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...

OC Watchdog Bites Down On Fullerton's Illegal Water Tax

OC Register's Teri Sforza wrote this for the OC Watchdog today...

Way back in 1968, when there were still lots of orange trees in Orange County, the city of Fullerton tacked a 2 percent charge onto folks’ water bills to cover the cost of providing that water.

In 1970, the city hiked that charge to 10 percent – and there it has remained for 41 years.
This charge is “in lieu of franchise fees” — what a private company would pay the city for the exclusive privilege of providing water — and in lieu of property taxes, which many special districts collect to help provide water service.

That 10 percent fee generated about $2.5 million for Fullerton last year — and more than $27 million since 1997, according to city figures.

TROUBLE?
“We believe the fee and revenue transfers are illegal,” says a letter from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which arrived over the holidays in City Manager Joe Felz’s mailbox.
“If a private company provided water service to the residents of Fullerton, the City could charge the private company a negotiated franchise fee for occupying public rights of way with its pipelines,” say the Howard Jarvis folks. “That is not the case in Fullerton, however, as the City operates its own municipal water utility.  The rates the City may charge are governed by the California Constitution, which limits rates to just the amount required to provide service, and prohibits transferring rate revenue for use elsewhere.

Read the rest of the story here...

Tonight is the Water Rate Study Session at the Fullerton Public Library's Main Branch at 4:30 PM.  Arrive early and expect standing-room only.

Fullerton Water System Study Session - MARK YOUR CALENDAR!

Below is a press release from the City of Fullerton.  Read it carefully and mark you calendar.

Also, here is how much money has been skimmed from the Water Fund:

 

Fiscal                              (Water Fund)

Year     Franchise Fee     Water Sales                

2001      $1,435,202          $14,342,888

2002      $1,558,578          $15,619,444

2003      $1,576,091          $15,676,902

2004      $1,775,133          $17,800,172

2005      $1,771,294          $17,499,462

2006      $2,065,417          $20,587,913

2007      $2,287,693          $22,938,001

2008      $2,278,041          $22,893,749

2009      $2,388,515          $23,967,172

2010      $2,479,930          $24,796,981

2011      $2,532,595          $25,295,986

PRESS RELEASE -

All things water in the City of Fullerton will be the focus of a special City Council study session Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2012.

The session, which will be open to the public, will be held at 4:30 p.m. in the new Conference Center at the Fullerton Main Library, 353 W. Commonwealth Ave., adjacent to Fullerton City Hall.

David Schickling, Water System Manager for Fullerton, said the workshop will cover all aspects of the City’s water utility, ranging from where Fullerton gets its water supplies to how that water is delivered to residences and businesses in the City.

The session will also examine capital improvement needs for the aging water system.

The study session, which was requested by the Council, will be a prelude to the reopening of consideration of a water rate study which was brought to Council this past July.

“The Council took no action on the study then and, instead, directed that further study be done – specifically on the public notification process and the legality of the ‘in-lieu franchise/property tax’ transfer of funds from the Water Fund to the General Fund,” Schickling explained, noting the in-lieu franchise tax has been in place since 1968.

“The results of this expanded study are nearly complete and will be available for public review beginning with a meeting of the Council-appointed Water Rate Study Ad Hoc Committee in February.” That meeting, the date of which has not yet been firmed up, will be open to the public.

Once the committee has reviewed the results of the new study and made recommendations on it, the matter is tentatively scheduled to come to the City Council for consideration in March.

Further information about the study session or the water rate study may be obtained by calling the Office of Water Engineering at Fullerton City Hall at (714) 738-6845.

Persons requiring special accommodations to attend the study session the workshops are asked to notify the Office of Water Engineering prior to Jan. 10.

Tinkering with Water Rates

Water ratepayers in San Juan Capistrano are in for a rude awakening.  A new audit of the water system's financial mismanagement predates the 2003 merger of the Capistrano Valley Water District and the City of San Juan Capistrano by six years. 

You read that correctly.  For six straight years the Capistrano Valley Water District was consistently underfunded because of the rate structure.

The dirty laundry is being aired on the pages of the OC Register and after several massive rate hikes (22% in February and 18% more in July) which the audit says aren't sufficient to cover the deficit.

According to  the Register, the audit states that the utility "also used one-time revenue from property taxes and developer fees as a stopgap funding measure, which had the effect of hiding structural funding problems."

The report indicates "poor financial communication" may have been part of the problem.

Let's head up Interstate-5 to Fullerton and look at the similarities.

Fullerton hasn't had an audit but it did have a rate study.  The rate study appears to have been nothing more than a report to justify nearly doubling water rates.  When pressed for hard data and answers on the water system's "in-lieu franchise fee" (an illegal 10% tax on the Water Fund), staff came up empty-handed.

