San Diego & SoCal Fishing Forums

Hey it's Monday, and I was wondering, does anybody besides me think this whole damn thing has been a pile of shit?

Everydog wrote: Thu Feb 22, 2024 8:03 pm

Please go ahead and do what you did with the link above, Carpkiller, if you want to. I'll be back with more.

https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=CVSN1977042 ... ing-------

Thanks for continuing the grind!

Transcribed...now I know more than I ever wanted to about bond earnings...also same text in a word doc attached for your files. I highlighted the funny parts.
:

THE STAR-NEWS - Sunday, April 24, 1977 –

Idea helps sway chamber
If Proposition W is passed on the special May 31 ballot, Sweetwater Reservoir would be opened to the public for recreation.
That was just one of the arguments presented to the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce this week which convinced directors hot to oppose the $22.5 million bond issue in Chula Vista and National City.
THE SPECIAL, election will be conducted by National City and the South Bay Irrigation District, (SBID), which covers most of Chula Vista and Bonita.
The money will be used to buy out the privately held California American Water Co. (Cal-Am).
Art Johns, an SBIB (sic) director, told the chamber board the Sweetwater Reservoir is the only large reservoir in the county closed to the public.
Other publicly-owned water systems with reservoirs open them for fishing and boating, he said, such as Otay Lakes, Lake Murray and Lake Jennings.
Johns also got down to dollars and cents, explaining that once Proposition W is passed, 3% to 6% reduction in rates with a total 33% cut once the bonds are paid off in 20 to 25 years.
"THIS WATER Cal.Am distributes Is your water,” said Johns.
"Cal-Am owns the distribution system and that is what the people are trying to buy out so you won't have to pay profits to distribute your water to you."
Hoover and Parker Dams on the Colorado River and the aqueducts which bring 90 of South Bay water to this area were built with public funds, he explained.
Johns said Cal-Am’s 1976 revenue was $5.3 million to serve 28,201 customers in the Sweetwater District. That breaks down to $190 per year from each meter, compared to $112 per meter-year in Escondido, $124 in Oceanside and $126 in San Diego.
"The difference is because these inexpensive systems are owned publicly," said Johns. Rate.
The one-third reduction would occur because water customers would no longer be longer be paying CalAm's income, franchise and property taxes, plus dividends to shareholders.”
"CAL-AM" is not a taxpayer," said Johns. "Cal-Am is a tax collector. Every time you turn on your tap you pay the taxes Cal-Am will pay.
“I’m a Republican and conservative. But Cal-Am is not free enterprise. They are selling you what you already own and charging you for it.”
Rebutting Johns was chamber vice president Dick Callahan, who called Johns’ explanations “crap.”
Joining Callahan was Cal-Am President O.L. Banz, who said, “You don’t own the water. It’s God-given, and he can take it away.”
BANZ SAID, “The water San Diego buys will cost exactly what Cal-Am buys it for,” but did not explain why his company charges more.
He maintained that Cal-Am makes no profits, but “public utilities allow an interest return on common stock.”
Banz criticized members of the Public Utilities Commission for “being reluctant to increase,” Cal-Am rates, calling it “folly.”
# # #
SBID, S’water Authority okay plan
Promised rate cuts ok’d
A promised 3-6% water rates decrease immediately after the public takeover of California-American Water Co.’s Sweetwater District systems had been confirmed.
South Bay Irrigation District and Sweetwater Authority Wednesday approved rate decreases that SBID President David Burns and Sweetwater Authority Chairman Kile Morgan had announced earlier as possibilities.
Both men said the decreased were possible based on projected first year operational costs and revenues after water systems serving Chula Vista, National City, Bonita and part of the Sweetwater Valley are purchased.
SBID and National City are attempting to purchase Cal-Am’s holdings for $19 million through a $22.5 million bond election May 31 in SBID and National City.
The additional $3.5 million will be used for reserves, operational costs and to insure payment of bonded indebtedness.
Larry Foy, treasurer o f the Water Bond Information Committee which opposes the Prop. W water bond issue, challenged the public agencies’ ability to lower rates after acquisition, as does Cal-Am general manager Jerry Haas.
It appears to be the beginning of a numbers war to be waged now to May 31.
HAAS CONTENDS figures projected by SBID would leave the agency with a $248,000 deficit instead of an excess allowing them to cut rates.
Those projects, said Haas, omitted an estimated $2,084,000 the company would have to pay as an 8% interest payment on the $22.5 million bond.
SBID’s projections include a $1,760,000 annual debt service payment at 6% over 25 years to retire the bond.
Haas contends the SBID and National City resolutions setting the revenue bonds election address themselves to the 8% annual interest.
“Those resolutions talk about a maximum of 8%,” said Burns. “Our bonding consultants tell us that the rate probably will be 6% plus or minus.
“If they get their noses in the bond market, they’d know that bonds of that type are going for 6-6 ½ %.
“The last big bond sale for the Metropolitan Water District went for 5.4%.
SBID PROJECTS the following income based on the company’s revenue increases to go into effect July 1 to cover $148,000 incresae in water prices due to go into effect on that date:
--$5,504,400 in water rates revenue;
--$3,166,200 operating expenses;
--$2,298,200 net revenues;
--$1,760,200 debt service (6%), and
--$686,000 excess cash flow remaining.
Of the excess or cash flow amount, $355,000 wold (sic) be spent on capital improvements, and $331,000 applied to water rate reductions.
WHILE HAAS said he has no quarrel with SBID’s figures and Foy calls them “close enough,” the men project the following first-year picture without the increase which they say is not automatic:
--$5,356,400 annual income from water rates;
--$3,166,200 operations costs;
--$2,190,200 net revenues;
--$2,084,00 debt service payment (8%)
That leaves a cash flow balance of $106,200, said Haas, which ends up with a $248,000 deficit instead of leaving money for the rate reduction.
Haas said the agency could pay its first year debt service out of the $3.5 million produced by the bond sales over the $19 million purchase price, but the debt payments would have to come out of the revenues in subsequent years.
BURNS CONTENDS the SBID projections including the 6% rate interest payment and the $148,000 increase are correct and would enable the publicly-owned Sweetwater Authority to grant rate reductions.
# # #

The rate cuts never materialized. The fishing didn't come to Sweetwater until the 2000s and only because the county, state, and federal governments paid for it, Then when the reporting period for the grants was closed, Sweetwater curtailed the hours. The boating that was promised never came.

