A recurring issue is whether Crestview’s rate structure is fair, properly allocates costs between groundwater and imported water, raises enough revenue to cover costs and build reserves, and advances conservation goals. Last month, the board wrestled with whether lowering rates would imperil critical conservation goals. In November 2015, there was Continue reading 2016 staff report explains our three-tier rate structure.
The board increased the Tier 1 rate schedule limit from 4,000 gallons per share per month to 8,000 gallons. This is an effective rate decrease for all shareholders who buy more than 4,000 gallons per share per month. A letter announcing this change was included in the monthly bills mailed Continue reading Our water rates went down September 1, and the board is poised to authorize an environmental study for Well #8.
There are rumors of organizing activity for a group to compare 191 Alviso (which was rejected by the County Board of Supervisors) and alternative sites for a new well, but we have nothing concrete to report. Chooljian had shut down the alternative sites investigation in March but announced at the Continue reading Status of three issues we are following
We are just barely on pace to achieve our drought response goal of not importing any water before September 30. Should we lower rates and risk falling short of this goal, or keep rates high to constrain demand? The board will consider that question on August 11. If it were Continue reading Board to decide whether to lower our rates or keep them high to avoid even higher rates and severe use restrictions.
Crestview normally gets 25% of its supply from northern California through The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (“MWD”), which supplies Calleguas Municipal Water District, which supplies Crestview. Because of the drought, MWD is expected to adopt April 11-12 significant price increases, with credits for mandatory conservation measures. Calleguas will Continue reading Crestview may restrict water use and significantly raise rates by May 1.
The staff report posted today for the March 3 meeting says, “multiple industry experts, engineers and contractors have arrived at the conclusion the placement of a well pump of either size (530 gpm or 1,000 gpm) at 680 feet will not materially change water quality.” This should resolve the only Continue reading It appears Well #4 will get a new pump capable of 1,000 GPM.
How much higher was it than January, February, November, or December 2021? Did you reduce your consumption because of the new rates? Will you? How could this rate increase have been avoided? What should Crestview’s board be doing about this right now? Please comment below. More importantly, send your comment Continue reading What do you think of your January water bill?
Crestview expects to learn in February if the project to restart Well #4 and reverse the recent increase in our water rates is feasible. If not, we will be stuck with high rates for at least two more years and be in an existential crisis. Onsite work began on Well Continue reading This month is critical for the Well #4 project—and Crestview’s future.
The letter with our January water bills states that the groundwater allocation lawsuit, going on since 2018, ís “directly responsible for 20% of the necessary rate increase.” To the contrary, 100% of the increase pays for additional water purchases made necessary by the board’s negligent stewardship of Well #4, and Continue reading Two more misstatements in Crestview’s latest letter to shareholders
Crestview’s recent rate increase announcement was appropriately on a red card because what it says right after the new rates is a flagrant foul–denying the truth that the rate increase was due solely to the board’s mismanagement of Well #4 and falsely blaming it on the Well #7 fiasco. Well Continue reading The Crestview board falsely blames the rate increase on the Ventura County Board of Supervisors and “fierce opposition” to Well #7.