I appreciate and defend the right of every citizen and group of citizens to exercise the Constitutionally guaranteed right of protest and opposition to existing or proposed polices of any government body within the United States. However, every right carries with it a responsibility for ethical behavior and truthful presentations. I have serious reservations about that being the case with CCPR. For a considerable time this group has attacked every effort the city has made toward acquiring a long-term permanent water supply secure from State whims and “permission” to take water for our own use.
The “facts” they have stated are incorrectly applied and their reasons fly in the face of the sources they quote. The Jarvis organization repudiated the document it was enticed to write based upon false information provided by CCPR.
A few of CCPR’s members shotgun allegations of misdeeds, poor judgment and possible corruption by the city’s leaders who have taken the necessary actions to make this one of the finest and most envied cities in the state. For years the citizens of this city have begged for pro-active government planning far ahead instead just during a crisis. This city now has that. CCPR’s preferences would require crisis decision making on a permanent basis.
I granted CCPR the reasonable doubt on all of these things early on. The city responded with answers. I have provided CCPR members with references and alerts on bureaucratic proposals for major changes affecting our resources. They were either not read or were ignored. That is unfortunate.
As a paid and registered lobbyist in Sacramento (for the California Homeowners Association) some many decades ago I learned that truth is the one quality any advocate MUST have in order to retain credibility. CCPR has lost that quality.
In my advocate days I represented many citizens’ and business groups for a period in excess of a decade. They addressed topics involving forestry, land conservancy, mobile home parks, subdivisions, septic tanks, legal lot determination, property tax appeals, sign rights, road abandonments, water rights, dams, landscaping and tax ordinances, winery licensing and others. I learned to research my options and seek those that do the most good with the least harm to anyone’s special interests, if that was possible. Act responsibly and live with the result that is chosen.
If the rules appear to be unfair, work to change them. Do so honestly and with valid information. If you “win” good. If you don’t, so be it.
CCPR hasn’t learned this.
They opposed the first rate that would have provided full service to our water users immediately upon delivery. Although some of us had already said we didn’t like the high rate and asked staff to return with a market, pay-as-you go rate before CCPR swung into action, we acknowledged their effort and the attitude information they were able to produce before the adjusted rate came back to us.
As previously indicated we ultimately adopted the most reduced rate we could justify with an eye toward health and safety. There were even a few things CCPR brought forth that did make some sense and we acted upon each one of them. While we have made every effort to cooperate with its reasonable requests, there has been no effort upon their behalf that has extended the same consideration.
Therefore, they proceeded to another attempt to qualify a referendum for the ballot. They posted on their web site and distributed a pamphlet entitled: “WHY A REFERENDUM PETITION IS NECESSARY!!” Look at their reasons:
- Without your signature water rates will rise by 33% beginning in 2010 (from $1.32 to $1.75 per unit of water used), and will increase more than 250% in years to come (from $1.32 today to $3.33 per unit used).
Answer: $1.75 is 25% higher than $1.32 which amounts to a one penny increase for every 17+ gallons of water consumed. At the end of five years $2.75 is 108% higher than $1.32. Slight exaggeration?
- Only new development needs the water. Let them pay the full amount. Current water customers should not be asked to subsidize the costs of new development.
Answer: NONE of the cost being charged to current water users is for growth. ALL growth related expansion of the system will be paid under a separate fee to be paid by developers (adopted in March 2009 by the City Council). This developer’s fee was initiated in 2008. It amounts to a one-time charge to each new house of between $12,000 (in 2010) and $23,500 (in 2014 and beyond).
Under the adopted water rate, the highest rate will result in an increase of $9.50 per person per month for those using the average amount of water use per person currently used in the State of California. At that rate it would take the average person 206 years of payments to equal what each new home will pay to get water in 2014 and beyond. This is what they call unfair to the current users. I wonder what a court would say about fairness?
- Costs for new infrastructure projects or capital improvements, such as the Nacimiento pipeline, water treatment plant and others should not be included on our water bills. Like other infrastructure projects such as bridges, schools, and roads, new capital costs should be placed on the ballot as a bond issue, an assessment or a special tax for voter approval as provided by the State Constitution under Proposition 218.
Answer: VERY clever. Note the use of the word “should” rather than “must.” This is the OPINION of the CCPR and would cause those who do NOT receive any water from the project to pay a portion of the bill without any benefit. It is grossly unfair and NOT the way the State suggests, or mandates, that water infrastructure be paid for. [Go to: http://www.lao.ca.gov/2008/rsrc/water_primer/water_primer_102208.pdf, specifically pp. 42, 52 and 58, remember that each space is actually an _ ] Finally, there is NO specific reference to infrastructure projects in Article 13C of the California Constitution (Proposition 218)! That entire section is an interpretation by CCPR.
- Such costs could be placed on our property tax bills instead and deducted from our income taxes!
Answer: Ah, yes, “could.” They “could” but “should” they? If they are, by a vote of the people, we “could” get someone else, like non-users, to pay part of OUR bills! There’s the welfare syndrome mentality again! Let’s get something for nothing. This has nothing to do with why a “referendum petition is necessary.”
- All users of the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin should share in the costs City water customers are being asked to pay.
Answer: It is becoming clearer. Share the wealth. It’s time for a “change.” Make the people whose water we’ve been taking because they previously weren’t using it themselves pay for our new water because they won’t let us take there’s any more. LEGALLY, none of the basin water is ours to use as a water purveyor. It is theirs. That is why the State can order us to stop taking it and force us to get other water. IT ISN’T OURS! By LAW: it isn’t ours. But, CCPR says we should make them pay for their own water AND OURS TOO! The new Socialists should be very proud that their doctrines have taken solid root in CCPR! Other than the philosophical reasons above, we have no legal means to require anyone outside of our water service area to pay for any of our water system or water. This is the snake suggesting to Eve that the apple might be worth considering. It’s NOT RIGHT!
- The proposed rates are illegal, unenforceable, and should be revoked. If the City Council will not do this now, the Courts will have to make a decision.
Answer: This section is totally false. The ADOPTED rates are legal, are enforceable and should NOT be revoked if people want to continue to have safe, clean and sufficient water for our current users. If the City Council does not revoke its ordinance or it can set the matter of rescinding the ordinance to a vote at an election. It “could” revoke the rate and set a new rate, going through the entire process again and, again, costing the rate payers an additional $50,000 to $250,000 dollars in costs legally recoverable through the new rate structure. CCPR’s actions just keep escalating the real costs of your water.
You can do whatever you choose in this matter. However, it is NOT as it has been represented to you. Nor is it simple. There is new water legislation going through the Legislature as this is being written. There are new regulations that threaten our present water supply and the water for the future of the city. I have fully supported, in Sacramento, those that require new development to prove its water supply and provide or pay for it. I have and will continue to oppose all efforts to erode, diminish or destroy our water supply and future options. I will seek fair solutions for these situations and will ask each of us to CONSERVE and extend our water as far as it is possible to stretch it. We live in a desert but, too frequently, act like we are lake dwellers.
