NYWD irrigation customers left dry: South Feather offers to supply water as NYWD stalls

Jul. 1—In a continued pattern of apparent mismanagement and what critics call a complete disregard for its customers, North Yuba Water District was presented with a plan by other water agencies to help supply water to its irrigation customers but is holding off on the deal until its demands are met.

According to emails obtained by the Appeal, South Feather Water and Power Agency (SFWPA) offered to deliver water to North Yuba Water District (NYWD) irrigation customers and to help maintain a ditch that delivers that water at no cost to the district. Yuba Water Agency (YWA) officials also have offered to assist with maintenance at no cost to NYWD.

In April, NYWD and its General Manager Jeff Maupin announced there would be no 2022 irrigation season for customers, despite several water experts claiming that Yuba County has plenty of water and is not affected by current drought conditions to such a degree as other areas of California.

Maupin previously said water issues that currently exist with NYWD are not a water supply problem, but a water conveyance problem.

"Even though we've had a few storms recently, we do not have the capacity or the means to deliver an irrigation season to irrigation customers during this drought year," Maupin said when the announcement about the 2022 irrigation season was made.

Among the concerns Maupin listed as to why the season was canceled were claims such as a "seepage" issue with Forbestown Ditch, NYWD's main conveyance system.

Critics of Maupin and NYWD's Board of Directors have argued that Maupin and the district have been hesitant to properly maintain the Forbestown Ditch because Maupin and the district want to install a pipe, a plan that has been a point of contention among irrigation customers and former officials.

"We must work to pipe the Forbestown Ditch so we can regain the 35% of our water lost to seepage and take advantage of the additional capacity provided by the proposed 42-inch pipe," Maupin said in April. "Engineering is complete on the project, but ongoing lawsuits by South Feather Water & Power Authority and a few seasonal agriculture customers, have stalled the project. The NYWD Board and the NYWD staff remain unanimously supportive of piping the Forbestown Ditch and need your support in the coming years to accomplish this goal."

Maupin previously said that if a pipe is not installed in Forbestown Ditch, then "the only potential for an irrigation season in future years will be in extremely wet years, when Mother Nature allows."

Dr. Gretchen Flohr, a former director of the NYWD board who was elected to the Division 4 seat in 2019, previously said SFWPA had offered to repair the conveyance system in Forbestown Ditch and increase its capacity.

"NYWD ignored their offer which was to do this repair at cost. Further, SFWPA offered to do maintenance of the next three years (this would have been year two) and ultimately increase the capacity to a maximum of 50 cfs with a seepage loss of 10%. NYWD completely ignored SFWPA's offer, choosing instead to refuse water to its customers," Flohr said.

SFWPA, in coordination with Yuba Water, has now responded to NYWD irrigation customer pleas by offering to maintain the ditch and provide water at virtually no cost to the district.

According to internal emails obtained by the Appeal, YWA Board of Directors Chairman and Yuba County Supervisor Gary Bradford brought to light a temporary solution to NYWD and its Board President Gary Hawthorne.

"As we scheduled as part of our meeting on May 24th, yesterday afternoon I met with Tod Hickman (Chairman, SFWP), Rath Moseley (General Manager, SFWP) and Willie Whittlesey (General Manager, YWA) to discuss conveyance challenges related to the NYWD and SFWP facilities," Bradford said in an email sent on June 7 to Hawthorne, Maupin and Whittlesey. "We had a very productive meeting and as a result, Mr. Hickman asked that I facilitate a proposal from SFWP to NYWD."

Bradford said the proposal to NYWD consisted of the following: — SFWP will provide, at no additional cost, and at no discount to the revenue sharing provided by the 2005 agreement, the maximum amount of water that can be conveyed through the Forbestown Ditch from now until the end of irrigation season (October 15th). This arrangement will result in no new/additional costs to NYWD. — SFWP will assist with any maintenance necessary to prepare the Forbestown Ditch, the Oregon House-Dobbins Canal, and any related facilities, as soon as possible, for the delivery of water to as many irrigation customers as possible. SFWP will provide this assistance at no charge to NYWD. — In addition, I will offer that Yuba Water Agency will also assist with any maintenance necessary as described above, at no charge to NYWD.

