All Water News and Blogs

Policies not drought friendly

Sandy Young — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 10:48:46 -0700

Homeowner associations and city codes all over California enforce the watering of lawns even during drought conditions and a water emergency declared by the governor of the State.

A Sacramento couple found themselves caught up in red tape and code when they decided not to water their lawn letting it die instead. Landscaping plans were in the works, but the neighborhood watchdogs reported them before those plans were put into motion. Facing a fine that added up to half their monthly morgage the Sacramento couple was lucky to get public outrage and support after a story appeared in The Sacramento Bee.

The happy ending is that no fine will be meted out and members of the city council admit that city codes may need revising.

Like many Californians this couple's issues stem around agreements with landlords, cities, and HOAs that insist on the watering of grounds. The orderly maintenance of property is one of the factors that helps to keep property values from declining.

Perhaps more than the city of Sacramento can take a lesson from what the couple in the Bee's article lived through. Many contracts and codes need to be revised. Our current drought situation demands it.

Native plants and xeriscaping open many options to beautiful yards that can be maintained with much less water usage than traditional lawns require.

Marty Eberhardt, executive director of the Water Conservation Garden at Cuyamaca College is quoted in a March article at the VoiceofSanDiego.org saying, "It also requires behavorial change, a change of appreciation of a certain kind of landscaping. There are different concepts of paradise, and there's a vision of paradise that fits our weather patterns and soil types."

Paving paradise with lawns or cement has been a decades old vision of loveliness in San Diego County. The time has come to change our vision of paradise.

Click here to read the Sacramento Bee article.

Click here to read the Sacamento Bee follow-up article.

San Diego County Water Authority reacts

Sandy Young — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:08:07 -0700

Yesterday the San Diego County Water Authority had a busy day. First it suspended its artificial turf incentive program in response to a Centers for Disease Control health advisory that cited concerns about lead levels found in certain kinds of artificial turf recently tested in New Jersey.

The Water Authority says in a news release issued Thursday that it will suspend its program as a precautionary measure until more definitive information and a recommendation on the safety of artificial turf is made available by the CDC or other proper public health and consumer product regulatory agencies.

The Water Authority also is requesting the concurrent suspension of all other water agency artificial turf incentives within its service area. To read this news release, click here.

Then, the Water Authority increased the 2009 water rates by 11.9 percent. In a news release issued yesterday the Water Authority states that regionwide, they estimate that the rate increase's impact on the average household's monthly water bill will be $3.42. To read this news release, click here.

MWD declared Water Supply Alert

Sandy Young — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:47:21 -0700

A water supply alert was declared by the Metropolitan Water District's board of directors on Tuesday. The MWD is a consortium of 26 cities and water districts that provides drinking water to nearly 18 million people including some in San Diego.
According to today's New York Times:

The district warned that mandatory rations could go into effect throughout the district next summer if the region's 19 million or so urban residents did not cut back on water use.

Tuesday's alert follows the governor's declaration of a drought last week and is the last step before water rations and fines for noncompliance, said Bob Muir, a spokesman for the water district.

As part of Tuesday's alert, the board of directors for the water district is urging municipal governments to update their water conservation ordinances, for example by limiting outdoor water use at certain times or encouraging showers of no more than three minutes. At this stage the district itself can only make recommendations, although municipal governments can enforce new ordinances or regulations.

To read the entire New York Times article, click here.

According to today's San Diego Union-Tribune:

Yesterday, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California - the region's largest wholesale supplier of water - called on local water agencies to promote extraordinary conservation measures.

If Metropolitan doesn't get a big enough response - the agency wants a 9 percent reduction next year - it could start limiting the amount of water it gives to member districts, which in turn probably would impose emergency rates.

To read the entire San Diego Union-Tribune article, click here.

Damning a River to Increase Water Supply. Why?

geoffrey — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 00:08:21 -0700

The Governor's 2008-09 budget calls for $11.9 billion bond financing for 'water management investments', including $3.5 billion for development of additional storage. Dam, there goes another river or two.

This takes me back to 2003, when I had the occasion to visit the Tuolumne River in Yosemite National Park. My journal from that winter day tells the story:

Trip Log: February 18, 2003

Hetch-Hetchy: A sobering send-off

(click on thumbnail image)

The sun draws low on the western horizon as we make our way by VW bus to the western boundary of Yosemite National Park, to the drainage of the Tuolumne River. For me this is a journey of discovery. I seek to discover what power humankind has over the forces of nature. I am reluctant to make the trip, and trembling at the emotion I will feel when I see It.

For my 47 years of life I have so far avoided confronting this horrific monster in the flesh. Only in pictures have I seen it: O’Shaughnessy Dam. The Hetchy-Hetchy Reservoir. The damming of the Tuolumne. The DAMNing of the Tuolumne. The dam named to honor the engineer who dishonored the River.

As we approach the ranger kiosk, the time is 4:00. We have exactly one hour to make the 24 mile round-trip drive to the reservoir, and pay our respects to the once-grand valley, before the gates close for another day. I’ve never enjoyed funerals, and I especially despise open casket viewings, so best to make this memorial tribute a quick one. The viewing. The river in death. A poignant vision for 20 minutes that will stay with me for the rest of my life. We drive on.

As we round the curve in the winding road, we gain our first view of the reservoir, hundreds of feet below us. A pock on the landscape. We press on, reluctantly.

Driving past the full-time caretaker housing, and the police cruiser which has become a constant fixture at the dam since '9-11' we approach the dam itself. I've seen dams before, but this one is different. This is the dam in a National Park that John Muir tried in vane to stop almost 100 years ago, dying shortly after the decision to build the dam was approved.

The painted over graffiti on the face of the dam, which once read 'Free The River', says it all. The Tuolumne is a prisoner, and unfairly incarcerated. It committed no crime, other than to flow freely and powerfully from the mountains to the sea.

Standing on the dam now (10 minutes left!), we look eastward. We imagine what the fertile valley used to look like (we've seen pictures: Beautiful, serene.) It is dead now. And buried.

And then it hit us. The stillness. The coldness. The lifelessness. There is no life here. THERE IS NO SOUND. Sterile, antiseptic, like a morgue. The eerie, solemn feeling of death. The river and valley before us lay in state, dead of the greed that caused humankind to snuff it out for the water and power that it could provide to the Citizens of San Francisco.

