Comments on: New Advisory Ballot is a Good Idea?

By: Lynn Bjorklund

Lynn Bjorklund — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:37:03 +0000

“Who gets to vote”

Some would exclude “outside owners” from voting on the Advisory Ballot. I guess I am an “outside owner” since I vote in another county. I am a property owner and part time resident and I buy my water just like everybody else. Since none of us knows how the desal project would be paid for I think we should ignore the resident/nonresident distinction and open the vote to all property owners and rate payers.

By: Jim Ensley

Jim Ensley — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:05:55 +0000

I believe when the desal is built, I will be paying some type of fee for it even though I am only a lot owner. Currently, as a lot owner I pay $80 a year directly to the CCSD, I also pay a Cambria Health and CSD Fire assessment fee on my property taxes. In addition, I have to pay to have my lot cleared in order to pass the fire inspection each year.

In 2001 my wife and purchased our lot with plans to retire in Cambria by 2011. At the time of our purchase there were about 40 permits issued each year. Then came the moratorium. The CCSD Board finally took action to do something about water system and the tanks that had been left to deteriorate and developed a plan to provide a back-up water supply along with a build out cap. This plan has been carefully and is being systematically carried out.

Eventhough this plan will cause me to over $30,000 EXTRA for permits to begin custruction, I am will to do so because I know it is necessary.

However, there are those in the community who have been sucessful in stalling the plan every step of the way. Not because the want to reconsider a new water source, but because they don’t want any more homes built are looking for another way to stall the progress of the obtaining an alternate water source.

By: Raul F. Sandoval

Raul F. Sandoval — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:56:37 +0000

One would think that after eight years of an arrogant and stubborn approach by the CCSD in attempting to establish a desal plant for Cambria, that they would consider an alternate choice.
Common sense would come into play after spending a great amount of tax monies from the people who live in Cambria on an idea that has been a complete failure from the start. What does it take to wake up our Cambria Community to an incompetent CCSD board and administration ?

By: Doug Buckmaster

Doug Buckmaster — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:19:33 +0000

I agree with the remarks of Amanda Rice, Elizabeth Bettenhausen, and Frank DiMicco. Any advisory ballot must be voted upon ONLY by residents of Cambria and NOT outside (or inside speculators) owners, since it is the residents who will become responsible for the ultimate cost. The District has been negligent in not studying and implementing recycling, increased conservation (such as mandatory cisterns on ALL new construction, perhaps rewards for implementing cisterns and other rainfall retention devices), and providing for more storage of water. Desal definitely is not the only solution for Cambria. It also probably is the most expensive, both initially and for the Life Cycle, as Frank suggests. Plunging ahead towards desal as the District has done for many years is nothing less than irresponsible. Paying three-quarters of a million dollars for lobbyists is outrageous. Statements that they have “brought us” $22 million are totally inaccurate. For example, the almost $10 million settlement with Chevron had nothing to do with lobbying and the $10 million obtained by Lois Capps for desal construction is not money in the bank at all. It has to be funded by Congress in legislation approved by the President. That is highly problematic.

By: Frank DeMicco

Frank DeMicco — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:08:27 +0000

It is my belief that public input is on the desal project is absolutely needed before millions more dollars are spent. I also agree that a PROJECT needs to be defined and all costs for that project need to be presented. You cannot find anywhere a Board endorsed desalination project – they seem to be moving forward after endorsing a technology not a project – Will it supply 300 Acre-Feet; 600 Acre-Feet; or 900Acre-Feet? Will it cost $10 Million or $16 Million? What is the Life Cycle cost – meaning what is the sum of the annual cost of financing the construction + the cost of annual operating and maintenance costs? Is the CCSD committed to the $38Million BRP as a condition of desalination?

Is seems that the CCSD has liberally interpreted the last “advisory ballot” of desalination as an endorsement of a BRP without giving the advisory voters the cost of that BRP.

(The parallels to the war on terror are scary – CCSD “We need water – water will run out – business community will collapse, homes will be abandoned – desal is the answer – $10Million – or is it really $54 Million?)

Once the Board makes a fully detailed, all encompassing proposal (which it has not as of this late date) – we should have and advisory vote -OF THE RESIDENTS OF CAMBRIA – votes should only be requested from registered voters of Cambria, or, alternatively, owners of active water service accounts – these are the only persons who actually will be responsible to pay for these costs if and when such a project is actually built.

The CCSD should prepare a Project data sheet that represents their proposal ASAP so that the community can discuss the project not some amorphous technology concept.

By: Elizabeth Bettenhausen

Elizabeth Bettenhausen — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:16:10 +0000

Before doing a useful survey, we Cambrians need lots more information. At the Town Hall meeting we learned that the desalination plant is an idea, not a project.
Here are some questions. What desalination plant design does CCSD propose? How much would it cost to build it today? in five years? What do they propose to provide energy for the plant to desalt the ocean’s water? How much would that cost? What is the cost for daily operating and maintaining of the plant? What infrastructure changes would be required for the desalting plant to work efficiently? Which taxpayers and rate payers would pay for all this?
Here are some other questions. What is CCSD doing these days for conservation, the water source that ranked #1 in the study we paid consultants to do before the board’s vote for desalination in July 2003? What programs does CCSD propose for recycling, the water source that ranked #2?
Studies done in the 1990s and early 21st century could not or did not address water source options now available. Full recycling of water, often called toilet to tap, provides water as pro-health as the water we now drink. Respect for the earth’s resources is not only becoming more popular these days in “green” advertising. It’s also becoming essential for survival.