"This proposal should provide NYWD the ability to deliver as much water as possible to as many customers as possible for the remainder of this irrigation season and could also allow for the testing and analysis of the efficiency of the NYWD conveyance system, including the Forbestown Ditch," Bradford said. "This proposal is motivated by concerns with the on-going effects of drought and the need for irrigation water in our foothill communities. This proposal is being offered by the Chairmen of each board to the Chairman of the NYWD board in an effort to expedite water delivery."

In response, Hawthorne detailed several reasons as to why NYWD could not accept the deal as presented.

"While this combined proposal may offer a partial and temporary solution to NYWD's inability to offer irrigation water this year, it ignores the fundamental fact that NYWD's inability to provide irrigation water results from the physical limitations of the facilities, and the contractual limitations imposed on NYWD by the 2005 Contract between NYWD and SFWPA," Hawthorne said.

Hawthorne claimed that the 2005 contract severely limited the amount of water available to NYWD to provide for irrigation and that there were "substantial financial penalties" on NYWD if it sold water to district customers above the prescribed volume limits.

"Specifically, the Forbestown Ditch (FTD) can convey a maximum capacity of 24 cubic feet per second (cfs). The FTD, however, has a well-documented conveyance loss of approximately 35%. Furthermore, the Oregon House-Dobbins Canal (OHDC) can convey a maximum capacity of 12 cfs with a well-documented loss of approximately 60%. Moreover, because of the significant conveyance losses the OHDC has historically required contribution of water from Dry Creek for a successful irrigation season," Hawthorne said. "Prior to implementation of the 2005 Contract, SFWPA's water was measured at the headworks of the FTD (commonly referred to as 'SF-14'), and the parties were responsible for their individual conveyance loss. Under the 2005 Contract, however, NYWD is now responsible for all conveyance losses within the FTD."

Hawthorne then went on to detail "adverse circumstances" that prevented the delivery of irrigation water. Those "circumstances" included concerns such as NYWD being left to only provide about 4.6 cfs to both domestic and irrigation customers as a result of what NYWD felt would be caused by conveyance losses should the Forbestown Ditch be used in its current state — ignoring the fact that SFWPA and YWA offered to assist with any necessary maintenance.

Hawthorne continued to stress that "these facts are well known and documented."

Hawthorne later highlighted that in order to avoid conveyance losses, a piping solution was necessary for the Forbestown Ditch — a plan that has been opposed by several district customers.

"The piping project, however, was strongly opposed by those NYWD members now supporting the temporary solution you submit in your email, and the project was not implemented despite NYWD obtaining grant support for the entire project," Hawthorne said in reference to critics who have claimed there has been gross mismanagement by Maupin and NYWD. "Thus, while the proposal contained in your email is appreciated, NYWD prefers a solution creating a permanent remedy rather than a proposal with limited impact."

In response to the offer by SFWPA and YWA, Hawthorne said NYWD suggested the following in a proposal to amend the 2005 contract with SFWPA and NYWD: — Amend Part 3, Section 8, to strike the tier 3 water clause that forces NYWD customers to pay for NYWD's consumable water above 3.700 acre feet. — SFWPA accept all conveyance losses related to delivery of its water through the FTD. — SFWPA reaffirm its support for piping the FTD allowing NYWD to increase the maximum flow rate to 38 cfs.

"These simple amendments will enable both districts to provide unrestricted water service to their respective customer base," Hawthorne said. "In conclusion, NYWD does appreciate your effort on behalf of YWA to assist NYWD provide irrigation water to its customers this year."

'A greedy effort'

In response to Hawthorne's and NYWD's apparent refusal to accept the initial offer by SFWPA and YWA, longtime critics of how Maupin has managed the district cited several inconsistencies in the board president's reasoning.

