Kern Valley Sun
With California Water Company’s 2009 application for a general rate increase comes public meetings. The Oct. 15 afternoon workshop, a less formal, informational meeting, drew more than 50 residents to the Moose Lodge in Lake Isabella. A later evening session was held at 6:00 p.m. to accommodate more of the valley’s working residents.
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the state agency that regulates public utilities, requires there be an additional formal public meeting in December or January. Customers will be notified by an insert included with a future water bill. In April, 2010, Cal Water and the CPUC will go before an administrative judge for final approval of the planned rate increase.
 Kevin Debrushman, Cal Water’s Kern River Valley District Supervisor, left, speaks to a group of about 50 residents who attended a General Rate Increase workshop, where Cal Water’s proposed 36.5 percent rate increase was discussed at the Moose Lodge in Lake Isabella Oct. 15. |
In attempting to explain the purpose of the rate increases, Debrushman said, “This is what we are doing for you. To serve the 4,500 customers in our area, we have 36 active wells, 70 miles of pipeline, and eight treatment plants.” He went to add that removing the naturally occurring “contaminants” – uranium, arsenic, fluoride, and such in the valley’s water– add the cost of providing customers with potable water.”
The 2009 rate increase request represents water system improvements already constructed and in service in the valley, he said.
A notice sent to Cal Water customers advised, “Cal Water’s application requests a rate increase in the Kern River Valley District of $1,686,00 (36.5 percent)...The bulk of the requested increase is due to the following factors: Cal Water’s capital improvement program will add $3.4 million in utility plant from the last test year to 2011 year and increase rates by $561,000; Kern River Valley District’s benefit cost will increase rates by $193,100. Costs to maintain the same level of employee health care, pensions and retiree health care benefits have increased faster than the general inflation during recent years; Cal Water’s Operating and Maintenance costs, which include costs for transportation expenses, contracted maintenance, and other miscellaneous items will increase rates by $105, 000; Kern River Valley District’s payroll is increasing rates by $98,400, due to additional demands of new regulations; Cal Water’s allocated company benefit costs will increase rates by $85,000. Costs to maintain the same level of employee health care, pensions, and retiree health care benefits have increased faster than general inflation.”
Dave Heffner, of Weldon, raised the point that so many people in the valley are on fixed incomes and, “They are especially hard hit by rate increases.”
Local Cal Water manager Chris Whitley said, “In July 2008, the basic rate went up to $46 (a doubling of the $23 rate). We asked the PUC, ‘What can we do to offset this?’ They agreed to an increase in the Rate Support Fund (a deduction from customers’ bills) from $20 to $25.” Whitley added, “That was at the same time we started the LIRA (Low-Income Ratepayer Assistance) program.”
All that may be well and good, said Donald Keiffer, of Squirrel Valley, but, “Why does my friend who has Erskine Creek Water pay half (and that’s bi-monthly) than I do monthly with Cal Water? Because Erskine Creek is a private water company and Cal Water has stockholders who demand dividends and a good return on investment. That’s what it is – you’re beholding to your stockholders.”
According to Cal Water’s website, the company’s 2008 Annual Report, net income was up 28 percent to $39.8 million; earnings per share rose 27 percent to $1.90; revenues increased 11.8 percent to $410.3 million; dividends were increased for the 41st consecutive year and paid for the 255th consecutive quarter; stock price at year-end was $46.43, bringing total stockholder return for the year to 29.4 percent.
Comments
16 comment(s)PAT wrote on Nov 27, 2009 10:49 AM:
Bob wrote on Nov 6, 2009 9:41 AM:
to a low of $4.08 for 1 ccf but it cost another $29.00 to pump my $4.00 worth of water up to my house........?????
Cal Water has go to go....the sooner the better....... "
Bob wrote on Nov 4, 2009 6:49 AM:
In my area Wofford (in the dry) Heights folks don't flush the toilet.....if its yellow let it mellow, if its brown flush it down......let all your plants die it will make for a good fire season next year.
It seems that if you have gray hair your expendable...I know that all of our values are..... "
sick of Cal Water wrote on Nov 1, 2009 9:31 PM:
[...other miscellaneous items will increase rates by $105, 000; Kern River Valley District’s payroll is increasing rates by $98,400, due to additional demands of new regulations; Cal Water’s allocated company benefit costs will increase rates by $85,000. Costs to maintain the same level of employee health care, pensions, and retiree health care benefits have increased faster than general inflation.”]
They are ripping off everyone for their own financial gain! Greed at it's worse- shame on all of them! "
Bob wrote on Oct 26, 2009 9:04 AM:
The toliet uses most of the water in a home, the less you flush it the more water you save.....it wastes 28% in the flush and 5% if it leaks.
Wash machine uses 22% wash only full loads.
Baths 9%.
Dishwasher 3%.
Faucets 12%.
Showers 21%.
The average residential use is 80 gallons per person a day.
Invest in a gray water system for out door water or flushing the toliet.
Rain water collection, etc. "
sylvia wrote on Oct 26, 2009 8:11 AM:
editor wrote on Oct 25, 2009 5:02 PM:
Walter C. wrote on Oct 25, 2009 4:52 PM:
* Kevin Dabrushman's last name is misspelled throughout the story.
* He was misidentified in the photo cutline. (He's sitting on the far right, not standing to the far left.)
* Apparently, some of the quotes attributed to him were not even said by him.
If basic information like what's listed above is incorrect, then how am I supposed to accept that the remainder of the story is accurate? I assume the KV Sun editors will print a clarification or correction. "
Dont Get It wrote on Oct 22, 2009 10:51 PM:
Larry Knight wrote on Oct 22, 2009 11:51 AM:
I would feel a lot better if I could 'SEE' the gun when I am getting robbed.
SHAME on Cal Water for sticking it to the people. There will be justice for the crime you're committing on the locals that support you. I will 'do something' to bring attention to your crime by contacting public agencies/network officials to help us bring an end to your profit taking at our expense. "
Bob wrote on Oct 22, 2009 9:07 AM:
From a group......when? After you have to move to Ridgecrest?
Lets see, no lake, no fish, no water.
Whats left?
Ya, know its not about the cost of the water, its about the "service charge".
The "service charge" is anywhere from twice the amount of the water delivered to three times as much. Yeah, Cal Water is bad news....... "
Rek wrote on Oct 21, 2009 6:37 PM:
Of course, then I'll probably be charged by the Forest Service, one fee for going to the lake, and another for using the water...
We just can't win, can we? "
Gary Layton wrote on Oct 21, 2009 5:23 PM:
Mac wrote on Oct 21, 2009 1:02 PM:
day trader wrote on Oct 21, 2009 11:59 AM:
29% return is a GREAT return, SOMEONES pocket is getting FAT.
Employee's, What cal water has what 5 in the valley if that, Cal Water is telling you people that you are going to pay FOR BAKERSFEILD employee's. STAND UP people, Start talking from a Group,
Wish I could trade at 29% "
Bryce Spafford wrote on Oct 21, 2009 9:05 AM: