In the Seeley County Water District, which serves just under 400 homes in the desert
near the border with Mexico, General Manager David Dale resigned in March 2008.
The following month his company Dynamic Consulting Engineers received no-bid
contracts from the water district's board worth over $200,000, followed by another
contract worth over $200,000 in 2010, to undertake engineering work, according to
copies of the signed contracts provided by the water district.
Dale said he was giving the board what it wanted by undertaking engineering work,
but current Board Director Patrick Harris, who came into office calling for more
reform, said the contracts show the lack of accountability.
"I can't say it's illegal. But my impression is it's unethical. There was absolutely no
oversight," Harris said.
Dale said: "Districts are not required to go to competitive bidding for professional
services. The board selected me. And before they selected me, I stepped down as
general manager."
In California drought, big money, many actors, little oversight
By Tim Reid
Reuters
Apr 25, 2014
A tumbleweed is seen at an irrigation channel on a farm near Cantua Creek,
California in this February 14, 2014 file photo. REUTERS-Robert Galbraith-Files
An irrigation pipe is seen at a farm near Cantua Creek, California in this February 14,
2014 file photo. REUTERS-Robert Galbraith
A sign advising motorists of a drought is seen along Interstate 5 near Canuta Creek,
California in this February 14, 2014 file photo. REUTERS-Robert Galbraith-Files
1 of 4. A tumbleweed is seen at an irrigation channel on a farm near Cantua Creek,
California in this February 14, 2014 file photo.
Credit: Reuters/Robert Galbraith/Files
Related Topics
U.S. »
(Reuters) - In the middle of one of the worst droughts in California's history, no one
knows exactly how many agencies supply the state with water.
While state regulators supervise three companies that provide gas and electricity for
most of California, drinking water is delivered through a vast network of agencies
which collectively do billions of dollars of business, setting rates and handing out
contracts with scant oversight.
There are so many agencies, in fact, that the California Department of Water
Resource, which is responsible for managing and protecting the state's water,
concedes that it does not even know the exact number.
"We think the total number is about 3,000 but there is no definitive resting place for
those numbers," a department spokesman said.
Some state officials and water experts are calling for change, arguing that the
process of providing water should be as clear as the product, especially in the middle
of a drought. As one of the nation's agricultural leaders and a trendsetter in
environmental regulation, California's actions could be felt beyond its borders.
Wes Strickland, an attorney who specializes in water law, says most of these water
agencies do a good job. Cities and towns like controlling their own resources, and
most of the agencies are elected, assuring a level of accountability.
But, Strickland says, good and bad, most operate "under the radar", with little public
scrutiny. "These agencies are at the forefront of the drought response," he added.
John Chiang, the California state controller, is pushing for legislation that will increase
fines for public water entities that fail to file annual reports with his office, although no
agency is responsible for reading the reports once filed.
"The lack of transparency provides a breeding ground for unchecked spending,
corruption, and fiscal mismanagement," said Chiang, who in October warned nine
cities and 117 special districts, some of which were public entities solely responsible
for managing and supplying water, that they were delinquent in filing financial records.
Just 138 utilities - those owned by investors - are regulated by an outside body, the
California Public Utilities Commission, Strickland says. The rest are governed by small
boards of locally-elected officials.
The former general manager and other unidentified current and former officials at
one major water system, southern California's Central Basin Municipal Water District,
are accused in a recent whistleblower lawsuit of using a secret $2.7 million fund for
groundwater storage as a "slush fund" that funneled cash to political allies, board
members and relatives.
The lawsuit was filed last month by district board member Leticia Vasquez. Under the
whistleblower statute she would stand to gain financially if the lawsuit succeeds. The
agency's own lawyers, in a report issued at the end of March after a nine-month
investigation, said the water district violated California's open-meeting laws when it
created the fund out of the public eye.
The former general manager has not yet filed a legal response to the allegations.
Efforts to contact him were unsuccessful. The water district said if the case proceeds,
it intends to fully cooperate.
Records relating to the fund were among those subpoenaed by federal officials last
year as part of a wider and ongoing FBI investigation into the financial activities of the
water district, which sells imported water to water districts in Los Angeles county.
Three subpoenas, seen by Reuters, requested financial records, documents and
personnel records from the water district.
The FBI and the water district declined to comment or confirm an investigation.
California's drought, which is on track to be the third worst since records began in the
early 20th century, according to state officials, threatens to have devastating effects
in the state and beyond.
