April 20, 2009
Proposition 218 is geared to making sure that the fee increases calculate out to being no more than is required to provide water or sewer service to each parcel, and calculate out to show that the amount charged per parcel is no more than the proportional cost of the service attributed to that parcel. The CCSD is required to calculate the amount of the fee for each parcel based on these rules. No calculation has been provided so there is no way of knowing whether these rules have been adhered to.
What is the exact number of parcels so that we can divide up the costs per parcel accurately? Calculating the proportional cost of water service to a residential parcel with a ¾ inch pipe has got to be less than the proportional cost of service to big commercial users with larger pipes. None of this data has been disclosed. The CCSD has not provided data or calculations to show that the rates are “proportional [to the] cost of the service attributable to the parcel.”
Proposition 218 also requires that we hear the reasons for the rate increase. A reason to increase rates is not a list of projects and their costs, or to pay for future water projects not described in materials. All projects, including future water projects should be detailed for public review and approval, clearly stating the methodology that is being used to pay for those projects, including rate increases if necessary.
At a meeting held April 10 at the Moonstone Beach Bar & Grill, director Clift stated that the actual additional monies needed were 9.5% – 10% increase in the water fund, and a 14% increase in sewer. If this is true then why did the CCSD round the numbers up and set arbitrary flat, across-the-board 15% percent increases for both water and sewer? Government agencies are prohibited from making arbitrary and capricious decisions. Clift’s position was that the ‘extra’ would be used to build reserves or fund needed improvements and maintenance. I believe we already have ‘extra’ in the water and wastewater budgets and the ‘extra’ include the expenses for desalination costs, lobbying for desalination, and allocated overhead for employees all working on desalination. Cut the expenses for unapproved projects and suddenly you have a lot more money in the water and wastewater funds.
An argument is being made that because prior boards have somehow concluded that desal is the best solution for Cambria’s water storage problem and we have spent so much money on it we should just continue to do so. In answer to that I would argue that some of those directors didn’t do their homework and read the very reports they are relying on. There are many conclusions and scenarios that can be drawn from the Water Master Plan EIR – desalination is one possibility out of about five possibilities. And desal is the only solution that produces more water than Cambria needs, fueling exploding, out of control growth that can only be controlled by growth ordinances enacted and enforced by San Luis Obispo county. The CCSD does not have the authority to control growth in Cambria, even though they continually argue that they will enforce a build-out reduction plan. They do not have that authority therefore a chain of events is being put into place to force the community into a plan that raises rates, adds unlimited water, increases growth, raises costs because of growth…then what? The cycle starts over again. Not all growth is good – remember, cancer is a growth.
Are we supposed to just agree to lavish more and more money on a plan that is not a “project” that has never been defined as a project and has never come under full environmental review, break the bank of the water and wastewater departments while declaring ‘emergency’ and ‘fire’, ignore the CA coastal act, disenfranchise voters who disagree with the plan, raise monthly water and wastewater rates to pay for out of control salaries and benefits for the plan? Paid consultants and lobbyists, come with a point of view and a financial incentive to strategize how to implement projects which are totally in-congruent with the communities’ wishes and vision of Cambria. If the CCSD is confident in its conclusions regarding desalination, above and beyond every other method listed in the Water Master Plan EIR for water supply, then the desalination project should come before the voters and let us vote on it.
All desal lobbying fees (currently $80,000 per year), legal fees defending against desal lawsuits, engineering salary for the engineer working on desalination, and allocated overhead for staff working on desalination, should be surgically removed from our water and wastewater budgets and moved to the General Fund budgets. Desalination should be accounted for separately so that all Cambrians can easily be made aware of the past, present and future costs associated with desalination, declare it a Capital Improvement Project with all the detail that requires, and only proceed with this plan thru a vote.
Last 5 posts by A Contributor
- Community Park Plan Revised OR the Elephant in our living room
- One Cambrian's Questions About the Protest.
- Re-invigorating the Cambria American Legion
I’d like to make it clear that this post was sent to me by a member of the community and was not written (or edited) by me. AboutCambria.com strives to include the views of anyone in the community who would like to participate in the conversation. Thank you to the author for their contribution.
Amanda Rice
The Nov 2008 CCSD election WAS a clear vote by the people for desal. The only non-desal candidate was crushed. I don’t understand, are we supposed to vote again on desal(there were other ballots in the past), Shall we keep voting until the no-growthers win a measure, and then we can say it’s official and never vote again after you win one???
