The Borrego Water District Board of Directors would never, in any of its many, sorry incarnations, have been mistaken for a brain trust - even by the people of Borreo Springs who elected them. In 2005, however, members of a particularly incompetent, arrogant, and out-of-control board apparently decided that they did not want ad hoc committee meetings - of which there were many at the time - to be constrained by any semblance of structure or organization lest the many, sudden, spontaneous, inspired, and incredibly brilliant insights that they believed such meetings routinely produced be somehow suppressed thereby. Here are provided unapologetically irreverent, unofficial, and definitely unauthorized summaries of the ad hoc meetings dealing with groundwater management as a public service. They were written and e-mailed to everyone who had requested to be placed on the Borrego Water District's distribution list for meeting notices and related materials. These mailings were not, needless to say, sanctioned by the Borrego Water District or its Board of Directors, but they did achieve their desired end when in early 2006 the board finally relented and reorganized and simplified the committee structure.
Despite the BWD Board’s refusal to provide either agendas or minutes for ad hoc and sub-committee meetings – apparently on the theory that if you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there – the chair (Mr. Mendenhall) nonetheless deigned to pass out an agenda at the beginning of this meeting. There were two items on it:
Discussion of the creation of a tax benefit assessment district;
Continue consideration of the Viking Ranch Community Benefit Project.
Mr. Dickinson inquired as to why his request to place creation of implementation mechanisms for the purchase and fallow program to be funded by the groundwater mitigation policy on the agenda, which was submitted in writing to the BWD General Manager on 18 November 2005, had not been honored.
Mr. Mendenhall responded that it had not "Because I (Mr. Mendenhall) put together the agenda." Well, that explained a lot.
After that unusually thoughtful, detailed, and helpful explanation Mr. Mendenhall asked for and Mr. Dickinson provide a printed copy of his letter of 18 Nov. After glancing at the letter Mr. Mendenhall implied that Mr. Dickinson had lied when he said he had sent the letter about three weeks ago. Mr. Dickinson took umbrage, and there ensued a tête á tête between Messers Dickinson and Mendenhall regarding how computers work and prescribed mechanisms for submitting items to be placed on ad hoc committee agendas (submitted in writing to the BWD General Manager).
The group then turned its attention to item 1 above concerning a written proposal from David Taussig Associates, Inc., to provide financial consulting services to assist the Borrego Water District in the creation of a district-wide standby charge and/or the formation of an Assessment District to fund groundwater recharge improvements or services that had been referred to the ad hoc by the BWD Board at its last meeting. Most of those in attendance were seeing this four page document for the first time; so, after allowing a full two minutes for everyone to read, analyze, and frame questions about this fairly dense and technical document, the chair opened discussion. The results were predictable. Notwithstanding the fact that few knew or understood what was in the proposal, there were many comments, suggestions, opinions, and questions (but no answers)
Finally, Mr. Dickinson recommended that a member of David Taussig Associates, Inc. be invited to meet with the ad hoc or the BWD Board to flesh out the proposal and answer questions that had been raised in the discussion, but not answered. The suggestion was ignored. Mr. Smiley then suggested that a survey be conducted to determine the sense of the community regarding creation of a district-wide standby charge and/or the formation of an Assessment District to fund groundwater recharge improvements or services. His suggestion was likewise ignored.
The discussion continued for a short time with no focus until the chair spontaneously decided to move on. There was no decision taken in re item 1. Thanks to lack of leadership from the chair, the committee did not decide to do anything, or not to do anything, or what the next step might be in dealing with this important issue, or even if they would revisit it. They simply left it in limbo and wandered off. No wonder the Board is so adamantly opposed to creating a paper trail.
Having successfully avoided doing anything constructive about item 1, the chair moved on to item two of the agenda. For the Nth time (where (N-(N-1))= ENOUGH ALREADY!), Jim Engelke presented essentially the same unformation regarding capturing water from Coyote Creek to recharge the Borrego Valley aquifer. The only difference between this and previous presentations was that he had with him a consulting hydrologist to provide some of the details that members of the ad hoc committee and the BWD Board have repeatedly demanded. His timing was unfortunate, however, as Tim Ross, an engineering geologist with the California Department of Water Resources who is knowledgeable about and has a computer model of the hydrology of the valley had just submitted an article to the Borrego Sun showing that the yield of the euphemistically named Community Benefit Project would be only about one third of the amount projected by Engelke, et. al., thereby calling into question the economic viability of the project.
