A Troubling Series of Events

Something smells at the Montecito Sanitary District, and its not coming from the sewage. On Monday, October 15, Warner Owens, a long-time, never-elected member of the Sanitary Board announced his resignation, effective immediately. Less than 24 hours later, the “Notice of Vacancy in Office” was posted “By Order Of the Board of Directors of the Montecito Sanitary District [MSD].”

Curiosity #1. Director Owens’s resignation came at the very end of the MSD Board meeting on October 15, and then the board adjourned. When did the board consider the Notice of Vacancy and its contents? There was no publicly posted board meeting after that on October 15, so if the board did meet, it violated the Brown Act, which requires meetings be open to the public with notice posted 72 hours in advance.

Curiosity #2. If the board did not meet, was the Notice of Vacancy approved by the board president? If so, there is a conflict of interest if the incumbent president, Judy Ishkanian, intends to be a candidate for the open position, which could become possible if she loses her seat in the upcoming election.

Curiosity #3. If the board did not meet and the president did not authorize the Notice of Vacancy, did the general manager, Diane Gabriel, issue the notice without any board authorization, but claim the notice was “By Order of the Board”?

Curiosity # 4. The board meeting called to fill the vacancy by appointment is November 5, one day before the general election on November 6. On the ballot for the 6th is the election of two other board members. For the first time in memory, the voters of Montecito will be able to vote for Sanitary Board members, to choose between the incumbents and the challengers. Is MSD trying to preserve a majority-based status quo by appointing one of the two incumbents to the newly vacated position, thinking that the incumbents may lose the election the next day?

Curiosity #5. State law allows up to 60 days to fill a board vacancy. Why the rush by MSD? Would it not make more sense to listen to the voters’ opinions on what they want for the District going forward and fill the vacancy after the election and after the newly elected board members are sworn in? Goleta, in a similar situation, is doing this properly. Why can’t Montecito follow the lead of Goleta?

Curiosity #6. MSD recently placed an advertisement in the Santa Barbara News-Press that, among other things, includes an offer for free tours of the MSD treatment plant. Yet there is minimal publicity (no press release, no public notice in the press) for filling a vacancy that will affect the governance of the District for the next two years.

Curiosity #7. The general manager and all five board members were appointed, not elected, to their positions. Is preserving their fiefdom so important that they are willing to subvert the electoral process? Do they serve the people who placed them in office, largely themselves, or the voters-residents of the community?

Something definitely smells at the Montecito Sanitary District. It is past time for the voters to take charge and end the self-perpetuating “club” through a free and fair election process. The voters should not tolerate an appointment process manipulated by self-preservation. It is time for a change and for local democracy to prevail. This can be done as we saw in 2016 at the Montecito Water District when, for the first time in many years, board members were elected, not appointed, bringing proper governance, accountability and progress.

Phil Bernstein
Montecito

(Editor’s note: This series of events by a supposedly non-political board is troubling. When the board ran its ad in the News-Press, they pointedly excluded Montecito Journal. We discovered the reason for the slight was a vote taken during the MSD’s regular meeting on October 11, at which the board voted not to send the informational ads to Montecito Journal: “After discussion,” minutes of that meeting reveal, “it was decided not to run an ad in the Montecito Journal due to their continued bias in reporting about the operations of the Sanitary District.” The board did vote to pay for an ad in the News-Press to appear Sunday October 14, and which “will be issued as a press release to Noozhawk, the Independent, and the Montecito Journal.”

Montecito Journal never received such a press release and when we offered to run the ad FREE OF CHARGE in order to inform our readers, we were turned down. As for our “continued bias in reporting about the operations of the Sanitary District,” we have bent over backwards to remain impartial as even a cursory reading of Kelly Mahan’s reportage will show. As for Bob Hazard, he is an Op/Ed columnist and does not speak for Montecito Journal.

Montecito Journal has been more than fair to both sides during this election, surrendering its sought-after page 5 Editorial space to both MSD incumbent Bob Williams and Montecito Water District incumbent Dick Shaikewitz, along with opinions from every other candidate. We’ve also featured MSD incumbents such as Judith Ishkanian and others regularly on our Letters to the Editor page and elsewhere via guest editorials. Despite that, the present members of the Montecito Sanitary District Board of Trustees took it upon themselves to withhold important public information from Montecito Journal readers. We find that petty and certainly non-professional. – J.B.)

