HomeMy WebLinkAbout; ; Costa Real Municipal Water District; 1980-09-04September 4, 1980
COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
POLICY STATEMENT REGARDING DISTRICT AND CITY RELATIONS
The purpose of this statement is to summarize the position of the Board of
Directors of Costa Real Municipal Water District regarding water service within the
Water District. This position paper is intended for consideration by the City of
Carlsbad, with which the District will be negotiating possible ways to consolidate
water service in the Costa Real/Carlsbad area; by the Local Agency Formation Commission,
which will consider the City of Carlsbad's application to make Costa Real MWD a subsidiary
district; and by the general public, which, due to the complexity of the subject and the
changing nature of the issues, may have difficulty understanding what effect the matters
under consideration really have on the water users.
The main objective of the Board of Directors is to satisfy its basic mission.
That mission is to provide cost-effective water service to water users within its
jurisdiction. The Board does not and never has wanted to determine how, where and when
land should be used. It's only goal is to assure that an adequate supply of water, at
the lowest cost, is available to meet the needs as'established by the land use decisions
of the City of Carlsbad and the County of San Diego. The District believes any in-
stitutional change in water service that is not based on the objective of assuring a
more efficient and adequate supply of water is a waste of the public's time and money.
The City's present application falls well short of that objective.
Following are issues that have been identified in the course of the pro-
ceedings in which the City of Carlsbad has applied to LAFCO in an attempt to acquire
political control of Costa Real Municipal Water District by replacing the District's
Board of Directors with the City Council.
COST EFFECTIVE WATER SERVICE
The City has submitted the so-called "Andersen Report" to LAFCO as supporting
evidence to justify the subsidiary district application. The main contention of this
report is that by elim'inating some District staff and the Board of Directors, the City's
present Water Utilities Department can operate the Water District at a savings of
about $100,000 per year.
The District has prepared a draft response which addresses the itmes
contained in the Andersen Report. This response shows, among other things, that
The City has twice the number of employees actually working on water functions than
are listed in the report. The District believes that this and several other obvious
misstatements in the "Andersen Report" render the City's application totally invalid
on grounds of improved cost-effectiveness.
In order to evaluate the City report and District response, a subcommittee
of the LAFCO Cities and Special Districts Advisory Committees was formed. This sub-
committee and then the full Cities and Special Districts committees found that "the
City has not demonstrated that significant economic advantages would result from re-
organization of the District. Because the subcommittee could see no apparent benefits
accruing to the water users as the result of the proposed change, they expressed the
belief that the key issues of the proposal are not of a technical nature, but are
basically political."
It must be pointed out that the District's response to date has only been
directed to the specific points raised by the City's formal application to LAFCO.
The District has not yet developed an analysis of potential cost savings to those
citizens of the District served by the City Water Utilities Department* if the Water
District were to provide retail water service to the "downtown" area now served by
the City, under a retail service agreement between the City and District.
The Board's position is that there is no economic justification for changing
political control of the District, but that there might be economic benefits to the
"downtown" retail City service area, established by agreement of the City Council, by
having Costa Real MWD assume retail water service in that part of its territory. This
is an alternative that should be explored in the cour,se of the subsidiary district
analysis, negotiations with the City, or both.
* The District's 20,000 acres include the "downtown" area, equallying some 7,000
acres, which receives retail water service from the City. The City Water Utilities
Department is furnished treated wholesale water by Costa Real MWD. Other parts of
the City are served b:^' Olivenhain Municipal Water District and San Marcos County
Water District.
-2-
WATER RECLAMATION REUSE:
City representatives agreed with the LAFCO subcommittee that the Andersen
Report is deficient. At that point another issue was raised as justification for
the subsidiary district proposal. This issue is wastewater reclamation and reuse.
Since this was not included with the City's formal application to LAFCO, an amend-
ment to the application has been requested. The District is prepared to discuss
this issue with the City at any time, and will formally respond to the City's amended
application over the coming two weeks.
Although water reclamation and reuse was not included with the City's
original subsidiary district application, the LAFCO subcommittee did consider it
when the issue was raised by the City. The full Cities and Special Districts Advisory
Committees unanimously suggested "that a study be prepared to investigate a region-wide
water plan, which would address such issues as the water service areas for the potable
and reclaimed water and financing for any plans."
