Central Basin MWD support for troubled Discovery Center project could cost customers millions

If officials at Central Basin Municipal Water District have their way, cities, water retailers and ratepayers who get their water from the district could end up paying millions of dollars over the coming years to prop up a financially troubled water museum project that a district official concedes customers do not want.

At the most conservative estimate, projected over the time Central Basin and Upper San Gabriel Valley MWDs would be expected to support the project, the additional costs would reach into the millions of dollars for each district and its customers.

At a June meeting of the San Gabriel River Discovery Center Authority, board President and Central Basin Director Robert Apodaca said that customer cities and agencies were concerned about the district’s support for the project — a $22 million taxpayer/ratepayer-funded water museum and meeting hall — and that “they don’t feel [the project] is a priority for them.”

Central Basin's Robert Apodaca dismissed opposition to the Discovery Center from the district's own customer cities and water agencies as "excuses to criticize" the project.

But Apodaca dismissed the opposition as “excuses to criticize” the project. He then offered additional district resources, saying, “We have a large staff. We have the resources. And we’re willing to share those,” adding later, “We have money to do things.”

At the same meeting, authority Executive Director Belinda V. Faustinos conceded that long-term funding for the controversial project is an “issue” and said that the authority would likely turn to Central Basin and a second district, Upper San Gabriel Valley MWD, to cover the project’s additional costs. “If we need to look at some ongoing operations costs down the road, it could potentially come from the water agency partners,” she said.

Faustinos said that long-term costs for the proposed facility — which would replace an existing Los Angeles County-owned-and-operated nature center already used by Central Basin to deliver education programs — will be a minimum of $200,000 annually beyond what the county and the two district’s pay for the nature center and for education programs, respectively.

Even at the most conservative estimate, projected over the time the districts would be expected to support the project, the additional costs would reach into the millions of dollars for each district and its customers. Such support, and statements that Central Basin has “money to do things,” stand in stark contrast to recent district actions, decisions and statements that seem to indicate a water district where finances are extremely tight — and getting tighter.

Those decisions and actions include: (1) more than doubling a surcharge on water, (2) borrowing tens of millions of dollars, (3) claiming to have made $1 million in budget cuts, and (4) passing on to customers the Metropolitan Water District’s most recent rate increase because, said Central Basin’s general manager, “We don't really have outside income to absorb this.”

If Central Basin officials have their way, their customers — some of whom pay among the county's highest property taxes or sales taxes — also will be absorbing the multimillion-dollar costs of a water museum they do not want.

Discovery Center long-term funding is an ‘issue,’ says authority Executive Officer Belinda Faustinos

Eight months after a government agency dominated by unelected water executives and public employees gave its approval for a controversial publicly funded $22 million water museum, the same agency appears to have no firm idea of the project’s long-term operations and maintenance costs. Nor has the agency been able to secure funding commitments to pay the long-term costs.

At a meeting of the authority board of directors in June, the agency’s executive officer, Belinda V. Faustinos, conceded that long-term funding was an “issue.”

In January, the San Gabriel River Discovery Center Authority approved the water museum and meeting hall proposed for the Whittier Narrows wildlife sanctuary between the Montebello and Puente hills. Yet in April, the LA Weekly reported that the authority, in addition to being short of needed construction funds, “does not even have an updated estimate of future operating costs.”

At a meeting of the authority board of directors in June, the agency’s executive officer, Belinda V. Faustinos, conceded that long-term funding was an “issue.” She said that costs beyond what the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation pays for its existing Whittier Narrows Nature Center and what two authority-member water districts pay for their current education programs would likely be a minimum of $200,000 annually, “if not more.”

It appears that officials prefer to dedicate meeting time, as they have recently, to selecting logos and letterhead and coming up with a design for a facility they can’t afford to build and probably can't afford to operate or maintain.

A document from the same June meeting shows that the authority had failed to secure commitments for long-term funding even by that point. Board agendas from a second June meeting, the authority’s July meeting and its August meeting show no attempts by the authority to address the critical matters of the project’s long-term costs and funding.

Long-term costs and the ability or willingness of organizations to pay those costs are at the heart of the viability question for such projects. “What comes to me is that it’s easy to build something [but] it’s hard to sustain the operation,” Michael Feeney, of the Land Trust for Santa Barbara County, told the LA Weekly, reflecting on the county’s troubled Watershed Resource Center.

