Metropolitan Water District Director's Letter to Fullerton City Council

You are probably all aware of the series of events that have taken place during the first 2 weeks of April. The month started off with the snowpack report for April 1st. The snowpack in the state of CA is at the lowest in recorded history. Governor Brown attended a snow measurement station in the Sierra's. After witnessing the measurement he ordered a mandatory cutback of 25% on urban water use.

 

The MWD had been analyzing our water supply and the possibilities of an allocation for the last few months. It was agreed upon and agendized for discussion at our April committee and board meetings. Governor Brown beat us to the punch with his April 1 announcement.

 

The MWD was very successful at moving water to the San Luis Reservoir during the large December storms. The discussions in February and March were centered around a Level 2 allocation, but as March went by it became clear that the snowpack was going to be very low. The snowpack measurement combined with Governor Brown's mandatory reduction caused the MWD to rethink it's allocation level. The allocation debate at the water planning and stewardship committee meeting on April 13th had varying opinions. The discussion was centered around a Level 3 or Level 4 allocation. A Level 3 being a 15% cut, and a Level 4 being a 20% cut in water use by MWD customers. The arguments for either level of allocation had merit. In the end, it was agreed to go with a Level 3 allocation with a monthly review that potentially could bring a revote to change the allocation.  

 

The MWD's water supply situation is not completely finished for this year. We may face some shortfalls in our water transfer program. The MWD contracted for a 100,000 acre feet of water from the rice farms north of the delta. We were informed on Friday April 10th, that the transfers were being halted by the state. That transfer is uncertain. Our fallowing program with the Palo Verde irrigation district will be utilized fully this year, but our stored water in Lake Mead has a slight chance of not being released if Lake Mead's level falls into emergency status. This condition seems unlikely, but nonetheless there is a small chance. These scenarios could trigger a deeper allocation.

 

I discussed the Level 3 allocation with our water manager Dave Schickling. His opinion is that we can meet a Level 3 allocation without penalty from the MWD. The penalty is over $1,400 per acre foot. It goes without saying that we should make every effort to conserve water over the next 9 months. Governor Brown's order for a 25% reduction will be tougher to attain, but if we can reach that level, or near it, the MWD's Level 3 allocation will not be an issue.

 

I have attached General Manager Kightlinger's letter to the state water resource control board. This letter outlines the MWD's position and provides a proposed framework for the mandatory cutbacks. I have also attached a letter to Governor Brown from Chairman Record. These letters were crafted through discussions in various committees, and they are enlightening about past water conditions, conservation, and our current situation. They are well worth reading.

 

On Tuesday April 14th, the board of directors voted to support a Level 3 allocation. I voted in support of the Level 3 allocation. I have also attached the summary report for April. There are 2 other items worth noting. We appropriated 41 million dollars to rehabilitate the filters at the Weymouth treatment plant. These filters are almost 80 years old. The new filters are an enhanced design that is compatible with the new ozone equipment being installed at the Weymouth plant. The other item of interest took place in communication and legislation committee. This action authorized the general manager to express support for SB 385 (Hueso, D-San Diego) primary drinking water standards: Hexavalent Chromium. This bill sets attainable standards for the presence of Hexavalent in our water supply.

 

As always if you have any questions, give me a call.

[redacted]

Pete Beard

MWD Director Update for Fullerton Water Ratepayers

Thomas S. Babcock

Director to the Metropolitan Water District

Representing the City of Fullerton, California

August 1, 2013

To: Mayor Bruce Whitaker
Mayor Pro Tem Doug Chaffee
Council Member Greg Sebourn
Council Member Jennifer Fitzgerald
Council Member Jan Flory

Report on MWD Director activities

August 2013 Events:
• August 13, 2013 - MWD Meeting MWD HQ
• August 15, 2013 – OC Caucus meeting
• August 17, 2013 – MWD “Sustainability” Inspection Trip
• August 19, 20, 2013 – MWD Committee meetings and Board of Directors Meeting
• August 23, 2013 – Meeting with Jennifer Medina, Fullerton Engineering Dept
• August 26, 2013 – Meeting with California Avocado Commission Representatives
• August 27, 2013 – Other MWD Committee Meetings
• August 27, 2013 – Attend Mayor’s “Talk around town” to discuss MWD CRA trip in October

I have also included the August summary report of Board meetings.
Planned September 2013 Events:
• September 3, 2013 - MWD CRA Planning Meeting
• September 4, 2013 – MWDOC Joint Board Meeting
• September 5, 2013 – Orange County Caucus Meeting
• September 9, 10, 2013 – MWD Committee meetings and Board of Directors Meeting
• September 24, 2013 – Other MWD Committee Meetings

Summary Report for

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

Board Meetings

August 20, 2013

PUBLIC HEARING
Held a public hearing on the standby charge levy supporting Annexation No. 97 to Calleguas Municipal Water District and Metropolitan.

