Let’s assume for a minute that the experts are wrong, that we need to reduce the chloride in our waste to the levels as prescribed by the Water Board.
Let’s further assume that the total costs for the project don’t exceed the Sanitation District’s estimated $250 million.
We have approximately 240,000 people in this valley. Rough average is 3 persons per household. That’s about 80,000 homes.
With these figures in mind, the project will cost $3,125 for every condo unit, stucco box and sprawling ranch home in our valley.
Imagine the kinds of things we could do to save water by investing $3,125 on every home in our valley… The mind reels. I bet we could solve downstream chloride issues and water supply in one fell swoop.
New idea
Let’s spend the money this way:
- $1625 per home installing rainwater collection and graywater systems to reclaim water from the rain plus dish and clothes washing.
- $500 on water saving measures: we could give out tax credits for drought-tolerant landscaping, low flow plumbing fixtures and front loading washing machines.
- The remaining $1,000 we’d spend sending all SCV households to Las Vegas for a weekend, on an honor system to return 50% of any winnings to invest in a project of Marsha McLean’s choosing.
This whole thing doesn’t pass the smell test.
Thanks for the graphic, Petz prefers the BBQ.
OMG srsly, waaaaaaaay gross.
Commuting back and forth to Santa Barbara the last month I have had the opportunity to get to know Hwy 126 and the Santa Clara River valley very well. Here are my observations (of course very unscientific):
-The water that flows to Piru, Filmore, and Santa Paula comes from a large watershed. Sespe Creek that enters the valley just West of Filmore seems to be at least as large as the Santa Clara river.
- The SCV is clearly the largest developed area that adds to the water flow but what percentage of the water for crops comes through the SCV? 20%? 30%?
- We’ve had regenerating water softeners for years in the SCV adding chlorides to the river. Now we have eliminated that source.
- The avocado and orange orchards are looking really healthy from Ventura to Piru. The strawberry fields appear to have bumper crops this year. I’m buying fruit at the Farmers Market on Sundays and stands along 126 that is great quality.
Again, I’m no expert in this area, but the argument that chlorides are damaging Ventura County crops seems to be the equivalent of the photo above.
John B. your suggestions for saving water are great as we live in an area that will always be subject to drought. That being said we should not be forced into drastic, measures for what seems to be the pseudo science about Ventura County crop damage.
John,
Don’t forget the costs to run the plant forever….and the purchase of the water for the downstream users forever..
Brilliant!
Why should we pay for wastewater treatment while they deliver crap to our homes.
Add up all the expenses caused by hard water damage. How many pressure regulators and other valves and pipes.
They can charge us but we can’t sue them?
The water we get form the state fails the chloride test even if we dumpt it straight from Castaic Lake into the SC River.
Make the state pay to clean it’s water at the source, not at a wastewater treatment plant we end users pay for.
Yep, smells pretty fresh…
When is it called extortion?
Jeff, thanks for figuring out the long term cost of this chloride removal.
About 8 years ago, I started criticizing the County Sanitation Districts for Santa Clarita jamming these new sewer fees and charges down Santa Clarita taxpayers’ throats. I said they violated Propositions 13 and 218.
While you might consider me an environmentalist, I am first and foremost a believer in the principle that city, county and special agency governments must follow California law, and that on a moral and ethical basis, they should do it without having to being sued to make them comply with the law. Moreover, I have always felt that city attorneys and county counsel secretly advising city councils and special districts to violate the law, and wait for the taxpaper to sue, is reprehensible. That, unfortunately is what goes on all the time in Southern California.
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (hjta.com) has a wonderful website guiding the taxpaper as to ballot propositions recent court decisions reigning in the power of local governments to tax, assess, fee and levy utility charges to raise money in violation of the basic principles of Proposition 13. There have now been 6 statewide ballot measures enhancing Proposition 13, in order to plug loopholes which local governments tried to create to allow them raise taxes, assessments, fees and utility charges without 2/3rs approval of the voters, which is what Proposition 13 requires. In addition there have been close to 100 Supreme Court and Court of Appeal cases slapping down local government agencies for violating Proposition 13 and the other subsequent ballot measures.
When I began to criticize the proposed new charges to take the chlorides out of the sewer effluent, I did so because the “charges” to build the facilities and install the equipment to remove the chlorides would be new taxes or charges as defined in Propositions 13 and 218, and other related ballot propositions. Essentially, under the Proposition 13 genre of ballot measures and cases, a local agency cannot impose a tax to pay for “new structures and equipment” without an approval of 2/3rds of the voters.
When I made that comment in public, my “good friend” Frank Ferry verbally flipped out, and yelled at me at a City Council meeting, because he was one of Santa Clarita’s officials on the “board of directors” of the two County sanitation districts.
Within a week or so thereafter, there magically appeared at my family’s house an unsolicited letter from the County Counsel staff lawyer representing the Sanitation Districts essentially telling me to shut up; that the Regional Water Quality Control Board was forcing the Sanitation Districts to add the equipment and the structure to house it; and that there was no other way to fund the equipment so I should back off from raising the Proposition 13 and 218 issues.
All of this, of course, was all before the chloride removing equipment fees, charges, and assessments had actually been levied by the County Sanitation Districts.
The attorneys at the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association are inundated with requests to litigate against illegal taxes, assessments, fees and utility charges, but as a result of that letter I had a good, technical talk with their leader and he, too, thought that it didn’t matter what the Regional Water Quality Control Board wanted, that the new charges “for removal of chlorides” violated Propositions 13, 218 and related case law. He apologized and said they were so over-burdened with litigation against public agencies acting illegally and their lawyers (including Burke Williams & Sorensen) that they could not take Santa Claritan’s case. He gave me a very short list of lawyers who litigate Proposition 13 cases on a contingency fee basis, and suggested I phone them. I did, but ultimately decided I would litigate the case myself, once the new fees and charges were levied, simply because I am a perfectionist who believes that if you want something done right, you do it yourself.
