Our
Town:
Compton’s Eric Martin Returns Home to Teach
Council Kicks Kilroy to the Curb
Charles Davis Takes Helm of Chamber
Compton’s MESA Team Triumphs Again
Compton Library to Close for Renovation
Ride-along Gives University Officials First-hand Look at Students’ Work
Gateway Towne Center Accused of Discrimination by Local Merchant
Gifted Youth Finds Sanctuary at YAL
Earl
Ofari Hutchinson:
Supervisors to Blame for King Hospital Failure
Museum of Mexican Artist Frida Kahlo to Exhibit Never-before-seen Drawings, Personal Items
Water
Replenishment Bill Pros, Cons Presented to Council
Amended AB640
would save city thousands annually
By
Allison Jean Eaton
Bulletin
Staff Writer
Two
days after the pros and cons of an assembly bill relative to water
replenishment rates were presented to the City Council last month,
the Assembly approved an amended version of the bill.
According to supporters of the bill authored by Assemblyman Hector
De La Torre (D-South Gate), which passed the State Assembly 67-3 June 7,
the city of Compton stands to save more than $300,000 annually if it becomes
state law, according to one of his staffers.
Cities that stand to save would have the option of using that savings
to leverage bonds for capital improvement projects or give it back to residents
as a reduction on their water bills.
Contenders
of the bill argue that supporters are missing the bigger picture.
They say the bill, as originally written,
would have a negative
financial affect on the Southern California Water Replenishment
District (WRD) and its two basins and likely result
in a lengthy lawsuit at taxpayers'
expense.
The bill originally would have required the WRD to compute water
replenishment assessments separately for West Basin and Central
Basin customers. Amended a day before it passed the Assembly, it now
calls for the state
water department to conduct a study on the effects of doing so.
The WRD replenishes groundwater in the two basins, which over pump
their natural water supply because of ever-increasing demand. Currently,
WRD averages costs for providing water to each basin and charges
a flat rate district-wide.
But according to Desi Alvarez, Public Works director for the city
of Downey, it costs WRD more to pump water into the West Basin.
And West Basin consumes 198 gallons per capita day, while Central Basin
customers
use 150. This means Central customers are effectively subsidizing
customers in the West, he said.
Alvarez was among a group of representatives from other Central
Basin cities backing the bill that came to the June 5 council meeting
to lobby
Compton to join their ranks.
“This establishes nothing more than a fair and equitable replenishment
assessment based on actual cost and services provided by the WRD,” said
Signal Hill Councilman Larry Forester. “We in the Central, yourselves
(Compton) included, are subsidizing West Basin to the tune of $10.6
million [annually].”
Supporters agree the problem is an oversight in an old piece of
legislation that requires updating to address changes that took place
decades ago.
According to the Water Replenishment District Act approved by voters
in 1959, a replenishment assessment must be uniform. At that time,
both basins were considered a single entity. However, West Basin was
adjudicated
in 1961 and Central Basin in 1965.
WRD is still charging a uniform rate because the 1959 law requires
one be leveraged. It did not take into account the possibility
for a replenishment district to service multiple basins. The bill aims
to change this by requiring
basin-specific assessments.
Back then, the district was charging a couple dollars per acre-foot
of water. But today, in the face of the state's worst drought to
date and the increasing scarcity of water in general, the rate is $138
per acre-foot.
That will increase to $149 July 1.
With millions of dollars on the line, the piece of legislation
is a hot topic among public officials whose cities purchase water from
the
basins and water organizations both public and private.
A number of West Basin cities, including Inglewood, oppose the
bill. Inglewood officials said it will increase residents' water bills
about
$80 per year.
South Gate's mayor, Bill DeWitt, said his city, a Central Basin
customer, is in need of the roughly $600,000 a year it would save.
“We have about $10 million worth of infrastructure needs in our water
system in the city of South Gate that we're unable to bond for -
we're bonded to our limit right now - and we need to repair a lot of water
lines,
put in a couple of reservoirs, and this would go a step in the right
direction to provide the funding to be able to continue to provide quality
water
to our residents,” DeWitt said.
The Hub City is much in the same boat. With the mayor's recent
admonition that Compton's water rate - $ 1.42 per 100 cubic feet plus
a $6.95 meter-read
fee - is one of the lowest in the area and that much of the Water
Department's infrastructure is dangerously in need of repair, it is likely
the city
would use its savings toward improvements.
According to Michael Harvey, a project manager with the Compton
Municipal Water Department, the city would “definitely” go that route
because his department's infrastructure is in “dire” need of
repair.
The aging system, built in the 1930s, '40s and '50s, was not built
to handle today's volume of demand, he said. That there has yet
to be a major malfunction is a testament to the quality of engineering
work performed
back then, he added.
Water companies, especially the WRD, oppose the legislation, saying
the fallout of charging basin-specific rates outweighs any potential
savings. The district is joined in its opposition by the Association
of California
Water Agencies and the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), the latter
of which Compton is a member.
“This issue has been packaged as a relatively simple issue,” said
Ron C. Smith, a member of the WRD's Board of Directors. “It is anything
but. … There's more involved than just ostensible economic inequities.”
WRD Asst. General Manager Paul Schoenberger said the study upon
which De La Torre is basing his bill fails to take into account a number
of important
issues such as the impact of over pumping by users in the Central
Basin on the amount of underflow into the West Basin, which he said will
increase
replenishment needs there.
Underflow was a naturally occurring flow of water from the Central
Basin to the West that water officials say no longer flows because
Central taps it for Central customers. Schoenberger said if the bill
becomes law,
it would likely result in a lawsuit between the basins to resolve
financial and underflow issues.
The assistant general manager added that higher fees for West Basin
users will raise demand for imported water, which would negatively
impact the environment but mean more money for WRD.
“It is a bad bill because Sacramento is telling a local government
how to set its rates and how to do business,” said Schoenberger. “The
water replenishment assessment is fair and equitable as it is now.
“We as an agency would probably benefit because we would sell more
imported water because of it,” he said. “But our board, because
of the bad policy and because of all of the unintended consequences
that would happen because of this, our board has taken an opposing position.”
The city had yet to take an official stance on the bill.
De La Torre did not return calls for comment.
ADVERTISE | CLASSIFIEDS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIBE | HOME
This site and its contents ©2007 thecomptonbulletin.com