INDUCTION OF NEW DIRECTOR
Director Michael T. Hogan, was inducted to the Board of Directors representing the San Diego County Water Authority. DEFERRED TO SEPTEMBER (Agenda Item 5C)

COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
None. (Agenda Item 5E)

TAX LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013/14
Received report on list of certified assessed valuations for fiscal year 2013/14 and tabulation of assessed valuations, percentage participation, and vote entitlement of member public agencies as of August 15, 2013. (Agenda Item 5G-1)

Adopted resolution maintaining the tax rate for fiscal year 2013/14. (Agenda Item 5G-2)

WATER PLANNING AND STEWARDSHIP COMMITTEE
Adopted the CEQA determination that the project is categorically exempt and authorized the General Manager to enter into an agreement with the San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District consistent with the terms in Attachment 1 of the Board letter. REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR (Agenda Item 7-3)

AUDIT AND ETHICS COMMITTEE
Adopted the CEQA determination that the proposed actions are not subject to CEQA and adopted the policy principles in Attachment 1 of the Board letter; adopted the investigations procedures in Attachment 2 of the Board letter; and authorized $245,000 increase to the Ethics Department fiscal year 2013/14 budget. (Agenda Item 8-1)

FINANCE AND INSURANCE COMMITTEE
Adopted the CEQA determination that the project is not subject to CEQA and authorized the General Manager, with approval of the General Counsel, to execute a contract with CERBT to administer and invest Metropolitan’s pre-funding of OPEB benefits. (Agenda Item 8-2)

Adopted the CEQA determination that the proposed action is not subject to CEQA and authorized the General Manager to sign a nonbinding Memorandum of Understanding stating Metropolitan’s intention to pay its proportionate share of the Hoover Dam Visitors Center and the Hoover Dam Air Slots debt obligations, as approved by the General Manager and General Counsel; and authorized the General Manager to provide approximately $26 million of available cash funding from the Water Rate Stabilization Fund to repay Metropolitan’s proportionate share of the Hoover Dam Visitors Center and the Hoover Dam Air Slots debt obligations. The exact amount will be determined at the time of the repayment. (Agenda Item 8-5)

ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Adopted the CEQA determination that the proposed action is categorically exempt and appropriated $19.3 million; and awarded $11.11 million contract to Southern Contracting Company to construct the Stage 2 electrical upgrades at the Diemer plant. (Approp. 15380) (Agenda Item 8-3)

Adopted the CEQA determination that the proposed action has been previously addressed in the certified EIR and that no further environmental analysis or documentation is required and appropriated $5.65 million; and awarded $3,801,758 million contract to J. F. Shea Construction, Inc. for seismic upgrades to the Weymouth filter buildings. (Approp. 15369) (Agenda Item 8-4)

Adopted the CEQA determination that the action is not subject to CEQA, and adopted a Board resolution authorizing the General Manager to apply for Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund financing for two projects, with separate applications for: (a) the Palos Verdes Reservoir floating cover replacement, and (b) enhanced bromate control, coagulation, and filter biomass control at the Weymouth plant. (Agenda Item 8-6)

COMMUNICATIONS AND LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Adopted the CEQA determination that the proposed action is not subject to CEQA and is categorically
exempt and authorized the General Manager to express Metropolitan’s opposition to SB 731 unless
amended as described in the Board letter. (Agenda Item 8-7)

Adopted the CEQA determination that the proposed action is not subject to CEQA and is categorically
exempt and authorized the General Manager to express Metropolitan’s opposition to AB 52 unless
amended as described in the Board letter. (Agenda Item 8-8)

CONSENT CALENDAR
In other action, the Board:
Adopted the CEQA determination that the proposed action is categorically exempt and authorized the General Manager to grant a permanent easement to San Diego Gas and Electric Company in San Diego County. (Agenda Item 7-1)

