LAFCO reviews Elk County Water District MSR; staff recommends no SOI changes, requests clarifications

At its Feb. 3 meeting the Mendocino Local Agency Formation Commission held a workshop on the Elk County Water District municipal service review (MSR) and a proposed sphere of influence (SOI) update. Staff presented inventory and analysis of the district's governance, operations and water supply and recommended no changes to the district's SOI; the district concurred.

The MSR is a staff study that inventories services and analyzes governance, fiscal health and operations. Staff said this is the district's second MSR, the first having been adopted in 2014. The Elk County Water District was formed in April 1957 and provides treated water supply and distribution to a small coastal community.

Staff described the district's size and infrastructure: the district boundary is about 28 acres and serves roughly 102 developed lots. The community of Elk has about 45 permanent residents and up to 100 seasonal residents. The district reported two outside‑agency service areas: Outside Agency Service Area 1 (10 lots east of State Highway 1) and Outside Agency Service Area 2 (12 lots south of the district boundary and west of State Highway 1); staff noted those outside areas are shown in the sphere map and were adopted by the commission in 2015.

On water supply, staff said the district principally uses groundwater from one active well and maintains a second standby well. The district holds two appropriative water rights for diversions from Greenwood Creek and Bonney Gulch, providing about 21.5 acre‑feet per year for domestic water. Average daily water use was estimated at about 19,160 gallons per day; staff reported two storage facilities, a water treatment plant and roughly three miles of pipeline. Staff said the district's system is operating at approximately 62 percent capacity.

Commissioners asked a number of clarifying questions. Commissioner Horsley asked staff to clarify a section that described "latent powers" and whether production, storage, transmission and distribution of water should be described as currently exercised powers; staff agreed to revise the report to make that clear. Commissioner Horsley also asked about a large figure listed as a change in net position for fiscal year 2021; staff said they would defer to the district to identify the source of that accounting entry (for example, whether it reflected a grant).

Commissioner Ward asked about the outside agency service areas and whether annexation would be appropriate; staff said those areas are included in the district's sphere so the district could request annexation at a future date and staff would explore potential advantages and implications in the public‑hearing draft. Commissioners raised questions about whether the MSR should better explain two parcels owned by the district that lie outside the district boundary; staff agreed to work with the district to add a short explanation, for example that one parcel is subject to a lease agreement used for community facilities.

The item was presented as a workshop; no formal action was taken. Staff said they would incorporate commissioner edits and additional clarifications and bring a public‑hearing draft back to the commission at a later date.