ratepayers Archives

Posts

Fresh Turmoil At Ventura WaterPure: What Are The Alternative Solutions for Wastewater Treatment?

March 14, 2024/in Newsletters/by VREG Editors

The evidence continues to mount, proving a problem exists with Ventura Water, the Water Commission and VenturaWaterPure. At what point will the City Council stop ignoring the facts and confront the truth about VenturaWaterPure?

Looking The Other Way In The Past

A committee of concerned citizens went to each Councilmember in 2018 to show them Direct Potable Reuse (DPR)—the method of purification Ventura Water was pursuing at the time— was not approved and not yet deemed safe. When the Council presented that fact to Ventura Water, they changed course slightly to Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR). Still they didn’t drop VenturaWaterPure or challenge their assumptions.

The Carollo Report in 2019 presented several options to Ventura to VenturaWaterPure, many of which were less expensive. Ventura Water convinced the City Council to ignore the report’s options and choose VenturaWaterPure.

A September 12, 2019 report titled Ventura Water Supply Projects and Alternatives, commissioned by Ventura Water (Appendix E starting on pg. 405), shows estimated project costs of another $320 Million plus the annual operating expenses of $29.Million for VenturaWaterPure. Yet, the Carollo Report presented options costing a mere $50 Million for the project and operating costs of only $3.9 Million. The City Council overlooked the significant cost differential and stayed with Ventura Water’s proposed VenturaWaterPure.

The Most Recent Evidence

More damning evidence surfaced this month when Water Commissioner George Amandola resigned from the commission. Mr. Amandola explained why he left, citing various problems he saw within Ventura Water, the Water Commission, and the City Council.

His letter read:

Dear Members of the Ventura City Council,

It is with a heavy heart yet a resolute determination that I tender my resignation from the Ventura Water Commission, effective immediately.

This decision has not been arrived at lightly but has been necessitated by deep-seated concerns regarding the trajectory and management of VenturaWaterPure, as well as broader issues plaguing the Water Department organization.

Throughout my time serving on the commission, I have been disheartened to observe a troubling trend of bureaucratic maneuvering, particularly concerning the handling of commission agendas, council disclosures, and public disclosures. There have been numerous instances where last-minute adjustments to agenda items were required by Commission vote to counteract staff attempts at manipulating certain voting items. These occurrences have unfortunately become all too frequent, significantly hindering our ability to address important matters effectively and fulfill our responsibilities with diligence.

Additionally, the consistent scheduling of VenturaWaterPure and CIP discussions on the Council agenda late at night, often after 10pm or 11pm, does not foster transparency with the Ventura community at large. This timing undermines public engagement and limits the opportunity for meaningful community involvement in these crucial discussions.\Furthermore, the persistent absence of timely reporting and clear and comprehensive details within project management items, budget, and supplemental packages preceding meetings has significantly hampered commissioners’ ability to make well-informed decisions. Equally distressing is the subsequent lack of follow-up from staff regarding unresolved matters raised during meetings, exacerbating an atmosphere of opacity and impeding our ability to fulfill our duties diligently.

Moreover, the disregard and blatant dismissal of certain presentation format requests I have made for the Capital Improvement Plan by the general manager is deeply concerning.

My lack of confidence in the project management and financial planning for VenturaWaterPure stems from a myriad of disconcerting factors. Repeated oversights, escalating costs, a glaring lack of transparency from management, and an apparent reluctance to substantiate assumptions and alternatives with tangible evidence have all contributed to a palpable deficit in comprehensive planning and oversight. These shortcomings cast serious doubts on the initiative’s viability and fiscal prudence.

Additionally, I have observed a concerning confirmation bias within both staff and the City Attorney’s office, evident in their unwavering support for VenturaWaterPure despite valid concerns raised. Despite viable technical and financial avenues available to alleviate the burden on ratepayers, the City Attorney’s office has regrettably failed to challenge the Consent Decree through the “meet and confer” process, exacerbating an already precarious situation.

Furthermore, management’s subjective decisioning to take Foster Park Assets offline in preceding years raises significant red flags, hinting at a deliberate attempt to bolster the narrative of VenturaWaterPure’s indispensability. Such manipulative tactics only serve to deepen my skepticism regarding the integrity and motivations underpinning the initiative.

