Showing posts with label water use and drought issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label water use and drought issues. Show all posts

July 11, 2014

State Water Resources Control Board Prohibition of Activities and Mandatory Actions During Drought Emergency

The State Water Resources Control Board is putting teeth into its drought restrictions. This will affect Lakewood. Read the regulations or go to the homepage for the State Water Board Drought Year Water Action. Vote to take place July 15, 2014

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA | A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ | click here to receive LAAG posts by email

June 6, 2014

water and trash service rate increase hearing at Lakewood City Council Chambers on June 24, 2014 at 7:30 pm


Just so that everyone is aware there is a water and trash service rate increase hearing at Lakewood City Council Chambers on June 24, 2014 at 7:30 pm. You must object to the rate increase before that time in writing (presumably to the Lakewood city clerk at dhayward@lakewoodcity.org not to our site) which will be much more effective that rambling on at the meeting. (we find that communicating with the City is much more effective if done in writing so that there is a paper trail) In classic Lakewood "non transparency" style no information whatsoever has been posted about this rate increase (on www.lakewoodcity.org) as of this posting (and the city has been planning this since at least March 2014). We made the following public records request to the city this week and we will try (if we get a timely response from Lakewood) to post what we get back (if anything) on this site. We need this information well in advance of 6/22/14 so that we can respond to the proposed increase in writing before the 6/24/14 hearing. Hopefully with the new "bolstering" of the California Constitution and the Public Records Act under the recently passed Proposition 42 (on June 3, 2014) we can expect to see local government entities give a little bit more respect to public records act requests.

Here is what we were seeking in the public records request: 

1. copies of all staff reports or 3rd party reports and all attachments regarding the rate increase and its need and or justifications

2. Any surveys, studies or any other documentation showing water and trash rates in any other cities done at any time in the last two years

3. communications to / from the Edco trash/waste company wherein they justify and or explain the need for a price or rate increase

4. Any proposed amendments to the Lakewood municipal code regarding the rate increase

5. Any forms or rules proposed for protests to the rate increase

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

January 7, 2013

Getting ready to protest the Los Angeles County Clean Water, Clean Beaches Measure on January 15, 2013


LAAG does plan on protesting this "tax" at the Public Hearing on January 15, 2013. There are many questions we have that have not been sufficiently answered. This is clearly a case of "lets get the tax money first and see if we can solve the problem later" type of deal from the county. Amazing. Also doing it as a property owner only type of vote may hurt it more than a popular vote as people that don't own property (but use water) like to vote in indebtedness to those "wealthy landowners". What a mess.

The info below is from Supervisor Knabe's website:

Many county residents have been receiving letters in the mail regarding a Clean Water, Clean Beaches Measure. I am here to tell you that I strongly oppose this Measure, and believe that the way the process is being managed is a sneaky attempt to get it passed. This is a two-step process. What you received is the first step, a Notice of a Public Hearing and Protest Form, which was sent to all residential, business and public parcel owners in Los Angeles County. If you oppose the Measure, please be sure to fill out and mail in the Protest Form that is attached to the Notice. At the Public Hearing on January 15, 2013 if a majority protest of the parcel owners throughout the County has been received, then the item will be rejected. If the protest fails, the Measure is currently scheduled to go to the second step, which could be a mail-in ballot next Spring. The special election mail-in ballot would be sent only to property owners. It is being done this way because polls show that if a ballot measure went to all registered voters, the initiative would be much less likely to pass. While this process is in line with the letter of the law, it is not in the spirit of the law. I see this as an underhanded attempt to pass this initiative and am strongly against this taxpayer rip-off. This Measure is a proposed fee on parcel owners that will generate funding to complete projects that protect public health, and increase drinking water supplies, by cleaning up our rivers, lakes, bays, beaches and coastal waters. I have consistently supported clean water projects throughout the County, and remain committed to improving water quality. However, I believe that every voter in the County should have the opportunity to decide on this fee, through an open and transparent initiative process, which should be putting it before the voters and not in a mailing. The Public Hearing for this Measure is scheduled for Tuesday, January 15, 2013 in the Board of Supervisors Hearing Room. At that time, if there is no majority protest, then I will again push for a Regular Ballot on an election day. I will not support the item if it is a Special Election by mail and only for property owners. If you have any questions on the specifics of the Measure itself, please call (800) 218-0018 or visit www.lacountycleanwater.org.

Lost your notice of public hearing? Download a new copy.

Locate your Assessor ID Number

SURVEY: Will you protest the Clean Water, Clean Beaches Measure?
 
Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

December 11, 2009

Ban on trash in L.A. River

This story below is good news. There was no mention in the story of similar rules applying to the San Gabriel River (where most of Lakewood's storm drains empty to) however we assume similar rules are in force as the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board also has control over the San Gabriel River. See this San Gabriel River report for more detail. This is why we urged Lakewood some years ago to enforce a logical parking ban; so that city wide street sweeping covering all streets weekly would comply with these rules, which will become more difficult over time to comply with without thorough sweeping programs. Next wee need to see storm drains inlets modified (and the catch basins cleaned before storms) to deal with all the trash and other pollutants not collected by the sweeper. Of course the story linked above does not mention which agency is supposed to clean out these catch basins once a week and all during a rain storm so they don't overflow and cause flooding nor is there any mention of the funding mechanism for this after the initial money is spent on installation of these snazzy catch basins. Also we are not keen on delaying this until 2016 but that is the slow pace of local government. I hope federal stimulus money is spent on this and perhaps the work will start sooner that way.

latimes.com/news/local/la-me-trash11-2009dec11,0,6852403.story
latimes.com
Water board moves to enforce ban on trash in L.A. River
Cities along the watershed are required by 2016 to keep all trash out of their storm drains. Those that don't comply will now be in violation of the federal Clean Water Act.

By Bettina Boxall

December 11, 2009

Regional water quality officials on Thursday put some teeth into their long campaign to cleanse the Los Angeles River system of the tons of trash that turn it into a movable landfill after major storms.

Standards previously adopted by the Los Angeles [Regional] Water Quality Control Board give cities along the watershed until 2016 to keep all trash out of their storm drains.

On Thursday, the board incorporated those limits into storm water permits, putting municipalities that don't meet the requirements in violation of the federal Clean Water Act. Until now there had been no penalty for noncompliance.

"It's taken two decades to get to this point," board vice-chair Madelyn Glickfeld said after the 5-0 vote. "If we hadn't done this today, it would have been a signal" to cities "to relax, guys."

During storms, tons of trash and plastic debris wash up in municipal drains that empty into the Los Angeles River and its tributaries. The trash floating at the river's mouth in Long Beach can be so thick that it is hard to see any water. In the unusually wet winter of 2005, Long Beach hauled more than 12,000 tons of garbage out of the river.

Much of the trash winds up in the Pacific Ocean, contributing to huge floating garbage patches. Pieces of plastic can wrap around wildlife and kill birds and fish.

Trash was formally identified as a pollution problem in the river in 1996. Five years later, the regional water board adopted standards. But 22 cities sued to overturn the trash limits, saying they would be expensive and difficult to meet.

The courts found the board had not performed an adequate environmental impact analysis of the new rules, but otherwise upheld them.

After conducting an environmental review, the board readopted the trash standards in 2007.

In the meantime, some cities in the watershed, including Los Angeles, started installing screens and collection systems to keep street debris from washing into sewers. Sixteen cities in the watershed recently received $10 million in federal stimulus money to outfit their catch basins.

Local officials pointed to progress Thursday. "We have taken trash reduction seriously," said Signal Hill Councilman Larry Forester.

Another official showed the board photographs he took after Monday's storm. Parts of the river that have been coated with trash in the past were largely clean.

Local representatives argued that it wasn't necessary to write a target of zero trash discharges into the storm permits, and that doing so would set a burdensome precedent for other pollutants.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

July 18, 2009

Water costs to increase 109% in Lakewood

Just as LAAG was getting ready to write an article on what a poor job cities like Lakewood are doing on water conservation and recycling (other than lip service), this story below pops up and grabbed our attention. Bottom line: water fees are going up 109% due to spending on pork projects that do not appear to be directly related to water delivery to residents in Lakewood. Whatever happened to all the federal stimulus money? Again this is yet another sad example of how government agencies (especially little known, little watched ones like the Central Basin Municipal Water District) just do not care what the taxpayers think about spending. They know that most of what they do is carried out in utter obscurity and hidden from ratepayers, and unless things really get out of hand, most increases are gradual, slow or hidden in "obscure fees" and unnoticed by most ratepayers (like the frog in the boiling water; turn up the heat (or costs) slow and he wont jump out before he cooks).

Charges for water need to be based more on rational formulas than simply raw usage. Charge based on lot size and number of occupants. Once they go above the allotted threshold fees go way up. Then perhaps we would see all those silly lawns in Lakewood replaced with drought resistant plants. People in LA county fail to realize that we live in a desert and its going to get worse before it gets better. We are now in year round drought mode. Rain in LA country means very little as the vast majority of it just goes out to the ocean (after it picks up a bunch of toxic chemicals after coursing over miles of driveways, streets, gutters and storm water drains. Some non run off waste water is treated then released to the ocean. Only a very small percentage of water in LA County is reclaimed and used to water lawns. Not only is this a waste of money and energy but also something that is even more precious: water.

