MEASURE J Why oppose just a feasibility study

MEASURE J Why oppose just a feasibility study? It’s not just a feasibility study (There will be no following vote to approve or disapprove the spending necessary for a takeover)

The data spread by both FWW and PWN to support a takeover is both false and misleading The Public Water Now (PWN) campaign is based on false and misleading data – starting with the fiction that the Monterey peninsula has the highest water cost in the nation.

The methodology used by Food and water watch (FWW) is wrong • FWW claims their methodology was based on ratepayers using 500 gallons per month or 60, 000 gallons per year • Using real data provided by the Monterey peninsula water management district (MPWMD) for 2015 and easily obtainable rate sheets for 2017 the FWW information is deplorably wrong • The only fact that fww ”proves” is that costs can come down even if rates go up • The following chart demonstrates how far fww was incorrect (the dark column is from fww, the gray columns are based on real rates for this area)

FACT VS. FICTION FWW misinformation $2 000, 00 $1 854, 48 $1 500, 00 $1 202, 59 $1 000, 00 $500, 00 $0, 00 2015 ($500, 00) 2017 % change $821, 64 $716, 18 68% FWW $716, 18 $1 202, 59 68% Actual Rates $1 854, 48 $821, 64 -56% 2015 2017 % change -56%

Costs vs. Rates • Is it possible for rates to go up and costs to go down? Yes. • Widening of tiers is what happened in 2017. • Profit per bill is less than the MPWMD’s surcharge and property tax assessment. • “Measure J is the only way the Peninsula can get control of its water costs. ” PWN website.

It’s a dangerous MYTH that fewer gallons delivered means lower costs The following slide explains why.

Declining Water Deliveries – How Rates and Bills will be Impacted. Policy and Planning Division, California Public Utilities Commission, Sept 2016

PWN claims that 80% of water systems are public – implying that public water is cheaper or better • Most public systems do not have the funding available to improve or invest in systems without raising rates. • governing boards composed of elected members of the community do not have the political will or skill to raise rates. • Public systems may enjoy lower rates, because municipal water distribution systems are neglected. This occurs across the country and in CA. Who says so?

FWW supports bailout for municipal ratepayers Food & Water Watch issued the following news release (edited): Today, Representative John Conyers (D-Mich. ) introduced legislation to provide billions in dedicated funding a year to modernize U. S. water infrastructure. He was joined today at a press event on Capitol Hill by the national advocacy organization Food & Water Watch, a longtime supporter of increased water infrastructure funding. "From Flint, to Detroit, to Baltimore and beyond, households across the United States lack access to safe, clean, affordable water service, " said Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. "Whether water is poisoned, or the bills are unaffordable, much of the problem stems from aging, underfunded water infrastructure. The WATER Act is the most robust and comprehensive funding proposal for our water systems and would eliminate our long-term gap in water infrastructure funding. " (later in the press release) Nationwide, over 6 million lead service lines deliver water to millions of people. Replacing them could cost up to $30 billion, and failure to replace lead pipes puts people at risk of lead poisoning. Overall, some 11, 200 community water systems have lead service lines, some of which provide water to schools.

Speaking of costs • WRAM was designed by the State of California in the 70’s to keep power utilities to from encouraging their customers to use more – so the utilities could make their costs. • Why isn’t California American Water allowed to collect its costs when PWW (George Riley) received over $16, 000 to recover his costs?

• 'Between 2010 and 2017 water rates in Los Angeles jumped 71 percent. ' • Rates were $110 a month in El Porvenir and $72 a month in Cantua Creek for water that the state deemed unsafe. • In San Francisco water rates increased 119– 127 percent (depending on usage) during the same period.

Public water is more affordable?

PWN arguments are ideology arguments not economic arguments • California Constitution holds that all surface water belongs to the citizens of the state. We already ”own” our water. The initiative is about owning the pipes and pumps. • It’s an outright falsehood to claim CAW is “stealing” our water. • On August 7, 2018, George Riley said that PWN never said that passing the initiative would lower rates – yet some of his yard signs still read “Vote yes…for more affordable water” and campaign messaging remains the same. • If passing the initiative and buying or ”taking” CAW eventually succeeds, and doesn’t result in lower COST water, then what’s the point of dragging the community through years of court and millions of dollars in studies and legal fees?