Fullerton has been under-funding the water system since the 1960s.  Some might rightfully ask how that is possible and why.  Good questions, to be sure.  It was in the 1960s that the "in-lieu franchise fee" was put in place by a city council that actually predates Don Bankhead's tenure on the dais.  Since then, 10% of every dollar paid into the Water Fund has been skimmed and deposited into the City's General Operating Fund like a 3-year old grabbing at a cookie. 

That may not seem like a big deal but with every rate hike, the City's General Fund wins big.  Not to mention nearly 80% of the General Fund covers the benefits and salaries of employees not associated with operating or managing the water system.  It also helps to shore up the growing deficit and pension shortfall.  How is that fair?  How is that even legal?  It's not legal.  This January you'll begin to see a more vigorous campaign headed by City staff to raise rates and justify the continued skimming of the Water Fund.

The illegal "water tax" imposed on the Water Fund has reinforced the policy and subsequent affect on our infrastructure with ZERO investment.  Now, after 50 years of ignoring the problem, pillaging the coffers, and looking the other way, rate payers will be forced to pick up the tab.

Maybe I can blame my parents.  Perhaps Mom and Dad should have been banging on the doors at City Hall in the 1960s and '70s telling the City Council and City Manager to invest in the water system.  But they didn't protest City Hall, probably because they were busy raising five kids, paying a mortgage, and worried about their kids heading off to fight questionable wars in far away places.

No, I can't blame them. Like most people, they relied on their elected representatives to do the right thing.

To those who were voters in the 1960s, '70s, '80s, and '90s...here I am holding the bag.  How much is it going to cost, you ask, to make up for years of mismanagement and neglect? 

About $300-million... 

The Science of Irrigation: Efficiency vs. Uniformity

By Melissa Baum-Haley, Ph.D., MWDOC Water Use Efficiency Programs Specialist

When is the last time you observed your sprinkler system running? Observing your sprinkler system in action can help you save water by improving both the irrigation system efficiency and uniformity. This article will explain the difference between efficient irrigation and uniform irrigation – and what you can do to achieve both when you water your lawn and plants.

The terms efficiency and uniformity are often confused when discussing irrigation. It is a common mistake to use them synonymously. Efficiency refers to how much of the water applied to the plants is ultimately used by them, while uniformity refers to how evenly the water is applied. Uniformity is increased with proper landscape coverage. And while an irrigation system can have sufficiently good uniformity, this does not mean that the actual irrigation event is necessarily efficient.

Here’s a little game to test your knowledge. The following illustrations depict four irrigation water application scenarios in the soil. Within the root zone of the plants, indicated as the area below the ground surface and above the line, the water is used beneficially. Below the root zone, below the white line, the water is lost to deep percolation (drainage). Can you tell the difference between the efficient and uniform irrigation?

A) The irrigation water applied is both uniform and efficient (the goal).

B)While efficient in terms of conservative water use, the irrigation was not uniform. Under-watering areas in the root zone will result in plant quality decline (leading to pest and weed invasion, or "dry spots").

C) The common cure the "dry spots" is watering longer. This leads to non-uniformity and inefficiency due to over watering some areas.

D) Uniform but inefficient due to overwatering, resulting in drainage below the root zone (which, with time, can result in plant loss as well as the transport of excess nutrients, fertilizers and pesticides that harm the environment).

So, how does your irrigation system compare? Here’s a simple way to evaluate the uniformity of the irrigation distribution in your own yard. You will need:

• 16-24 empty tuna cans, pet food cans, ramekins, or similar containers for water catchment (note: all catchment containers must be the same size)
• A ruler
• A pad and pen

What to do:
• Evenly distribute the catchment containers around the turfgrass area.
• Draw a map of the catchment container locations.
• Irrigate the turfgrass area as usual.
• Measure and record the depth of water collected in each container.

Results:
• If there is more than a ¼ inch variation of water collected within a certain area of the test site, the distribution of applied irrigation is not uniform.

Want to know more? What you have just measured is the uniformity of how you water your lawn during your regular watering cycle. The lack of even distribution (uniformity) can result from either 1) how the timer is set, or 2) the sprinkler equipment. Let’s dig a little deeper.

• Manually turn on the irrigation system, zone by zone.

• Determine which zone(s) are watering the turfgrass area.

• Note whether the zone(s) are using spray heads, rotor heads, or other.

• Observe the sprinklers as they run.

Spray Head

Rotor Head

Drip Irrigator

Q: Is the area irrigated by more than one type of sprinkler head?

A: Different types of sprinkler heads will apply different amounts of water (referred to as the application rate).

