Supervisors proclaim local emergency for drought
OROVILLE >> As drought conditions continue to hit much of the state, Butte County included, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution during Tuesday’s meeting proclaiming a local state of emergency due to the conditions and emphasized the urgent need for more resources to reach residents impacted.
The unanimous vote by the board came after the Butte County Drought Task Force met last week and recommended the action to the board. The task force received numerous reports of dry wells, lack of water storage, unavailability of tanks for homeowners to purchase, as well as related agricultural issues for farms and ranches, said Cindi Dunsmoor, the county’s emergency services officer, during the meeting.
Though Gov. Gavin Newsom first proclaimed a state of emergency in April for two counties, before it was later expanded to 41 counties in May to include Butte County among them, the state is not currently offering any projects or funding through the California Disaster Assistance Act, Dunsmoor said.
Proclaiming the state of emergency will allow Butte County to apply for state and federal funds to help in response to the drought.
“I think we need some resources in the north part of the county and I don’t think that we wait to see what funding becomes available,” Supervisor Tami Ritter said. “I have people (in my district) who have no water.”
Christina Buck, chair of the drought task force, who was also appointed as Water and Resource Conservation interim director at Tuesday’s meeting, indicated there are currently eight dry wells in the county, primarily in
the Cohasset and Forest Ranch areas, with a couple in the valley as well.
Buck said people are encouraged to report dry wells through the online state reporting system, mydrywatersupply.water.ca.gov, but also noted through talks with the drought task force, they recognize the data is significantly underreported.
“As much as we encourage folks to help us with recording, we are getting calls and emails as well to our office. Not wanting to wait for the data to show it, I think this is the kind of data that won’t necessarily ever show the magnitude of the impact,” Buck said.
Supervisor Debra Lucero also suggested the county use American Rescue Plan Act funding as a backup source, and board Chair Bill Connelly requested the topic be added to the agenda of a future meeting to monitor progress.
“Even though we declared the drought, let’s see if we can come back with if there’s any way we can help people. It’s only going to get worse,” Connelly said.
County staff will meet next week to discuss next steps. Cal Water and Del Oro Water Company have expressed interest in helping the county organize water filling stations similar to what the county did during the 2014-16 drought, Dunsmoor said.
ARPA discussion
The board dove into a lengthy and detailed discussion on the use of the $42.5 million the county received in American Rescue Plan Act funds by going over a list of 42 projects compiled by county staff ranked by prioritization.
The total cost of the 42 projects was estimated to be a combined $72.4 million, so the board was asked to go over each of the proposed projects and express whether or not they had interest in seeing the project move forward. If at least three of the five board members voted yes on a project, Chief Administrative Officer Andy Pickett said it would return at a future meeting with a more specific proposal, on which the board will then take action.
The board was in favor of most projects ranked at or near the top of the prioritization list, including to develop a broadband “playbook” to identify areas of need in the county, providing grant funding for county businesses impacted by the pandemic, air filtration and circulation improvements in county buildings, as well as a number of public safety initiatives.
Some other projects were grouped together if they covered the same topic, such as housing and homelessness, technological improvements and tourism.
By the end of the discussion, Pickett estimated the list of projects selected came close to reaching the $42.5 million figure the county has been allocated.
COVID-19 emergency
Since board chambers reopened to the public months ago, nearly each subsequent meeting has begun with the board taking general public comments, some of which have been critical of the restrictions and health guidelines during the coronavirus pandemic, as well as the board’s role in presiding over them.
Tuesday’s meeting followed a similar trend. A number of speakers took aim at the board, suggesting they forced people to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and required students to wear masks at school. But as board members, and later, Butte County Public Health Director Danette York would point out, those claims are either untrue, or in the case of wearing masks, are decisions made by the state’s department of public health and local school boards.
After public comments ended and the board approved the consent agenda, Connelly next moved on to board member comments and responded directly to a number of false and misleading claims heard during recent meetings.
“I just got to go on record as saying, this job doesn’t pay enough to sit here and get beat up every week over something I really don’t have any control over,” Connelly said. “I’m intelligent enough to not get sideways with this state. I don’t agree with the state — I haven’t agreed with this emergency from the very beginning. I know the majority of the board probably does. I’ve been very silent because I don’t want to interrupt the stream of funds that comes from forced mandates on us.
“I’m getting pretty fed up … I’m a human being, this board is human, we may disagree, but for the public to come here and chastise me for something I don’t even believe in, I’m tired of it. Maybe they ought to look to run against me, take this job (and) see how they like it.”
Connelly spoke after Supervisor Doug Teeter, who was the first to suggest the county look at ending the local COVID-19 emergency, which Connelly agreed with.
“Not that I agree with a lot of the public comment on the health emergency that’s been stated and for the reasons they’ve stated,” Teeter said, “but I do believe that the health emergency, for me, has three things: COVID case levels, vaccine availability and hospital space. … I think we should remove our local health emergency because all three of those things are at low enough levels, or high enough levels as with vaccine, that we’re really not in an emergency. And I think to keep it an emergency just because the state says we have to — to receive funding — is absolutely wrong.”
Pickett later clarified with the board, asking whether they wanted to bring back the local health emergency, or the local emergency, and Connelly said they wanted to consider the latter.
Pickett said the item will return at a future meeting for discussion, along with what the implications would be of the county ending the local emergency declaration.
A number of counties in the state have already taken similar action; notably, in September 2020, the the Placer County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to end the local COVID-19 health emergency, which prompted Dr. Aimee Sisson, Placer County’s then-Public Health Officer and Public Health Director, to submit a letter of resignation in response to the action.
Glenn County also terminated its local emergency for COVID-19 in May, which Glenn County Administrative Officer Scott De Moss signed.