Sealing Our Fate

The outcome of the Montecito Water Board election and your District’s near and long-term future is all but sealed. With only one 12-year-experienced incumbent – Dick Shaikewitz – running, and a slate of three inexperienced candidates, financed by “Water Security Committee” campaign, the District’s policy-making new Board of Directors will be tasked with pivotal decisions regarding much needed future water supplies. 

The Not So Good News: the direction is clear, Montecito needs to develop new local, reliable water supplies to replace the anticipated permanent delivery reductions in the primary water supplies provided by Jameson Lake, the Cachuma Project, and State Water. 

Jameson Lake – Since the 1920s Jameson Lake owned, constructed, and operated by the District was legally able to provide up to 2,000 acre feet a year (AFY). Due to the ongoing drought, the District was diverting less than 500 AFY. According to District sources, current watershed conditions and poor water quality will cause for the first time no deliveries in 2018. 

Cachuma Project – This water supply normally provides an annual allocation of 2,651 AFY. For the last three years, the annual allocation is about 40% or 1,060 AF. Cachuma water rights are currently being re-negotiated at a federal level, and the new water rights order is expected to permanently reduce annual Cachuma supply allocations even during non-drought years. 

State Water Project – For this year, the annual Table A allocation is only 35% or 1,151 AF, well below that projected by the State Water proponents when brought before Montecito voters in 1991. Into the future, low Table A allocations are expected to occur annually. 

Groundwater – Although not a primary water supply, there are hundreds of operational wells in Montecito. If the current drought becomes the norm, these wells will eventually fail due to lack of groundwater recharge. The loss of wells will add further demands on the District’s water supply.

Good and Bad News

The Good News – the Montecito-Summerland communities are fortunate to have significant resources available (not water) that has allowed the District to meet the challenges of this unprecedented drought. These resources are its customers. Customer water management practices have cut water use District-wide and are now at about 40% of pre-drought trends. Customer water management is solely responsible for creating the possibility of a District sustainable water supply future. 

Moving Forward – Relying on imported Table A and supplemental water purchases as the current primary water supply places the District at a high level of risk. Disruption of imported water deliveries due to a State Water system failure will shut off water supplies being used on a daily basis. There is also no guarantee that supplemental supplies will be available when needed in the future.

This risk and the anticipated permanent reduction in our local surface water supplies leads to the immediate need to develop new local, reliable water supplies. These new supplies, recycled wastewater and desalination have been identified and quantified. 

Recycled Wastewater – This non-potable water supply has been used successfully by many water agencies throughout California to offset the use of expensive and limited drinking water supplies. Since 1972, the District has examined the use of recycled wastewater and in each of the multiple technical reports, the recommendation has not been favorable, mostly due to the high development cost and its overall limited water supply value. 

Going Forward

For Montecito, there is a big push to move forward with its development, but the information being provided does not tell the full story. To add value as a water supply, you need either 1) a strong customer base and/or 2) a groundwater recharge program. 

Montecito, unfortunately, has limitations on each of these that are due to its majority of customers being single-family residential (not qualifying for recycled water use) and a fragmented groundwater basin with hundreds of in-use water wells. Recycle can work in Montecito, but its actual water supply value is not what is being touted by its proponents.

As an outdoor-use water supply, demand varies by season, low in the winter months and during rainy periods. The proposed questionable yield of about 400 AFY (acre feet per year) in the current study establishes the $2,900/AF cost for development and annual operating costs. Of course, you can fund, build, and operate this new non-potable water supply but consider its cost value for about 10 customers. Also consider the pending approval of direct potable reuse technology which would end the use and need for the multi-million dollar newly constructed non-potable recycled wastewater system. 

Desalination – The information being provided on the current negotiations with the City again does not provide the full story. Why have these negotiations over the last four years not culminated in an agreement? The delays are in part due to the complexity of the long-term Water Supply Agreement (WSA). The City wants to ensure its ratepayers are not contributing to the desal plant expansion for MWD’s benefit and MWD is looking for the best terms it can receive. I understand that the WSA is nearly complete, which then sets in motion the MWD funding mechanism. The District is on the hook for funding the annual purchase of about 1,250 AF of water at more than $4M and also contribute to the majority of costs for a new City water transmission system, estimated at $20M. 

The City requires guaranteed financing from the District and a substantial reserve fund to ensure against a District default. Investment by the City in plant expansion must include irrevocable terms and conditions for MWD participation and repayment. MWD financing is normally taken care of by the issuance of bonds, but with MWD having no desal facility ownership, the District is unable to issue bonds and must resort to financing through conventional loans and higher water rates. 