Q: Is the test area irrigated by one, two, or more zones?

A: If the test area is irrigated by multiple zones, the scheduled run time for each zone must be matched. If the zones both have the same equipment type (sprinkler head), try retesting so each zone is set to run for the same length of time (for example, 15 min). If the zones water the area with different types of sprinklers, use this rule of thumb for rerunning the test, set the spray head zone to run for half of the time as the rotor head zone.

Q: Are there any geysers, leaks, or ponding?

A: Broken equipment can result in variations in water pressure within the system. Changes in water pressure will affect the water distribution pattern and system uniformity.

Issues like these reflect both the uniformity of distribution and overall efficiency of the system. Good uniformity combined with proper irrigation scheduling will result in reduced pest and weed invasion and fewer "dry spots".

Remember, even the smartest of irrigation controllers cannot correct for inefficient irrigation design, improper installation, or lack of maintenance. The potential of water savings that result from efficient watering practices must take the irrigation system, landscape design, and maintenance each into consideration. The three fundamental roadblocks for fully achieving the watering efficiency potential when considering the use of irrigation technologies are: (1) how to use the equipment, (2) when and how long to water, and (3) system uniformity. This requires a holistic approach, to realize true water use efficiency potential.

So, we’ve now completed the second lesson in our Science of Irrigation series. In the next installment, we will examine irrigation controllers and explain just what makes a "smart" controller so smart.

For more information about irrigation uniformity and efficiency, please contact Melissa Baum-Haley at (714) 593-5016.

Fullerton Water Rate Increase - Tomorrow Night

Tomorrow night's City Council meeting will likely include a water rate hike for Fullerton residents and businesses. 

The City Council meeting begins at 6:30PM in the Council Chambers at City Hall.  I expect it to be a very long meeting.

Please come out and tell you City Council...
...Their hidden tax on your water must stop NOW. (10% of your water bill covers public safety salaries and benefits.)
...The timing couldn't be worse. (Extremely high unemployment and foreclosure rates in a very poor economy.)
...The "business-as-usual" mentality of infrastructure management must change.  (For decades city management has refused to spend a penny of the General Fund on the infrastructure and has relied on state and federal grants which are quickly drying up.)
...The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association believes, as do many, that the City's Prop 218 Notification did not comply with state law.  This could trigger dozens of law suits from homeowner associations and others who did not receive any notice.
...The City ranks among the worst in Southern California for water conservation efforts.  A recent Sierra Club survey of 122 agencies gave Fullerton 8 out of 20 points for their efforts.  Their were only 16 agencies which scored worse!
...Can the residents and water consumers of Fullerton really trust a City in which customers are assessed hidden taxes to support poor management practices?  NO! 

The General Fund, the core of the City's budget, received $2.4-million in 2010, thanks to the hidden tax.  The FY2011-2012 budget expects 80% of the General Fund to cover public safety salaries and benefits.  That $2.4-million windfall will go up 7.8% if the Council approves this rate hike.  Tell your City Council NO!

 Here is a recent blog post stating in more detail why this rate hike is wrong for Fullerton right now.

______________________________________________

Tuesday night's City Council agenda is set and among the many items for consideration by council members is a water rate increase. 

The increase would raise water revenue by 7.8% but it is not clear how that increase would be spread among different rate classes.  Some will feel the increase more than others.  This cloud is just one of the many reasons I oppose this rate increase.

Other reasons include the hidden water tax, economic timing, city management's long-standing philosophy on infrastructure, the likely law suits due to improper notice by the City, shortsighted conservation efforts, and the general feeling of distrust by consumers.

10% of every water bill gets diverted or skimmed from the water fund and transferred into the City's General Fund.  80% of the General Fund goes to cover public safety employee benefits.  Outside of City Hall only a handful of people know about this tax.  In my opinion, it gives the appearance that the unions are embezzling public funds.  The General Fund does not contribute any funds back into the water system.  Removing this hidden tax would allow the water system to retain about $2.5-million for pipe replacement.

Fullerton residents and businesses are struggling to survive.  The elderly and disabled have never had this magnitude of cuts in services and funding now on the table and being debated in Washington.  There are other measures yet to be instituted which could provide a financial buffer for the next year or two.  City management must exhaust all avenues before resorting to a rate hike in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression.

For decades, city management has turned a blind eye to the infrastructure.  Unless the repairs or replacement was in a redevelopment district, the City would put of any work.  Instead, the city sought to spend $6-million on moving a McDonalds 200 feet, $30-million* in bonds for housing (*will amount to more than $50-million when paid off), and more than $12-million to revamp the Lions Field athletic complex.  Meanwhile, our water lines are failing, our roads are crumbling, our streetlights broken, and who knows what else is in disrepair.  The proven ability of city officials, from council members to department heads, to go along with whatever hot new trend presented itself despite the obvious deficiencies in our infrastructure is unforgiveable.  While some were getting bronze plaques with their names on it, the rest of us are left to foot the bill.  Enough already!

