SPECIAL REPORT * A 200% hike in rates that a water agency charges cities, plus alleged wastefulness and questionable political doings, spur . . . : A Flood of Outrage

Fed up with steep water charges and millions spent on seeming frills, cities in southern Los Angeles County are battling the rich Water Replenishment District of Southern California, demanding state action and threatening a massive lawsuit against what they say are possible illegal business practices and violations of political campaign laws.

Among the litany of complaints is a 200% increase since 1991 in water rates assessed against some of the county’s poorest cities, and spending that contracting cities believe is freewheeling and unnecessary.

Complaints range from a $10,000-a-month consulting contract given to Mervyn Dymally, a former lieutenant governor and congressman who critics say helped politicize county water boards, to the awarding of a $22-million project to a Pasadena engineering firm without competitive bidding.

Questionable political activities by elected members of the water district’s board of directors, including purportedly nonpolitical mailings during election seasons, the production of individualized videos and lavish breakfasts thrown free for voters, all at public expense, have led the city of Downey to request an investigation by the state Fair Political Practices Commission.

On a broader front, Downey city officials have been joined by a growing number of angry officeholders in other cities, including Lakewood, Santa Fe Springs and Pico Rivera. A lawsuit may be filed against the water district to stop what cities believe may be the improper expenditure of public money.

“The district’s staffing has grown to the extreme,” said Downey Councilwoman Joyce Lawrence, contending that the water district over-assessed cities and water agencies to build up a $70-million cash surplus, then went on a spending spree. “They are adding tasks and capital improvements beyond anything anybody thinks they should be doing.”

The cities have enlisted the support of state Sen. Martha Escutia (D-Whittier), who is asking the state’s Joint Legislative Audit Committee to authorize a state examination of the water district’s books.

Among the most troubling expenditures cited by the cities are handwritten bills from Dymally to the water district seeking payment for consulting services at a rate of $10,000 a month in August, September, October and December 1996. In one instance, records obtained by The Times show that a bill from Dymally dated Sept. 1 was paid in full Aug. 27, three days before it indicates that it was submitted.

Critics of the replenishment district also question $32,000 in consulting fees paid during the last four months of 1996 to then-South Gate City Councilman Albert Robles, who is now city treasurer. Robles’ sister M. Susan Carrillo was on the five-member replenishment district board at the time the contract was awarded, but abstained from voting, according to the recollections of two principals. Carrillo did not respond to requests for an interview.

Also being cited is the $22-million contract awarded without bidding to Montgomery Watson Americas, a Pasadena engineering company, to build two plants to desalinate and recycle seawater that has seeped into the aquifer. Downey Public Works Director Desi Alvarez said the contract violates the water district’s administrative rules.

Water Replenishment District President Bob Goldsworthy, a chemical engineer elected to the board in 1988, said the agency’s budget and all its expenditures have been entirely appropriate, designed either to fulfill its mission or educate the public.

“We certainly don’t think an audit is necessary,” he said. Defending the contract with Montgomery Watson, he said competitive bids were not required. He said the company was internationally respected and performed most of the major studies of the saltwater contamination problem in aquifers in southern L.A. County.

As for hiring Dymally and Robles, Goldsworthy said that when their consulting contracts were awarded in 1996, the water district was fighting off suggestions coming from the Legislature that the replenishment agency and two smaller water districts be folded into one large water agency.

“We were in a state of siege at that point, trying to make people understand what we were all about,” Goldsworthy said.

“It wasn’t any kind of sweetheart deal,” said Dymally, calling his contract routine. “I consulted them on ways to defuse the controversy surrounding legislation to eliminate the district.”

Explaining what the district is all about remains at the crux of the agency’s problem. Put simply, the district’s critics say no explanation is necessary.

Unlike the more familiar Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the Metropolitan Water District, which are responsible for keeping the water running into Southland homes and businesses, the replenishment district does not directly provide water to consumers.

Created by the state in 1959, it is supposed to replenish underground wells that were drying up because of overpumping and stop the intrusion of seawater, which was contaminating the county’s underground reservoirs.

The district’s mission is to charge a special assessment for each acre-foot of water taken out of the ground by each municipal and private water department operating in the 43 cities within its jurisdiction. An acre-foot is 326,000 gallons, which water officials say is enough to supply two average households for a year.

The money collected from water agencies is supposed to be used to buy water to refill the aquifers or storage reservoirs.

For years, the replenishment district operated with a skeletal staff, just two or three people, plus the five commissioners.

But in the early 1990s, politicians in southern Los Angeles County realized that running for a replenishment district seat, or a seat on two smaller water districts in the area, could provide added name recognition and draw votes for people also seeking other offices. The seats could also be a great source of campaign contributions.

In addition, the positions--virtual giveaways during the 1960s and 1970s--were seen as launching pads for higher office or landing places for officeholders who had lost other posts and wanted to keep their names before the public.

Dymally said races for the water district seats offered a chance to get newcomers into elective office.

“What we did was encourage Latinos and women and minorities to get into the whole question of governance of water,” he said.

Mark Dymally, Mervyn’s son, was elected to the West Coast Basin Water District, and the senior Dymally’s longtime political lieutenant, Kenneth Orduna, was elected to the replenishment district board.

The Dymallys were allied with South Gate’s Robles, an elected member of the Central Basin Water District, and Robles’ sister, Carrillo, who won a seat on the replenishment district board. Another member of that board is Albert Robles, but he is not related. To avoid confusion, South Gate’s Robles is often referred to as “Big Al.”

The younger Dymally and Orduna were both defeated last year, the latter by Willard Murray Jr., a former state assemblyman.

Critics say that as the districts became politicized, board members raised assessments on cities to fund an expanding list of projects.

From a replenishment charge of $51 an acre-foot in fiscal 1990, the year Orduna was elected, the fees grew to $162 an acre-foot in 1996, before dropping to $151 in 1999.

The outcry by the cities forced the replenishment district to reduce its assessment to $139, beginning this July, but the cities say a more realistic figure would be $105. The district will also reduce its $70-million cash surplus to about $50 million by distributing surplus funds to cities through grants. But that does not satisfy critics either.

“It is our belief that the [replenishment district] has abused its statutory authority to set assessments and has inappropriately spent public funds,” said Pico Rivera Mayor Carlos A. Garcia in a letter to Escutia, asking for a state audit because of what he called “an alarming” rise in assessments.

Downey’s complaint to the political practices commission said election-season breakfasts for directors included $50,000 spent on a lavish spread for Orduna, who was then defeated. The breakfast, free to voters, included giveaways like coffee mugs engraved with Orduna’s name. The event came at a time the political practices commission was garnishing Orduna’s water district compensation to pay a fine levied against him for money laundering and filing false reports in an L.A. City Council campaign in 1987.

Downey also protests that water education videos were produced individually for Orduna and Carrillo, at costs of $24,000 and $19,000, respectively, to help their reelection bids.

The political practices agency refused to comment on Downey’s complaint.

Orduna said the breakfasts were part of a public outreach campaign.

“Everything we did went by our legal counsel. He would not let anything happen unless it was entirely legal,” he said.

It could be months before questions raised by the cities are resolved. If the audit is approved, it is uncertain how long it would take. As for the lawsuit, attorneys say one objective would be to stop work on the $22-million recycling plants.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

High Water Costs

Cities in southern Los Angeles County are protesting the rapid increase since 1991 in assessment fees charged by the Water Replenishment District of Southern California.

1976: $21

2000: $139

Note: An acre-foot is enough to supply two average households for a year.

Source: Water Replenishment District of Southern California