Installation of a desalination plant to produce freshwater from salt water has many adverse impacts — the cost of desalination is extraordinarily high and rising daily, there are massive energy requirements (to squeeze all the salt and impurities out of the seawater), the pumping costs are very high (from transporting processed water from the treatment plant to the users), the nearby marine habitat is adversely affected and desalination plants take a long time to construct. Desalination is a costly, complex, and environmentally questionable choice.
Add to these facts that we will have to buy up to 1500 vacant lots costing up to $35,000.000 to mitigate the growth impacts of desalination and to date there is no financing plan. Then we will have to buy land in some far off remote location where the sun shines nearly every day and install a solar energy farm to off -set the astonishing high energy costs of desalination and help reduce our carbon footprint.
Let the CCSD put their cards on the table with full and complete transparency, present all the costs and let the people who will be paying these costs decide. An assessment to all properties that will use new desalinated water (not use our water rates to fund studies, explorations and to build a facility) might be more appropriate.
Current residents of Cambria have enough water for our needs now that Santa Rosa creek well #4 is successful so the desalination plant is primarily for growth. Studies done back in 1999-2000 to decide how much water we need did not include Santa Rosa Creek due to MTBE.
We have other viable choices for another water source if we really need one but first we can install more off creek storage to ensure reliability for current residents then if current residents want another water source vote on it. Consider Lake Naciemento lake water that will be available in 2010. Cambria would build a 13 mile pipeline form Whalerock reservoir in Cayucos and we would be guaranteed 600 AF of water per year. Enough for moderate growth and reliability.
Shouldn’t “contributers” sign their name? I thought this website was all about transparency?
Ann,
It was my error on not posting the author’s name. I was making sure I had the author’s permission. It was written by Mary Webb. I definitely appreciate the value of transparency, although authorship goes more to credibility and verification of facts than it is about transparency. Thanks for keeping us all honest and reminding us that open dialogue is better than the unknown.
Yes, let’s have a vote…of every property owner.
Vacant lot owners have offered to pay the whole local share of the desal plant cost and that offer still stands, so please stop whining about the costs. You suggest ulterior motives.
By the way, what happened to the $9.1 million that CCSD got from Chevron in the MTBE settlement? Wasn’t that supposed to pay for a replacement water supply?
Actually, I think that if Santa Rosa Creek is producing again, there is enough water to lift the moratorium.
Today it was announced that the federal government is funding another $2.5 million toward the desal project.
I guess some of you must feel a little like a bank not wanting TARP money because you don’t want to have to follow any outside rules.
So $9 milllion from Chevron, $2.5 million today from US, on top of I don’t recall how much US money that’s already been funded, and on top of I don’t know how much local money that’s already been spent. Lot’s of money spent and pledged. And it doesn’t make sense to invest any more in the project? That math does not work. The only reason to oppose this project is just not wanting water, period.
We’ve all seen the game. Wait until a project is looking like it might happen, then come up with a different project, convince enough people it’s better, and kill the one that’s about to get approved. Thus, nothing happens for decades.
It’s really just greed masquerading as environmentalism, and that gives environmentalism a bad name.
The lobbyist paid off. Hire another one. Send the bill along with a will-serve letter.
$3,000,000 of the MTBE pay out went to pay off the hook up fees paid to the CCSD to get on the wait list. the fees were about $5000 to each parcel. After the moratorium in 2001 the CCSd returned all the money and now the wait listed 650 pay an administration fee to the ccsd each year of $80 to maintain the list which has no legal weight its just a list not a promise.
If that’s true, then what happened to the money that we deposited in the first place? That money was held in separate escrow accounts in our names.
Gee, I don’t know, Deryl. I heard it was spent. Probably spent toward that Desal lobbyist you are so excited about. If you make a public records request to the CCSD, they should be able to answer your question. Please let us know what you learn.
The $9 million was to go toward a replacement water supply. If part of it was spent lobbying for desal funding or permit approval that would be appropriate and in keeping with the spirit of the settlement. If it was spent on projects unrelated to water supply, or making up for shortfalls in the operating budget that would not be appropriate in my opinion.
Bottom line remains that CCSD has received plenty of earmarked funding to continue to pursue the desal plant. If money has to be added to rates now, it’s because the money got spent somewhere else (to your benefit).