Careful What You Read -- and What You Believe -- About Water

The Common Sense folks continue to rant about the water rates and San Juan Capistrano's groundwater recovery plant.

Take what they say with a grain of salty water from the sea, at least.

First off, the city does not lose the rights to the groundwater recovery plant. Everybody at every meeting I've sat through, from those at our own City Hall to those at the San Juan Basin Authority, say the contracts clearly call out for the city controlling the plant for generations.

There's also no evidence the GWRP was built for Rancho Mission Viejo, other than the suspicions of a cadre of folks who seem to think the Ranch is some sort of bogeyman and want to blame the Moiso family for everything from traffic to water rates.

Next, water rates are high. Everywhere. Has our Utilities Department run as efficently as it could have? Maybe. Maybe not. We'll see what the $55,000 audit finds.

But what frustrates me about the leaflets left on some of the homes in Capistrano is the complete lack of (accurate context). Water rates are high in Capistrano, but no more so than in our surrounding cities, despite what you might have read in the leaflet.

The reason? Water users in neighboring cities pay a monthly water bill, just like we in Capistrano do. But, unlike us, customers of South Coast Water District (Dana Point) and Moulton-Niguel Water District (Laguna Niguel) pay an additional usage fee on their property tax. That's not for bond repayments, that's just part of the water bill added onto the property taxes.

San Clemente in June raised its water rates 12.7 percent. In a survey of nine South County water agencies, the average water bill was $99 a month. Capistrano's was $102. We're more expensive than San Clemente, cheaper than South Coast.

Water's expensive, and getting more expensive everywhere. All of that said, the Los Angeles Times today has a pretty good piece about (more) anticipated cost increases from the Metropolitian Water District (MWD) which pretty much provides water in Southern California to anyone who doesn't have their own supply.

Here's a couple of paragraphs:

Agency officials predict that the double whammy will boost the aqueduct's energy costs, which amounted to nearly $49 million last year, by 80% over the next decade.

...

The MWD imports 40% to 60% of the Southland's water supply. Rising energy costs are one of the reasons the district has increased its wholesale rates to Southern California water agencies 75% in the last six years and will continue to raise them, executives say.

You can see the entire story here.

Bottom line: On top of uncertainities in the water supply -- smelt in the Delta, Colorado River water going elsewhere -- MWD has been buying electricity at cut-rate prices (unlike the city of SJC) and will have to start paying more.

Capistrano's GWRP operations have certainly been spotty over the past few years, but officials have been saying it's working now. They've got a handle, they say, on the technical challenges.

But one challenge not met by the city that we must face: Resisiting the urge to judge a long-term investment against today's standard. It's difficult to accept in this "make me happy now" world, but the real value of the GWRP may not be known for decades, if not generations.

Download GWRP Lease agreement 2002

Comments

[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.

[Jonathan]

Clint,

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?

[swallowtown]

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.