GOLETA WATER.org

ARCHIVED INFO for 2006

Click here to view our archived info.

INFORMATION THAT NEEDS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AND RESOLVED

There is an ongoing debate about the true cost of agricultural water and whether or not it is subsidized by urban water rates. The assertion by the Goleta Water District that ag water is subsidized is a major part of the reasoning behind proposing and/or defending policy that caps agricultural water use. Read some of the assertions below. Staff of the Goleta Water District as well as concerned community members are looking into these matters. Results will be posted on this site as soon as they are available.

Summary of information presented by Jack Ruskey and Burt Bertrando (11k) to the directors of the Goleta Water District at the Board's March 14th, 2006 meeting, disagreeing with and challenging the Board's assertion that ag water is subsidized by urban rates - also charging the Goleta Water Board with inadequate keeping of minutes.

Supporting document (17k) regarding the cost of delivering ag water

BACKGROUND INFORMATION - Q and A

• Several possible unprecedented billing scenarios have been raised by the Goleta Water District's staff for the Board's approval. All the billing scenarios had a new billing structure for Ag which restricted water use by providing a "budget" of water based on the farmer's 13 years history of water use. If the farmer goes over that budget for the year, they are billed a "new water use fee", a charge of $25,000 for each acre foot water over their historic use. Farmers currently pay about $400 per acre foot for water used. Other problems with a water budget billing is that the farmer is penalized when there is a light rainfall year like 2004. The farmer is also penalized if they want to change crops or if the water requirements of their orchards change because of the age of the trees.
• The Goleta Water district staff offered three justifications for billing changes that have never been proven.
  • There is no more inexpensive Lake Cachuma water for Agriculture.
  • Agricultural water use has been increasing.
  • Agricultural water is subsidized by urban users.
  The Goleta Water District has recently admitted that it has never done a formal study to validate these claims. The fact based reports on GoletaWater.org actually contradict each of the District's alleged justifications for the changes.
• Here are the district's formal agricultural rate change proposals from November: GWD Proposed Ordinances to Adopt New Ag Account Policies (1.76MB)

• Yes there is currently plenty of water! It is all clearly detailed and broken down in the very recent reports issued by the Goleta Water District.
• Urban Water Management Plan (1.05MB)
• Isla Vista Water Supply Plan (4.24MB)

• Water use by Agriculture over the past decade is trending downward. Please see the graphs and tables provided.
• Goleta Ag water use History (10k)
• Comparative Ag water use between 04 & 05 (5k)
• Letter to Directors of GWD, dated February 26, 2006 (23k)

• Not any more.
• Get the unaudited, year end financials from the Goleta Water District website per the July meeting Board agenda under the report of the finance committee.
• Read the Valley Voice article that comments on the financial condition.
• Audited Financial Statement for fiscal year ending 6/30/05 (2.94MB)
• Interim Financial Statements for period ending 12/31/05 (692k) (approved by Board at 2/14/06 meeting)

• The current contract with the Bureau of Reclamation earmarks that approximately 31% of the total water available to the Goleta Water District is to be for agricultural use. Recently newly discovered data shows that Goleta Water District farmers have not used all of the Ag water available for their use from Lake Cachuma.
• Bureau of Reclamation Contract (3.25MB) dated March 14, 1996 between members of Santa Barbara County Water Agency
• The Agricultural water from Lake Cachuma is actually sold to the Goleta Water District at a discounted rate from urban water. This lower rate is done pursuant to a contract among all of the Water Districts using Lake Cachuma water. The customers of all of the five Water Districts have agreed that the cost of irrigation water from the lake will be charged to the individual Districts at a lower rate than other water.
• Agreement Regarding Cachuma Project Water Rates and Adminstration (1.7MB) dated April 14, 1996 between United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency

• This is a good detailed objection addressing specific points. Goleta Water District Board has received these objections but has never responded.
• Jack Ruskey's Objections (82k)
• Susan Petrovich's Objections (16k)
• Jack Ruskey's letter to Directors dated February 26, 2006 (23k)

• Ness Letter, 182k
• Duerner Letter, 1.5MB
• Harms Letter, 270k
• Parks Letter, 417k
• 2nd Harms Letter, 141k
• Antrim Letter, 43k
• Justice Letter, 238k
• Schulte Letter, 101k
• Stinehart Letter, 181k
• McInnes Letter, 303k
• Douhan Letter, 3.25MB

• 2001-2002 Entitlement, 365k
• 2004 Entitlement, 558k
• 2004-2005 Entitlement Revised, 938k
• 2005-2006 Entitlement, 378k
• Metered use Dec 1996, 184k
• Metered use Dec 1998, 515k
• Metered use Dec 2003, 663k
• Metered use Jan 2005, 631k
• Summary of water use Dec 31, 1995, 343k (broken link fixed)
• Summary of water use 1996-1997, 420k
• Water Storage Report 1998, 99k
• Water Storage Report 2001, 619k
• Water use Dec 1994, 63k
• Water use Dec 1997, 680k
• Water use 1999, 633k
• Water use Dec 2000, 908k
• Water use Dec 2000, #2, 862k (broken link fixed)
• Water use Dec 2001, 633k
• Water use Dec 2001, #2, 622k (broken link fixed)
• Water use Dec 2002, 664k
• Water use Dec 2003, 614k
• Water use Dec 2004, 490k
• Water use Sept 2004, 401k