SAN DIEGO, Aug. 10, 2011 /PRNewswire/ –
Alleging willful misrepresentation and deceptive business practices by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, attorneys for citizen/consumers from San Diego, Los Angeles and Ventura Counties filed a lawsuit in the public interest of millions of consumers in Southern California, citing that MWD of SoCal has made claims of safely and effectively treating and preventing dental disease in recipient consumers, while selecting and delivering a hydrofluosilicic acid drug through their water system that has never been approved for safety and effectiveness, nor in the expected dosages delivered by MWD through retail water districts, either topically, systemically through ingestion, or trans-dermal exposures through baths and showers.
In legal action which may impact the decision-making of water districts across the country employing the same practices, the lawsuit filed on August 9 in U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, addresses the Constitutional right of Plaintiffs to be free of bodily intrusion from a drug that has not been approved for MWD’s intent to alter the physical structure and bodily functions to make a person’s teeth more resistant to the demineralization process of tooth decay without their consent.
While some consumers may elect to purchase bottled water for drinking, virtually all consumers are captive to exposures from baths and showers, as simple filtration and most non-commercial methods do not remove the product, resulting in exposures to consumers similar to that of medications delivered by seasickness or nicotine patches.
“This case does not challenge the public policy of fluoridation,” states Kyle Nordrehaug, attorney for the Plaintiffs. “It does challenge MWD’s bait and switch tactics of orchestrating statements by them and their down-line distributors of water to individual consumers when MWD knew that the actual drug product that they deliver had never had a toxicological study performed on the health and behavioral effects of its continued use until 2010, much less approval for MWD’s perpetuation of absolute health claims.”
Despite early misrepresentations in the media, MWD of SoCal is not compelled to fluoridate its water by the State of California, and the costs of adding the unapproved drug are being borne by consumers in the form of rate hikes without water districts providing ratepayers clear notice of what the extra costs are for, or obtaining their consent.
The lawsuit’s filing clarifies that Congress has established that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is the only government entity with the authority to approve claims of safety and effectiveness for products intended to treat and prevent disease, and that not only has the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency never had that authority, but in 1988 abandoned authority for safety standards for all direct water additives, including fluoridation chemicals.
While the Plaintiffs do not seek an award for any physical harm, they do point to evidence concerning safety/harm and effectiveness that by law and for consumers’ protection requires that the product be thoroughly evaluated, and approval given, for any claims and MWD’s intended health impact, before exposing consumers without their consent.
Plaintiffs point to MWD’s misrepresentations and omission of any notice of contraindications, government recognition of susceptible populations, and scientific evidence of disproportionate harm to children, Latinos, and African Americans, from the particular harmful side effects from the hydrofluosilicic acid drug selected by MWD, above other forms of fluoride.
“This lawsuit pushes past the rhetoric and reliance on unaccountable endorsements or opinions that usually accompany this subject, and focuses on whether MWD of SoCal adds hydrofluosilicic acid to public drinking water in order to treat or prevent dental disease, and whether FDA regulates products intended to treat disease, or not,” said Jeff Green, National Director of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water and spokesperson for the Plaintiffs.
“In essence,” continued Green, “the Plaintiffs are saying, ‘Don’t tell us, or the media, or the court how safe it is. Go tell it to the FDA through the evaluation process and get approval for the claims for the specific product you deliver, and don’t administer it to us topically, systemically through our ingestion, or through our skin from our baths and showers, without our consent until you do.”
PLEASE NOTE: No member of SDSDW, partnering organizations or any fluoridation opponent is authorized to speak about this lawsuit publicly. If you are contacted by members of the press, or anyone with questions about this lawsuit, please refer them to Jeff Green or Attorney, Kyle Nordrehaug. Their contact information is at the bottom of the press release.
Thank you SDSDW.
