Supervisor fighting sale of Felton’s water source

Santa Cruz Sentinel ^ | 10/1/2002 | JONDI GUMZ

[sasquatch]

The Commons Come Home.

[sasquatch]

Morning humor.I really like the nuclear waste twist.
What a guy!

[Carry_Okie]

He is concerned about the sale because Cal-American gets its water from the San Lorenzo River Watershed, which is the only source of water for more than 80,000 county residents.

I really liked this one. They lumped private wells into those dependent upon the "watershed."

When you lie, lie BIGTIME.

[Carry_Okie]

Santa Crux ping.

[mewzilla]

How do you know that the author was not excluding private wells? Are there only 80,000 residents in the county?

[Carry_Okie]

There are 250,000 residents in the County. You'd have to understand the distribution of people and where the City of Santa Cruz gets its water to understand how misleading that was.

I live in Supervisor Almquist's district.

[EggsAckley]

Maybe I'm being a blonde this morning, could you please in a sentence or two tell me what this is about?

[Carry_Okie]

It's a classic story.

I'll have to get back to you after I check a few numbers.

[EggsAckley]

Thanks. As I read it, it's rather intimidating.

[Carry_Okie]

It's a classic story. Customers in control of their rates starved the water district for maintenance money (democracy at work). The local water system falls into such disrepair that it needs a major infusion of capital. Local work rules, crumbling County infrastrcture, and active local geology make it a VERY expensive place to work. Felton lacks capital to maintain aging water system (see welfare state, public utilities, and lewislynn (private joke)).

Well, they did have the capital, but you see, they sold that, sort of. The San Lorenzo Water District owned a huge parcel near Waterman Gap. The District staff, loaded with environmental activists, recommended selling the land to the Sempervirens fund for $3.5 million. When Redwood Empire (one of the local pariah timber companies) got wind of it they offered to log it and pay the District $12 million dollars just for the stumpage. Big Creek Lumber (local "good guy" loggers) then upped the ante to $19 million, just to log it. Redwood Empire saw that and offered them nearly $20 million to buy it.

The Waterman Gap forest property is so overpopulated with trees, it would burn so hot, the ground would be fired into glass. The local greenies (led by District board member (and board member of Citizens for Responsible Forest Management) Larry Prather, Jody Frediani (local Sierra Club bigwig), and company) then goosed the Sempervirens Fund into offering the Water District a princely sum of $13 million for the property, but the Water District is carrying the paper (see "no capital"). Local residents tried to get a decision onto the ballot and failed to get the signatures (see "stoopid liberals").

So, faced with the liability for a failing system, the Water District brings in a conglomerate who has the money to fix the mess. Faced with the prospect of sinking a BUNCH of money into the infrastructure, they have to go about trying to get their money out of it, in part by raising the rates to the levels the Water District wouldn't charge and augmenting it by selling bottled water (which in terms of total volume doesn't touch the number of leaking toilets in that area).

The County responds to the wailing citing "corporate greed." The rest is obvious.

[snopercod]

I wonder how many people here realize how valuable that synopsis was.

California...what can you say. National Socialist Germany had their Jews. In National Socialist California, businessmen serve the same function.

Only the Californians are two cowardly to go out of a night and break store windows themselves. They hire newspaper editors to do that for them.

[sasquatch]

Jody Frediani (local Sierra Club bigwig)

Lord, please give me...

[Carry_Okie]

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition,
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition,
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition,
And we'll all be free!!!

[hedgetrimmer]

Double Standards And The Boomerang Effect

The United States and other industrialized countries have long recognized that government investments in water and sanitation services yield substantial benefits to public health, social equity, the environment, and the economy. Wealthy countries provide a range of government subsidies for water and sanitation services. In the United States, the federal Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act mandate subsidies for water and sanitation services. But U.S. and other rich country representatives on the boards of the IMF, World Bank and other multilateral development banks often push contrary policies on developing countries, forcing them to accept reductions in government subsidies for water and sanitation, increased consumer fees for water, and corporate privatization of water utilities.

Recent examples include:
• In Nicaragua, a 30 percent increase in consumer water fees was enacted in June as a result of IMF and Inter-American Development Bank policies.
• In May, IMF and World Bank policies mandated a 95 percent increase in consumer water fees in Ghana.
• In Tanzania, a World Bank water project proposes: “enhancing” commercial water operations by “gradually raising [the] water tariff to a level that compares with the long run marginal cost.”

Now, similar policies appear to be beginning to creep into the industrialized world. Recent tax cuts and growing needs make it unlikely that water and sanitation infrastructure will receive the public subsidies sufficient to maintain operations and hold the line on water charges. According to the U.S. Water Infrastructure Network (WIN), an additional $23 billion per year investment — over and above current expenditure levels — is needed in the United States to meet environmental and public health mandates, and to replace aging infrastructure. Relying just on utility rate increases will cause consumer bills to double or triple, according to WIN.

As a result, cash-strapped municipal, county and regional water system managers will likely have to face hard choices, including the temptation to sell the utility to private corporate investors.

Meanwhile, new rules proposed for the World Trade Organization services agreement may help private investors access government subsidies and may help to ease the entry of foreign private corporate investors in the water service sector.

The policies of water privatization and increased cost recovery faced by citizens in developing countries may soon begin to hit home in the United States and other countries.

