The Measure J Deception

-
Until a few days ago, I thought I knew what I was going to say about Measure J, which relates to a public buyout of our privately owned water utility California-American Water, or Cal-Am. Based on what I had been reading about it in the local press, I thought I knew pretty much everything there was to know about it. But now that I've had a chance to read the complete text of Measure J I find it is far different from what has been advertised and much worse than I ever imagined.
The formal title of Measure J is “The Monterey Peninsula Water System Local Ownership Feasibility Study Initiative.” That's how it is being sold to Peninsula voters, as a “feasibility study.” But surprisingly, the word “study” is nowhere to be found in the body of Measure J's text.
Although the text of Measure J spans two full pages of the Monterey County Voters Guide the bulk of it is devoted to spelling out J's purpose, a list of “findings” or statements used to justify the measure, and some housekeeping legalese related to the circumstances of the ballot measure itself. The actual meat of Measure J involves just a few short paragraphs. Read them carefully:
The following Rule 19.8 shall be added to the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Rules and Regulations, Regulation I, General Provisions:
Rule 19.8. Policy of Pursuing Public Ownership of Monterey Peninsula Water System
A. It shall be the policy of the District, if and when feasible, to secure and maintain public ownership of all water production, storage and delivery system assets and infrastructure providing services within its territory.
B. The District shall acquire through negotiation, or through eminent domain if necessary, all assets of California American Water, or any successor in interest to California American Water, for the benefit of the District as a whole.
C. The General Manager shall, within nine (9) months of the effective date of this Rule 19.8, complete and submit to the Board of Directors a written plan as to the means to adopt and implement the policy set forth in paragraph A, above. The plan shall address acquisition, ownership, and management of all water facilities and services within and outside the District, including water purchase agreements as appropriate. The plan may differentiate treatment of non-potable water services.
As you can see, there's no mention of a feasibility study. None! Instead, it firmly establishes a public buyout as official Water Management District policy. It also mandates that the agency immediately draw up plans to buy out Cal-Am and carry out the plan “if and when feasible,” in other words, as soon as possible. Furthermore, the word “feasible” is undefined, leaving it open to a broad range of interpretations which will no doubt lead to unnecessary political and legal squabbles. 

This is no mere fact-finding study to aid us in making an informed decision on whether or not to buy out Cal-Am. No, it is an open-ended commitment to buy out Cal-Am regardless of whether it saves Peninsula ratepayers money or ends up costing us a bundle!

Just so you know where I stand, I really don't care if the water company is publicly or privately owned. I am completely neutral on the issue. If Measure J was really just a buyout feasibility study, with no obligations or strings attached, I would vote for it without hesitation. Having good data specific to local circumstances, as opposed to aggregated statistics about public water systems in general, would bring clarity to the public debate and help our community decide whether or not to pursue public ownership.

But Measure J doesn't do that. Rather it assumes that public ownership will benefit local water customers, forces the Water Management District to pursue it, and relies on the vaguely worded phrase “if and when feasible” to hopefully act as sort of an emergency brake just in case the assumption is wrong. That is bad public policy, so I urge a NO vote on Measure J.


Tags:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The problem with Car Week

-
Image
So another Car Week has come to and gone from the Monterey Peninsula. And as usual the community is divided into two camps. On one side we have people who are frustrated with the traffic, crowds, and noise. The other side is telling these folks to stop whining because "it's good for the economy." The second group has no sympathy for the first, and often goes as far as telling them to move away if they don't like special events and the tourists that come along with them. How did this come about? Car week evolved slowly over several decades. The core event is known as the Concours d'Elegance (which is pronounced properly by maybe half of the local population). The Concours began in 1950 as a single Sunday display of classic automobiles. I remember going there as a kid once, after Sunday School. I watched my dad run his hand over a smoothly polished fender, so I did the same. Suddenly a very cranky man came up behind me saying "NO, NO! FINGERPRINTS!" as...
Read more

Calling the police has gotten harder

-
Image
It has gotten harder to call the police. The last few weeks I have made several attempts to report illegal fireworks to Seaside PD. We've always used the non-emergency number 831-394-6811 to do this, and our call would be promptly answered by a dispatcher who would take the information and immediately enter it into the system. Now one must jump through several hoops with no guarantee the system won't disconnect you before the report is made. And I'm getting fed up. Instead of having our calls answered by a human, a machine will answer, much as it does for every business you call these days. First it tells you that this number is not for emergencies, and if you have an emergency you must hang up and call 911. Then they say it again in Spanish.  Next, you are instructed to choose English or Spanish. Next it tells you that they're busy answering emergency 911 calls and implies that your non-emergency concern is an imposition on their important work. Then the voice asks...
Read more

What did you vote for?

-
Image
I have a question for Trump voters. What did you vote for? I'm assuming most of you are fine upstanding citizens who want what is best for our country. You believe in the United States Constitution, and you want to uphold its principles. But from where I sit it looks like you voted, perhaps unwittingly, for something very different. To me it looks like you voted for... A con man,  A narcissist,  A bad businessman, A fascist, A crook, A puppet of Vladimir Putin, A liar, A vulgar man, A sex offender, A convicted white-collar criminal. A bully, I could go on. At the same time you're probably wondering why I voted for Kamala Harris. It's because I saw her as... A strong woman,  An intelligent woman, A competent woman, An honest woman, A woman who can stand up to bullies, both foreign and domestic, like Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump, A compassionate woman, A woman who has a good sense of humor, A woman who knows when to be tough and when to be gentle, A woman who embodies ...
Read more