Reviewed and considered information provided in the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopted the Lead Agency’s findings related to the proposed actions and adopted resolution granting Calleguas’ request for approval of Annexation No. 97 concurrently to Calleguas and Metropolitan; established Metropolitan’s terms and conditions for the annexation in Attachment 2 of the Board letter, conditioned upon approval by Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission, and upon receipt of annexation fee of $8,149.28; and adopted resolution to impose water standby charge at a rate of $9.58 per acre, or per parcel of less than one acre, within the proposed annexation area in Attachment 3 of the Board letter. (Agenda Item 7-2)

Adopted the CEQA determination that the proposed action is categorically exempt and appropriated $610,000; authorized final design to replace the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning equipment system at Metropolitan’s Water Quality Laboratory; and authorized procurement and installation of a new chiller unit. (Approp. 15391) (Agenda Item 7-4)

Adopted the CEQA determinations that the proposed action is categorically exempt and appropriated $350,000; authorized installation of pavement at Temescal Power Plant; and authorized preliminary design of pavement repairs at the Skinner area facilities. (Approp. 15441) (Agenda Item 7-5)

Adopted the CEQA determination that the proposed action is categorically exempt and appropriated $175,000; authorized preliminary design to upgrade the surge tank system at the OC-88 Pumping Plant; and authorized preliminary design to replace a sectionalizing valve on the Santiago Lateral. (Approp. 15441) (Agenda Item 7-6)

Adopted the CEQA determination that the proposed action is not subject to CEQA and authorized agreements with AECOM, Black & Veatch, HDR Engineering, and MWH Americas, in an amount not to exceed $2 million per year each for a maximum period of five years, to provide engineering services. (Agenda Item 7-7)

OTHER MATTERS
Director Larry Dick, representing the Municipal Water District of Orange County received a 10-year
service pin. (Agenda Item 5D)

THIS INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED THE OFFICIAL MINUTES OF THE MEETING.

Board letters related to the items in this summary are generally posted in the Board Letter Archive
approximately one week after the board meeting. In order to view them and their attachments, please
copy and paste the following into your browser http://edmsidm.mwdh2o.com/idmweb/home.asp

MWD Holds On To Surplus Revenue

A message from MWD Director Thomas S. Babcock for the City of Fullerton:

The discussion today with a 3 hour Board of Directors board meeting (usually it has not gone over 1/2 hour). The Board majority approved the distribution of the $75M excess surplus after restoring the reserves to be distributed equally into 3 areas; repair and maintenance (PAYGO); OPEB ($575M underfunded retiree health benefits) and a water transfer fund to allow a restricted fund to purchase water as needed should MET need to purchase water to restore reserves as necessary.An alternative option to this distribution was to refund to the agencies $28M allocated on water purchases to reduce the budgeted 5% increase for 2014 to 3%. With the selection of "Option 1", this option was not considered.  However, a separate motion was made which I seconded to refund the 28% while agreeing to fund the 3 areas in Option 1.  While there were votes for this motion, it failed 75% to 25% based on the agencies assessed value weighted distribution voting. Had this passed, Fullerton would have received a refund of 2014 water purchases for approximately $150,000.It is generally believed that with the current drought condition, MET will sell more water than budgeted for in the 2014 budget and again have a surplus of funds this time next year when the 2015/2016 two year budget is considered.  With the financial reserves at their maximums, I am reasonably sure we will have this agency refund discussion again next year.Another item that was approved was a "freeze" in the ad valorem property tax rate for one year at the .0035% in an effort to stabilize the fixed portion of agency revenues. This is allowed under the Administrative code of the Metropolitan Act.  The current rate represents  a tax of approximately $10.50 for a $300,000 property. The tax would have dropped approximately $0.60 for the same $300,000 had this action not been taken and will result in a $4M increase in Metropolitan's fixed income sources.We had quite a few speakers addressing these 2 items for and against during today's meeting.  There was also a rather lively discussion among Directors.I felt these items were important enough to provide a summary in addition to my report which I will provide at the end of the month. Thomas S. BabcockDirector to the Metropolitan Water Districtfor the City of Fullerton

Water Rate Study Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Canceled

The Water Rate Study Ad Hoc Committee meeting has been canceled with no reason given.

The meeting was scheduled for this Wednesday but City manager Joe Felz canceled the meeting.  No reason was given.

