THE CITY OF SOLVANG AND STATE WATER
2 Santa Barbara News-Press, May 4, 1996, page A2. State of California estimate for 1995 based on government records and "used to apportion state-collected local taxes and for other government purposes." The population number that was supplied by Solvang officials was 5,100.
3 "1990 Census Snapshot," Toucan Publications, 1992; Census documents of the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, November, 1991. (In 1990 Santa Barbara City had a population of 85,571, a median household income of 33,757, and a median home value of $346,094.)
4 Santa Barbara News-Press, May 1, 1985, page A1.
5 Interview with Solvang City Council member.
6 City of Solvang, "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report," 1995.
7 Grand Jury interviews.
8 "Water System Master Plan," Draft Report, Prepared by Boyle Engineering Corporation, January 12, 1996; page 25, Section 2.5.2 Future Water Demand. Henceforth cited as Boyle. The report also states: "To provide an extra margin of safety, allowance for long-term permanent water conservation was not included in the demand projection numbers." The exact year of anticipated buildout is not stated in Boyle, but the report does not indicate any change in the General Plan year of 2015.
9 Op. Cit., Santa Barbara News-Press , May 4, 1996.
10 "Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Solvang General Plan," Prepared by Phillips Brandt Reddick, Irvine, CA 92714, March 1989, page 64. Also: The actual permit amount is five cubic feet per second and was granted by the State water Resources Control Board in 1969, permit #15878.
11 Ibid. Also: The CALSPA lawsuit has been brought into the State water Resources Control Board process. Because there are scientific studies that must be completed, there will not be a decision until 2000, the Grand Jury was told. An effect of the CALSPA protests in 1990/1 to the Fish and Game Department was to make uncertain how much the county water purveyors could draw in the future from Lake Cachuma. In addition, the Endangered Species Act was an obstacle to enlarging the lake.
12 "Santa Barbara County Growth Inducement Potential of State water Importation;" Prepared by Santa Barbara County Water Agency, Final Report, March 15, 1991, page 11.
13 Grand Jury interview. The Grand Jury was informed by a water specialist that it would be next to impossible for Solvang to work its wells at maximum capacity: poor quality water would be produced and the wells would be damaged.
14 Riparian rights are those rights that come from being on the bank of a river or stream; land lying beyond the natural watershed of a stream is not "riparian." An appropriative right, granted by the State Water Resources Control Board, is one that allows the appropriator "continuing right to use water to extent of appropriation, but not beyond that reasonably required and actually used." Black's Law Dictionary. The Grand Jury received varying descriptions of the status of appropriations on the Santa Ynez River from "over-appropriated" to "fully appropriated" to "uncertain." The Grand Jury was also informed that it has been the practice of the State water Resources Control Board to "roll over" the permits from year to year, rather than resolving possible appropriation questions.
15 "Historic Water Deliveries and Source of Water Delivered, 1991-1995," CCWA Proposed Refinancing, page N-2-6, February 5, 1996.
16 ORDINANCE NO. 91-1
THE PEOPLE OF THE SANTA YNEZ RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 DO HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Whereas, a significant shortage of water to meet current water demands exists in Santa Barbara County as determined by the State Department of Water Resources and the Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District in their 1985 Santa Barbara County State water Project Alternatives study; and
Whereas, a drought emergency was declared in Santa Barbara County in 1990 following four years of below normal precipitation within the County; and
Whereas, the Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, Improvement District No.1 the District") relies exclusively on local water supplies to meet its current water demand, which supplies originate entirely within Santa Barbara County and which supplies are all subject to the same climatic conditions; and
Whereas, the District is a party to an agreement with the Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District entitled "Water Supply Retention Agreement" dated December 11, 1984, which it executed on June 21, 1983 (the "WSRA") entitling the District to 2,000 acre feet per year from the State water Project, and has executed amendments thereto; and
Whereas. the District is also party to a "Contract for Preliminary Studies of Financial Feasibility, Preliminary Design and Environmental Review Under State water Supply Contract" (the "Design and EIR Agreement") dated May 27, 1986 but did not identify itself as a proposed participant in the preliminary studies in response to the "Notice of Intent to Request Preliminary Studies" for the Coastal Branch and the Mission Hills Extension of the California Aqueduct given by the city of Santa Maria on or about May 24, 1986; and
Whereas, the WSRA and its amendments and the Design and EIR Agreement contain the way and means to provide for a long term solution to the existing drought emergency and to the ongoing shortage within the County of Santa Barbara; and
Whereas, the District has a duty to provide a permanent, reliable water supply to its residents.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE IS ENACTED INTO LAW:
17 A technical work group composed of representatives from the Santa Barbara County Water Agency, Stetson Engineers and others found "that the status of the Basin is uncertain. The Basin is close to balance one way or another. (Italics in the original.) Some areas of the Basin show declines in groundwater declines in groundwater levels, whereas other areas show steady to increasing groundwater levels compared to earlier periods." "Draft Groundwater Basin Management Plan, Santa Ynez Uplands," April, 1996 Redraft.