The river is dead. We pay our respects and depart.

There are rivers and mountains yet to be saved. We pay our respects and climb slowly back up the road to the kiosk, making it out by 5:05 pm.

Fast forward to present. Do we need to dam another river to slake our thirst for water? Or can we get some political leadership in our region to implement sound water conservation policies that can produce real savings in water use? Perhaps a visit to the Hetch-Hetchy should be mandatory for all in-coming electeds. I'll drive.

California's statewide drought - what do we do?

Sandy Young — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:32:27 -0700

Today Gov. Schwarzenegger proclaimed a statewide drought and issued an executive order addressing the urgent situation in California. But does the Governor's actions really make a difference?

To read the Governor's take on this pressing matter, click here.

It's an important acknowledgement of an increasing problem in light of this year's meager rainfall and snow pack levels. But consider what the Governor DOESN'T do today. He doesn't mandate water conservation. He doesn't put a moratorium in increased water use. He doesn't tackle some of the complex allocation issues that plague the state. There's a lot more that the state has to do. Many knowledgeable observers believe that his order relies heaviliy on outdated strategies that have contributed to our current problems. His actions may not be strong enough to address the state's immediate needs. Consider the statement released today from the Planning and Conservation League. Click here to read the PCL's press release. They tells us that the Governor's order relies heavily on outdated strategies that have helped to create the very problems that we now need to solve.

Consider that in Southern California, Long Beach is the only major metropolitan area to order conservation. The CWA's "voluntary" education effort to promote water conservation fell flater than one-week old soda pop. There are no mandatory conservation measures being seriously discussed regionally.....heck, people are still watering their driveways and streets! And local leaders aren't discussing any actions that will help consumers find ways of substantially reducing their usage.

Later this month, UCAN will be releasing a report on water conservation in the San Diego region that will include some innovative ideas as to how the region can get serious about taking on water scarcity for this and the coming years. Stay tuned!

Decrease in water resources to challenge Western states, report on climate change concludes

Sandy Young — Wed, 28 May 2008 09:46:35 -0700

Yesterday an extensive report examining climate impacts on U.S. ecosystems was released by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. The report titled "The effects of climate change on agriculture, land resources, water resources and biodiversity in the United States" integrates the federal research of 13 agencies. Among its findings are that climate change is already affecting U.S. water resources. Read more.

Wednesday's New York Times reports on the study that Western states will face substantial challenges because of growing demand for water and big projected drops in supplies.

From 2040 to 2060, anticipated water flows from rainfall in much of the West are likely to approach a 20 percent decrease in the average from 1901 to 1970, and are likely to be much lower in places like the fast-growing Southwest. In contrast, runoff in much of the Midwest and East is expected to increase that much or more. Read more.

Los Angeles unveils aggressive water conservation plan

Sandy Young — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:50:33 -0700

As part of a program for action to curb water usage Los Angeles officials today have unveiled their ambitious plan.

The Los Angeles Times reports "This is a radical departure for the city of Los Angeles," said Department of Water and Power General Manager David Nahai. "I think overall this plan is going to be a beacon for other cities."

Los Angeles' plan -- a copy of which was made available to The Times -- would invest in projects to capture and store rainfall and clean up a sprawling, contaminated water supply beneath the San Fernando Valley. About $1 billion would be allocated for reclamation, including a politically sensitive plan to use treated wastewater to recharge underground drinking supplies serving the Valley, Los Feliz and the Eastside.

San Diego county is facing the same water crisis and must start it very own aggressive program. The sooner we start addressing the reality of our situation the sooner we can shape our outcome. I have to tip my hat to those who are taking up the city's 20-gallon challenge. That said, the savings doesn't seem to me to be enough but rather, a drop in the bucket.

To read more from the Los Angeles Times story, click here.

To read the LADWP's summary of "Securing LA's Water Future, " click here.

To read the city Los Angeles' press release unveiling LA's 20-year water strategy, click here.

UCAN can solicit funds to audit city, judge rules

Charles Langley — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:08:09 -0800

UCAN In the Media

Editor's Note: Click here to read UCAN's Announcement, "Flushed with Pride."

UCAN can solicit funds to audit city, judge rules

San Diego Union Tribune -

SAN DIEGO: A judge has ruled that the watchdog Utility Consumers' Action Network can raise money from San Diego water and sewer customers to audit the city's water and wastewater departments.

The decision was a victory for Michael Shames, the watchdog's executive director, and a loss for Mayor Jerry Sanders, who opposed letting UCAN conduct independent audits of the city's utility departments.

The audit issue went unresolved last year when Shames successfully sued the city for overcharging residential sewer users while giving businesses a break.

Friday's ruling allows UCAN to solicit contributions through regular inserts in customer bills, three times a year for five years, to hire experts to monitor city water and sewer spending and evaluate proposed rate increases.

UCAN was established 24 years ago with solicitations in electricity bills. It collected nearly $250,000 from more than 80,000 people that first year, says its Web site, ucan.org. -M.T.H.

Editor's Note: Click here to read UCAN's Announcement, "Flushed with Pride."

UCAN VICTORIOUS IN CITY WATER CASE! - Judge rules that UCAN gets access to City water/sewer bills

Charles Langley — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:11:07 -0800

Press Release

UCAN VICTORIOUS IN CITY WATER CASE!

Today, a San Diego Superior Court judge ruled that UCAN, the Utility Consumers' Action Network, may include an insert in San Diego City water & sewer bills. As a result of the court's ruling, UCAN will, in the future, have a right to connect directly to San Diego consumers through City bills and will examine and audit the City Water Department operations and rates on behalf of consumers.

In the last 24 years, UCAN has successfully fought hundreds of utility rate demands, saving San Diego consumers tens of billions of dollars in proposed rate hikes. UCAN was created in 1984 when it was granted similar billing access to SDG&E bills. Within the first year of its existence, more than 80,000 San Diegans joined UCAN and the organization raised almost $250,000. Today, Superior Court Judge Ronald Prager ordered that UCAN be allowed to put inserts and notices into city water bills inviting water customers to join the not-for-profit organization and support UCAN's monitoring of Water Department policies.

