ojai news at The Ojai Post :: blog, newspaper, events in Ojai, California

Just returned from the meeting. Very informative and inspirational. I am quite angry at the private property/shareholder/"free" enterprise/scam system. It's so ingrained and we're so brainwashed by moneyism that we can't see it. I'm seeing it more clearly, thanks in part to these water thieves' cover being blown. The rats' nest is unraveling. Now I know what that bible story about Dives in hell begging for a drop of water was all about. This is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg; no wonder we have wars; first oil; then water.

A plus!

That was a terrific meeting and presentation. A real eye-opener. In the documentary "Thirst," we saw how the Bolivian people took no time at all to see that "privatizing" their water (to Bechtel of Thacher fame - local connection) - screwed them completely. Higher prices, poorer service, worse water. Bolivians took to the streets, shut down their cities, threw the government out, and now have overwhelmingly elected the popular Evo Morales, of the coca farmers union, as President.

In Stockton, we saw how the local municipal utility was privatized by a free market ideologue mayor and three of seven councilmembers, over the objections of thousands of citizens who simply asked for a vote. The mayor explained his view that privatization of water was not something appropriate for a vote.

Here in Ojai, we have learned the same lessons the Bolivians did: our private water company charges far more than the neighboring public systems; it has virtually abandoned the infrastructure, which is creaking and groaning, delivers spotty pressure, fails to charge fire hydrants, and gives us brown water several days a year. I.e., higher prices, poorer service, worse water.

We also learned that in 1998, Golden State Water offered its creaking system to the city. Apparently, according to the person who presented this information, the Casitas District declined because the system was in such poor shape, and ultimately the city declined after an analysis by the city attorney (Widders) that it would cost a fortune and be too difficult. Apparently the proposal then would have required a rate increase to pay for the infrastructure improvements.

Someone else made the point that if the city had acted on that option in 1998, instead of yet another rate increase with no infrastructure improvement, we would have a fixed and improved system already halfway paid off today.

At this point, from what was presented, it sounds like the water company has a compliant PUC and holds plenty of cards. The opinion was presented that so long as GSW's water meets minimal EPA standards, they can claim they are providing adequate service. Others disagreed, and pointed out that the city can indeed terminate the contract for failure to maintain the system, and can terminate it in any event at any time to take over the system by eminent domain. This would require a court proceeding to determine the value of the pipes, which frankly must be very low given their condition. A takeover would then require the city to either set up its own water company or contract - perhaps with Casitas? - to fix, maintain and run the system, and would probably have to float a bond to do all this.

So the question as always boils down to money: If ratepayers had to service such a bond, plus pay city/Casitas the costs of running the system, would that translate to higher or lower bills than what GSW is not proposing? If, as many suspect, those bills would be lower, the case for public water now would be compelling.

One thing to take into account in assessing this as well: Make sure to add the cost of expensiive filtering systems that I and everyone I know now use for our tap water. That too is part of the bill we pay for our privatized water.

Good points, Anonymous, and golly gee, Anonymous English Teacher, I wish I had seen my A+ before I wrote my essay today. I wonder if an apple on a teacher's desk would count for something?