Of particular concern is the potential economic hardship VenturaWaterPure may impose on residents, especially those in District 1 and other vulnerable communities. The absence of a comprehensive economic study examining the ramifications of existing rate increases coupled with the inevitable VenturaWaterPure rate hikes underscores the urgent need for informed decision-making to mitigate adverse impacts on residents.

Moreover, the limitations imposed on the authority of the Water Commission, particularly its quasi-judicial capacity, are glaring omissions from the municipal code, rendering the commission toothless in effecting meaningful change. Staff’s adeptness at circumventing and manipulating the commission’s role, particularly in controlling information flow between the commission and the City Council, is deeply troubling and undermines the commission’s purpose and effectiveness.

Additionally, the lack of balance in the commission’s composition, as outlined in the municipal code, further compounds concerns. While intended to feature a mix of professionals and non-professionals, the current makeup deviates from this mandate. The presence of Commissioner Armbrister in a non-professional seat despite her professional background in water management raises legitimate questions about the commission’s legitimacy and adherence to residency requirements.

In light of these systemic concerns, urgent and comprehensive reform within the Ventura Water Commission is imperative to restore transparency, accountability, and effective governance. Without decisive action, the community’s best interests will continue to be sidelined, compromising the commission’s effectiveness.

While resigning from my position weighs heavily on me, I refuse to remain complicit in a system that obstructs meaningful change and neglects the welfare of the community. I trust that my resignation will serve as a catalyst for substantive reform and renewed commitment to transparency, accountability, and equitable access to essential services within Ventura Water.

I am profoundly thankful for the opportunity to have contributed to the Ventura Water Commission and treasure the invaluable experiences and insights gained during my tenure. I hold steadfast hope that the Council will heed the compelling reasons outlined in this resignation letter and take decisive action to enact essential reforms within the commission, its municipal code, and the leadership of the Water Department. By doing so, we can safeguard the future well-being of the Ventura community.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

George

George Amandola

Resident City of Sanbuenaventura (sic)- Council District 2

Key Points In The Letter

Mr. Amandola’s resignation letter highlights a stultified, bureaucratic, autocratic Ventura Water Department. It presents his lack of confidence in the project management and financial planning for VenturaWaterPure. It also demonstrates how Ventura Water has neutered the Water Commission and prevented it from doing its duty.

These are not frivolous accusations made by an outsider. These are observations made by an insider capable of seeing the entire landscape of what’s happening with VenturaWaterPure.

Editors’ Notes

Evidence of misrepresentation, mistakes and mismanagement surrounding VenturaWaterPure grows. Meanwhile, the project’s costs mount. Today, that costs half a billion dollars, but it’s reasonable to believe the costs will go even higher. With no ceiling on cost increases, Ventura Water ratepayers bear the burden. Soon, the cost of water will triple to pay for the project.

What more evidence does the City Council need to finally admit that there is a problem with the Water Department and the Water Commission spending $500,000,000 on a project that Ventura Water can do for hundreds of millions less? How long will the city hide its head in the sand before taking serious action?

City staff often use the Consent Decree as an obstacle in addressing Ventura’s water problems. This Decree really addresses two issues, and they must be handled separately. Part one is cleaning up the wastewater in the estuary. Extracting the wastewater from the estuary is being accomplished.

Part two is developing a practical use for extracted water. Ventura Water calls the recycled use of the extracted water Ventura WaterPure. Ventura Water mistakenly believes Ventura WaterPure must be a stand-alone facility built within the Consent Decree timeline. The Consent Decree requires neither.

The Consent Decree allows Ventura to extend the timeline under certain conditions. The first is financial feasibility. If Ventura Water can demonstrate that Ventura WaterPure is financially infeasible, the courts can extend the timeline. Additionally, Ventura can prove its sincere effort to comply with the Consent Decree. In that case, the court may extend the deadline if it deems the efforts reasonable and justified.

Another false belief is that Ventura must have a separate, stand-alone facility to treat the extracted water. Oxnard has an underutilized recycling facility that Ventura Water could use to treat the extracted water. However, Ventura Water has refused to consider this option seriously until now.

