Meiners Oaks Next To Raise Water Rates

Meiners Oaks County Water District board Secretary Sherrie Russell, Director Karol Ballantine, board President Bill Reynolds and Vice President Jim Barrett explain to residents their reasoning for a proposed rate increase, which threatens farm users with a 500 percent rate hike. Some have accused the board of piggybacking onto Golden State Water’s recent proposal for a 43.95 percent rate increase within their district.

By Daryl Kelley
Another month, another Ojai Valley agency is hiking water rates to astronomical levels for agriculture. And farmers are saying they’ll be forced to walk away from their orchards if things don’t change.
This time, the Meiners Oaks County Water District has proposed rates that would increase the amount farmers pay to water their crops up to 500 percent or more.
But barraged by angry farmers, district directors delayed a decision this week, citing the absence of one board member. They said they’d make a final decision Nov. 20 when all five directors are present.
“We’re very conflicted right now,” said Director Karol Ballantine. “If this is wrong … we can put a committee of citizens together to come up with an alternative. This (rate change) is not forever. It can be changed.”
But directors for the small community-based water agency, which has consistently offered the lowest water rates in the valley, said they had no choice but to impose only the second rate hike in the last 15 years.
Since 2004, the district’s aging water pipes, meters and storage tanks have begun to break, said board President Bill Reynolds, and officials have had to draw down reserves from $2 million to $1.3 million to pay for repairs. The budget deficit for the fiscal year ending June 30 was more than $500,000, he said, compared with an overall annual budget of less than $1 million.
In previous years, no money has been budgeted for infrastructure repairs, so it is simply falling apart, and will cost millions of dollars to replace, he said.
“At this rate, we have two or three years of reserves, and then we go negative,” Reynolds said. “And we’re not allowed to do that … What we’ve been doing is dipping into the till to cover repairs (of) things that actually get the water to your house.”
Even with a 79 percent hike in its base rate for residential customers, the average Meiners Oaks resident would still only pay $29.50 a month for water, officials said.
Indeed, only about 10 percent of the district’s 1,283 customers — the vast majority residential — filed protests of the proposed rate increase. And just 30 showed up to question the hike in person.
Several of those were farmers, whose rate would increase from 31 cents for each 100 cubic feet of water (748 gallons) to a maximum of $2 per unit on a tiered pricing scale that penalizes those who use the most water.
Farmers said that was not fair, since they have no choice but to water their crops, or to let them die.
“These increases are 500 percent to 700 percent for us,” said Steve Barnard, who farms 20 acres of avocados. “You need to be creative and think this thing through because there’s going to be some real nasty results.”
In an interview, Barnard said the cost to water his avocados would increase from about $7,000 a year to about $40,000. His trees are only five years old, and the freeze ruined his crop this year, so he hasn’t made a profit yet, he said.
“So, with this, I have to make a decision: Do I just turn the water off and let the trees die?” he said.
Another farmer, Camille Sears, said in an interview that she’d already pulled out 270 of her 1,300 tangerine trees and is thinking of taking out another 300 because of water costs.
“I planted those trees, so it’s heartbreaking,” she said. “The farm is my retirement. But now the Water District is saying we’re not sure we can serve you anymore.”
In comments to the board and a nine-page written analysis of flaws in the new rate structure, Sears detailed what she sees as legal problems with the proposal.
The district maintains that its new rates are fair because everyone would pay the same for water, with the only difference being the size of a customer’s water meter and how much water is used.
That jibes with a state Supreme Court decision last year interpreting a 1996 statewide proposition that requires that all water customers be treated equally and that they pay for the cost to deliver their water, district officials said.
But Sears said the district’s notice of its rate increase was so flawed that a judge would immediately strike it down. For example, she said, the district failed even in basic arithmetic, stating that its proposed increase in the base rate for homes, from $14 to $25 a month, was a $9 increase, when, in fact, it is an $11 increase.
And, she said, the district’s method of implementing its increase would be anything but equitable because it would punish the 33 farmers who use nearly one-quarter of the district’s water, and does not reflect the true cost of delivering water to them.
Sears said a powerful statewide taxpayers’ group is ready to jump into the Meiners Oaks fight if the water agency approves its new rates.
“I’ve talked with the people at the Howard Jarvis Foundation and you will be litigated if you go forward with this,” she told the board. “Please don’t make us sue you.”
She offered an alternative proposal: imposition of a base fee of $30 a month for all customers, plus 75 cents per water unit after that. That would raise the extra $230,000 the district needs for repairs each year, while keeping the typical resident’s rate relatively low, she said. “And I don’t think it would put farmers out of business.”
One after another, farmers said that would be the result under the proposed rates.
“A tree just needs so much water,” said grower Alan Walbridge. “This water rate will be up like 10 times for me … This is going to completely put me out of business.”
Other speakers voiced support for the farmers.
“Food security is a huge, huge issue,” said Dulanie La Barre. “We need to be encouraging farmers and community gardeners, not discouraging them … Let’s find something that works better.”
Other speakers, while acknowledging that the district needs more money for repairs, said capital improvements should be underwritten through the sale of bonds, and paid off through property taxes, which are deductible.
In the end, agency directors seemed poised to adopt the new rates.
“I’ve been here 27 years, and this district has been wholly neglected. It’s falling apart. And as we’re speaking, we’re losing money. We’re up against a wall here,” said Director Jim Barrett. “We are, quite frankly, fighting for our existence. “
But then they backed away from a decision until the full board, including absent Carrie Mattingly, could be present.
And one director, Beth Von Gunten, said she wasn’t comfortable with the proposal.
“I’d like to have a chance to go back to the drawing board,” she said. “For agriculture, once you’re down, you’re down. If people stop watering trees, they die.”
Barrett then moved to delay the vote.
But Sears said she was not encouraged by the delay.
“You don’t need a crystal ball to see they’re going to vote 4-1 or 3-2 on this,” she said. “They’re going to ignore my comments. They’re going to blow me off.”