Aside: It is worthy of note that the Borrego Sun solicited Mr. Ross’s article and comments from several other water experts (see: “Aquifer recharge: Its potential and limitations for Borrego valley,” Borrego Sun, 15 Dec. 2005, p.8 ff.). Their comments ranged from flat-out rejection of the recharge proposal to lukewarm about its prospects. Much credit is due the Borrego Sun for taking this initiative. The BWD could and should have done the same thing and avoided many repetitious presentations and meaningless discussions; but they did not. We can only hope that Engelke, et. al. will now cease and desist from wasting the BWD Board’s time until they have good, solid science and engineering to substantiate their fanciful schemes.At the end of the meeting there was a brief discussion of Lane Sharman’s proposal for a Borrego Water Exchange modeled after the Chicago Carbon Exchange. This is a promising idea for a free market solution to the overdraft and Mr. Sharman is an articulate spokesman for it. Stay tuned.
Meeting adjourned with no action nor any sudden, spontaneous, or inspired insights.
Regrettably submitted,
Your humble scribe.
According to the BWD Office on 16 December 2005 the following meetings will be held at the BWD Office beginning at 9:00 a.m.
11 Jan. ad hoc committee on new development/preservation
12 Jan. ad hoc committee on Groundwater Management
18 Jan. sub-committee on tiered water rates of the ad hoc committee on conservation TBA ad hoc committee on conservation
n.b.: The one and only notice of this meeting was e-mailed on Tue., 10 Jan 2006 at 15:26:23, about 17 and one half hours before the meeting w/o comment or agenda. Seems an odd way to maximize participation – if, indeed, that was the intent.
Present: Russ Fogarty, Eleanor Shimeall, Jerry Jones, Judy Meier, Steve Smiley, Rudy Monica, Duane Young, Dick Walker, Jim Engelke, Beth Hart, Lane Sharman, Dennis Dickinson
Eleanor Shimeall (the Convener?) gleefully announced that there was no agenda for the meeting – though she scarce needed bother for it soon became painfully obvious.
Mr. Fogarty announced that the California Water Awareness Campaign offered ad templates that can be customized and published locally to encourage water conservation. The BWD will use these ads in a local publicity campaign. He also promulgated the URL of a website that provides detailed information about household water use by room.
Eleanor Shimeall then raised the question of what the Ad-Hoc Committee on Conservation should do going forward (a strange question given that "ad hoc" means "for that specific purpose only." Here we apparently have a committee in search of its hoc. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?) The discussion started with tiered water rates (conservation pricing), lurched on to mitigation policies, and mushroomed into a confused and confusing exchange about fund reserves for groundwater management that consisted mostly of people talking past each other. Remember the missing agenda?
Then followed an even more diffuse debate about whether the BWD was actually doing anything about groundwater management or not. Mr. Dickinson took the negative on the grounds that there is not a single mechanism in place that has saved or is saving any water. He was obviously in the minority. Others were willing to give the BWD an A for effort, claiming that their intentions are good (Intimations of the road to hell?). But they seemingly have been intending to do, or at least talking about doing, something useful for years with nothing to show for it. (The only tangible product of this protracted period of good intentions is a Ground Water Management Plan adopted well over three years ago after more than three years in preparation. It has never been implemented or even updated despite the fact that the Plan itself specifically requires annual updates.)
