August 23

READ THIS AGAIN…COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO CZU FIRE LEAVES MANY QUESTIONS STILL UNANSWERED
One year ago, as 70,000 County residents were displaced and everyone was choking on the smoke of the horrible CZU Lightning Complex Fire.  CAL FIRE and the County administrators were scrambling…or were they?  Why did the Board fire the County’s incredibly capable full-time Emergency Response Manager, Rosemary Anderson, just as the CZU Fire began, claiming Budget cut needs?

The County Grand Jury brought many unanswered questions to light in this year’s investigative report. It is worth reading again and holding our local officials accountable.  

“The Grand Jury received complaints from residents angry over not fully understanding how everything went so wrong, and frustrated about feeling unheard by their local government leaders.[12] [13] Many are afraid that the county is unprepared for the next event.[14] This disaster began in mid-August, was contained by late September, yet it took until mid-March 2021 before Cal Fire held two information sessions via Zoom.[1] [15] This delay, per Cal Fire, was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the challenges created by the stay-in-place order. [1] Yet, the use of virtual meetings such as Zoom, was a common practice months prior to these presentations.”

[Grand Jury After CZU Report]

“These were Cal Fire presentations, but it was announced that the Board Supervisor for that particular district was online and listening, as well as some other county personnel. Neither district’s supervisor commented during the presentations, nor spoke at the Q&A’s that followed.”

These public meetings failed to provide meaningful answers, discussion or analysis of what went wrong.  CAL FIRE and the County normally conduct this type of analysis soon after large incidents, for the benefit of more effective future planning, and release it as an After Action Review.

When I filed a Public Records Act request with Santa Cruz County Fire Chief / CAL FIRE CHIEF Ian Larkin, he replied that the document does not exist.

Here is what CAL FIRE state office sent in response to my Public Records Act request for the After Action Review of the CZU Lightning Complex Fire

Pages 54-57 give a broad description of resources used, and very general description of the fire.    It is NOT an After Action Review.

Of note, however, is this tidbit, tucked in under the vague description of what happened August 18 (page 56 of the Seige Report):

The fire began spotting well ahead of itself, with long-range spotting observed six miles from the fire area. The north wind and general topography aligned creating significant crown runs into Santa Cruz County. 

With operational priorities focused on life safety and evacuations, perimeter control was deferred until life safety-threats were mitigated. Additional evacuation orders for the communities of South Skyline, Russian Ridge, Middleton Tract, and Portola Redwoods were initiated. 

The fire expanded by over 43,000 acres on the night of the 18th, impacting communities along Empire Grade and the San Lorenzo Valley. 

In other words, CAL FIRE brought in logistics and strategizers, but no crews, and did little to stop the fire before it exploded, and even discouraged those who stayed behind to fight spot fires from doing so.

Take a look at an example of an After Action Review that should have taken place, but the local CAL FIRE administration has been negligent in providing:

Camp Fire After Action Review:

After Action Review released for the Carr Fire – Wildfire Today

While some have understood that the National Fire Institute (NITS) is conducting an investigation into the CZU Fire that is not the case (see excerpts of correspondence below).  Even if that agency were investigating the CZU Fire, it would be to determine why structures burned and to make recommendations for building code policy modifications.

Maranghides, Alexander (Fed) alexander.maranghides@nist.gov

To: Becky Steinbruner
Thu, Aug 19 at 4:24 AM
Ms. Steinbruner,

Thank you for reaching out regarding our Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) case studies. We are currently in the middle of the Camp Fire case study. The Camp Fire is our fourth in depth NIST WUI fire reconstruction. Our previous three case studies have taken about 3 years each to complete, however, given the scale of the Camp Fire we are anticipating approximately 4+ years for the completion of the ongoing study. 

These in depth reconstructions occupy all our resident WUI expertise and for that reason we cannot start a new case study until we have completed the ongoing reconstruction. Additionally, our case studies require us to be on location to collect the relevant perishable information very soon after ignition and therefore cannot be initiated months of years after a fire. We typically have a team of 4 to six persons in the field for about 6 months to collect the necessary data and we get on location within hours or days of ignition. 

At this point we are planning our next reconstruction in 2024. 

I am including below the link to our Camp Fire website where you can find all three of our reports to date along with presentations of our Camp Fire – Fire Progression Timeline Report and fire spread visualizations of the ongoing study.  

Thank you again for contacting us. Do not hesitate to let me know if you have any questions about our Camp Fire Case Study to date or any of previous reconstructions. 

All the best,

Alexander Maranghides
Lead, Camp Fire Case Study. 
NIST Camp Fire Website

NIST Investigation of the California Camp Fire

So, the big question is this: WHO HOLDS CAL FIRE ACCOUNTABLE AND RESPONSIBLE for what happened and did not happen in Santa Cruz County last year???

