SUPPORT THIS INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM
The article you’re about to read is from our reporters doing their important work — investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers’ businesses have been impacted. That’s why The Capistrano Dispatch is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insider’s program here. Thank you.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR
LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Larry Kramer, San Juan Capistrano

I have hesitated to comment publicly on the actions of the new City Council. I know they have a different view of government than I do.

But now I see them making decisions with regard to water that will have long-lasting negative repercussions for our city.

After observing recent San Juan Capistrano City Council meetings, I am concerned that our City Council, absent Councilman Sam Allevato, is not operating our water utility in a fiscally conservative manner. They seem eager to spend money, but slow to identify a source for the funding. This is made even worse by the Governor’s order to reduce water usage by 28 percent and the city’s loss of the Capistrano Taxpayers Association water rate lawsuit.

The new council majority has appropriated over $100,000 to investigate reorganizing the city’s water, sewer and storm water utility. The total cost for this investigation is projected to cost between $355,000 and $395,000, plus additional costs for consultants.

They appropriated $35,000 for drought outreach and printed educational materials.

The cost to settle the Capistrano Taxpayers Association tiered water rate lawsuit is $884,000 in CTA legal costs and about $1 million in refunds to ratepayers. There is no money set aside for these costs. The current council did not challenge the CTA legal costs.

Furthermore, the reduction in water sales and ground water pumping is projected to have a net fiscal impact of at least $1.5 million in losses.

The city is enacting a new drought ordinance, which could result in fines to some water users, but none of those fines will offset the above costs. They had a choice of the use of these fines. They could be earmarked to offset the losses being incurred, but instead they chose to have the funds go back to the ratepayer to augment turf and toilet replacement incentive programs and outreach and educational programs.

Our water reserve funds are already in a deficit condition. Previous councils had worked to reduce the deficit. These additional costs, as itemized above, totaling about $3.7 million dollars, will only increase the deficit, delay capital improvements and reduce the depreciation fund. It is reckless not to prepare for the future. The city may find other sources to pay some of these costs, but ultimately you, the resident, will pick up the bill. It might come from other city funds, which would result in a reduction in some other service.

This City Council has the opportunity to initiate a new rate study to assess what is needed to keep the water utility healthy. They have declined to take this initiative. Since most of the current council either has taken pride in never raising rates nor fees or promising to not raise rates, I can only conclude that they are taking no action so they can continue to promote this unrealistic and shortsighted position. Any study would require an increase in rates. The current council appears to be gutless or clueless. A future council will have to bite the bullet and do the right thing. This council seems to have the attitude that shutting down the Groundwater Recovery Plant and letting some other organization provide our water will solve all our problems. Watch as they continue to play that game and then blame whoever takes over our utilities for any water rate increase.

BECOME AN INSIDER TODAY
Trustworthy, accurate and reliable local news stories are more important now than ever. Support our newsroom by making a contribution and becoming a subscribing member today.

About The Author Capo Dispatch

comments (72)

  • Larry Kramer, I am quite shocked by your comments as you were one of the City Council Members who voted time after time to fight this lawsuit. Keep in mind Mr. Kramer it is the loser in the lawsuit who pays the others parties attorney fees. You know that Mr. Kramer based upon every single lawsuit the City lost during your term on the City council. You are incorrect on the legal costs as you did not include the Cities portion of the legal costs. The tot legal costs for the city are between 1.5 million and 2 million dollars.

    You are absolutely right the City has not been operating the GWRP in a fiscally responsive manner. The San Juan Basin Authority graph shows that in Devember 2014 when you were just leaving the City Council that you had pumped the wells to below sea level allowing salt water to intrude into the San Juan basin. You had pumped the ground water essentially dry. In fact, at the May 27, 2015 the San Juan Basin Authority members voted on a resolution to shut down entirely the GWRP.

    So, if you take the minimal amount of water that is being pumped from wells outside the San Juan Basin authority and take the costs to operate the GWRP the costs jump from a out 1400- an acre foot to about 3-4,000 an acre foot. Don’t forget to include the lease payment when you calculate those costs as we don’t even own the GWRP, it is leased !

    As for taxpayers footing the bill for a deficit, did you just not learn Mr. Kramer in the last lawsuit you lost after you continued to vote time after time to fight it, that proposition 218 if the California State Constitution states that a municipality cannot charge more than what it costs to produce the water.

