Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
May 15, 2009
5. Agencies, Programs, People –
PWD meeting draws more people than boardroom can hold
The
TEMECULA: Water conservation plan on hold
The
Bay Area lawmakers push water recycling bill
The
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
PWD meeting draws more people than boardroom can hold
The
By Alisha Semchuck and Charles F. Bostwick
PALMDALE - Hundreds of people turned out Wednesday night for a protest hearing on Palmdale Water District officials' plan to raise customers' water bills in a multi-tiered rate structure that increases prices as customers use more water.
Filling the boardroom and overflowing into the lobby and out a side door, water district customers and others criticized the rate increase that would boost the basic monthly meter charge more than 100% this year and another 55% within five years.
In addition, the rate increase would boost consumption charges by up to 289% by 2014.
Past 10 p.m., the meeting continued with speakers registering protests. Protest forms filled out by ratepayers had yet to be counted, and the board had yet to vote on whether it would approve the rate increase.
Just before a moment of silence after the flag salute, resident Marta Kester said, "I need to pray they don't get run out of town on a rail."
So many people packed the 163-person-capacity boardroom at the start of the hearing that a Los Angeles County Fire Department official interrupted a presentation by water district General Manager Randy Hill to say some of the spectators had to move outside.
Wednesday night's hearing was called under Proposition 218, a ballot measure approved by California voters in 1996 that says a rate increase by a water district can be blocked if more than half its property owners protest in writing.
Palmdale Water officials said they received protest letters from 2,122 property owners, but 12,771 were needed to stop the rate hike.
Palmdale city officials last week filed a court action seeking to stop the rate hike, asserting that water district officials took improper steps in preparing to implement the increases.
Hill, along with Assistant General Manager Curtis Paxton and an outside consultant, made detailed presentations explaining the need for the increase because of the district's costs. District officials asserted that they had more than met the burden of complying with Proposition 218, a follow-on to Proposition 13 to make it more difficult for public agencies to replace lost property taxes with fees and rate increases.
Most speakers told the board the need was created by the board's mismanagement of spending, financial controls and failure to plan.
At Wednesday night's hearing, board President Jeff Storm turned the microphone off on Judy Skousen, assistant city attorney for Palmdale, telling her she had exceeded the time limit.
Before she was cut off, triggering booing of Storm from the audience, Skousen said the city held that the water district's notification of the proposed rate increase violated the California Constitution.
Storm threatened to have people removed if the booing and catcalls continued.
She cited Prop. 218, saying, "You must notify us how much our bill would be and give us the right to protest. I challenge any of you (on the board) without the help of staff could calculate the formula you presented."
She added that the water district failed its burden to legally inform property owners of the amount of the proposed charges and failing to use a formula that conforms with state law.
The city is the second-largest water user in the Palmdale Water District, purchasing about 4.4% of its water. The
Water district officials say the rate hike is intended to encourage customers to conserve water - as
Skousen retorted that service districts can only actually charge for the cost of providing the service. "You cannot charge to penalize them or to repair your (financial) reserves that you spent."
Water district directors were told last month that the district is due to run out of cash within three months, and among its options is seeking temporary protection under bankruptcy laws, an internal memo says.
A number of speakers asserted that the district is nearly out of money because it spent down what had been tens of millions in reserve on capital projects instead of floating a 30-year bond to spread out the costs.
Resident Robert Walden said, "We are all in hard times. We are all in the same boat. It seems like you are passing all your hard times onto the consumer. It's unconscionable.
Walden added: "We know you blew more than $14 million last year … it doesn't seem right that you are trying to make it up on us."
Resident Jan Cauthorne castigated board majority votes to increase their meal per diems from $55 to $75 a day.
"Your $55 a day. I don't spend that in a week on groceries, because I don't have it," the 33-year resident said.
Resident Joan Guyer said, "You kept spending the money that the district did not have, and now you want the shareholders to pay for your mismanagement."
Laura Lamoreaux, wife of Dennis Lamoreaux, the district manager who was forced out after Storm was elected to the board, read from a letter signed by herself and her husband:
"This plan is needed because of the board majority's fiscal irresponsibility over the last 16 months. The lack of planning and stewardship has now become our, the ratepayers', burden to carry."
The letter she read from indicated the majority constituted by Storm, Dick Wells and Dave Gomez.
The letter continued: "The board will approve this plan only because there is no other choice at this point. When you make that vote, there is one more action that is needed by Mr. Storm, Mr. Wells and Mr. Gomez. If you gentlemen have any integrity, any concern for the district and its future, any concern and understanding for the ratepayers, you will voluntarily resign your positions as failed public officials and directors of this district."
She said the
At its current rate of spending versus revenue, the district will have $140,000 left by July 31, Administrative Services Manager Michael Williams said in a memo to board members.
"At that point the district would not be in a position to fully pay its vendors, employees and committed contracts for capital improvement projects," Williams wrote. "The alternative at that point would be to cancel contracts, lay off staff, seek temporary protection under bankruptcy laws, or some combination of these actions."
To ward off those possibilities, Williams said, the district must enact the water-rate increase and complete a $20 million bond issue to reimburse the district's reserve account for funds used to finish the second phase of improvements to its water treatment plant.
