LAKEPORT >> Lucerne residents will have the help of county staff in determining potential solutions to the city’s water issues.
The Lake County Board of Supervisors board unanimously approved a request to “explore possible solutions to Lucerne’s water system issues.” at its Tuesday meeting.
“This is a disadvantaged community,” District 3 Supervisor Jim Steele said. “All they really want is some representation.”
Steele would like to team up with county counsel and Lake County Special Districts to discuss what can be done to help the community with its continuously increasing water rates.
California Water Service Company (Cal Water) first increased rates for Lucerne residents in 2008. January brought with it the most recent increase, which raised rates per 100 cubic foot of water from $14.65 to $16.06 while the smallest 5/8 by 3/4 inch meter monthly charge rose from $50.26 to $51.39.
“I’ve seen my water bill increase three or four times in the last seven years,” Lucerne resident John Winslow told the board during public comment. “I don’t foresee any good outcome with Cal Water.”
The increases are the result of the Sales Reconciliation Mechanism (SRM), which is the second mechanism created to maintain the company’s revenues when their consumers conserve water. The first, called The Water Revenue Adjustment Mechanism (WRAM), was created in 2008 and is a surcharge applied 12 to 36 months following the loss of revenue and allows Cal Water to recover the difference between actual revenues collected and the amount of revenue it was authorized to collect by the California Public Utilities Commission.
Winslow also said he hasn’t “seen any positive work done on the facilities.”
However, Cal Water entered into a loan agreement with the state’s Department of Public Health for just over $7 million upon completion of a new water treatment plant in the community, which has also resulted in an increase in repayment charges for residents.
Related issues to the water system such as potential costs or financing of purchasing the system, as well as the county’s option to use eminent domain in order to procure the system, were not discussed at the behest of District 4 Supervisor Anthony Farrington.
As the county has 10 other struggling water systems, Farrington said he was uncertain how much time the county could commit to the issue.
“The board has spent quite a bit of time on this issue,” Farrington said. “The question is: Are we able to acquire the system?”
District 5 Supervisor Rob Brown voiced concerns overburdening employees, as the county is already short-staffed.
The board unanimously approved the resolution.
“Hopefully in the future … we will be able to come back to have a really good discussion about what we can do,” Steele said.
Contact J. W. Burch, IV at 900-2022.