    You just don’t ever learn do you Mr. Kramer ?

    • Yes, Clint, please cite the study showing salt water incursion into the basin. I would also like to know.

      • Clint Worthington

        Joanna Clark, South Coast Water District has had to shut down their wills completely due to salt water intrusion also. The reports are at sjbauthority.com

    • Yes, Clint, please cite the study showing salt water incursion into the basin. I would also like to know.

      Frankly, Ellen and Bill, we should be calling for a recall of Reeve, Perry, Ferguson and Patterson.

    • Fully agree. The two have one thing in common,…both refusing to face reality and on a forever and at all costs to satisfy their unique obsession, no matter how senseless and proven lunacy.

  • Clint Worthington,
    Can you cite the study where it shows that salt water has intruded into the San Juan basin.

    • Clint Worthington Reply

      Shelly Welcome, you can read the study at sjbauthority.com

      • Shelly Welcome

        Clint Worthington,
        I did read the study. It did not say that salt water intruded into the basin. Can you provide a quote of this?

      • Clint Worthington

        Shelly Welcome, sure, you can look at the graph for December 2014 where it shows the water was being pumped from below sea level. You can also read where the pumps that supply the water to South Coast Water district have been ordered to be turned off due to the salt water intrusion. You can also read the tables that state what the salt content of the water that is being pumped is. It is all there.

        If you don’t want to take the time to look up the information, keep in mind out own GWRP is shut down and has been for some time.

      • Clint Worthington,
        Can you please copy and paste where it specifically states that there is definitely salt water intrusion at this time into the basin. Because I cannot find it. Thanks.

      • Shelly Welcome

        Clint Worthington,
        Please copy and paste the part where it states that there is definite salt water intrusion into the basin. As I read from the study there is a threat of salt water intrusion but it has not yet occurred.

      • Clint Worthington

        Shelly Welcome, gosh, I have given you the website for the San Juan Basin Authority where you can read any of the several studies that you asked for. In addition, I have also cited the graph giving you specifically the month and date of the graph to read.

        You can also research the South Coast Water District and why the GWRP is shut down.

      • Shelly Welcome

        Clint Worthington,
        No where does it state that there has been actual salt water intrusion. I asked you to show me where it states this definitively. And you do not. I went to the website and the study. It says it nowhere. So please copy and paste and cite your source. You were the person who stated to me several times that MWD was a reliable source for 100 years so we should just rely 100% on MWD so I do not really trust your statements. Please just provide actual proof of your statements. Thanks

      • Clint Worthington

        Shelly Welcome, I cited the study, I gave you the website address for your research, I directed you to specific graphs to look at. You can do the rest of the research.

        As for proof, the South Coast Water District GWRP, was shut down by the SjBA. The SJC GWRP is shut down. The water level has been drawn down to the very, very minimal amount allowed by the state. Again, I have cited the studies and the website for your research. I have cited the proof. I cannot do all your work for you.

      • Shelly Welcome

        Clint Worthington,
        You did not cite it. You just told me to go to the study. And in this study it says nowhere that there is salt water intrusion at this time. If you are going to state that there is salt water intrusion at this time then you should actually be able to prove it and cite the actual documentation and scientific evidence. Actually, you should do your own work and be transparent and truthful.

      • Shelly Welcome

        Clint Worthington,
        I stated that I read the study. You stated that there was actual salt water intrusion into the basin. The study does not back you up. So if you are going to state something you should actually be able to back it up and cite it specifically. You have not done this. Please be transparent and truthful.

      • Clint Worthington

        Shelley Welcome, I could not be more truthful. I cited the study as you asked, I gave you the graph to look at and I backed it up with proof that both the South Coast Water District and SJC GWRP are shut down. Unsure what more I can do. If you want verbatim, where it cites the intrusion, then read the study.

      • sjbauthority.com offers links to novels, creating writing ideas, journals, magazines, buy books, and author publicity services. It has nothing to do with the San Juan Basin.

      • Clint Worthington

        Joanna Clark, obviously the website address has been hacked.

      • Clint,
        I told you I read the study and nowhere does it state that there is actual salt water intrusion in the basin. It states that there is a threat of it but at this time it has not yet occurred. You stated above that there is actual salt water intrusion. I asked you to copy and paste and cite where it states this specifically. The site was not down yesterday when I asked you this.