At Loveland, we traded public land for the fishing program, and yes, SBID and other Cal-American takeover boosters promised fishing at Loveland in the '60s and 70's too, then, as we have seen, Sweetwater destroyed it and tried to take it away forever. Now they want to give us back as little as they can get away with and the same politicians and bureaucrats who failed to do their jobs and let Sweetwater drain it and kill the fish, want to protect the water district from paying anything for what they did. This included our east county reps.


The remedy is to fix or undo the Forest Service land swap and give us the land back.

What is the concept of the invisible hand?
The invisible hand is a metaphor, introduced by the 18th-century Scottish philosopher and economist Adam Smith, which characterizes the mechanisms through which beneficial social and economic outcomes may arise from the accumulated self-interested actions of individuals, none of whom intends to bring about such outcomes.

Maybe really good news,
SDGE agreed to work with Senator Jones's Staff on letting us use the easement. I think this has to mean Sweetwater said they won't deny it. I am not positive about that.

Seeing is believing but Senator Joness' staff has worked with me on Loveland problems for four years.

At the bandwagon stage of the Loveland fight. I am pretty sure I'd be pushed off anyway and bandwagons are not my thing anyway.
Let's see if the ability to get more done doesn't get trampled by the circus.

Saw you on the news

Here is the Video;



My wife and I got to present some proposals I crowd-sourced and we built a PowerPoint with. Those are what are seen in the Fox piece. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/ ... sp=sharing

Loveland Peeps.
My exit point as the leader in this fight has arrived.
The next Chapter in my life starts with more camping and fishing in retirement.
Thanks to anyone who pitched in.
Good things will come to Loveland and its enthusiasts.

Low on details summary:

Success:
The community organizing, media attention court of public appeal side, which should have never been necessary, has been successful and more wins should come from that. The community is on third base with no outs on Loveland. There is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to expand shoreline access there. It looks like my push to use the SDGE easement will be carried forward in time, but there could be much more access improvement if the current people involved persist.

Failure:
My four-year appeal to regulators and our elected officials, except where it was a part of the public appeals effort, has been an enormous failure.
California and Federal laws, licenses, and contracts were never respected despite my four years of applying myself toward those goals and exposing clear breaches.
Freedom of Information Act efforts were dodged and manipulated. Two Congressmen dodged all this time.

Where were the Environmentalists?
There wasn't enough local money in it for brand-name environmentalist groups who pretty much only do real work through courts...not enough money.
There may also have been political affiliation reasons. I learned that they won't go against the Forest Service in Loveland, ...probably especially true with the lack of local money problem. However, there were also some past conflicts of interest buried from the Forest Service Land Swap with Sweetwater that probably kept some people in the shadows. Had there been rich people with view homes, or just a higher population and more commercial enterprise based on the reservoir, say if it was like Big Bear Lake, things would have been much different.

Who did it?
https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/mira ... tY12YaYAT4

It's sad that it's an april fools joke.

The wind/funnel cloud explanation, along with the bird flight out of the water for 20 minutes or more are totally believable. Smugglers hauling fish down in coolers, not so much

We got a commitment for letters of support for the restoration of sunrise to sunset access from the Alpine Planning Group last night and the same for my proposal to use the SDGE easement roads. There are many letters of support for these things piling up.

Part of the trail grant money is proposed to be going to a Loveland Recreation master plan.
Other things that are in Sweetwater's draft for use of the 750k CA legislative funding include;

A bridge across the ravine
A look-out platform
Railroad tie trail restoration and some alignment of trails to get to the proposed bridge.

No railroad ties haha

It's going to be a slide down the hill. Just kidding. The main thing is community involvement/ pressure. Getting sunrise to sunset back would be a big or better year 6:00 AM to Sunset, or just tear out the gate. Even the General Manager proposed taking out the gate once. Of course, the lake staff, some of them don't like it.

$75k of the promised funding, CA money, was proposed for a recreation master plan.

I am not the leader of this thing anymore, but last week before the Alpine Community Planning Group meeting I had a few long phone conversations and some emails between me and the ACPG chair about getting the push for Sunrise to Sunset hours at Loveland back on track.
I asked him for letters of support which the Alpine Community planning group was unanimously for with one abstention. I also asked the ACPG Chair to get the Forest Service back out to meet with the public. Just trying to keep it from being buried.


We had a good crowd that made a tough-to-reject stand for sunrise to sunset at this meeting in August ( linked below). Let's see what happens. Supposedly people in the community and Forest Service are trying to find workarounds with volunteers for a legal and enforceable easement that needs none, and that Sweetwater simply has taken the liberties of short-changing.

https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/alpi ... ar-updates

Please email the Sweetwater General Manager today or tomorrow or at least by Wednesday at noon and ask him to encourage the board of Directors to vote to put the full fishing float back at the lake. The meeting is on Wednesday at 5:00 PM at Sweetwater HQ in Chula Vista. Also please remind him that the public is best served, especially working people, if the parking lot stays open at least until sunset per the Forest Service easement.


Carlos Quintero email [email protected]

Thanks.
Reference:
https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/floa ... -wednesday