Water district officials said at a special meeting Monday night that the district has cancelled or put on hold millions of dollars' worth of construction projects and has left vacant four of its former 87 employee positions to save money.#
http://www.avpress.com/n/14/0514_s1.hts
TEMECULA: Water conservation plan on hold
The
By Aaron Claverie
TEMECULA ---- A plan to fine customers who water the lawn during the day, hose down their driveway or hold charity car washes was sent back to Rancho California Water District staff members for revision on Thursday.
The district ---- which serves 40,000 customers in the Temecula area ---- is considering those types of mandatory water conservation measures because of mandates issued by the larger water districts that supply more than half of Rancho's supply.
Those larger agencies, the Metropolitan Water District and Western Municipal Water District, have seen their supplies pinched, in part, by legal battles in
When the local district's measures are imposed ---- a plan must be in place by July 1 ---- the new rules would be some of the most restrictive in
In kicking the conservation measures back, the board asked district staff members on Thursday to clean up the language in the plan so that water customers are given more flexibility.
For example, directors requested that the district not penalize someone who is careful about their water use for watering their rose bushes in the morning.
Also, the board wanted the plan to include some sort of exemption for people who have smart meters that irrigate their property in tune with the weather conditions.
Director John Hoagland said he wasn't comfortable approving mandatory measures that would cut the district's use by 10 percent without a complementary plan in place to deal with the new housing that is being processed by the district.
"We've established that we don't have enough water to serve the people that make up our base and then we are going to add additional people to that base," he said. "It undermines our credibility."
Hoagland said another frustrating part of the mandatory measures that were on the table was their "nanny-state" nature. He said a ratepayer, who already pays more if his water use hits a higher tiered rate, could be less efficient in their water use provided they are paying for their water.
Later in the meeting, the board talked about the root causes of the conservation mandates that have been passed down from the bigger water districts.
"It's not that it's not available physically," Hoagland said, talking about the water in the state's reservoir system. "It's not available politically or legally."
Board President Ralph Daily was even more blunt.
He said the state is dysfunctional and its residents need to get mad and demand action from
"We've got a water system that was built 25 years ago for 25 million people and now we have 35 million people," he said. "We haven't done anything to upgrade the system or our supply. People need to start saying, 'Hey guys! You need to straighten this out.'"
One of the more controversial parts of the plan discussed Thursday was a measure that would have banned watering a lawn or irrigating a piece of property between the hours of 7 a.m. and 8 p.m.
Rebecca Weersing, a member of the Temecula Valley Rose Society, said she didn't think a lot of the group's members were interested in getting up at 6 a.m. to water their rose bushes.
In response to her concerns, the board asked staff members to work out a system that would give people more flexibility to water according to their schedules as long as they keep their overall water use within a certain allotment.
The revised slate of conservation measures will be presented to the board before July 1, the deadline that has been handed down by the larger water districts.
Bay Area lawmakers push water recycling bill
The
By Josh Richman
Nine Bay Area House members united Thursday to introduce a bill that would boost the region's water-recycling efforts, which they say would stimulate the economy while reducing demand for limited fresh water supplies.
Water recycling is already underway throughout the Bay Area, but the new bill would make six more projects eligible for federal funding, saving an estimated 2.6 billion gallons per year for the region's water supply — roughly enough water to meet the needs of 24,225 households, which the lawmakers say would be equivalent to serving every household in Pittsburg and most in Bay Point. And that, they say, is an important step toward fixing the area's dependence on water from the beleaguered Bay-Delta watershed.
The six projects advanced by the bill — new piping, storage tanks, and pump stations for Concord, Dublin, Petaluma, Redwood City, Antioch and throughout the Palo Alto area, including Stanford University — are projected to cost a total of $403 million, of which $73 million would be paid by the federal government if this bill becomes law. Lawmakers say 3,581 jobs would be supported by the new work.
The Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2009 was introduced by representatives George Miller, D-Martinez; Pete Stark, D-Fremont; Ellen Tauscher, D-Alamo; Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto; Mike Honda, D-San Jose; Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma; Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton; Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo; and Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose.
"As people all over the country are impacted by declining water supplies, there is no better time to invest in new water technologies like water recycling. Recycling our wastewater is a smart and efficient way to conserve water supplies, lessen our impact on our natural resources, and create jobs and support local businesses," the lawmakers said in a joint statement. "With this bill, we'll allow cities across the Bay Area to join in a strong federal-local partnership that is providing our region a sustainable and reliable clean water supply."
The new bill builds on the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Authorization Act, signed into law last year to put eight water recycling projects on the federal authorization list; those projects will get federal funding this year from the Bureau of Reclamation, letting local water managers treat wastewater and use the clean, recycled water for landscape irrigation and other uses, including at golf courses, schools, city parks and other municipal facilities.#
http://www.contracostatimes.com/politics/ci_12371547?source=rss
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DWR’s California Water News is distributed to California Department of Water Resources management and staff, for information purposes, by the DWR Public Affairs Office. For reader’s services, including new subscriptions, temporary cancellations and address changes, please use the online page: http://listhost2.water.ca.gov/mailman/listinfo/water_news . DWR operates and maintains the State Water Project, provides dam safety and flood control and inspection services, assists local water districts in water management and water conservation planning, and plans for future statewide water needs. Inclusion of materials is not to be construed as an endorsement of any programs, projects, or viewpoints by the Department or the State of
No comments:
Post a Comment