The meeting would have been held to review the City Manager's list of "costs" associated with operating the City's Water Department and determine how much should be billed to the Water Fund.

Meanwhile, Fullerton Water Department customers are still being overcharged 10% on their water bills.  

Water Tax Repealed, Rate Decrease Anticipated

The City Council voted 5-0 to do the right thing: Rescind the 1970 City Council Resolution that granted an automatic transfer of 10% of gross water sales to the General Fund.  The money was then used to cover General Fund obligations, 80% of which is for salaries, benefits, and pensions.

The end of the water tax does not mean the automatic reduction of 10% of ratepayers water bills.

That will be explored by the Water Rate Ad Hoc Committee in the coming weeks.

For now, though, let's savor the moment.

One year ago I said that ending the water tax would allow for ratepayers' money to go where they had intended it to be spent, the water system.  "Oh no.  That would mean a $2.5 million cut to the General Fund" said the tax's supporters.  "We can't have that!"

The fact is, that money was not supposed to be going into the General Fund and reliance on those funds demonstrates a clear disregard of fiduciary responsibilities by our city officials.

The money was earmarked for water purposes and any other use is a clear misappropriation of public funds.  Suddenly with the water tax gone, the Water Fund has all the money necessary to begin replacing 4 to 6 miles of pipe per year instead of 1 mile per year.  This is a leap in the right direction.  However, there is much more work ahead.

You can expect another tax and spend plan to come forward to try to make up the $2.5 million annual cut in illegal funding.

Keep a wary eye out for gimmicks, games, and gambling with your money by city officials and vote June 5 to recall Bankhead, Jones, and McKinley.

Water Rate Study Ad Hoc Committee Calls On Council to Rescind Water Tax

Last night the Water Rate Study Ad Hoc Committee voted unanimously to recommend to the Fullerton city Council that the "in-lieu" franchise fee, or "water tax" as it has become known as, should be suspended indefinitely.

Another motion was made to recommend an audit of the Water Fund.  The motion failed 5-5.

Some members stated they had enough reports and felt spending more money would not provide any answers.  One member even said that no matter what is discovered in the audit, it would not be enough for some.

Others, like myself, feel it is a disservice to the public to not account for the misappropriated funds.  As we look to answer the question of how much was overcharged to ratepayers, we realize we cannot arrive at a fact-based answer.  Instead, the city's staff will have the Ad Hoc Committee look at what could or perhaps should be charged to the Water Fund.  That may be an appropriate step going forward but without an audit we will never know where our money went.

Water System Manager Dave Schickling offered up the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report as an audit that covered the Water Fund.  Unfortunately, the CAFR does not look at the Water Fund in any detail.  Instead, the accounting consultant was provided total dollars into and out of the Water Fund.  This may show that the Fund is operating in the black but does nothing to ensure that the transfers were legal or that the funds were used in support of water projects and system management.

I asked the Director of Engineering, Don Hoppe, and the Water System Manager, Dave Schickling, about how Maintenance Services bills their time to repair water leaks and the street that they dig up.  They said the time is all billed to the General Fund.  At the May 23, 2011 meeting the Water Rate Study showed that Maintenance Service accounted for 21% of the operations and maintenance of the water system.  This created some confusion, at least for me, because the Rate Study showed these maintenance costs as being part of the allocation from the Water Fund and not part of the franchise fee.  In the end, I am left to guess where at least $22.5-million was spent.

The chart below shows that Maintenance Services expenses accounted for 21% of the O&M expenses, "Other Expenses" as 2% (read the footnote on the chart to see what "other" refers to), and then the Franchise Charge at 11%.  According to the City, this chart represents all of the costs and expenses necessary to operate the Water System and consequently the Water Fund.

City Manager Joe Felz will be compiling what he believes to be a list a various "costs" to bring back before the Ad Hoc Committee.  The purpose would be for the Ad Hoc Committee to determine what "costs" are appropriately associated with and billed back to the Water Fund.

The Ad Hoc committee seemed somewhat unified in a desire to have only the actual costs billed to the Water Fund, but as we have seen, those "costs" are subject to staff interpretation.

Since last night's meeting, many members have expressed their concern over the way the entire Water Rate Study has been handled.

I think a large part of the problem has been the business-as-usual approach by staff to have a committee rubber stamp studies, reports, and recommendations all at the behest of city staff.