18 "Seventeenth Annual Engineering and Survey Report on Water Supply Conditions of the Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, 1994-1995." Stetson Engineers, Inc., San Rafael, California; May 30, 1995.
19 "Twelfth Annual Engineering and Survey Report on Water Supply Conditions of the Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, 1990-91," Stetson Engineers, Inc., May 30, 1991, page 50.
20 Op. Cit., Boyle. The 1995 number of 1,710 acre-feet delivered is the amount stated in the revised draft of the appendix of CCWA's "Refunding Revenue Bonds, State water Project Regional Facilities, Series 1996," page N-2-6. The City of Solvang advised the Grand Jury in a letter, dated April 11, 1996, that "water production is on the average about 12% greater than consumption (the amount delivered) due to various water losses."
21 The San Luis Obispo City Council chose in 1993 to accept 4,870 AF per year of the original 25,000 AF per year allotment. SLO County property taxpayers have been paying $8.75 per $100,000 assessed valuation, approximately $1 million/year to hold the remaining 20,130 AF. SLO has tried unsuccessfully to sell that entitlement and is also debating keeping the water to reduce overdrafts in the groundwater basins. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, April 30, 1996, page 1.
22 In all that spring's local newspaper articles and letters about State water, including one by the Mayor of Solvang, cost was rarely mentioned. In an unusually large-type editorial on April 18, the Santa Ynez Valley News stated, among its other reasons for supporting the ballot measure, "State water isn't expensive, it's priceless." Despite issuing at the start of the investigation an open invitation for witnesses, the Grand Jury could find no one in Solvang who asked for and received details of costs.
23 Interview with Solvang City staff. Tape recordings of Solvang City Council meetings are now preserved indefinitely.
24 The State water Project delivered its first water in 1962. According to the article, "the project promised to deliver 4.2 million acre-feet a year...(but) even in the wettest years the project can only deliver 2.1 million acre-feet." Reservoirs on the Kern and Kings Rivers were down to 8% and 4% respectively. Urban and industrial users were subsequently cut to 50% and agricultural customers 100%. Los Angeles Times, February 1, 1991, pages 1,3.
25 Los Angeles Times, February 10, 1991, page 1 et seq.
26 Santa Barbara County Water Agency and the US Bureau of Reclamation chart, Santa Barbara News-Press, February 28, 1991, the lowest level of the lake. That week's usage was 267 AF and evaporation of 69 AF; at that rate of usage and no rain, there was a maximum of 82 weeks' supply. According to a Solvang 1991 Council member, "In 1990-91 Lake Cachuma stored only a few months supply - as the principal source of water for Santa Barbara South County! A real not just perceived threat that Solvang could be without water since all but one of its wells are in the Santa Ynez River and dependent upon Lake Cachuma discharges. At that time Solvang was purchasing approximately one-third of its water from ID #1 which again had as its major source Lake Cachuma." (italics and capital letter emphases deleted.)
27 Interview. A Memorandum presented to the City Council by the Director of Public Works in February, 1991 stated that the voluntary conservation had reduced consumption by 12%.
28 Santa Barbara News-Press, March 21, 1991, page A4.
29 Bureau of Reclamation figures, from a bar graph showing levels on May 15 each year from 1952 through February 15, 1991, printed in the Santa Ynez Valley News, March 14, 1991. Lake Cachuma levels for later years are listed in subsequent editions of that newspaper. Also: Santa Barbara News-Press, May 27, 1991, page B1.