Contacts:
Jeff Green, Plaintiff Spokesperson
Citizens for Safe Drinking Water (800) 728-3833
[email protected] keepers-of-the-Well.org
Kyle Nordrehaug, Attorney
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhomik
(858) 551-1223
]]>
Regular dental visits help your child stay cavity free. Teeth cleanings remove debris that build up on the teeth, irritate the gums and cause decay. Fluoride treatments renew the fluoride content in the enamel, strengthening teeth and preventing cavities. Hygiene instructions improve your child’s brushing and flossing, leading to cleaner teeth and healthier gums. Early preventive care will lead to less extensive, and less expensive dental treatment for your child.
At home clean your child’s teeth and gums with a soft infant toothbrush and water or a non-fluoridated toothpaste. Unless advised by a dentist, do not use fluoridated toothpaste until your child is able to spit the majority of their toothpaste out, generally not until at least 3 years of age or older. Remember that most children do not have the dexterity to brush their teeth on their own effectively. Even as children become more independent continue to help with tooth brushing.
Dental caries is the most common chronic disease affecting children in the United States. It is 5 times more common than asthma and 7 times more common than hay fever. Statistics show that between 30 to 40% of 3-year-old children has at least one cavity. Once children have reached elementary school the percentage of children with at least one cavity is around 50%. Remember that some baby teeth are not replaced until a child is 12 to 14 years of age. These teeth serve a number of critical functions. Primary teeth:
• Maintain good nutrition by permitting your child to chew properly
• Are involved in speech development
• Help the permanent teeth by saving space and guiding them into place.
• A healthy smile can also help children feel good about the way they look to others.
davispediatricdds.com or call our office at 760-942-1131.
ADA Reaffirms Infant Fluoride Warning
Fluoride To Increase In Water System Today
Higher Levels Of Fluoride Will Be Phased In
SAN DIEGO — The amount of fluoride in the city of San Diego’s water system will be increased beginning Tuesday. The higher fluoride levels are to be phased in over the next month, with the first additive going into the Miramar Water Treatment Plant, which serves the northern area of the city of San Diego. The Miramar Water Treatment Plant which serves all residents north of State Route 52. The Alvarado Water Treatment Plant is scheduled to start Feb. 8. Fluoride will go into the plant at Lake Murray, serving central San Diego, a week from Monday. The additive will go into the Otay Water Treatment Plant, which serves southern San Diego, in mid-February. San Diego’s system also delivers water to the cities of Coronado, Del Mar and Imperial Beach. Fluoridation was planned to begin just before Christmas, but was delayed for more testing and training.
Fluoride is an additive that has gone into water in many areas for decades. It occurs naturally in small amounts, and some is added to water imported to San Diego. However, more is required to meet standards of the state Department of Public Health.Fluoride has been credited with reducing cavities, but opponents say too much of it can stain teeth, lead to brittle bones and cause cancer. The smaller cities involved in the plan receive their water from the city of San Diego. The project has been in the works since 2008, when San Diego accepted a $3.9 million donation from First 5 San Diego and covers two years of operation. “You can’t taste it and it’s an odorless chemical,” said Arian Collins of the Water Utilities Department. Collins said the city is just following state law, which requires water agencies with more than 10,000 customers to add fluoride to their water.
Above Article Copyright 2011 by 10News.com. City News Service contributed to this report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
By Mike Lee
Originally published January 31, 2011 at 10:41 a.m., updated January 31, 2011 at 6:07 p.m.
San Diego officials announced Monday they will start fluoridating drinking water today — a historic step in a city that has long resisted the controversial compound and has been the largest city in the nation without it.
The move comes about six weeks later than originally planned because of concerns raised by a whistleblower inside the water agency about employee safety and uncertainties about properly adding the chemical.
Those problems were detailed in internal city e-mails the mayor’s office released on Monday in response to a Public Records Act request by The San Diego Union-Tribune.
Utility officials said the slowdown highlights how the safety system worked, though the documents suggest some city leaders were disturbed by the timing of the deferral.
San Diego was three days from starting fluoridation on Dec. 22 when senior operations supervisor Jim McVeigh said the schedule would preclude hands-on training by system operators before the process went live.
He said the pace “severely compromises Operator knowledge and experience before they are asked to accurately feed and monitor the application of a toxic chemical into the drinking water.”