      • Hacked . . . how convenient for you. We can’t confirm the accuracy of your claim.

      • Clint Worthington

        You are welcome to attend the San Juan Basin Authority meeting in the 14th

      • Clint Worthington

        Joanna Clark, sorry I don’t have the knowledge to single handedly take down a government website just so you cannot read the studies.

      • Clint Worthington

        Shelley Welcome, I have given you the website address (website is up now) where you can read the studies. I have cited the graphs you can read. I have done everything you originally asked. If you would like further information, all of it is contained in the studies. It is as simple as that. The San Juan Basin Authority meeting is this Tuesday and you are free to ask questions of the Directors before or after the meeting.

        If you have any doubt as to why the South Coast Water District and the SJC GWRP are shut down, these people would be happy to ask your questions.

      • Clint Worthington,
        I read the study. Nowhere in the study does it state that there is salt water intrusion in the basin at this time. You stated this. that there is. I asked you to provide definitive proof to your statement. You have not. I gather from your comments that you cannot actually back up what you are saying. Just like your statement that MWD had been around for 100 years (which it had not) and is a totally reliable source of water that we should rely 100% on. Just actually back up what you state.

      • Clint Worthington

        Shelley Welcome, I spent almost twenty seconds googling “salt water instrusion San Juan”. Here is the link:

        http://www.smwd.com/assets/downloads/meeting-agenda/2015-04-01_BDM_Handout1.pdf

        Now, go to page twelve where the title is “Basin Storage Overview”. Now go to Fall 2014 and look to the right. There it will state “Salt Water Intrusion, Yes” in the column. The South Coast Water District GWRP is shut down due to salt water intrusion. Both, the SMWD and SCWD are members of the San Juan Basin Authority.

        I accept your apology. Please, don’t make me give you the link to the San Juan Basin Authority.

      • Clint Worthington,
        The actual report did no find salt water intrusion and the wells were not closed for actual salt water intrusion. The wells were closed because of threat of salt water intrusion. The site you posted is a not an actual report but a power point of a meeting.

      • Clint Worthington

        Shelley Welcome, uhhh yes, it is a report to the SMWD. Sorry you missed the next page also “SCWD GRF Well Shut Down Due to Groundwater Water Level Drop below Sea Level and Seawater Intrusion”

        How many times in a report Shelley does it have to say that it was shut down to sea water intrusion ? Is it 100? Is it 50? Is it 10? Or, is one time sufficient ? Again, I spent less than 45 seconds going through the report and identified a second place where it states the GWRP was shut down to seawater intrusion.

        As I stated previously, the GWRP was pumping from below sea level as the report states.

  • Wrong Clint. In our judicial system the “loser” does not automatically pay the legal costs of the winner. In fact, in the case you cite here the appeals court did not determine a “winner”. They remanded the case back to the lower court. The ONE and ONLY reason the City paid the legal fees of the CTA is because the City Council voted to drop the case and to pay the CTA legal fees, in full without requesting any type of review of the hours billed or any type of discount. Now think about it, apparently it is perfectly fine to start a litigation against the City, have yourself appointed to the City Council and then vote to settle the litigation you started and pay, IN FULL, the attorneys that you hired in the first place to sue the City. Something about that strikes me as very wrong at a very basic level of conflict of interest. I cannot believe more people are not concerned about what has happened here and the precedent it sets.

    • Clint Worthington Reply

      Bill Mulrooney, the only part of the case that was sent back to the lower court was for the recycled water costs. The appeals court rule in favor of the CTA on all other counts. I guess you missed that part.

      • Clint, I suppose I was too busy reading the below excerpt from the ruling:

        “Given the procedural posture the case now finds itself in, the issue of who
        is the prevailing party is premature. That question should be first dealt with by the trial
        court only after all proceedings as to City Water’s rate structure are final. Accordingly,
        we do not make an appellate cost order now, but reserve that matter for future
        adjudication in the trial court. (See Neufeld v. Balboa Ins. Co. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th
        759, 766 [deferring question of appellate costs in case being remanded until litigation was
        final].)”

      • Clint Worthington

        So are you saying it would have been better to litigate the case all over again and call Judge Gregory Munoz out of retirement to hear litigate case again ? The City has already spent between 1.5 – 2 million dollars in litigation costs already.