Of course the irony here (as usual) is that this "fee" increase has nothing to do with the scarcity or usage of water (or even the cost of water) but rather poor judgment by bureaucrats and pet projects of dubious value. Still this cost increase may have the "beneficial" effect of making people cut back on water use and starting to be come more rational in terms of their landscaping choices.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-water-rates18-2009jul18,0,756615.story
From the Los Angeles Times
Doubling of water fees in largely blue-collar L.A. County area stirs uproar
The Central Basin Municipal Water District says the money will go to projects that are cheaper to build during a recession. But client cities and agencies question the expenditures.
By Louis Sahagun

[bold text from LAAG editor]

July 18, 2009

A water district's decision to double water fees has sparked outcry from largely working-class and impoverished areas of Los Angeles County.

The Central Basin Municipal Water District unanimously approved the charges June 25, despite objections from cities including Compton, Lynwood, Santa Fe Springs, Huntington Park, Bellflower, Norwalk and Lakewood.

The fee hikes will be phased in, from $44 per acre-foot of water to $62 per acre-foot on July 1, then to $72 per acre-foot on Jan. 1, 2010, and $92 on July 1, 2010.

An average household in Lakewood, for example, can expect to pay about $88 more a year on water services, officials said.

Officials in Norwalk, which buys 80% of its water from the district, say the city's water fund cannot support the increase without passing the cost on to customers.

"This issue is not dead yet," said Adriana Figueroa, administrative services manager for Norwalk. "We have lots of questions and we want answers -- we deserve them."

Cities and local water agencies have begun questioning the board's spending on projects, including a 12-mile-long pipeline for recycled water, and contributions it made toward building an "interpretive center" in the Whittier Narrows wildlife sanctuary.

Art Aguilar, district manager for the central board, sympathized with customers, but insisted that "the money we get will be spent wisely" on projects that he said are more efficient to build during a recession, when costs have fallen.

"I do not disagree with their anger and being upset," Aguilar said. "If we didn't have to do it right now we wouldn't. . . . It's just one of those things. We have a bad economy, which means that the cost of building the recycled-water pipeline will be less than it would in a strong economy. So we'll save money in the long run." The pipeline project "was initially projected to cost about a total $110 million," he said. "We believe it will come in at less than that."

But Jeanne-Marie Bruno, general manager of Downey-based Park Water Co., a district customer that serves portions of Compton, Norwalk and Artesia, was not convinced that her customers would benefit directly from that project.

"We have lots of questions," she said. "Does this project make sense for our region? Are the right customers being billed for this project?"

Robb Whitaker, general manager of the Water Replenishment District of Southern California, argued that this was not the time to raise fees. The agency manages groundwater for nearly 4 million residents of southern Los Angeles County, according to its website.

"In the worst of times," he said in a letter to Aguilar, "when our respective public and private customers are laying off employees and implementing mandatory furloughs and generally slashing their budgets, such an increase is unimaginable."

Some environmentalists took issue with the district's donation of $80,000 last year in support of a controversial proposal to build a $30-million interpretive center and parking lot in the Whittier Narrows wildlife sanctuary.

Aguilar said the district wants to use the proposed center for new student programs designed to enhance understanding of the San Gabriel River watershed and its water districts. He pointed out that as part of an effort to cut costs, the district did not donate money this year to the San Gabriel River Discovery Center.

Jim Odling, chairman of the Friends of the Whittier Narrows Natural Area, which opposes the center, said the environmental impact report on the project "indicates the real purpose of the center will be to serve as a fancy meeting place for water and government agencies."

"In other words," he said, "while the district claims to be so desperate for money it is raising surcharge fees, it managed to come up with $80,000 to help build an interpretive center nine times bigger than the one that exists there now."

The Commerce-based district supplies water to 2 million residents in 24 cities and unincorporated county areas. Each year, it provides about 60,000 acre-feet of imported water to its 227-square-mile service area.

The district "is doing everything it can to provide information," Aguilar said. "If we need to sit down and have more meetings and outreach, we will do that too." (LAAG editor: yes we can have the meeting at the new interpretive center!)

"I understand that a 109% increase sounds horrible to people," he added. "But in the long run it will allow us to put together projects that will allow us to serve them better in the future."

louis.sahagun@latimes.com


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email