Farmers are considering idling a half million acres of cropland, a loss of production
that could cause billions of dollars in economic damage, and several small
communities are at risk of running out of drinking water.
The state also recorded its driest winter to date by March. The state's snowpack,
which provides water in the spring melt, is at a record low.
From the water wars in the movie "Chinatown" to the quote attributed to Mark Twain,
"Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting," water in the West has a long history of
strife.
As California was settled, small communities would establish their own water wells.
Economic and political power often stemmed from water rights and no single entity
has ever been put in charge of the system, Strickland says.
Some of these agencies are scrambling to get new sources of water, which could
require wells, water imports and plants to treat tainted water.
THE COST OF WATER
Water is expensive. For instance, 885 "special districts", which provide drinking water
for 11 million Californians had operating expenses of $7.3 billion for fiscal year
ending 2012. Their long-term bond debt amounted to $20 billion, according to the
controller's office.
The state is planning an $8 billion water bond and Democratic assemblyman Anthony
Rendon, a sponsor, wants to put provisions for stricter oversight of how bond money
is spent.
"Past water bonds have gone to so many different places for so many things it is hard
to keep track of the money. We don't really have a place where we can find out that
information," Rendon said. "There is very little oversight over the management of one
of our most sacred and vital resources."
State data shows that salaries to water district employees vary widely and that some
small agencies are paying big-city wages.
The state controller's website, where the latest available records date to 2011, shows
the average salary to employees in 45 top-paying water special districts listed by
wage totals is over $70,000, and over $100,000 in two districts.
The chief executive of the Dublin San Ramon Service District in northern California,
which serves 157,000 people, will receive wage and benefits of nearly $338,000 for
2014, according to a water district official.
That compares with $345,000 paid to the general manager of the Department of
Water and Power (DWP) in Los Angeles - America's second largest city with a
population of 3.8 million.
Sue Stephenson, a spokeswoman for the Dublin San Ramon district, defended the
high salaries, stating that the San Francisco Bay area had a high cost of living. She
also said managing a water district is an extremely responsible job, as clean water
has to be on tap for users every minute of every day.
Most of the agencies are run by elected boards that have to file basic revenue and
spending documents, and wage and benefit totals, to California's state controller. But
they do not file full budgets and their contracts are not subject to review or singled
out in filings.
"Nobody pays any attention to these districts. So nobody knows what is going on,"
said Robert Stern, an open government advocate and an author of California's
Political Reform Act, a post-Watergate era law designed to make government more
financially transparent.
In the Seeley County Water District, which serves just under 400 homes in the desert
near the border with Mexico, General Manager David Dale resigned in March 2008.
The following month his company Dynamic Consulting Engineers received no-bid
contracts from the water district's board worth over $200,000, followed by another
contract worth over $200,000 in 2010, to undertake engineering work, according to
copies of the signed contracts provided by the water district.
Dale said he was giving the board what it wanted by undertaking engineering work,
but current Board Director Patrick Harris, who came into office calling for more
reform, said the contracts show the lack of accountability.
"I can't say it's illegal. But my impression is it's unethical. There was absolutely no
oversight," Harris said.
Dale said: "Districts are not required to go to competitive bidding for professional
services. The board selected me. And before they selected me, I stepped down as
general manager."
(Reporting by Tim Reid, editing by Peter Henderson)
near the border with Mexico, General Manager David Dale resigned in March 2008.
The following month his company Dynamic Consulting Engineers received no-bid
contracts from the water district's board worth over $200,000, followed by another
contract worth over $200,000 in 2010, to undertake engineering work, according to
copies of the signed contracts provided by the water district.
Dale said he was giving the board what it wanted by undertaking engineering work,
but current Board Director Patrick Harris, who came into office calling for more
reform, said the contracts show the lack of accountability.
"I can't say it's illegal. But my impression is it's unethical. There was absolutely no
oversight," Harris said.
Dale said: "Districts are not required to go to competitive bidding for professional
services. The board selected me. And before they selected me, I stepped down as
general manager."
In California drought, big money, many actors, little oversight
By Tim Reid
Reuters
Apr 25, 2014
A tumbleweed is seen at an irrigation channel on a farm near Cantua Creek,
California in this February 14, 2014 file photo. REUTERS-Robert Galbraith-Files
An irrigation pipe is seen at a farm near Cantua Creek, California in this February 14,
2014 file photo. REUTERS-Robert Galbraith
A sign advising motorists of a drought is seen along Interstate 5 near Canuta Creek,
California in this February 14, 2014 file photo. REUTERS-Robert Galbraith-Files
1 of 4. A tumbleweed is seen at an irrigation channel on a farm near Cantua Creek,
California in this February 14, 2014 file photo.
