So I’m watching another episode of a Sci-Fi space adventure series the other night when a commercial suddenly begins bombardment of my comfort zone with numerous and quite explicit photographs of young folks with very painful looking acne and assorted skin conditions.  Photo after depressing photo while an “upbeat announcer” makes the pitch as to how effective the advertised product is in eradicating such problems.  I am still unsure as to why I was so particularly receptive to that commercial at that time but was never-the-less momentarily transported back to my own “sentence as a teenager” in the horrid zit zone years of adolescence.

Although extremely fortunate and never actually suffering from the conditions presented on the television (which incidentally did not increase appetite or assist in consuming pizza rolls at the time) I could still recall days when I would have much preferred skipping school entirely rather than escorting to class that (what I perceived to be) gigantic zit on my nose, chin, forehead, or whatever!  How embarrassing!  Heck, even if I found the confidence to actually speak to someone how would I ever know if a response was addressed to me or that feared secondary life form emerging from my face?

I would imagine most of us have had similar experiences from time to time when embarrassed about an inconvenient pimple making a surprise grand appearance just before an important function or activity, but that was not the point of the present commercial as the product was obviously geared to those unfortunate souls suffering from severe skin problems during an already difficult and often confusing period of maturation.  I suddenly felt depressed with a deep sense of sadness for those having to deal with such circumstances.  Wonder what ever happened to that guy I knew in junior high who could have been a “poster teen” for this miracle medication?

Yes I went to bed that night thanking the good Lord for the many blessings received – especially those taken for granted at the time, such as the predictably unpredictable nature of teenage complexion and offered sincere prayer for those not as fortunate.

I woke the next morning to what felt like the very painful birthing of a secondary nose on the outside crevice of my right nostril!  Yup, a huge bright red, throbbing, painfully swelling pimple in all its glory.

Thanks! (at least it won’t be accompanying me to school!  lol)

Yup, all sorts of peculiar and unrelated things occur ….

WHY IS A LAKE DON PEDRO CSD “RESOLUTION OF ANNEXATION” THE LAST ENTRY POSTED ON THE “MARIPOSA COUNTY LAFCO RESOLUTION PAGE”?

 

My best to you and yours, Lew

 

 

Once again, sounds reasonable at first until you understand what was actually happening back then.  Outside MIDPOU expansion advocates like PETE KAMPA (remember he was here the first time between 1994-1997 before heading off to McCloud CSD up north to broker a water bottling deal with the NESTLES Corporation that former California State Attorney General Gerry Brown considered unfair to the people of McCloud and demanded it be revised.  For an excellent investigation and potential explanation as to the variables which permitted such an unfair contract to be essentially forced on the people of McCloud, check out the following: THESIS by KERRY TOPEL.

(Honestly, after reading that I could easily imagine a movie based on the McCloud story as there are many important lessons to be learned.)

ANYWAY, so back in 1990’s there was a lot of “annexation resolution” shuffling back and forth between LAFCO and the LDPCSD involving requests, revisions and approvals subject to terms and conditions that were not apparently followed.

  LAFCO and LDPCSD ANNEXATION RESOLUTIONS

For example, the Lake Shore Ranch proposed 900ac residential subdivision across the street from the Board of Directors meeting room-

where even a  director at that time requested information about a rumored adjacent subdivision –

took a 3-1/2 year  “annexation process break” then just apparently started up where it left off earlier!  (Gee, wonder what complying/regulating laws that little “musical chair annexation” maneuver was intended to avoid?    (“Ah- ooo, can’t do that right now, but wait a bit because we are working on a change – just hang on a bit longer……”  {hee hee hee- sinister laugh.)

Yes the Lake Shore Ranch subdivision resolution seems to have been “resurrected from failure” multiple times with apparent support from various Mariposa County officials, both appointed and elected.  Recall there were attempts to annex it into the boundary many years before the district was formed by LAFCO.  Likely the sort of water agreements and extensions of service the CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission) referenced in its January 1981 approval for the transfer of facilities and assets from SIERRA HIGHLANDS WATER COMPANY to the newly formed LDPCSD.   Such “deals” were the liabilities of SIERRA HIGHLANDS and were not to become the obligations to the new district and its customers in the approved subdivision – UNLESS specifically mentioned as was the SOLOMON and other agreements.

This legal decision was unacceptable to those real estates interests dedicated to expanding that limited water service by a community services district far beyond what was legally designed and permitted.  Immediately, this district began expanding with line extensions and new connections and spreading the costs for that expansion on the MR WECs of the new Lake Don Pedro Community Services District.  Forcing those mandatory Merced River water entitled LDPCSD customers of the former Sierra Highlands subdivision to pay for extended water services outside the subdivision which was the POU for the water license.  All subdivision properties are subject to far more restrictive regulations than OUTSIDE POU properties. (NOTE:  I have talked with owners who have said they were merely asked if they wanted to put in their own groundwater well for +/- $10,000 (at that time) or just be annexed into the LDPCSD and receive water service.  Hell, what what most people do with such options?  The problem is, the people making those deals were KNOWINGLY VIOLATING THE REGULATIONS of a public agency they were supposed to be representing.  This is how we ended up with a bunch of properties annexed into the district but have private domestic wells.  They can vote in our elections but are not “true stakeholders” of the LDPCSD or water license entitled subdivision.  Terribly unfair all the way around, but that’s what happens without responsible management.  If the interests outside the subdivision wanting water pooled their resources years ago they could have pursued their own various projects.  No doubt some sort of “special benefit” GROUNDWATER SUBSTITUTION SERVICE ZONE” could have been established with private groundwater wells providing all necessary outside POU service.  NO?  Not fair for those receiving a special benefit to pay for that special benefit?

But wait a sec, what was that other thing……something about……?

Oh yeah,

HOW COULD A DIRECTOR ON A BOARD REQUESTING AND APPROVING VARIOUS ANNEXATION RESOLUTIONS INTO THE LDPCSD SERVICE DISTRICT-

(that were still OUTSIDE THE PLACE OF USE (POU) OF THE WATER LICENSE FOR MERCED RIVER WATER SERVICE – AND THEREFORE HAD TO BE PROVIDED EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE GROUNDWATER WHICH THE LDPCSD DID NOT HAVE) 

– NOT BE AWARE and ADVISED BY PETE KAMPA THAT THERE WAS INDEED A PROPOSED 900 ACRE SUBDIVISION ACROSS THE STREET CALLED LAKE SHORE RANCH THAT KAMPA WAS PERSONALLY INVOLVED? 

APPARENTLY PETE KAMPA WAS KEEPING AN “ANNEXATION SECRET” FROM THE BOARD, which confirms the suspected reason Kampa was required to write a letter of apology for misrepresenting district plans of annexation to the planning department of Tuolumne County before suddenly resigning and heading off north to McCloud where his management techniques also caused community disruption.

 

I must get away from this computer

There are other things I must do

Only stopped to post a quick document

But you know your blah, blah, blah Lew!

lol

So ANYWAY, here’s another study “avalanche offering” of how even in 1995 during Kampa’s first tour of employment, there’s this active effort to keep customers from knowing what their public agency CSD officials were actually doing in greatly expanding district water service and a future water demand far beyond what we could legally provide under the water license.  Think about all the public resources dedicated to the purpose of bringing these outside POU properties into the district for future GROUNDWATER SUBSTITUTION SERVICE, yet KAMPA & KOMPANY want to charge MR WECs for notice as to what’s being wrongfully pursued and accomplished with their money?

NOTE: DON’T CONFUSE, SALLY PUNTE (County Supervisor and LDPCSD Director) and

LARRY PUNTE (LDPCSD Director)

OH YEAH, notice the second name of the directors approving this charge for meeting notice?  Punte?  That is not Sally Punte, but rather her husband Larry Punte who served on the LDPCSD Board of Directors from 1992-1995.   Sally Punte was the Mariposa County District II Supervisor for this area between the years 1988 – 1992, and was later the LDPCSD Board President who signed the July 10, 2008 water agreement with the Merced Irrigation District.  That was the agreement where an obviously incorrect “Fake POU Map” was attached to the agreement with a disclaimer as to accuracy by the LDPCSD attorney.

Larry Punte started as director on December 3, 1993

 

and evidently voted to hire PETE KAMPA on December 8th, 1993 with KAMPA starting work in January 1994:

 

This is quite interesting and raises a number of other questions that will be addressed later when a chronological analysis is completed studying the approval path between the county and the LDPCSD with of some of these questionable annexation resolutions.

This is very troublesome.  (ABOVE MAP APPROVED IN JULY 2008)  Those massive additions to the POU Boundary are obvious to ANYONE REMOTELY FAMILIAR WITH WATER LICENSE 11395 or who may have made a cursory comparison to the legitimate June 15, 1978 SWRCB approved POU map.

