LWV: All Wet - UPDATED, 8:30PM

(Click to Enlarge)

Etching of Artesian Well from a
Pacific Land Improvement Company advertisement (January, 1888)
From: The City of Claremont History Collection,
Honnald Mudd Library Special Collections

The Marilee Memorial Marsh will be considered at tonight's Claremont City Council meeting, where current Mayor and former League of Women Voters (LWV) president Ellen Taylor will hand off a promised $25,000 over to LWV representatives Marilee Scaff and Freeman Allen.

Scaff and Allen are seeking a grant of over $7.6 million from the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (RMC) to purchase a plot of land around the Thompson Creek Dam in Northeast Claremont with the idea of turning the area into a cienega or wetlands or marsh (take your pick).

Before this area was developed water used flow out of the mountains and into the alluvial plains at the mouths of the area's canyons. Some of the water would soak into the riverbeds and floodplains and fill up underground reservoirs. The excess would spring up out of the ground in spots in the form of artesian wells at cienegas, as this bit from the Bernard Field Station website explains:

The San Antonio alluvial fan, like the other fans and bajadas of the Los Angeles Basin, is able to hold a large volume of ground water, derived from snowmelt and rainfall in the mountains, which is mined (pumped) for domestic and agricultural use. Before pumping began to lower the water table (meaning that pumping extractions exceed replenishment, that is, the ground water is in overdraft), some of the water-bearing layers (aquifers) actually brought water to the surface as artesian flow. Called cienegas by the Spanish, these areas supported startlingly lush growths of bulrush (Scirpus), cattail (Typha) and other aquatic vegetation, and served as breeding areas for local amphibians and other aquatic and semi-aquatic animals. Once such a cienega was located where Pilgrim Place is now. After the 1969 rains, artesian water flowed along Sixth and Berkeley for several months. Other local cienegas included one at the present site of Wig Beach and several north of Foothill Blvd. The only surface water flow after the 1978 rains was north of Foothill and east of Padua Ave.

[Emphasis added.]

As we noted yesterday, the LWV grant application makes a very brief mention of the fact that when you put water in the ground around here, it can pop up in other, lower-lying areas. The LWV doesn't really explain how that problem is avoided. Presumably, in order to keep a cienega near the Thompson Creek dam wet, you either have to keep adding water as it flows away down gradient, or you have to confine the water artificially, something which would add significantly to the cost of the project.

A reader contacted us with another problem with the LWV marsh grant application. The reader pointed out although the grant application is dated June 6, 2008, it claims on page 18 that the city of Claremont's $25,000 is already pledged. The actual wording on page 18 says that in addition to a pledge by Pomona Valley Protective Association of $25,000 for the project:

The City of Claremont is to match PVPA's $25,000.

Huh? The City Council isn't even voting to approve the $25,000 until later tonight - June 24th! Talk about a done deal. Hey Richard McKee, Mr. Brown Act, why don't you look into this one?

The point of the LWV's listing the city's and the PVPA's money is to show the Conservancy that there is seed money out there and wide community support. It'd be nice if it were true at the time the grant application was written, but it was not and verges on a fraudulent claim as a result. Of course, to the grant writers, since they also run the city, the matter of public discussion and deliberation was a mere formality.

At least this proves our point about what we've been arguing in these posts. The LWV can lie in their grant application on June 6th, saying in essence that the $25,000 had been approved, when it really won't be allocated until later this evening. Fittingly, the grant application is signed by current LWV president, Claremont Police Commissioner, and city Affordable Housing Task Force member Barbara Musselman. It is also lists the contact persons as "C. Freeman Allen, Ph.D, WTF Co-Chair" and "Marilee Scaff, Ph.D, WTF Co-Chair." We thought the WTF was a particularly apropos acronym for the Water Task Force.

You can watch the meeting here.