Credit: Reuters/Robert Galbraith/Files
Related Topics
U.S. »
(Reuters) - In the middle of one of the worst droughts in California's history, no one
knows exactly how many agencies supply the state with water.
While state regulators supervise three companies that provide gas and electricity for
most of California, drinking water is delivered through a vast network of agencies
which collectively do billions of dollars of business, setting rates and handing out
contracts with scant oversight.
There are so many agencies, in fact, that the California Department of Water
Resource, which is responsible for managing and protecting the state's water,
concedes that it does not even know the exact number.
"We think the total number is about 3,000 but there is no definitive resting place for
those numbers," a department spokesman said.
Some state officials and water experts are calling for change, arguing that the
process of providing water should be as clear as the product, especially in the middle
of a drought. As one of the nation's agricultural leaders and a trendsetter in
environmental regulation, California's actions could be felt beyond its borders.
Wes Strickland, an attorney who specializes in water law, says most of these water
agencies do a good job. Cities and towns like controlling their own resources, and
most of the agencies are elected, assuring a level of accountability.
But, Strickland says, good and bad, most operate "under the radar", with little public
scrutiny. "These agencies are at the forefront of the drought response," he added.
John Chiang, the California state controller, is pushing for legislation that will increase
fines for public water entities that fail to file annual reports with his office, although no
agency is responsible for reading the reports once filed.
"The lack of transparency provides a breeding ground for unchecked spending,
corruption, and fiscal mismanagement," said Chiang, who in October warned nine
cities and 117 special districts, some of which were public entities solely responsible
for managing and supplying water, that they were delinquent in filing financial records.
Just 138 utilities - those owned by investors - are regulated by an outside body, the
California Public Utilities Commission, Strickland says. The rest are governed by small
boards of locally-elected officials.
The former general manager and other unidentified current and former officials at
one major water system, southern California's Central Basin Municipal Water District,
are accused in a recent whistleblower lawsuit of using a secret $2.7 million fund for
groundwater storage as a "slush fund" that funneled cash to political allies, board
members and relatives.
The lawsuit was filed last month by district board member Leticia Vasquez. Under the
whistleblower statute she would stand to gain financially if the lawsuit succeeds. The
agency's own lawyers, in a report issued at the end of March after a nine-month
investigation, said the water district violated California's open-meeting laws when it
created the fund out of the public eye.
The former general manager has not yet filed a legal response to the allegations.
Efforts to contact him were unsuccessful. The water district said if the case proceeds,
it intends to fully cooperate.
Records relating to the fund were among those subpoenaed by federal officials last
year as part of a wider and ongoing FBI investigation into the financial activities of the
water district, which sells imported water to water districts in Los Angeles county.
Three subpoenas, seen by Reuters, requested financial records, documents and
personnel records from the water district.
The FBI and the water district declined to comment or confirm an investigation.
California's drought, which is on track to be the third worst since records began in the
early 20th century, according to state officials, threatens to have devastating effects
in the state and beyond.
Farmers are considering idling a half million acres of cropland, a loss of production
that could cause billions of dollars in economic damage, and several small
communities are at risk of running out of drinking water.
The state also recorded its driest winter to date by March. The state's snowpack,
which provides water in the spring melt, is at a record low.
From the water wars in the movie "Chinatown" to the quote attributed to Mark Twain,
"Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting," water in the West has a long history of
strife.
As California was settled, small communities would establish their own water wells.
Economic and political power often stemmed from water rights and no single entity
has ever been put in charge of the system, Strickland says.
Some of these agencies are scrambling to get new sources of water, which could
require wells, water imports and plants to treat tainted water.
THE COST OF WATER
Water is expensive. For instance, 885 "special districts", which provide drinking water
for 11 million Californians had operating expenses of $7.3 billion for fiscal year
ending 2012. Their long-term bond debt amounted to $20 billion, according to the
controller's office.
The state is planning an $8 billion water bond and Democratic assemblyman Anthony
Rendon, a sponsor, wants to put provisions for stricter oversight of how bond money
is spent.
"Past water bonds have gone to so many different places for so many things it is hard
to keep track of the money. We don't really have a place where we can find out that
information," Rendon said. "There is very little oversight over the management of one
of our most sacred and vital resources."
