by Matt Williams –
Let me start by saying that the opinions and perspectives presented here in this article are those of the author and are not the opinions and perspectives of the Water Advisory Committee (WAC).
Like the meetings before it, meeting number 5 of the WAC contained considerable discussion of how the WAC should conduct its activities, votes and recommendations. Bill Kopper presented to the Committee a Resolution that put into words how he (in consultation with a Brown Act compliant number of WAC members and alternates) believed the WAC should chart its course. After one friendly amendment that aligned the description of the three Council Check In items to the actual wording of the actual WAC motion sent to Council, Bill’s Resolution failed to pass with a 5-5 vote.
I may be naïve, but as I read the words of Bill’s Resolution, I found it pretty much described what the WAC was already doing in its process of deciding what the calendar and agenda items would be. It did put more responsibility (in my opinion) on the WAC members to 1) submit to Elaine Roberts-Musser and Dianna Jensen any topics that a member wanted to add to the calendar, 2) read the presentation material before each meeting, and 3) formally submit questions about the presentation material to Elaine and/or Dianna for forwarding to the presenter. It will be interesting to see if the WAC members actually de facto follow Bill’s process, even though de jure they did not adopt it.
Now to the Key Presentation of the Night – The Palmdale Legal Discussion
Kelly Salt, a lawyer with enough specific Proposition 218 expertise and Water Rate Setting expertise that no one on the WAC even hinted at questioning her credentials, weighed in on rate structures and how the August 2011 City of Palmdale vs Palmdale Water District court decision affects any rate structure that the WAC may consider adopting.
I personally took away two major messages from Kelly’s presentation and the animated legal discussions that ensued during in between Kelly, Bill Kopper and Alf Brandt . . . the three lawyers in the room. Those two messages were as follows:
1) the Palmdale case outcome and proceedings were substantially determined by A) the incomplete information that the defendant’s lawyers presented to substantiate the reasons behind the different rates in the structure, and B) the fact that the Palmdale Water District Board made adjustments to the rate consultant’s recommendation, but then did not take the final step to have the consultant update the Rate Study to fully document the specific cost basis behind the actual adopted rates. Kelly said she knows the consultant personally, and feels that if both A) and B) had been done more thoroughly, the case may well have had a different outcome when the Court made its ruling. However, she was very clear that the ruling is what it is and we have to deal with it as precedent until and unless a different ruling comes to pass.
2) That different provisions of the California Constitution are in conflict with one another, specifically in this case A) the Proportionality provisions that Proposition 218 installed with B) the Conservation provisions that were installed in other sections of the Constitution. Recognizing those conflicts, California has adopted a “Harmonizing” process whenever such conflicts come into play when making water rate policy, and that sole reliance on either one of the conflicting provisions is not practicing good law.
Bottom-line, there was so much meat in Kelly’s presentation, and so much active and good discussion, that a motion was made and passed that Kelly should come back at a future WAC meeting to help the WAC complete its process of wrestling with its own conflicts about what is the best way to handle water rates. The future meeting will no doubt delve deeply into whether Water Budget based rates are both proportional and fair.
Stay tuned . . . the WAC is your government very much in action. Its fun. It’s lively. Most of all it is very informative. If you want to know more about water, don’t miss it.
I am behind, just having watched Tues CC discussion about WACs scope etc.
To me all this should have been scoped out by CC before the group was formed. I am hoping there can be some deliberation and decisions about the important issues soon. The weeds seem to be in the way. I thought Rochelle’s repeated suggestion of a facilitator a good one to get the group going. This IS a ticking clock, right?
[quote]I am behind, just having watched Tues CC discussion about WACs scope etc. To me all this should have been scoped out by CC before the group was formed. I am hoping there can be some deliberation and decisions about the important issues soon. The weeds seem to be in the way. I thought Rochelle’s repeated suggestion of a facilitator a good one to get the group going. This IS a ticking clock, right?[/quote]
Not a problem. The WAC last night voted on and approved a specific general structure for decision making (background, discussion, deliberation) and end dates to deliberate and make decisions – so that acting in its advisory capacity, the WAC can make final decisions on the appropriate issues (1. Surface water or alternatives; 2. DBO process; 3. Rate structure) and forward its findings/rationale to the City Council in sufficient time so the City Council can make its determinations in a timely fashion. If you are interested in the specific time line, please look to the next WAC packet, which will include the updated long range calendar the WAC will be following. And thanks for your continued interest in the WAC…
[quote]I may be naïve, but as I read the words of Bill’s Resolution, I found it pretty much described what the WAC was already doing in its process of deciding what the calendar and agenda items would be. It did put more responsibility (in my opinion) on the WAC members to 1) submit to Elaine Roberts-Musser and Dianna Jensen any topics that a member wanted to add to the calendar, 2) read the presentation material before each meeting, and 3) formally submit questions about the presentation material to Elaine and/or Dianna for forwarding to the presenter. It will be interesting to see if the WAC members actually de facto follow Bill’s process, even though de jure they did not adopt it.[/quote]
From my personal perspective, some members of the WAC were concerned by much of the wording in Mr. Kopper’s proposed resolution. One troubling issue that arose was that this proposal would have required formal committee votes on matters that have been/could have been easily dealt with by a quick consensus, thereby slowing the process down. There were other concerns expressed as well. Unfortunately Mr. Kopper did not submit his resolution in time to be included in the WAC packet (his choice), so that WAC members and the public did not have sufficient time to read it ahead of time, which left everyone at a distinct disadvantage. In other words, WAC members were reading Mr. Kopper’s very long and detailed resolution written in very formal lawyerly style during the WAC meeting, at the same time presentations/questions/comments were going on. The audience had no copy of this resolution to read. I, myself, had to take the time to stop the meeting and read the resolution out loud, bc I had not had any opportunity to peruse it while I was conducting the meeting as Chair. Had we been privy to the resolution ahead of time, WAC members would have had the opportunity to digest its content, think about which provisions were acceptable/unacceptable, and could have possibly tweaked the language to address any concerns we may have had. I do think parts of Mr. Kopper’s proposals were perfectly fine, but other portions were troubling to my mind, as I indicated at the WAC meeting. Ultimately, Mr. Kopper’s proposed resolution raised enough concerns among WAC members that it did not pass, on a 5-5 deadlocked vote.
Ultimately, WAC member Frank Loge made an excellent set of three motions in keeping with his idea for structure and deadline he had previously raised at the last WAC meeting, which were unanimously embraced by the WAC (the first two motions passed unanimously, the third motion passed with only one abstention). Mr. Loge’s motion was more direct, to the point, and did not contain any limitations other than specific deadlines that the WAC has determined it absolutely needs to meet.
I believe the WAC reached a very critical tipping point last night, in determining for itself how to proceed to make the necessary decisions in a timely fashion, so its advice will be useful to the City Council. Moving forward, there will be very little in the way of presentations, now that all members are “caught up” on information, and feel they have a pretty good working knowledge of what the water issues are. What they will want now is more specific information on particular concerns that they are troubled by; as well as a desire to hear from each other, especially some WAC members who are extremely knowledgeable on water issues. Some on the WAC have an enormous amount of expertise on water issues, which should provide added rich context for upcoming discussions.
As Matt has suggested, stay tuned! Discussions are bound to be extremely lively!
Thank you Matt!
My pleasure Michael.
BTW, what did you think about the Constituencies document I dropped off at your office?