The City of Ventura must reconsider all options, including treating the wastewater in Oxnard. City officials must formally scrutinize the Oxnard option to be a fair comparison. The city must issue an up-to-date formal Request for Proposal (RFP) to the City of Oxnard and United Water. Oxnard’s and United’s responses must come directly from them (not via a Ventura Water Department Consultant) and be on their letterhead. Ventura WaterPure can no longer have an open-ended budget. It must have a cashflow projection that includes timelines, operating, maintenance and taxpayer fee schedules.

Demand Your City Councilmember Does The Following:

1) Get a new Request for Proposal (RFP) from the City of Oxnard and United Water.
2) Have Ventura Water produce a cash flow projection analysis.
3) Install a new Water Commission, that has the authority to manage this process and make decisions that are in the rate payer’s best interest.

Below you’ll find the photos of our current City Council. Click on any Councilmember’s photo and you’re email program will ready to write directly to that Councilmember.

Let them know what you’re thinking. Tell them what they’re doing right and what they could improve upon. No matter what you write, however, share your opinion. Participating in government makes things better because our city government is working for all of us.

For more information like this, subscribe to our newsletter, Res Publica. Click here to enter your name and email address.

From Crystal Clear to Money Pit: Unveiling the Truth Behind VenturaWaterPure

January 30, 2024/in Newsletters/by VREG Editors

The current Ventura City Council could reverse twelve years of poor financial decisions by Ventura Water based on faulty assumptions. Prior City Councils have been misled and pressured into believing VenturaWaterPure is the only solution to Ventura’s water problem. That is not true now, nor has it ever been confirmed. There are several solutions the city could pursue. Yet Ventura Water pushed the project with the zeal of religious fanatics to the point where VenturaWaterPure has become dogma at City Hall. Today, the City Council has more information to make a more informed evaluation of VenturaWaterPure. We urge them to use all the information before committing ratepayers to spend more than half a billion dollars.

How The Narrative Began Based On Faulty Assumptions

In 2012, a false narrative about water in Ventura began because of a Consent Decree the city agreed to with environmental groups. Wishtoya, Heal the Bay and other groups sued the city for discharging treated sewage into the Santa Clara River. The Consent Decree required the discharge to go somewhere else. So, city officials built a narrative like this, “Ventura must comply with the Consent Decree; therefore, we can use the treated discharge as another source of water for citizens at a reasonable cost.” The narrative sounded so compelling that one Councilmember said, “If the astronauts can drink it [recycled wastewater], then so can we.” And so, the project known as VenturaWaterPure began, and the narrative became dogma at City Hall. No one at City Hall questioned the false narrative, even though Ventura Water built it on two faulty assumptions that would later prove incorrect.

First Faulty Assumption: It’s Safe To Drink

The only fact in the false narrative is that Ventura must comply with the Consent Decree by 2025. The other parts about recycling wastewater into potable water at a reasonable cost are conjecture. New technological and financial information challenges the dogma. The current City Council should weigh the latest information to reevaluate VenturaWaterPure.

Ventura Water’s first faulty assumption was debunked in 2016 by an expert panel appointed by the State Legislature. The panel concluded that even after treatment the water was unsafe for human consumption because microscopic contaminants and chemicals pose a danger to humans. The Ventura City Council didn’t learn of the 2016 report until March 2019.

A group of concerned citizens brought this information to the city officials, and the 2019 City Council took action to change VenturaWaterPure’s direction. VenturaWaterPure planned to use a process known as direct potable reuse, or DPR, to deliver water to residents. Yet, the City Council forced them to change plans. Ventura Water falsely assumed it could use the treated discharge as potable water.

When the council learned the news from the concerned citizens, they directed Ventura Water to change course on DPR and go to a process known as IPR, or indirect potable reuse, where the treated water is injected back into the aquifer before being extracted and delivered to customers.

How the Ventura Water general manager and its staff did not know about the 2016 expert panel’s report or why they did not tell the City Council that DPR was unsafe for three years remains a mystery. Yet, during those three years, Ventura Water extracted higher water rates from residents and continued to spend the money for VenturaWaterPure.