That's not to say the process yielded no results.  In fact, early in 2011 I made it my goal to end the water tax.  Last night, the first milestone was reached with the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation.

As a final thought on water rates and the City's handling of this issue, I want to draw your attention to the City's Budget Study Session tomorrow.  The purpose of the meeting is for the City Manager and department managers to present their respective budgets.  This is where we find out how much of our money the City would like to spend and where they will spend it.  Even though the Ad Hoc Committee recommended that the City Council end the water tax completely, the City Manager, Joe Felz, intends to move the budget forward on the assumption that the General Fund will continue to receive a percentage of the Water Funds revenue.  So you see it is business as usual at the Fullerton City Hall.

Business as usual left us with an $8-million budget gap in the two-year budget for 2011/2012 and 2012/2013.    The proposed budget for 2012/2013 & 2013/2014 will have a $5-million deficit with the ending of the water tax and the official plan is to ignore it.

Water Rate Study Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Tonight

Water Rate Study Ad Hoc Committee meeting tonight

City Yard (1580 W. Commonwealth Ave.)

6:00PM 

Park in the gated employee parking lot

Please bring your neighbors and speak up.

Please join me...

...for a neighborhood meeting to discuss where your water bill is going.

April 1, 3:00-4:00 PM 

356 Del Cerro, Fullerton

(The Medici Residence)

Where is the money going, how do we stop it, and can we get it back?

I have a plan but I need your help!

Find out this Sunday

MARK YOUR CALENDAR - More meetings...

The Citizens Infrastructure Review Committee (CIRC) is scheduled to meet on Wednesday, April 4, at 6pm in the City Council Conference Room.  This is a PUBLIC meeting and PUBLIC COMMENTS are encouraged.

What does the CIRC do?  As the name implies, the committee reviews the City's infrastructure program also known as the Capital Improvement Program.  We look at prioritizing projects, funding sources, and act as the ears for the City Council.  The committee serves as an advisory body and has no authority to do anything accept approve previous meeting minutes and make recommendations to the City Council.

The Water Rate Study Ad Hoc Committee is scheduled to meet on Monday, April 9, at 6pm in the Main Branch Library.   This is a PUBLIC meeting and PUBLIC COMMENTS are encouraged.  

The Ad Hoc was formed to vet the initial water rate study which was conducted in 2010 and reviewed by the committee in 2011.  As part of the study, the committee asked questions about the in-lieu franchise fee ($2.7-million water tax).

The Ad Hoc is made up of two committees, CIRC and the Energy and Resource Management Committee (E&RC), as well as 5 community members.  Many of the CIRC and E&RC members have chosen not to participate for personal reasons such as scheduling and the depth of commitment necessary.

MARK YOUR CALENDAR - Water Rate Ad Hoc Meeting April 9th at 6PM, City Yard

Where is your money going?

The next Water Rate Study Ad Hoc Committee meeting is scheduled for Monday, April 9th at 6PM at the City Yard (Basque & Commonwealth).

Please attend this important meeting and speak up.  If you have ever wondered why Fullerton was in this mess it is because too often we all sit back and expect someone else to do all of the work.  Please do your part and engage in the discussion.

Do you think using your water rates to pay for "rent" of city-owned property is a bad idea?  Do you want a refund of the money you were over charged?  Do you want the City to actually use ALL of the money they collect from water sales do be spent on the Water System?  Are you upset that the Water System has been neglected?  Are you fearful the City will try other tricks and accounting gimmicks to take more of your money and provide fewer services?

Please mark your calendar and bring your neighbors.  Fullerton is YOUR city.  

Water Rate Hike Hearing...Will you be heard?

Tonight the Fullerton City Council will take up, among many issues, water rate hikes.

I oppose the so-called "pass-through" rate increase for a few reasons.

First, the pass-through is supposed to pass along rate increases imposed on Fullerton by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and the Orange County Water District (OCWD).  Fullerton passes the increase to YOU 6 MONTHS BEFORE MWD or OCWD actually increase their rates.  If it isn't illegal, it should be.  At the very least, it is unethical.

Second, the MWD is neck deep in a law suit by the San Diego County Water Authority which is alleging that MWD staff together with some of the staff of MWD's member agencies (like Fullerton) have created a "Secret Society" that meets behind closed doors to develop policies and manipulate water rate increases.  