30 State Board of Equalization and City of Solvang figures cited in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, Years ended June 30, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, City of Solvang, California. The city bed tax receipts showed a slight decline in 1995.
31 "Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume One," State water Project, Coastal Branch, Phase II, DWR, May, 1991, page 384.
32 The Grand Jury asked all 1991 City Council members in interviews whether they had seen and/or read the March 15, 1991 report and the subsequent EIR.
33 Telephone call from the Solvang staff responding to a request for the minutes from the water committee meetings in the spring of 1991. The Grand Jury did obtain draft minutes for several meetings of the water and sewer committee for that period.
34 February 15, 1991 Memorandum from the Director of Public Works to the City Council.
35 Grand Jury interview. The City Manager of 1991 later assumed the role of City Administrator.
36 Grand Jury interview. On January 17, 1992 the Assistant City Attorney signed the opinion that became Exhibit B of the August 1, 1991 Water Supply Agreement stating that the Agreement was in compliance with all applicable laws.
37 Interview with City Council member.
38 Transcript of August 26, 1991 City Council meeting, page 2. Note: this is not an authorized transcript, but the Grand Jury checked it for accuracy against a tape recording of that meeting.
39 Interview with City Council member.
40 ID #1 would have to sign a take-or-pay contract with CCWA, basically part of the larger county take or-pay contract with the DWR. By signing that contract the District would agree to pay for all the facilities in return for whatever amount of water that the State water Project was able to provide. To show that it could pay for the water to obtain the revenue bonds to build the facilities, ID #1 had to show a cash flow and that was to be based on rates, not a tax base. Grand Jury interview.
41 Op. Cit., Transcript of August 26 meeting, page 27.
42 Grand Jury interviews with City Council members.
43 Transcript of August 26, 1991 meeting, pages 14,16.
44 Ibid., page 21.
45 Grand Jury interview. The Santa Maria City Council 4-1 vote was described in the Santa Barbara News-Press, April 11, 1991, page A 1. In the same issue on page B 4, was described San Luis Obispo's "No" vote for State water that was estimated to have cost them $450 AF - see editorial San Luis Obispo Telegram, April 3, 1991. The Santa Ynez Valley News, June 6, 1991 in a front page story, noting the November 15 deadline, stated: "The districts must also determine the exact amount of their participation. Ballot measures carried a figure, which represented a maximum bond ceiling."
46 The ID #1 attorney was quoted as saying that "After the election, water agencies have until Oct. 10 to decide whether they can afford to join in. That is a decision that will depend on how many partners share the cost." Santa Barbara News-Press, May 29, 1991, page A7.
47 Op. cit., Transcript of August 26 meeting.
49 Ibid. See End Note 55 below.
50 ID #1 told the Grand Jury that it was surprised to hear this number at the meeting. It apparently came from the 1990 Bartle Wells Associates study that did not take into consideration State water.
51 Grand Jury interview. The cost comparison of $10-$35 to the State water cost of $1,000 is on page 34. Note: 1995 consumption, according to the City of Solvang, was 1,559 AF; in January 1996 CCWA showed deliveries from wells and ID #1 of 1710 AF, Appendix to Official Statement, Central Coast Water Authority Refunding Revenue Bonds (State water Project Regional Facilities) Series 1995, January 30, 1996.
52 Op. cit., Transcript of August 26, 1991, page 11.
53 Grand Jury interview with City Council member.
54 Grand Jury interview with City Council member.
55 Transcript of the August 26 meeting, page 31:
Director of Public Works : "(I)f we're looking at purchasing it through Santa Ynez, we're gonna get passed on those costs as well, I mean from the same source. This gives us a more firm commitment to a protected amount, and that's what the committee was looking at as well and, looking at as I said before just trying to get around 3,000 acre-feet, not knowing that we couldn't really afford much more, we couldn't afford more than the 1,500 acre-feet, the actual cost of the water for delivery is somewhere around a $1,000 an acre foot."
General Counsel for ID #1: "It's close to that."
Director of Public Works, "So we, you know, we are talking ..."
