Top officials at the East Bay Municipal Utility District say their drought plan must slash total water usage by 15 percent to avoid a true emergency. But so far, the district has fallen far short of that goal. As of last week, district customers had cut water use by only 4.5 percent since the agency announced in May that its supplies had dropped to dangerously low levels. And it may not get much better, particularly when homeowners find out that the district’s plan penalizes water conservationists and favors water guzzlers.
Under EBMUD’s mandatory water rationing proposal, which goes to the agency’s board of directors for a vote on July 8, East Bay homeowners must cut their water usage by 10 percent or they will have to pay a premium. However, unlike during the last drought, homeowners will be judged based on their past water consumption. As a result, it could be tough for those who already take short showers, have bought water-saving appliances, and planted drought-resistant gardens. By contrast, the agency’s plan should be easy for the East Bay’s biggest water users, who can still keep their lawns green, their sidewalks clean, and their swimming pools full without fear of paying a penalty.
For example, homeowners who currently use 750 gallons of water a day, which ranks them among the East Bay’s heaviest water users, only have to cut down to 675 gallons daily to avoid a drought surcharge under the agency’s plan. By contrast, homeowners who already practice conservation and use just 170 gallons a day, which ranks among the lightest water users, must somehow find a way to drop to 153 gallons or they will pay a penalty.
Andy Katz, an EBMUD board member who represents Albany, Berkeley, El Cerrito, Emeryville, Kensington, and North Oakland — areas that traditionally don’t use much water — believes the plan is unfair. “We have a lot of waste in this district and people who waste the most should pay the highest price,” he said.
In summertime, 20 percent of the single-family homes in EBMUD’s district use at least 750 gallons of water a day, according to Gary Breaux, the agency’s director of finance. “A lot of those are on the east of the hills side,” explained Breaux, referring to west, mid, and south Contra Costa County. “It’s hotter out there, and you have larger lots.”
The agency’s district runs from Pinole south through Berkeley and Oakland to Castro Valley, and east to Walnut Creek, Danville, and Blackhawk. Single-family homes represent 45 percent of the agency’s customers. Condos and apartments make up 18 percent, and the rest are businesses and other public agencies.
Despite his complaints about the plan, which primarily affects homeowners and which is to take effect August 1, Katz appears ready to vote for it. He said it’s too late to change it and have it in place for the summer. The reason has to do with a state law that requires public agencies to inform the public well in advance of plans to increase rates or fees. If EBMUD were to revise its drought fee proposal now, it would not be able to implement the new plan until September.
Katz also noted that under the plan, homeowners can request an adjustment to their water allotment if they can show that they’re already conserving as best as they can. In addition, the plan does not affect homeowners who use fewer than 100 gallons a day. However, according to Breaux, only 18 percent of the single family homes in the district fall into that category during the summer.
So why is EBMUD pushing a plan that goes easy on water wasters but tough on people already conserving? After all, during the last drought, in 1990 and 1991, the agency didn’t use past consumption as a criterion for penalties. Instead, it simply slapped guzzlers with stiff surcharges for using too much water. The more water that flowed out of their faucets and hoses, the tougher the penalties. The plan worked, too. According to news reports, water usage plummeted 30 percent when it was in effect.
But EBMUD board member John Coleman, who represents Alamo, Blackhawk, Danville, Diablo, Lafayette, and portions of Pleasant Hill, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek, said the old drought plan caused unforeseen problems. Many residents were so angry about the stiff penalties that they simply refused to pay their bills, putting financial pressure on a public utility that desperately needs funds, especially at a time when it is selling less water. “Basically, they fund the district,” Coleman said of the heavy water users. “If they don’t pay their bills, it can cause a financial hardship for the district.”
At the moment, EBMUD has limited options for going after water-bill scofflaws. For example, it doesn’t have the legal right to place financial liens on delinquent property owners, although Assemblywoman Loni Hancock is sponsoring a bill that would change that. However, the agency does have some powerful weapons in its arsenal. For example, it could install water-flow restrictors on the homes that waste the most water, or it could shut off the water completely when homeowners refuse to pay their bills.
However, under the district’s current leadership, the agency is reluctant to go after its biggest and wealthiest customers. Katz said a proposal to levy stiff fines for heavy water use backed with threats of water shut-offs likely would not get enough votes, especially from board members who represent suburban and upscale residents. Coleman, for example, has been on the board for eighteen years and he voted against the old plan back in 1991.
