A bill that would make it harder for the Water Authority to break up is a driving force.
By MacKenzie Elmer, Voice of San Diego
This story was first published by Voice of San Diego. Sign up for VOSD’s newsletters here.
I got some pushback recently on the idea that legislation which could stall the breakup of the San Diego County Water Authority may have trouble getting through.
But it’s hardly a guaranteed success for the city of San Diego and its sponsor, Democrat Tasha Boerner from Encinitas. It needs a two-thirds vote from the state Legislature and there’s evidence that – despite strong support from labor unions – Democrats may not have all the votes they need.
It would also change the fundamental relationship between the Water Authority and its members. Jack Bebee, head of defecting Fallbrook Public Utilities District, told Voice before that if the whole county had to vote on something like this, his agency would never have joined the Water Authority in the first place.
AB 399 would make it harder for two smaller water districts to separate from the Water Authority and buy cheaper water outside the county. And the bill would also require everyone in the county to vote on the breakup of a countywide agency. Not only could its passage potentially undo this singular water divorce, but it could very likely prevent anyone else from leaving the Water Authority in the future.
It makes sense why the bill promoters are fighting this divorce so hard. They’ve got a lot riding on this.
The Water Authority has at least $2 billion in debt to pay-off for building relatively drought-proof water supplies. If any of their 24 water districts bail on that bill, it shifts costs to those that remain. It also shifts voting power on building big water projects in Southern California. And the process put the Water Authority’s costs and past decisions on trial at the Local Agency Formation Commission or LAFCO.
But the reason I keep writing about AB 399 is because it continues to show up in this debate over divorce.
Last Thursday, Mel Katz, the chair of the Water Authority board, asked the San Diego County Registrar of Voters to stall a special election of customers in Rainbow Municipal Water District and Fallbrook Public Utilities District.
Rainbow and Fallbrook rushed in their election paperwork to hold a Nov. 7 vote among their customers the day after 15 of Water Authority’s 24 districts voted to sue LAFCO over the divorce.
“These elections are premature,” Katz wrote to Cynthia Paes, the registrar of voters.
Why? Katz gave a list of reasons including AB 399. If it passes, there’d be multiple elections (one in Rainbow, in Fallbrook and in the county) over the same issue resulting in “voter confusion and misuse of public resources.”
Paes wrote back a day later saying the Registrar has no other role in this other than to hold elections that follow the rules under state elections law.
“Please also remember that the Registrar is simply carrying on an election. Your impending lawsuit against LAFCO, or actions against the districts, may determine what significance, if any, the election will have,” Paes said.
In other words, we’re working with the laws on the books today. Maybe you can get the outcome you want by another means, aka suing the agency that allowed this process to proceed in the first place.
Attorneys representing Rainbow and Fallbrook sent their own letter in an attempt to undo all the Water Authority’s points, including whether AB 399 has any impact on their ability to hold a special election.
“It is not the law now, was not the law when,” we started this process back in 2020, the attorneys wrote.
AB 399 didn’t make it to the Senate Appropriations Committee calendar Monday. Legislative staff told me it’ll be heard on Aug. 28. If this countywide vote requirement could cost the state more than $50,000 (which it likely would) the bill would be put in what’s known as a “suspense file” where it joins hundreds of other bills held-up due to their significant cost. Then the committee has one giant vote on all of those bills currently set for Sept. 1.
Bills that make it out are sent to the Senate floor for debate. Those that are held back don’t move forward.
Suspense, indeed.
