Protests of water rates with hearing updates

Re: A protest for the public hearing of Aug. 11 against increases in rates and fees for water plus updates from the hearing.

I protest what Ramona Municipal Water District (RMWD) pays the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) for water. The San Diego County Water Authority (CWA) is an association of water districts of which RMWD is a part.

The CWA is suing the MWD — head of all water in California — for overcharging (presently we are paying for water from the origination point when we should be paying from a shorter distance). RMWD’s cut of the proceeds, should CWA win the suit, is about $460K. The CWA asked for help and support in this suit from all its members. RMWD agreed to be part of the suit and then did nothing when asked for help. I protest RMWD for its lack of action. I do not think throwing away $460K is something RMWD and its customers should take lightly.

UPDATE: CWA won the suit, but MWD is appealing. We still have a great chance to recoup $460K.

I protest the amount RMWD pays San Diego Gas & Electric for electricity for transporting water from Poway to Ramona. And I protest to the RMWD for its lack of foresight in building the natural gas pipeline from Poway to Ramona. In all fairness the idea of using natural gas as an alternative source of energy for transportation was basically a good idea. However, the hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings projected does not seem to be materializing, either because the system is not adequate for daily use or because it is only being used when SDGE goes down.

What about purchasing an industrial solar system with a natural gas backup? If the previously mentioned lawsuit is won, the $460K we recoup would go a long way to fund such a solar project for the transport of water. FYI: Eco Motion, Independent Energy Solutions, Sullivan Solar Installation and Baker Electric Solar are just few commercial solar companies to consider. Let’s stop feeding the SDGE hungry beast — a private company whose rates and fees are at least double those of public electric companies in California, according to a recent San Diego Union-Tribune article in the Sunday business section.

UPDATE: Presently the gas pipeline is not in use at all. It is being tested. When all the tests are completed, depending on the outcome, it could be used daily at a considerable savings. However, the caveat, as the water district’s engineer explained, is the continued low price of natural gas. Since SDGE, a private company, also supplies the gas, we don’t know how long before the significant savings disappear. This is why solar, which is outside the clutches of SDGE, is the smart next project while rates for financing are low.

I protest the findings of the Raftelis Financial Consultants. In 2011 they reviewed operation costs, maintenance requirements and infrastructure needs. Since then, our rates have gone up about 7% per year. Now, in 2015, an updated analysis has RMWD asking for a 13.9% hike (supposedly the lower end of the spectrum recommended by RFC). How can this be? If the rate and fee raises over the years were used for what they were earmarked for, why the need for almost doubling them now? And why do we need to hire consultants when the second in command at RMWD, a financial expert, should have most of the expertise to do this analysis with the aid of our engineer? I would not be protesting and would pay the 13.9% if it included the financing of the purchase of solar for water transport.

UPDATE: The water district engineer explained that an independent consultant was used for the rate analysis so that customers would trust the findings. And why should RMWD feel that they needed to do this? Is it because their operations are not to be trusted? I think public trust is based on transparency and unfortunately there is little about the RMWD that is transparent. Call the RMWD and try to get answers to relatively simple questions like when an engineer is available onsite? You are referred to the general manager, the CFO or to the part-time lead engineer. Personnel are leery about answering questions. Why? Are they fearful of losing their jobs? What a difficult working environment this must be.

As it turned out, the information given by RMWD to RFC was based on incorrect assumptions which resulted in an inaccurate report anyway. A total waste of money? Who’s to say?

TO SUMMARIZE: I not only protest the transportation rate, the 13.9% per unit rate increase, and the 13% system change increase. I also protest the lack of action with our fellow water districts in the suit against MWD and RMWD’s lack of foresight into the use of solar for water transport. So far what few actions RMWD has taken have failed to reap their projected results. It is time for a change in management and board thinking, OR for an actual change in management and board personnel.

UPDATE: I don’t know my “Roberts Rules of Order” for public meetings, but should the board president’s opinion rule and he be able to completely shut down any dissension from another board member without a vote? A newly elected director thought it fair to hear out a member of the audience who expressed doubts about the credentials of a low bidder for the building out of a fire station garage. The president did not wish to hear the man, no one else spoke up, and that was the end of that. No vote was taken. It is ironic that this hearing is for the public, but the public is allowed little opportunity to express its opinions. Any input from the audience is extremely regulated. An individual must submit a speaker slip before the beginning of the meeting in order to be allowed to speak (3 minutes). After that no one in the audience can be heard from, at all, about anything. Few people had access to the budget (not enough copies to go around) before a presentation by the CFO. I am sure people had questions, but no one is allowed to ask the board or staff any questions during the meeting. Is it part of the “Roberts Rules of Order” to muzzle the public at a public hearing? Actually I ‘Googled’ a summary version of Roberts Rules, which stated “Under no circumstances should undue strictness be allowed to intimidate or limit full participation.” Whose rules are we playing by here?

One brave sole, who did get a copy of the budget and sign a speaker slip, dared to mention that salaries of the management seemed extremely high for such a small water district. The general manager never answered the person directly, but did comment that his salary wasn’t the highest of all the water districts and not out of line for his position. In truth, his salary and pension and that of the former general manager have been topics of wonder and red flagged a number of times in the Sentinel. Shouldn’t salaries reflect a well-run, efficient and transparent company, a company to be trusted and admired? Think about it.

STATISTICS FROM THE MEETING:

Public attendance at the hearing: 20-30 not counting firemen.

Number of protests submitted: 4.5% of 9,100 parcels or 409 protests (this number was requested by a person who submitted a speaker slip and it seemed to take the general manager by surprise). Unfortunately, 4,550 were needed to stop the proposed rate and fee increases.

Sharon Lynch is a Ramona resident.