MWD Shelves Its Expansion Surcharge Bill

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Monday temporarily withdrew a controversial bill that would have cleared the way for the giant water agency to levy a surcharge on property in its six-county service area.

The surcharge is one of several revenue sources the district had considered using to finance a $3-billion expansion program primarily in San Diego and Riverside counties.

Although the Legislature gave the district the authority in 1984 to levy up to a $10-per-parcel surcharge, it never provided a mechanism for collecting the money. The legislation by Sen. Robert Presley (D-Riverside) would have allowed county tax collectors to collect the charge for the district.

“It (the bill) had simply become more controversial than we thought it warranted,” said Jay Malinowski, a spokesman for the district. “In our minds the contents of the bill are not significant enough to cause that kind of controversy. It really doesn’t do anything new except set up a mechanism to collect a charge we’re already authorized to collect.”

Malinowski said that inasmuch as the district had not planned to levy the charge for several years, the shelving of the bill would only delay its financial planning for the massive expansion program.

He said officials will renew their efforts to pass it next year after its critics have had more time to review it.

“It’s obviously not going to come up this year in the Legislature,” he said.

The bill became controversial when some members of the district’s Board of Directors complained that the board’s decision to push its passage in the Legislature had been made hurriedly without adequate public hearings.

And even Monday they complained that the decision to withdraw it was being made without public notice by General Manager Carl Boronkay in consultation with the board’s executive committee.

“I’m glad it has been made a two-year bill but I think the system stinks,” said Tom Brick, who represents Pasadena on the board.

Brick said he had hoped that by opposing the bill he could force the district to re-examine its proposals for financing the expansion program.

By levying a surcharge, he said the district would be able to force all of its 14 million customers to pay for expansion that would only benefit about 4 million water users.

“It’s a tremendous subsidy really to the outlying areas,” he said. “I don’t think the already developed areas of Southern California should be forced to pay for this very expensive expansion.”

Brick said the district’s decision to charge every user the same rate--often called the postage stamp philosophy--conflicts with recent trends in local government financing.

“The whole direction in municipal government has been to make the user pay. The new user should have to pay the price of conveying the facilities to his area,” he said.