Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
May 18, 2009
5. Agencies, Programs, People –
George Runner: The water softener bait and switch
The Santa Clarita Signal
GOLF: Other regions taking proactive stance to cut water use at golf courses
The
Council members scrutinize bonuses of water workers
The
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
George Runner: The water softener bait and switch
The Santa Clarita Signal – 5/17/09
George Runner is a Republican representing the 17th District in the California Senate. His district includes portions of the Santa Clarita Valley.
We’ve all been victims of a bait and switch: a sales tactic in which an item is used to attract customers who, once lured, find themselves receiving something different than what was offered.
It’s never a pleasant experience, but there is something particularly offensive when public officials engage in this dishonest tactic — they are supposed to be working for us.
Unfortunately, L.A. County Sanitation Districts — a collection of 24 agencies including one in the Santa Clarita Valley — were guilty of this behavior when they recently reneged on their promise to keep sewer rates low if residents voted to ban the use of water softeners.
Measure S, which voters approved last November, required homeowners to remove home water-softening systems within the local sanitation district’s service area in order to lower chloride levels in the
For years, sanitation officials have claimed that sewer rates would increase substantially unless water softeners were removed from Santa Clarita Valley homes.
In fact, one official said, “if it (Measure S) doesn’t pass, residents could face a hefty property tax hike — as much as $400 a year — to finance a $350 million desalination system.”
The Sanitation Districts used this argument to convince me to author Senate Bill 475, which put in motion Measure S.
This legislation was designed to avoid the drastic rate increases and address chloride levels in a way that empowered voters to be involved in the decision making.
As expected, voters dutifully passed Measure S, believing that sanitation representatives were telling them the truth. However, despite the passage of Measure S, the Sanitation Districts announced recently that the average sewer assessment rate would be increased from $14.92 to $47 per month — more than triple the current rate!
District officials claim that the rate hike is necessary to install new micro-filtration systems in Santa Clarita’s two treatment plants to address chloride levels in the
Guess what? That cost is $385 a year, which looks remarkably similar to the cost voters were told they would be able to avoid by voting for Measure S.
One wonders if voters would have voted down Measure S had they been told the truth. If voters knew that rates would be increased whether the measure was approved or not, they may have chosen to keep their water softeners.
In fact, a Sanitation Districts news release stated emphatically, “If all automatic water softeners aren’t removed now, sewer bills may be higher forever.”
Does that mean the rate increases of the same proposed levels are somehow going to be temporary now? I don’t think so, and voters got duped.
If the L.A. County Sanitation Districts were banking on the fact that removing the water softeners would prompt the
Regional Water Quality Board to change the rules for them to avoid treatment costs, they should have been honest with the voters about that.
I agree it is an outrage that the Regional Water Quality Board did not send representatives to informational hearings to help explain the problem to Sanitation Districts customers.
But what’s more troubling is that the Sanitation Districts abused the trust of the voters when they sold Measure S as the only way to avoid higher sewer assessment rates.
Sanitation officials were either insincere with voters or engaged in clear bait-and-switch tactics, and I think our public officials should be held to a higher standard. #
http://www.the-signal.com/news/article/13282/
GOLF: Other regions taking proactive stance to cut water use at golf courses
The
By Marc Figueroa
While the San Diego County Water Authority and some local water agencies are reaching out to golf courses in attempts to encourage water conservation, there are currently no mandates to enforce it.
That's a different story from other drought-plagued regions such as
Five years ago, the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) began paying golf courses and residents up to $1.50 per square foot to remove turf, a "cash for grass" program that cost the agency $40 million in the last fiscal year.
The effort has been a success, having removed more than 600,000 acres of turf from area golf courses and saving more than 1 billion gallons of water from those courses. Of the more than 40 courses in
"You can't hardly find a (grass) yard in
Hahn, who worked previously at Pala Mesa Resort in Fallbrook and Morgan Run Resort and Club in Rancho Santa Fe, said TPC Summerlin has removed four acres of irrigated turf from its 150-acre facility.
