Staff updates and board discussion
At its Dec. 14 meeting, the Sacramento-area sewer district board received a quarterly update on the Harvest Water capital program. Mike Crooks, the district's Harvest Water capital program manager, told the board the program includes eight construction contracts and "just over 43 miles of pipe," and that "all pipeline is in the ground," with final tie-ins and remaining pump-station work expected in the coming weeks.

Why the program is not finished yet
Crooks said final paving along several roads and pump-station construction remain. He attributed delays at the pump station to late and defective fabrication of pump cans made out of state, saying the cans were delivered late and "still have some issues that are affecting the contractor's ability to install them properly," and that backfilling and subsequent work will accelerate once cans are installed. He also said weather has delayed final, full-width paving into 2026 for some segments and that the city of Elk Grove has agreed to the adjusted schedule.

Funding, budgets and change orders
Staff presented a program-level financial snapshot. Crooks said an established construction budget is $326,000,000 and reported the program has spent roughly 63 percent of that budget; he said there is a $20,000,000 change-order allowance, about $10,000,000 in change orders had been approved as of November, and staff projects a 6.2 percent change-order rate at completion. In response to a question from Director Kaplan about a specific construction package showing a higher change-order rate, Crooks cited unforeseen utilities, a deeper-than-documented PG&E gas line that required tunneling and dewatering, and an unexpected concrete layer beneath Franklin Boulevard that raised costs and schedule.

On-farm connections and the phase-2 deadline
Staff said on-farm connections (phase 1) began in September and include 56 parcel connections in the south Elk Grove area, with about a year of remaining work on that contract. Staff said phase 2 outreach is ongoing; the team reported nine signed on-farm consultant agreements for phase 2 to date and described a Dec. 15 deadline for additional signups that will inform how much of the phase-2 volume can be included in upcoming construction packages. Staff characterized the district's outreach goal as needing roughly two dozen additional signups to demonstrate adequate progress toward enrollment targets.

State grants and a funding gap
Staff and directors discussed the project's grant funding situation. Staff said the district has pursued and received multiple grants and reimbursement agreements, reporting potential funding to date of about $416,000,000 and a program funding total of about $597.2 million. Speakers referred to the Water Storage Investment Program (WSIP) and earlier Proposition 1 allocations; staff noted other projects' withdrawals from WSIP change the competitive pool and said the district is advocating for additional funds. Crooks also said Sacramento County Department of Transportation will contribute $5,500,000 for road improvements tied to pipeline work.

Farmer goodwill and board response
Director Hume delivered an extended warning that goodwill among South County farmers is eroding because of construction impacts (driveway and equipment damage, business disruptions) and that the district risks losing participants the program needs to meet its delivery promises. Hume cited a cited funding shortfall and a competitive state grant environment and said "we are at an inflection point" and "we have run out of goodwill." Staff acknowledged the concern and described continued outreach, monitoring wells and adaptive management approaches tied to regional groundwater planning.

Board next steps
Directors proposed convening a subcommittee to work more directly with affected farmers and staff. Director Sewan offered to bring a subcommittee proposal back to a future meeting; staff said the subcommittee item will be agendized in January. The board also approved consent items 1 through 7 unanimously earlier in the meeting.

Votes at a glance
- Consent items 1–7: motion to approve moved by Speaker 2 and seconded by Speaker 3; clerk announced the motion passed unanimously (see meeting record).