The wastewater portion of such a plan is already underway under the auspices
of the Encina Joint Powers, of which the City of Carlsbad is a member. The Encina
Joint Powers management will release a report in about three months which will evaluate
various alternatives for water reclamation and reuse programs within the Encina service
area. The District believes this independent study will be an essential element upon
which impending decisions should be based, because, it will identify factors that must
be considered in planning programs for the maximum benefit of present and future
citizens of the Encina region
LAND USE PLANNING:
The City believes land use planning will be easier if it has control of the
Water District. This implies that the goals of the District are not consistent with
the goals of the City. The District believes its goals are in exact conformity with
the City's land use plans for the following reasons:
1. Absent an emergency caused by drought or other threatened or existing
water shortage, a municipal water district has no legal authority to
restrict the use of district water. In other words, a municipal water
district, whether governed by an elected or ex-officio board, has no
authority to impede growth by limiting water service. The City alone
has the power to determine where growth will or will not occur, and the
District has always responded to land use decisions made by the City by
extending water service where and when needed.
-3-
2. The District has no intentions or interest in either encouraging or
discourgaing development. The Board's only concern with land use planning
is to develop water delivery systems that will meet the demand of both
urbanization and increased agricultural production. All of the lands
within the District have an entitlement to the use of imported water.
The District has the responsibility to fulfill the needs of those lands
regardless of what zoning is applied by either the City or County.
3. The recently released Interim Growth Management Program of the City
demonstrates that the presence of the District does not interfere with
the City's planning process. The very existence of the program proves
that the City has control of planning within its boundaries. Indeed, the
Interim Growth Management Program provides perhaps the best summary of
the so-called "issue" of land use planning as it relates to the District.
Quoting from the report: "development in Carlsbad is not likely to be
constrained by the lack of water. The ultimate population of 100,000
will not overtax the water distribution system" which has been developed
by the District. The City's own report removes the "issue" of land use
planning from consideration as justification for the City's subsidiary
district application. It is simply not an issue.
Attached as Exhibit B is the water element of the City's Interim Growth
Management Program.
DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF VOTERS:
Approximately 60 registered voters living in unincorporated parts of the
District would lose their constitutional rights to vote if the City Council were to
replace the Board of Directors. These voters would have no say in the District's
policy toward rates and service levels since they would not be able to vote in City
elections. The District believes the City should have considered this vital
constitutional issue before attempting to assume political control of the District.
POLITICAL CONTROL: THE "FULL SERVICE CITY":
The City Council has said the City should be the agency of government re-
sponsible to the voter^s for the administration and operation of the water needs of
.4-
that area within the boundaries of Costa Real Municipal Water District because the
City is the predominant general purpose government agency within the District.
Attached is an article entitled "The Myth of the Full Service City" which, among
other things, points out that "the full-service city may very well be a myth. And
if this is so, public officials throughout California should take a good second look
at some attitudes and beliefs Tomorrow's governmental mix--rather than consisting
of highly-structured, general purpose governments--may well be a cooperative partner-
ship involving counties, cities, districts, multi-agency combinations, and the private
sector."
The District Board believes the City should direct its primary attention to
cost-effective water service rather than on political change fostered by obsolete
attitudes and beliefs. The Board also believes that its role is much more technically
oriented toward the specialized field of water service than the City Council's and
that this specialization is of paramount importance to the water users. The Board
also believes the complex nature of the water industry serving Southern California
demands the expertise in water matters which the City has already acknowledged the
Board as having.
On July 2, 1980, Mayor Packard told the District Board: "We recognize...
that you men and women are dedicated to your assignments as we certainly hope to be
in ours. We recognize that you've had a great deal of experience. Many of you have
been on this Board for a long time and have been involved with the providing of water
in our community for many, many years. We recognize your expertise. We recognize
your in-depth understanding of the needs and the ways of providing the service you
have been providing for some time."
The Board believes the Mayor's candid and sincere remarks should provide
the basis for resolving any misunderstandings between the Board and Council. There
is a place for both, and that place should be as partners, not adversaries.
r
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The Board of Directors of Costa Real Municipal Water District believes
the issue of optimum water service in the Costa Real/Carlsbad area has not
yet been fully explored. The City should consider the District's alterna-
tive to the subsidiary district arrangement for consolidating water service
administration. This alternative will be prepared within the next two
weeks.
