use
consumption would be based on 2005, 2006 and 2007. Mr. Poston advised that he realized that his
allotment could be higher because his historical usage was higher, but he
recognized there was a water problem and he would not be going back to the
higher usage.
President Campbell asked Mr. Poston’s opinion of staff
reading meters when a problem was developing.
Mr. Poston replied that he equated this situation to the recent
fireplace restrictions. He advised that
it was neighbors turning in neighbors.
People that were flaunting water use should be reported. A distinction was not made between an
efficient and an inefficient operation in the fireplace reporting. He felt that educating the public would
help. He also commented that the docket
supplied additional information that was not communicated in the newspaper
earlier in the day. President Campbell
commented that he felt that the reporter did a good job with the limited space
and obviously understood the subject matter.
The Board thanked Mr. Poston for his comments.
President Campbell invited Concord resident Rick Riefer to the
podium. Mr. Riefer thanked the Boardmembers
for their service to the community. He
advised that the information received was most informative. He reported that he was aware that there was
a water shortage and that he would do what he could to help. He expressed concern because the City of Concord was planning to
build new houses on the Naval Weapons Station.
He would not be happy if they were to build the houses while he was
being asked to cut back. He asked how
could there be a water shortage if the City of Concord was allowed to build 15 or 20
thousand new homes in the future.
President Campbell commented that the City of Concord had been communicating
with the District about this situation. Mr.
Bishop advised that the City had been extremely open to the District’s
suggestion that all outside usage for the Concord Naval Weapons station be
recycled water. There would be a dual
water system plant and all inside water use would be through ultra low-flush
toilets, shower heads, etc. Since 1982,
the population of the District had doubled and the water consumption had
remained the same. This was based on
recycling and conservation. The District
was hardening the demand and should be storing the water, which was one of the
reasons the Environmental Impact Report for the LV expansion was now out.
President Campbell thanked Mr. Riefer for his
comments.
President Campbell invited Bird Morningstar, a Concord resident, to the
podium. Mr. Morningstar commented that
he had been providing water management for over 20 years. He opined that saving 15-20% of water would
be easy. He commented that the District’s
water education program and his program were the same. The District had proven that water management
can work through education and that 85% of the District’s program was working
well. The proposed programs would only
have a negative effect on a small group of people who do not water properly. He advised that he would be speaking at a later
date concerning broken water valves and what
could happen.
President Campbell advised that the District has a program
in place for handling these types of situations.
Mr. Morningstar commented that many customers did not
realize a drought was coming when they planted their landscape. Customers were not advised not to
plant. He opined that this should be a
consideration on how they are penalized.
The Board thanked Mr. Morningstar for his comments.
President Campbell asked if anyone else would like to
address the Board. There were no other
comments.
President Campbell announced that letters were received
from Pleasant Hill resident Carolyn Woolridge, Concord residents
Charlotte Anderson and Alfred Stansbury concerning the Drought Management
Program.
Mr. Bishop advised that all letters received by the
District would be a part of the record.
President Campbell asked if there were any Director
comments.
Director Burgh commented positively concerning staff’s
attention to detail in the proposed program and in involving input from many
rate payers. He appreciated that both
the mandatory and voluntary programs were before the Board at the same time. This allowed the Board to be prepared with a
program when the Bureau announced the District’s water allocation. Staff and Boardmembers would have more time
to convey messages to the ratepayers and have a program in place more
efficiently and effectively. He also commented
positively on the practical exceptions process for the public. He noted the “whistle blower” concern and
advised that if anyone in the audience was uncomfortable contacting the hotline
that they could contact him and he would make the contact.
Director Boatmun asked if the District went to the
voluntary program and then found it necessary change to the mandatory program,
how quickly the change could be made.
Mr. Bishop advised that when the decision on a program was made at the April
1 Board meeting, there would not be a need to change it until the water year
was over.
President Campbell asked if there were any other comments.
Vice President Wandry commented that the two programs were
well-rounded and reflected a rewards program as much as a penalty program. He complimented staff on a job well done.
President Campbell asked a question for Legal Counsel about
Article 7 – Sections and Waivers. A
customer receiving a denial of an application may appeal in writing to the
General Manager or his designee whose decision shall be final and binding. He asked if the Board could overturn that
finding if they chose to. Mr. Maddow
responded, yes.
President Campbell asked if anyone else would like to
comment on the item. There were no other
comments.
Mr. Maddow recommended that the title of the Ordinance be
read into the record, which would constitute the first reading of the
Ordinance.
