Time to Bite Bullet on Special Districts : * Officials Should Abolish, Merge Unnecessary Groups

Orange County’s special districts, the handlers of such matters as water and sewage services, park and cemetery maintenance, are receiving deserved scrutiny again. The county has too many of them, as new studies likely will reaffirm. But then will come the tough, but essential part: abolishing or merging fiefdoms ruled by politicians reluctant to abolish their own jobs.

The Board of Supervisors this month approved a $37,600 contract for the Orange County Grand Jury to hire an accounting firm to study possible benefits of merging five agencies that provide water to Orange County. Many of the agencies are intermediaries, buying the water and then passing it on to cities or to other water districts.

The grand jury is expected to coordinate its study with a similar but separate inquiry being conducted by the Local Agency Formation Commission. That’s a sensible approach. Too many special districts seem to duplicate services; investigators should not also overlap.

LAFCO has begun its review of special districts by looking at Dana Point. After being run by the Board of Supervisors as an unincorporated community, Dana Point became a city in 1989. Yet it still has seven districts dealing with water and sewage, plus other districts that oversee things like community services. Add them up and you wind up with 52 elected officials.

Years ago, before the county grew to include 31 cities, special districts were considered good ways to provide specific services to a community without elected mayors and councils. Locally elected districts could provide local knowledge and monitor how the water was distributed or the cemetery maintained. But cityhood has removed the reason for the existence of many districts; the directors, enjoying the stipends they receive for meetings and the limelight and power of elected office, refuse to vote an end to districts’ existence.

There are indications that at least some directors of special districts realize they are not essential and are willing to merge with other agencies. One reason is that special districts that receive some funds from property taxes, as many do, are seeing that revenue source cut as the state takes more property taxes for itself. That sort of financial strain was one reason cited when the Capistrano Bay Park and Recreation District, whose territory was the same as the Dana Point boundaries, wisely let the city take it over in November. More such reasonableness is needed.

A perennial problem is voter unawareness of special districts. In too many cases, there are not even enough candidates for directorships.

That kind of apathy and lack of oversight increases the chances that something will go wrong, as the county grand jury warned in 1982 and again in 1988. Last year, disclosures of the free-spending ways of executives of the Santa Margarita Water District prompted investigations by the FBI and the county district attorney.

As far back as the 1970s, the county chapter of the League of Women Voters said the districts needed “increased accountability, responsiveness and public visibility.” Two decades later, that’s still a good prescription.

But it’s a reduction in the number of special districts that should be the goal. By LAFCO’s count, Orange County has more than 80 special districts, and more than 30 of those are independent of county or city control. That’s too many. The grand jury and LAFCO reports should spell out steps to reduce the number. The problem has been known for decades. It’s time for solutions.