Santa Barbara City Councilmember Dale Francisco accused Santa Barbara Channelkeeper of pursuing litigation at the expense of cooperation, blaming the environmental group’s recent out-of-court settlement over past sewage discharges for most of the wastewater-treatment rate increase approved by the City Council Tuesday. By the time Channelkeeper sued City Hall in 2011, Francisco charged, the number of sewage discharges — and the quantities released — had dropped precipitously. “The city was already doing the right thing,” Francisco said, noting the number of spills had dropped from 45 in 2009 to 12 in 2011.
Each sewage release constitutes a violation of the federal Clean Water Act; as part of its settlement, City Hall agreed to double its normal rate of sewage-pipe replacement, vowing to spend $25 million during the next five years. What galled Francisco was the $700,000 City Hall spent on attorneys’ fees — its own and Channelkeeper’s — to settle a case that, he insisted, could have been worked out cooperatively. Echoing Francisco’s words were councilmembers Cathy Murillo, Frank Hotchkiss, and Bendy White — representing the council’s left, right, and middle. To any activists watching with a bone to pick with City Hall, Murillo pleaded, “Please come to us and try not to bring your attorney with you.” In a similar vein, Hotchkiss stated, “Please come and knock on the door, and don’t knock it down.”
After the meeting, Channelkeeper executive Kira Redmond insisted Channelkeeper did try to work with City Hall and described the lawsuit as “the last thing we wanted.” She said it was filed only after City Hall proved too slow in responding to sewage spills. When the lawsuit was initiated, she noted the number of spills had only dropped to 35, not 12. “That was unacceptable,” she said. Redmond noted that the settlement would cost the average ratepayer an additional $2 a month. She termed that “a small price” given the benefits derived. Ultimately, the council approved fee increases for trash collection, water treatment, and wastewater treatment that, combined, will cost the average ratepayer an additional $6.64 a month.


Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Doesn't the city already have an attorney, Steve Wiley? Why couldn't he handle the case instead of harassing cancer patients by pursueing his own (and Francisco's) agenda of shutting down the medicinal cannabis dispensaries. Kinda derelict on duty hey Steve? Maybe if he did the job he was paid to do instead of trying to undermine the voters the city could've saved $500,000. Crocodile tears.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 14, 2012 at 3:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ken_Volok points out that Dale Francisco is being very selective in his outrage, probably politically posturing for the next election cycle. Environmentalists will be on the growing list of boogeymen that conservative Dale Francisco will be trotting out along with those homeless, medical marijuana card holders, low income housing advocates and marrying homosexuals; all taxing you to death.
Council member Cathy Murrillo is a bit naive in her thinking. You cannot just simply knock on city halls door with a problem and expect representation. The selfish general public can often shut efforts down when seeking representation and fairness.
Just one example was when the hyperbolic Hollywood Hotchkiss real-estate lobby didn't want to be the "Sewer Police." A proposal to require lateral sewer inspection during certain real estate transfers failed because of that lobbying groups efforts.
So the public often isn't into responsibility anyway let alone looking for problems they may be responsible for. People understand that dog poop is pollution when between the toes. But if you can't see leaking sewage, because it is underground, then why bother inspecting. It's like going for a colonoscopy due to risk factors when your doing fine except for some occasional leakage.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
June 14, 2012 at 7:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The City had refused to clean up its sewers for decades.
How many times did the public ask the City to clean up it's act with everyone upset about the "Closed Beaches".
The previous city councils under mayor Blum just ignored clean water issues to save a buck, pushing the costs off until later.
Georgy (anonymous profile)
June 14, 2012 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I completely understand Francisco and Hotchkiss' need to bash grassroots enviro groups who do stuff like identify problems and push for solutions. Y'know, who do their jobs. Dale and Frank have their stock in tea party anti-environmentalism .... Cathy and Bendy joining them in hand-wringing over having to raise rates a couple bucks to deal with the City's having been asleep at the switch is horrendous!
Bendy and Cathy WTF? There's a long discussion to be had about the relationship of progressive organizations and the council members who serve a similar role within government. Bottom line is, guys, do YOUR job and for chrissake stop bashing your natural allies for doing theirs. Really, have you gotten sucked into the City Hall's obnoxious insulated culture that quickly? We did not elect you two for this. Remember who you are and what you are there for. Damnit, this is why people don't believe in government and don't support you when you need it.
Good job ChannelKeeper -- cut it out Bendy and Cathy.
moneymaker (anonymous profile)
June 14, 2012 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Dale Francisco was quoted as saying:
“When ChannelKeeper decided to sue that came after years of when ChannelKeeper’s main interaction with the city had been public records requests ... Other than that, it was silence. No cooperation.”
http://thedailysound.com/2012/06/chan...