Below are the LWV grant face page dated 6/6/08 (left) and page 18 of the grant application (right), declaring the City's $25,000 contribution a fait accompli, when in fact it hadn't yet been presented to the Claremont City Council. We rest our case:

(Click on Images to Enlarge)

UPDATE: 8:30PM

No surprise here. The Claremont City Council voted 5-0 to support allocating the $25,000 for the grant. As the grant application indicated, it was already decided long before tonight, as most things are in this town.

The two LWV representatives, WTF'ers C. Freeman Allen and Marilee Scaff, were given unlimited time to make a presentation (the public, if they had wanted to, might have gotten four minutes to speak, depending on Mayor Taylor's mood). Such is the way these things are weighted against the general public.

Scaff made a point of citing the enormous public support she's noticed for this project ("the whole community") and named those members of the public she's spoken with: the city of Claremont, Golden State Water Company, the Pomona Valley Protective Association, and so on. Notice that she didn't name the average citizen - you perhaps.

That's because you peons don't register on Scaff's radar. She will, however, take your $25,000, and let's not hear any complaining about it, you ungrateful rabble.

Councilmember Calaycay, who voted "YES" along with the rest of the council, did ask a question of the two LWV representatives. Calaycay asked if the $25,000 the city was allocating had any designated purpose. C. Freeman Allen answered, saying, that they have no idea what the money would be used for. It's not programmed at all. Allen did say that the money could be returned if it wasn't need.

Right.

Calaycay also raised the fact that the LWV grant application is competing against a $1.5 million grant by the city of Claremont for Padua Sports Park. Ironies abound here. In Marilee Scaff's remarks, she said that the LWV Thompson Creek project was important because it would save "50-60 acres of sage scrub" habitat - something that Scaff said is one of the most threatened habitats in California.

Yet, at the same time, the city of Claremont in seeking money for Padua Sports Park is asking the same Conservancy for $1.5 million to destroy 10 acres of the same sage scrub habitat that Scaff wants to save - and the LWV, Ellen Taylor, and the rest of the Claremont City Council in on the scam: Give us money to destroy the habitat here, give us more money to save it over there.

This, ladies and germs, is Claremont's hypocrisy in a maddening nutshell, and the State of California, through the San Gabriel Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, is being asked to join in the scam to the tune of $7.6 million for the LWV marsh project and $1.5 million for Padua Sports Park. Such worthy projects. What's a little lie here, a little hypocrisy there?

It isn't criminal, but it outta be.

Wetlands in Claremont

Will Bigham in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin reports that City Council supports the concept of the Claremont League of Women Voters (LWV) asking the San Gabriel Rivers and Mountains Conservancy for grant money to develop part of the Pomona Valley Protective Association land near Thompson Creek Dam. The land, near the corner of Mills Avenue and Pomello Drive, would be developed as wetlands.

Above, we show an aerial shot of the approximate area of the land. The parcel to be developed is approximately 120 acres within the 160-acre square outline.

The City staff report is shown below on the left. It comprises only the single page shown. The letter to the City Council is shown below on the right. You may click on the images to enlarge.

City of Angles

Northeast Claremont has changed drastically in the past 20 years, a period coinciding with the regime of former City Manager Glenn Southard, whose planning philosophies and "vision" (to use a Claremont 400 term) are embodied in the residential developments between Mills Ave. and Padua Ave. and north of Pomello.

The other northeast development that Southard managed to avoid dealing with is the ongoing attempt by Vulcan Materials Co. to mine aggregate in the San Antonio Spreading Ground area below the San Antonio Dam.

The Spreading Grounds (seen in photo at right) is owned by a non-profit corporation called the Pomona Valley Protective Association (PVPA). PVPA was founded almost 100 years ago and was created to protect the water rights for users in La Verne, Pomona, Upland and Claremont.

The Golden State Water Co. controls nearly 50-percent of the PVPA. Remember them? Golden State Water also supplies Claremont's water, and the city has been looking at buying out Golden State to form a municipal water utility. The price? Over $100 million. Wheels within wheels.