Council member, "1.5 million dollars."
Director of Public Works, "...1.5 million dollars."
56 Grand Jury interview with City Council member.
57 Originally, there was a 50,000 AF entitlement for Santa Barbara County; that became subsequently 57,700 AF. In return for holding that entitlement, the Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District made payments to the state from district-wide taxes levied on behalf of the Flood Control District. As a result of the 1979 election and in order to cut expenses, the County decided to return back to the State some of its State water entitlement. On a 3-2 vote of the Flood Control and Water Conservation District on December 6, 1982, the County retained 45,486 AF.
58 Newspapers in which the Special Report appeared were: The Santa Barbara News-Press, the Lompoc Record, the Santa Maria Times, the Central Coast Green Sheet, the Santa Barbara News & Review, the Santa Ynez Valley News , and the Carpinteria Herald.
59 The Report stated, "Current rates of groundwater extraction cannot continue indefinitely without significant loss of water quality, falling water tables, and increased pumping costs. In this sense, the North County has a water shortage of about 24,000 acre-feet per year at present." Not included in that number was the substantial Cuyama Valley groundwater deficit. Estimates were drawn from Jones & Stokes Environmental and Water Resources Reconnaissance, Tbs. 6-2, 6-24, & Appendix G.
60 Op. cit., Stetson Engineering, Twelfth Annual Report, 1990, page 45.
61 Resolution No. 1266 of the Board of Trustees of the Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, December 6, 1982, page 2.
62 Memorandum of the City of Solvang to the City Council from Debbie Glover, a preliminary report from the County Elections office, dated June 5, 1991. There were a total of five precincts, but the voting totals of two were included in the other three. The percentage was similarly favorable in the rest of ID #1, where approximately 30% of the registered voters voted. The materials supplied to the Grand Jury by the Election Division do not isolate the ID #1 absentee ballots from those of other districts so an exact number and percentage could not be determined.
63 Two indices are used in Microsoft Word: The reading grade level is based on the average number of syllables per word and the average number of words per sentence. The score indicates a grade-school level. Standard writing averages seventh to eighth grade. Both Flesch-Kincaid and Bormuth Grade Levels are used. The Flesh Reading Ease index is "based on the average number of syllables per word and the average number of words per sentence. Scores range from 0 to 100. Standard writing averages 60 to 70. The higher the score, the greater the number of people who can readily understand the document." The 1960 and 1979 ballot measures provided too small a sample for a grammar check. "User's Guide, Microsoft Word, Version 6.0," Microsoft Corporation, 1994, page 101. The Grand Jury ran a grammar check on a representative portion of this report and found that it should be able to be understood by those with a grade level between 9.1-11.0, or 60% of most readers.
64 Election Code § 9087 sets the standards for state ballot measures and the legislative analysis reads as follows:
65 Official Minutes, Solvang City Council, Regular Meeting No. 252, May 13, 1991, all Council members and Mayor, City Manager, City Attorney, and staff present. It was at this meeting that Resolution No. 91-192, supporting State water, was adopted unanimously.
66 The process must begin 125 days before the election and a calendar of the required steps was distributed throughout the County. The Board of Supervisors makes the decision whether there should be arguments submitted. The proponents of the ballot measure who have passed a resolution submit the proposed measure to the Board. The Grand Jury was told that seldom does the Board turn down a request for a ballot measure. The accountability for accuracy lies with the Elections Division in concert with the District and its attorney. The Superior Court can strike from the ballot measure and accompanying analysis anything that is false and misleading, as was done in the January 1996 Santa Barbara case, Nash v. Pettit.
69 Grand Jury interview.
70 The Grand Jury was informed on May 13 that State water arrival is on schedule and is expected to begin to flow to ID #1 in 1996. According to CCWA, the water will be deposited in Lake Cachuma where the system will be "fine tuned". In early 1997, it is expected that State water will be available to Solvang.