But Francisco's comments are in stark contrast to ChannelKeeper's records of interactions with the City (which go beyond public records requests):
http://www.sbck.org/pdf/History%20of%...
Much of ChannelKeeper's interactions with the City pre-date the tenures of most, if not all, of the current City Council members.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
June 14, 2012 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Also, don't forget that ChannelKeeper has been conducting all of the County's beach water quality testing now since 2008:
http://www.sbck.org/index.php?option=...
So it's not like ChannelKeeper hasn't been an active player in local water quality issues.
I am bummed about the water/sewage/trash bill increase though.
Disclaimer: I'm not a member of ChannelKeeper.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
June 14, 2012 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
DonMcD: "People understand that dog poop is pollution when it is between their toes. But if you can't see leaking sewage, because it is underground, then why bother inspecting?"
I'm going on a dangerous limb here, but I gotta agree w/ Don on that comment. Yeah, I know, must be getting soft w/ age here... NOT!
But facts are facts & that statement is as true a fact as true facts get. Now if he'll only stop throwing the "c" word around.
Georgy: "The City had refused to clean up its sewers for decades."
That is 100% correct. In fact the city has ignored issues concerning sewers, creeks, streams & drainage for decades.
They felt it was "somebody else's job" so any efforts on those matters was put on either outside sources, Army Corp of engineers or watchdog groups like Channelkeeper.
The only problem was when any of those entities called the city out on the above listed matters the city would get defensive & pass the buck.
moneymaker: "Damnit, this is why people don't believe in government and don't support you when you need it!"
Meet the new (actually quite old) reality my friend. The environment is EVERYBODY'S concern, but when you mix politics into it somehow it becomes somebody else's problem.
This goes back to Don's comment: "if you can't see leaking sewage, because it is underground, then why bother inspecting?"
East_Beach: "Much of ChannelKeeper's interactions with the City pre-date the tenures of most, if not all, of the current City Council members."
100% correct there too. Their interaction, even through the seemingly "progresssive" (not Progressive) makeup of the City Council, has always been proactive.
Of course, when you got developers shoving cash into the pockets of certain councilmembers that then become mayor (Blum?) what do you think the outcome is gonna be?
In all it is politics as usual, the environment suffers & somehow it is supposed to be alright.
Meanwhile groups like Channelkeeper keep doing their job, calling out the problems & offering solutions & depending on what your agenda is (political/financial) they're either heroes or a pain in the tuckus :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
June 14, 2012 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Councilmember Francisco appears to have not done his homework. This case has a long and well documented history, and Channelkeeper has been after the City to address its illegal sewage discharges for years. Perhaps he has better things to do than read the files regarding the issues he was elected to help deal with. Councilmember Hotchkiss is quoted as saying “Please come and knock on the door, and don’t knock it down.” How long are we supposed to wait for the City to stop polluting our water? Channelkeeper was knocking on the door for years and the City refused to take effective action until the suit was filed. Shame on those Councilmembers who attempt to smear others for their failures.
I applaud the efforts of the Santa Barbara Channelkeeper. It's not easy to take on City Hall, but every one of us benefits from their work.
freshpavement (anonymous profile)
June 14, 2012 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Who agreed to pay the attorney fees? The settlement required city council OK. How can they complain now? Of course it did always seem to me to be a friendly litigation...one had the impression that the city was happy to be prodded to this action which allowed the increase in fees, etc., and a beneficial result for us all.
RHS (anonymous profile)
June 15, 2012 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
freshpavement: "Councilmember Francisco appears to have not done his homework."
Apparently neither did Frank, Bendy or Cathy. Maybe there's more "pressing issues" that have the City Council's attention? Sewage just CAN'T be 1 of those issues because after all, as Don pointed out, it is underground & you can't see it so must therefore be ignored :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
June 15, 2012 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Murillo has only been on the council since January.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 15, 2012 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
KenV: "Murillo has only been on the council since January."
Absolutely true, but I believe she's been privy to this mess for quite some time through external means/sources :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
June 15, 2012 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Absolutely true, but I believe she's been privy to this mess for quite some time through external means/sources :) henry"
hank (anonymous profile)
June 15, 2012 at 3:39 p.m
Are you saying that the sewage roll down from the top?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 15, 2012 at 6:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Look for contracts made between the city of Santa Barbara and independent contractors (such as the firm providing legal representation against Channelkeepers citizen's lawsuit) on the consent calendar, following closed session discussion by cc. Recent contracts in this category include hiring a private company to train SB Public Works staff in cleaning and maintaining sewers - transparency a la Helene Schneider.
14noscams (anonymous profile)
October 29, 2012 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)