Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Somis residents press Board for bridge funding as Waterworks District 19 warns it won’t apply for $9.2M grant
Summary
Somis residents told the Board the county’s Waterworks District 19 has drawn reserves to roughly $400,000 and lacks ~$100,000 needed to complete a reservoir design that would make the district eligible for a $9.2 million state grant; Water & Sanitation staff said they applied but projects were not shovel‑ready and grant tiers placed some applications on a waitlist.
A coalition of Somis residents and farmers urged the Ventura County Board of Supervisors on April 28 to approve limited financial assistance to district 19 so the district can complete a reservoir design and apply for a $9.2 million state grant.
Kerby Thomas and other Somis residents told the board the district’s reserves have declined from about $1.5 million four years ago to roughly $400,000 today after a combination of weather‑driven revenue shortfalls, mechanical failures in wells, and staffing turnover. They said two wells went offline and the district had to purchase expensive water, producing large unplanned expenses and a multiyear revenue shortfall.
At the April 24 district meeting, residents said, the district told them it would not apply for a $9.2 million grant because the reservoir design was not shovel‑ready and the district lacked the $100,000 estimated for that design. Several residents called on the county to bridge that design funding gap to preserve the opportunity to secure the larger grant.
Paul Chan, the county Director of Water and Sanitation, told the board the county had applied to two grants previously authorized by the board: one for roughly $400,000 design work (Cal OES) that was placed on a waitlist for being not shovel‑ready, and the $9.2 million grant for the 5.71 MG tank and pump station (the pump station design is nearly complete). Chan said wells two, three and four are operational as of mid‑April but noted ongoing quality issues (chloroform, PFAS, manganese) and that the district must balance Prop 218 constraints and long‑term cost burdens. He said staff will engage the state and look for bridge financing options including CEO/CFO office support.
Supervisors asked staff to pursue information from the court and other agencies where appropriate and suggested the CEO’s office and Public Works examine bridge financing or loan options to make projects shovel‑ready. Residents said they were willing to accept a modest rate increase if matched with a long‑term plan and state funding pursuit.
No vote was taken on an emergency transfer; the board directed staff to explore financing options and to continue engagement with district stakeholders.