Several folks also observed that the Board has actually accomplished some things in the last year (actually, only in the last six months). All this proves, however, is what photographers and statisticians have long known; i.e., if you selectively narrow the focus or restrict the data set, you can produce any effect you like and make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
Examples of accomplishments cited by the majority optimists were the 3:1 mitigation policy and the Coyote Canyon recharge project. The first has been implemented only to the extent that the BWD has begun to charge the mitigation fees. The BWD has not been receptive to suggestions that they make realistic preparations to actually purchase and fallow land and has not done so. The Coyote Canyon recharge project is still only a gleam in a developer’s eye. The citrus trees are still being watered. Plans for the project, if such there be, are in constant flux and not backed by any credible science or engineering. Worse yet, the whole concept has been dismissed by a number of independent hydrologists knowledgeable about the basin. Neither of these supposed examples has saved so much as a teacup of water and it is not certain when or if they will - some accomplishments.
The only other significant aspect of the meeting was a very brief discussion of reducing the number of ad hoc committees and sub-committees thereof dealing with groundwater issues. Mr. Dickinson noted that there are so many of these that it is virtually impossible even to keep track of them. Mr. Engelke concurred. There seemed to be general acknowledgement of the advisability of reducing the number of these committees; but the discussion went nowhere and no specific proposals for doing so were brought forward. (For openers, this committee should be eliminated since no one seems to know why it exists in the first place (see above).
Comments: This was a meeting of an ad hoc committee seemingly without a purpose that had no reason to happen. The two announcements made by Mr. Fogarty were the only substantive aspects and could have easily and more efficiently been made by e-mail. The remainder of the meeting generated far more heat than light and accomplished nothing positive. The publication of an agenda would have foretold this. It would have been blank.
Regrettably submitted by your humble scribe.
The following meetings are all held at the BWD Office beginning at 9:00 a.m. unless otherwise noted.
18 Jan. Sub-Committee On Tiered Water Rates of the ad hoc Committee On Conservation
26 Jan. Monthly Board Meeting
22 Feb. Annual Groundwater Meeting 6:00 p.m. at the Borrego Performing Arts Center
TBA ad hoc Committee On New Development/Preservation
TBA ad hoc Committee On Conservation
TBA ad hoc Committee On Groundwater Management
The one and only notice of this meeting to those who requested such notification was e-mailed by the BWD on Wed, 11 January 2006 12:37:01 about 20 and one half hours before the meeting w/o comment or agenda. Still seems an odd way to maximize participation – if, indeed, that is the intent. I was unable to attend this meeting, but have obtained the following account from reliable and trusted sources. I take full responsibility for any errors or omissions. DWD
This, by all accounts, was a productive meeting. I don’t know if there was a printed agenda or not; but there clearly was an agenda. Two things happened:
1) Fritz Stradling, BWD Consul, introduced Andrea Roess from David Taussig Associates, Inc., a public finance and urban economics consulting firm that has been contracted to provide financial consulting services to assist the Borrego Water District in the creation of a district-wide standby charge and/or the formation of an Assessment District to fund groundwater recharge improvements or services. She previously worked on the Rams Hill Mello Roos assessment project. With respect to the BWD project, Ms. Roess is just beginning to inform herself about Borrego’s situation and collect information.Kim Post, consulting engineer to the BWD, and Russ Fogarty, BWD General Manager, explained the aquifer problem and various options the district may have for solving it, i.e., fallowing agricultural land, conjunctive water use, recharge, reduced golf course water usage, etc. The engineers are in the process providing information re: boundaries, parcel data, land use, etc. Once Ms. Roess has that information, she expects to have an initial report and recommendations available for the district in about one month. That will be followed by probably three public meetings, a formal hearing, and balloting for all property owners.
2) Lane Sharman provided a PowerPoint program addressing his proposed Anza-Borrego Water Exchange. Mr. Sharman is offering to establish the exchange to bring together parties who are (a) new users of water who must mitigate new use of the water supply with (b) other parties who can reduce demand for water or create new water sources. He has rented an office in the Mall and is forming what will probably be a 501-c3 (nonprofit) corporation.
To explore the feasibility of his idea, he is proposing that the Board appoint someone to join him and local representatives from farming and real estate on a working group to analyze, fine tune, and give a thumbs up/down to the concept. He thinks the working group will meet a few times to try to get the project organized and financed. Mr. Sharman will be making a shorter presentation regarding his ideas at the next full meeting of the Board on 25 January. Mr. Fogarty has been asked to include Mr. Sharman’s request that the BWD provide a representative to his formation committee on the Board’s Agenda for action at that meeting.
