A scorpion asks a frog to carry him across a river. The frog, who fears being stung during the trip, is convinced by the scorpion to make the journey because their fates in the river are aligned. The frog agrees carries the scorpion, but while in the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both to drown. When the frog asks why, the scorpion says that this action is in his nature. (Paraphrased from Aesop’s Fables.)

You may be aware that the California Water Service Co. (Cal Water), which provides water service to the community of Lucerne, recently filed for a general rate case in which they are asking for another 77 percent increase over three years for the water system in Lucerne.

This proposed increase comes at an already difficult time, and is placed upon one of Lake County’s already struggling communities.

Since Jan. 1, 2009, at least 92 homes have been lost to foreclosure in Lucerne. This amounts to one displaced family every two weeks.

This issue can be confusing. It is important to point out that the Board of Supervisors has virtually no say in the level of rates in the town of Lucerne.

While the county does not manage the Lucerne water system, the county does pay water bills there and we do share – as all citizens do – in the burden of the economic difficulties in communities that are served by out-of-area water companies.

On Tuesday, Aug. 14, at 11a.m., I am asking the Board of Supervisors to authorize sending a letter to the Public Utility Commission in opposition to Cal Water’s rate increase in Lucerne.

I urge all citizens who are concerned about the fate of our brothers and sisters in Lucerne, to take the next step – share their views with our state legislators and the public utilities commission.

I also need to point out that the entire ratemaking structure is unjust and incentivizes this corporate misbehavior and societal injustice.

While many have portrayed Cal Water as greedy and opportunistic, it is like the above story of the scorpion and the frog. The company is doing what is in its nature – Cal Water is simply playing by the ratemaking rules, and they get paid when they play the game well.  

The rules themselves are fundamentally unfair because they do not have an incentive for Cal Water to share its fate with the community it serves and do not take into account its nature with appropriate disallowances.  

At minimum state regulators need to consider an affordability provision or a cap – and a provision that ties rate increases to the economic well-being of the disadvantaged communities being served. Lucerne should not pay even one penny to remodel corporate offices in San Jose.

It is also important to note that the purpose of the item taken up by our board meeting on Aug. 14 is to enlist the board’s help in speaking out for Lucerne.

My hope is that the citizenry will read the facts I share here and share their own. I also hope to gather stories – how residents are impacted by Cal Waters current rates, what is happening to the community because of it, and I am asking the supervisors to speak for Lucerne to this unjust system.

Our board is often faced with increasing water and sewer rates for the systems in which we manage. In these economic times, we have asked Special Districts and the county in general to avoid any unnecessary expenses – and we look for ways to avoid or at least spread any required costs out to keep the rates affordable. I believe that the public utility commission and Cal Water have that same responsibility.

I would like to suggest that citizens look at the facts and share their own facts and stories as full time residents of this community.

Here are the points I believe that need to be made by citizens to the PUC:

First, we need to note that these “average monthly bills” as stated by Cal Water do not tell the whole story for the average full time resident of Lucerne.

According to the information provided by Cal Water, the proposed rate increase is substantial, effectively doubling Lucerne residents’ water costs within three years, bringing the “average bill” from $62.85 per month to $124.22 per month. Since Lucerne residents are billed every other month, if Cal Water’s calculations hold, the average bimonthly bill would be $228.44.

While the average bill as portrayed by Cal Water is already well above those compared to other communities, it must be noted that are even greater for the actual full-time resident of Lucerne.

In this case, “average” as stated by Cal Water is misleading. Lucerne is a community that has a large number of homes which are used as vacation or second homes and therefore has a vacancy rate of over 25 percent.

While the “typical” current monthly average is listed as $62.85, we have found that the actual bill for a full-time resident is usually much higher. Cal Water’s figures reflect a much lower average bill than is typical for a full-time Lucerne resident.

Second, the community is in a downward economic cycle perpetuated by the fixed costs of the water system.

The American Community Survey, conducted by the US Census Bureau, shows that more than 41 percent of Lucerne households earn less than $25,000 per year. This is in stark contrast to just under 20 percent of households for all of California.

Nearly 25 percent of Lucerne residents have had an income below the poverty level in the past 12 months.

Another indicator is that nearly 62 percent (22 percent in all of California) of households that rent have an income of less than $20,000 per year.

Over 42 percent – only 20 percent in all of California – of those households spend over 30 percent of that income on housing costs.