      • Bill Mulrooney

        Clint, I guess you missed that part. I’ll repeat it for your benefit: The ONE and ONLY reason the City paid the legal fees of the CTA is because the City Council voted to drop the case and to pay the CTA legal fees, in full without requesting any type of review of the hours billed or any type of discount. Now think about it, apparently it is perfectly fine to start a litigation against the City, have yourself appointed to the City Council and then vote to settle the litigation you started and pay, IN FULL, the attorneys that you hired in the first place to sue the City. Something about that strikes me as very wrong at a very basic level of conflict of interest.

      • Its laughable to see a couple of the usual suspects going at it. The City obviously LOST – no two ways about it. It LOST at trial AND it LOST on appeal,…after spending >$1mm. The Trial Court’s decision against the City included an award of attorneys’ fees to the CTA’s attorneys, and that award paled in comparison to what the City ill-advisedly spent on its team of attorneys who LOST. The GWRP plant was an ill-conceived idea. It is not sustainable in either the environmental or financial sense of the word. Given that it has been drained below a level where it is safe to pump, it does not even provide the ’emergency water supply’ that was central to its justification to begin with. The City’s unrelenting commitment to a failed strategy appalling, and the litigation costly, silly and unnecessary. Pay the piper and get over it.

      • Clint Worthington

        So again, are you saying it would have been better to litigate the case all over again and call Judge Gregory Munoz out of retirement ?

      • Bill Mulrooney

        I think they should have reviewed the legal bills. Forced the attorneys to produce detailed time reports, questioned them, required justification and obtained a discount. After-all it was a voluntary settlement, a reduction from the FULL BILL AMOUNT would be expected. How does that TAKING strike you Citizen? Can I get a refund of my tax dollars that went to overpay the CTA lawyers? And Clint, do you honestly believe that when an appeals court sends a case back to the trial court they would pull the original judge out of retirement to hear it again?

      • Clint Worthington

        Bill Mulrooney, as to bringing Judge Gregory Munoz out of retirement to rehear the case, it does not matter what I believe, it is what would happen.

        It appears that you were not aware that the previous City Council including Sam Allevato, did not pay the CTA attorneys, despite winning the lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court. After not being paid, why should they discount their bill that they earned ?

        Just curious Bill, do you discount your wages when you receive them ? Or, do you take the full amount that you earned ?

      • Bill Mulrooney

        Wrong again Clint. They would just assign it to another judge. What you have not responded to is the conflict of interest whereby a CTA member is involved in starting a litigation, is appointed to the City Council and then votes to approve a voluntary settlement agreement for the city to pay the CTA’s attorney IN FULL. How do you feel about that Clint? Do you think that is appropriate? As for attorney fees, that has nothing to do with wages between an employer and employee which are agreed in advance of the work being performed. Attorneys fees are often and frequently negotiated and discounted. If a court ordered the payment of legal fees then the court would review the fees submitted by the attorneys and they have the power to reduce them. So who reviewed the fees and time reports here? No one I suspect.

      • Clint Worthington

        Bill Mulrooney, you might want to check with Sam Allevato, Larry Kramer, or John Taylor. Those three agreed to pay the full pop of attorney fees if the case was won at the Court of Appeals. Which it was. You can make a public records request for a copy of that agreement.

        Sam did not tell you that part did he ?

        Oh by way, how much was discounted by the Cities attorneys who lost the case each and every time ?

      • Clint, do I have to post the quote from the court ruling again? There was no prevailing party. “Given the procedural posture the case now finds itself in, the issue of who
        is the prevailing party is premature.” The case stopped because the City dropped it. Now would you please just answer my question? How do you feel about the conflict of interest where a CTA member that started the litigation, was appointed to the City council and cast a vote to settle his own litigation and pay the attorneys for the organization he founded WITH CITY MONEY. What is your position on that?

      • Clint Worthington

        Bill Mulrooney, wrong again, see previous post. Sam Allevato, Larry Kramer and John Taylor agreed to pay full pop for attorney fees if CTA prevailed at the appellate level.

  • You are not alone in your observation Mr.Mulrooney. A little Googling reveals Mayor Derek Reeve; Jim Reardon; and Clint Worthington all ran for City Council in 2010 and we’re investigated by the Fair Political Practices Commission. The same Jim Reardon and Clint Worthington that formed the CTA along with Councilman John Perry. Now add newly appointed Parks etc. commissioner Kim McArthy to the mix and you have the Community Common Sense group running the city. I wonder if people that voted for the puppet Councilwomen Ferguson & Patterson knew what they were getting? I wonder if Ferguson & Patterson knew themselves?

