The new ordinance – which succeeds an ordinance passed by the board in September 2006 – will be in effect for 45 days and then must return to the board, which must consider whether or not to extend it for as long as two years, according to County Counsel Anita Grant.
The board met at the Spring Valley Community Center for the discussion and vote, which was held over from Sept. 23. About 100 people attended the meeting.
However, the board decided to delay a decision on the cost of service rate study looking at water rates and operation in Spring Valley's County Service Area No. 2.
For more than two and a half hours the board took public comment and discussed the water system's capacity, which proved to be a divisive issue.
The need to continue the moratorium limiting hookups to the water system was emphasized in a letter from the California Department of Public Health to Special District Administrator Mark Dellinger.
In that letter, Bruce Burton, engineer for the Mendocino District based in Santa Rosa, said that according to Public Health's assessment, Spring Valley's maximum daily demand is 461,000 gallons. Burton said the agency concluded that the district suffers from an 81,000-gallon-per-day source deficiency and lacks 121,000 gallons per day in storage capacity.
Based on that assessment, Burton said the department "continues to strongly recommend that the connection moratorium in the initial emergency ordinance be kept in place until additional source capacity is obtained for the system, or until five years of production data is available that shows a sustainable decrease in system demands without the presence of surcharges."
The surcharges referred to in Burton's letter are based on usage and, according to Dellinger, act as a kind of forced conservation measure.
Supervisor Denise Rushing asked Dellinger about the potential ramifications if the board didn't take Burton's advice and continue the connection moratorium.
"I think if there is no conservation that there is a chance that we're going to run into more problems supplying water in this system that we have," said Dellinger.
Several community members who spoke claimed that Spring Valley residents were facing potentially huge rate increases based on the information in the rate study, and also alleged that millions of gallons of water were being lost due to leaks.
Supervisor Rob Brown said those allegations have been made before and have been proved to be inaccurate, and he asked Dellinger to respond.
Dellinger said that, based on average water consumption in the valley outlined in the cost of service rate study, over five years the monthly bill could climb to about $122. It was noted later in the meeting that monthly bills currently run around $39.50 for average use.
But that $122 number looks at the entire system's infrastructure needs, said Dellinger, rather than just the basic fixes to justify getting rid of the surcharges and increasing capacity. It's a large number because system maintenance has been deferred a long time in Spring Valley, he explained.
"For so long maintenance has been deferred in all the systems we manage," Dellinger said.
But taking on all of the system's challenges "doesn't look like it's going to work," Dellinger said, and could end up costing more than the system's customers can afford.
Addressing issues of leakages, Dellinger said it hasn't been a matter of losing millions of gallons of water, but rather an old billing system that was dropping zeros and not properly billing customers for usage.
While parts of the aging system do suffer from leaks, Dellinger said Special Districts staff has attempted to respond and repair those as quickly as possible. The system's clear well has a small leak this is due to be repaired, he added, but tests have found that, overall, the system is doing fairly well considering its age, materials and construction techniques.
Spring Valley resident Cathy Jones accused Special Districts of "pitiful business practices" in terms of billing and "revolving door excuses" in responding to residents' concerns. She said another "unwarranted ordinance" such as that before the board could cause financial hardships.
Jones added that she believes Special Districts is creating a "money pit" for many consultants and studies.
"It is not our responsibility to fund the needs of future development," she said.
Maximum daily usage for the valley's water users was an issue of repeated concern. Jim Fluker was one of several people who addressed that issue. Fluker said customers aren't properly billed and meters not properly read, which he suggested was part of arriving at faulty capacity numbers.
Valley resident David Jones offered the board his own research on the system's capacity and usage, explaining that a new billing system and water meters are doing a better job of accounting for the system's water.
He said in 2006 the system only used 45 percent of its capacity. "We have the capacity," he insisted. "We're not using half of what we can produce now."
Jones said the aim of the prior urgency ordinance didn't need to be continued with a new one. He said a flawed study suggested the valley's residents used 1,000 gallons of water per day per household, which he said his research doesn't support.
Brown asked Dellinger about the potential consequences of lifting the ordinance.
Dellinger said he expected the state to impose its own connection moratorium. "They will do that instantly, I'm certain of that."
Florence Kinder said she was in favor of the moratorium because she was afraid that if it were lifted more people would move into the area and tax the system. Why wait until things break to fix them?Kinder asked.
"We don't want to do it that way anymore," said Board Chair Ed Robey.
In the most contentious portion of the meeting, resident Don Scott accused the board of taking illegal action. He claimed the water district is a nonprofit required to provide water to customers at cost, and couldn't institute any other measures.
Grant said water and government code gives the county the jurisdiction to set limits on wateruses for a described period of time until a health and emergency situation ceases to exist.
Rushing said the board isn't interested in raising rates on citizens for the purpose of expansion, and that there's a difference between capital improvement and maintenance. Existing ratepayers need to pay to fix the current system, she said.
Dellinger himself came under attack from several community members at the meeting. However, one longtime valley resident, Ernie Lahti, said Dellinger was doing an excellent job.
"You can see how divisive this community is," he said.
Brown also defended Dellinger. "I have nothing but support and confidence in the information that Mark has given us. There have been a lot of allegations here, and it's ridiculous, in my opinion."
He said there's no motivation for Dellinger or anyone else to intentionally offer inaccurate information about the system. Many of those making the allegations have been given the correct answers time and again and have chosen not to listen, Brown said.
Brown added that he doesn't see anything productive coming from the personal attacks. "We have more issues with this community than every other water district combined."
Rushing moved the urgency ordinance, which was accepted 4-0, with Supervisor Anthony Farrington absent.
The rate study will be reconsidered at another time, Robey said.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
{mos_sb_discuss:3}
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