How can these families afford to spend, on average, an additional $735 per year on water?

Again, this increase is based on the numbers provided by Cal Water and we expect that the actual rate increase and burden on Lucerne residents will be much higher than stated. This community is already struggling to survive under its current water rates.

Third, the onerous water bill is a significant factor in the pushing families to the economic brink in the community of Lucerne – perpetuating the downward economic cycle in this community.

The entire ratemaking process does not take into account this destructive cycle – costs are simply allocated to those who remain on the system and the “averages” do not tell the story.

Taken to its extreme – if only two residents remained in the community – would they be responsible for the entire costs of the system?

Fourth, state regulators and Cal Water share the responsibility for turning this downward economic cycle around.

The underlying ratemaking structure is at issue here. At minimum, an “affordability cap” for the fixed costs of any company’s system as reflected water rates would make sense when addressing rates for these disadvantaged communities.

As the Board of Supervisors, and board of directors for many water systems, we take this responsibility seriously when allocating rates for the communities in which we serve water – we would expect Cal Water to do the same.

Finally, we need to question the motivation behind the rate increase.

The Cal Water application states that the increase is necessary due to a decrease in water usage since the last increase, and therefore a subsequent increase is needed to cover the fixed costs of operating the water system.

However, among the top reasons for the increase are $108,000 for salary increases, an additional $38,000 for employee benefits and repayment of cost incurred for a remodel project in 2011 at Cal Water’s office in San Jose.

Cal Water’s application shows that 34 districts are expected to share in the cost of renovations that have already been made to the San Jose facility. The Lucerne ratepayers are expected to pay the second highest share per volume of water of those 34 districts.

A small system, such as Lucerne, requires a large portion of expenditures to be shared by a small number of users. This formula is not fair to a small group of ratepayers, particularly ones with extremely low incomes.  

A larger district with more users to spread the costs can afford new trucks, higher salaries and better benefits, but to expect that same level of support from a small, disadvantaged community is problematic and unfair.

In these difficult times, and with no apparent relief to the economic crisis in sight, the last thing that should be placed on the backs of local residents is the doubling of their cost to access our most essential resource, water.

I call on the citizens of Lake County to support Lucerne’s fight with this unjust ratemaking system.

Ask the PUC to deny the application for a rate increase as proposed by the California Water Service Co. for the Lucerne rate area and request the rate structures for small utility systems be analyzed and revised to reflect the undue and unrealistic burden on ratepayers.

Denise Rushing represents Lucerne, Calif., and the Northshore of Lake County on the Lake County Board of Supervisors.

The recent revelation that the California State Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) has a “secret” fund of $54 million has plunged the department into chaos and disgusted and angered state park supporters all over the state.

For good reason. The budget deficit that precipitated the proposed closure of 70 state parks, including Lake County’s Anderson Marsh State Historic Park, is $22 million.

So, where does this leave Anderson Marsh State Historic Park?

The Anderson Marsh Interpretive Assoc. (AMIA) is the nonprofit cooperating association with the park that has been working for over a year to make sure that the park does not close.

The original closure date was July 1, but that date has been delayed because AMIA is among the many nonprofits that are in the midst of negotiating an operating agreement with DPR.

AMIA has been fundraising diligently and has been able through local contributions from individuals and other nonprofits, grants from the State Park Foundation and volunteer commitments to establish funding necessary to take over some operations of the park, including opening and closing gates on the weekend, paying for utilities, sanitary facilities, insurance and trail maintenance.

The revelation of the $54 million in hidden monies will not change our efforts.

Even before the budget crisis hit, Anderson Marsh State Historic Park suffered from neglect. Our plan is to continue to negotiate our operating agreement contract which will hopefully be in place within the next few months.

Donors to our effort need to know that all of the funds donated go to AMIA and, in turn, to the park.

Also, unlike the state, apparently, we are not only happy, but are required, to show our “books” to anyone who requests it.

There is no guarantee that the $54 million will go back to state parks and, if it does, there is no guarantee that Anderson Marsh State Historic Park will see any of that money.

If, on the other hand, the state miraculously places that money in the state parks budget, and parks are taken off of the closure list, including our park, we will celebrate.

The money collected so far could go a long way in taking care of some much-needed deferred maintenance problems at the park as well as fund needed improvements.