  • I think, Bill and Ellen, that we should be considering a recall of Reeve, Perry, Ferguson and Patterson, before they bankrupt the city.

    • Clint Worthington Reply

      Joanna Clark, just curious, how exactly are they bankrupting the city ?

    • Good Lord, the NEW council has been in office about 1/2 a year and have initiated little in the way of expenditures of their own. Come to terms with TWO adverse court rulings as it relates to the GWRP, YES. Come to grips with the fact the GWRP was foolhardy as a strategy and unsustainable from an operating perspective as it relates to this town on its own, YES. However, if there is a bankrupting of the City, it was the previous Council that set all of this foolishness in motion. The NEW council is simply coming to grips with the facts. It is the honest thing to do, regardless of how painful it may be, and how members of the previous council and their defenders try to run from what they did and cast stones at others.

  • Steve Behmerwohld Reply

    Clint, Cat got your tongue?

    • After reading this crap today, and I won’t be reading these letters anymore, it shows the same angry few have control of the city. Sad. They say the same things over and over again, argue with facts they like, and ignore the facts they don’t like. They even make stuff up and post it hers. Sad. This applies to both sides. Sad. Clint however is more fun to read than the comics, he is horrible for the city, but fun to read. Both local papers are now worthless because the angry few either write them or they write the angry letters to the papers. Sad. I know I have given up in having any meaningful discussion on any topic with the angry mob. I have great discussion with my customers on all these topics, but we all agree the angry NIMBY mob has control of SJC. It shows. Sad. I wrote this comment to Steve and only Steve.

      • Clint Worthington

        Bill Odelson, it is unfortunate that you are so sad. If you truly wanted to write a letter just to Steve, you would not post it on a public forum, you would contact him personally.

        Just curious, could you please be specific as to exactly what is made up?

  • What is it about SJC that causes sooooo much litigation?

    • Clint Worthington Reply

      It is City Council Members like Sam Allevato that keeps bringing lawsuit after lawsuit against the City.

      Number of lawsuits the City has won ? Zero.

      The common denominator here is Sam Allevato.

      • Clint, where is Sam Allevato listed as a plaintiff in the water rate lawsuit? Don’t you mean John Perry, who was appointed, not elected to the City Council? He was also, I believe, a founding member of the Capistrano Taxpayers Association (CTA).

        As I understand it, the City prevailed on three of the causes of action and lost on one. In other words, as Bill Mulrooney points out, “the only part of the case that was sent back to the lower court was for the recycled water costs.” The Appellate Court also found that “given the procedural posture the case now finds itself in, the issue of who is the prevailing party is premature. That question should be first dealt with by the trial court only after all proceedings as to City Water’s rate structure are final. Accordingly, we do not make an appellate cost order now, but reserve that matter for future adjudication in the trial court. ” – Fourth Appellate District, Division Three – OPINION: Capistrano Taxpayers Association, Inc. v. City of San Juan Capistrano.

        Thus, as Bill Mulrooney points out, “The ONE and ONLY reason the City paid the legal fees of the CTA is because the City Council voted to drop the case and to pay the CTA legal fees, in full without requesting any type of review of the hours billed or any type of discount.”

        Bill goes on to state, “It, apparently, is perfectly fine to start a litigation against the City, have yourself appointed to the City Council and then vote to settle the litigation you started and pay, IN FULL, the attorneys that you hired in the first place to sue the City. Something about that strikes me as very wrong at a very basic level of conflict of interest. I cannot believe more people are not concerned about what has happened here and the precedent it sets.”

        Bill, I fully agree with you. Something is very fishy in San Juan Capistrano.

        The new council literally stole our tax dollars through their sleight of hand, money that could have been allocated to infrastructure repairs. I say sleight of hand because Dr. Byrne chose to resign immediately AFTER the election, allowing Council members Reeve, Patterson and Ferguson to appoint John Perry in order to further solidify their control of the City Council.

        It should be noted, however, that the state attorney general has interceded in the recent court decision by requesting the California Supreme Court to de-publish the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s opinion in Capistrano Taxpayers Association v. the City of San Juan Capistrano. “De-publication would not override the San Juan case, but it would eliminate its use in future water rate cases throughout the state.” The Attorney General stated her concern was the “unnecessary and over broad language in the opinion may lead to misuse of the opinion in future litigation and could have an immediate chilling effect on urgently needed water conservation efforts.”