Importantly, the ruling provides for an independent third-party review of Water Department plans, rate hikes and billing practices that will be funded by UCAN members, and will not come at a cost to ratepayers.

The court decision is historic because it makes UCAN the first utility group in the United States to be given access the the billing statements of a municipal water department.

The City opposed UCAN's access to the bills. It sought to give the privilege to the San Diego Taxpayers Assn. The court stated:

" Plaintiff presented evidence indicating that the entity put forward by defendant City of San Diego ("City"), San Diego County Taxpayers Association ("SDCTA"), is not a 501(c)(3) organization. (Riley Dec., Exh. 1, Lutar Dec., Exh. 1, and Shames Dec., ¶13 and Attachment B.) The City presented conflicting evidence as to which of the two entities would be involved, as one letter refers to the SDCTA (Riley Dec., Exh. 1 and Lutar Dec., Exh. 1) while another refers to San Diego Taxpayers EducationalFoundation ("SDTEF"). (Riley Dec., Exh. 2 and Lutar Dec., Exh. 2.) Furthermore, the City presented no evidence that SDTEF has any experience with water or utility issues or has anyone on its staff that does. As to the issue of its independence, Plaintiff presented evidence that SDCTA engaged in a fundraiser with entities like San Diego Gas & Electric ("SDG&E") while it was in the process of reviewing SDG&E's proposed powerline project. (Id. at ¶¶14, 19 and Attachment B.) The City presented no evidence to dispute this. On the other hand, the City presented no evidence to support its contention that UCAN would not be a suitable organization. Finally, Plaintiff presented evidence that UCAN meets the above noted criteria. (Shames Dec., ¶7.) In addition, UCAN has over 20 years of experience in this field and has adequate funding to take on this task. (Id. at ¶¶ 3, 7, and 20.)

IT IS SO ORDERED. "

"Finally, San Diego city consumers will get some good news when they open their water/sewer utility bills" says Executive Director, Michael Shames. "And we will pledge that 100% of the money that those consumers send to UCAN will be used to hire experts to audit the City's operations and watchdog their activities."

UCAN has been granted access to up to three billing inserts per year. The City sends its bills to customers on a bi-monthly basis.

Click here for a brief Union Tribune story on this release published January 22. 2008

San Diego City Council authorizes another water rate increase proposal

brandon — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:48:49 -0700

UCAN In the Media

Information On Proposed Utility Hike Coming To Mailboxes

KGTV, 10News.com July 30, 2007

SAN DIEGO -- The City Council on Monday authorized a mailing to San Diego residents detailing a proposed utility rate hike that officials say is needed to offset an increase in the cost of imported water.

Under the proposal, the average residential water bill in San Diego would rise by about $1.40 a month, beginning in January.

The City Council has set an Oct. 8 hearing to consider the increase.

In advance of that hearing, the city is required to notify residents by mail about the proposed utility rate increase. The mailing will include information on how residents can file a formal protest.

According to Mayor Jerry Sander's office, the increase is needed to counter an 8 percent rise in the rates charged by the San Diego County Water Authority, the agency from which the city buys 90 percent of its water.

The hike would be on top of utility rate increases already approved.

At the mayor's urging, the City Council agreed in February to increase the city's water and sewer fees annually over the next four years to begin to address a $1.4 billion backlog of mandated infrastructure projects.

The notice will also outline a rebate that will temporarily save sewer customers in the city about $3.25 on their monthly bills, starting in November. The savings will be offset by an increase on May 1 of next year.

The rebate stems from the settlement of a lawsuit filed more than two years ago by Michael Shames, executive director of the Utility Consumers' Action Network. Under the terms, San Diego must return $35 million to sewer customers who were incorrectly billed between 1994 and 2004.

PODCAST: Mayor Sander's newest sewer and water rate increases

brandon — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:35:54 -0700

PODCAST: UCAN's Brandon Weiner attended Mayor Sander's sewer and water rate presentation at the Rancho Bernardo Library and spoke with Dr. Timothy Bertch, Director of Mertropolitan Wastewater. Join Brandon as he interviews Dr. Bertch and shares his thoughts on the rate proposal. Listen

Mayor Sanders wants City Council to raise San Diego water rates...again

brandon — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:57:15 -0700

UCAN In the Media

Average water bill to rise $1.40

SignonSanDiego July 17, 2007

SAN DIEGO - The average residential water bill in San Diego would rise by $1.40 beginning in January under a proposal announced Tuesday to help offset a hike in the cost of imported water.

The increase is needed to counter an 8 percent rise in the rates charged by the San Diego County Water Authority, the agency the city buys 90 percent of its water from, Mayor Jerry Sanders said.

The hike would be on top of utility rate increases already adopted.

The City Council agreed in February to increase the city's water and sewer fees annually over the next four years to begin to address a $1.4 billion backlog of mandated infrastructure projects.

"Unlike the last time the council addressed the changes to rates, this proposal is not based on our own infrastructure requirements," Sanders said. "In fact, the proposal is revenue-neutral."

The mayor said he will ask the City Council later this month to approve a mailing to residents detailing the proposed increase.

The notice would also outline a rebate that will save sewer customers in the city about $3.25 on their monthly bills.

The mayor's office also used the Shames settlement as a way to soften the perceived impact of the previous round of utility rate increases.

Two town hall-style meetings on the proposed water bill increases are scheduled next week - on Monday at 6 p.m. at the Rancho Bernardo Library, and two days later at 6 p.m. at the San Diego Workforce Partnership office in Normal Heights.

Public hearings

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders will hold two forums next week to discuss the city's latest proposed water-rate increase. Both meetings will be televised on Channel 24.

Monday: 6 p.m. at the Rancho Bernardo Public Library, 17110 Bernardo Center Drive.

July 25: 6 p.m. at the San Diego Workforce Partnership, 3910 University Ave.
Water agencies countywide are increasing their rates to offset rapidly rising wholesale water prices.

