The Board of Directors at Crescenta Valley Water District (CVWD) will consider a water rate increase during its June 26 meeting. As a customer of CVWD and as a member of the Board of Directors of Foothill Municipal Water District (FMWD) and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), I want to voice my support for the recommended 6.9% increase as a prudent investment to ensure reliable drinking water for the Crescenta Valley.
Access to groundwater supplies in Crescenta Valley is limited due to geography, adjudicated groundwater rights, water quality and hydrology. Without sufficient rainfall, groundwater levels are too low to meet more than half of our water needs. To meet these demands, CVWD has always depended on imported water from MWD and distributed by FMWD.
Pumping and distributing water from the Colorado River and State Water Project to Crescenta Valley incur large energy costs. The amount of energy required to pump water from the FMWD connection near the Rose Bowl to homes in the higher elevations of Crescenta Valley is comparable to pumping required on the 242-mile Colorado River Aqueduct. Therefore, CVWD has much higher electrical costs for pumping imported water than other comparable cities (e.g., Glendale, Pasadena and Burbank). In addition, MWD and FMWD have adopted their budgets with rate increases that are passed to CVWD.
Just recently, the state Legislature and the governor passed water conservation laws requiring new water conservation standards because we do not have adequate water supplies statewide. We should all recognize the significant investments in water reliability needed throughout Southern California to ensure reliable drought proof supplies!
These investments range from replacing aging infrastructure on the State Water Project with the Delta tunnels and developing new supplies such as recycled water throughout Southern California and the L.A. County’s effort to capture more storm water to use locally in its proposed ballot measure in November.
I support the efforts of CVWD in investing in our future so we have sufficient and reliable water supplies.
Foothill Municipal Water District
Recently a public meeting was held on the SR 710 North Project. The 710 North Project, a scheme by Metro and Caltrans to extend the 710 traffic through South Pasadena and Pasadena to the 210, has several alternative solutions. One of which that is very much in play is connecting the freeways via a tunnel. I thought the tunnel thing was a dead issue, but apparently it is not, as Metro is now collecting public comments on the cultural/historical impacts of all the alternatives.
It’s obvious that Metro and Caltrans aren’t giving up on their agenda to put all the truck traffic going north from the ports and the L.A. Basin right through La Cañada and La Crescenta via the 210. They continue to suggest the increased truck traffic would have minimal impact on our environment, which we all know is a huge lie.
We have until July 5 to send or email our comments. You’ll find the comment link at metro.net/projects/sr-710-conversations.
La Cañada Flintridge
I have been a Glendale resident for over 40 years and I have been living in the same rental unit for more than 30 years. Sadly, my landlords have found it “necessary” to raise my rent 42%!
Needless to say, this makes it imperative that we do whatever it takes to enact rent stabilization in Glendale before greed completely overtakes our great city.
Four council members voted for changing Maryland Avenue to a name that reflects an area in Armenia. (Councilwoman Paula Devine opposed the change and abstained from the vote.)
No doubt we have worse problems in the world and things to be upset about. However, let’s think about a couple of things and not just accept the four council members’ reasoning for the name change.
One of them said “...other street names such a Calafia, Baghdad, etc." are already here.
As a 60-plus year resident of Glendale I do not remember any significance to those street names. No hoopla, nothing in honor of anything. So that’s one thing.
Secondly, some in attendance at the meeting said business owners were intimidated to show up that night because of the Unified Young Armenians. If that’s true, who thinks the use of fear tactics is a good idea?
Third is the matter of the city offering $1,000 per business owner affected by the name change and business owners saying the $1,000 isn't enough, citing a much higher amount. So then there's the very generous offer of Vrje Agajanian to compensate the business owners for costs associated with the name change: “They can bring their receipts, whatever cost they are going through, and we have to accept,” Agajanian said.
Really? Out of what account will this be drawn and under whose authority? I would like specifics.
I don't doubt the council members’ sincerity in wanting the name change. But it’s disingenuous to give vague, obscure references to cite reasons for the name change.
I’m just trying to keep the politicians honest and transparent so we can still use those words in the same sentence.