Third, the MWD is raising their rates to help cover $6,000 bonuses for ALL employees, raises that will amount to nearly 6%, and two new pay grades.  And for those who will think I'm picking on the poor defenseless public employee, let me remind you that all public employees work for ratepayers/taxpayers.  These bonuses and raises are being pushed onto water consumers without their input or approval.  The increases are coming in the midst of the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression.

Water is not like any other commodity.  We have no choice which water agency hooks up to our water meters.  It is of the greatest importance that those services which have monopolies over taxpayers are regulated sufficiently to ensure that they are free of corruption and malfeasance.  Taxpayers must be assured that they are receiving the highest level of service at a reasonable and sustainable rate.

Please attend the City Council meeting at 6:30PM at City Hall.  

Are Fullerton's Water Rates and the Proposed Rate Hikes Justified

Tonight is the Fullerton Water Rate Study Ad Hoc Committee meeting at the Main Branch Library at 6pm.

As a member of this committee, I would like to hear your thoughts and concerns on all things water related.

With a massive MWD scandal brewing that implicates Fullerton in even more corruption and with the recent revelation that Fullerton water ratepayers were over charged, I think it is important to hear what you, the ratepayers and voters, have to say.

Tomorrow, the Fullerton City Council will take up a water rate hike.  You have a say in the rate increase but you need to come and speak to the Council.

FULLERTON IS YOUR CITY.

Results from Study of 10% Water Tax Released

The City of Fullerton has released the findings of a study that looked at transfers of funds from the Water Fund to the General Fund.  In simple terms, this is the City's justification for skimming water revenue and using it for non-water related activities.

The study focused on the last three (3) years because legal counsel identified a three-year window of liability.

Here is the City's internal memo (click image to read):

Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3 

Page 3 of 3

The memo notes that over the last three years water ratepayers have overpaid $2.5-million. 

If you can accept the premise* of the report then the next logical question is what to do with the over payment.  This question will be the focus of the Water Rate Ad Hoc Committee over then next several weeks.

*The bulk of the $5-million that the City would like to retain is being justified as rent for the water system's use of City-owned properties and is payable to the City's General Fund.

This latest study of the franchise fee will be the topic of conversation at Monday's Water Rate Ad Hoc Committee meeting at the Main Branch Library at 6PM.  

MARK YOUR CALENDAR - Water Rate Ad Hoc Meeting March 19 at 6PM

Fullerton's Water Rate Study Ad Hoc Committee will be receiving the Water Fund to General Fund Transfer Study prepared by the same consultant that prepared the initial water rate study in 2011, Municipal & Financial Services Group, Inc.  

The public meeting will be held at Fullerton's Main Branch Library and will begin at 6PM.  Anyone wishing to speak on water related issues, will be given an opportunity to do so.  

This is the same group that reported the "Franchise Charge" as being 11%, or $2.49-million, of the total water sales on their May 23, 2011 presentation.  

Contact the City Clerk's Office if you need any special accommodations. 

(714) 738-6350 or CityClerk'sOffice@ci.fullerton.ca.us  

$6,000 Bonuses Part of Fullerton Water Rate Hike

As the Fullerton City Council prepares to hike water rates as "pass-through increases" I thought it would be good to share the sweet deal MWD employees get on April 1, 2012 (no, its not a joke) and see just what is being passed through to us.

Come April 1st the employees of MWD get a $6,000 bonus as part of their contract.

9.3 Effective the first day of the pay period that includes April 1, 2012, each employee in the bargaining unit shall receive a one-time only payment of $6,000 which shall not be considered part of the employee‘s regular pay.

If that wasn't bad enough, July 1, 2013 MWD employees will get a 0.25% raise.  And if you think 0.25% isn't much of a raise, consider what else gets slipped in.  How about creating "higher steps" for employees who have hit the salary ceiling and giving them raises as well?

9.4 Effective the first day of the pay period that includes July 1, 2013, there shall be an across-the-board salary increase of 0.25%. In addition, all bargaining unit classifications shall be moved two (2) salary grades higher (approximately 2.75% for each grade), and placed at the equivalent salary step in the new grade (e.g. an employee at step 11 on June 30, 2013 would be placed at step 9 of his new salary grade).

All bargaining unit employees will be place on the same evaluation date, and will receive a performance evaluation for the period ending July 1, 2013. Employees will be eligible for a merit increase pursuant to ARTICLE 65—MERIT INCREASES.