Having been so critical of DPR on the state level, we need to emphasize that local state park rangers and our sector superintendent, Bill Salata, are very supportive of Anderson Marsh State Historic Park.

Superintendent Salata has a vision for the park and began implementing that vision when he took over the job, only to be halted by the budget crisis and threat of closure.

The important issue remains keeping the park open.

Our supporters and donors need to separate the park from the State Department of Parks.

Anderson Marsh State Historic Park is important for many reasons. It supports valuable wildlife habitat. It provides walking and hiking opportunities for hundreds of people who use the park; many local folks walk there every day.

The park has been the site of the Old Time Bluegrass Festival, which has become an important event for the South County; it is an educational facility for local schools.

The park is all of these things and could be much more but it needs the continued support of local people.

We hope that our supporters don’t give up on our local park because the state park officials at the highest level have failed so miserably.

Roberta Lyons is president of the Anderson Marsh Interpretive Association, based in Lower Lake, Calif.

Recently I have received numerous inquires concerning my plans for the Clearlake City Council election.

After nearly three decades of public service to the city of Clearlake, I will not be seeking reelection. It is time to rest.

I began my public service career in the early 1980s when I became employed with the city of Clearlake. My long tenure with the city has provided me the landmark honor of becoming the longest serving employee in our city’s history.  

When I first walked through the doors of City Hall seeking employment, I never imagined that one day I would ultimately become an elected official, receiving landmark votes twice in our city’s election history. That honor affirmed the trust the citizens of Clearlake placed in me. It was that trust that I carried with me each day of my elected tenure.

In 2004, as I ran for a seat on the Clearlake City Council, I made only one promise. My promise was to always work hard and always work in the best interest of our community. I never forgot that promise.

Each day I would remind myself that the things I did and the decisions I made could have a lasting effect on the lives and well-being of people. I knew I had the ability to impact lives, so I took my elected position seriously.

As the years rolled by as an elected official, the more I did made me want to do more to serve our community. There was always a new challenge around the corner to help make a bigger difference.

This “part-time” council job became a full-time job to me. There were many calls on my time, filling my schedule daily. Soon my whole life revolved around this council job.

Throughout my years on the Clearlake City Council, I have had the privilege of representing our city as a three-time mayor and two-time vice mayor.

I find it difficult to think of the many accomplishments that I was a part of during the last 30 years. It is impossible to sum up these accomplishments at this time.

One of my strongest passions was promoting safety for our seniors, our youth and our communities.

I was privileged to spearhead the Burns Valley Pathway project for senior safety, as I always believed seniors should be valued, supported and appreciated.

When a drunken driving tragedy struck my family, it kindled inside of me a passion to help others. I created the award-winning Team DUI to help educate our entire county on the true realties of driving under the influence with the educational focus on our youth.

Through Team DUI, many lives have been saved and many more will be saved.

During my years on the city council, I advocated for public safety, utilizing my many years of budgeting experience and knowledge to play a key role in building effective teamwork to help provide our police department the necessary resources to maintain public safety within our community.

Throughout my entire tenure on the city council, i never let the fear of challenge keep me from doing what i believed was in the best interest of our city.

I did what I felt was right, respecting individuals’ rights to their opinions. I faced challenges with honesty, integrity and respect, as the key to success was to be true and ethical to my principals.

I never compromised my values to achieve popularity.

My career with the City of Clearlake has been an amazing journey. Regrets after nearly 30 years – I have a few, but too few to mention.

At the end of the day I can reflect on how I served our community, knowing that the office I held was all about helping people, as the heart of our city is the people within.
 
To all of the citizens of Clearlake and the many wonderful individuals throughout the entire county, please accept my heartfelt gratitude for being part of my life and allowing me the opportunity to be part of the life of our communities.

I will always be proud to call Clearlake my home.

Judy Thein serves on the city council for the city of Clearlake, Calif.

During your first election campaign I was a Gary Lewis supporter. You were new on the scene and Gary had accomplished a few things I wanted to see happen. As I sat talking to Gary one day at his election camp, some of the things he said about you started to not add up on how I perceive you. His criticisms of you were not being based in politics and I started looking at him differently.

After you won the election I became quite pleased with the way you conducted yourself on the Board of Supervisors and with your constituency. That's why I prefer local politics not based on parties and affiliations, it makes it easier to vote for people with ideas and vote based on performance rather than platforms.

