27 replies to this topic

[bettyemahan]

Both Bee articles urging Folsom voters to vote NO on Measure P have misrepresentations and false statements. The Bee has a lot of gall to print these articles when WATER METERS ARE PROHIBITED IN SACRAMENTO!!!

The TRUTH of the water meter situation in Folsom is:

Meter retrofits are NOT mandated by either federal or state law because of the great expense! In Folsom the cost will be $6 million dollars to TAXPAYERS, with NO benefit to either conservation or ratepayers!!

The California Urban Water Conservation Council allows exemption when there is high cost, low benefit, as the Folsom retrofit would be.

The only water ALL of Folsom receives now is FREE from a pre 1914 right! The federal contract Folsom officials signed for water from the Bureau is for 7,000 acre feet of water FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT, NOT current use!

Folsom wants ALL ratepayers to pay for water they DO NOT USE AND WILL NEVER USE under that conract!!!.

This water meter retrofit is a SCAM and very unfair us all. This is a way Folsom officials are using to have you and I pay for their major mistakes and shortfalls, like inadequate sewers, inadequate water treatment facilities, sewer spill fines, and their past, present, and future open door to developers to OVERBUILD, and PLANNING FOR BUILDING SOUTH OF hWY. # 50!!

Vote YES on Measure P unless you want to pay for every meter to be installed now and in the future, in addition to continual higher rates for any and all water, even if you don't receive it!!!

[Folsom First]

Betty,

Were is this paper work that says our water is free, can you provide it, can you share its location! If its there have you seen it and read it, did you make copies to give to your nieghbors so they could vote yes, I for one have not seen it or ever read it, if its there I as well as many citizens would like to see it, if this is true then I would vote yes!
But until it shows up, I as alot of other people are voting NO! Does not mean we will win, but I am doing the math, Lets say this law comes into affect next year, well you know that the water meter companies are going to raise the price because of supply and demand, does it not make sense to get them now before that happens. This is not meant to bring friction between you and me, I enjoy reading and responding to your topics, its just everyone says there are facts, well please show me them.


Tim Mattos

[klsx2]

I agree with Tim. Let the facts be known. I personally find it pretty silly how we use water here in California. I grew up in the midwest on a farm. I laugh and then cry every time I see how we use water in this state. We boast the largest agricultural economy in the entire United States, but using the tactics we do with water irrigation, I could turn Saudi Arabia into the greatest agricultural nation on earth.

[bettyemahan]

Thanks guys!! Yes there are papers to prove what I posted! I don't have them but Sara Myers does. She produced them to get the petption written that over 5500 people signed AGINST the water meters when the city first told us it was going to happen. I will see if she can get a copy posted here on the Forum or at least say where it is avail. Time is short! Thanks again for being alert and interested!
Bettye

[bettyemahan]

Until Sara can get on and do a posting, I can tell you the documents are on fiile with the state, and the city about----Folsom having the oldest water rights in the state, and the signed document where the city bought that 7000 acre feet from the feds.

THAT (last) document says that water is for the building in the EAST area of Folsom. None of the homes built before 1992 have any water extept the old water right water. The Feds won't/don't touch that water right!

You can see both documents, and get copies if you want from the Folsom City Clerk in City Hall if you want them.

This measure could not have been put on the ballot without the signatures of at least 5000 people. The court would not have allowed for it to be written, even though the city attorney's office wrote it so it would be misleading on the ballot. I wish you could have asked this question earlier since these documents ARE on file for interested people to read.

[SusieQ]

Bettye is absolutely right about the water meter scam. Check with the Water Education Foundation for independent verifiction of the water rights law in California. Folsom public documents all show that the city has the following sources of water: 1. The oldest water right on the American River, a pre1914 water right. The city is next to a river. Another term for this type of water right is a riparian right. The city existed before Folsom Dam or the federal Bureau of Reclamation. Our water right is older than the Central Valley Project that produces water for federal contractors.

All water is owned by the State and you apply to the state for a right to use it. Property owners next to streams a right to divert water at no cost. Riparian rights take priority over all other claims. Next are appropriative rights for those located some distance away from water's original source in streams. Senority comes into play with this right. Again, Folsom oldest right is senior to all others. Source: Water Education Foundation, 717 K St. Sacramento, Ca 444-6240

Folsom has 22,000 AF of water right. The city doesn't have to pay for using it. We pay the city for the treatment of the water to met drinking water standards and for the distribution through pipelines. If Measure P passes your rates will either be the existing economical flat rate or a tiered rate that is pegged to the cost of the water. All of Folsom except for American River Canhyon and American River Canyon North who are served by San Juan are currently served by this water right.