Sorry for the sloppy presentations above but I already had those “marked up copies” lying around so might as well use them.

DATES OF CONFLICTING POU MAPS

WAIT A SECOND!

WHAT WAS THE DATE OF THE MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT POU MAP THAT WAS HANDED TO ME BY AN MID MANAGER while I was still a director?….hang on…….. Yup, I thought so…the MBK 2008 – but what month?  

Ahhhh, there it is in the bottom right hand corner… but hard to see – let’s zoom in shall we?

Ah, July 2008 – the official POU MAP for WL11395 by the MID ENGINEERING FIRM

This is the same firm PETE KAMPA stated provided the legal WL11395 POU for his $35,000 digital mapping project because the SWRCB required a digital map in response to their Sept 28, 2017 Notice of Violation, which frankly doesn’t sound right to me because one would think ANY LEGITIMATE government document or evidence would be accepted.  {EMPHASIS ON LEGITIMATE – because as good ‘ol Pete Kampa has proven once again – digital information can be intentionally corrupted as easily as paper and pen, and Kampa certainly appears to be an expert at both forms of customer/public/government deception. 

The CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION is indeed_________________ to have such ________________ directors on their board for almost 20 years.} 

What’s the point right?

Would an original paper birth certificate be refused if not on a thumb drive?   Or the paper map I was provided during escrow of my property purchase rejected if not on a CD?  Kampa said a digital map was REQUIRED BY THE SWRCB, ok, we’ll see.

Let’s take a look at what that $35,000 digital mapping project produced in response to what Board President Danny Johnson characterized as a request for the

“FINAL ANSWER

TO THE LDPCSD POU MAP QUESTION

ONCE AND FOR ALL”.

Ready?  Here’s what Pete Kampa and his “yes nodding board of defectors” presented to the public and the state water board in defense of a notice of violations regarding the water rights of license 11395.

A very expensive map (and unknown length and cost of a continuing service contract for updates and miscellaneous services) that fails to identify the

legitimate PLACE OF USE BOUNDARY for MERCED RIVER WATER per water license 11395.

WL11395 is not even mentioned!

This map PETE KAMPA and HIS BOARD OF DEFECTORS paid to have created to answer the question as to where Merced River water could legally be used under water license 11395 in this area, only directs a viewer to the Merced Irrigation District which Kampa states supplied the factual basis information for this

KK BM

-or-

[KAMPA KRAPA   BULLSHIT MAPA]

lol

California CAD Solutions was paid to produce a map illustrating the Place of Use for Merced River Water per WL11395

yet the map only directs a viewer to the MID!

Another CLASSIC KAMPA FULL CIRCLE OF EXPENSIVE AND MEANINGLESS SUBTERFUGE TO CONCEAL THE FACT HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN QUITE DISHONEST WHEN IT COMES TO CLEAR WATER LICENSE RESTRICTIONS IN 11395!

ANOTHER PERFECT EXAMPLE

OF THE FINE WORK IN GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY PERFORMED

by CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICT ASSOCIATION (CSDA) 20 year BOARD DIRECTOR

PETER J. KAMPA

with the undying support of his

“BOBBLE HEADED YES NODDING BOARD OF DEFECTORS”

BUT THEY ARE CERTAINLY NOT ALONE IN THIS EXPANSIVE MISREPRESENTATION OF FACT AND APPARENTLY POSSESS CRUCIAL “IN HOUSE SUPPORT” EVEN AT THE STATE LEVEL.

SO WHAT ABOUT THE SUBSEQUENT and CONTINUED MISREPORTING OF FACT BY THE SWRCB AFTER SUCH AN EXCELLENT Sept 28 2017 NOTICE OF VIOLATION INVESTIGATION –

is that a result of internal SWRCB support for PETE KAMPA and his activities?

(Counties of violation are still incorrectly posted on the SWRCB water right complaints website chart as STANISLAUS and SUTTER, instead of TUOLUMNE and MARIPOSA, despite an April advisement (complaint) and assurance it had been corrected – perhaps it does legitimately take more than 4 months to correct such posted information?  I don’t know, but it doesn’t seem right.)

Is the continued display of such OBVIOUS INCORRECT INFORMATION the work of internal “DEEP STATE ACTIVISTS” pushing some personal and/or liberal “water for all agenda” while simultaneously demonstrating a complete disregard for their paid responsibility of enforcing established California water law?

?????????????????????????????

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 

Why would ANY Merced Irrigation District official (exercising a modicum of due diligence) sign a water agreement involving their extremely valuable water license when an obviously incorrect map produced the month before was attached?

REM?  The LDPCSD purchased a GIS Plotter and started cranking out “fake maps” left and right and interjecting them into the information stream?   Some labeled proposed, others not.  At least this was labeled proposed and the attorney wrote a disclaimer as to accuracy, but seriously……..is this how a “wink and nod” is conducted?

Was the JULY 2008 MID OFFICIAL POU MAP simply an “insurance policy reaction” by the MID to demonstrate they were still familiar with the legitimate POU boundary of their license?

Or did the LDPCSD slip their June 2008 “FAKE POU MAP” into that July 10, 2008 agreement just before the MID MAP was plotted later that month?

WHO KNOWS WITHOUT THE FACTS?

BUT IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT PASS THE SMELL TEST!

How could MID officials possibly have been unaware of the

MAJOR DIFFERENCES in the POU BOUNDARY as presented in that LDPCSD JUNE 2008 POU map?

?   ?   ?

 

I’ve got to get away – any mistakes fixed in time

She’s been a real trooper – with legitimate whine

Tells me when the hens need out – tells me when they need in

Tells me now it’s time to go out – and appreciate the less smoky wind.

 

MUCH BETTER LOOKING SOUTHEAST

 

My best to you and yours, Lew

The pond at the Don Pedro Waste Water Treatment Plant

on Ranchito Drive can be seen in the top right corner of this old photo.

 

How could that possibly be? – one might legitimately ask since that new sewer facility was constructed to replace the old one on the golf course that was failing and both were constructed for the exclusive benefit of the golf course complex and select homes around the golf course.  As most know, Mariposa County LAFCo (Local Area Formation Commission), formed the Lake Don Pedro Community Services District under the condition that it eventually assume financial responsibility and operation for that waste water system – a system with a history fraught with various difficulties.

The reason for that second waste water system was due to the land development projects the county was permitting in the area, and continued to permit despite serious concerns which materialized during the uncontrolled development on the Mariposa County side of the Lake Don Pedro subdivision.  Tuolumne County officials on the other hand apparently held a strong line against the bellicose threats of lawsuits by a late on the scene exploiting land development/mortgage corporation from the Bay Area.  ANYONE questioning the many suspicious activities of that corporation were incorrectly tagged as “anti-local development” rather than the supporters of “common sense” regulations that they were.

Not surprisingly that “pro expansion corporation” from San Ramon received much behind the scene support and a “hero’s welcome” from the local real estate and land development interests who had been demanding WL11395 water for decades with limited success.

Many new homes were quickly constructed around the golf course area in clear violation of the Lake Don Pedro Owners’ Association CC&Rs (Covenants, Codes, Restrictions) which prohibited speculative and model home construction.  Those very important regulations, were specifically designed and intended to prevent exactly what happened.  Still, the many “difficult to develop properties” located on the steep hills around the golf course where a traditional “on site” septic system would be too expensive or inadequate, required some sort of waste disposal system for housing development to proceed.   (Reminds me of how Mariposa County allowed construction of several extremely dangerous and nonconforming  “developer convenience roads” for “difficult to develop properties” on hillsides and flood prone low areas.   Inferior and dangerous public roadways constructed in a HIGH FIRE SEVERITY ZONE some 12 years AFTER the 1991 State Responsibility Area FIRE SAFE minimum roadway standards were established because they were CHEAPER, EASIER, AND COULD BE COMPLETED QUICKLY in contrast to the more expensive, permitted, and legally compliant individual driveways to each proposed house.)

ANYWAY….., so what was the original answer to the pro-development push around the golf course?

Simply have LAFCO create a special benefit sewer service zone financially dependent on the residents who will receive that special service benefit.  At first blush the plan appears to be very reasonable until you discover how it was executed.

Yes it sounds cynical, but seriously…

why would the county be concerned with all the development it was approving or the proper functioning and utilization of a special benefit waste water treatment system for that area if the whole thing was going to be  “DUMPED” on the LDPCSD anyway?

(Always easier to gamble with another person’s money yeah?)

The county could permit any proposed development it wanted that would increase their revenue stream (permits, inspections, taxes,etc.) regardless of potential, or known, high risk for failure or later difficulties because that sewer nightmare was going to be forced on the LDPCSD, and the LDPCSD could then just pass those additional expenses onto the MR WECs of the LDP subdivision.