Second Faulty Assumption: The Project’s Costs Are Reasonable

It was apparent in 2019 that there were flaws in Ventura Water’s narrative about VenturaWaterPure. Yet, City Hall and Ventura Water continued to follow the dogma unquestioningly. That is until another flaw surfaced. The faulty assumption that Ventura Water could implement VenturaWaterPure at a reasonable cost began to unravel.

Ventura Water hired Carollo Consulting in 2019 to estimate costs for several options to handle the treated wastewater, including VenturaWaterPure. The Carollo report projected VenturaWaterPure’s costs to be $277 million (page 415, Table A-7). In January 2024, the City Council learned of the enormous, additional expense VenturaWaterPure will cost citizens. The cost is over $556 million; $279 million more than the Carollo estimate from five years ago—more than double. There are excuses for the cost overruns, of course. Ventura Water blames inflation and COVID-19 as reasons no one could have predicted. Yet, faced with these higher costs, Ventura Water offers no alternatives to contain costs or provide reliable alternatives. They are wrong not to do so. No one at Ventura Water dares to challenge the VenturaWaterPure dogma. Instead, they place the decision at the feet of the City Council to demand alternatives.

Time To Make A Change

It’s up to the 2024 City Council to meet their fiduciary duty to Ventura’s citizens. This council has more information about costs and technologies than any previous council. Now is the time to examine all reliable alternatives before continuing with VenturaWaterPure. Past actions by City Councils are no longer relevant to any decisions this City Council takes because technological circumstances and costs have changed to achieve VenturaWaterPure’s goals.

Ventura Water commissioned the Carollo Report four years ago to provide options to resolve the Consent Decree. The report identified the under-utilized Advanced Purification Facility in Oxnard as a potential solution to reduce duplication of processing plants and reduce costs. At the time, the Oxnard option was 60%-80% less expensive than building VenturaWaterPure.

City staff and Ventura Water rejected the recommendations outright because Ventura Water wanted to keep “control” of the water and did not trust partnerships with Oxnard or United Water. So, Ventura Water convinced prior City Councils that control and trust were worth the extra $200 million it would cost to “go it alone.” We now know that Ventura Water’s projection has ballooned to $556 million.

Hold Ventura Water Accountable

Prior City Councils have periodically asked Ventura Water to revisit lower cost alternatives. According to Ventura Water Department General Manager Gina Dorrington, “The city staff met with United [Water] and Oxnard [Water] staff several times during the development of the EIR [Environment Impact Report] and again in 2020. We also met with the Oxnard staff in November 2023.”

Meeting with Ventura Water’s counterparts is an ambiguous term. What does it mean exactly? Were new quotes or figures discussed? Was there anything that would resemble a Request for Proposal (RFP)?

So, we asked the Wastewater Division Manager at the Oxnard Water plant. He said there were conversations in November, but they have yet to discuss figures or anything that someone would construe as an RFP.

Words like “met,” or “talked,” or “contacted them” are not formal negotiations or even a reasonable faith effort to negotiate. At the least, Ventura Water misrepresented the exchange in November. At worst, it appears that Ventura Water has no intention to change the dogma surrounding VenturaWaterPure because prior City Councils have given them an unlimited budget and blank check.

It’s time for Ventura Water to stop this behavior; only the City Council can make that happen. If Ventura Water is so confident in the cost analysis presented, why wouldn’t they agree to have a full-scale RFP update from Oxnard Water and United Water? Instead, Ventura Water continues to rely on faulty estimates from Ventura’s internal consultants. For the sake of all ratepayers for this ballooning multimillion-dollar project, why not get outside, independent estimates of the costs? Aren’t we owed that? The answer is yes.

Editors’ Notes

It’s time for the 2024 Ventura City Council to meet its fiduciary duty. It’s time to break the dogma surrounding VenturaWaterPure. The council must force Ventura Water to provide reliable alternatives to VenturaWaterPure. We now know the “cost to go it alone” exceeds the $200 million Ventura Water projected in 2019. Collaborating with other water agencies may be less costly, as the Carollo Report indicated. If Ventura partners with other agencies, demand documented costs for those alternatives. Please do not rely on the estimates and projections of Ventura Water or its consultants.