71 Proposed bond refinancing figures, page N-2-11, 4/06/96 from CCWA, as projected by ID #1. The Net Revenues "represent amount of water system revenues net of expenses that would be required to assure the 125% coverage specified in the City Water Supply Agreement." Using the year 2000 as a reference point: Taking into consideration the 125% revenue requirement and dividing the District estimated payment by 1015 AF results in a cost of State water of $2,210 AF; if there is the 10% loss between production and consumption, which as noted in Boyle is usual, the final figure rises to $2,455. Because of the pending litigation, Solvang did not provide projected operating revenues to CCWA. Also, the estimate of the amount required to be paid does not include the savings from the recently concluded agreement by the DWR and the State water Contractors with CCWA for Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties to defer for four years annual payments of $1.25 million. Nor does it include any savings that will be achieved by the Monterey Agreement, negotiated by the General Counsel for CCWA and which will result in estimated savings for CCWA customers of $3.2 million a year for 35 years. See End Note 87 for projected savings.
72 Solvang is audited regularly by KPMG Peat Marwick LLP (KPMG) who informed the city that not listing the costs as a liability was "a standard practice," the Grand Jury was told. On the advice of KPMG, the deposits the city makes to the Supplementary Water Fund are shown as a loan.
73 Proposed Bond refinancing prospectus, 04/06/96, page N-2-9. The Boyle Draft Master Plan summarizes on pages 88-90 the recommended improvements that should be implemented "as soon as possible" as costing $3,965,247. This figure includes improvements that must be done to take State water. State water will be blended with local Solvang chlorinated groundwater. State water reaching Solvang will be blended with chlorine and ammonia to maintain a minimum chloramine residual of 1.5 mg/L. Costs for upgrades to the existing chlorine disinfection system and additional necessary improvements are estimated to be $745,000. In addition, on full buildout that assumes a 7,850 population consuming 3,295 AF, using 1,500 AF of State water, the total estimated additional costs are $2,219,704. Dollar amounts are in 1996 dollars. At buildout, according to the Solvang Planning Department, all existing vacant parcels will be 100% developed and 400 acres outside the City limits will be connected to the water system; see Boyle, pages 4, 17, 18, 55, 83, 88-91.
74 Interview with Solvang staff. Assuming Solvang staff's estimate of a city population of 5,100, that production equals 1828 acre-feet/year. For 1994, assuming the same population, the consumption was 1607 AF and per capita was 281 gallons - Boyle Engineering, page 24. Water loss, the difference between production and consumption, from 1993-1994 has averaged approximately 12%. This percentage is "very comparable" to other communities in Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Ventura Counties." (Boyle, page 25.)
75 Op. Cit. Boyle, Table 2-4. for 1994, listing 10.8% water loss, the difference between total production and total consumption; the figures for 1993 were similar except that there was a total consumption of 86.7% and a water loss of 13.3% of the total production.
76 Op. cit., April 6, 1996, Exhibit 2 to Appendix N, page n-2-7. The payment for the Alisal golf course was more than $19,400 for the 11, 243 hcf. (hcf means hundred cubic feet.)
77 The estimate was made before the discovery by the Santa Barbara County Auditor-Controller's office in April that since 1990/91 the County of Santa Barbara has been over-paying Solvang approximately $123,000 per year for property tax allocations, for a total overpayment of $720,372. (Grand Jury interview with Santa Barbara County Auditor-Controller.) Also: According to the City of Solvang Final Budget, Fiscal Year 1995-1996, expenditures on roads decreased from $309,593 of the prior year to $100,900.
78 City of Solvang Memo, June 1, 1995.
79 City of Solvang "Resolutions Increasing Water Service Fees and Charges;" Resolution No. 93-725, Resolution No. 94-309, Resolution No. 95-355. Percentages come from the Water Pricing Task Force, Draft Minutes, June 20, 1994, and Grand Jury figures, using the 5/8" meter of the average residential user, using 20 units or less per month. (One unit of water is equivalent to 100 cu. ft.) Since 1990-1991, Solvang's water rates and meter charges have increased between 222% and 562%, according to Grand Jury figures from a City of Solvang Memo, "Historic Water Rates," November 19, 1995, detailing the increases in the charges to the different sizes of water meters.
80 The 2% addition in 1995 to the TOT is divided between the water reserve funds and tourism; the tax "sunsets" in October, 1996, and the City Council is investigating placing the 2% on the ballot, as required by Proposition 63.