PERFECT!  

MANDATORY LDPCSD CUSTOMERS SINCE THEY OWNED PROPERTY IN THE SUBDIVISION –

WHO’S ONLY ESCAPE FROM FURTHER UNFAIR (ILLEGAL?) ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES (if they even found out) WAS TO SELL THEIR PROPERTY AT A LOSS AND MOVE.

A double bonus!

The real estate/land development interests that set this whole scam up with LAFCO in the first place will win either way!

If an owner stays – they will subsidize ANYTHING FORCED ON THEM and if they choose to abandon their dream of living in these beautiful foothills – realtors would still be making money on the resale of “improved properties”.

Why sell a property only once when you can create and perpetuate an environment encouraging multiple sales of the same lot?

So here we are in 2018 with the same old problem – not enough paying residential customers around the golf course area to financially support the second facility or operate it as designed.  Again, you can’t blame the people living there now who are fighting to prevent their monthly fees from tripling to avoid state receivership, they are like the rest of us – trying to survive the best they can with what they have.

If any “blame” is to be assigned it should obviously fall on those individuals and entities who intentionally violated the law, and/or the public’s trust for the sake of their own personal and/or business motivated interests.

Ready for a shitty joke?

  Despite all the fabricated documents, and the continued lying and cheating CRAP produced by these outside POU water service advocates –

there still is NOT ENOUGH CRAP for that waste water facility to operate as designed.

If there was true responsibility/accountability, all those disruptive big mouths (most connected with local real estate) who advocated the violation of our existing regulations and supported that invading land developer’s exploitation of our subdivision and reources –  they would be forced (like MR WECs are being forced to pay for this nonsense) to purchase a home around the golf course, move there, and live the rest of their miserable deceitful lives supporting it financially and physically, ie, with their money and the same sort of excrement they used to create the problem in the first place!

ooooh, too harsh?

Consider, this “under use” of the waste facility may have also been a variable in Mariposa County’s decision to ultimately use the facility to dump and process tanker truck loads of leachate hauled from the Mariposa County landfill to the Don Pedro facility when excessive precipitation caused their holding pond of the toxic substance to overflow.  (Or perhaps the second replacement sewer facility was always intended to be a secondary use “leachate processing facility” for the landfill problem during heavy rain and snow melt?)  Regardless, tanker truck loads of the “varying degrees of toxic fluid” were hauled to Lake Don Pedro during the cover of night and dumped in the system with the eventual remaining solid material also trucked out to agricultural interests in the lower San Joaquin Valley.  Lovely.  The repetitious heavy weight transportation over our deteriorating rural roads probably wasn’t too helpful either.

ANYWAY……

QUESTION:  So how are the MR WECs of Lake Don Pedro residential subdivision also subsidizing the DON PEDRO WASTE WATER FACILITY?

{come on now….as much as I repeat myself repeat myself ….you should know this one……  come on… how are MR WECs also paying a portion of the sewer service for and around the golf course?.……we pay extra $$$ because……??????}

ANSWER:   Because the second waste water plant the County of Mariposa and LAFCo planned and developed was on land OUTSIDE THE PLACE OF USE for Merced River water per Water License 11395 and therefore MUST BE PROVIDED EXPENSIVE GROUNDWATER SUBSTITUTION to operate.

(Recall my wondering if LAFCO commissioner Erickson was related to the Erickson Ranch owner on Ranchito Drive who sold properties the County used to construct the new sewer plant and spray field on Ranchito Drive?  Where I acknowledged, like with my own last name being the same as another Commissioner, that it could have just been a co-incidence?  Certainly not making any accusations, just trying to figure out why some pretty “bonehead” decisions have been made considering the reality of the Merced River water restrictions in WL11395.  Yes!  I admit it!  I was a Boy Scout and want to believe the best in people….after all, what is the road to hell paved with?    Good intentions, yeah?  I certainly don’t mean to suggest, nor do I want to believe, that the people involved with this stuff are necessarily evil and/or politically dedicated to harming our nation for their personal/political ideals through the corruption of local government and our system of justice.   Obviously there are individuals and organizations active in such pursuits, but I’d rather believe these people were just the “big fish in a little local pond” utilizing their intelligence, experience, power and authority (even if granted through public trust) to push through annexations and land development proposals that could not have stood on their own merit if existing rules, regulations and the law were followed.  Why did they do this? Who knows?  Friendship?  Business deal?  Ignorance?   Tricked?  Who knows without the facts or a deathbed confession?

Just think about those multiple bites at that LAKE SHORE RANCH “annexation apple” for a 900 acre residential subdivision that was either:

1) approved back in 1995 and essentially kept a secret from the public and MR WECs for over twenty years, or more likely,

2) had it’s designation quietly changed and approved from SOI (Sphere of Influence) to being within the LDPCSD service boundary with cannibalized parts of previous (perhaps even different) resolutions and pieced together to gain that LAFCo-LDPCSD agreed decision to change the LDPCSD water service district boundary in 2014.     LAFCO and LDPCSD ANNEXATION RESOLUTIONS

(Kampa probably also needs this “EXPANDED BOUNDARY MAP” due to all the “FAKE POU MAPS” he had already provided to state and federal departments for all that grant money to construct and develop the groundwater wells necessary for his “alternate source” to serve the LAFCO annexed properties brought into LDPCSD service area – despite still being outside the POU of the water license and prohibited Merced River water!)    LAFCO had also always illustrated the Lake Shore Ranch proposed annexation as SOI (Sphere of Influence) – even in the published County Municipal Service Review of 2008.

Then, only a few months before PETE KAMPA’s unethical return as GM in October 2014 (a return orchestrated by outside MIDPOU cattle rancher and sitting Director Emery Ross), in a meeting in Mariposa between LAFCO and LDPCSD officials, it was agreed to change the service boundary map and include the Lake Shore Ranch proposed subdivision that Pete Kampa had worked on twenty years earlier!  All done in a SEMI-CLOSED PUBLIC MEETING that I was prohibited from attending.  Although still a director on the board who had studied the issue for years and was catching a ride to Mariposa with the citizen commissioner Ken Kennedy, I was repeatedly told I could not attend that meeting by the GM and Board President who stated it would be a Brown Act violation yet EMERY ROSS as an OUTSIDE POU COMMERCIAL CATTLE RANCHING SITTING DIRECTOR was permitted to participate in an OUTSIDE POU LDPCSD CURIOUS BOUNDARY CHANGE?  Sounds more like a conflict of interest.)

Then there’s the matter of how that waste water facility was initially set up for billing – also rather suspicious.

Well, here’s another day side-tracked due in part to the below report I ran across while picking up from the most recent avalanche of paperwork in my study. (No serious injuries, but thanks for asking – lol)   Posted below was the first part of an OUTSIDE PLACE OF USE GROUNDWATER SUBSTITUTED WATER SERVICE  “BILLING CORRECTION” for the Don Pedro Waste Water facility, which as I recall, actually ended up being

$45,000 with the LDPCSD receiving $40,000 in reimbursement.

(Despite objections from Director Ross who felt it unfair for those customers to pay for what they used.)

A continuing SUBSIDIZED GROUNDWATER SERVICE and a FREE “WRONG METER” PROVIDING FREE GROUNDWATER FOR YEARS until the issue was finally pursued and corrected?

Yup, no wonder the County from the beginning intended to “DUMP” this waste water facility on their LDPCSD – or rather the victim MR WECs of their LDPCSD.  (A special district which doubled as a convenient repository for all things suspicious regarding planning and land development near the Lake Don Pedro subdivision .)

Unfortunately that sewer system is even more expensive to operate now that the “sneaky meter cheat” was supposedly corrected.

This is all extremely sad but sure explains why the Lake Don Pedro subdivision does not have a more sustainable, efficient and drought resistant intake and top notch treatment equipment for some of the best quality water in the State of California!  Yup, one hell of a selling point – a massive rolling foothill residential subdivision supplied with quality Merced River water right from Yosemite National Park!  Only one problem….the “movers and shakers”

didn’t want our subdivision land with water,

only

our subdivision water on their land.

I still believe the Lake Don Pedro subdivision will one day be an exceptionally desirable place to live for many more residents but for that to happen our greatest natural resource of quality water must be aggressively protected.

Protected from those who have  thus far only succeeded in misdirecting for decades the purpose of the LDPCSD and its surface water treatment plant to OUTSIDE WATER LICENSE PLACE OF USE PROPERTY INTERESTS while simultaneously forcing the majority of  MR WECs of the subdivision to pay substantially higher costs to serve all customers a lower quality “contaminant blended water” in order to sell that “blend” outside the subdivision.  Outside a subdivision where every single lot owner is entitled to the high quality Merced River water stored in Lake McClure at only the cost required to provide such water service.