When the delay was made public on Dec. 21, a utilities spokesman said that “a few issues were identified that need to be addressed” before the project launched.
It has been on the drawing board since 2008, when San Diego accepted a $3.9 million donation from First 5 San Diego, which uses tobacco-tax money to improve early childhood health. The money covers construction and two years of operation.
Fluoride, an odorless and tasteless chemical, is widely touted as a way to reduce cavities in teeth and is used by more than 60 percent of people in the country. Still, some people oppose treating public health problems by putting anything in drinking water systems and they are concerned that overexposure to fluoride causing health problems from dental stains to brittle bones.
San Diego residents voted to ban fluoride in the 1950s. The City Attorney’s Office has said that prohibition is superseded by a state law mandating that water agencies with more than 10,000 customers add fluoride now that San Diego has outside funding.
City water leaders, federal disease experts and a local environmental health professor said they did not know of any studies about the pros and cons of fluoridated water using San Diego as a test case.
In January, federal health officials announced that they planned to reduce the target level for fluoride in drinking water to 0.7 milligrams per liter, at the lowest end of the range they have deemed acceptable. They said people get fluoride from many different sources now and there doesn’t need to be so much in the water.
San Diego’s utility department is targeting 0.8 milligrams per liter and said it will reassess once federal guidelines are final.
For now, city leaders are focused on trying to get the fluoridation process right. McVeigh’s e-mail on Dec. 19 said the city’s schedule was sacrificing worker health “in a headlong rush to start.”
Fluorsilicic acid — the technical name for the compound San Diego will use — “is every bit as hazardous [if not more] to employee safety as chlorine or ammonia … yet we have done no planning whatsoever on process hazard assessment, job safety analysis, or emergency response,” McVeigh said.
He said the acid shouldn’t be delivered to city treatment plants until proper safety gear was handed out, a full hazard assessment was completed, an emergency plan was written and other steps were taken.
McVeigh also said some pumps didn’t work as they should and the “system contains dangerous piping that is susceptible to breakage and release of” fluorsilicic acid.
“I cannot train Operators in the use of a system that is not operational,” he said.
On Dec. 20, city engineer Iraj Asgharzadeh raised a question in an internal e-mail that some residents are likely to ask. “Why are these issues coming so late?” Asgharzadeh said. “This is not a good thing for (the) City of San Diego.”
Two days later, senior city water official Dana Chapin said in an e-mail that “the timing was not good” but safety assessments and training are expected to highlight “issues that need to be corrected.”
The city’s new schedule is for fluoridation to begin at the Miramar Water Treatment Plant today. Located in Scripps Ranch, it serves northern parts of the city.
At the Alvarado Water Treatment Plant near Lake Murray, which serves the central city, fluoridation is scheduled to start Feb. 8.
Fluoride implementation at the Otay Water Treatment Plant, which serves southern areas of the city, is tentatively scheduled for the following week depending on the installation of safety equipment.
Jim Fisher, assistant director of the utilities department, said in an interview that the staggered start was set to ensure all safety concerns are taken care of as each plant goes online.
At Miramar, he said, “it has all been addressed and is ready to go.”
Fisher said the safety issues raised by McVeigh came up at the end because that’s when the final walk-throughs are done and safety training is completed. “If it’s done too early, it’s not useful,” he said.
Because of how the region’s water-delivery system works, residents in Coronado, Del Mar and Imperial Beach also will start receiving fluoridated water as San Diego’s system goes online. Most water departments in the region already sell fluoridated water because they buy it from the Metropolitan Water District, which started adding the compound to treated water in 2007.
Fluoride questions
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently updated information about fluoridated water.
Q: How does fluoride work to prevent tooth decay?
A: It keeps tooth enamel strong and solid. When a person eats sugar and other refined carbohydrates, bacteria produce acid that removes minerals from the surface of the tooth. Fluoride helps to remineralize tooth surfaces and prevents cavities from continuing to form.
Q: What is dental fluorosis?
