Wrightwood CSD Waste Water Power

[thehallmarks]

[lwt42]

I have a problem with a piece of legislation that only requires a majority vote to change a proposition passed by the voters requiring a 2/3 vote.

I agree.

As I see it, any "sewer fee" related to flood control would go to San Bernardino County and their flood control district.  We'd have to fight that at the County level.

At the CSD level, I don't see anything happening unless/until the regional water quality board sees an issue, and the first part of that (as Wes stated) would be nitrates showing up in the drinking water wells.

We could go ask, but it seems to me that the last thing the CSD wants to do is go into the sewer business.  Most of us in the community don't want it, and we don't want the extra taxes.

Perhaps this issue should be outside the CSD section of the forum? 

I don't want to minimize the issue, but I don't see it as a CSD issue in the near future.

[Wes Zuber - WWCSD]

I don't want to minimize the issue, but I don't see it as a CSD issue in the near future.

I don't think so either, but I do think it should be in the CSD section. The opinions and info are healthy and can only help. If it ever comes to pass that nitrates appear in the wells, big decisions will have to be made by whomever is on the board at the time will need as much ammo a they can get.

Regards,

--Wes

[thehallmarks]

We seem to be missing the purpose of the posts.  I am trying to call attention to the inclusion of "waste water"--rain--runoff in the sewers powers of the CSD and the use of SB 231 to circumvent the will of Prop 218.  The use of SB231 invalidates the 2/3s requirement of Prop 218 and will allow the CSD to use the "initiative process" for increasing and creating additional fees and taxes using a simple majority vote.

BTW What is your definition of "the near future"?

[Wes Zuber - WWCSD]

BTW What is your definition of "the near future"?

Unforeseen or unknowable since the wells keep coming up good.

runoff in the sewers powers of the CSD

The CSD does not have sewer powers. The CSD has Sewer Planning Powers, which again means that the CSD is not involved with the --rain-- runoff issues or anything to do with SB231 or the circumventing that some California legislator is trying to do.

Regards,

--Wes

[lwt42]

We seem to be missing the purpose of the posts.  I am trying to call attention to the inclusion of "waste water"--rain--runoff in the sewers powers of the CSD and the use of SB 231 to circumvent the will of Prop 218.  The use of SB231 invalidates the 2/3s requirement of Prop 218 and will allow the CSD to use the "initiative process" for increasing and creating additional fees and taxes using a simple majority vote.

BTW What is your definition of "the near future"?

Okay.

It's interesting that rain runoff is being redefined as sewage.  The last thing you want to do try to handle those kinds of high flows through a waste water plant.

Wes pointed out that the CSD had powers related to sewer planning (emphasis his).  I think I'm up on my reading that there is no requirement for sewers in Wrightwood, and won't be unless nitrates show up in the water.  I'd have to go back search forum posts, but this has been a big concern before the CSD, and is now.

You said that the CSD could, through the "initiative process" go after extra taxes and fees.  Since initiatives come from the voters at large (Proposition 13 was an initiative) and not from a government body, I think you're thinking of a referendum.

I guess I have more faith in people, but I don't see 50% plus 1 of the voters in Wrightwood voting for a tax or fee unless there is a clear benefit.  Seems that we have a good amount of flood control now, and it's not owned or operated by the CSD.

The county could pursue such a tax since the CSD doesn't specifically have anything to do with "flood control sewers" as SB-231 defines them.

For that matter, I'm not sure the county couldn't simply impose a wastewater fee under SB 231. 

Since we have initiatives in question, Proposition 218, the "Right to vote on Taxes" act was backed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and as I understand it, does not include the 2/3rds majority requirement.  It allows the initiative process to be used by the voters to repeal taxes and fees.

Proposition 218 allows exemptions for Electricity, Gas, Water and Sewer -- we don't get any of those services now from a government agency.

The big question I have with SB 231 is how would (presumably the County of San Bernardino Flood Control District) calculate the value of "flood control service" for each parcel.  As I understand Proposition 218, the fee has to reflect the service delivered to a parcel.

Somehow, I see this being litigated sooner rather than later.

So you asked what I saw as the foreseeable future.

Wes said "unforseeable, because there is no sign of a problem" and until nitrates show up, and level rises until the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Board says "gotta plan a sewer, guys" it's fairly moot.