Seems to me something extremely valuable to this subdivision’s healthy maintenance and growth requires immediate protection for the other half to successfully develop in the future.

My best to you and yours, Lew

 

I imagine if one searched through enough boxes of old records it might be inevitable (or at least highly probable) that some relevant information concerning the ultimate goal of that research might occasionally be discovered – aka, even a blind squirrel can find an acorn in the tree every once in a while theory – lol.

The Ultimate Goal in this case is to understand how this special services district, (which was ostensibly designed and intended to serve the subdivision through a surface water treatment plant under established WL11395 conditions), has been reconfigured into a special benefit GROUNDWATER SUBSTITUTION FACILITY for LAFCO annexed properties Pete Kampa worked with over 20 years ago when first employed by the LDPCSD.

Yesterday I was trying to locate prior CUSTOMER CONFIDENCE REPORTS regarding our water quality because I wondered how the contaminants known to be in the groundwater might have caused this recent negative report since that groundwater must be blended with Lake McClure water in order to provide water service outside the PLACE OF USE (POU) per water license 11395 which is held by the MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT.

(Side note: my hope that the MID may have also been “hoodwinked” by KAMPA & KOMPANY regarding this POU issue has been further reduced as a result of the material you are about to view which could be interpreted as evidence of some kind of “wink and nod”  MID approval for the LDPCSD to continue violating MID’s WL11395 Merced River water restrictions.  After all, a massive “groundwater alternate source” paid for with local public funds and government grants would also solve the MID’s difficulties in fulfilling water service obligations (actually placed on the LDPCSD) – that were exchanged for the water rights held by the owner of the proposed annexed property that the MID would eventually receive when the property was ready to develop.  (Yes, I know, it is pretty confusing at times, but rest assured, that is EXACTLY WHAT WAS INTENDED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING! Now, back to the water quality reports.)

PLEASE NOTE HOW THESE

CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORTS

USE DIFFERENT REPORTING

FORMATS UNDER A YEARLY TITLE

The [“COMPLETED JULY 2016”] CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORT posted on the LDPCSD website, refers to the 2015 year: from Jan 1 2015 – Dec 31, 2015,

whereas the

2017 CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORT recently mailed to LDPCSD customers, refers to the 2017 year: from Jan 1 2017 – Dec 31, 2017.

This sure appears to be another intentionally deceptive technique used by current GM/Treasurer Pete Kampa because at first blush reports indicating [“completed July 2016”] and 2017 suggest a chronologically consecutive order to the information provided under their respective titles which SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST since the “completed July 2016” REPORT refers to the 2015 time period while the 2017 REPORT refers to the 2017 time period.  Word games to intentionally mislead, but still, where is the CCR for the year 2016?

TYPICAL KAMPA-GANDA

used to intentionally daze and confuse recipients of such compliance reports. 

(Any wonder why the traditional water loss and outside POU compliance reports have been discontinued in the monthly agenda packets for public review?) 

The water quality for “Completed July 2016” CCR (Jan 1 2015 – Dec 31, 2015) which was based only on the original RANCHITO DRIVE well #1 (developed in the early 1990s) water production mixed with traditional Lake McClure water, produced good testing results and can be viewed on the LDPCSD website.

SIDE NOTE: That original Ranchito Drive well #1 reportedly ceased water production shortly after the other groundwater wells were developed and has remained off line and unproductive to this date.  (Could that well have actually ceased production much earlier but its failure not reported to the state and customers while other “emergency groundwater wells” were quickly developed with public funds for the specific license compliance requirements for outside POU LAFCO ANNEXED LAND water service?  A special benefit water service for outside POU properties which both KAMPA and his BOARD OF DIRECTORS repeatedly stated would not be accomplished with the new publicly funded groundwater wells?  So much for their assurances. 

Recall the multiple days of alleged “unknown power loss” – thus the excuse for a lack of required monitoring and reporting to the state?   This “potential earlier failure” might also explain all the reported “malfunctioning water meters” the LDPCSD has experienced through the years which made accurate reporting impossible.  Why repair something that will only indicate where the water is actually going when it is going to places it should not be in the first place?   Remember the 13 dry/poor quality groundwater wells Kampa quickly drilled at an estimated cost of $20,000 each?  Kampa was even drilling in the locations where previous well drilling attempts had failed 20 years earlier?  What sort of plan is that?  

Yup, an earlier failure of Ranchito #1 sure might explain the frantic rush (and secrecy) to groundwater substitution if the district was falling further behind every day in groundwater substitution for the LAFCO annexed properties receiving Merced River water – especially since PETE KAMPA was surely aware of the other, up to then, unreported outside POU services beyond the subdivision that should be receiving a groundwater substitution.  But who knows when truthful facts are consistently withheld from the customers, not to mention water regulatory/enforcement entities of the State of California?

Contaminated water production from only one groundwater well will obviously produce a lesser quantity of contaminated water than multiple groundwater wells which produce a greater volume of contaminated water.  Duh!  It sure seems like the blending of a higher quantity of contaminated water with Lake McClure water would change the quality characteristics of the final blended product that is distributed to customers. But again, who knows without the facts.

I could not locate the CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORT covering the period Jan 1 2016 – Dec 31 2016 as the posted “completed July 2016” REPORT on the LDPCSD WEBSITE actually covers the period between Jan-Dec 2015.  SHOULD NOT THE TESTING FOR THE 2016 YEAR ALSO BE POSTED ON THE LDPCSD WEBSITE?  Should not ALL CCRS be posted?

I will be contacting the SWRCB Merced office (per instructions in the recent 2017 CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORT mailer) for more information regarding water source assessment since such has apparently not been performed since 2010 according to the mailed material ???  – EVEN THOUGH multiple groundwater sources have been developed since 2010 with that water being “blended” with the traditional excellent quality water obtained from Lake McClure?)   Why has there not been a more recent DRINKING WATER SOURCE ASSESSMENT since new multiple GROUNDWATER WELLS are being used to produce the final customer “blended water” product?  Is there something about the quality of this GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION PETE KAMPA and his “yes nodding” BOARD OF DIRECTORS is concealing from the public?  Again, who could possibly know without access to truthful facts?  Especially when the GM and his Board consistently misrepresent facts while diligently supporting the obvious FAKE POU MAP  provided by Pete Kampa?

If reading the recent 2017 REPORT correctly (Jan-Dec 2017 water production/consumption), not only did the water fail to meet the established state standards for quality, but the testing process was also nonconforming to current state regulations – thus the disclaimer of being unable to assure customers of the quality of water produced during 2017.  Wonderful.  Remember those times when our tap water smelled, tasted and looked different?  (Recall that the HORNBROOK (sorry different Kampa CSD which failed to report water diversions properly to the state, ie previous post re: $75,000 fine down to $250 fine) McCloud CSD, another PETE KAMPA prior managed special district after he left the LDPCSD the first time in 1997 *, had also recently been prosecuted by the State for failing to properly report testing results indicating the water was contaminated with bacteria?  Two water operators there actually lost their licenses due to that failure to report water quality fact.   McCloud CSD News  )

* McCloud was the CSD whose community was/is in turmoil due to a contract with the Nestle bottling company which Pete Kampa was evidently involved.   According to a thesis I just read (excellent thesis by Kerry Topel which I will post under “SO WWW” top left menu home page ASAP), the Nestle Corporation was first approached by Mc Cloud in 1998.  Governor Gerry Brown was the Attorney General in July 2008 and in a letter to the Siskiyou Planning Department stated that the Draft Environmental Impact Review (DEIR) of the water bottling contract between Nestle Waters North America (NWNA) and the McCloud CSD was “so fundamentally and basically inadequate….that meaningful public review and comment (is) precluded” and threatened to sue if NWNA did not improve their DEIR.  What a coincidence – just realized why that date seemed familiar, the LDPCSD water contract with the MID (with the  “fake POU map” posted below) was signed in July 2008 as well.  What a small world.

 

Well, at least there is a bright side to this LDPCSD water quality deception – it wasn’t a bacterial type contamination …..that we know of…..but if deceived about other facts…..could we have been deceived about……?    You know what is coming next, right?

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me many, many times, shame on me!

Even though consumption of such water might only negatively affect highly sensitive or older customers with medical issues, such intentional deceit by a public agency is reprehensible.  Who knows what harm may have been caused to particular individuals not yet diagnosed with an ailment whose resulting negative effects may not be realized and/or appreciated for many years to come?

CCR-

Consumer Confidence Report?  

More like a

CONTINUED CONCEALMENT ROUTINE!

I recall reading in LDPCSD minutes from the 1990s that local groundwater sources contained contaminants not found in lake water that can damage sensitive treatment plant equipment.  I’ll try to find that advisement as I believe it came from Pete Kampa himself when employed here the first time.