81 If the burden of the costs of State water were to be put on new connections, those fees would have to be $57,500 for each new connection, based on 20 new houses a year, according to a staff member. One City Council member said that existing water accounts should not have to pay for new meters and that connection fees should be raised substantially. Another said that the total cost should be spread over a broader base, including ID #1's agricultural users who have substantially lower rates than the Solvang urban users. The Grand Jury did not hear agreement from ID #1 to that suggestion.
82 "Section 17. Assignment. The District may pledge and assign to the Authority, all or any portion of the payments received under this Agreement from the City and the District's other rights and interests under this Agreement. ... The City may not assign its rights under this Agreement." Water Supply Agreement, dated August 1, 1991, made effective under Section 16(a) by Exhibit B of January 17, 1992, signed by the Assistant City Attorney for Solvang.
83 Santa Barbara News-Press, April 21, 1996, page A14.
84 CAFR, Year Ended, June 30, 1995, page xii.
85 Percentages are rounded off to the nearest tenth of a percent and are derived from The City of Solvang Final Budget, 1995-1996; also consulted was the Final Budget, 1994-1995. In 1994-1995, the budget showed the total tourism costs as $704,996 or 22.1% of the total General Fund expenses. That included law enforcement, fire service, city beautification work attributed to tourism. The 1995-1996 budget did not show a similar breakdown of total tourism costs.
86 April 11, 1996 letter to the Grand Jury from the City Administrator. Water revenues include connection fees, miscellaneous fees, interest, supplement from the General Fund and supplement from the reserves.
87 These estimated charges for State water include CCWA's share of the $1.25 million reduction in DWR charges and deferral of payments of those charges negotiated recently with DWR for the years 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. They do not include the reductions, which will come from the Monterey Agreement urban rate reductions. These reductions range to the Santa Barbara County water purveyors range from $420,000 in 1997 to $3.2 million in 2000 and thereafter. Source: CCWA, Exhibit H.1, Total State water Estimated Charges - December Startup. The charges also do not include the additional 25 percent required by the Water Supply Agreement in Section 14 (a) and in conformity with the requirements of the DWR: "The City will fix, prescribe and collect rates and charges for the City Water System which will be at least sufficient to yield during each Fiscal Year City Net Water System Revenues equal to one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the Contract Payments for such Fiscal Year. ..."
Advance Refunding Analysis of State water Project Regional Facilities Revenue Bonds, Series, 1992, All Bonds Current Market, CCWA, December 5, 1995.
Appendix to Official Statement, Central Coast Water Authority Refunding Revenue Bonds (State water Project Regional Facilities) Series 1995, January 30, 1996.
Bond Prospectus, Central Coast Water Authority Revenue Bonds, $177,120,000 from Smith Barney Harris, Upham & Co., Inc., October 21, 1992.
California State Electoral Code, Chapter 2 County Elections, Division 9 Measures Submitted to the Voters, Article 3 Section 9160 to 9168, Article 4 Sections 9314, 9380, and 9180, Article 5 Sections 9160 and 9190.
California Trout, Inc. v. State water Resources Control Board, No. C000713, Court of Appeals of California, Third Appellate District, January 26, 1989.
"California Water--The New Realities," California Water Resources Association, 1994.
Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) Agreement for Legal Services of Hatch and Parent, October 16, 1991.
CCWA Agreement with Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District on the Transfer of Financial Responsibility, November 12, 1991.
CCWA Annual Financial Reports, June 30, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995.
CCWA Delivery Forecast Information, March 7, 1996.
CCWA Estimated Charges - December Start Up, March 7, 1996.
CCWA Letters , March 17, 1992, August 27, 1992, September 17, 1992, November 25, 1992, August 17, 1993, September 13, 1995.
CCWA Memoranda, January 5, 1994, April 28, 1995, June 1, 1995, June 5, 1995, December 6, 1995, March 21, 1996.
CCWA Resolution No. 91-3, September 26, 1991.
CCWA Resolution 91-9, October 24, 1991.
Chart of State water Project Coastal Branch and Extensions, Prepared by James Stubchaer, pre-election 1991.
Citizens Planning Association Letter to 1994-95 Grand Jury, April 7, 1995.