The city also has a contract with the Southern California Water Company for an additional 5,000 AF. They must pay for the right to use this water. So far, this water has not been used but the contract requires that payment be made annually to keep the right to use it. Some residents pay a surcharge for their prorated share of this water contract. When the East Area was annexed into the city a new source of water had to be acquired. The parts of the city entitled to the free water right supply are:

Lexington Hills, Briggs Ranch and all parts in between (Willow Creek Estates East, around the water treatment plant, Flower Drive, Blue Ravine Parkway area) Natoma Station, Prairie Oaks, Willow Springs, historic district. Everywhere but Empire Ranch and Broadstone. The Ashland area in north Folsom is supposed to get free American River water too but they are served by the San Juan Water Distrrct as a wholesale customer. This means the bill is paid to Folsom but the water comes from San Juan over a pipeline owned by the city. Three contracts between the city and San Juan establish that Ashland ratepayers are entitled to a "proportionate share of San Juan's free American River water." Copies of these contracts are available from the city clerk. Members of the Water Meter Initiative Committee also have copies (contact Sara Myers, John Guest, Marie Carter, Karen Forster).

Vote Yes on Measure P to prevent having to pay for a water meter retrofit and to preserve the flat rate.

If you have an unconnected water meter in your home it is more likely to stay that way if you vote yes on Measure P. The city wants to put meters in 6,600 homes without a meter and then move along to get the entire city on metered rates. These 6,600 hgomes are a big gap in their scheme. It is awkward to have parts of the city on metered rates and other parts on a flat rate.

The third source of water for the city is the federal contract. The 7,000 AF of CVP water (the federal water) is only available after the 22,000 AF and the 5,000 AF has been all used up. Then the city can use 7,000 AF for new development. However, it blundered badly in 2000 by signing a contract that obligated the city to meter the entire town. The state does not require meters to use a free water rights supply. The federal government did not pass a law requiring meter retrofits either. It is too costly for the measly benefit from a retrofit. What happened is this got into the contract. Oddly, Sacramento County which received water under the same master contract, is not required to do meter retrofits in the entire county. The county only has to meter where the water is used. Folsom really was taken advantage of in a very big way. It will cost $6 million to do meter retrofits. That is what sparked the opposition last year. The State allows an exemption when the cost is high and the benefit is low. The other inequity is that the city of Sacramento doesn't allow meters. Their charter prohibits it. Why then, should Folsom become the poster child for water meter retrofits and metered rates?

Consider all those slick, expensive mailers dropped in the mail in the last two weeks. Who is paying for the No campaign? The answer is developers who stand to benefit. The engineering firms who stand to benefit. You won't find homeowner groups involved. It is the Building Industry Association, developer attorneys, Chamber PACs trying to do a number on the charter amendment. If we pass Measure P it will give other ratepayers in other water districts in the region the fortitude to say no to megter retrofits.

Measure P does not prohibit meters per se. It simply stops the city from having citizens pay for the retrofit. It does give the city a firm choice on the rates. Either keep the flat rate or tie the rate to the cost of the water.

At the worst, all the feds can cut off is water we are not using yet and wouldn't be using for several years. This is water for new development, not what current residents use.

The city will have to go to bat for its residents and get that contract amended.

[camay2327]

I will vote NO on the water meter issue. I paid for mine when I purchased my home here. I believe that everyone else should pay for their own too.

I feel that everyone should pay for the water they use. Some people really waste water around Folsom. Water their yards all the time and let water run down the drains.

People with pools that drain and refill their pools all the time also waste water.

The abusers should pay!!!

Cal

[EDF]

Hey Cal....

If you vote no on "P" you will be paying for not only your water meter... but for mine as well... you are gettting screwed as well... They want to ad the cost of the retro-fits to all users... even the ones that already have water meters... get a clue... this will benefit everyone....

And by the way... when water goes into the storm drain it just goes on down stream... so its not wasted...

Just my opinion...

EDF

[Folsom First]

Everyone keeps saying its for developement to the east, it this the east area on this side of 50 or the south of 50 land, please specify! Thanks

Tim

[EDF]

the east area currently being developed... the east area....

[bettyemahan]

Right now it is for all the building that has been approved THIS side of #50. But, once this is done----YOU, ME, ALL THE BUILDINGS THAT GO BACK TO THE GOLD RUSH DAYS------WILL CONTINUE TO PAY-----for all the future development of the land south of # 50 that is ALREADY being bought.

Once they get us all to pay for these meters, they CAN EXTEND THIS FED. CONTRACT (7000 acre feet) for more, and more and more water (and meters) because they signed the contract TO METER ALL OF FOLSOM!!!

Each meter costs $600 or $700 and we all will be paying for them forever more!!!! Plus, with the meters they can just keep raising your rates forever more!!! Yes, the meters will go in eventually, but with a yes on Measure P You will not be paying the bill! You will only get tiered increases FOR PROVIDING THE WATER SERVICE TO YOU!!!

[bettyemahan]

AND-----this means we will be paying for water WE DON'T NOW USE, AND WON'T EVER USE!!!!! VOTE YES ON MEASURE P!!!!!

[bettyemahan]

EDF----Hi there! It's me again folks---but EDF is right----all the water from the lawns, from the down-spouts, from flushing the toilet, the washer and dishwasher,-----everything that goes into the sewers, goes through the water treatment facilities and then----GOES BACK INTO THE RIVER!!! NONE of this water is wasted, and your grass, trees, shrubs, ants, spiders, termites, or whatever----SURVIVE!!!!! BELIEVE US-----the water meter issue here is a scam and METERS OR NOT---DOES NOT CONSERVE WATER! ONLY YOU DO!!! PLEASE---vote YES on Measure P!!