Contact State Senator Laird and ask

Contact County Supervisors Ryan Coonerty (who is jumping ship) and Bruce McPherson (will he jump ship in the next re-election, too?)  (831) 454-2200 or Ryan Coonerty ryan.coonerty@santacruzcounty.us  and Bruce McPherson bruce.mcpherson@santacruzcounty.us 

Maybe it will ultimately be the people who force Chief Ian Larkin to be accountable.  Will he protect the County and be better-prepared in the future?  Why no After Action Review for the CZU Fire???

Chief Ian Larkin ian.larkin@fire.ca.gov 

WILL SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT FIX THIS MESS ON CALIFORNIA STREET?

These are photos of the trenches filled in by recent Soquel Creek Water District.  Note that the mess is in front of Spring Hill School, but the Soquel Creek Water District’s EIR for the PureWater Soquel Project claimed, and staff continues to claim, that there are no schools within 0.25 mile of the project where multiple large above-ground tanks of hazardous chemicals will be stored and used, requiring transport of these hazardous chemicals through the school and residential district.  The District has repeatedly FAILED to notify this school or the two others (Santa Cruz High and Bayview Elementary) in writing of this hazard, 30 days in advance of certifying the Project EIR.

Disgusting.

Write the Board of Directors, who is supposed to be accountable and responsible but, in my opinion, is asleep and likely failed to thoroughly read the Project modifications they recently approved. 

Soquel Creek Water District Board bod@soquelcreekwater.org  and Emma Olin emmao@soquelcreekwater.org 

SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT HAS NO RIGHT TO OVERPUMP THE AREA’S AQUIFER
A friend recently researched the State Water board website for local water rights.  He found that Soquel Creek Water District has no right to pump water for beneficial uses (selling at exorbitantly-high rates) when the Purisima Aquifer and MidCounty Basin are in “Critical Overdraft”.

So, why does the State continue to allow the District to do so?

Do I need a water right?

If you take water from a lake, river, stream, or creek, or from underground supplies for a beneficial use, the California Water Code (Division 2) requires that you have a water right. Because California water right law is complicated, you may have a water right (such as a riparian or pre-1914 appropriative) even if you do not have a water right permit or other type of water right issued by the state.

Even if you take and use a small amount of water only for domestic purposes or use a small amount of water for commercial livestock watering purposes, you need a water right of some type. If you do not have another basis of right to rely on, you can acquire a water right for certain small diversions by registering your use with the Division of Water Rights, notify the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and agree to follow conditions the Department of Fish and Wildlife may set to protect fish and wildlife. The maximum use allowed under such a registration is 4,500 gallons per day for immediate use or 10 acre-feet per year for storage in a pond or reservoir. You cannot register to divert water from a stream if the Water Board has declared the stream to befully appropriated. If you use more water than is allowed under a registration, or if you use a portion of the water for a purpose other than domestic purposes or livestock watering, and you do not already have a water right, you must apply for and receive a permit from the State Water Board’s Division of Water Rights before you can use water.

[Frequently Asked Questions about California water right laws]

You should not assume that you have a water right just because you have a water diversion or a dam on your property. You can check with the Division of Water Rights to determine if you have a water right permit, license, certificate or registration, or if someone has claimed a water right for your water project.

Why does the State require water users to have a water right?

Water is protected for the use and benefit of all Californians. California’s waters cannot be owned by individuals, groups, businesses, or governmental agencies. But permits, licenses, and registrations give individuals and others the right to beneficially use reasonable amounts of water.

Soquel Creek Water District has JUNIOR OR APPROPRIATIVE WATER RIGHTS, which means that when supply is low, those with Senior or Overlying Water Rights have priority.  While this is often applies to surface stream water diversions, the California Water Rights laws also apply to groundwater pumping.  The State declared the MidCounty Basin (called the Soquel Valley Basin at the time) to be in critical overdraft in 1980, “at the request of the City of Santa Cruz and a Santa Cruz County Supervisor.”  

[A PRIMER ON CALIFORNIA WATER RIGHTS]

Appropriative Rights. Any party who does not own land overlying the basin, who owns overlying land but uses the water on non overlying land, or who sells the water to the public generally is an “appropriator” and not an overlying user. The courts generally acknowledge the right of an appropriator to take the available surplus from a groundwater basin and apply it to beneficial use inside or outside the basin. For this purpose, “surplus” means available water (that is, water the use of which will not create an overdraft condition) not needed to provide for the needs of all overlying users. (Overdraft is discussed more fully below.) There is no restriction as to where the water may be used, and no requirement that the appropriator be a landowner. The water may generally be used for private or public uses without restriction, subject to the requirement that the use of the water must be reasonable and beneficial.