Considering this recent CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORT, another question becomes,

Are the MR WECs of the Lake Don Pedro subdivision, in addition to being unfairly saddled with the substantial additional costs of a GROUNDWATER SUBSTITUTION PROGRAM for LAFCO ANNEXED PROPERTIES, also being provided water of a lesser quality due to the “blending of groundwater” containing these various undesirable contaminants?  Another “double whammy” for the mandatory

MR WECs of the LDP subdivision?

In other words,

Are MR WECs being provided a lesser quality water while simultaneously being forced to pay much more in charges and fees for that inferior water service only because such “water blending” is required for outside POU LAFCO properties because they are legally prohibited from using Merced River water under license restrictions?

Wonder if I still repeat myself?

Yup, sure wonder sometimes if I am still repeating myself.

Lol

Anyway, will try to obtain more information on this water quality issue, but let’s get back to the intended point of this particular blah, blah, blah that once again has completely destroyed my previously scheduled and personally preferred weekend activities at home.  Yes, I know,  because I allow such CSD matters to disrupt my weekend but I truly believe it is an extremely important matter when a public agency betrays the customers it was intended to serve for the special interests of others.

Soooooo, while searching for old water quality reports I ran across the below water agreement between the LDPCSD and the Merced Irrigation District dated July 10, 2008 which is an EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF THE TYPE OF DISINGENUOUS PUBLIC AGENCY ACTIVITY THAT NOT ONLY CREATED THIS POU CONTROVERSY, BUT HAS PERPETUATED IT FOR DECADES THROUGH THE CONTINUED ADVOCACY AND USE OF KNOWN FALSE AND INCORRECT INFORMATION.

(What most people would consider BOLD FACE LIES!)

Calculating the additional costs to the MR WECs of the subdivision through the years would undoubtedly produce a substantial and quite shocking monetary estimate considering the public resources expended on both sides of this water service expansion outside the POU of WL11395.   This –  in addition to the diminished water quality and service received by those legally entitled to Lake McClure/Merced River water.

I must admit to being very disappointed once again with the activities of individuals previously believed to be honestly working for the MR WECs of the LDP subdivision.   Yes, ignorance is bliss.  I sometimes wish I had never learned the truth about these devious two faced people.

Perhaps a more appropriate name for lakedonpedro.org would be “Death of a Boy Scout”?

My best to you and yours, Lew

OOPS!  lol —- Guess I should actually post that water agreement that raises some very serious questions as to the motives and personal integrity of some of the players involved in this continuing POU scam.  Check out the clear disclaimer as to accuracy of information on the first page – pretty much says it all.  In light of this disclaimer, how likely is it that the MID had absolutely no idea as to this major map deception in the POU BOUNDARY?  Especially after “busting” the LDPCSD eight years earlier for license violations and demanding monthly compliance reports regarding where Merced River water was being diverted and used along with how much groundwater was produced to replace that which left the subdivision POU?  Humm, then there was that issue of MID not understanding my request for public information regarding those compliance reports for over 16 years that they required of the LDPCSD in writing.

First the MID requirement for monthly compliance reporting…..

THEN EIGHT YEARS LATER THIS “PROPOSED EXHIBIT A” FAKE POU MAP BY THE LDPCSD?

 

(FAKE MAP BELOW) LOOK AT ALL THOSE “OPEN LAND” ANNEXATIONS REQUIRING EXPENSIVE GROUNDWATER SUBSTITUTION BECAUSE THEY ARE OUTSIDE THE

LAKE DON PEDRO SUBDIVISION which is the LEGAL PLACE OF USE FOR MERCED RIVER WATER PER WL11395 which was confirmed again in the September 28th, 2017 STATE WATER BOARD NOTICE OF VIOLATION to LDPCSD GM PETE KAMPA.

(NOTE: the lighter printed area of the subdivision indicates Tuolumne County land)

My best to you and yours, Lew

BUT WHERE IS THE PUNISHMENT FOR AN INTENTIONAL WRONGDOER?

No wonder State Water Board investigations and such don’t seem to bother or concern Pete Kampa much – he is already personally familiar with the investigative processes involved and the likely outcomes that will result.

This may be especially true in the Lake Don Pedro CSD POU KAMPA MAP SCAM CASE as it certainly appears Kampa already had “operatives” working for his interests within particular SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board) divisions.  Yes, that is a pretty bold statement but when all the facts are finally made public I believe the far majority of viewers will wholeheartedly agree with the statement – if not all.

Actually, I have withheld some, what I consider to be very important information, regarding the “motives of others” in this matter due to the hope of eventually contacting an  investigator interested in the truth, but if that does not materialize I’ll still share it with you viewers like I have in the past – considering those charged with investigating and enforcing the law in such matters apparently do not seem the least bit interested.  (Of course it is entirely possible that “they” are just reluctant to communicate ANYTHING with a FRUSTRATED BIG MOUTH BLOGGER!  lol)

But seriously though, how many times must a citizen request contact with a LEGITIMATE STATE INVESTIGATOR or wait for some human acknowledgement and cooperation (rather than mere computer generated “thank you auto-responses”) or some affirmative corrective action by the “POWERS THAT BE” before throwing hands up in complete disgust and frustration and giving up just as the intentional wrongdoers desire?

It’s already been 2-1/2 years since the original complaint.    TWO AND A HALF YEARS OF WASTED PUBLIC RESOURCES REGARDING A MATTER THAT COULD BE CLEARED UP IN ONLY MINUTES WITH THE FACTUAL TRUTHS ALREADY DOCUMENTED IN THE SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2017 STATE WATER BOARD NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO THE LDPCSD AND GM PETE KAMPA!  Unbelievable.

Heck, even if the LDPCSD were to pick up a fine (like the one below from another one of Kampa’s “remote managed CSDs”) Kampa isn’t the one who ends up paying for that “slap on the wrist” anyway.  Care to take a wild guess at who IS ACTUALLY FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE for such Kampa failures?

If you are a

MR WECs

just look into any mirror.

Please also realize there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between failing to meet routine state paperwork deadlines and the intentional violation of WL11395 POU restrictions on Merced River water use for over two decades.  And what was the purpose of  such water license violations and the provision of an extremely expensive GROUNDWATER SUBSTITUTION PROGRAM to property owners our district has no moral obligation or legal duty to provide water?

So private third party land developers with outside WL113395 POU LAFCO ANNEXED PROPERTIES (with whom Kampa worked with over 20 years ago) would have a subsidized water service for greater profits.  (ie, as in a “slumbering 900 acre subdivision” Kampa had supposedly annexed in 1995 yet that annexation was essentially concealed from the public for over 20 years until shortly before Kampa’s unethical board of director’s closed GM recruitment process and appointment in 2014.)

Yup a VERY BIG DIFFERENCE from accidentally falling behind in required state paperwork.

ACTUAL INTENT OF THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY. 

THAT SHOULD BE THE FOCUS.

 

 

(NOTE: The above blank form is what was included in the Hornbrook online file.)

 

My best to you and yours, Lew

Can’t believe the CSD read –

Remember the 2015 good news?

Water loss effectively controlled

At least that’s what KAMPA spewed.

 

???????????????????????????

“General Manager’s Report Summary

September 14, 2015

Infrastructure and Operations

System Water losses

– Attached are water system reports for August 2015 (4.5% loss), and a corrected report for July 2015 (10.5% loss), which reflect a clear and dramatic trend of decreased system losses resulting from the aggressive leak repair and water service line replacement. This aggressive effort was to accomplish multiple objectives:

Allow our existing workforce to be able to conduct system operation and maintenance work, which had not been done in years due to their full time being consumed in leak repairs, meter reading and

Reduce leakage quickly to save water during drought and 50% customer

mandated reductions

Determine the cost effectiveness of contracting versus staff conducted leak

repairs, and the associated impact on the District budget and system

operation and maintenance

Get our system water losses below 10%

I would say we accomplished each and every objective! “

????????????????????

 

Do such Pete Kampa statements make much sense considering recent treated water losses between 32% – 47%? 

Also please recall that the “raw” (untreated water) loss between the lake and treatment plant is still an unknown variable because it is not even monitored. 

How many interconnections are there between LDPCSD and MID recreational water lines at Lake McClure?  

Apparently such interconnection exists as I recall reading where the LDPCSD had “sold water” back to MID for use in their swimming lagoon multiple times due to a contamination issue at the lake.   I believe a state water department also advocated in correspondence that the LDPCSD actually take over water service at Lake McClure years ago. 

Could the MID also be liberating some of the water LDPCSD purchases from MID through a connection somewhere between the treatment plant and MID recreational properties at McClure? 