State data shows that salaries to water district employees vary widely and that some
small agencies are paying big-city wages.
The state controller's website, where the latest available records date to 2011, shows
the average salary to employees in 45 top-paying water special districts listed by
wage totals is over $70,000, and over $100,000 in two districts.
The chief executive of the Dublin San Ramon Service District in northern California,
which serves 157,000 people, will receive wage and benefits of nearly $338,000 for
2014, according to a water district official.
That compares with $345,000 paid to the general manager of the Department of
Water and Power (DWP) in Los Angeles - America's second largest city with a
population of 3.8 million.
Sue Stephenson, a spokeswoman for the Dublin San Ramon district, defended the
high salaries, stating that the San Francisco Bay area had a high cost of living. She
also said managing a water district is an extremely responsible job, as clean water
has to be on tap for users every minute of every day.
Most of the agencies are run by elected boards that have to file basic revenue and
spending documents, and wage and benefit totals, to California's state controller. But
they do not file full budgets and their contracts are not subject to review or singled
out in filings.
"Nobody pays any attention to these districts. So nobody knows what is going on,"
said Robert Stern, an open government advocate and an author of California's
Political Reform Act, a post-Watergate era law designed to make government more
financially transparent.
In the Seeley County Water District, which serves just under 400 homes in the desert
near the border with Mexico, General Manager David Dale resigned in March 2008.
The following month his company Dynamic Consulting Engineers received no-bid
contracts from the water district's board worth over $200,000, followed by another
contract worth over $200,000 in 2010, to undertake engineering work, according to
copies of the signed contracts provided by the water district.
Dale said he was giving the board what it wanted by undertaking engineering work,
but current Board Director Patrick Harris, who came into office calling for more
reform, said the contracts show the lack of accountability.
"I can't say it's illegal. But my impression is it's unethical. There was absolutely no
oversight," Harris said.
Dale said: "Districts are not required to go to competitive bidding for professional
services. The board selected me. And before they selected me, I stepped down as
general manager."
(Reporting by Tim Reid, editing by Peter Henderson)
Water districts fly below the
radar as drought hits California
radar as drought hits California
Indemnifying your own
lawyer
Here is a quote from a San Diego
Union Tribune editorial about
Otay Water District:
"Usually when an outside law
firm represents a public agency,
either the law firm indemnifies
the agency against bad legal
advice or both sides
agree that each will be held
harmless.
"Legal experts say [that
indemnification of lawyers] is a
far from normal procedure for
public agencies.
Most lawyers would not ask to be
released from liability for advice
rendered to a client."
[Maura Larkins: But that is exactly
what Bonifacio Garcia of Williams
Sorenson law firm demanded; when
he was sued for his actions, the
ratepayers had to defend them!]
The Union Tribune editorial
ended with two questions:
"(1) ...Why would any client,
especially a public agency,
supported entirely by [tax]
payer dollars, agree to such a
deal?
"(2) "What kind of legal advice
is [a public agency] receiving if
its attorneys won't stand behind
that advice without indemnity?"
I ask you, what is going on here?
It is doing this to help keep
individuals who are guilty of
wrongdoing in control of the
districts.
Until you disavow the practice of
indemnifying outside lawyers, I
will be left wondering: What can
you possibly be thinking?
lawyer
Here is a quote from a San Diego
Union Tribune editorial about
Otay Water District:
"Usually when an outside law
firm represents a public agency,
either the law firm indemnifies
the agency against bad legal
advice or both sides
agree that each will be held
harmless.
"Legal experts say [that
indemnification of lawyers] is a
far from normal procedure for
public agencies.
Most lawyers would not ask to be
released from liability for advice
rendered to a client."
[Maura Larkins: But that is exactly
what Bonifacio Garcia of Williams
Sorenson law firm demanded; when
he was sued for his actions, the
ratepayers had to defend them!]
The Union Tribune editorial
ended with two questions:
"(1) ...Why would any client,
especially a public agency,
supported entirely by [tax]
payer dollars, agree to such a
deal?
"(2) "What kind of legal advice
is [a public agency] receiving if
its attorneys won't stand behind
that advice without indemnity?"
I ask you, what is going on here?
It is doing this to help keep
individuals who are guilty of
wrongdoing in control of the
districts.
Until you disavow the practice of
indemnifying outside lawyers, I
will be left wondering: What can
you possibly be thinking?
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| San Diego Education Report |
| SDER |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
| SDER |
| SDER |
| SDER |