Rigonomics:

What’s that old Mark Twain line? “Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting about.”

When you live in a desert like we do in Southern California, by definition you will always have droughts. Looking at the rain pouring down this weekend, that may be hard to reconcile.

So whether we are coming out of a multiyear drought this year or next year, sooner or later it will rain, and the drought will end. That is the nature of living in a desert. Therefore we need to plan ahead to have water available for what we need in the future.

California’s population of close to 37 million people will grow another 4 million by the year 2020. That’s 10 years away. So, unless Californians stop having babies and we stop anyone coming in from the other 49 states, we will have to provide water for them.

There are two ways to get that water — conserve and use less, or bring in more from where it is available. I presume it will take both to meet our future water needs. Both those options take money.

Which brings me to the crux of this column. At 7 p.m. Dec. 22, the Mesa Consolidated Water District will consider basic meter charge and water rate increases.

The notice said the reason for the hike was the cost of imported groundwater, which continues to increase, and the district needs to raise money for future capital improvements.

This could be completely accurate, but I have no clue, because if I want to see the financial information that is the basis for the proposed rate increase, it is available for public view only at the district’s office.

What year is this, 1958? Best practices for any government agency in 2009, when planning on raising rates or taxes, include having the financial documentation available to the public on the Web, period. The days of having to walk into any public agency and stand at the counter to analyze their financial information is over.

Now, understand I am not saying that this rate increase is justified or not. But without the information available at my desk, I have no idea what the rate should be.

The rate increase they are considering is not just a normal annual increase. The water board is voting on five years of separate increases at one time. Meaning the water rate will increase incrementally each year for five years. The total increase will be 26% over those five years. The meter charge, which customers pay as part of their base rate, will increase 33% over that same five-year period.

To be fair, the water district has a reputation for being a fiscally responsible agency; in fact, this last week, the California Special District Association honored MCWD with the District of Distinction Accreditation.

According to the district, of the 500 agencies that deliver water to customers in Southern California, only five hold that distinction.

I know one of the requirements to get that accreditation is for the agency to be transparent in all of their finances. It would seem to me that the Special District Assn. require those finances to be available on the district website; not having that information available on the Web is not the type of transparency ratepayers expect nowadays.

So, yes, I am a little frustrated with the lack of information. I called my good friend and newly appointed director of the Mesa Consolidated Water District, Jim Fisler. Before being appointed to the water district board, Fisler served with me on the Costa Mesa Planning Commission.

I discussed my concern that it appeared the board might be pushing this multiyear rate increase through without the proper input from the ratepayers. Having a meeting three days before Christmas and not having the documents readily available on the Web could be construed as the board trying to rush the rate increase through.

Fisler listened to my concern and said he would see what he could do.

A couple of hours later, I got a call from the district’s newly appointed general manager, Paul Shoenberger. Shoenberger , a registered professional engineer, spent nine years on the board as a director before he resigned to become GM. I reiterated what I said to Fisler, and Shoenberger said he would see what he could do to make the financial information more readily available.

Two hours later, I got a call back from Shoenberger saying that the financial case for the rate increase will be on the district’s website at www.mesawater.org by close of business.

I still cannot opine on whether the rate increase is justified or not, as I have not had a chance to look over the figures yet. I personally may not be comfortable with voting on five rate increases at one time, but I can say it feels a little better knowing that the information was made available to the public once I asked for it.

I’m sure that getting all that information out on a Friday evening wasn’t easy. The public appreciates your quick response. If you want to see what they’re voting on, check out their website.

JIM RIGHEIMER is chairman of the Costa Mesa Planning Commission, business owner and father of four. He can be reached at [email protected].