The MID supported annexations into the LDPCSD knowing such were incapable of being served lake water under its license.  Heck, the MID evidently received other water rights from owners of the annexed land by promising LDPCSD would eventually provide water service to the LAFCO approved development.  But how? 

RE-ENTER PETE KAMPA

But what happened? Why was “low loss reporting” changed back to “high loss reporting”?

Who knows without being privy to the facts but I would guess as the State Water Board became more involved with LDPCSD operations through mandatory upgrades to our monitoring equipment (required to confirm compliance with the water license due to the GROUNDWATER SUBSTITUTION PROGRAM for LAFCO ANNEXED PROPERTIES used for over 20 years) it likely became more and more difficult to conceal this known (and ignored) water loss so as time passed the water loss only appeared to increase.   In other words, the water loss has always been substantially high yet it was intentionally concealed from MR WECs through data manipulation (and repeated refusals to provide loss information since Kampa return), however, newly installed monitoring equipment with specific reporting requirements to the state made such concealment much more difficult – if not completely impossible.

The sneaky installation of new groundwater wells, (accomplished with public funds for the private benefit of land developers with LAFCO annexed properties by Pete Kampa and his supporting board of directors), has apparently resulted in a far more expansive state monitoring and reporting process for that GROUNDWATER SUBSTITUTION PROGRAM to assure compliance with WL11395.

Such monitoring and reporting also, once again, increases the cost of water for the MR WECs of the Lake Don Pedro subdivision who do not require this EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE GROUNDWATER SUBSTITUTION for LAFCO ANNEXATIONS.

 

My best to you and yours, Lew

 

PS: Oh yeah, information is slowly coming out of the SWRCB regarding past water activities.  Check it out: December 16, 2016, Pete Kampa evidently accepted a STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD conditional settlement offer for the Hornbrook CSD in Siskiyou County for failing to report water diversions and use under their license.  I also understand some employees up in McCloud CSD (previous Kampa acquisition and exploitation) recently lost their licenses and are prohibited from continued work in the water industry due to falsifying records (actually failing to report positive bacteria tests on water samples.)  Reoccurring theme?

Strange. Three months now.

An 18 month detailed STATE WATER BOARD investigation ended with an excellent report (actually a September 28, 2017 NOTICE OF VIOLATION regarding Water Rights issued to the LDPCSD/PETE KAMPA) whose information finally set the record straight as to some of the outrageous disinformation this community has been fed for decades by real estate and land development special interests.

These “for profit” interests were focused on SELLING LAND “with the understanding” our independent nonprofit special district community services district would provide water service FAR BEYOND THE PERMITTED PLACE OF USE per Water License 11395 under which the LDPCSD had operated since 1980 LAFCO formation. 

However, as illuminating and detailed as that NOV may have been, crucial information has been consistently misreported on the state website for three months now. Why?

CAUTION: FURTHER SPITBALLING IN PROGRESS!  lol

The assigned investigator (and presumed author) for that Notice of Violation is no longer in that department.  Is there any possibility that some “informal punishment” was carried out for a job well done in ACTUALLY REPORTING THE TRUTH about this festering decades old fraud against the innocent and victim MR WECs of the Lake Don Pedro subdivision? 

Don’t laugh too quickly at the query because such things happen to good people all the time when a subordinate employee upholds their personal integrity and work ethic over that of the politically motivated desires of “tainted supervisors” who simply want to maintain the STATUS QUO – you know?  “Don’t rock a controversial boat”!

WE NOW RETURN TO THE TRADITIONAL SPITBALLING ALREADY IN PROGRESS – lol

Water Right Violations of WL11395 had occurred in both the counties TUOLUMNE and MARIPOSA yet this fact is still incorrectly being reported (Determination)  as STANISLAUS COUNTY and SUTTER COUNTY.  (BELOW CHART, Merced River entries on lines 5 and 9)

“Yes, Grasshopper you are correct ” – the Merced River does not flow through the County of SUTTER and one might reasonably believe the State Water Board would certainly know better”.

What the hell is going on here?

Why conceal such obvious fact?

Wrongfully protecting something else?

How can truth be what is lacked?

COULD IT BE ?????:  The millions of dollars in applied for and provided state and federal grants for water issues to two counties with active WATER RIGHT VIOLATIONS perpetrated by a CSD GM/Treasurer with a 20 year documented HISTORY OF MISREPRESENTATION concerning the authorized POU for Merced River water in the Lake Don Pedro area?

Are grant funded counties technically required to be “in good standing with water law” in order to receive such water related public funds?

How can this current GM/Treasurer and his acquiescing “bobble headed yes-nodding Board of Directors since 2014” be permitted to arrogantly disregard such a clear and easily understandable restriction:

MERCED RIVER WATER SERVICE IS LIMITED TO THE Lake Don Pedro subdivision and golf course area per WL11395?

Then there’s that related water issue of how PETE KAMPA and “his board” planned to circumvent the POU service restriction by greatly increasing the amount of “Alternate source water” available with extremely expensive groundwater wells developed with local, state and federal public funds to even further expand an existing subsidized GROUNDWATER SUBSTITUTION PROGRAM for all LAFCO ANNEXED PROPERTIES.  Annexed properties that KAMPA himself assisted in bringing into the district some 20 years earlier when first employed by the LDPCSD between 1994-1997.

What a mess!

Yet a mess with a direct and clear paper trail to Pete Kampa and his co-conspirators who intentionally violate rules.

Did you know PETE KAMPA has also been a very active director in the very powerful CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION (CSDA) for approximately 20 years and even recently received a GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY AWARD from that “not for profit major lobbyist organization” for his work at the LDPCSD?  Oh, you did huh?  Imagine that.

Something sure seems contradictory with even a cursory examination of the facts.

Below chart obtained from:

STATE WATER BOARD ENFORCEMENT OF COMPLAINTS

(Don’t forget to scroll down and select “2016” for that year’s complaints to view the partial chart below.)

 

Date Submitted (sortable)	Stream (sortable)	County (sortable)	Alleged Injury (sortable)	Status (sortable)
1/20/2016	Middle Paddy Creek	San Joaquin	Unauthorized Diversion, Other	Active
1/25/2016	Susan River	Lassen	Unauthorized Diversion, Other	Determination Made
1/26/2016	NA – groundwater	Trinity	Other	Active
2/9/2016	Unnamed stream tributary to San Vicente Creek	San Diego	Unauthorized Diversion, Other	Determination Made
2/16/2016	Merced River	Stanislaus	Unauthorized Diversion	Determination Made
2/16/2016	Salinas River	San Luis Obispo	Unauthorized Diversion	Active
3/3/2016	Clear Creek	Butte	Unauthorized Diversion, Waste or Unreasonable Use, Impact to Public Trust	Active
3/14/2016	Atascadero Creek	San Luis Obispo	Unauthorized Diversion, Waste or Unreasonable Use	Active
4/4/2016	Merced River	Sutter	Violation of Term	Determination Made

Without question it is a damn shame so many people purchased land 20 +/- years ago in Lake Don Pedro who were encouraged to believe “cheap water service” would be provided by the LDPCSD in the future regardless if outside the legal service area of the water license under which it had always operated.

Seems every player in this “wrongful water service nightmare conspiracy” receives a definable benefit, except for the one who actually receives an ever increasing perpetual financial liability for as long as they own their Lake Don Pedro subdivision property-

 MR WECs.

My best to you and yours, Lew

Hey there!  OK, in the two last posts we took a look at a fairly well prepared LDPCSD Annexation request that LAFCo “conditionally approved” and designated the Lake Don Pedro CSD as the “conducting authority” to proceed with the annexation

“AFTER

proper notice and hearing subject to the following condition of approval:  The Lake Don PEdro Community Services District shall provide water service to all future development within the annexation territory.”

Apparently the terms and conditions of that approval were somehow changed to what was actually produced and presented to the public:

“WHEREAS,  the Local Agency Formation Commission has authorized this Board to approve this annexation without notice and hearing and without an election.”

When I fist discovered this statement of how LAFCO permitted the LDPCSD to conduct annexations without notice or hearing –

(so that the MR WECs of the Lake Don Pedro subdivision – who pay the bills WOULD BE UNAWARE of this major property addition into the district that was outside the legal PLACE OF USE for MERCED RIVER WATER under WL11395 and thus would require an expensive groundwater substitution program for the approved project as well as FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN A LARGER TERRITORY),

PLANNING/LAFCO officials appeared confused about the statement indicating such would not be approved by LAFCO.  (This is similar to the map posted on the LDPCSD website which KAMPA states was produced by LAFCO, but it also was not according to the LAFCO Executive Officer.)

 

I have an idea (scary huh?)  I’m going to try to create a page with some of the important LAFCO – LDPCSD ANNEXATION RESOLUTIONS posted so you viewers can compare them side by side.  Perhaps we’ll be able to update this page as new annexation resolution information is made available at the county site.