"There are numerous misstatements and untrue statements in the letter," Marieke Furnee, an Oregon House resident and critic of Maupin and NYWD, said in an email. "12 cfs is mentioned first as the maximum amount the Oregon House Dobbins Ditch can carry. On the next page it is mentioned as the minimum amount. No letter was ever produced or shown that shows involuntary curtailment of raw water directed by the State. The Tier 3 water clause does not 'force the NYWD customers to pay for NYWD's consumable water above 3,700 acre feet.' The price is also not 'a penalty.' According to the contract, some water is free and other water has a price. In 2011 and 2012, NYWD paid that price and did not whine about it. Then Maupin got a sense of how it works and started with his refusals to serve, in my opinion to avoid paying the (reasonable) price."

Furnee also contends that Hawthorne's claim that loss percentages are "well known and documented" are actually not well documented.

"The YWA proposal in fact tries to finally measure and document what the losses are," Furnee said. "Just to repeat an anecdote over and over again without providing data and research, does not make it into data."

Furnee said NYWD's refusal to accept the deal is a detriment to its customers.

"In short, NYWD seems to wish rather to keep its customers hostage to try to break the 2005 contract, than to accept help and real-time real life support," Furnee said. "The letter reads as a greedy effort to squeeze the most money out of YWA and SFWPA that they possibly can, and use both agencies' concern for the welfare of our communities as a lever for monetary gain. With the recent suicide budget that NYWD accepted, ($6 million of expenses with an income of $2 million dollars and only $3.5 million cash on hand at this time), they are not moving in the right direction.

"... Most importantly, YWA and SFWPA did, in fact, propose to fix the ditch for free, run the water for free, do all the work connected with the operating and delivery for free, and still NYWD response is that they will not accept these offers until they get more things for free. Sounds greedy to me. And they do not at all seem serious about their customers' need right here, right now. While YWA and SFWPA are taking our needs very seriously and are putting an incredibly generous offer on the table."

Flohr, the former director of the NYWD board and another vocal critic of Maupin and NYWD's current board, also had issues with the accuracy of Hawthorne's claims. Flohr claimed that the data reported in Hawthorne's response is "inaccurate" and that publicly available data and reports could prove that.

"Further, the 'Hydraulic Analysis' recently added to the NYWD website, is highly questionable. Particularly in light of the fact that when I won my lawsuit and NYWD was ordered by a judge to provide me with all plans from Northstar relative to the Forbestown Ditch, that alleged 'Hydraulic Analysis' was not provided, which means NYWD either withheld documents that were ordered by a court to be provided to me — or alternatively — since all documents were provided to me in late 2021, this 'Hydraulic Analysis' was created in the recent past to attempt to create a new narrative," Flohr said in an email on Friday. "The unwanted pipe project was designed to carry 24 cfs and the only reason the pipe size was increased was to allow headroom (airpace) so that the plastic, flimsy pipe would not become pressurized. It was not increased in size to increase capacity. Further, NYWD permits do not allow running water year-round. Water is allowed to run for six months only. NYWD's flimsy, unwanted, pipe (that will melt in a fire) will only ever carry 24 cfs and the entire community does not want to spend over $25 million on a ridiculous project like that."

Flohr also questioned why NYWD was apparently not willing to accept what would seem like a generous offer by SFWPA and YWA to help district customers.

"My question is this: What business owner would refuse an offer of free help? What agency would refuse to allow free work on their infrastructure? Why is the NYWD board going along with a GM who clearly cannot do the job, who refuses to meet with and work with other water agencies and who is invested in denying his customers irrigation water simply because he doesn't like them?" Flohr asked. "There is a short-term solution for this year. Why not accept the offer and then work with the other agencies on a long-term solution? Accepting a short-term solution for this season does not exclude or prevent working on a long-term solution. What is NYWD's problem?"

When asked to comment on Hawthorne and NYWD's counteroffer, Moseley said on Wednesday he and the board had not yet responded to the district.

"SFWPA received the letter dated June 24th, 2022 on Friday afternoon at 3:24 p.m. (six minutes before the NYWD regular board meeting start time of 3:30)," Moseley said in an email to the Appeal. "SFWPA's board received the letter for the first time yesterday at our regular board meeting. I cannot comment on any of the requests until SF's board committee and myself have an opportunity to respond as the content of the letter does not address or commit to mutual support for water delivery in 2022."