City Council City of Solvang Letter, Subject: Request for a Grand Jury Investigation of the State water Issue, April 27, 1995.
City of Lompoc election literature for and against State water, 1991.
City of Solvang Agreement for Legal Services with Schramm and Raddue, April 4, 1987.
"City of Solvang Chalk Hill Reservoir Capacity Analysis," Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc., February 1993.
City of Solvang Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, FY 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995.
City of Solvang Balance Sheets, June 30, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995.
City of Solvang Final Budgets, Fiscal Year 1990-1991, 1991-1992, 1992-1993, 1993-1994, 1994-1995.
City of Solvang General Plan Program, Open Space and Conservation Element, May 22, 1989.
City of Solvang Letter from City Administrator to Grand Jury, Subject: Revised State water Payment Schedule, January 22, 1996.
City of Solvang Memoranda, February 15,1991, June 5, 1991, August 26, 1991, May 24, 1993, June 30, 1994, February 7, 1995, May 24, 1995, June 1, 1995, June 21, 1995, November 10, 1995.
City of Solvang, Official Minutes of City Council, Regular Meeting No. 241, December 19, 1990; Official Minutes of Regular and Special Meetings from February 4, 1991 to September 23, 1991; Official Minutes of Regular and Special Meetings from August 10, 1992 to October 16, 1992.
City of Solvang Resolutions 91-192, May 13, 1991, August 26, 1991, March 27, 1995, October 17, 1995.
City of Solvang, Water and Sewer Committee Special Meeting Minutes, February 1, 1993.
City of Solvang, Water Pricing Task Force Special Meeting Minutes, April 15, May 6, May 20, 1993.
City of Solvang Water Rate Study and Financing Plan, Prepared by Bartle Wells Associates, March 1990.
Coastal Branch Progress, a publication of the California Department of Water Resources, September 1994 and Winter 1995.
Concerned Citizens of Solvang Letters to 1994-95 Grand Jury, March 25 and June 26, 1995.
Concerned Citizens of Solvang Letters to 1995-96 Grand Jury, July 3, September 13 and November 15, 1995 and January 24 and February 24, 1996.
Declaration of James M. Stubchaer in Support of Petition for Write of Mandate, Case No. 186427, Diana P. Hull and Howard B. Walsh vs. Lilli Rossi, March 25, 1991.
DWR News, California Department of Water Resources, Spring 1994.
Draft CCWA Estimated Charges, Modified for Regional Treatment Cost, Warren Act Adjustments and Reduced Santa Ynez Pump Station Power Costs, FY 1994-95 Through 1998-99, April 17, 1995.
"Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Proposed Danish Village Estates," Prepared by Interface Planning and Counseling Corporations, Santa Barbara, December 1990.
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, Groundwater Section Conservation Element Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan, Prepared by Daves and More for County Water Agency and Resource Management Department of the County of Santa Barbara, July 1991.
"Drought Update," California Department of Water Resources, April 30, 1991.
Election Division materials, including 1991 sample ballots from Santa Barbara County, letters from ID #1 legal counsel requesting the ballot measure, and other material related to the June 1991 election.
"Final Environmental Impact Report, Volumes One and Two, State water Project, Coastal Branch, Phase II and Mission Hills Extension," California Department of Water Resources, May 1991.
Final Environmental Statement/Environmental Impact Report Cachuma Project Contract Renewal Vol. 1, prepared by Bureau of Reclamation Cachuma Project Authority, Santa Barbara County Water Agency, December 1995.
"Historic Water Deliveries and Source of Water Delivered, 1991-1995," CCWA Proposed Refinancing, February 5, 1996.
Impartial Analysis Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District ID No. 1, Ballot Measure K91, copies of originals with signatures.
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, CCN 000450, CCWA, August 21, 1991.
Local Measure Event/Deadline Calendar, Prepared by Santa Barbara County Elections Office, 1995.
Materials from Citizens Planning Association, 1991-1996.
Montgomery Watson Memorandum to Thomas Fischetti, Subject: Polonio Pass Water Treatment Processing Seismic Design Criteria, March 6, 1996.
Nash v. Pettit. SB 211152.