“Everyone was excited to build it and there was a lot of enthusiasm at first,” he said. But, writes LA Weekly journalist Tibby Rothman, “the officials at the various agencies grew reluctant to devote the funds needed to keep it going. According to Feeney, the resource center is largely shuttered now, though not only for financial reasons.”

Similar problems contributed to the failure of the multimillion-dollar Children’s Museum of Los Angeles and to the troubles of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s big-ticket Center for Water Education in Hemet — today a costly white elephant for MWD ratepayers.

But rather than address the serious problems that plague the Discovery Center project, it appears that officials prefer to dedicate meeting time, as they have recently, to selecting logos and letterhead and coming up with a design for a facility they can’t afford to build and probably can't afford to operate or maintain.

Opportunities to help protect foothill areas

In the most recent edition of the Pasadena Audubon Society's newsletter, Laura Garrett writes of two opportunities to help save important foothill areas of the San Gabriel Mountains.

Sensitive wildlife habitat in Pasadena's Hahamongna Watershed Park (located near JPL) could be turned into sports fields, parking lots and roads if a majority of the city council has its way.

While the proposed project appears to have been reduced in size to some degree, the city council's recent decision to move ahead with the project -- and to sacrifice ever-rarer habitat and opportunities for passive recreation -- is at odds with what the council heard from the community on July 12. "40 people spoke out against building any soccer fields in Hahamongna Watershed Park, " Laura writes, "while not one person spoke out in favor of the fields."

She encourages people to write the mayor or a city councilmember, attend council meetings when the EIR is being discussed, and sign the petition at http://www.savehahamongna.org/.

Conservation isn't just about stopping bad projects, it's also about taking positive, substantive steps to ensure that our remaining wild places stay wild. In that spirit, the Arroyo & Foothills Conservancy is working to buy 21 acres at the mouth of Rubio Canyon, Laura writes.

Combined with a 2009 purchase, the new effort would preserve all of Rubio Canyon, -- its waterfalls, its diverse habitats and the wildlife they support, she writes. The purchase would also help to link and expand hiking and birding opportunities.

The conservancy is working to raising $1.3 million by the end of this year for the purchase, habitat restoration and trail creation. Laura -- who writes that she is also the newest member of the conservancy board -- encourages people to visit http://www.altadenafoothills.org/ if they're interested in making a financial contribution to the effort.

The September - October PAS newsletter, as well as past newsletters, can be found at http://www.pasadenaaudubon.org/act.html#wren.

Last community-based environmental organization walks away from Discovery Center project

And then there were none.

The last community-based environmental organization on the booster committee for the troubled San Gabriel River Discovery Center water museum project voted in July to remove itself from the committee.

The exit of the local chapter of the California Native Plant Society is the latest page in an exodus from the project. In past years, the Discovery Center Authority claimed to have nearly 30 members on the committee. Today the list is down to seven.

The project booster committee is now made up almost exclusively of government agencies and water districts, a fact which reveals the project for what it is: unsustainable pork-barrel spending at a time when the taxpayer and ratepayer can no longer bear it.

The $22 million taxpayer-funded water museum and meeting hall -- deemed "incompatible" with the Whittier Narrows Significant Ecological Area by the county's own habitat experts -- is being pushed by a group of government agencies and water districts. Now, their booster committee consists almost exclusively of other government agencies and water districts.

Remaining members include the watershed council, an interest group dominated by agencies, water districts and utility companies; and another government agency whose chairman supports expanded oil drilling in the nearby Whittier Hills even though the agency was established to protect habitat and wildlife there.

Organizations that have decided to walk away because of their opposition to the project or their concerns about its goals, impacts and viability include the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society and the Whittier Narrows Nature Center Associates. Volunteer members of these and other organizations are deeply committed to community, conservation and education -- and they reject the destruction of wildlife habitat and public lands for a building intended primarily as a meeting hall for government officials and water execs.

But the authority seems to be little concerned that the local community, the habitat experts and the conservationists have all rejected the project. With a handful of its fellow agencies still on the booster club, the authority can claim a kind of support. But that support reveals the project for what it is: unsustainable pork-barrel spending at a time when the taxpayer and ratepayer can no longer bear it.