Tell The City Council To Do Their Fiduciary Duty

Below you’ll find the photos of our current City Council. Click on any Councilmember’s photo and you’re email program will ready to write directly to that Councilmember.

For more information like this, subscribe to our newsletter, Res Publica. Click here to enter your name and email address.

Proposition 218 Is The Fastest Way To Raise Money, But Is It Right?

December 19, 2018/in Newsletters/by VREG Editors

“I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you’ve earned, but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.”

—Thomas Jefferson

Ventura Water will push the boundaries of the law as it tries to use Proposition 218 to raise money to meet the Wishtoya Foundation Consent Decree.

In the next 12 months, Ventura Water will ask the City Council to increase water rates for 30 wastewater projects and 28 water projects by 2024. These costly projects will benefit some property owners. Other projects will help the community at large.

As of June 30, 2018, Ventura Water accumulated $115,000,000 for projects they planned to build between 2012-2018. Still, they need $449,586,000 more before 2024. How did we commit to spending almost $450 million, and why weren’t you asked to vote on it?

WHAT WILL THIS COST YOU?

These new rate increases will come on top of the increases imposed over the last six years. In 2012, Ventura Water wanted to increase rates to:

Replacing aging pipelines and facilities
Building projects to improve water quality
Constructing new groundwater wells

In 2012 the average homeowner and family of 4, received a bi-monthly bill of $73.27 and sewer charges of $72.45 for a total of $145.72. That same family is paying $105.03 for water in 2018. Add sewer charges of $104.64 and their total bill is $209.67. This is a 43% increase over the 2012 rates.

From 2018-2024, expect a similar rate of growth. Your new water bill may look like this:

HOW DID WE GET INTO THIS SITUATION?

In March 2012, the Ventura City Council signed a Consent Decree that requires Ventura Water to stop putting 100% of its treated wastewater into the Santa Clara River estuary by January 2025. The decree stems from a Federal complaint filed by Wishtoya Foundation. Former City Manager, Rick Cole and Ventura Water General Manager, Shana Epstein, signed the consent decree on behalf of the city. The city no longer employs either of them.

Keep in mind that voters had no voice in the City Council consenting to the decree in 2012. Now, Ventura Water wants to deny voters the chance to say how we spend the money to meet the order, too. It plans to use Proposition 218 to get those funds.

HOW AND WHY CAN VENTURA INCREASE MY RATES?

So how can Ventura Water impose such large fees against its citizens without the traditional right to vote on such matters? The answer lies in how Ventura implements Proposition 218. Approved by the voters in 1996, Proposition 218 allows Ventura to raise money in one of three ways:

General taxes. Those taxes used for general governmental purposes. Prop 218 requires the traditional voting procedure, notice, a ballot and an election measure. 51% of the voters must approve it. Ventura’s Measure O sales tax was one such example.
Special Taxes. Any tax imposed for specific purposes and placed in a general fund. A Special Tax requires a 2/3 (66.67%) majority vote. The City sought this type of tax in 2009. It was Measure A on the ballot. It was a 1/2 cent sales tax for public safety and other specific projects. Monies would have been placed in the city’s General Fund. It failed.
Special Assessments, Fees and Charges. Fees or charges means an assessment imposed as an incident of owning property which receives a unique benefit. The city can only impose such fees by affirmative voter approval. The exception being that prior voter approval is not required for “any assessment imposed exclusively to finance capital costs or maintenance and operation expenses for sidewalks, streets, sewers, water…”

VENTURA WATER TURNS A NON-VOTE INTO A YES VOTE

Ventura wants to use option C, Special Assessments, Fees and Charges to impose higher water rates.

Here’s how they’ll do it. Instead of putting it on the ballot, Ventura Water sends a water bill. Somewhere in the body of that bill, it tells you why the rate increase is necessary. You may dispute the rate increase by voting “NO” within 45 days, but the process is cumbersome. To disagree, you must download a protest form, complete and mail it or take it to City Hall by a specific date. Fail to jump over those hurdles and the City doesn’t care what you think or want. If 51% of the ratepayers have not voted ‘NO,’ that is the end of the matter. There are 32,000 ratepayers. Sixteen thousand one must vote NO to defeat an increase.