Another water rate increase on the way?

vince — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 13:44:04 -0700

The San Diego County Water Authority board of directors approved an 8.1% rate increase for calendar year 2008. UCAN disclosed this pending rate increase back in Feb. when the City of San Diego approved the current three year 35% rate increase. The new rates will represent an average residential increase of $2.25 per month per household.

http://www.sdcwa.org/news/2007_0728_BudgetApproved.phtml

UCAN criticizes Mayor Sanders for city water department's late bill payment

brandon — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:01:56 -0700

UCAN In the Media

City pays $1.59 million water bill late
Staff turnover, lack of training blamed

By Mike Lee
San Diego Union-Tribune June 6, 2007

When San Diego made its case last winter to raise utility rates, Mayor Jerry Sanders talked up new controls designed to reduce management miscues that had hobbled the city's water and wastewater departments for years.

At the same time, San Diego missed the Jan. 30 deadline for paying a $1.59 million bill to the San Diego County Water Authority. The city's water department submitted its payment late because it miscalculated the billing cycle.

It was "an unintentional error that occurred as a result of staff turnover and the lack of internal training," Rod Greek, deputy director of San Diego's Water Department, wrote in an April letter to the water authority.

Greek asked the water authority to waive its late-payment penalty of $15,893.89. The agency's board will take up the issue in July.

Bill Harris, a spokesman for Sanders, said city leaders are confident the mistake won't be repeated. "Obviously, it's something that we wish did not happen. . . . It's going to be addressed in the appropriate way," Harris said.

But the late payment wasn't the first time San Diego has dropped the ball on bills from the water authority, which sells water in the region at wholesale prices. Water authority officials said they also penalized the city for delinquent payments in May 2003 and September of last year.

"San Diego is becoming a deadbeat water user," said Michael Shames of the watchdog group Utility Consumers' Action Network. "The mayor's high-profile effort to turn around the management of the Water Department appears to be pretty leaky. A house can't be in order if it can't pay its bills in a timely fashion."

San Diego's most recent water-bill delinquency happened as the Water Department was promoting a rate-increase proposal that the City Council eventually adopted in February.

Harris said the department's officials thought their payment period lasted until Jan. 31. In reality, the deadline was 30 days from the end of 2006, or Jan. 30.

"We have made all of the chastising internal controls now to let people know that 30 days does not equal one month. It means 30 days," Harris said.

A different reason caused the late payment in September. In that case, Greek said, Water Department officials put their check in the mail on a Wednesday for a Friday due date, but the water authority didn't receive the payment until Monday.

Greek said he didn't know the circumstances of the May 2003 incident.

During the past five years, seven of the water authority's customers have paid a combined $44,745 in fines assessed for late payments.

The total doesn't include San Diego's latest penalty, which was the largest in that time period, said Dennis A. Cushman, assistant general manager of the water authority.

The agency has a protocol for dealing with late payments: Delinquencies of up to five business days are charged 1 percent of the unpaid bill. Longer delays generate penalties of 2 percent each month or part of a month.

"These rules and deadlines . . . are important for the financial business of the agency," Cushman said.

Judge expected to approve $40 million refund to San Diego sewer customers

brandon — Mon, 21 May 2007 17:06:51 -0700

UCAN In the Media

Judge likes city's sewer settlement

By Matthew T. Hall
San Diego Union-Tribune May 19, 2007

SAN DIEGO - A Superior Court judge all but approved a $40 million settlement yesterday between San Diego and consumer advocate Michael Shames, who sued the city three years ago for allowing single-family sewer customers to subsidize the bills of businesses.

But a new dispute has emerged over who will ensure that the city bills its water and sewer ratepayers fairly in the future.

At a hearing yesterday, Judge Ronald Prager embraced the settlement, which includes $5 million for attorneys' fees, and said he would formalize it next week. He urged Shames to resolve his remaining dispute with city officials or to file a formal request to have the judge settle the issue.

Shames wants the watchdog group he heads, the Utility Consumers' Action Network, to monitor city water and sewer rates, but Mayor Jerry Sanders believes the duty should fall to a city oversight panel he is forming.

Shames says the mayor's proposal would violate the settlement, which calls for an independent, nonprofit organization to protect customer interests.

Sanders countered that his committee would be "very independent."

He said yesterday that he expects to appoint people to the Independent Rates Oversight Committee in coming weeks. It will replace a similar volunteer group that lacked the financial background to catch the billing inequities that Shames' lawyers contend took place from 1994 to 2004.

Before the City Council ended the practice, San Diego's multifamily, commercial and industrial sewer customers paid proportionally less than single-family customers because the city collected sewer fees that didn't vary based on the amount of organic pollutants in the waste.

Overview

Background: A lawsuit was filed three years ago against the city of San Diego for sewer billing inequities.

What's changing: A Superior Court judge said yesterday that he will approve a $40 million settlement next week awarding rebates to single-family customers.

The future: A dispute persists over how to prevent future billing issues.

Under the settlement, San Diego's 223,000 single-family sewer customers are projected to receive on average less than $200 in rebates. Comparatively, City Attorney Michael Aguirre found that two companies, Kelco and ISP Alginates Inc., avoided paying the city about $226,000 a month, or $2.7 million annually.

Sanders outlined his plans for a new city committee to watch over water and sewer system funds and bond proceeds a few days after the Shames settlement was made public in November. The mayor said then that the panel wouldn't interfere with Shames' bid to empower a nonprofit organization as a utility watchdog.

Yesterday, he defended his reversal.

"At that time, I don't ever recall Shames mentioning UCAN should be the oversight board," Sanders said. "In fact, that was left very open. And IROC as we have now started to constitute it, I think is a perfect vehicle for that."

Contrary to Sanders' recollection, Shames said in November that he might ask UCAN's board to serve as a watchdog over water and sewer rates if no other nonprofit organization volunteered. Ultimately, no one else stepped forward.

Per terms of the settlement, the watchdog will be able to solicit contributions through regular inserts in customer bills, three times a year for five years, to hire experts to evaluate future rate cases.

UCAN, whose focus has been on gasoline, telecommunications and energy, was established in the 1980s with solicitations in electricity bills.

The Shames settlement temporarily causes multifamily, commercial and industrial sewer customers to pay higher rates than single-family customers to make up for the time they shouldered less of the load. Under a complex formula used because state law mandates proportional rate increases, rates will rise for all sewer users, then single-family customers will get credits to cancel out the increase and a rebate on top of that.

The initial deal called for the city to shell out the entire sum to customers in four years, but the judge eliminated that time frame at the city's request yesterday when told it may take longer to distribute the money.