Then, a funny thing happened on my way to work one day. A truck driver for a movie studio negligently tried to kill a bunch of people, including me. While the brain still works fine, the body isn’t litigating any more.
In the days since that presumptuous letter I received from the County Counsel’s office, it has appeared to me that on behalf of the two Santa Clarita Sanitation Districts they have been trying to maneuver around Propositions 13 and 218, to try to find a way to make Santa Claritans pay for the chloride removal equipment and facilities, hoping that their “structuring” and raising money in small increments will go unchallenged. Jeff’s essay today shows that this sneaky incrementalism produces a really enormous pot of money to add the equipment and facilities.
I still think that these chloride related fees and charges are illegal under Propositions 13, 218 and related cases and ballot measures, and that the Sanitation Districts could have resisted by putting the charges on the ballot, and seeing if 2/3rs of the voters would have “said yes”. If the voters had said “no” the Sanitation Districts could have told Regional Water Quality Control Board to “shove it” and dared them to sue. That would have been a far more principled stance than the Sanitation District’s boards of directors, at all times made up of 2 Santa Clarita City Councilmembers plus Mike Antonivitch, simply brainlessly doing what they were told by County Counsel’s low level lawyers, who simply want to follow the path of least resistance and take huge amounts of money out of the taxpayers pockets, rather than fight RWQCb. A pox on the cowards.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpapers Association’s website reminds all of us who oppose the arrogant boot heel of county bureaucrats that there is also a way for local taxpayers to put an initiative on their ballot (in this case a ballot for the territory of the two Sanitation Districts) to repeal “utility taxes”.
So my friends, the ball is in your court. While various City Council members have comprised 2/3rds of the board of directors of the 2 county sanitation districts for the last 8 years, it’s obvious to me that they have dropped their well publicized opposition to these new fees and taxes and simply rolled over and let the County Counsel try to “structure” fees, assessments and charges which try to look like they don’t violate Propositions 13 and 218.
The practical question is whether there is a competent litigator living in Santa Clarita who wants to go to bat against the County Counsel and challenge these chloride removal facilities charges? It would have to be done on a “contingency fees basis”, but an ultimate win would award the litigator attorneys fees at 150% of his/her regular hourly rate, plus court costs.
As encouragement for preservation of the voters’ mandate under Proposition 13, to see how the taxpayers can defeat the bureaucrats, Justice Chin of the California Supreme Court wrote a very stirring, clear call to arms in a case called SILICON VALLEY TAXPAYERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC. v. SANTA CLARA COUNTY OPEN SPACE AUTHORITY (Supreme Court of California 2008) 44 Cal. 4th 431, where “the people” won a decisive victory against an army of “municipal lawyers”. That case is just one of many applicable to these sneaky, incrementalist sewer fees, assessments and taxes to fund facilities to remove chlorides, a maneuver which if done straightforwardly would violate Propositions 13 and 218 and associated case law.
So, Santa Clarita Bar Association members, are you men or sheep?
Coastal:
I know the case above well and have spoken with the attorney who won it before the Supreme Court. He has reviewed our Open Space measure and says “there is not a dimes worth of difference” between the Santa Clara County engineer’s report and Santa Clarita’s. That being said taking legal action is a whole new ballgame. If you can’t get an attorney willing to wait through the appeals process before getting paid you have to put up the money yourself. In LA county the appeals process is almost assured due to a court that is unfavorable on Prop 218 issues. This one would likely need to go all the way to the Califoirnia Supreme court. It is indeed unconscionable for a city to push an illegal measure through knowing how difficult it is for citizens to take action.
The Santa Clarita Open Space Preservation District stinks to high heavens at so many levels.
I want to applaud you Coastal for your detailed letter about your past experience with this issue. I have great respect for your efforts and the call for a litigator to take this on.
As you might know, Jim Farley and I fought the city fiercely over the Open Space Preservation District assessment that was overwhelmingly voted in by 7-8 large developers and their weighted vote based on their thousands of undeveloped parcels. Never the less, it passed as a clear violation to Prop 218 and was proven to be so basses upon that very case you cited,
SILICON VALLEY TAXPAYERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC. v. SANTA CLARA COUNTY OPEN SPACE AUTHORITY (Supreme Court of California 2008) 44 Cal. 4th 431
Not to mention we fully believed that the expedited timing of our OSPD assessment vote was enacted before this court decision with time for the statute of limitation to expire for a challenge so it would be impossible to mount a legal precedence argument.
We are fully aware of the shenanigans at play and the social/economical impact on all of us here in SCV by the cwqcb.
This is an interesting fight but Allen Cameron said it right during his comments to the council. “We need to know who the enemy is here and learn how to defeat them. He has some great first hand knowledge that can add to the traction we need as to this.
Prop 218 and 13 have been mired down in real policy wonk details over the last few years and it will take an expert to sort the details. I will agree with Jim Farley that this whole thing resembles the above photo.
P.S. John B (NickelDime) I now see, in tiny blue type, that it was you who wrote the mathematical analysis, and Jeff who published it. So John B my hat’s off to you too for doing the math to prove the legal point of “incrementalism” as a means of violating Propositions 13 and 218.
That’s the trouble with getting squashed in an accident and then getting old. That “blue type” on websites is not visible for me.
Are the business’s, office buildings, etc. not part of these calculations? Is it only the condo/apartment and homeowners?