Sounds like a good meeting. Sorry I missed it. Could there be a connection? Naaah.
Your humble scribe
The following meetings are all held at the BWD Office beginning at 9:00 a.m. unless otherwise noted.
Sub-Committee On Tiered Water Rates of the ad hoc Committee On Conservation concluded its assignment at and dissolved after its meeting on 18 Jan. (I think).
25 Jan. Monthly Board Meeting.
<22 Feb. Regular Monthly Board Meeting and Annual Groundwater Meeting 6:00 p.m. at the Borrego Performing Arts Center.
TBA ad hoc Committee On New Development/Preservation
TBA ad hoc Committee On Conservation
TBA ad hoc Committee On Groundwater Management
Members of the sub-committee present were: Russ Fogarty, Eleanor Shimeall, Joan Rosen, Connie Smith, Beth Hart, Rudy Monica, Dennis Dickinson, Dick Walker
Mr. Fogarty provided updated information about water use by category of user (residential, commercial, and irrigation) that included data from FY 2005 not previously available. There was some discussion of the new figures and requests for explanation or clarification on some points, but in general the data was clear and well accepted by the group.
There was a discussion of the unintended consequences of implementing the proposed rate schedule, e.g., on Christmas Circle; but no consensus on what, if anything, could/should be done. There was, however, strong agreement that a recommendation regarding a rate schedule should go to the BWD Board for action at their next meeting on January 25. The Christmas Circle matter was regarded as a special case that could be handled after the plan is presented to the Board and, and in the best of all worlds, passed on the 25th. If the sub-committee’s recommendation is passed by the board, there will be a presentation on the new rates at the Annual Groundwater Meeting in February. If ll goes well, the plan will be implemented at the beginning of the BWD’s fiscal year on 1 July 2006.
The rate structure put forward by Mr. Forgarty was adopted by consensus and without objection. Mrs. Shimeall will present it to the BWD Board for action at its meeting on 25 January. There will be an informal meeting of those interested in discussing a solution to the long standing problem of paying for water to maintain Christmas Circle following the January Board meeting. The exact place and time will be announced at the Board meeting?
Having concluded its assignment, the Sub-Committee On Tiered Water Rates of the ad hoc Committee On Conservation should have dissolved after this meeting on 18 Jan. There was, however, no mention of the fate of the sub - committee at the meeting.
Submitted by your humble scribe.
The following meetings are all held at the BWD Office beginning at 9:00 a.m. unless otherwise noted.
Sub-Committee On Tiered Water Rates of the ad hocCommittee On Conservation concluded its assignment at and dissolved after its meeting on 18 Jan. (I think).
25 Jan. Monthly Board Meeting.
22 Feb. Monthly Board Meeting and Annual Groundwater Meeting 6:00 p.m. at the Borrego Performing Arts Center
TBA ad hoc Committee On New Development/Preservation
TBA ad hoc Committee On Conservation
TBA ad hoc Committee On Groundwater Management
Many thanks are due to Director Bob Mendenhall for providing the following information and for his initiative to reorganize and simplify the committee structure. This is a good, constructive, and welcome development. Thanks again, Bob.
The BWD board finally recognized that there was a great deal of overlap among the ad hoc committees dealing with groundwater. Since Groundwater Management does not fit the definition of an ad hoc committee, the BWD board agreed that it should become a Standing Committee of the BWD board and incorporate the former New Development and Conjunctive Water Use ad hoc committees. The Standing Committee on Groundwater Management will meet according to a fixed schedule at 9:00 AM on Wednesday one week prior to the regular Board meeting.
Normally the regular monthly board meeting is on the fourth Wednesday of each month; so the Standing Committee on Groundwater Management will meet on the third Wednesday of each month. The BWD will publish an agenda one week prior to the committee meeting and will also publish minutes of the proceedings.The ad hoc committee on Preservation and its sub-committee on Tiered Water Rates are still apparently in limbo, but hey, you can't have everything.