Proposition 218, now Article XIII C and D of the California Constitution, made the following findings:

“The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that Proposition 13 was intended to provide effective tax relief and to require voter approval of tax increases. However, local governments have subjected taxpayers to excessive tax, assessment, fee and charge increases that not only frustrate the purposes of voter approval for tax increases but also threaten the economic security of all Californians…This measure protects taxpayers by limiting the methods by which local governments exact revenue from taxpayers without their consent.”

When the City sought the last rate increase they took the position that they had the right to raise the rates without prior voter approval. They believed the procedures they followed were consistent with Prop 218 language, as interpreted by the California Supreme Court. They maintain that they “may raise other fees or impose new fees without prior voter approval” for anything they chose to label a water or wastewater project.

But it doesn’t end with this interpretation alone. A California Supreme Court challenge goes further.

TESTED IN THE COURTS

The California Supreme Court in Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Verjil (2006)39 Cal.4th 205, at page 205, addressed the question of whether voters had the right to put an initiative on the ballot to reduce water rates. The court ruled in favor of the water agency and interpreted Prop 218’s language to mean a city “may raise other fees or impose new fees without prior voter approval.” The Court’s decision was specific. It didn’t involve the question of whether imposing fees to deal with a Consent Decree are valid.

Notwithstanding the protective measures of Prop 218, the City of Ventura conveniently interprets Prop 218 to still impose fees and charges beyond the simple costs of service to the homeowner. However, the court never went that far.

The City of Ventura’s interpretation of Proposition 218 is overreaching when it comes to any matter about water, wastewater and related environmental projects.

That decision by the Supreme Court only involved the issue of water delivery through a pipeline and whether voters could use an initiative process to require prior voter approval for the costs of that delivery. It did not involve a question of whether fees imposed to deal with a $500 million water and wastewater projects together with environmental costs, expert studies, attorneys fees and a plethora of expenses arising out of a ConsentDecree decided by a City Council in 2012, and in which the voters had no voice.

What if the costs are not exclusively operational costs? What if the expenditures benefit the entire community, not just ratepayers? Does Proposition 218 apply in those circumstances? Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Verjil does not answer these questions.

No Precedent For What They Plan To Do

In determining whether to seek prior voter approval, we hope that the new City Council will keep in mind the following the language from the Supreme Court in Bighorn case:

“…the agency’s governing board may … raise fees or impose other fees and new fees without prior voter approval. Although this power-sharing arrangement has the potential for conflict, we must presume that both sides will act reasonably and in good faith, and that the political process will eventually lead to compromises that are mutually acceptable and both financially and legally sound.” (Emphasis added).

THE CITY MAY FACE A SERIOUS LEGAL CHALLENGE

If the City is considering rate increase of this magnitude without prior voter approval they should be mindful of the language in Prop 218. It provides that “in any legal action contesting the validity of an assessment, the burden is on the agency (Ventura Water) to demonstrate that the …properties in question receive a special benefit over the benefits conferred on the public at large…”

Complying with the Consent Decree by not putting wastewater into the Santa Clara River benefits all citizens, not just ratepayers.

Editor’s Comments

Ventura Water is proposing a mix of costly projects. Some will benefit property owners, and some will help the community at large. Building a pipeline and related infrastructure to import state water at the cost of $50 million benefits all property owners. Ratepayers generally accept this. Spending beyond that to build projects to satisfy a federal judgment on the Santa Clara Estuary to protect the ecology of the estuary is a problem.

Proposition 218 may not cover projects to meet a federal judgment on the Santa Clara Estuary to protect the ecology. We recommend a vote of the citizens in that instance.

Warn The City Council Of Ventura Water’s Potential Error

Below you’ll find the photos of our current City Council. Click on any Councilmember’s photo and you’ll open your email program ready to write directly to that Councilmember.

Let then know that Venturans must vote on a water rate increase to pay for the consent decree. Not participating in government makes us worse because our city government isn’t working for all of us.