OK, if this works, when you select the below link it should open a page with a bunch of RESOLUTION LINKS from both MARIPOSA COUNTY LAFCO and the LDPCSD.   Now for the FINAL SOI REPORT for the LDPCSD in 1987, it is a PDF file (first page displayed) and viewers can move through the document by using options located at the bottom left hand corner of the page.

Cross your fingers!……

(every time I try something like this ….well, I just hope it works.)

 

 

LAFCO and LDPCSD ANNEXATION RESOLUTIONS

 

ENJOY!  My best to you and yours, Lew

 

 

 

Let’s see now…..

 

LDPCSD RES 95-4 (May 15^th, 1995) correctly identifies the property to be annexed in the first paragraph of the document and references that it be annexed into the LDPCSD according to Resolution 94-3 (June 20, 1994) 11 months earlier.  (I recall reviewing much material including metes and bounds survey, map, and documentation of meeting Environmental issues and proper notification – seemed to be one of the better annexation approvals but the project was abandoned also.)  A reading of this particular resolution is interesting in that it appears to first REQUEST AN ANNEXATION at the beginning of the resolution but then continues as though it had already been approved by LAFCO at the end.

“T Corners Land Limited be annexed to the LDPCSD in accordance with Resolution 94-3?”

WHAT IS RES 94-3?  Let’s take a look – (Please notice there are helpful page numbers!)

OK, any deals with MID (Merced Irrigation District) are postponed for later and when annexed but check this out:

“…shall have the same rights and duties as if said property had been a part of the District upon its original formation…..”??????

Is this annexation now subject to subdivision CC&Rs?  Will it pay annual assessments to the Lake Don Pedro Owners Association?  Be subject to a violations committee notice? etc.   NO.  Then how could it possibly have the same duties as if a subdivision lot legally entitled to Merced River water because it is within the long established boundaries of the residential subdivision which is also the POU under WL11395?

When the district was formed (PER CPUC JANUARY 1981 approval of the transfer of facilities and assets to the new LDPCSD) the State of California clearly identified the SERVICE BOUNDARIES as the SIERRA HIGHLANDS SUBDIVISION which would later become the Lake Don Pedro subdivision.  Heck, that decision even stated the new LDPCSD (and its mandatory customers of the LDP subdivision) would not inherit previous line extension and water agreement deals made, or proposed to be made, between Sierra Highlands and these other outside POU property owners.

It also appears as though the MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT (MID) was prepared to obtain water rights with yet another annexation into the LDPCSD.   Why is it that the MID, holder of WL11395, will permit annexations into the LDPCSD service area which their license clearly could not serve without an expensive groundwater substitution program?  Did they know  something was coming?  Seems to me the MID was receiving a VALUABLE WATER RIGHT from the annexed property owner yet passing the “consideration” or payment for that benefit (future water service by the LDPCSD) totally on to the innocent MR WECs of the LDP subdivision by making them financially responsible for developing the “ALTERNATE SOURCE of WATER” necessary for that development.  See what I mean?   MID gets a water license (Counties get to permit and tax the development) owner gets to land develop with expensive groundwater, and the innocent property owners of the subdivision get to pay for the whole deal – forever!

 

BUT WAIT!  The owners of the subdivision would never approve such a thing…..RE-ENTER co-conspirator PETE KAMPA who will use his expertise and political connections to exploit a legitimate State wide emergency drought  to secure state and federal grant money to develop groundwater wells with which to create a massive “alternate source of water” (under guise of assisting the already decades old exploited MR WECs through the drought) for the thousands of acres of LAFCO ANNEXED LANDS he assisted in setting up 20 years ago!   Humm, sweet scam there Mr. Pete you are one piece of work.

All the players in this despicable GROUNDWATER SUBSTITUTION SCAM receive an obvious benefit while MR WECs of the subdivision are surreptitiously stuck with an ever-increasing perpetual financial liability for as long as they own their Lake Don Pedro  subdivision property.

Oops.  Back to the resolutions.

But what about that other RESOLUTION referenced in 95-4 in the second paragraph?  Remember, the other LAFCO RESOLUTION?   First annexation in accordance with RES 94-4, but then 95-4 also references LAFCO’s March 28 1995, RES 95-1 determinations and approving the proposed annexation to the LDPCSD of territory described in Exhibit A..

So, first 95-4 takes us back 11 months to 94-3 on June 20, 1994 and then again back to March 28 1995 for 95-1 which contains the TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ANNEXATION APPROVED  by LAFCO, and then (THIS IS THE SURPRISE):

95-4 STATES:

“WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission has authorized this Board to approve this annexation without notice and hearing and without an election”.

but wait! IF 95-1 states the terms and conditions of annexation approved by LAFCO, shouldn’t we take a peek at that?

ding, ding, ding….our studio audience says  “HELL YES!”

LAFCO RESOLUTION 95-1

OK approving RES 94-1 which is?  (BELOW)

OK, RES 94-1 must be a LAFCO RESOLUTION NAME, but why name it 94-1 if there is no corresponding LDPCSD RES 94-1 REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION?

NOW WE KNOW PROPERTY IS ONLY 20.01 acres, it is located in Tuolumne County, in the LDPCSD SOI, signed by all property owners within territory, [There it is!, LAFCO assigned the name “Annexation No. 94-1 to the Lake Don Pedro Community Services District” – so it was a LAFCO resolution, right? But why 94-1?],

and approves an unattached “Exhibit A” and designates the LDPCSD as “conducting Authority” authorized to

“conduct proceedings for the Annexation

AFTER

proper notice and hearing subject to the following condition of approval:

The Lake Don Pedro Community Services District

shall provide water service

to all future development

within the annexation territory.”

WOW. Talk about a “blank check”!!! Approving only a portion of “territory” but agreeing to all other land as well!

How did such an important term and condition become the District’s RES 95-4 statement:

“WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission has authorized this Board to approve this annexation without notice and hearing and without an election.”

Annexation was then evidently approved per the resolution and MR WECs, as usual, was again advised squat – other than to just keep paying more for monthly water service charges, rates and fees for the continuing special benefit planned subsidized water service for all LAFCO ANNEXED PROPERTIES INTO THE DISTRICT.

I wonder how long it is going to take before all the annexation records are available on the Mariposa County website?  I am really curious about some other annexations.

 

 

My best to you and yours, Lew

 

 

 

TRACKING LDPCSD RESOLUTIONS CAN BE DIFFICULT

Especially for a “lay person” like me untrained in the intricacies of the annexation process, but here are a few things that made it difficult to follow what appears to be a meandering process fraught with missing paperwork, dead ends, and similar document designations.

For instance, the exact same RESOLUTION IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS regarding “VARIOUS ENTITY ACTIONS” are used by and between two different public agencies, the MARIPOSA COUNTY LAFCO and its special district creation, the LAKE DON PEDRO COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT.   RESOLUTIONS with identical names were also not always related or concerned with LDPCSD annexations into the district. The bi-directional nature of these RESOLUTIONS consisted of, 1) Requests, or APPLICATIONS FOR ANNEXATION into the district service boundary the LDPCD sent MARIPOSA COUNTY LAFCO, and, 2) LAFCO ANNEXATION APPROVALS (often CONDITIONAL upon other events occurring first with instructions on how the LDPCSD should proceed with the annexation), or other related information.

NOT CONDITIONAL APPROVALS AGAIN?

OH KRAPA! 

Not a conditionally approved action again?

(aka, IF “THIS” then “THAT”)  as in,

IF within the Lake Don Pedro Subdivision, property is entitled to Merced River water service per WL11395.

Did we not just learn what apparently happened with a CONDITIONALLY APPROVED WL11395 DIVERSION OF Merced River water by the STATE WATER BOARD for the SOUTH SHORE CLUB (La Ventana) ANNEXATION PROJECT (off Bonds Flat Road between Hwy 59 and HWY 132) which proposed another residential subdivision and golf course complex in 1993?

That the project was abandoned for failing to meet specific STATE CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL?

And that PETE KAMPA apparently obtained or was privy to a “shape file” of that project (likely while employed and involved with aspects of the project during his first LDPCSD employment tour between 1994-1997) documenting the PROPOSED POU (Place of Use) EXPANSION for MERCED RIVER WATER USE–

IF conditions were met and the development approved for construction?

And somehow, that 1993 “shape file” information which ONLY DOCUMENTED A PROPOSED POU BOUNDARY CHANGE (if conditions met), was entered into CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES official records as having been APPROVED in 1993 WITH A POU change – WHICH DID NOT OCCUR?   Yet PETE KAMPA later relied upon that “shape file” to represent a POU change on the OFFICIAL LDPCSD WL11395 POU SERVICE AREA MAP created with a Board approved $35,000 digital mapping project, although the final product map doesn’t even mention or illustrate the legal POU for Merced River water per  WL11395?  Geez – will it ever end?