-5-
2. All parties, including the Local Agency Formation Commission, should
wait for the regional wastewater reclamation and reuse study to be released
by the Encina Joint Powers before making decisions which could have adverse
rather than beneficial long term effects upon the water users of Costa Real
and the City.
3. The Board of Directors reaffirms its policy of following the City's
land use decisions in the development of water facilities. The Board further
orders that all water system planning strictly conform to the City General
Plan and that all data, such as population projectsions, used in the
preparation of District documents and reports be consistent with data
used by the City Planning Department.
4. The Board reaffirms and orders that sufficient water shall be available
from the District's water sources and distribution reservoirs to supply
adequately, dependably and safely the total requirements of all users under
maximum demand conditions.
5. The Board reaffirms and orders that the District's proposed capital
projects be submitted annually to the City for approval regarding con-
formity to the City's General Plan.
- 6 -
Who really serves the city resident?
THE MYTH OF
THE FULL SERVICE CITY
EXHIBIT A
COPY
Cities are the prime providers of
"municipal-type" services. That's
a commonly-accepted view.
Cities believe this. So do legisla-
tors, county representatives, and
people generally. Even districts
believe this.
But, to quote from the lines of a
popular song: "it ain't necessarily
so."
A survey of 39 cities in two met-
ropolitan counties conducted last
year came up with some surprising
results. Examining eleven services
popularly accepted as "city serv-
ices", the survey revealed that, on
the average, each city provided
only 4.3 of them, or just under 40%.
The remaining 6.7 were provided
by special districts, joint power
authorities, private firms, or the
county.
The two counties involved in the
survey, San Diego and Orange,
have a combined population of
some 3.2 million. Of that amount,
the bulk (2.7 million) reside within
the 39 incorporated cities in the
two counties.
The survey centered on the fol-
lowing services: water supply,
water distribution, sewer collection,
sewerage treatment, police, fire,
library, parks and recreation, refuse
collection, refuse disposal, and
public transportation.
The study made no attempt to
evaluate the value of these serv-
Instances til Services
Provided by Cities, Special
Districts, or Other Arrangements
PiDviticd Ijy: Number Percent Average
, per city
CiiicL IbB 3y.4 4.3
QibiriLls 134 31.2 3.5
Ullier 127 29 4 3.2
Toiai
Instdiii.L't 429 1UU 0 n 0
Pre-schoolers enjoy the bright surroundings of the Placentia Library District's
Children's Section. The District serves the residents of the City of Placentia.
— Pt)Oto courtesy Placentia Library District
ices, either as to cost, efficiency,
or utilization by residents. It simply
attempted to determine what type
of orgamzation provided the serv-
ice — whether the city did so with
its own personnel, or out of its own
tax base, or whether some other
arrangement was employed. Nor
did the study distinguish between
dependent or independent special
districts. The key consideration
was whether or not the city had full
control over provision of the serv-
ice and financed it out of it^ general
fund.
Where cities did not provide the
service, it was provided by special
districts, private firms, county gov-
ernment, or joint power authorities.
All 26 cities in Orange and 13 in
San Diego Counties were included
in the survey. The tables below
summarize the findings.
It is interesting to note that in all
but two types of services (police pro-
tection and refuse disposal), dis-
tricts were involved in the provision
of services within city boundaries.
Water supply is exclusively pro-
vided by districts (with the Metro-
politan Water District serving as
prime wholesaler) in the two-county
Method of Provision of Specific Services
Water Sewtr Parks/ RituM Put
Method Sup. Dist CoH. Trlml Pol. Firt Lib. Rec Coll. OUp. Trm.
By Cities 0 18 26 5 33 31 13 36 4 2 0
By
Districts 39 14 12 22 0 8 2 3* 3 0 31
Other 0 7 1 12 6 0 24 0 32 37 8
Tota! 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39
•Includes three subsidiary districts
area, while public transit involved
a district in 31 of the 39 cities.
Sewer treatment was provided by
districts in over half the instances
(22). while the district approach was
used substantially in the provision
of water distribution (14) and sewer
collection (12).
