Water District Says Governor’s Fee Proposal Is All Wet

The Municipal Water District on Wednesday joined state water lobbyists in criticizing Gov. George Deukmejian’s recently unveiled list of budget cuts, which include plans for a complicated fee system that would probably boost water bills statewide.

In a letter circulated to other water districts in Orange County, municipal district officials said they are “vehemently opposed to (the) proposal of more fees for water quality and quantity activities” and urged other county water districts to write letters of opposition to legislators.

“We’re trying to get the word out,” said Stanley E. Sprague, general manager of the district, one of two wholesalers of water in Orange County. “We are going to get nailed arbitrarily. It just is not a good deal.”

As part of a proposal on widespread cuts to balance the state’s $55-billion budget by July 1, the Deukmejian Administration has suggested that, among other things, the state Water Resources Control Board be financed almost entirely with regulatory fees, which would be charged to local water districts, then passed on to customers, Sprague said.

Programs that deal with water rights and water quality--including stream, lake and wetlands research--would be paid for through the fee system rather than the state budget.

For instance, under the proposal, Anaheim would pay up to $325,000 a year to support such programs, he said.

The Municipal Water District’s call for support was being circulated as Deukmejian formally released his seven pages of budget cuts, aimed at saving the state more than $3.6 billion.

With the fees, the state could save about $38 million from the general fund, said Connie Barker, director of government relations for the Sacramento-based Assn. of California Water Agencies.

But, Barker said, some believe that the fees amount to a tax increase that would eventually reach into the pockets of water customers.

Barker said her group had been surprised by the proposal. The group began notifying its members June 21 in a three-page letter that said the proposal “amounts to bailing out of the state’s general fund by making local agencies provide the bailout money.”

“Such a bailout approach is not appropriate,” the letter stated.

Water officials said they are particularly dismayed that the issue bubbled up less than a week before the budget is to be up for a vote.

Sprague said legislators will be tempted to pass the proposal because they have no time to study its long-term effect on water programs and users throughout the state, who would pay more money despite efforts to conserve water in the Southland’s 4-year-old drought.

Legislators “need money real quick,” Sprague said, referring to the budget crisis the state is in. “They will not have the luxury of time.”