The settlement was reached through a mediator, who recommended that Shames' attorneys at Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens LLP get 12.5 percent of the award, a total that Prager yesterday said seemed "very reasonable."

"But for these attorneys, this whole situation may never have come to light," the judge said. "Time would have gone by and it would have been too late."

City of San Diego to spend $38.2 mil. on sewer repair, $186.3 mil. on debt

brandon — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:49:23 -0700

UCAN News

San Diego Union Tribune-The City of San Diego just took out a $225 mil. loan to help finance projects for the Wastewater Department. The decrepit sewer system suffered 38 water main breaks and 12 sewage spills in the first seven weeks of 2007. Unfortunately, only $38.2 mil. of the $225 mil. will go to new construction. Read story

AUDIO: UCAN Executive Director Michael Shames appears on KPBS' "These Days"

brandon — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:02:18 -0800

UCAN's Executive Director, Michael Shames, talks to KPBS "These Days" host Tom Fudge about the latest SDG&E rate increase, skyrocketing gas prices, and recent San Diego City Council decision to approve a controversial water and sewer rate hike.

San Diego City Council acts without facts

ucansue — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 11:44:59 -0800

1) There is a huge gap in price increases in 2008 between residential users and commercial users. Fact: Single Family Residential users will pay between 11%-12% while Commercial users will pay 1.39%. 2) The reason 3" pipe users get tax breaks of approximately $310. Fact: Not explained

3) The reason for such confusion in the Prop 218 notices sent to residents in January: Facts: The protest form was hidden, was sent by 3^rd class mail instead of as an insert into the billing statement and the City’s charting formula showed a 6.5% increase across the board. The chart led everyone to believe the rate increase was fairly and equitably distributed.

4) The degree for which good money would be applied to chasing bad money: Fact: It's still unclear exactly what portions of the rate increases would go for salaries, health care, catch-up on pension and other areas.

5) On 2/15/07, the Mayor said the oversight committee would begin sometime in March: Fact: There’s no actual draft language other than quotes to the press on what the Mayor promised he was committed to do.

6) Sewer service fee: Where’s the back up for $35-$38 increase? Facts: Proposition 218 and the City's service study showed different fee increase levels only if everyone had spent hours doing the math. Table 8-1 of the City's study report also doesn’t show how old and new figures meld together.

7) What will happen to the actual rate increases when the Water Dept. has to reconfigure for accuracy because they bill on the higher prices of the winter months? Fact: It is unpredictable without the revised figures.

8) Future increases: Where's the accuracy in the rate increases when we know the County Water Authority & Metropolitan Water District are both expected to get hearings to raise their rates in addition to the increases just passed by the Council? Fact: Not explained yet

9) Page 7-1 of the City's study indicates estimated service charges for 2008 (Page 7-1, Paragraph 2, Item 7.1.1) at $63.7 million. Where is the comparison of costs between the last rate case and this one and an itemized list to justify the increase? Fact: The difference between the previous rate increase and current is $28 million versus $63.7 million.) That's big bucks!!!

10) In April 2002, Mayor Dick Murphy implemented a billing change from bi-monthly to monthly billing starting no later than January 2003. This change was designed to provide low-income ratepayers with 12 smaller bills per month versus 6 larger bills in a year. The change cost approximately $1.3 million to convert billing, $578,000 in envelopes, paper, stamps and other costs that went with doubling the # of bills. The bills are based on estimations one month and actual readings the next month and the difference is the accurate bill. Facts: Customers were calling UCAN to complain about the disparity on the different tier rates. The fact that the company can bill the higher month's rate and the estimated vs. actual meter-reading disparity caused consumers to honestly believe they were being overcharged with the 12-month billing system. In addition, the company waits 6 months to adjust or correct overestimated bills by allegedly comparing what was paid under the old tiered rate. Monthly bills are higher for most people until the adjustment is made. A return to bi-monthly billing would save over 1/2 million dollars in administrative/bill processing and meter reading costs. The yearly savings could be applied to the infrastructure revisions. What’s the point in using this money for inaccurate bills that need to be adjusted?

Comments: The total savings in returning to the previous bi-monthly billing would be about $2 million+ that could have been paying for pipes. Billing and collecting = $17.3 million (5.7 mill to 17.3 mill is the increase) including accounts, meter reading and collections does not provide a reason or justification for the first cost of service study and the drastic increase.

SAM

Water & Sewer vote sinks ratepayers deeper

Charles Langley — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:38:42 -0800

UCAN In the Media

Water, sewer rates to rise over 4 years

Council OKs hike after 7-hour meeting

To see this article as it originally appeared in the San Diego Union Tribune, click here.

By Matthew T. Hall
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

February 27, 2007

SAN DIEGO – San Diegans will pay progressively higher water and sewer rates over the next four years after the City Council approved the increases last night.

The typical residential utility bill will rise by about $27, or 35 percent, over that time. The effect on businesses varies. Some will see smaller rates next year, but commercial and industry rates will rise in following years.

Mayor Jerry Sanders has pushed for new rates since November. Yesterday, he called them essential to meet state and federal mandates for systems that have suffered 38 water main breaks and 12 sewage spills in the first seven weeks of the year, continuing a trend where breakdowns occurred in bunches for years.

Support came from business and environmental leaders. It also came from regulators who threatened sanctions if San Diego did not comply with longtime requirements that will entail more rate increases in 2011 and beyond.

Critics complained that residents seemed to be shouldering too much of the water-rate increase, despite Sanders' assertion that the fees were equitable.

“These bills don't sock it to residential customers, and they don't hit business with inappropriate rates either,” Sanders said.

Two groups dispute that. The watchdog Utility Consumers' Action Network calls the increase “a bailout for business,” and a pro-labor think tank, the Center on Policy Initiatives, calls it “lopsided” in favor of business.

The Center on Policy Initiatives has been reviewing the possibility of a citizens referendum to overturn the water increase.

UCAN has threatened to sue the city over what it calls inaccuracies in a notice the city sent ratepayers about the planned increase. A spokeswoman said yesterday that remains an option, but City Attorney Michael Aguirre told the council the threat was toothless. Aguirre said the notice could have been better, but it was legally sufficient.

Council President Scott Peters and council members Toni Atkins, Ben Hueso, Kevin Faulconer, Jim Madaffer and Tony Young approved both increases.