President Campbell requested that Mr. Maddow read the title
of the Ordinance. Mr. Maddow read the
title of the Ordinance into the record:
An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of the Contra Costa Water
District Authorizing Drought Management Program Regulations. President Campbell asked if this would be
sufficient to cover the entire agenda packet.
Mr. Maddow responded, it is. Mr.
Maddow added that all of the notices required under the law for the first
reading of the ordinance and the second reading of the ordinance either had
been or would be accomplished in accordance with the direction of the
Board. The legal authority under which
the District was proceeding was found in the California Constitution, Article
10, Section 2; the County Water District Law; and three provisions of general
law with regard to water conservation and those had been relied upon in
preparing the materials before the Board.
On a parallel matter, regarding the excess use charges or penalty
charges described in the staff proposal and summarized by Mr. Ladensack in
regards to each of those matters, the District had in a very prudent manner
proceeded under the provision of Proposition 218. The public hearing scheduled for April 1
would include consideration of all protests in response to the Proposition 218
notice distributed. The District had
complied with the legal and constitutional requirements for public notice.
President Campbell asked if anyone would like to challenge
what Mr. Maddow was saying. There was no
response. President Campbell advised
that it would be deemed as stated.
MOTION: Boatmun/Burgh to
set April 1, 2009 for second reading of the Ordinance, the public hearing, and
consideration of adoption of the Ordinance.
The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote.
The Board took a short break at 8:05 p.m.
The Board reconvened at 8:10 p.m.
REPORTS
FOR DISCUSSION
6. Committee Report(s)
a. Public
Information and Conservation Committee Post-Meeting Report (2/25/09)
President Campbell asked
if there were any comments on the committee report.
Director Boatmun asked if
under the Drought Management Customer Communications Plan everyone throughout
the District would be receiving the National Geographic publication being put
out by the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA). Mr. Bishop advised that the District had
ordered some subscriptions and the information would be disseminated.
7.
Schedule
Future Meeting Dates and Times
There were no future meeting dates
and times to schedule.
REPORTS
8. General
Manager
Mr. Bishop commented on the public hearings for the Los
Vaqueros Expansion Environmental Impact Statement/Environment Impact Report that
would begin in Sacramento
on March 23. He advised that one comment
letter had been received requesting the comment period be extended an
additional 60 days. He also commented
briefly on potential funding of Bureau projects through the stimulus
package. He advised that Mike Conner had
been nominated as Bureau Commissioner. He
also commented briefly on the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Workshop
he attended in Australia
March 15-17.
President Campbell advised that the expenses for the trip
were paid for by AWWA.
9. Legal Counsel
Mr. Maddow commented briefly on three lawsuits filed challenging the
biological opinion for Delta smelt recently adopted by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
10.
Board
Members
Director
Boatmun reported on the ACWA DC Legislative trip she attended February
24-26. She noted that lobbyists John
Freshman, Guy Martin and Nancy Williams were also present. She also commented that P.J. Crowley, Senior
Director of Homeland Security for American Progress, made a presentation on
chlorine. Representative Grace
Napolitano commented on communications between the State of California
and Washington, DC.
She reported on the Mayors’ Conference she attended on March 5 in
Clayton, where a presentation was made by the East Bay Regional Communication
Authority and she provided copies of the written communication from the
meeting. Mr. Bishop commented that the
District had its own emergency communications system. She also reported on a drought presentation
given at the Water Education Foundation Executive Briefing she attended on
March 12-13. She noted that Elissa Lynn,
the meteorologist with the Department of Water Resources had commented on a
CD-ROM addressing drought, which was available and noted that it would be a
good tool to use for public information.
Assemblymember Jared Huffman was a featured speaker at the briefing. A presentation was also given concerning
augmenting the Colorado River water
supplies.
Director
Anello did not have a report.
Vice
President Wandry did not have a report.
Director Burgh
did not have a report
President
Campbell reported that he also attended the Mayors’ Conference on March 5 in
Clayton where County communications were discussed. He also reported on a letter he received from
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) advising that CCWD’s letter referencing
partnershiping would be shared with their Board of Directors.
ADJOURNMENT
At
8:30 p.m., President Campbell adjourned the meeting to the next regular meeting
of the Board of Directors scheduled for April 1, 2009 commencing at 6:30 p.m.
Joseph
L. Campbell, President
ATTEST:
Sharon L. Burris
District Secretary