Due to the economy of scale, MWD’s participation in a larger capacity desal plant (currently at 3,125 AFY) will reduce the cost of this water for both the City and MWD. This water supply is critical to the District’s near and long-term future. 

The Board Election – Regardless of who sits on the board, District customers must become more engaged and participate in proposed board actions regarding water supply acquisitions. Ensure that the board is providing accurate information and that public meetings (not just board meetings at the District office) are being held to fully explain proposed actions and the financial impacts to rates and charges. Elected officials are to be held accountable for their actions, as they represent your interests as a voter and a customer. 

Tom Mosby
MWD customer

(Editor’s note: Mr. Mosby is the now-retired longtime Montecito Water District general manager.)

Elections Matter

I am writing to express my dismay at the circumstances surrounding Director Owens’s resignation, effective as of October 15, and the board’s decision to appoint his replacement on or before November 5. The actions of the board seem carefully calculated to thwart the democratic process. This is unacceptable. I urge the board to reverse its decision and appoint the replacement director after the winners of the November 6 election are sworn into office in December. If the board cannot agree on this course of action, then it should call for a special election to fill the open seat.

As you well know, we have an election in less than three weeks that is going to provide clear public input on the desired direction of the MSD. Voters will have the opportunity to return two incumbents to the board (signaling clear approval of current board actions) or elect two new directors (signaling a clear desire for change).

It is far from clear as to why Director Owens’s seat is not being contested in this election as well. He appears to have sold his home in the District in March of this year. Where has he been living for the past six months? Was he even eligible to remain on the board during this time? Why did he not announce his resignation over the summer so that his seat could be contested in an open election? I and many other members of the community would like answers to these questions. In the absence of additional information, the timing of his resignation appears clearly designed to allow the current board to appoint his successor.

Under these circumstances, it is irresponsible and undemocratic for the current board to appoint a new director before the winners of the November election are sworn-in. If the incumbents win, then the board has a clear mandate for its current policies and can appoint a new director consistent with that mandate. If the Water Security candidates win, then this is a clear signal the community wants change, and these new directors should be part of the process to appoint the replacement director.

If the MSD presses forward with an appointment before the winning directors are sworn-in, the only reasonable inference is that the current board is trying to prevent change in the event the incumbents are replaced. This would be a gross abuse of the appointment process and would likely ensure that every incumbent on the current board would face well-funded opposition in the next election, if not some type of organized recall campaign before then.

In light of these considerations, I urge the board to reconsider its decision and defer appointment of Director Owens’s replacement until after the winners of the upcoming election are sworn in. The democratic process and the best interests of our community demand nothing less.

Christie Glanville
Montecito

Making it Clear

I often sit down with my two teenage boys to look through the local paper and talk about the issues facing our small but mighty town. Our conversation this week fell to the upcoming election and how to decipher between mixed candidate messages.

We read Judith Ishkanian’s letter, “Truth in Advertising,” where she characterizes Water District candidate Cori Hayman as having a “lovely face” and then continues to propose that Ms Hayman is a liar. I was hoping to take a deep dive with the kids on the issue of water recycling, but they were stuck on the incredible inappropriateness of characterizing someone in a political debate as having a “lovely face” only as a tool to draw stark contrast to claim that Hayman is a liar.

We spent a long time playing out “What ifs” – for example: what if you stood up in a classroom debate and characterized your classmate as having “a lovely face” in mockery. How would that play out? It was clear at the end of our conversation that in the 21st century, credentials are not based on appearance, but on the things that lie on the inside, and a proven track record. 

Finally, making it to the primary issue, wastewater, we read the same letter that Ms Ishkanian references from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. It was clear from reading the letter that the Sanitation District does, in fact, discharge wastewater into the ocean as Cori Hayman states in that video. Wastewater, treated, is still called wastewater. And, yes Montecito Sanitary District treats the wastewater, but that is not the issue; the issue is that this water that is now being discharged and could be captured and recycled for irrigation. We further read into Heal the Ocean’s position, as well as that of The City of Santa Barbara, which very successfully recycles wastewater to use for irrigation. It takes a simple search to read the history of Santa Barbara’s longstanding water and drought issues, and realize we need new solutions, 21st-century solutions. 

I’ll leave you with this line straight from the letter Ms Ishkanian references, where John Robertson is quoted as having said: “The Central Coast Water Board encourages all wastewater producers, especially those that discharge to the ocean, to recycle wastewater.”