Councilman Brian Maienschein opposed them, citing legal compliance and noticing issues. Councilwoman Donna Frye voted against the water rate increase, criticizing a decision not to return to bimonthly – and more accurate – bills.

Roughly 7,000 people filed formal protests; by law, the vote would have been nixed if a majority of the city's 274,000 water customers protested.

The meeting began at 2 p.m. and ended more than seven hours later. Business leaders supported water and sewer rate increases, while critics targeted the water rates, perhaps because sewer rates changed in 2004 to end a historic practice of residential ratepayers picking up a portion of the business tab.

In his most detailed public presentation yet about the water-rate increase, Water Department Director Jim Barrett called the new fees fair but acknowledged homeowners as a class will pay more than others next year.

Barrett said homeowners pay 42 percent of the water service charges now and will pay 44 percent next year while using 39 percent of the water. Commercial customers contribute 21 percent of the revenue this year and will chip in 20 percent next year. Barrett didn't say how much water they use.

He said the shift was “not a drastic change” and added, “We haven't gone and purposely thrown more of the cost to any particular user or group of users.”

Barrett underscored his point with a slide that he had showed the council at a meeting in early January. The slide was slightly altered since then, to specify that the “residential class will pay more under these rates.”

Barrett said everyone's water usage fees will rise but a base rate will drop for almost everybody. That base rate will increase only for customers with 1-inch water meters who, Barrett said, pay “artificially low” rates now.

That change will affect thousands of customers, primarily homeowners.

Retired mechanical engineer Hal Simon opposed the water-rate proposal because more than 10,000 homeowners like him, who require 1-inch pipes for adequate water pressure or for larger homes, are being “unfairly treated.”

Randy Barnett, an official with the state Department of Health Services, urged the council to raise rates because he was “deeply concerned” about project delays that are “a matter of health and safety.”

Bad News: San Diego City wants almost 1/2 billion in water rate hikes

Charles Langley — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:13:37 -0800

UCAN News

Republished from today's San Diego Union Tribune. click here to see the full article with sidebars and related stories.

U-T SPECIAL REPORT
City sags under weight of water, sewer demands

By Matthew T. Hall
and Mike Lee
STAFF WRITERS

February 21, 2007.

Mayor Jerry Sanders says it's essential that San Diegans pay an additional $430 million in water and sewer fees over the next four years.

The problem is, people will be paying for some of the same construction projects they thought they had funded years ago.

The projects didn't get done for a variety of reasons, including mismanagement. Now their costs have soared, in some cases nearly tripling. Those expenses could rise even more – well beyond what Sanders has budgeted – if there are too few construction crews to handle the demand.

San Diego's water and sewer improvement plans have been in flux for years because of borrowing difficulties tied to the city's financial troubles, skyrocketing building costs, emergency repairs to a crumbling network of pipes, and state and federal mandates.

City officials compounded the problems with their historic reluctance to raise fees, poor infrastructure planning, unfair billing and inadequate oversight, according to an analysis of hundreds of pages of public records requested by The San Diego Union-Tribune. Along the way, they have shelved hundreds of millions of dollars of work once considered crucial while starting many new projects.

The erratic changes will contribute to a cycle of annual rate increases likely to continue for at least a decade.

On Monday, the City Council will consider Sanders' proposal to boost the typical monthly residential utility bill by about $27, or 35 percent, over the next four years. The rate increase, along with one for businesses, would help finance the escalating costs of operations and an expensive lineup of water and sewer projects.

The council's meeting is likely to draw watchdog and business groups that question whether the city underestimated the cost of its latest plan and whether it can manage the massive maintenance and upgrade needs.

At stake is an infrastructure crucial to people's daily lives: San Diegans use about 210 million gallons of water daily for everything from irrigation to washing machines, then expect the sewer system to carry wastewater away without fouling the ocean and beaches.

Sanders and his top aides insist they have a manageable and effective blueprint that will help restore the public's trust in city government.

The mayor points to state and federal regulators' growing confidence in San Diego's efforts to upgrade its water and sewer systems. He promises annual audits of the water and sewer departments, a revamped utility oversight board and a reserve fund to protect any savings the departments generate.

"I now believe the systems are being well-run and the ratepayer funds are being used wisely," Sanders said. "I also believe that we must make absolutely certain that this will always be the case."

A rising tide of costs

Cities nationwide are struggling to maintain water and sewer systems as the cost of upkeep escalates and expanding populations put more pressure on aging infrastructures.

San Diego has tried for years to meet increasingly stringent state and federal requirements for its substandard utility systems. Since 1997, the City Council has raised sewer rates nine times and water rates eight, excluding increases passed on from wholesale water suppliers.

During the same time, the city's documents show, San Diego officials ignored some of their spending safeguards.

City administrators diverted more than $1 million from the water and sewer departments to cover municipal operating costs. They also disregarded a City Council requirement that the water department's staffing remain at 2003 levels through this year. Instead, the department added 59 employees, increasing the total to 914.

Going forward, it is unlikely that San Diego has earmarked enough money for its water and sewer expenses.

For starters, Sanders' rate proposal doesn't account for employee pay raises past 2008 or the expected increases in wholesale water prices beyond this year. More significantly, it doesn't address the potential $1 billion bill for upgrading the city's wastewater treatment plant in Point Loma.

In addition, San Diego's newest construction plans show that several proposed projects won't be done until 2015 or later, well past when the city's managers can reliably predict costs. City officials admit they're being conservative in estimating that construction costs will creep up 4 percent a year.

Last month, City Attorney Michael Aguirre cautioned that putting a large number of projects out to bid in 2008 "could result in contractors becoming overwhelmed with work."

He wrote in a report: "If only 2-3 bidders respond to publicly bid contracts, the bid results can be 10 to 25% over estimates."

City officials have a "track record of not accurately estimating . . . costs," said Lani Lutar, head of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association.

"It's a big question mark in people's minds as to whether . . . they are actually going to complete the projects on that list," said Craig Benedetto, spokesman for the San Diego Building Owners and Managers Association.

In Linda Vista, resident Susan Matheson said she doesn't mind paying her fair share for water services. But she worries that San Diego's rates, already high in comparison with other big cities, might increase in perpetuity because of poor planning.