While a number of these were so-
called "dependent districts" (as in
the case of sewerage treatment
where county sanitation districts
provided the service in the majority
of cases where a district was used),
this was not universally so; for ex-
ample, several sanitary districts
and county water districts serve city
territory in both counties.
The only city that came close to
earning the title of a "full-service"
city was Oceanside in San Diego
County. Of the eleven services re-
viewed, this city provided all but
two — water supply and public
transportation.
Two other cities, Newport Beach
in Orange and the City of San Diego,
provided eight of theeleven services.
At the other end of the scale, Cy-
press and Yorba Linda in Orange
County and San Marcos in San Diego
County provided only one of the
eleven services, while Costa Mesa,
Irvine, Los Alamitos, San Juan Cap-
istrano, and Villa Park each pro-
vided two. (It should be pointed out
that in the case of Cypress. Costa
Mesa and Yorba Linda, one of the
services — parks and recreation •—
is provided by a subsidiary district.)
There were a number of reasons
that have motivated cities to seek or
permit other agencies to provide
services.
One IS fiscal. A good example of
this is to be found in Contra Costa
County where 12 of 15 cities have
opted out of the fire protection bus-
iness. In that County, several con-
solidated fire districts provide serv-
ices within the boundaries of the
twelve cities. At the time the cities
gave up their responsibility for the
provision of fire protection, they
automatically reduced their tax
revenue requirements by the equiv-
alent appropriation withm their
city budgets. For a general law city
crowding its $1 tax rate limit, such
an arrangement can prove attract-
ive.
Another reason involves the prac-
tical difficulty a city faces in dealing
with a regional service — even
though the service may be thought
of as "municipal" in nature. Public
transportation is a case in point.
Two San Diego County cities — Es-
condido and Oceanside — recently
went out of the bus business in favor
of the newly-formed North County
Transit District. Years ago, Sacra-
mento County government devel-
oped a county-wide waste water
treatment plan based on county san-
itation districts covering logical
geographical areas, regardless of
city boundaries. County ownership
and operation of solid waste dis-
posal areas have resulted in a coun-
ty responsibility for refuse disposal
in most of San Diego. Orange and
Sacramento Counties, just to name
three.
A third reason involves operating
efficiency. The growth of the "con-
tract" approach, particularly in Los
Angeles County, has seen a number
of cities enter into contracts or other
types of multi-agency agreements
(such as joint powers agreements),
thereby gaining the benefits of cen-
tralization while maintaining some
degree of local control through
either representation on the joint
powers board, or spelling out serv-
ice terms in the contract.
i ORIGINAL
City firefighters depend on Costa
Mesa County Water District's water
system in the City of Costa Mesa.
— Photo courtesy CM C. W.D.
Whatever the reasons, the fact
remains that the full-service city
may very well be a myth. And if this
is so, public officials throughout
California should take a good sec-
ond look at some attitudes and be-
liefs.
For the special districts, the mes-
sage appears to be an encouraging
one. Tomorrow's governmental mix
— rather than consisting of highly-
structured, generai purpose govern-
ments — may well be a cooperative
partnership involving counties,
cities, districts, multi-agency com-
binations, and the private sector.
In fact, that would be no more than
an extension of what exists today
— at least in the Counties of Orange
and San Diego. SI
•t..
tf
Oaklanof residents flock to Lake Temescal to escape City pressures. This recrea-
tion area is located in the City ot Oakland and operated by the East Bay Regional
Park District. — Photo courtesy East Bay Regional Park District
WATER SUPPLY EXHIBIT B
Existing Condifions
Water for residential, comnnercial, industrial and agricultural consumption is
supplied to Carlsbad by five water supply agencies. With the exception of the
City of Carlsbad Water Utilities Division, all of the agencies purchase water from
the San Diego County Water Authority. The City Water Utilities Division receives
its water directly from the Costa Real Municipal Water District (MWD), which
nearly serves the entire Carlsbad sphere of influence. The County Water
Authority has responsibility for the importation of all water into San Diego
County and the regional distribution of this water through two aqueducts. Figure
7 shows the boundaries of the five agencies serving Carlsbad.