Ashlee Mayfield
Montecito

Grateful and Blessed

I wanted to thank all those at the Montecito Journal for publishing the great article by Beverley Hyman Fead on our fearless firefighters this week. It is so great to be able to get to know the men who really care about and for our community. They are a joy to read about. Also, thank you so much for the ad to let the community know about the 101st anniversary and Thanksgiving Celebration coming up on Sunday, November 18. What a fun event it will be to dance and celebrate with all the firefighters and their partners. 

I love this community; when we moved here in 1981, I could never have imagined the gifts I would receive through the fabric of Montecito. I am grateful and blessed.

Judi Weisbart
Santa Barbara

Frost, Not de Forest

Thank you so much for your generous article in Montecito Journal’s recent glossy edition. It was my pleasure to get to know you.

Although my book Villa makes clear that the architect for my stone residence was Wallace Frost, somehow his name was confused with Lockwood de Forest. I very much admire both of these artists and I hope you can make it clear this awkward choice of names. If this was my mistake, I apologize. I hope you inform your readers. Thank you again for the fruitful time we spent together.

John Saladino
Montecito

(Editor’s note: It was all my fault, Mr. Saladino, none of yours. I replayed the recording device a number of times and heard “Forest,” rather than “Frost,” and acted upon that interpretation. Both men lived and operated in Santa Barbara and Montecito at the same time: the 1920s and ’30s. All I had to do – as you so correctly pointed out – was to read your excellent book, Villa, and I would have discovered it was indeed the estimable Mr. Wallace Frost who built and designed “Villa Di Lemma,” and not the also estimable Mr. Lockwood de Forest. My many apologies. – J.B.)

Salud was There

Sometimes the events of January 9, 2018, seem like a distant memory; on other days, it seems just a day or two away. I recently moved back to Montecito after ash remediation “cleanup-gone-wrong” kept me in a Goleta hotel for 289 days. Being back in Montecito has put me in a reflective mood, recalling the events of January that brought such catastrophe to our community. I don’t want to trigger up sad memories, but as we near elections I wanted to share my interaction with Congressman Salud Carbajal during the January disaster. 

I evacuated to Oxnard on January 8, so was surprised when my phone rang on January 9. Who would track me to Oxnard only hours after the debris flow? I wondered. It was Congressman Carbajal. He first asked about me, and when I explained I was not involved in the debris flow, we mourned together, in a true human bonding, about the plight Montecito was facing. Even now, 11 months later, I still recall Salud’s raw, deep empathy for Montecito – he displayed real anguish. 

However, he did not allow our conversation to stay mired in the quicksand of sorrow. After an appropriate amount of mourning, he buoyed me up by telling me he was leaving D.C. immediately and coming to Montecito—to be here on the ground, to provide leadership if needed, and to marshal together what help he could muster to help kick-start the recovery. The next day, he arrived in Santa Barbara, bringing with him what I call his Federal cavalry: the Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA!

I don’t hear him speak much about his rapid response on behalf of our community, but I saw him in action. Often in emergencies, we don’t know where help comes from, we are just glad it is there. I felt now, as I reconnect with my community, it might be of merit to spotlight my personal experience with Salud during our crisis. He demonstrated creative, intelligent, and appropriate actions on behalf of Montecito in her time of need. With immediacy and urgency, he brought every tool Washington could offer right to our local front doors.

While this letter is unsolicited, I thought my personal knowledge of Salud’s receptiveness toward Montecito might be useful to voters. Our community and county could not ask for a more solution-oriented, responsive federal government representative. As an able politician, Congressman Salud Carbajal gets my vote, along with my ongoing gratitude for his very caring and timely crisis response. 

J’Amy Brown
Montecito

Against Mob Rule

Is the Democrat Party a danger to America? Has it become an irrational, hateful, dangerous party that encourages mob-rule? Is its anger whipped up by its media allies?

Everywhere, Democrats and their unhinged followers are preaching anger, fury, and violence. Representative Maxine Waters urged the harassment of Republicans; Eric Holder said, “When they go low, kick them;“ and Hillary Clinton asserted, “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for” (Socialism). Furthermore, a Georgetown University professor called for the death and castration of GOP senators, and newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post promote “ fury as a political weapon.”

Why is the Democrat Party so angry? They want power. And they are willing to destroy every political, social cultural, and moral norm to get it. 

In November, vote against mob-rule, violence, and rage.

Don Thorn
Carpinteria