Matheson recently contacted the Union-Tribune about wanting to formally protest the city's proposed rate boost. She said she threw away a city flier on the proposal without realizing it contained a protest form she could return to City Hall to try to prevent the increase.

"San Diego just seems to be a town that has its head in the sand," she said.

A knotty problem

San Diego's sewer and water problems are so complex that even the most basic details about what needs fixing are muddy.
In 1997, California health officials said San Diego had 160 miles of crumbling cast-iron water pipes. San Diego's estimate at the time was 180 miles. Now, city officials say they've replaced 90 miles of cast-iron pipes since 1999 and have 195 miles to go.

But San Diego leaders are sure on this point: The city must raise rates now or face worse breakdowns and fines from regulators. Alexis Strauss, regional director of water programs for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said it's important to take action.

"EPA has kind of patiently waited through the process of the city coming to terms with its financial situation," she said. "It's time to get on to business."

Frustrated by the frequency and size of San Diego's sewer spills in recent years, the agency is working with environmentalists to shore up San Diego's wastewater system through a pending legal settlement that would set federal mandates through 2013.

The state Department of Health Services has issued a separate set of demands for the water department and threatens to withhold substantial grant money from San Diego if it can't offer matching funds.

Combined, the state and federal agencies require roughly $2 billion of work.

That's about how much money the water and sewer departments have borrowed since 1993 for capital improvements, many of them mandated by the government or court orders.

Some of that money hasn't yielded the expected results.

In 1997 and 2002, the city opened water reclamation plants that together cost more than $330 million. Today, these facilities are operating at 12 percent of capacity.

City officials also commissioned a $900,000 study of how to improve use of recycled water, but the issue has languished because Sanders opposed the study's top recommendation - an effort to turn wastewater into drinking water.

Several other projects were halted after the city spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on planning and engineering.

In all, San Diego officials deferred or canceled some $336 million of water projects and about $113 million of sewer projects that were supposed to be funded the last time the council approved multiyear rate increases.

Awash in debt

Managing funds has never been so vital in San Diego.
The city expects to borrow so much money to ramp up construction that its annual payments for utility debts would reach $205 million in four years - a rise of nearly $80 million. By 2011, $1 out of every $6 in the water and sewer departments' costs would go toward paying down debt.

More borrowing would be needed to meet the departments' other mandates. In addition, a growing portion of their operating budgets is dedicated to pension and retiree health benefits that the city ignored for years.

From 1987 to 1997, tax-averse city councils didn't raise water rates to cover rising construction costs. The result is a huge backlog of projects that some wonder whether San Diego can handle effectively.

The skepticism is centered on the contention that city officials haven't been upfront with the public.

Five years ago, for example, Larry Gardner, then the water department's director, issued a letter to ratepayers filled with glowing language about his department's "virtually unmatched" record.

"We're constantly remembering the past in order that we can repeat it," he wrote.

He didn't mention that San Diego reported 166 water-main breaks that year. He also didn't disclose that state regulators had ordered extensive upgrades to the city's water infrastructure.

More recently, Sanders has used water-main breaks to promote a rate increase without mentioning that they have dropped by about a third in the past five fiscal years.

Sanders also has tried to generate support for higher rates by touting a fairer cost breakdown between homeowners and businesses, along with the idea that conservation would lower bills.

Despite Sanders' assertions, only single-family homeowners who use 400 cubic feet of water a month would get a rate reduction in 2008. The typical San Diego home uses 3.5 times that amount of water.

While most homeowners will pay higher bills next year and beyond, a city consultant said a range of restaurants, supermarkets, laundry services and shopping centers will see their rates go down.

Consumer advocate Michael Shames called it "a bailout for business."

The city has tentatively settled a lawsuit Shames filed to fix a rate imbalance on the sewer side, but he contends that Sanders' current water-rate proposal still unfairly burdens residential customers.

Some businesses have benefited from rate changes for years.

In 1996, water and sewer hookup fees for developers were slashed from $11,000 to $5,000. That led directly to cutbacks in city sewer construction projects and the loss of $55 million in water hookup charges over five years.

Today, the fees are still far below where they were a decade ago. Sanders' proposal would boost them less than $1,000 - to about $7,100.
Councilwoman Toni Atkins noted the inequities between residents and big business in 2002 but supported a water rate increase anyway.

"It unfairly dings working families and smaller struggling businesses in a way that is not as equitable as I would like to see," she said at the time.

Boosting oversight

Sanders has pledged not to repeat the problems of the past.
To that end, he detailed on Thursday his proposal for a new advisory board: the Independent Rates Oversight Committee, which he said will include specialists in accounting, engineering and science, along with representatives of each ratepayer class.

Separately, Shames is trying to set up a nonprofit, independent organization to oversee San Diego's sewer and water agencies.

The Public Utilities Advisory Commission now oversees the departments. The all-volunteer commission, established when the City Council approved the last multiyear rate increase, has no regulatory or enforcement powers.

Yet at the commission's inception, Councilman Brian Maienschein said the panel's scrutiny would comfort a skeptical public.

"I don't want to sit up here four years from now and be in the same exact boat we're in today," he said at the time.

In a city now famous for fiscal mismanagement, the commission's results may not be exactly what Maienschein envisioned.

"What we are weak on is the financial side," said commission Chairman Chuck Spinks, an engineer. "The current board doesn't have anyone that I would consider a financial or audit expert."

When Sanders' advisory board convenes, it will likely examine $70 million in state grants that San Diego could get if it increases its rates.

The water department will decide how to divvy up the money. Such handouts are widely welcomed - if they really get spent on improving the city's water infrastructure.

"There are plenty of places to use that money effectively," said Jim Peugh, an environmentalist and veteran member of the current utility advisory commission. "I don't want to see it frittered away."

Coming Sunday: Why San Diego has some of the nation's highest water and sewer rates.

Details Who: San Diego City Council

What: Public hearing on increasing water and sewer rates

When: 2 p.m. Monday

Where: City Administration Building, 202 C St., San Diego

Televised: Cable channel 24

Rate increases:
How to weigh in

By law, cities must allow ratepayers a chance to protest potential increases for sewer and water fees.

The threshold: A majority of San Diego's roughly 274,000 water customers must file formal protests to upend the city's rate proposal without a vote of the council.