Nonetheless, Katz said that in the coming months he plans to push for a new drought plan that’s more equitable for residents living on the west side of the hills. However, the likelihood of such a plan winning enough votes now seems remote. Perhaps the best we can hope for is that the drought ends this summer, because the current plan doesn’t look like it’s going to work.
Cash Stash, Redux
So why is the Oakland public school district still sitting on a huge reserve at a time when education budgets are being slashed across the state and teachers are going without basic supplies? According to a school board presentation last week by district CFO Leon Glaster, the district has a $21.1 million reserve in its unrestricted general fund – about $11.7 million more than state law requires. “That’s a lot of money,” remarked board President David Kakishiba.
Last fall, Full Disclosure reported that the district was sitting atop a $44 million surplus in five accounts, including $17.2 million in the unrestricted general fund (see “Oakland Schools Cash Stash,” 9/19/07). The reason was that former state Administrator Kim Statham had failed to spend all of the district’s state and federal allotments in 2006-07. The good news is that under new state Administrator Vince Matthews, the district managed to spend most of that surplus on educating students this past school year. But why is the state administration still hording so much in the district’s general fund, which is primarily used to pay teacher salaries and benefits?
Glaster didn’t have a good explanation last week for the extra $11.7 million. He told the board that he had set aside $3 million in case the state Controller’s Office decides to penalize the district for possible improper accounting practices while it’s been under the control of the state Department of Education. Plus, he said he decided to set aside another $2.5 million for future enrollment declines, even though other districts don’t commonly do that. The rest, he said, was “unappropriated.”
In the next breath, Glaster complained that the district stands to receive $40 million less state money this fall than it did last year, mostly in its restricted fund, which is used primarily to educate kids from low economic backgrounds. But even with this bad news, he projected that the district surplus in its unrestricted fund would grow to $22.2 million by July 2009 and then balloon to $35.3 million by 2011.
Kakishiba argued that the district should use some of the surplus to pay off a portion of its long-term debt. The district still owes the state about $84 million from the $100 million loan it got in 2003 — although about $30 million of that original loan is still sitting in a bank account earning nearly 4 percent interest. Glaster said Kakishiba had made a good point, but the person who has the power to make the decision to lessen the debt — Matthews — sat silent throughout the budget presentation.
Outside the board meeting, Kakishiba told Full Disclosure that Matthews and state Superintendent Jack O’Connell are refusing his requests to allow the district to use the surplus to pay down its state debt, return the $30 million it never spent, or even refinance it. And they won’t say why. Matthews’ spokesman Troy Flint said the state administrator would not consider Kakishiba’s request until it was made formally by the board.
Is the Belgian Connection Over?
AC Transit’s board of directors finally came to its senses last week and turned down a request by agency General Manager Rick Fernandez to buy more of the controversial Van Hool buses. It marked the first time that a majority of the board had turned down a Fernandez request to buy the Belgian-made buses since the agency began purchasing them six years ago. It also was the first time the board has gone against its general manager’s wishes since the Express published a series of investigative stories on the agency and the Van Hools earlier this year.
The board’s about-face on the Van Hools obviously frustrated Fernandez, who at one point during the public meeting said that the some of the board members’ reasoning “makes no sense” and even called it “insane.” The board voted 4-2-1 against buying nineteen sixty-foot Van Hools, the long accordion-style buses, for $11 million. Voting for the purchase were board President Chris Peeples, one of the strongest proponents of the Van Hools, and board member Jeff Davis. Local transit activist Joyce Roy, one of the leading critics of the Belgian buses, has announced that she will run against Peeples in the November election.
The strongest opponent of the bus purchases turned out to be Elsa Ortiz, who said she would not vote to buy any more buses until the agency put its bus contracts out to bid. The Van Hool contract was essentially a no-bid deal because when Fernandez and his staff wrote the original specifications they knew no American manufacturer could meet them. The agency has since required the Belgian buses be more like American ones because the Van Hools have injured bus drivers and riders and are especially dangerous for the elderly and those with mobility problems.
This newspaper also previously reported that Fernandez himself has benefited from the Van Hool deal. The general manager has taken at least seven junkets to Europe at taxpayer expense, including several side trips to Paris and Amsterdam even though he had no business there. In total, public records show the agency has spent nearly $1 million in public funds sending employees to Europe since the Van Hool deal was signed in early 2002. Could this be the end of such junkets? If so, Fernandez will have to do his Belgian dining at Luka’s Taproom along with the rest of us.
Correction: An earlier version of this story misidentified one of the two AC Transit board members who voted to purchase more Van Hool buses. It was Jeff Davis — not Rocky Fernandez. Rocky Fernandez voted against the proposed bus buy.
