Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Become a Fan

    « Capistrano Historic Preservation Manager Leaving | Main | About that Private Water Company ... »

    November 14, 2011


    Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

    Clint Worthington

    Jonathan, it is obvious that you have not read all of the documents that pertain to the GWRP. The City does not own the GWRP, the San Juan Basin Authority does. We have been told in the Capistrano Dispatch time after time that we own the GWRP. When in fact, the City leases the GWRP from the San Juan Basin Authority. At the end of the GWRP lease from the San Juan Basin Authority, the City will only receive 20% of the allocation of water that the City now receives. It is in the lease. The San Juan Basin Authority is under absolutely no obligation to renew the lease. We have done our homework on this. If you are in doubt, make a public records request and read through all of the documents as we have.

    Heck Jonathan, no one on the City Council or the Utilities Commission even knew that the City did not own the GWRP until John Perry brought it to their attention. I know that you did not as you referred to the City in your stories as owning the GWRP.

    This is the same City that raised the water rates to pay for an 18 million dollar Phantom Water Bond that was never issued because the City financials were so horrible. Yet, the City still collected the money at the average amount of #111,000 a month from the water users. No one on the City Council or Utility Commission knew that until it was pointed out to them.

    Lastly, Jonathan can you please point out the verbage in the GWRP lease from the San Juan Basin Authority where "the contract clearly calls out for the City controlling the plant for generations" I am unable to find that verbage or anything close to it.



    I have read the documents, as well as attended meetings of the SJBA where the documents are discussed -- for years.

    Like the City Attorney, I just disagree with your analysis.

    As for ownership of the GWRP, that was made clear in the MTBE settlement with Chevron, in which the first page declares the plant is owned by SJBA. The land beneath it, of course, is owned by the city.

    That document was released long before Mr. Perry's "revelation."

    As for the bond, you and Mr. Perry raised that issue almost a year ago. You demanded the return of the money and even had a lawyer threaten a lawsuit.

    The City Attorney disagreed with your legal analysis and the city even spent thousands of dollars for a second opinion that also found you were wrong.

    Yet you continue to throw the "phantom bond" around like a good campaign phrase, which I suspect it what you're using it for.

    Sadly, issue after issue has been thrown at the wall, with the same verbal angst and animosity.

    Maybe something will stick by November 2012, huh?


    Thanks Johnathan for clear info not muddled by conspiracy minded village clowns.

    Clint Worthington

    Jonathan, of you had attended the SJBA Authority meetings for years, why do the Dispatch articles that you write state that the City owns the GWRP when in fact it does not. You are providing misinformation to your readers. Apparently, you are the only one in the City who knew it was leased as no one on the City Council, Utility Commision or even the new City Manager new the GWRP was leased.

    Please Jonathan are you really surprised the City Attorney disagreed. The City Attorney is paid to defend the City Council not to defend or stick up for the residents of the City. As to the second opinion attorney, it is again obvious that you missed where he stated that several times that our attorney is making some very valid points. Did you really expect that the attorney the City hired would come out and say in public that the City was wrong? Did you really expect something different? For a City hired attorney to come out and say the City was in error in public would have probably opened the City to lawsuits immediately. By the way, that was not aost a year ago it was thee months ago. What really surprises me, is that who wins in this ? The water users . By having rates where they should have been originally without the Phantom Water Bond.

    If you think that issue after issue is without merit, then why was Mark Neilsen who you and the Capistrano Dispatch supported not re-elected? Those issues appeared to stick on the minds of the people. A sitting City Council member not re elected.

    I would also bring up the group that yourself and the Capistrano Dispatch supported for Measure B . When I write group I am talking anout the owners of the owners of the property. Now there is a legacy of support that I would be proud of. Filing for bankruptcy, unpaid bills to the City,. I could go on and on. While this is off topic, you brought up nothing sticks, not me

    I am sure that we will continue to have different thoughts, however, I would suggest again that you make a public records request and spend the time to research and review the documents. There is a difference between attending a meeting and being told what they want you to here and reading exactly what the documents say in writing. Sometimes two different things.

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    Our Blogs