[jwhays661]

Currently nitrates are the most prevalent indicator of widely failing septic systems, which is the actual issue that Lahonton has been sitting on for ages. Properly functioning and not overburdened septic systems should contribute minimal nutrients to the water table. The powers that be will only initiate mandatory sewerage if there are indications of a high percentage of the septic systems in Wrightwood failing. That's sort of up to us. If there are enough irresponsible homeowners not properly caring for their septic systems, then we all pay.

The issue of storm water being considered waste water is a relatively new concept in water treatment. The logic began with local entities wanting to "bank" water that fell from the sky and into storm channels by storing it in reservoirs or ground water. Multiple studies later, they realized that the water in storm runoff was polluted to the point of easily meeting the criteria for wastewater. So now, if they want to bank local storm supplies, they'll need to treat it. Treating it costs a lot of money. I think they've gotten the horse before the cart though because current infrastructure can hardly keep up with current demand.

My actual concern is with the desire to make sure everything is done locally. While I appreciate having local authority over things like trash and street lights, sewers are a massively different beast all together. We loose terribly on the economy of scale concept if we ever do need to plan a sewer system. We would need to go out to bid for a contractor to build and operate the system and as a small community would most likely get hosed. I'm just a little confused about what having "local planning authority" would actually buy us except a headache that major metropolitan areas can't even handle. I understand the CSD does not have direct power over sewers but I wonder if anyone really realizes how huge just the planning process would be.

[lwt42]

My actual concern is with the desire to make sure everything is done locally. While I appreciate having local authority over things like trash and street lights, sewers are a massively different beast all together. We loose terribly on the economy of scale concept if we ever do need to plan a sewer system. We would need to go out to bid for a contractor to build and operate the system and as a small community would most likely get hosed. I'm just a little confused about what having "local planning authority" would actually buy us except a headache that major metropolitan areas can't even handle. I understand the CSD does not have direct power over sewers but I wonder if anyone really realizes how huge just the planning process would be.

My understanding is that San Bernardino County CSA #56 had certain responsibilities, and the original plan for a Community Services District was to take four of the five responsibilities ("powers") from CSA 56, leaving them with sewer.

The Local Agency Formation Commission said that those behind the CSD campaign could not cherry pick -- it only made sense if CSA #56 could be dissolved completely.

That's where the sewer planning responsibility came from -- so that CSA 56 would not have to live on against some sewer-inspired future.

[Wes Zuber - WWCSD]

I'm just a little confused about what having "local planning authority" would actually buy us except a headache that major metropolitan areas can't even handle. I understand the CSD does not have direct power over sewers but I wonder if anyone really realizes how huge just the planning process would be.

What LAFCO pointed out was that there was this concern with failing septics in Wrightwood.. what if they did fail and we really did need sewer and the County just decided to come up with some crazy plan without any participation from Wrightwood.. LAFCO thought ahead and built in a way for Wrightwood (and therefore the Wrightwood CSD) to have a seat at the table. To have influence over our own town over this giant decision. I think it was smart, why let someone else with no skin in the game decide for us. It sounds like Sewer Planning might just come in handy should the State mandate sewers in Wrightwood.

Regards,

--Wes

[jwhays661]

Thanks Wes. That makes a bit more sense. There's a big difference between sole responsibility for the planning process and just a seat at a planning table filled with other stakeholders. Let's all just hope we don't need sewers. I've been in water and wastewater for 17 years and I can tell everyone, there is no way to even accurately estimate the costs of a project like this. I've never seen a single sewer or wastewater treatment project come in anywhere near budget.

[SpeedRacer]

While this was just introduced by the Biden Administration, our CSD needs to put in on their radar and start doing the legwork with the County and local electeds to apply for a grant to install a sewer system in Wrightwood.  Based on my experience, grant notification and applications have short turnaround times and we need to be prepared (i.e., procurement of a consultant to prepare a study outlining costs, benefits, environmental approvals, permits, etc.).

Not having a sewer system is a water quality issue and will ultimately be required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

"$56 billion in grants and loans to upgrade and modernize drinking water, wastewater and stormwater systems."

[ak7v]

I regularly test my tap water for aquarium use, and I do see some nitrates in it.  Not using a calibrated test kit, so not sure how much, but more than zero (which I do see from my reverse osmosis system).