Among appropriators, the priority of each appropriator’s right is determined by the relative timing of the commencement of use, i.e., first in time is first in right.

Prescriptive Rights.

There is some question in California as to whether prescriptive rights to groundwater can be asserted. At least one case suggests that the doctrine of prescription (or at least the doctrine of “mutual prescription” pursuant to which all users of a basin prescript as against each other) no longer has a place in California. However, the better view seems to be that prescription can occur relative to groundwater, just as it can with respect to surface water. Prescriptive rights do not begin to accrue until a condition of overdraft begins. Therefore, it is first necessary to determine when a condition of surplus ends and overdraft begins. The definition of overdraft was articulated by the California Supreme Court in 1975. There, the court held that overdraft begins when extractions exceed the safe yield of a basin plus any temporary surplus. Safe yield is defined as the maximum quantity of water which can be withdrawn annually from a groundwater supply under a given set of conditions without causing a gradual lowering of the groundwater levels resulting, in turn, in the eventual depletion of the supply. “Temporary surplus” is the amount of water which can be pumped from a basin to provide storage space for surface water which would be wasted during wet years if it could not be stored in the basin. Once a groundwater basin reaches a condition of overdraft, no new appropriative uses may be lawfully made. If overlying users (who, as discussed below, have priority over appropriative users) begin to consume a greater share of the safe yield, the existing appropriators must cease pumping in reverse order of their priority as against other appropriators

To date, Soquel Creek Water District has failed to apply for Temporary Prescriptive Rights, even though advised to do so by Best, Best and Krieger law firm in 2013, as an emergency measure to secure a supplemental water supply when the desalination project with the City failed. (See attached recommendation and legal analysis of options the District has had available all this time, but has failed to pursue.)

Instead, the District wants to pollute the aquifer with treated sewage water containing unregulated pharmaceuticals and hormones the treatment process cannot remove, make us all drink it, regardless of whether we are their customers or not, and make the area dependent on energy-hog technology.

What are they thinking???

Write the Board of Soquel Creek Water District bod@soquelcreekwater.org and let them know your thoughts.

AND QUICKLY…
1) Santa Cruz County will dive into real debt to fund the unpaid CalPERS employee pensions.  This is on the August 24 Board agenda as regular agenda item #7 2021/08/24 09:00 AM Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting – Web Outline – Santa Cruz County, CA

The County will continue to experience significant increases in its debt service payments to California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) to fund accumulated pension liabilities, largely from shortfalls in CalPERS investment earnings and reductions in their discount rate. The issuance of approximately $124.2 million in Pension Obligation Bonds (POBs) to fund 90% of the unfunded liability for the County’s two safety plans are the most prudent solution now to stabilize future debt service payments and substantially lower the County’s debt service interest rate. Following the Board’s authorization for the issuance of POBs on May 11, 2021, approval of a Pension Liability Management Policy is recommended, and adoption of a final resolution is required to approve the POBs financing documents.

2) Will a new Rio Del Mar Flats Assessment District pay for storm water improvements to reduce flooding?

The Flood Control District will hear final public comment this Tuesday, August 24, and tabulate votes on the matter.  Will the new storm water system work in the event of sea level rise?? Will the Coastal Commission agree with dumping all this storm water on the beach near homes?  What does Fish and Wildlife think?  Could that water be pumped somewhere nearby for aquifer recharge instead?

If formation of the RDM Assessment District is approved, annual revenues for Fiscal Year 2022-23 in the amount of $121,037 will be generated to fund the operation, servicing and maintenance of storm water improvements serving the Rio Del Mar Flats neighborhood.  Future assessments will be increased by the lesser of the Consumer Price Index or 2.5 percent.  The improvements consist of a new pump station and appurtenant facilities that will isolate and deliver neighborhood storm water flows to a new outfall structure on County right of way immediately adjacent to the Rio Del Mar State Beach.  The services shall include the furnishing of all labor, equipment and materials for the operation and maintenance of the storm water improvements including:

1. Repair, removal, or replacement of all or any part of any storm water improvements.
2. Electrical power, water supply and communication.
3. Any required reserve funds.
4. All administrative costs.

WRITE ONE LETTER.  MAKE ONE CALL.  ATTEND A PUBLIC MEETING AND ASK QUESTIONS.  MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE THIS WEEK, AND JUST DO SOMETHING.

Cheers,

Becky

Becky Steinbruner is a 30+ year resident of Aptos. She has fought for water, fire, emergency preparedness, and for road repair. She ran for Second District County Supervisor in 2016 on a shoestring and got nearly 20% of the votes. She ran again in 2020 on a slightly bigger shoestring and got 1/3 of the votes. Email Becky at KI6TKB@yahoo.com