A: It is a change in the appearance of the tooth’s enamel. It can result when children regularly consume higher-than-recommended amounts of fluoride at age 8 and younger. Most dental fluorosis in the U.S. — about 92 percent — is very mild to mild, appearing as white spots on the tooth surface that in many cases only a dental professional would notice.
Q: What are the adverse health effects of excessive fluoride exposure?
A: Children under age 8 who are exposed to excessive amounts of fluoride have an increased chance of developing pits in their tooth enamel. Excessive consumption of fluoride over a lifetime may increase the likelihood of bone fractures, and may lead to bone pain and tenderness, a condition called skeletal fluorosis.
Q: Should my children stop brushing their teeth with fluoride toothpaste?
A: Children over 2 years old should continue to brush their teeth with their usual fluoride-containing toothpaste. Specific questions and concerns should be discussed with a dentist or pediatrician.
Related story: Health officials plan to lower fluoride target
Related story: Fluoridation delayed in San Diego
Press release: HHS and EPA announce new scientific actions on fluoride
Mike Lee: (619)293-2034; [email protected]
]]>
By Mike Lee
Originally published January 31, 2011 at 10:41 a.m., updated January 31, 2011 at 6:07 p.m.
San Diego officials announced Monday they will start fluoridating drinking water today — a historic step in a city that has long resisted the controversial compound and has been the largest city in the nation without it.
The move comes about six weeks later than originally planned because of concerns raised by a whistleblower inside the water agency about employee safety and uncertainties about properly adding the chemical.
Those problems were detailed in internal city e-mails the mayor’s office released on Monday in response to a Public Records Act request by The San Diego Union-Tribune.
Utility officials said the slowdown highlights how the safety system worked, though the documents suggest some city leaders were disturbed by the timing of the deferral.
San Diego was three days from starting fluoridation on Dec. 22 when senior operations supervisor Jim McVeigh said the schedule would preclude hands-on training by system operators before the process went live.
He said the pace “severely compromises Operator knowledge and experience before they are asked to accurately feed and monitor the application of a toxic chemical into the drinking water.”
Fluoride questions
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently updated information about fluoridated water.
Q: How does fluoride work to prevent tooth decay?
A: It keeps tooth enamel strong and solid. When a person eats sugar and other refined carbohydrates, bacteria produce acid that removes minerals from the surface of the tooth. Fluoride helps to remineralize tooth surfaces and prevents cavities from continuing to form.
Q: What is dental fluorosis?
A: It is a change in the appearance of the tooth’s enamel. It can result when children regularly consume higher-than-recommended amounts of fluoride at age 8 and younger. Most dental fluorosis in the U.S. — about 92 percent — is very mild to mild, appearing as white spots on the tooth surface that in many cases only a dental professional would notice.
Q: What are the adverse health effects of excessive fluoride exposure?
A: Children under age 8 who are exposed to excessive amounts of fluoride have an increased chance of developing pits in their tooth enamel. Excessive consumption of fluoride over a lifetime may increase the likelihood of bone fractures, and may lead to bone pain and tenderness, a condition called skeletal fluorosis.
Q: Should my children stop brushing their teeth with fluoride toothpaste?
A: Children over 2 years old should continue to brush their teeth with their usual fluoride-containing toothpaste. Specific questions and concerns should be discussed with a dentist or pediatrician.
When the delay was made public on Dec. 21, a utilities spokesman said that “a few issues were identified that need to be addressed” before the project launched.
It has been on the drawing board since 2008, when San Diego accepted a $3.9 million donation from First 5 San Diego, which uses tobacco-tax money to improve early childhood health. The money covers construction and two years of operation.
Fluoride, an odorless and tasteless chemical, is widely touted as a way to reduce cavities in teeth and is used by more than 60 percent of people in the country. Still, some people oppose treating public health problems by putting anything in drinking water systems and they are concerned that overexposure to fluoride causing health problems from dental stains to brittle bones.
San Diego residents voted to ban fluoride in the 1950s. The City Attorney’s Office has said that prohibition is superseded by a state law mandating that water agencies with more than 10,000 customers add fluoride now that San Diego has outside funding.