The developed northwest portion of the City is served by the City Water Utilities
District. This agency is currently the largest distributor of water in the City, last
year having sold approximately 5,000 acre-feet. (An acre-foot of water is 325,850
gallons.) Domestic consumption accounts for the vast majority of water used (85
percent); industrial and agricultural demand are. relatively minimal (about 7-8
percent each). The agency has no direct allocation from the County Wafer
Authority but receives its supply from Costa Real MWD.
Future development will occur predominantly in the Costa Real service area.
Consequently, it is the ability of this district to purchase water that will
determine the City's ability to meet future demands for water. Currently Costa
Real MWD distributes roughly 2,500 acre-feet, in addition to what it supplies to ^
the City Water Utilities Dfvision. Its allocation from the County V/ater Authority '
far-exceeds its service area's present demand. In 1979, the district's allocated
right was estimated to be 2.27 percent of the County Water Authority's water
supply (or 20,362 acre-feet); in 1980, it is approximately 2.4 percent. The
Immediate question that comes to mind is, "will this be adequate to meet future
demands?" The district appears more than adequate to supply water, because a
district's allocated right to purchase water is tied to the growth of its assessed
valuation. In general, a district's entitlement is approximately equal to the ratio
of the assessed valuation of the district to the total assessed valuation of all
County W^ater Agency member agencies. Consequently, residential, commercial,
and industrial growth within a district will result in an increase in assessed
valuation which enables the district to receive an increased ailocaled right to
purchase water. As described earlier, the high rate of growth experienced in the
North County and Carisbad is likely to continue so that, relative to other areas,
the assessed valuation (and thus water allocation) will increase. Moreover, the
County Water Authority has never refused a request for water and quite member
ogencies occasionally draw several times their allocated right.
In terms of the distribution system, Costa Real has an adequate network. The
district's connections to the two regional aqueducts provides a wafer supply
copaclty of roughly 66,600 acre-feet per year. By comparison, total water
consumption within the district in 1979 was only 11,135 acre-feet. Major water
pipelines have been installed to serve nearly all developable portions of the
district. Reservoirs owned and operated by Costa Real and the City Vv'ater
Utilities Division provide a storage capacity of over 200 million gallons (195 of
which is stored in Squires Dam).
28
BEST
-igure 7
YATER SERVICE DISTRICTS
City of Carlsbad V/ater Service District
Costa Real MV/D '.
San Marcos MWD .
Olivenhain
Buena Colorado MWD
SOURCE: City ot Carlsbad
3ity of Carlsbad north!
Olivenhain and San Marcos MWDs provide water to the southeastern portion of the
City. Combined, they sold approximately 3,000 acre-feet last year. Because
substantial growth is expected in the Olivenhain service areo as a result ot the
Rancho La Costa development, the district in conjunction with the San Marcos and
Costa Real MWDs have recently completed a joint construction program to
provide additional water supply and storage. Buena Colorado MWD and Vista
irrigation district also provide water to the City, but at minimal levels. Vista
supplies water for agricultural purposes, and Buena Colorado serves the area
around the raceway.
Benchmarks
Benchmark 1 is reoched when the projected demand for water will fully utilize the
design capacity of the water distribution system within five years.
Benchmark 11 is reached when the demand for water exceeds the design capacity
of the water distribution system.
Implications of Growth Potential
Table 8 projects residential consumptive demand, based on the amount of new
development within each water district, as described in Table 9. New residential
development will triple present water consumption. Over 60 percent of the future
demand will occur in Costa Real where the amount of industrial acreage will
increase 3.7 times over present levels of development. Nevertheless, development
in Carlsbad is not likely to be constrained by the lack of water. The ultimate
population of 100,000 vWil not overtax the capacity of the water dis ribution
system. Construction of extensions of water mains will be minimal as the
niaiority of the area can be served by exisfing lines. Connections to the
distribution network will be financed by the individual developers requiring water.
TABLE 8
RESIDENTIAL CONSUMPTIVE DEMAND BY WATER DISTRICT
(acre-feet per year)
Existing Potential Buildout
District Demand Derr)and Demand
Carlsbad 2,438.5 1,651.3 4,089.8
Costa Real MWD 1,156.0 5,158.6 6,314.6
Olivenhain 495.5 1,198.1 • 1,693.6
Son Marcos MWD -0-266.9 266.9
Buena Colorado />^V/D -0-31.0 31.0
Total 4,090 8,305.9 12,395.9
30