Protest forms: They were included on Page 2 of city mailers sent in January to explain the rate case. They also are available at www.sandiego.gov/water. Click on “Rate Increase Information,” then “218 Notice.”

Addendum: UCAN urges you to protest the rate hike.

This story was originally published in the San Diego Union Tribune on February 21, 2007 To view the story in its orginal context with photographs, side bars, and related articles, please click here.

UCAN Criticizes City's Misleading Water Rate Mailer

brandon — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:32:57 -0800

UCAN In the Media

City Water Plan Under Fire From Critics

January 30, 2007
NBC San Diego

SAN DIEGO -- A watchdog group is urging San Diegans to take a closer look at a rather plain-looking piece of mail.

San Diego's water system is a mess -- decades-old cast-iron pipes are breaking in the cold weather, and treatment plants and reservoirs need improvements. It's a multimillion dollar job that is outlined in a recent mailer to residents that informs rate payers of a proposed rate increase.

The Utility Consumers' Action Network, a consumer watchdog group, claims that the mailer is confusing, convoluted and misstates the real cost.

"It's misleading," said UCAN's Michael Shames. "There's no way that an informed customer could look at this notice and say, 'I agree with the increase,' or, 'I disagree with the increase.' They can't do it."

Shames said that the city is hiding the most important piece of information: a form that lets residents protest the proposed rate hike.

"And guess what?" said Shames. "What the notice doesn't tell you is if 50 percent of the households in San Diego send this form back in, the City Council by law cannot pass the rate increase."

UCAN is sending out its own version of the mailer, highlighting what it says are the most important issues.

The mayor's office, however, said that UCAN's criticism is all wet because San Diegans know their water system needs repairs and are willing to pay for them.

"The alternative is for the federal government and the state government to go ahead and take over the systems," said mayoral spokesman Fred Sainz. "We don't need to let that happen. We can control our own destiny."

The mayor's office also said that the city's brochure clearly spells out the cost of the rate hike and that the new rate plan rewards homeowners and renters who conserve water by allowing them to pay less each month.

UCAN Claims City Overcharging for Water

brandon — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:46:50 -0800

UCAN In the Media

UCAN's executive director, Michael Shames, is interviewed in this KPBS story. Listen here.

You can also view the story on the KPBS website.

UCAN Demands New "Honest" Water Rate-Hike Notice

brandon — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:39:50 -0800

UCAN In the Media

Rate-hike notice has consumer group boiling mad

By Matthew T. Hall
STAFF WRITER
The San Diego Union-Tribune January 30, 2007

A local consumer advocacy group has threatened to sue the city of San Diego if it pursues a plan to raise water and sewer rates next month.

Two weeks after the city mailed ratepayers a legally required notice about the possible increase, the Utility Consumers' Action Network sent a letter yesterday to Mayor Jerry Sanders calling the notice deficient and deceptive.

City officials plan to respond in writing to the letter by Friday.

Michael Shames, UCAN's executive director, is demanding a new notice be sent that expresses details of the proposal in clearer terms and does not "discourage" ratepayers from mailing in a protest form to halt the increase.

"The law makes it such that you can't try to mislead or fool the public," Shames said. "By doing it the way they've done it, the city ends up undermining yet again its tenuous credibility with the public."

City Attorney Michael Aguirre said city officials would discuss Shames' concerns and respond to each by Friday.

"It's not that I'm not standing by it," Aguirre said of the notice the city mailed two weeks ago. "It's that I want to make sure I understand the concerns that are raised by Mr. Shames."

Sanders declined an interview request through a spokeswoman, but mayoral spokesman Fred Sainz said city officials are "incredibly comfortable" that their notice abides by the spirit and the letter of the relevant state law, Proposition 218. Council President Scott Peters did not return a call.

Shames faults the notice for suggesting water rates would generally rise 6.5 percent a year for four years under the proposal. Shames said residential customers could see increases closer to 12 percent next year while businesses pay less than 2 percent more in what Shames calls a "bailout for business."

The council is poised to vote on the rate increase proposal Feb. 26. As of last week, City Clerk Liz Maland said her office had received about 3,000 envelopes containing protest forms.

A majority of about 274,000 water customers must file formal protests to upend the proposal without a vote of the council. A protest form was included in the city's notice.

Shames filed a lawsuit against the city in 2004 the last time it altered its sewer rate structure. A tentative settlement of the lawsuit would force the city to reimburse residential ratepayers $35 million and pay Shames' lawyers $5 million for unfairly having homeowners subsidize businesses for 10 years.

Letter to Mayor Sanders & City Water Dept demanding a reissuance of an Official Rate Hike Notification

Charles Langley — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 12:57:41 -0800

“The City has tried to deceive the public . . . again”

Charles Langley — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 12:08:39 -0800

UCAN News

Today, Michael Shames, executive director of UCAN, the Utility Consumers’ Action Network, explained his letter to Mayor Sanders and the City of San Diego Water Department to reissue an accurate notice about a proposed water and sewer rate increase and answer questions regarding the accuracy of the City of San Diego’s mid-January Notice of Public Hearing on water rate increases. UCAN urges residential water customers to use the official protest form to force an audit of the increase.

According the Mr. Shames, the City has intentionally deceived ratepayers and the media regarding the nature, scope, and true costs of the increases in a mailer sent to the public in mid-January. UCAN will unveil an “honest version” (get PDF of Side A and Side B ) of the water/sewer rate notice that highlights some of the troubling and deceptive elements of the City’s January effort.

The letter to the Mayor and other materials will be distributed that accurately calculate the true cost of the rate hike with a brief explanation for reporters as to the exact nature of the deceptions and the reasons behind his request for a new, accurate notice.

WHO: Michael Shames
WHAT: City of San Diego Water Rates
WHERE: UCAN, 3100 Fifth Avenue, Suite B
WHEN: Today, 11:00 AM, Monday, January 29, 2007
WHY: Because San Diegans deserve the truth.

Michael will also be available on Monday afternoon to address the UCAN request on an appointment basis.

For background or additional information, contact UCAN at (619) 696-6966 or go to the UCAN web page for background on this press event.

Attachment	Size
ReissueletFinal1-29-07.pdf	78.58 KB
WaterPage1.pdf	128.57 KB
WaterPage2.pdf	81.82 KB