City water leaders, federal disease experts and a local environmental health professor said they did not know of any studies about the pros and cons of fluoridated water using San Diego as a test case.
In January, federal health officials announced that they planned to reduce the target level for fluoride in drinking water to 0.7 milligrams per liter, at the lowest end of the range they have deemed acceptable. They said people get fluoride from many different sources now and there doesn’t need to be so much in the water.
San Diego’s utility department is targeting 0.8 milligrams per liter and said it will reassess once federal guidelines are final.
For now, city leaders are focused on trying to get the fluoridation process right. McVeigh’s e-mail on Dec. 19 said the city’s schedule was sacrificing worker health “in a headlong rush to start.”
Fluorsilicic acid — the technical name for the compound San Diego will use — “is every bit as hazardous [if not more] to employee safety as chlorine or ammonia … yet we have done no planning whatsoever on process hazard assessment, job safety analysis, or emergency response,” McVeigh said.
He said the acid shouldn’t be delivered to city treatment plants until proper safety gear was handed out, a full hazard assessment was completed, an emergency plan was written and other steps were taken.
McVeigh also said some pumps didn’t work as they should and the “system contains dangerous piping that is susceptible to breakage and release of” fluorsilicic acid.
“I cannot train Operators in the use of a system that is not operational,” he said.
On Dec. 20, city engineer Iraj Asgharzadeh raised a question in an internal e-mail that some residents are likely to ask. “Why are these issues coming so late?” Asgharzadeh said. “This is not a good thing for (the) City of San Diego.”
Two days later, senior city water official Dana Chapin said in an e-mail that “the timing was not good” but safety assessments and training are expected to highlight “issues that need to be corrected.”
The city’s new schedule is for fluoridation to begin at the Miramar Water Treatment Plant today. Located in Scripps Ranch, it serves northern parts of the city.
At the Alvarado Water Treatment Plant near Lake Murray, which serves the central city, fluoridation is scheduled to start Feb. 8.
Fluoride implementation at the Otay Water Treatment Plant, which serves southern areas of the city, is tentatively scheduled for the following week depending on the installation of safety equipment.
Jim Fisher, assistant director of the utilities department, said in an interview that the staggered start was set to ensure all safety concerns are taken care of as each plant goes online.
At Miramar, he said, “it has all been addressed and is ready to go.”
Fisher said the safety issues raised by McVeigh came up at the end because that’s when the final walk-throughs are done and safety training is completed. “If it’s done too early, it’s not useful,” he said.
Because of how the region’s water-delivery system works, residents in Coronado, Del Mar and Imperial Beach also will start receiving fluoridated water as San Diego’s system goes online. Most water departments in the region already sell fluoridated water because they buy it from the Metropolitan Water District, which started adding the compound to treated water in 2007.
Related story: Health officials plan to lower fluoride target
Related story: Fluoridation delayed in San Diego
Press release: HHS and EPA announce new scientific actions on fluoride
Mike Lee: (619)293-2034; [email protected]
]]>By Tom Fudge
January 31, 2011
SAN DIEGO — Dentists rejoice. San Diego has joined the fluoridation band wagon. The city water department says it’ll turn on the pumps tomorrow and start adding fluoride to local tap water. With that, San Diego will no longer have the largest municipal water service in the country that does not fluoridate its water.
Fluoridation will begin at the Miramar Water Treatment Plant, one of three water plants run by the city. A city press release tells us on the following week the process will begin at the Alvarado treatment plant and the Otay treatment plant.
This will eventually boost fluoride content in local water to 0.9 milligrams per liter. Jim McVeigh of the Otay water plant says San Diego water already has a naturally occurring fluoride content of .37 milligrams.
Fluoridation will come as bad news to a boisterous minority in San Diego. Some members of the anti-fluoride crowd have posted comments on this blog referring to fluoride variously as a drug, a contaminant, and an industrial waste. Read their views yourself and draw your own conclusions.