Angel Park Golf Club, a 36-hole facility near TPC, has taken a much more aggressive approach. The 260-acre compound, which also features a nine-hole short course and a nine-hole putting course, has removed 76 acres since 2007 ---- mostly from its two 18-hole courses ---- and has plans to remove nine more by 2010.
Bill Rohret, Angel Park's superintendent, said the effort at his facility saves 80 million gallons a year and more than $200,000 in watering expenses. Rohret said Angel Park has received about $3 million from the SNWA, money that covered reconstruction costs.
"We essentially are breaking even on it," Rohret said. "Without their financial help, we wouldn't have been able to do it."
The massive turf reduction project has turned Angel Park into a target golf course, a transformation that he said is being accepted by customers.
"Overall they like it because it defines the hole better now," Rohret said. "Plus, we had a lot of turf that wasn't even in play.
"It's funny, 20 years ago when we opened, we took out the desert to put the grass in. Twenty years later, we're taking grass out to put the desert back in."
When there is no drought, new golf courses in
At most golf courses in southern
According to PJ McGuire, the past president of the Southern Nevada Golf Course Superintendents Association, area courses are paying $3 per thousand gallons, the most expensive rate in the country.
The average annual cost for water is $600,000-$700,000, he said, adding that some courses spend up to $1.4 million each year.
"People wonder why it costs so much to golf in
Most courses get their water from the Colorado River and nearby Lake Mead, the largest reservoir in the
Golf courses in the Las Vegas Valley Water District, a member agency of the SNWA, also are on a water budget, restricted to 6.3 acre feet of water per irrigated acre every year. For TPC Summerlin, that's an allotment of 407 million gallons per year. One acre-foot of water is approximately 326,000 gallons, enough to serve a family of five for a year.
The mandate started at 7 acre feet but has since been lowered, and Hahn said he and other area superintendents soon expect the allotment to be reduced to 6 acre feet.
Exceed your allotment, and the penalty can cost up to 10 times the original cost, McGuire said.
"There's only way to go, and that's to remove turf," Hahn said. "There really aren't any other options for us. There are no miracle water treatments, and no super-efficient sprinklers."
In
What also has helped the state hold onto its water is the Arizona Water Banking Authority, which was established in 1996 to help "bank" unused water it receives from the
"Our conditions are much harsher than
The Coachella Valley Water District, which services most of the 133 golf courses in the
The
Looking at the long-term implications, the district is taking aggressive measures to significantly reduce or eliminate a course's dependence on the aquifer.
Mark Cupit, a board member of the Hi-Lo Desert Chapter of the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America, said reclaimed water users pay less than $10 an acre-foot of water, while aquifer consumers pay about $100 an acre-foot.
Cupit is the superintendent at Ironwood Country Club in
"The more courses we get off using the aquifer, the better," he said. "I would love to get my hands on that (recycled) water. It's not the best for irrigating turf, but I think we're in a situation where we're going to have to lower our expectations a little bit just because we don't have an endless supply."
Mike Huck, a golf course irrigation specialist based in
"In
"It's a much more complicated problem in
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/05/18/sports/golf/z94afd522acd825c1882575b60077db0a.txt
Council members scrutinize bonuses of water workers
The San Diego
By Helen Gao
Online: Read the consultant's report and the councilmen's memo questioning bonuses for water and wastewater employees at uniontrib.com/more/documents
The two departments paid $18 million in bonuses from 2006 to 2008, according to the city. In coming weeks, about 1,500 employees are slated to receive awards of up to $6,200 each for meeting cost-saving goals and performance targets in the past fiscal year.
The bonuses are allotted based on the prior fiscal year's performance, but only after an outside firm has audited the results.
Typically, almost all employees whose units are covered by the program receive bonuses, which vary depending on how many goals their section and department met.
The incentive pay is continuing at a time when
“During these extraordinarily challenging economic times, awarding these kinds of bonuses raises red flags on its own,” a memo from Councilmen Kevin Faulconer and Carl DeMaio says.