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has indicated that the Proposition 218 rate increase notification received by some water customers last month does not comply with the requirements of the law.  Fullerton's notice is insufficient according to Timothy Bittle, Director of Legal affairs for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.  "[T]hey can't tell anyone yet what the new amount of their fee will be. That's not compliance with 218!" says Bittle.

A recent survey of 122 public agencies by the Sierra Club shows Fullerton's water conservation efforts sadly on par with the infamous city of Bell.  The survey gives Fullerton 8 points out of 20.  Out of the 122 agencies surveyed, only 16 scored worse.

Finally, people have lost a great deal of trust in their government at all levels and why wouldn't they lose trust once they realize the City has been charging them with a hidden tax that does not benefit the water system.  Most people who do not deal with City Hall regularly get frustrated at the run around they receive.  One person tells them to do one thing and someone else tells them to do something different.  Many are simply discouraged by driving on Fullerton’s poorly maintained streets.  Others, like me, have watched the same section of water line replaced three or four times in just 24 months. 

For these reasons and more, I strongly oppose this water rate increase.

As a side note, water rates will have to increase; it is just a matter of time.  However, I believe our city can and should do better to serve the public before considering any rate hikes. 

Orange County Grand Jury Compensation Survey of Water and Sanitation Districts Released

The Orange County Grand Jury has released its "COMPENSATION SURVEY OF ORANGE COUNTY WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICTS". Although the study makes no great revelation, it does suggest that these special districts may be too far removed from the hands of the constituents they serve.

Why the Grand Jury Study:
Special districts are not well understood by the public
Receive little public scrutiny

Special Water/Sanitation Districts Serving Fullerton:
Municipal Water District of Orange County
(Water only)

The District is a wholesale water management and planning agency that provides imported water to 28 water purveyors and two private water companies in a service area of over 600 square miles. These smaller entities then provide the water to residential and commercial customers. In 2001 the District consolidated with Coastal Municipal Water District of Southern California. It is the second largest member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the agency that supplies Southern California with the majority of its imported water. It coordinates countywide water/wastewater emergency preparedness and response efforts.

Orange County Sanitation District
(Sewer only)
The District provides wastewater services for much of Orange County. Its boundaries cover 479 square miles, serving 21 cities and three special districts. The District has two operating facilities, one in Fountain
Valley, the other in Huntington Beach, treating wastewater from residential, commercial and industrial sources in central and northwest Orange County. Each day approximately 230 million gallons of wastewater is treated, enough water to fill Angel Stadium three times a day.

The 25 members of the District’s board of directors consist of elected representatives from each of the sewer agencies or cities within the Orange County Sanitation District. Thus the board members of the District are not elected directly, but are appointed by their respective agencies.

Orange County Water District
(Water only)
Despite its name, the Orange County Water District is not a water provider in the usually understood sense. Its function is to manage the underground water in Orange County, called the aquifer. Agencies pumping water from the ground in Orange County are regulated and charged by this district. The Orange County Water District also operates the Groundwater Replenishment System, a state of the art plant in Fountain Valley that purifies wastewater and injects it back into the ground for reuse.

The board of directors for this district is a hybrid of elected and appointed officials. Of the 10 board members, 7 are elected from defined service areas within the district, and 3 are appointed representatives of
the cities of Fullerton, Anaheim and Santa Ana.

Findings:
Lack of interest by the public
Some districts offer board members fulltime benefits for part-time work
Suggests minimum standards for information access on district websites

Facts:
Combined total annual revenues for the 18 water and sanitation special districts in Orange County exceed $1.3 billion.

California state law defines a special district as “any agency of the state for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions within limited boundaries (Government Code Section 16271 (d)).

Compensation for the board of directors of water districts must be set in accordance with the California Water Code Section 20202 and for the board of directors of Sanitation Districts, in accordance with the Health and Safety Code, Section 6489.

Board of director meeting stipends for water and sanitation special districts are capped by the state. Other compensation packages for the board of directors and the general manager are set by the board of directors in each district.

Elected or appointed officers of a special district, commission or board elected or appointed after June 30, 1994 are prohibited from participating in the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS).

Recommendations:
Provide in an easily accessible format on the district’s website, data on compensation for the board of directors and general manager, as well as current budget and financial reports.
Maintain and update agendas, minutes, meeting schedules and location on the district’s website.