I will only say I grew up in the Midwest with fluoridated water and I feel fine, thanks. The federal government is asking San Diego to dial down the fluoride to 0.7 milligrams per liter to better avoid the risk of dental fluorosis, which can give teeth a mottled appearance. It’s a recommendation from the Health and Human Services Department, not a requirement.
So fluoride has arrived, and I promise not to say anything about Dr. Strangelove.
Councilmember, District 5,
San Diego City Council
City Administration Building
202 “C” Street
San Diego, CA 92103
Dear Mr. DeMaio,
I want to thank you for recently requesting before City Council that the City Attorney’s office review the legal issues and use of taxpayer dollars for the forthcoming fluoride (fluocilicic) injections of the City of San Diegos’ drinking water. As a representative of San Diegans for Safe Drinking Water, I appreciate your willingness to listen and learn what we had to share on this very serious issue of fluosilicic injections of San Diego’s drinking water.
Each decade has produced new discoveries about the dangers of fluoride, especially to young children, senior citizens, people with thyroid disease, renal patients and others. The National Department of Health and Human Services just recently stated that fluoridated water should not be used to mix baby’s formula. Many dentists now understand that to be beneficial, fluoride must be applied topically and should not be ingested. The Department of Health and Human Services has recently stated that fluoridated water should not be used to mix infant formula.
I’m proud to support you in your responsible effort to understand all the facts and legalities regarding the proposed fluoridation of our water.
Sincerely, San Diegans for Safe Drinking Water
]]>
Carl DeMaio’s News Release – Water Rate Increases – 1-23-11
↑ Click Above Link for PDF ↑
Memo 1-20-11 Avoiding Water Rate Increases
↑ Click Above Link for PDF ↑
Councilmember DeMaio held a press conference and rally today with community leaders and over 100 residents to encourage San Diegans to return late prop. 218 notices and released an 8 point plan as an alternative to a water rate increase.
Please contact Jeff Powell at 619-236-6655 or 757-553-2728 for more information.
DeMaio Makes Final Push to Stop Water Rate Hike
Asks Residents to Return Prop. 218 Notices and Contact
Their Elected Officials to Oppose Increase on Eve of Vote;
Releases Eight Point Plan as an Alternative to Rate Hike
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Jeff Powell, 619-236-6655
Sunday, January 23rd, 2011
SAN DIEGO – Councilmember Carl DeMaio, community leaders and residents gathered Sunday to urge San Diegans to return their Prop 218 protest forms to City Hall and contact the Mayor and City Council to vote against another water rate increase tomorrow. DeMaio also released an eight point plan to reduce waste at the Water Department as an alternative to a water rate increase. Water bills have increased 67% since 2007 — far outpacing the price of water.
“This proposed water rate hike should be rejected. Instead of raising rates the Mayor and City Council should eliminate wasteful spending within the Water Department,” DeMaio noted.
San Diegans were promised by the City in 2007 to install safeguards and efficiencies to protect residents from rate increases by implementing reforms such as performance audits, separate financial audits, managed competition and ending the controversial Bid-to-Goal program. Unfortunately these reforms have not been implemented. DeMaio has been a continual voice urging that these reforms be enacted before considering a rate increase.
“Most residents in my community rely on a fixed income and are already struggling to stay afloat,” noted Seven Oaks President Glen Vaughan. “These annual rate hikes only make it more difficult.”
“San Diegans have a voice in this decision, said Elaine Jeter, a Seven Oaks resident. The more residents who return their Prop 218 notices the stronger message we will send to the Mayor and City Council to reject the water rate increase”
“Let’s not get fooled again. During the last round of water rate increases San Diegans were promised reforms and cost savings — that has not happened. The City Council and Mayor should not approve yet another water rate increase without fulfilling the promises they made to their constituents,” noted DeMaio.
Councilmember DeMaio’s staff will be on hand at 8:00 Monday morning answering questions from residents and accepting Prop 218 Notices until Council meets at 2:00 pm.