They stopped short of calling for an end to incentive pay, but asked for an audit of the program's design and implementation.
“My sources tell me that the program has produced cost savings, but not to the level as claimed by the city employees,” DeMaio said.
“I have no problems with giving incentives. I want them to be legitimate. I have too many questions about how they calculate these bonuses. It doesn't look right. It doesn't smell right.”
Councilwoman Marti Emerald shares her colleagues' concerns and wants more scrutiny of the program.
“Just viscerally, it just doesn't seem right,” Emerald said. “It rubs me the wrong way.”
AKT LLP, a firm hired by the city for $447,500 to verify performance results over the past few years, found in several instances that the city reported goals as having been met in fiscal 2008 when they were not.
For example, one goal for the water operations department was to inspect and prepare reports on pump stations and pressure zones, and have the reports signed by a superintendent and stamped with the date. The reports were not signed.
AKT also found that savings were overstated or miscalculated.
In letters, AKT repeatedly noted that the city's performance statistics and records were problematic.
“The reports provided for many goals had easily identifiable data entry errors,” one letter said.
The bonuses are offered under a program called Bid-to-Goal, which is unique to the city's Water and Wastewater departments.
Here is how it works: An independent industry expert hired by the city prepares a mock bid for how much it would cost for a contractor to provide a service, such as running sewage-treatment plants. The bid includes staffing projections and a detailed scope of work.
Using the bid as a benchmark, city workers try to do the same work for less. If they succeed, they get to share in the savings.
Faulconer suggested real-world competition might work better.
“There is a difference between a mock bid and a real bid,” he said. “I want the auditor to really look into this process, how that is set up. We need to get to the bottom of it.”
The savings over the mock bid are split, with half going back to the departments' budgets and the other half going for bonuses and initiatives of employees' choosing within the department. In the past, those initiatives have included resurfacing a parking lot and buying defibrillators.
The money used to fund the bonuses does not come out of the city's general fund. So even if the bonuses were abolished, the money could not be redirected to plug shortfalls in library or parks budgets. Wastewater and water budgets are funded by customer bills, not taxes.
Bid-to-Goal started in 1998 in one division of the Municipal Wastewater Department. It was later expanded to the entire department and parts of the Water Department.
The program has been held up as a best-practices model by the San Diego County Taxpayers Association and the John F. Kennedy School of Government at
According to city officials, some of the program's successes include:
A reduction in sewer spills, from 365 in 2000 to 62 in 2008.
Quicker response to water leaks. In 2005, the Water Department responded to leaks within two days about 70 percent of the time. In 2008, the percentage increased to 86.2 percent.
A leaner work force. The Water and Wastewater departments together have trimmed hundreds of jobs from their payrolls. They employed nearly 2,000 workers in 2007. Now they are down to 1,618.
Lower operational expenses. In 2008, the departments reported saving $37 million. Since the inception of the Bid-to-Goal, the departments report having saved $173.5 million.
Robert Ferrier, assistant director of the Wastewater Department, said Bid-to-Goal fosters a culture of “continuous improvement” where workers are focused on achieving higher goals each year.
Denise Steele, an equipment operator with the Wastewater Department, said the incentive-pay program gives city workers like her a much-needed boost.
“My crew that I work with is supposed to be a four-person crew. I can't even tell you when I've had four people on my crew. It's been at least two or three years,” Steele said. “We keep working, doing the same amount work that has to be done. We keep doing with less and less people.”
Steele's bonuses were based on whether her section met goals, including reducing overtime, injuries and sewer spills. She said that most of the time, workers do not receive the maximum payout and that her section's bonuses have ranged from $1,000 to $3,600 per employee.
The size of the awards workers receive depends not only on the performance of their own section but also that of other sections and the department as a whole. The fewer targets met, the smaller the payouts.
“There is that peer pressure for everybody to work better,” said Tony Ruiz, a safety representative with the Water Department. “I've seen one section isn't making a goal. Another section steps up. 'How can we help you achieve a goal?' ” #
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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