Tuesday, February 10, 2015


Foothills Sentry


Council agrees to support EOCWD’s bid for sewer system, leaves door open for IRWD


The Orange City Council voted


4-1 to send a letter of support for East Orange County Water Dis- trict’s (EOCWD) application to take on sewer maintenance and operations in the unincorporated North Tustin/East Orange area. The vote was taken at the coun- cil’s Jan. 13 meeting. The sewer system in question


has long been the county’s re- sponsibility, but the Sanitation District asked EOCWC to take it on. OC Sanitation wants to rid it- self of small local sewer systems


so it can concentrate on its over- all network. EOCWD was a logi- cal candidate because the Area 7 sewer system nearly mirrors the water district’s current service area. The city council agreed in De-


cember to send the support letter, but wanted revisions made to the original draft, and deferred final approval until its January meeting. The letter will be sent to LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Com- mission), which will decide the ultimate fate of the sewer system.


Hold that thought What could have been the


council’s simple affirmation of a previous decision turned into a debate on the merits value and wisdom of the letter itself. While EOCWD and the city spent months hammering out an agree- ment that protected Orange’s in- terests, a last-minute announce- ment by the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) that it, too, was interested in taking on Area 7, caused several council members to revisit their original approval of the letter. Mark Murphy and Mike Alva-


rez both believed it was prema- ture to support one agency over another, that the city should wait for LAFCO’s evaluation of the competing entities and side with the commission’s choice. Mur- phy further suggested that Orange write letters of support for both EOCWD and IRWD. Mayor Tita Smith clearly in-


tended to favor EOCWD, reiter- ating that it is a small, Orange- based company and had already met the city’s expectations. Fred Whitaker noted that the city had already entered into an agreement with the district, and it shouldn’t be changed unless there was a compelling reason.


A painstaking decision LAFCO representative Caro-


The Area 7 sewer system (light blue) nearly mirrors the service area of the East Orange County Water District (pink boundary), which is seeking approvals to take over the system from county sanitation.


lyn Emery told the council that the commission will conduct an alternate municipal ser- vice review, and has asked five stakeholder agencies -- IRWD, EOCWD, Tustin, Orange and


County Sanitation -- for data. She believes that data collection will take at least six months, and LAFCO’s responsibility is to de- termine what is best for the rate- payers. “We may even decide the system should stay with County Sanitation,” she said. Support letters have already been sub- mitted by the City of Tustin and unincorporated North Tustin’s Foothill Communities Associa- tion.


While IRWD has not yet sub-


mitted an application to take on the system, General Manager Paul Cook asked the city to re- serve judgment. He reported that IRWD is “committed to work- ing with Orange and executing a memorandum of understanding identical to the one the city signed with EOCWD.” IRWD claims it can operate the


system cheaper; EOCWD chal- lenges that assertion, noting that the bigger company hasn’t looked at the system and, therefore, can’t know how much it will cost to re- pair, service and maintain it. EO- CWD says it has gone over every inch of the pipelines, knows what needs repair or replacement, and has promised ratepayers a freeze on fees for five years.


Support local control EOCWD consultant Brian Lo-


chrie reminded the council that it voted unanimously to submit the letter at its December meeting. “LAFCO needs to know your po- sition,” he said, “it needs to know you support local control.” Murphy, Alvarez and Kim


Nichols each expressed an in- terest in waiting for LAFCO to develop more data, but also ac- knowledged the December vote to send the letter. Nichols said that she supported the letter and believed EOCWD had done its due diligence. “But,” she added, “we must make a responsible decision. We don’t have all the data.” Murphy’s original suggestion


that the city send LAFCO let- ters of support for both agencies morphed into a separate letter for IRWD, sent only after it actu- ally applied for the system. “The City of Orange is protected either way,” he said, “I’m worried about ratepayers.”


Signed, sealed, delivered Smith offered to give the coun-


cil a pass, volunteering to sign the support letter herself. “If you don’t want to sign it as the coun- cil, then I’ll sign it myself.” Whitaker wanted to be on re-


cord as supporting EOCWD’s application. “The data point for LAFCO,” he said, "is that all three areas (Tustin, FCA and Or- ange), are in favor of EOCWD." All except Mike Alvarez sub-


sequently voted “yes” to send the letter. Alvarez noted his vote was not against EOCWD, but that he wants to see a healthy competi- tion between the agencies. Murphy motioned that a second


letter be sent on IRWD’s behalf, if and when it applied to LAFCO. That vote was 3-2 in favor, with Smith and Whitaker on the “no” side.


Page 5


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20