However, recently, for whatever reason, you seem to not be as interested in hearing what our constituency has to say or to be as involved in the community as you have been in the past.

When the marijuana growers from another county moved in behind my house and started putting up 8-foot fences, burying watering tanks, grading, installing solar and gas generators, and taking up residence under tents, you did not seem too concerned when I contacted you about it via an e-mail.

Now when one of your constituents gives you a long detailed letter about what's going on in their neighborhood and looks to you for help, please understand they will become quite concerned when your answer in a reply e-mail is a short, “‘Yes, these things are popping up all over.’ – Denise Rushing.’”

I stared at that short e-mail for a while and thought, “What the heck?” I really wanted an opinion from you on the subject, and even a short- and long-range plan to deal with it. I thought that was how politicians handled their constituents.

Later that day I stopped by at a neighbor’s house and was talking about your e-mail. They said they had also contacted you with little success concerning a next-door neighbor who was moving in junk cars and generally making a wreck out of the neighborhood.

They received a note from you that said, “Well, you can't tell people how to live.” We were both puzzled because this didn't sound like the Denise Rushing that we come to know. The Denise Rushing we knew wanted to clean up blight and make Lucerne and Nice look a lot better.

After the resounding defeat of Measure D the voters sent a clear message to the Board of Supervisors saying, “Deal with this.” Sixty-six percent of your voting public wants you to crush this problem and give minimal legal rights to people growing marijuana for medical purposes. The voting public wants you to greatly limit collectives growing in the area in any legal way you can.

I may be wrong, but when I see you as a part of the advisory committee and listen to your views in the Board of Supervisors meetings, it appears you are trying to take a position somewhere in the middle.

Now I know you've had a rich full life and probably met many people who grow marijuana for purposes other than medicinal. I realize you probably know that these people would love to game the medical marijuana system or do what I call piggybacking for purposes of profit. Nowhere in Proposition 215 or SB420 does it mention profit.

Please, in all your future dealings I'd love to see you toughen up and become the person you were when you are fighting for your constituents in the water problem in Lucerne at the beginning of your Lake County political career. I genuinely like you and think you are a fine person, and would love to see you return to your fighting form and fight for the majority of your constituency while protecting the rights of the medical marijuana user by pushing back hard against the criminal element wanting to join it.

You've noticed in one of the last Board of Supervisors meetings when the people showed up to testify from Middletown and Kelseyville how frightened and disappointed the real constituency of the Board of Supervisors is.

You've learned that most of the people that are growing marijuana in the neighborhoods are exceeding the amount needed to satisfy their medical requirements.

You've learned that many of these people that are growing marijuana are not being good neighbors. You saw evidence of death and destruction to animals and the potential of death and destruction to human beings because of these bad neighbors.

Now as you said, “You can't tell people how to live.” However, if you want people to listen to your suggestions and be good neighbors you can control how they live by limiting with law.

Cut down the number of plants to the bare legal minimum reducing the need for guard dogs that these people can control, the need for weaponry to protect the large amount of plants and the other suggestions that the urgency ordinance offers. Personally, I see no reason we would ever need to change the urgency ordinance. People needing medicinal marijuana never had a supply problem or demand problem previously.

There is a time to negotiate and perhaps you see your position on the advisory board that of a negotiator.

Please remember that you do not have to play the middle; your constituency would like to see you negotiate for us and we believe due to the 66 percent to 34 percent mandate that you hold all of the cards.

Greg Cornish lives in Nice, Calif.

As California Attorney General, I have traveled the state to see how the mortgage crisis continues to impact California families.

I have visited neighborhoods where empty homes are magnets for criminal activity. I have heard the stories of responsible homeowners who lost their family homes – who lost their piece of the American Dream.

For far too long, too many California homeowners have been ensnarled in a long and painful nightmare.

Here in Lake County, there were nearly 3,000 foreclosures between 2008 and 2011. That translates to 1 out of every 12 homes.

We are now at a crossroads.

According to recent estimates, there are as many as 700,000 California households in the “foreclosure pipeline” today – many of them in Lake County. What these homeowners will tell you is that they need relief now.

In particular, they need the flaws in this system to be fixed, such as dual tracking – the dysfunctional practice in which a bank forecloses while the homeowner is negotiating in good faith for a loan modification.

