What is happening at this public agency is disconcerting.
A few weeks ago, Director Jose Cerda authored, “Clarifying the Sweetwater Mission” which was published as a letter to the editor of the Chula Vista Star News on Dec. 14.
Grab the Windex.
The customers need a clearer view of what’s happening because there’s a new board majority in power with Mr. Cerda as a part of this.
Mr. Cerda’s neglect in introducing himself as one Sweetwater Authority’s elected officials puts into question his adherence to board policy. Did he have the full board support to write this editorial? Not likely, since what he wrote is contrary to Sweetwater Authority’s official mission statement. First, Mr. Cerda proposes that Sweetwater buy existing recycled water rather than buying expensive treated water. He didn’t explain that if recycled water is available, where would it come from, and how much would it cost to buy this water and build a new plumbing system to transport it. He must have forgotten Sweetwater had conducted a feasibility study and concluded that including recycled water as a part of its water resources planning was not economically feasible.
Praising newly elected Director Hector Martinez as a “low water rate champion and a strong supporter for system maintenance . . . in favor of finding new and innovative ways to save money” is contrary to Martinez’s campaign statements that Sweetwater Authority was accelerating too many capital improvement projects to replace aging infrastructure. In other words, “roll the dice and hope old pipes don’t break” justified Martinez’ position on low water rates.
The low number of water main leaks that occurred last year is a tribute to Sweetwater Authority’s past policy of funding replacements. Yet, Cerda advocates reducing funding for replacements. Which is it?
Mr. Cerda described Martinez’ proposal for a “Directional Bore Pipe” between Alpine’s Loveland Reservoir and Spring Valley’s Sweetwater Reservoir as a means to reduce costs. Sweetwater has historically analyzed traversing this 18-mile distance. Given a cost of $100 million or so, it’s an unfeasible concept.
So, here’s the real story to be conveyed behind this cloudy window. Mr. Cerda’s proposals and Martinez’ campaign statements ideas might look enticing and/or sound good, implementing them would be expensive and not feasible. But they know this. They just want to toot their horn to take ownership about these potential cost-saving projects even though Sweetwater staff have already analyzed them.
When ratepayers check in on how the new board majority will operate, will they find that recent decisions have replaced past practical and feasible decisions? Can this board majority be trusted when it says no to rate increases, while pretending to advance expensive projects? Will customers also observe that the new board majority is focused in the minutia of daily operations instead of making policy decisions and relying on staff?
Is this the right way to govern a public agency that provides a life sustaining resource?
James Smyth is a resident of Chula Vista.
