Anderson Cottonwood Irrigation District’s Aug. 13 board packet includes a draft response to the Shasta County Grand Jury report of June 8, 2026 and places it on the board agenda for review, possible approval and direction to the general manager for final submission.
Agenda item 6d says the board will review the grand jury report and consider approving the draft response. The packet’s response document is a public rebuttal that, in its own language, objects to findings about deficits, maintenance planning, customer classifications and flood-management duties.
In the draft response, ACID says it rejects the idea that it operates at a deficit and disputes recommendations tied to creating new customer categories and targeting new markets. It also says it will not adopt a flood management and preparedness plan, arguing that flood control is not within the district’s authority.
The packet does not show whether the board adopted the draft response, revised it or sent it on unchanged. It also does not include the underlying grand jury report itself, so the district’s response is the only side available in the packet.
The same Aug. 13 agenda is otherwise packed with canal-improvement bidding, a sole-source proposal for Churn Creek and Lateral 21 work, labor negotiations and financial reports.