The Vulcan mining proposal was a big election issue, pushed by an anti-mining group called Citizens Against Strip Mining (CASM). CASM has pretty much disappeared since the election after being manipulated by the Claremont 400 into endorsing Linda Elderkin, Sam Pedroza, and Mike Maglio in the municipal election last March. (Hey, CASM, what happened to the two of you?)

Mining, though, hasn't gone away, and this City Council won't be able to avoid dealing with it and the litigation Vulcan has thrown at the city in order to exercise the mining rights they lease from PVPA.

PVPA, in the meantime, is working on a deal to sell about 400 acres of the spreading grounds' 560 acres of open space. Will Bigham in last Sunday's Daily Bulletin had an article about a new report commissioned by PVPA that found that developing the 400 acres in question would not affect the spreading grounds' ability to collect runoff to recharge local groundwater basins.

Tony Krickl in the Claremont Courier also had an article on the subject. For more information on the background of this issue, check out the CASM website.

The land is still zoned by the City of Claremont as open space, so any proposal for housing or mining would have to be approved by the city. Seems like there's a lot of angles to work here.

Luckily, we have the Claremont 400 to guide us. Of course, these are the same geniuses who leased away Claremont's water rights in 1998 and who signed off on our current water rate structure - something that has allowed Golden State Water to justify charging Claremont much higher water rates than its neighboring towns. The minutes for that 1998 Council meeting noted that then-Councilmember Diann Ring was all for the water deal:

Councilmember Ring thought the proposal was historic and that many such agreements take twenty years to final[ize]. Mayor Smith agreed and thought it set a good tone for the future.

[City Council Minutes Minutes of 5/26/98 Agenda Item #17]

Not exactly a record to inspire confidence.

Water Woes

Yesterday's Daily Bulletin featured an in-depth look at water issues in our area. In one of several articles, the reporter Will Bigham wrote that Claremont is considering using eminent domain proceedings to take control of the water company from Golden State Water Co.

Bigham's article had a few errors and omissions. Bigham quoted Councilmember Ellen Taylor:

"'We didn't move forward with very much in the last couple years; we dealt with micro-managing issues,' Councilwoman Ellen Taylor said. "

Of course, Taylor was doing her usual posturing (and dissembling). The fact is, the council didn't look further into eminent domain last year in large part because of last November's Proposition 90--a referendum that would have limited cities' ability to exercise eminent domain. Prop. 90 failed, but its supporters have vowed to take another crack at it. So, Claremont could go forward with eminent domain on the water company, get partway through the proceedings, then be barred from the takeover by any new restrictions after having spent hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. This Taylor knows well.

If you have any questions, Councilmember Taylor can be reached at etaylor@ci.claremont.ca.us.

So, why would Taylor lie? She wanted to get a dig in on outgoing Councilmember Jackie McHenry, of course. The "micro-management" tag is part of the Claremont 400 script. They keep repeating a charge (or a lie), and it becomes the truth because reporters like Bigham are too busy and too limited in space to report the reality of the situation.

Another factor complicating the purchase is the issue of the Pomona Valley Protective Association (PVPA) land in Northeast Claremont. Recall that's the land that Vulcan Material Co. wants to mine for gravel. It is also the same land PVPA has talked about selling to a developer.

Golden State Water owns a 47% stake in PVPA, so that holding might have to be part of any water company purchase. The land, at current market rate values, could be worth in excess of $100 million, which would inflate the cost of the city's purchase quite a bit.

On the other hand, if the city did take control of the water company, along with the PVPA stake, that might help settle the mining issue.

Get me rewrite!

Our last note regarding Elderkin's handling of her conflict of interest on the PVPA land contained an observation that instead of getting a free consultation from the city attorney (using public resources for electioneering--a no, no), Elderkin had several other options to choose from. We pointed out that Elderkin really should have either consulted the Fair Political Practicies Commission hotline (a toll-free call) or hired her own attorney to get an opinion.

