4. Public Participation
During this course of this proceeding, the Commission received valuable input from the public at the PPHs and through letters and electronic mail sent to the Commission's Public Advisor's Office. Overall, the communities served by Golden State in all seven districts stressed the following points: (1) the magnitude of the rate increases is unreasonable; (2) service quality is not reliable; and; (3) water quality, in a general sense, requires improvement. The evidentiary record lends support to these concerns and today's decision seeks to address these matters. In some service areas, the community raised more specific concerns. In Bay Point, fluoridation was raised by the Director of Public Health, Contra Costa Health Services. In Ojai, the issue of service reliability was raised by the City Manager of the City of Ojai and other city officials. A brief summary of the valuable input we received from the public is below.
In Bay Point, Mr. Michael Kent, of the Contra Costa Health Services read a letter into the record sent to the ALJ by Wendel Brunner, the Director of Public Health. The letter expressed opposition to the rate increase in Bay Point, which is described as one of the lowest income communities in Contra Costa. The Director of Public Health's letter also expressed grave concern about the water quality to Bay Point residents because Golden State's water supply to Bay Point is not fluoridated and contains high levels of trihalomethanes. (Reporter's Transcript (RT) Vol. 7, 311-314.) Mr. Scow, a representative of a public interest group, Food and Water Watch, urged the Commission to consider the consolidation of the Bay Point district into the larger Contra Costa Water District. (RT Vol. 7, 306:23-28, 307: 1-28.) A member of the Bay Point Municipal Advisory Council, Ms. Zumwalt, told us that "The rate increase that they're asking for is more than the cost of living, and it's just too much. We have a senior community. We have people who just cannot afford that rate increase. But more concerning really is the quality of water." (RT Vol. 7, 293:19-23.)
One speaker prepared an analysis of his home bills from the last seven years, and calculated that Golden State's service fee had increased by 89%, from $113 to $214.60, for each two-year period. An apartment owner reported that the fixed charges for her apartment building have gone up 70% in seven years. The public also noted that conservation suffers because the very high monthly service fee offers no incentive to conserve.
In Clearlake, Ms. Judy Thein, the mayor of the City of Clearlake, spoke on behalf of the Clearlake City Council and her constituents. She expressed her strong opposition to the rate increase and contrasted Golden State's rates with the lower rates of the two other companies providing water service to the Clearlake area. (RT Vol. 2, 28-29.) Others expressed the same opinion.
The magnitude of the rate increase, service quality and the need for low-income rates were the focus of the comments raised at the PPH in Rancho Cordova. Some offered support for the rate increase to the extent water quality would improve. Mr. Larry Ladd stated, "My primary concern is the safety of the water supply here. And, so I'll applaud where it talks about part of the rate increases for additional water testing." (RT Vol. 3, 69:15-19.)
At the PPH in Ojai, many members of the public spoke and several city officials made statements. Jere Kersnar, the City Manager, cited to problems of water quality and service reliability. In summarizing his position, the City Manager stated, "the City of Ojai requests that the PUC take the position that no increase should be granted to Golden State Water at this time in the Ojai service area unless and until the company develops and the PUC approves a service improvement plan for the entire system that would address water quality and system reliability." (RT Vol. 5, 169-170.) Mr. Hanstad, a member of the City Council and a board member of the Ojai Basin Groundwater Management Agency, also spoke out against the rate increase and emphasized, "The constituency seems desperate for reliable, affordable water; so much so that they are willing to spend money to try to find a situation that meets their needs. That is unusual." Mr. Hanstad also requested the Commission to deny the requested rate increase. (RT Vol. 5, 170-171.) Mr. Olsen, a member of the Ojai City Council for 18 years, described Golden State's rate increase a "travesty" unless infrastructure improvements resulted. (RT Vol. 5, 171-172.)
In Los Osos, the community raised an additional issue, conservation. (RT Vol. 6, 251, 5-22.) However, the magnitude of the proposed rate increase for 2008, 52%, was the focus of the PPH. As expressed by Ms. Taylor, "We need some help. We don't need to have Golden State come in and say we need a 52.8 percent increase in our water rates. I budget, why hasn't Golden State budgeted?" (RT Vol. 6, 238-239.)
The PPH in Santa Maria was well attended. Ms. Kathy Staples, who also participated in the proceeding as a representative of Quail Meadow East Mobil Home Park, expressed general opposition to the rate increase, and questioned the amount of the attorney's fees incurred by Golden State, $6.4 million, in the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin litigation. Ms. Hintz read a letter to the Commission written by 4th District Supervisor, Joni Grey. Her letter indicated that "This 43 percent proposed rate [increase] is a shocking amount both to me and my constituents. It is difficult to fathom why so much money is being sought by the Golden State Water Company...I strongly urge the CPUC to deny the request...." (RT Vol. 4, 133-134.) Many others in the community spoke to these matters.
At each of the PPHs, Golden State made efforts to respond to the public's concerns. Representatives from DRA also attended each PPH and advised the communities that DRA planned to closely analyze Golden State's request to increase rates and, consistent with its statutory obligation, would advocate on behalf of the ratepayers.
