View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

CORRECTION: CLWA's water rate increase thrown out

‘Special tax’ ruled illegal; agency ordered to refund Newhall district, customers

Posted: July 14, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: July 14, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

Editor's note: This version corrects the previous, which incorrectly stated the agency to which he referred in his "cheap shot" quote.

A Superior Court judge has ordered the Castaic Lake Water Agency, Santa Clarita Valley’s water retailer, to rescind an illegal “special tax” imposed on Santa Clarita Valley water retailers, who passed that rate on to customers.

The Newhall County Water District — which buys water from Castaic Lake and provides water to customers in Newhall and parts of Canyon Country, Saugus and Castaic — sued the water retailer over the special tax.

“We’re happy with the decision,” Newhall County Water District General Manager Steve Cole told The Signal Sunday.

“We had asked the (Castaic Lake) agency for changes to the rate hike and that they needed to design a rate that treated customers fairly,” Cole said. “One that recognized our customers’ historical investment in groundwater.”

On Thursday, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant ruled Castaic Lake Water Agency must rescind an illegal “special tax” imposed on local water retailers in July 2013.

Agency General Manager Dan Masnada on Sunday called a Newhall County Water District news release on the ruling - which repeatedly called the rate hike a "special tax" - “a cheap shot, inappropriate and uncalled for.”

“The judge ruled against us, but they’ve just won this battle,” he said of Newhall County Water District. “The war is not over yet.

“There are multiple ways to respond to the court decision,” Masnada said. Appealing the judge’s decision in court is one of the options the agency’s board of directors is expected to review soon in closed session.”

Refund

As part of the ruling, the judge said Castaic Lake Water Agency must refund about $61,000 in money paid by the Newhall County Water District and its customers.

“Any savings generated as a result of the ruling will be passed through to the district’s customers,” said Cole.
Masnada, however, called the refund “a short-term financial gain” for the district.

Special tax

Cole pointed out Sunday that calling the agency’s rate change a “special tax” is a term coined by the judge.

The district challenged the rate hike in court after warning the agency it had violated state law, he said, claiming the rate change would almost double imported water costs for the district’s 45,000 customers.

If left in place, the agency’s “special tax” could have cost the district’s customers about $1 million — or $75 per customer — every year.

“This is an outstanding victory for our customers,” district Board President B.J. Atkins said. “Simply put, this was an unfair tax and we are pleased the courts have required the agency to return to a more equitable, lawful way of doing business.”

The agency, according to Cole, tried to charge each of Santa Clarita Valley’s water retailers a fixed rate for imported water. However, this fixed rate was charged regardless of the amount of imported water needed or used by customers of the retailers, he said.

The district is one of four water retailers, the others being Valencia Water Co., the Santa Clarita Water Division and Los Angeles County Waterworks District 36.

Prop 26

Judge Chalfant determined the agency’s approach had “no reasonable relationship” to the services it provided to its retail customers and deemed it a special tax. As a tax, the agency’s new rate violated Proposition 26 — a voter-approved provision of the state Constitution that requires a vote of the people to enact special taxes and certain kinds of fees.

The agency was ordered to rescind the tax and revert to the previous structure until new, lawful rates are adopted.

“(The agency’s new rates) are special taxes not approved by the voters and must be put aside,” Chalfant said in his judgment.

Masnada, however, defended the rates that went into effect July 1, 2013. The tax was approved by the agency’s Board of Directors in a 10-1 vote in January 2013.

“The new rate structure achieved revenue stability for us as an agency,” he said. “It provided more cost certainty for the retailers with respect to fixed costs.

“The new rate structure is more fair and promotes conjunctive use of water,” he said.

Atkins, who sits on both the district board and the agency board, argued vehemently against the rate change when it was debated last year.

“This tax made no sense,” Atkins said after Chalfant’s ruling.

“In any business, customers expect to pay for the cost of services they use — nothing more, nothing less,” he said. “Despite our warnings, the agency board ignored this basic principle. But I am pleased with the judge’s decision and hope it leads to more commonsense and fairness in how the agency charges for water.”

jholt@signalscv.com
661-287-5527
On Twitter
@jamesarthurholt

Comments

michael: Posted: July 14, 2014 10:59 p.m.

Cole may have one this one, but rates will be going up in some form to offset the loss of send out related to water conservation. Dan must know this and Dan is a smart guy. He has to pay the CLWA operating costs. My bet is on Dan.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: July 15, 2014 6:49 a.m.

The concept of discussing this court loss by CLWA in a "closed session" is an abuse of that ability. "Closed sessions" for a public agency can only occur when and if an issue that has a direct bearing on the public welfare and its finances would be placed in jeopardy if an opponent (meant to be a private property owner in a real estate transaction, or a private party suing for damages for some perceived injury) was able to witness the "strategy" being discussed.

Here, we have a dispute over the public's money, and the stewardship shown for it by two public agencies that serve the same public sector.

Just because "lawsuits" are able to be discussed in a "closed session" does not mean that this particular case meets any test of reasonableness, when the good of the public is the test used to determine whether this kind of concealment is appropriate.

Stop hiding what is happening with the money paid by the public, through its taxes.

What the reality of "conjunctive" use of water is, as shown by Castaic Lake Water Agency would be an excellent story for the Signal, but only if the point of view of the Newhall County Water District was also fully included.

"Conjunctive Use" means "use of all the water resources, in combination". In the SCV, the order of the priorities for use set in the laws that govern, refers to local ground water from two "aquifers" (to be used first), "supplemental water", purchased at 5X ground water cost, imported from the State Water Project(to be used only as a "supplement"), 2nd priority and reclaimed sewage water third. (Drought may alter these priorities significantly).

"CLWA" wants full control of all three sources in its hands, creating a monopoly combining wholesale, retail, and reclaimed water distribution.

Newhall County needs to win this, for the benefit of all of us. The record indicates they will.

By the way, both CLWA and NCWD are full blown Public Agencies, where elected officials are supposed to "run" each agency, held to account by the voters.

This major public policy issue is not a contest between "Steve" and "Dan".


michael: Posted: July 15, 2014 9:12 p.m.

It is the BOD's call as to closed session or not. I would offer that water and the cost of water does have a direct bearing on public welfare. Additionally, it is clear that CLWA finances are an issue. The drive for additional water conservation is going to make it even more difficult for CLWA to pay its bills. Like it or not, the retailers will be impacted as will water rates. This is all mute if mother nature decides to deliver a 100 year storm soon.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: July 16, 2014 6:03 p.m.

It would take 4 to 5 consecutive 100 year storms to replenish the State and Federal water storage dams. These storms would also have to occur for 4 to 5 years, as part of 45" local rain seasons, compared to the "average" 15 inches annually in the SCV.



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...