        We already have a water deficit, and with aging water mains bursting up and down the state and across the nation, what do you think is going to happen when our aging water mains begin to break? Where do you think the money will come from when that happens?

        Thanks to the CTA’s lawsuit and the recently voted on rebates, we have only spiraling debt, and it is questionable where the funds will come to repair our aging water mains when they begin to break down.

        And don’t forget the drought. The water agencies across the state are already outbidding each other for available water, which means that ultimately our water rates are going to go up, not down.

      • Clint Worthington

        Joanna Clark, let me make sure I understand what you are saying. It is ok for the City to charge illegal water rates and the City should not have to repay the hard earned money to the residents because of the previous City Councils spiriting debt ?

        Maybe the City just needs to do what is right and start cutting expenses.

      • Tiered water rates are generally put in place to get people to conserve water. In case you haven’t noticed, we are in the midst of an extended “exceptional” drought, and there is a serious need to conserve water.

        It is unfortunate that you or you friends over at CTA can’t seem to grasp that. But then, as the Los Angeles Times recently pointed out, “some people — believe it or not — don’t know we are in a drought.” Or, perhaps they just don’t care. Which group do you belong to, the don’t know or the don’t care?

        The problem is we will never know what the lower court would have done with that singular cause of action on remand since Reeve et al, chose to drop the case rather than allow the cause of action to be reheard.

        I have had no problem cutting my water usage. In the last year I have managed to cut my water usage by about 50-percent. It is amazing how much water one can save just by not letting the water run while brushing your teeth or reducing shower time to five minutes or less.

        Tell us Clint, if the state runs out of water, as predicted by some very knowledgable scientists, what do you think it will do to our property values?

      • Clint Worthington

        Joanna Clark, it is illegal for a government entity to put in place tiered rates meant to force users to conserve water. Tiered rates must be based on cost of service as outlined by Proposition 218 in the State of California Constitution, Orange County Superior Court, and the Court of Appeals. That is what the law states.

        If you disagree, you are welcome to fund attorneys to fight your cause.

      • Or better yet, hire your attorney, start your law suit, get appointed to an open seat on the city council and then vote to have the City taxpayer fund your attorney. Finally you seem to be getting it Clint.

      • Clint Worthington,
        There was a conflict of interest and cronyism in this case. And SJC needs to conserve water and recycle water. It is just a fact. You stated several times that MWD was a reliable source for 100 years (even though it did not exist for 100 years) and you stated that SJC should rely 100% on MWD. There is no reliable source of water right now. Even Washington state is experiencing a drought. We are in a severe drought. And some people will not conserve water. I see well manicured lawns in SJC. Don’t you? And spending $70,000 of tax payer money on a trolley experiment while SJC needs to fund this lawsuit is irresponsible.

      • Clint Worthington

        Bill Mulrooney, it is too bad you have City Council members like Larry Kramer and Sam Allevato who are unable to follow the laws of the State Constitution. If they had, the residents would not have been forced to file a lawsuit to get the City to comply with the states laws.

        Shame on Larry Kramer and Sam Allevato for fighting so hard to not return to the water users the money they illegally took from them.

      • Clint Worthington

        Shelley Welcome, sorry no conflict if interest. No on on the board of CTA is on the City Council. In addition, CTA received no monetary benefit from the lawsuit. In fact, if you did research, the checks to pay the CTA attorneys were made payable to the attorneys themselves and not the CTA. The City Attorney had already given his opinion long ago that there was no conflict of interest.

        While the trolley is not part of this, just to give you a heads up, the trolley was funded by in part by $66,000 from the AQMD. The trolley was lent to us from another city.

        It is unfortunate that you rely on information provided by Sam Allevato.

      • Shelly Welcome

        Clint Worthington,
        John Perry was a member of CTA who sued our city and now he is a council member. This is a conflict of interest. He was appointed to the city council by his friends when others just as qualified also applied. This is cronyism.

      • Clint Worthington

        Shelley Welcome, again, no one was on the board of CTA while on the City Council. No one financially benefitted from the CTA. As the City Attorney pointed out, it is not a conflict of interest.