[shaggy eel]

ping

[hedgetrimmer]

Water Supply and Water Conservation Districts

California general laws authorize a variety of districts to provide water supply and/or conservation as noted below:

· "California" water districts (irrigation and domestic water supply; also sewerage)
· County water authorities--1943 law (irrigation and domestic water supply)
· County water districts (irrigation and domestic water supply; also sewerage and electric power)
· County waterworks districts (irrigation and domestic water supply)
· Metropolitan water district (water supply only)
· Municipal water districts (domestic water supply; also sewerage and electric power)
· Water conservation districts--1927 law (irrigation and water conservation)
· Water conservation districts--1931 law (irrigation, water conservation, and water supply; also sewerage)
· Water replenishment districts (replenishment of underground water)
· Water storage districts (water storage and distribution; also electric power)

Substantially uniform provisions apply to each of these ten types of districts. Each is created by resolution of the county board or other participating agency, usually upon petition, and after referendum. The districts have elected boards of directors, except for the county water authorities, county waterworks districts, and metropolitan water districts, whose boards are appointed. A few districts have been authorized by special act to perform additional functions.

All of these districts may fix charges and levy special assessments, and all except water storage districts may levy property taxes. All except water conservation districts formed under the 1927 law may issue bonds on voter approval.

In addition, the following districts were created by special acts to provide water for domestic use or for irrigation; some of these districts may also provide sewerage, electric power, and flood control facilities:

· Amador County Water Agency
· Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency
· Bighorn Mountains Water Agency
· Castaic Lake Water Agency
· Central Delta Water Agency
· Crestline-Lake Arrowhead Water Agency
· Desert Water Agency
· Kern County Water Agency
· Kings River Conservation District
· Madera Water District
· Mojave Water Agency
· Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
· North Delta Water Agency
· Orange County Water District
· Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency
· Placer County Water Agency
· San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency
· Santa Clara Valley Water District · Solano County Water Agency
· South Delta Water Agency
· Yuba-Bear River Basin Authority

These agencies have elected boards, except for the Orange County and Santa Clara Valley Water Districts, which have some appointed members on their boards, and the Yuba-Bear River Basin Authority, whose directors are appointed by the participating counties. All may fix charges, levy property taxes, and issue bonds on voter approval. The Madera Water District, the Solano County Water Agency, and the Yuba-Bear River Basin Authority were not reported in operation as of January 1992. Some of these agencies have been subdivided into "zones" for purposes of financing improvements. Such zones are classified as dependent activities of the parent agency, and are not counted as separate governments.

County water agencies that are governed by the county board of supervisors in an ex officio capacity are not counted as separate governments. See "Subordinate Agencies and Areas," below.

[hedgetrimmer]

A dead bill in California would have helped local municipal districts to keep up the water supply:

SB 1895 (Poochigian-R) Water supply infrastructure
Enacts the Local Public Agency Water Supply Infrastructure Act, which requires the State Department of Water Resources (DWR) to establish a grant and loan program to enable local public agencies to carry out programs and projects to increase local water supplies, as prescribed. Requires DWR, for funding purposes, to give preference to projects and programs that meet specified criteria. Makes an appropriation in an unspecified amount from an unspecified source to carry out the grant and loan program.

(Died in Senate Agriculture and Water Resources Committee)

[shaggy eel]

,,, now, that's informative - thanx, I'll bookmark this.

[Carry_Okie]

I have a personal history in this topic, because my Dad was a municipal financing consultant in California for nearly forty years. He arranged for bond sales for water districts, sewers, flood control, the Sacramento Deep Water Port, the first Port of Oakland container facility, Oakland Airport...

I got to read those prospectuses and of course benefited from attending late meetings at various public boards, meeting the board officers (some of whom were family friends), and visiting the sites after construction. So you see, I do understand something of the economics of such public investments. They are usually meant to benefit developers and real estate speculators and have a price that usually lies hidden for decades.

Under the California constitution, water is a public good. I guess you know that I fundamentally oppose socializing water resources. If you prefer that tack, I suggest you move to a communist country because socialized water effectively socializes control of land use, and we have all seen where that goes (I don't think I have to remind you what Agenda21 is all about). From the Owens Valley to the Sacramento Delta we have seen the results develop over the last few decades and it has always favored they players in the bond issue at general public expense. If you watch what happens to farmers over the coming ten years, you were warned.

They soft peddle the real costs to get the project, and DON'T include all of the operating costs in the budgeted expense at the time of the bond sale. Such projects all too often start out well and end up blowing the physical capital through poor maintenance. Because they last a good long time these problems take decades to surface. The reason is that the bond issues are sold as a package with rate impacts laid out as part of the deal and operating costs understated. People see the project as "free" money and deferred expense. Unfortunately, operating expenses and rates get more public opposition because the only people who show up for a hearing on a rate hike are those who are opposed. Maintenance budgets get squeezed and after a few decades things start to break, then requiring complete replacement.

Need an example? Well if the malfeasance of the San Lorenzo Water District wasn't enough for you, try this one. Those price increases you cite are in large part reflective of the investment necessary to cover that history of undercapitalization and deferred maintenance.

If the model you so prefer worked so well we wouldn't see such a crumbling and inadequate road system because the funding and economics of that are entirely analogous. They sell the bonds to build it and raid the gas taxes to fund enormously wasteful mass transit. Why? Because that consolidates control of your transportation in the hands of the agency. It should scare you. Frankly, as the Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors so readily exemplify, I would rather trust a private company than Jeff Almquist et al. to run a vital utility. If the local users of a utility want to control the stock of a water company they can buy that stock. If you are so concerned about coercion, don't sign the contract, look for another vendor, or do as I did: drill a well. When you find out how expensive and risky that is, you might find those higher rates to be a pretty good deal.

[hedgetrimmer]

Whooopsie!

You shouldn't tell me to move to a communist country! I already live in one! You do too!

The posts were informational, I didn't write them or comment but should have I guess.