Notice of Date Fixed for Submitting Arguments on Proposed Measure K91 sent to Santa Ynez Valley News Legal Publications, March 18, 1991.
Numerous newspaper articles from 1991 through 1996.
Proof of Publication Measure J91, March 18, 1991, executed March 20, 1991; Measure K91, March 21, 1991; Measure L91, March 18, 1991; and Measure N91, March 18, 1991.
Resolution No. 1266 of the Board of Trustees of the Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, December 6, 1982.
Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors Agenda Letter from Phil Demery, Director of Public Works, Subject: State water Contract Amendment 16 (Monterey Agreement), October 24, 1995.
"Santa Barbara County Growth Inducement Potential of State water Importation," Prepared by Santa Barbara County Water Agency, Final Report, March 15, 1991 and Revised, September 28, 1991.
"Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan, Conservation Element, Groundwater Resources Section," Planning and Development Department, Adopted May 24, 1994.
Santa Barbara County Flood Control District and Water Conservation Agency Memorandum to Grand Jury, November 13, 1995.
Santa Barbara County Flood Control District and Water Conservation Agency Resolution 1267, December 20, 1992.
Santa Barbara County Flood Control District and Water Conservation Agency Resolution 1313, April 28, 1986.
Santa Barbara County Letter from County Clerk-Recorder-Assessor to Santa Ynez Valley News to publish by March 18 (crossed out and put in 21) Measure K91, March 14, 1991.
Santa Barbara County Counsel Memorandum to Grand Jury, August 21, 1995.
Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, Improvement District No. 1 Annual audits, Fiscal Year 1994 AND 1995.
Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, Improvement District No. 1 Map, ID No. 1 Service Area.
Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, Improvement District No. 1 Letters, December 2, 1992, December 28, 1992, January 7, 1993, June 16, 1994, July 19, , May 9, 1995, January 30, 1996.
Schramm and Raddue Letters, August 1, 1991, July 30, 1993, September 17, 1993.
Smith Barney, Harris Upham and Co., Inc. Letters, December 5, 1995, October 6, 1993.
"Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Solvang General Plan," Prepared by Phillips Brandt Reddick, Irvine, CA 92714, March 1989.
Tapes, California State Assembly Hearing Chaired by Assemblyman and Chairman of the Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife Dominic Cortese and Hosted by Assemblyman Brooks Firestone, Santa Maria, Subject: State water, #1 and #2, November 7, 1995.
The 1996 Santa Ynez Valley Economic Outlook, UCSB, Economic Forecast Project, Volume 3, December 1995.
"The Water Meter," A Public Report of the San Ynez River Water Conservation District Improvement District No. 1, July 1991 March 1992, September 1992, March 1993, August 1993, January 1994, June 1994, November 1994, March 1995, September 1995.
Thirty-Year Treasury Bond versus 25 Bond Buyer Revenue Bond Index, January 1993 to December 1995.
Transcript of Solvang City Council Meeting, August 26, 1991.
Transcript, Interview of Attorney for ID No. 1, November 9, 1995.
Twelfth, Thirteenth, and Seventeenth Annual Engineering and Survey Report on Water Supply Conditions of the Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, 1989-1990, June 1, 1990, May 30, 1991, and June 1, 1995, respectively.
"Update," Southern California Water Committee, Inc., Volume 10 No. 2, July 1994.
Voter Information Pamphlets for Measures D91, E91, F91, G91, H91, I91, J91, K91, L91, M91, N91, O91, P91, Q91, R91, T91.
Water Supply Agreement Between the State of California Department of Water Resources and the Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, February 26, 1963. (Incorporation of Amendments 1-11 and 15.)
Water Supply Agreement By and Between Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, ID No. 1 and the City of Solvang, August 1, 1991.
"Water Supply Capability of Improvement District No. 1, Santa Ynez River Water Control District, Santa Barbara County, California," Prepared by Stetson Engineers Inc., August 12, 1994.
"Water System Master Plan," Draft Report, Prepared by Boyle Engineering Corporation, January 12, 1996.
"Water Treatment Plant Feasibility Study, Santa Ynez River Water Control District, Improvement District No. 1, Santa Ynez, California," Final, Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. in Association with Bartle Wells Associates, February, 1990.