      • Clint Wothington.
        Perry was on the CTA and he filed the lawsuit and now he decides on the outcome. This is a conflict of interest. Did he pay the CTA lawyers or is it now is the taxpayers paying for them? Did he receive money back from this lawsuit and was his bill lowered while others’ were raised?

      • Clint Worthington

        Shelley Welcome, You are welcome to check with the city attorney, but again being on the CTA previously and on the City Council is not a conflict of interest as there is no direct benefit from the CTA.

        You can also check the City Agenda and read where the City paid the attorneys directly. No one at the CTA received a monetary benefit from the lawsuit. You are welcome to contact the City and obtain a copy of the settlement agreement to verify this and I encourage you to do so.

      • Clint Worthington,
        Actually I just might do that since it is cronyism and a conflict of interest. Thank you for your advice. I might even ask the state for help since they are interested in this case also.

  • Clint Worthington,
    I believe you should actually read the appeals case and not rely on bits and pieces posted by others because what you are stating are just headlines and not the actual verdict. Also people who have conserved all along and did not overuse their allocation of water and paid at the tier 1 level are going to be charged more for water while those who used and still use way more water than their allocation will be paying less for their water. We are running out of water and still people overuse it but now they are charged less to overuse it. So please tell me why I did need to subsidize other people’s overuse because now I am going to have to pay more? Thanks

    • Clint Worthington Reply

      Shelly Welcome, thank you for your advice, I do have the 28 page decision and I attended every single hearing at the Superior Court level and the appellate court level. I did not see you at any of the hearings.

      Thank Sam Allevato, Larry Kramer and John Taylor for approving illegal water rates after they were told time after time that they were illegal. If you are unhappy with your water rate, thank them for the illegal water rates that causes you to pay more.

  • Clint Worthington,
    The verdict was not definitive and should have been appealed for the well being of SJC and CA. Settling benefitted people on CTA who the appointed council member Perry was a member of and CTA’s lawyers and those who wanted to keep their lawns green and their pools full and not pay for using more when water is scarce. I was happy with my water rates because I did not overuse water. Now I will pay more and others who overuse water will pay less. You are okay with this. And the people who complained about their high bills because they used way over their allocation will pay less and the people who did what is needed to help everyone and our city and our state will pay more. Meanwhile we have a $70,000 taxpayer paid for trolley rolling down our streets during a time when we should have been figuring out how to pay for this law suit. Oh, yeah, the taxpayers who actually conserved water will pay for this.

    • Well said, Shelly. Clint may have attended the court hearings and read the decision, but clearly he doesn’t understand what the Appelate Court meant when the wrote “who is the prevailing party is premature.” Clearly the decision of who prevailed had not yet been settled and the council didn’t want to take the chance that the City would prevail. If it did, they could no longer blame Sam Allevato, LarryKramer or John Taylor and drag them through the mud. Hopefully the voters will wake up and realize they made a mistake and recall Reeve, Perry, Patterson and Ferguson before they bankrupt the city.

      • Clint Worthington

        Joanna Clark, how many courts do you have to win at? Is it ten ? Is it five? Is it three? Or is it two? The City appealed the decision and lost, again. The residents will have returned to them what was taken by the city.

      • Clint, the Appellate Court said the “recycled” water issue was premature to decide when it returned it. If the City argued the case AFTER it was returned to the lower court, where is the decision? The Appellate Court did not make any decision on the merits of the fourth cause of action, other than to say any decision was premature and therefore returned to the lower court for further adjudication. Show me where the City re-argued the case. You seem to be in bed with the new council, get the new decision made after they re-argued the case saying they lost. Everything so far points to the councils saying we’re not not to go further with this case. Give us a number and we will pay it.

      • Clint Worthington

        Joanna Clark, you are right. The new City Council made the right decision and settled the case. The case should have never gone to court in the first place. Thank Sam Allvato, Larry Kramer and John Taylor for wasting between 1.5 to 2.0 million dollars in taxpayer money. Ten percent of the cities budget,

  • Clint Worthington,
    And for some of us it is not about one political camp versus the other political camp and any means possible (cronyism and business partners or whatever). It is about doing the right thing for the majority of San Juan Capistrano and being transparent and truthful. We need to conserve water. There is a drought.

  • So, given there ARE folks actually trying to conserve water…..why, oh, why is there not a moratorium on issuing building permits for new construction? Projects being approved at breakneck speed.

comments (72)

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>