[SusieQ]

The reporter on Voters question mystery mailer is still incorrect on the why Measure P would work if adopted. I helped write the initiative and the key factor in a tiered rate is the actual cost of the water, not the age of the house or the fact that there is unconnected meter or no meter at that house. The reporter said, "And if the city installed meters at its own cost, it could set up a tiered metered rate for owners of older homes or residents who receive water under a pre1914 water right." Folks, that is just about everyone in Folsom. We are all drinking that water right supply right now. This means all of us would be entitled to the lowest cost cost in a tiered rate plan. Measure P offers the greatest good for the greatest number.

The mystery mailer is no mystery any more. As we expected, the developers and Chamber PACs are trying to put one over on us again. Talk about unfair! Don't be fooled by these slick mailers. Vote Yes on Measure P and force the city to consider the ratepayers first.

Holderness must think we are all a bunch of dummies if he believed that his ballot argument was going to enough to defeat Measure P. There must have been a poll that scared them after the Yes on Measure P mailer went out. What I have noticed over the years in Folsom politics is that if you have a bad product (either a candidate or a measure), it takes a lot of money to sell the voters on this inferior product. Good people and good ideas are easy to sell because of voter appeal.

What is difficult to overcome in this instance is the deliberate scare tactics mounted by the city officials working in collulsion with the feds. A water right is granted by the State of California. It cannot be cut off by the federal government. Folsom has a water right that dates back to 1851. For independent verification of the law on water rights, check with the Water Education Foundation, the State Water Resources Control Board, or a water attorney. Folsom's water is olderr than the water right of the federal government's Central Valley Project. Folsom has been next to the American River taking water long before Folsom Dam was built. The only water that can be cut off is 7,000 AF of a federal contract that was acquired for new development. It cannot be taken until all the water right has been used up (22,000 AF), and another 5,000 AF the city contracted for from Southern Calfirnia Water Company has been used up. We aren't even using tht 5,000 AF yet.

Can you imagine the outcry from our citizens if the federal government tried to cut the water to north Folsom? The city should renegotiate that federal contract with the help of our congressmen and obtain better terms. Terms that will not cost the ratepayers $6 million. One possibility is that when older homes are sold, meters go in. In any event, Measure P does not prevent meters, it only prevents making us pay for the retrofit. There is no basis for denying the federal water to Folsom if the city finds another funding source. Let the developers pay for meter retrofits. They are the ones who want to develop south of Highway 50. The feds gave Folsom 15 years after the federal water was taken to get a meter retrofit program in place.
Questions that need to be answered:

What's the rush to meter Folsom? Could it be the desire to raise rates? To force cutbacks on us so water is freed up for new development? There's something very rotten about this. Why isn't there any big push for Sacramento to be metered? Why must it be Folsom? Is it because Folsom has the sphere of influence for south of Highway 50? Why would the BIA and Chamber PACs spend $15,000 or more to defeat Measure P? Do they stand to benefit in some way? If meters are so good, why aren't citizens forming PACS and rallying support to opppose Measure P? Most people prefer the flat rate and don't want the additional expense of a metered rate. Vote Yes on Measure P and force the city to look after the interests of residents, not developers.

[jake]

I'm voting NO on P.

I think it is foolish and irresponsible to write in stone that pre-1992 homes cannot ever get water meters. This means, while the rest of Folsom makes effort to save water by (take your pick) not washing their driveway with water, not leaving the hose running while washing their car, re-landscaping their back yard so it is more conservative with water use, the people with pre-1992 homes go on and continue to waste water, because who cares, it costs the same either way.

I'm not categorizing all home owners that have pre-1992 homes in this light, but I do think that this is what it boils down to. Why should some people get cheap water while the rest of us have to pay more for it?

As for water "not being wasted" by flowing in to the storrm drain and in to a creek, that is the biggest bunch of bull I have ever heard. It's not that big a deal in years we have a lot of water, but in drought years, it makes a big difference. The more people letting their sidewalks flood over, the more water that could have gone a lot farther by watering someone's flowers, etc... the point is, in drought year's, WE (the post-1992 home owners) will be paying though the nose because water wasters are not conserving enough (why should they? it coasts the same!).

We really need to realize that Folsom is growing, there is nothing we can do about it. NOTHING. We are on the edge of the suburbs, and by that very classification, we will continue to grow, and then it's El Dorado Hills. People are multiplying in this world... they have to live somewhere! If you don't like that, move to Zamora or something.

Water is not a never-ending commodity. We must have water... if we can' have an Auburn Dam that would be a near-neverending supply of water to Sacramento, then we have to start conserving, starting now.

For those of you who don't realize it... a YES vote would cement this in stone that pre-1992 homes never get metered. EVER. Do you really think it's responsible to do that?