It occurred to us that during the anti-McHenry Preserve Claremont campaign of January 2005, McHenry was forced to hire a private attorney to defend her at a cost of several thousands of dollars. The charges stemmed from then-City Manager Southard's claim that McHenry had created a hostile work environment. Southard's allegations were never made public, and when it appeared that an actual investigation by an independent judge might ensue, Southard suddenly dropped the matter, and the council didn't pursue an investigation. Southard's and Preserve Claremont's bluff was called. In any event, McHenry did not have the luxury that Elderkin had to go to the city attorney for a consult. Double standard? You betcha.

A couple interesting sidenotes to the last link. First, the article quotes former councilmember Al Leiga as saying that McHenry micromanages and that the council-city manager relationship should be like that of a private company's board of directors to its CEO: the board sets policy, the CEO implements it. What Leiga ignored was the fact that in Claremont, the council had become so acquiescent and unanimous in its unquestioning support of Southard that it was really more like the Enron board of directors or the Tyco board of directors. Nearly every decision was 5-0, and no one questioned Southard's and his staff's assumptions. That was what led to things like the city's 1994 investment of over $5 million in the failed Orange County Investment Pool, or the infamous roundabout at Indian Hill Blvd. and Bonita Ave.

The Orange County investment is an example of Southardism in action. As the above link showed, it took six years and a great deal of litigation for the city to eventually recoup 100% of its investment, plus attorney fees. Southard trumpeted this as a great victory but failed to point out that the city lost out on whatever interest the city might have gained over six years if that same $5.3 million if it had been invested in a safer vehicle, bonds say. Instead of working for us, the money was held up in legal limbo.

The other aspect of this that is revealing is the Southardian revision of history. This happened after every crisis Southard created. It is happening again with Preserve Claremont. Rather than owning up to their actions in 2005, the same people are behind the Pedroza and Elderkin campaigns, and McHenry is remade into the cause of that crisis rather than the victim of it. Chicken Creek may be long gone from Claremont, but the River Lethe flows strong through the heart of town. Drink, Claremonsters, and forget....

______________________________


The other ironic thing about the 2005 TSL article on Preserve Claremont is that Pedroza, who ran and lost in that election, seemed to be both defending McHenry and endorsing her value to the community:

"When you have someone calling the shots for 17 years, they get complacent,” explained Pedroza of Southard. “Jackie has brought an important element to the council when she forced the city to cross its t’s and dot its i’s. Did the city need to? Yeah, maybe in some cases.”

Sam, Sam, how soon we forget.

_______________________________


A voter writes:

I went to one of Sam Pedroza's 'Meet and Greet', because I wanted to get to know the guy better. I was somewhat appealed to his environmental credentials. But his introduction about his life story was given in a way that people almost fell asleep. Not much charisma there. Also what bothered me a lot more, is how much he talked about where and for whom he worked, but literally nothing about what he accomplished. And to me that is a bad sign for a future city council member. His answers to most of the questions were very general, almost to the point that he tried to figure out what people want to hear. Based on this impression I am not sure I can vote for him, because it seems he will be one of these 'bureaucrats', who will sift to paper after paper without ever coming to a decision.

PVPA News

The Foothill Cities blog had mention of the possible sale of the Pomona Valley Protective Association (PVPA) land to Allied Retail Partners, LLC.

Try going to the Allied site and check out their proposed Park View project in Upland. It's located very close to the PVPA land. Notice that the Park View project was slated to go on 42 acres south of 210 Freeway, just north of Baseline Rd. and just east of Padua Ave. It included 400 single-family homes and a 100,000 sq. ft. retail shopping center on those 42 acres--a fraction of the 560 acres contained in the PVPA land that is up for sale.

BTW, a belated thanks to Foothill Cities for the link and the mention.