These generous employee benefits are being passed along to Fullerton water customers in the form of "pass-through" rate increases.  When the City Council pushes for a rate hike this year, be sure to speak up in opposition.  The City Council will be happy to pass the buck so long as we sit quietly and let them.

You can read the MWD employee agreement here.

Self-Policing Water Board Directors? Are you kidding?

A recent blog post by the Surf City Voice showcases a proposal from Municipal Water District of OC  (MWDOC) Board member Brett Barbre to self-police directors and employees of the agency as a means of preventing (or limiting legal exposure?) another Foley folly.

Barbre's may be good, to keep everyone on the straight and narrow, but not likely to protect ratepayers from corrupt public employees and elected leaders.

Barbre’s proposal would have the MWDOC (Municipal Water District of Orange County) board certify that to the best of its knowledge no conflicts of interest exist for its elected directors or for representatives that it appoints to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). The certification would also apply to all MWDOC employees who are required to report under state disclosure regulations.

Self-policing does not work, especially when it comes to political corruption or legal ignorance.

The best way ratepayers can protect themselves is to get involved and become watchdogs over their local government. 

Stay tuned for more on MWD...

Why does MWD continue to raise rates?

Drought-like conditions? Out of control employee costs?  Corruption?

The answer could be YES to all.

Your Fullerton City Council is about to approve passing the bill for these along to you, Fullerton water consumers.

Lending to the tails of MWD corruption, the Surf City Voice is offers further revelations into MWD's chairman, Jack Foley whose continued lack of ownership over his failure to disclose his income as well as his wife's income for consulting with water districts and related groups becomes public. 

It makes ratepayers like me very suspicious of "pass-through" rate hikes that are unsubstantiated by the City's own MWD and OCWD representatives.

With a recall election looming, I wonder what it will take to wake up Fullerton voters?

The Perpetual Study

(from http://californiawaterblog.com/2012/01/18/some-curious-things-about-water-management/)

Studies forever, are sometimes cheaper and more politically convenient than action or technically serious work. For example, there is a common and political perception that new reservoirs are needed. Most elected and business officials grew up in an era when if you needed more water, you went to the nearest watershed, built a dam, and diverted water to where you wanted it. Today, most of the technical community is lukewarm on the idea of expanding reservoirs, for economic, technical, and environmental reasons. Constructing new reservoirs also taps an immense reserve of controversy. So consider the choices:

A) Build a reservoir costing $2 billion, or $100 million/year for a long time at 5% annual interest
B) Study building a reservoir, costing $1 million/year, perhaps for a very long time

The least controversial and most politic and economical choice here is to study the problem for a long time and rarely release substantial reports on the subject. This neatly dampens most of the controversy, while keeping agencies and consultants well funded and out of trouble. However, studying the problem forever has a financial cost, and arguably greater costs from dissipating analytical expertise, avoiding more serious discussions, and loss of technical integrity in government agencies.

MWD Ethics Office A Complete Failure

Last year I wrote about Metropolitan Water District's $571,400 Ethics Office. 

We are now learning just how big of a colossal failure the Ethics Office is. 

The Surf City Voice is reporting that MWD Chairman Col. John V. Foley (ret.) didn't think he needed to disclose his wife's income from her consulting business Statement of Economic Interests or “700” form.  If she was consulting on something unrelated to water, maybe that wouldn't matter.  But Mrs. Foley was consulting directly and indirectly with MWD and member agencies.  That's a big conflict of interest.

Surf City Voice is reporting about $280,000 in unreported income.

If the number one man in charge of MWD doesn't recognize the need to report his wife's income, its time to find a new chairman and scrap the Ethics Office.   For Pete's sake, even Linda Ackerman, another MWD director, reports her husband's income.  Hubby Dick Ackerman is an attorney for Nossaman LLP which consults to MWD. 

The Surf City Voice wrote quite an amazing expose on the incestuous relationships of the water agencies and their many directors. 

In short, Orange County's water is dirty.  Very dirty.  And another $571,400 down the toilet. 

How much more has MWD tossed away for feel-good programs that line the pockets of friends and family?  How many more back-room deals have taken place?

Water Rate Meeting - MARK YOUR CALENDAR!

Public parking will be available in the small parking lot accessed from Commonwealth as well as the large employee parking lot accessible from Basque.