Santa Barbara City residents recently received notice of a proposal to raise sewer rates, in part as a result of a lawsuit against the city brought by Santa Barbara Channelkeeper. However, there has been some confusion about the reasons behind the proposed rate increase and the lawsuit, so we want to set the record straight.
Since our inception in 1999, Santa Barbara Channelkeeper has been working hard to identify and address the root causes of pollution in Santa Barbara’s creeks and beaches. One of those, unfortunately, is sewage. Like many other cities in California and nationwide, Santa Barbara’s sewage pipes are old and deteriorating. As a result, the city has suffered a disturbingly high number of sewage spills above-ground as well as a chronic problem of “exfiltration” – leakage of sewage out of cracked and broken sewer pipes underground, and into storm drains that lead to our creeks and beaches.
Channelkeeper has worked diligently over the past 12 years to get the city to address these problems, which threaten public health, the environment, and our beach tourism and recreation-dependent economy. Recently, the city did take some steps in the right direction, including accelerating its sewer-pipe cleaning schedule, which brought the number of sewage spills down from a record high of 44 in 2009 (three times higher than the statewide average) to 35 in 2010 and 12 in 2011.
Channelkeeper recognizes and applauds this effort. Unfortunately, however, accelerated pipe cleaning is not a long-term solution that will fix the city’s aging and leaking sewer pipes. So, after more than a decade of research, outreach, education, and advocacy, Channelkeeper filed a Clean Water Act lawsuit against the city in early 2011 to deliver the more comprehensive and proactive fix that is sorely needed.
We spent nearly a year negotiating a workable solution with the city, and together we formulated one. Channelkeeper and the city agreed in March to a settlement of our lawsuit which puts the city on a clear path to improving the operation and maintenance of its sewage system; reducing sewage spills; and nearly doubling the number of miles of sewer pipes it repairs and replaces, with a focus on those that have the highest risk of exfiltration.
This mutually agreed solution is going to cost money, which is why the city has proposed a one-time sewer rate increase of 6%, or a little more than $2 per month for the average household. (This is in addition to an already planned 4% increase to replace equipment at the sewage treatment plant, which has nothing to do with our lawsuit.)
Channelkeeper commends and supports the city’s commitment to making this long-deferred and essential investment in upgrading our sewer infrastructure. The environmental, health, and economic costs of not doing so – raw sewage polluting the beaches where we, our children, and tourists swim, surf, and play – are simply too great.
Kira Redmond is the executive director of Santa Barbara Channelkeeper


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





Previous Month



Comments
The Davis-Sterling Act governs "Common Interest Developments" (CID) in the State of California.
It was passed (1985), one of the main parts of the act came about because CID's were not holding enough Cash to repair infrastructure and owners were constantly burdened with 'Special Assessments".
CID's every two years must publish a "Reserve Study" that shows the remaining useful life of infrastructure items and their "Replacement Costs" as well as that part of the 'Reserve Fund" allocated to the replacement of each item.
When is comes time to replace the Infrastructure Item, the money is in the Bank if the Reserve is Fully Funded.
California does not require full funding but States such as Hawaii and their adaption of Davis-Sterling does require FULL funding of the 'Reserve Fund"
It seems to me that the problem with the City of Santa Barbara is that "Special Assessments" is a way of life for them. Since The City is a CID in reality, maybe Davis-Sterling needs to apply to them.
I am tired of being "Specially Assessed" and would rather the City be forced by LAW to place money aside for the 100% replacement of infrastructure over time instead of constantly raising monies by "Special Assessment"
Channel Keeper is correct the water/sewer system is a mess, but equally a mess is that the Governance of this City is and has been so Incompetent that the monies do not exist to effect the needed repairs.
So here we go with another "Special Assessment" when the money should already be in the Bank or better yet the water/sewer system should have been upgraded and maintained all along and legal action by Channel Keeper would have not happened.
It is time for the owners of this City demand that it be run for Our Benefit, which includes competent Fiscal Management for the Common Good.
howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2012 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Kira does not seem to understand that blaming Channelkeepers for the extra $4 monthly rate increase does not fit the blame and finger-pointing tactic of some people in the city administration and attorney offices.
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2012 at 7:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sadly, any infrastructure system just have to be replaced over time. Older sewer systems were made of teracota, brick and cast iron before better piping was invented. Besides, reducing beach and creek pollution, better systems would reduce ground water contamination and ground water is one source of drinking water.
Cities must do better long term budget planning and steadily set aside money for these major investments without 'special assessments'. These assessments should be reserved for crisis like major earthquakes.
passagerider (anonymous profile)
May 14, 2012 at 2:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)