To download a copy of the Prop. 218 protest form please visit: http://www.sandiego.gov/water/
City Administration Building – 202 C Street, San Diego, CA 92101 – 619-236-6655
www.SanDiego.gov/cd5
San Diego water rates going up 6.4 percent
By Mike Lee
Originally published January 24, 2011 at 5:18 p.m., updated January 24, 2011 at 7:07 p.m.
San Diegans will pay roughly 6.4 percent more for water starting in March, after the City Council voted 6-2 Monday to increase rates despite angry comments by a few dozen ratepayers and more than 13,000 signed protest forms.
Even larger rate increases have been adopted elsewhere around the region in recent months, as cities and water districts struggle to swallow a series of hefty rate increases from wholesale suppliers.
“Pretty soon, this native San Diegan is going to have to find somewhere else to live,” said John Robinson of University Heights.
San Diego council members said they had no choice but to increase charges that will push the bill for the typical homeowner to $72.03 starting in March — a 67 percent increase since early 2007. That’s about $4.33 per month more than residential customers pay today for a citywide total of about $25 million a year.
If the city had not adopted the increase, it would have had to find other funds to pay the bills, such as taking cost-cutting measures or using savings.
Water rates across the county
Escondido: The City Council on Wednesday will consider a 9 percent increase to pay for wholesale increases and city plans, such as replacing aging infrastructure.
Helix: Rates went up 8 percent in November to cover higher wholesale costs, replenish the agency’s rate stabilization fund and make up for lost sales to customers who conserved more than anticipated.
Santa Fe: Recently raised 2011 rates by 12 percent and set the groundwork for similar increases each of the next two years.
Valley Center: Increased domestic rates by 16 percent. Besides water expenses, the district said it had to boost rates because operating revenues weren’t covering operating costs.
Vista: Residents will pay about 7 percent more starting in March to cover higher wholesale rates. Agency officials said they didn’t add any of their own costs.
Council members said they wouldn’t stop with Monday’s decision. They also voted to ask the state Legislature to support investigations into the finances of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which supplies the bulk of the region’s water. And they signaled interest in joining the San Diego County Water Authority in a lawsuit against Metropolitan’s rate structure, which local officials said subsidizes other regions at the expense of San Diego County residents.
The issue of rate increases is almost certain to emerge again by the end of the year if Metropolitan follows through with plans to increase its rates by 7.5 percent in 2012.
“We are completely at the mercy of MWD,” said councilwoman Lorie Zapf, who crafted an amendment seeking investigations into the wholesalers’ finances. “While I am respectful of those who chose to vote no today, personally I worried that voting no was a return to past practices where the city created a long list of deferred maintenance because nobody wanted to make the tough decisions.”
Councilman Carl DeMaio said there were several ways to cut waste out of the city water department and voted along with Marti Emerald to oppose the rate increases. Emerald urged city officials to tap more than $30 million in savings to avoid the increases.
“You’ve got a (rate) stabilization fund set up just for this purpose — to give a break to people on fixed incomes,” Emerald said.
City utility officials opposed her idea because they plan to use that money for construction projects they said the city needs to maintain a safe drinking water system.
“We don’t have much of a choice here,” Council president Tony Young said outside the meeting.
Metropolitan leaders have maintained for months that they are cutting costs aggressively and are themselves hostage to forces beyond their control, such as energy prices, debt on infrastructure, environmental restrictions and falling water sales. They have rejected the water authority’s argument that regional rates are unfair.
San Diego council members said they would explore the possibility of joining the rate lawsuit against Metropolitan in closed session as a way to show a more aggressive stance toward the Los Angeles-based agency. City Attorney Jan Goldsmith warned that the council may not want to do that because it would increase the city’s legal fees in the case, which the city already is helping fund through the county water authority.
Before the council’s decision, speaker after speaker urged city leaders to find another way to pay the higher bills from Metropolitan. Most of them were retirees or unemployed people who said they were barely making ends meet. One woman brought a notice from the city that her water was about to be shut off.
Gae Walker of Scripps Ranch voiced a common concern, saying she and her husband had cut their water use by more than 30 percent in recent years “yet the bills continue to rise.”
]]>