THE BIG QUESTION:  

HOW DID A FAILED PROPOSAL FOR A POU CHANGE END UP IN OFFICIAL DWR RECORDS AS REPRESENTING AN APPROVAL WHICH WAS APPARENTLY LATER USED FOR A HOST OF ACTIVITIES INCLUDING GRANT APPLICATIONS TO THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR EMERGENCY DROUGHT RELIEF?

Anyway…..

LDPCSD ANNEXATION NUMBERED REQUESTS FOR APPROVAL sent to LAFCO were also sometimes renamed by LAFCO with another system of identification during the approval process which further complicated later tracking within respective agency records (BUT PLEASE REMEMBER – I DO NOT POSSESS ALL THE ANNEXATION RECORDS YET – SO WHO KNOWS HOW THEY MAY EFFECT RECORDS ALREADY OBTAINED?  (ie, Rescinded, modified, replaced, destroyed, etc.)  For example, I read a resolution which rescinded a bunch of LAFCO rules and regulations of the past and replaced them with new policies, so without such information a researcher could mistakenly believe a particular violation had occurred during a certain year, when the rules governing that issue had actually been changed and, therefore, no violation occurred according to the new rules in affect.)

Some LDPCSD RESOLUTIONS are documented as definitely having taken place in LDPCSD Board Meeting Minutes with an approved motion for the Resolution creation and subsequent approval vote by the board of directors, yet the RESOLUTIONS themselves have completely disappeared from LDPCSD records!

Some LDPCSD REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION RESOLUTIONS referred to by LAFCO do not exist.  The exact resolution name may exist but the LDPCSD resolution has nothing to do with annexations – so they are apparently also missing from records – or were simply “replaced” with a “Red Herring (bait to lead a questioning individual “off the trail”) to further obscure the record.

One particular LDPCSD RESOLUTION, 95-2, is apparently used twice as an accepted procedure for two separate property annexations into the LDPCSD.

Often LDPCSD RESOLUTIONS, especially in the 1990s, do not even identify the property to be annexed!

Many LDPCSD RESOLUTIONS also refer to an attached EXHIBIT which is rarely attached to the RESOLUTION DOCUMENT as stated.  (The Resolution will not ID property but refers to EXHIBIT A for specific details…..but no Exhibit A is attached!  Like a “JOKERS WILD” ANNEXATION FORM!)

The below LAFCO RESOLUTION OF ANNEXATION APPROVAL did not clearly identify the property either, except for a few letters of the project name which could be observed on the unnumbered second page of the resolution which had apparently suffered a severe “copy machine error” which distorted important information in this official document.  Whose responsibility to make sure government records are copied and filed properly?  What assurance is there that this particular page was originally contained in this particular document?

<<<<<<<INSERT?>>>>>>>>>

LINE 24 (above):  Maybe it isn’t “Lake Shore Ranch” but “Big Whore Ranch”  or “Pay More Ranch”, etc. ?

lol

Had a little study mishap

A foot high paper avalanche

With no page numbering its all mixed up

Is LDPCSD an annexed Modesto branch?

LOL

 

Seriously though, I had a whole stack of these LDPCSD and LAFCO ANNEXATION RESOLUTIONS on my desk and when walking by accidentally brushed against them and to the floor they went.  What a (*&^%$ mess!   As I was “putting the stack back together” I realized it was impossible without page identification.   Rather like that Pringles commercial and the different clip flavors — “You just created Bar-B-Que spicy PRINGLES!”  or whatever….interchangeable!   Take page one of RES -01, page 3 of RES-04, and page 4 of RES -05 and create a brand new annexation resolution of approval on paper!   Add another unrelated “EXHIBIT A” and any location is a potential annexed property into the LDPCSD!  Not so lol when unscrupulous special interests are concerned. .

CONSIDER:  How many times have I harped on the issue of PETE KAMPA failing to properly notice “SURPRISE” “SANDBAGGED” information interjected into otherwise properly noticed (per Brown Act) information  at monthly meetings or  the concern about the unnumbered pages of official documents or pages in the agenda packet?  These Resolutions fall under the same principle because without clear identifying information as to what PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY BEING CONSIDERED on the face of the application or in an “ATTACHED EXHIBIT A”—-

ANY PROPERTY COULD LATER BE INSERTED

INTO THAT “STREAM OF MEANDERING and APPROVING INFORMATION”.

(Perhaps an “Exhibit A” bar napkin agreement and sketch for  a Mars Annexed Development (MAD) was quietly slipped into the stream so the LDPCSD (MR WECs) will be required to obtain AVAILABLE GOVERNMENT GRANTS for the funding of a Polar Water Thawing Project per MARS RESOLUTION LDPCSD 2038-2xlol)

HEY!  I KNOW…let’s follow one of these LDPCSD RESOLUTIONS and see where it goes – hopefully.  (Of course it may turn out to be a similar exercise as attempting to explain in writing how to tie a boot lace without demonstrating or providing graphical assistance – very difficult.   In fact, I have been using large 2’x4’ pieces of drafting paper in order to layout some of these resolutions to follow their progression as they “hip hop” from “Resolution title to Resolution title” and refer to Resolutions that do not exist and attached exhibits that are not attached.  (Scotch taping legal pad sheets together didn’t work out so well.)

I will tell you this, I believe this RESOLUTION PROCESS and RESULTING MEANDERING PAPER TRAIL was intentionally created to make any future annexation confirmation process difficult. 

Sorry, but I call that pure deceit and this mid 1990s garbage looks similar to the garbage produced since 2014 by Pete Kampa.  What a frigg ‘n coincidence, yeah? I don’t thing so.

READY?  HERE WE GO!  Let’s start with LDPCSD RESOLUTION 95-4.

Prior to jumping right into the meat of LDPCSD RES 95-4, (May 15, 1995 –  oh yeah, reminds me, — and the timing of some of these resolutions is very interesting as well)  viewers should be aware this resolution also happens to be the last one posted on the MARIPOSA COUNTY LAFCO WEBPAGE, UNDER THE TOP LEFT LINK HEADING:  LAFCO RESOLUTIONS.

 

You can check this out yourself with the below link:

 

INDEX OF LAFCO RESOLUTIONS ON COUNTY WEBSITE

 

At the risk of repetition – (BIG lol, right?)

LDPCSD RES 95-4 is the last resolution posted on the MARIPOSA COUNTY LAFCO WEBPAGE, under the top left link title:  LAFCO RESOLUTIONS.

“But why would an LDPCSD Resolution be the last and only “outside LAFCO resolution” posted under a heading for LAFCO resolutions only?” an observant and curious viewer might reasonably ask.

“Excellent question”, I would reply just before beginning another torturous blah blah blah long and drawn out explanation like –

I’m not sure but have mentioned this fact to Mariposa County PLANNING/LAFCO officials in one of my “reminders about the public information request” but considering they have ignored these requests while simultaneously failing to offer any explanation as to why the information cannot be furnished – I suspicion County Counsel for one legal reason or another has instructed them not to respond.

(loud crying) whhhaaaaah, waahaaaaah,……the….the…the…they….don’t……li…..li……li…….ike me!……wahaaaaa !

—-boo hoo hoo.hoo……the, eh ehy won’t ta  ta   ta   talk o to or re re re  spond to to to ma ma ma my requessssssssstssss….wahhh….whhaaaaaaaaaa……

That’s OK, I don’t care much for their lack of respect for citizens and failure to obey their own rules either.

ANYWAY, so the first question is, why is the below LAKE DON PEDRO CSD RESOLUTION THE LAST POSTING UNDER LAFCO RESOLUTIONS ON THE MARIPOSA COUNTY WEBSITE?

READ THIS CAREFULLY – ANYTHING “JUMP OUT AT YOU” that just doesn’t seem right?

 

<<<insert>>>>

I am seriously wondering if LDPCSD RES 95-4 (ABOVE) was posted by the County as plausible deniability and suggested evidence as to the identity of the actual responsible parties for what certainly appears to be wrongful activity.  Think about that for a moment. 

What if the County did lay out a conditionally approved annexation procedure – yet LDPCSD officials ignored those preconditions and “JUMPED STRAIGHT TO ANNEXATION” – in addition to previously providing incorrect information in the original application to LAFCO?

When I first saw the statement above in 95-4 I even asked Planning/LAFCO officials about it and they were surprised as well.

Tell you what, I have things outside that I have ignored for days and need to address – why don’t you check out that LAFCO WEBSITE and Resolution page (link above) , and I’ll pick up here on the next post?  I’ve got to get away from this monitor as well my eyes are tired.

My best to you and yours, Lew