Nature education and bulldozers don't mix

What do the Whittier Narrows Natural Area, Ballona Wetlands, Abalone Cove Shoreline Park and Rancho Los Cerritos all have in common? At each location, officials have decided that nature education begins not with nature but with bulldozers.

In recent months, naturalareafan has learned that the proposed San Gabriel River Discovery Center isn't the only project in Southern California following the same worn-out recipe. Other projects that would require destruction of open space and wildlife habitat include:

- A proposed facility at the Ballona Wetlands -- as if the massive Playa Vista project didn't devour enough of the rare coastal wetland area

- A proposed facility at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park in Rancho Palos Verdes -- RPV already has a large coastal interpretive center

- A planned facility at Rancho Los Cerritos in Long Beach -- native plants were torn out and open space graded for the project

Most people would probably agree that Southern California is overbuilt and that open space is at a premium. So it seems truly strange that some people think destroying open space, wildlife habitat or public lands in order to put up yet more buildings is somehow ok.

But these projects have their critics.

There is the Friends lawsuit against the Discovery Center Authority, of course. And a group called Save Our Shoreline has an online petition that allows signers to express their opposition to the Abalone Cove project. And conservationists from the South Bay and the Westside have expressed their disappointment over the destruction of land at Ballona and Rancho Los Cerritos.

I invite you to sign the SOS petition. They're at 485 signature as I write this. Help put them over 500. Help keep the bulldozers out of our remaining wild places and open spaces.
--
Photo: Bulldozer, by MonsterPhotoISO, Flickr

Water bond reveals swine in museum's clothing

The yearlong debate surrounding the $11 billion water bond shined a bright light on what government officials like to call "water education facilities" -- a category that includes the proposed San Gabriel River Discovery Center.

What did that light reveal? That such projects are little more than government pork.

Democratic legislators, Republican legislators, political observers -- people from across the spectrum pointed out that these projects are the superfluous, costly ingredients intended to do nothing more than sweeten the deal to build political support for legislation.

But don't take my word for it:

The Los Angeles Times, Aug. 10, 2010:

"Sen. Lois Wolk (D-Davis) criticized the bond for including money for economic development projects, a water taxi service at Lake Tahoe and the construction of water education centers, saying that spending is not directly related to improving water quality.

"'It is fiscally irresponsible,' Wolk said. 'We need to repeal it, revise it and refocus it on the true needs of California.'"

The Los Angeles Times, Aug. 18, 2009:

"The bond proposal includes funding for bike paths, museums, visitor centers, tree planting, economic development and the purchase of property from land speculators and oil companies -- all in the districts of lawmakers whose key votes helped it pass the Legislature.

"'It's unfortunate that so many pet projects were put in that it has just created a Christmas tree out of this bond, and most of them don't produce one drop of water,' said Sen. Jeff Denham (R-Atwater), who voted against the measure when it cleared the Legislature this month."

The Los Angeles Times' George Skelton, Aug. 19, 2009:

"No matter how clever and careful the writer, on occasion a work should be ripped up and retooled. That also goes for writers of legislation.

"A prime example: Sacramento's new state water bond proposal. Granted, this bloated $11.1-billion bond is laced with humor: A waterworks package that provides borrowed money -- at twice the ticket price, counting interest -- for building bike trails, buying open space and developing 'watershed education centers.'

"OK, it is not funny," Skelton writes. "It's politics. It's pork."

Skelton's right: It's not funny.

And the proposed Discovery Center is so not-funny -- government officials ignoring the will of the people, attempting to build a project that destroys what it supposedly is intended to interpret, lashing the taxpayer to a project that promises to waste tens of millions of dollars -- that you have to laugh to keep from crying.

To my mind, one of the least funny aspects is that while the county, the state and the two water districts behind the project are raising taxes and water rates, all while slashing budgets and services for things people actually need and use, the Discovery Center Authority would have us believe that a water museum and meeting hall is something other than the multimillion-dollar government boondoggle it so obviously is.

It's not funny. It's just sad.
--
Photo: Potbellied pig, by Ian Britton, FreeFoto.com

Consecrating sacred grounds.....

Most times, we all need each other.