Struggling homeowners also describe another experience that I have heard countless times: They’ll call their banks, only to be connected to a different person each time and someone who is unfamiliar with their situation and doesn’t have their paperwork. They’re continually forced to re-explain their situation and submit, often by fax machine, the same mountain of paperwork.

The solution is the California Homeowner Bill of Rights, which will end dual tracking and give homeowners a single point of contact as they navigate the system and try to keep their homes – a person at the bank who knows the facts of their case, has their paperwork and can get them a decision about their application.

This week, we took a step in the right direction. Key elements of the California Homeowner Bill of Rights passed out of a legislative conference committee.

The next step comes on Monday, when the full Legislature is set to vote on its passage – and it is my hope we’ll do what is right.

The national mortgage settlement we achieved last fall secured a commitment of up to $18 billion for California homeowners from the nation’s five major banks. It was an important first step.

But the protections of that agreement apply only to Californians whose home loans are handled by one of those five banks.

The same common-sense protections should apply across the board, which is why we need the California Homeowner Bill of Rights.
 
I encourage every Californian to reach out to their legislators and urge them to make sure we pass the California Homeowner Bill of Rights.

This is not a partisan issue. This is a basic issue of fairness – and one that requires action now.

Kamala D. Harris is California’s 32nd attorney general. To see how the California Homeowner Bill of Rights would benefit families in California, visit http://oag.ca.gov/ .

In keeping with the Soper-Reese Community Theatre’s goal of providing a venue for our community to present local talent, we are looking ahead to partnering once again with an important nonprofit organization.

The Allegro Music Scholarship Program provides scholarships to young music students to support their ongoing music education.

A concert on Sunday, Nov. 4, is focused on young music students who have attained a high level of proficiency in their performance. They have become “Young Music Masters,” and we are honoring their success by featuring them in the concert.

A reception will be held at 2 p.m., with the performance starting at 3 p.m. All proceeds will go to the Allegro Scholarship Program.

This month we again highlight a local musician. Andy Rossoff is a Lake County resident who is highly committed to his music and his community.

By day he is an attorney with the Senior Law Project, providing free legal services to seniors. The Senior Law Project was incorporated in 1983 as a tax-exempt agency. Funding is provided by the Area Agency on Aging, the State Bar of California Legal Services Trust Fund, public and private grants, and client and community donations. The program serves Lake and Mendocino Counties from its Lakeport Office.

By night and weekends, Andy is committed to his music. Increasingly you will see him playing at community events and sharing his passion for his beloved New Orleans jazz.

He has played at the theater’s Third Friday Live and Lake County Live programs, the Pear Festival and the Arts Council’s First Friday Fling.

He also has performed around the lake at local wineries and restaurants. Andy travels often to New Orleans to develop his music, and in doing so has made friends with many jazz greats.

For the past several years, at his own expense, Andy has hosted a house party featuring one of New Orleans’ great jazz pianists, Tom McDermott.

This year it is Andy’s wish to share Tom’s visit to Lake County with the broader community. With Andy’s help, the Soper-Reese Community Theatre will host Tom McDermott playing jazz on Saturday, Aug. 18, starting at 7 p.m. The Soper-Reese Community Theatre will be transformed into a New Orleans Jazz club.

Coming up:

Tuesday Classic Movies, “1776,” July 10, 6 p.m.

Third Friday Live “After the Park” on July 20, 9 p.m. After the concert in Library Park, enjoy more music at the Soper Reese with the group “Short Stax.” Doors will open at 8:30 pm, and the music starts at 9 p.m.

Lake County Live radio broadcast on KPFZ 88.1 FM on Sunday, July 29, 6 p.m. Arrive by 5:30 p.m. to join the live audience and play a part in the broadcast.

August events include Miss Teen Lake County Pageant on Aug. 4; Golden Follies on Aug. 11 and 12; New Orleans Jazz on Aug. 18; Cheating Daylight on Aug. 25.

Tickets are available at The Travel Center in the Shoreline Shopping Center, Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., The theater box office, 275 S. Main St., will be will be open again on Fridays from 10:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. is always open two hours before show time on the day of any event.

Tickets also can be purchased on line at www.soperreesetheatre.com .

For all the latest in information, tickets and more go to www.soperreesetheatre.com , and we’ll see you at the theater.

Kathy Windrem and Mike Adams are part of the large volunteer group that run the Soper-Reese Community Theatre in Lakeport, Calif.