After the June 19th public hearing there was some uncertainty over whether the board would actually implement the increase.

The board stated that while they had approved the rate increase plan that would see ratepayers facing a series of 5 increases over a 4-year period, that there was still room to debate whether it would be implemented as part of the new budget.

LHHCWD Board President, Brad Cooke told reporters after the meeting that he would take into consideration the protests when they sat down to vote on the budget. However, based on the board’s actions at the June 26 regular water board meeting, little consideration was given to ratepayers’ protest.

Stephen Blagden, investigative journalist and La Habra Heights resident, who spearheaded the rate increase protest, brought along a handful of protest cards to the board meeting on Tuesday but the board was quick to disregard them saying it was too late.

Blagden responded, “The people wanted their voices heard.”

Blagden was recently targeted by the board when he put out an information table on the rate increase during the recent county election. District employee, Rick Vigil, pulled into the parking lot of La Habra Height’s main park, The Park, snapped a few pictures of Blagden and drove away.

Despite several attempts to get in touch with either Vigil or Cooke about the incident, no calls were ever returned. Cooke has never returned a call regarding questions about the rate increase.

The board said they had received less than 30 protest letters prior to the hearing so when Blagden rolled in two boxes on a dolly through the City Hall room, the board appeared surprised.

Along with the boxes of protest cards and letters, ratepayers at the hearing expressed discontent over the rate increases.

Paul Goldenberg, long time resident of La Habra Heights and former owner of Paul’s TV, was quite clear in his indictment of the board in particular to a fee of $171 for trimming grass around meters.

“Now if you have been reading my meter all the time, how much did it grow around the meter that cost 171 bucks to trim around my meter? What do you use to trim around it? A pair of scissors? I mean, that looks crazy.”

Other ratepayers were especially frustrated with board member, Pamela McVicar, who ran on an election campaign promise, just in November 2011, that intimated if she was re-elected, the board would not increase rates.

Despite feeling the pressure, McVicar gave a weak apology, saying “I am sorry that some of you misunderstood that.”

In letters sent to the board that were obtained by this publication, many ratepayers expressed distress at having to dig deeper into already empty pockets.

One protester wrote, “I have cut back on watering and I am on a fixed income.”

At the hearing, ratepayer, Sandy Dykier, shared similar concerns, “We have horses, we have almost two acres and everything takes water. I have a couple of kids, they take baths. So, it will affect us, yes.”

That night the board ultimately voted 5-0 to approve the fee hikes but not without appeasing the public by removing two fees: a mailing list label fee, which they admitted was illegal, and the meter trimming fee. The board also refused to commit publicly to admitting that they would approve the rate increase.

The board, and in particular, president Cooke, blames the rate increase on the delayed controversial water wheeling agreement. However, as previously reported in another article, the board is directly responsible for delaying the water wheeling agreement.

Back in October 2011, Cooke spoke before a La Habra Heights City Council meeting warning that without the wheeling agreement, a rate increase was imminent.

He said, “The current board is working very hard to keep your rates down. Without the agreement, we may soon be seeing rate increases.”

The board approved the water wheeling agreement in May of this year and soon after approving the deal, moved forward with its rate increase plan.

Despite the signing of the agreement, Cooke and the board miscalculated how quickly the revenue would come in from this agreement. The board included the water wheeling agreement in last year’s fiscal budget to counter any deficits. However, when that budget was approved last summer, the agreement was nowhere near approval from any of the parties involved.

Memos from Rowland Water District and LHHCWD show clearly that RWD was losing interest in the deal. In a September 9, 2011 memo, Cooke wrote that he spoke with RWD General Manager Ken Deck, and told him that, “the deal is not completely dead, yet.”

Of the 580 submitted protests, only 505 were officially accepted by the District. LHHCWD provides water to 1,900 meters. Gualtieri stated during this week’s board meeting that there were 5 sets of duplicate cards, 4 sets of triplicates, and 2 that were for the rate increase. In other words, some protesters sent in multiple cards from the same address.

Gualtieri did not make it clear whether if someone sent in multiple cards, that all of their cards were discounted. However, some protesters have multiple water meters and accounts on their property.

The general manager also noted that among those that were not counted, were protest cards from people who were outside of the district. This means that at least 51 of those were from out of their servicing area.

No written report was provided by Gualtieri to show a clear breakdown of the numbers, but InsightOut News has put in a public records request to examine the cards.

With the ratepayers out of sight, the board took up discussion on the rate increase and staff pay raises.

While the board discussed extensively that the economy was in difficult times, they felt it was still important to give staff a 2% pay increase, despite budgeting for a 5% increase.

During the discussion over approving the increase, board member Jeff Heintz said, “If there is a 2% cost of living increase, then everybody who is an employee here is impacted by that. The cost of living increase, is just to keep up.”

In the meeting, McVicar noted that each percent pay increase accounts for roughly $8,000 of the budget, so with a 2% increase, that is $16,000 total.

The newly approved budget does not pull the board out of a deficit and the District still anticipates a $4,359 loss.

For a board that will see a deficit at the end of the 2012-2013 fiscal year, the board still approved a $5,000 bonus for Gualtieri.

Gualtieri says he currently makes $11,000 per month for a total of $132,000 per year and with the 2% raise will now earn $134,640 per year, plus the $5,000 bonus. This does not include his benefit package which could add another 40% to his yearly salary.

McVicar lamented that the board could not give Gualtieri more money, “I move that we give you the two percent salary increase that everyone else is getting, and I feel bad because I think you deserve more, and a 5,000 dollar bonus.”

The board voted 4-1 to approve the pay raise and bonus.

McVicar has said in past interviews that the board looks to other districts for insight on how to proceed with pay raises, yet other boards are not handing out bonuses and pay raises.

Yorba Linda Water District, for example, has cut pension benefits for new hires and has also cut its work week by staying closed on Fridays to save on operating costs.

In 2009, investigative journalist Stephen Blagden, uncovered that LHHCWD board members were “wining and dining” at ratepayer expense. Since then, the board has stopped asking for reimbursement for drinks.

At the rate hearing, board members addressed their past history of excessive dining and alcohol expenses. Wilson himself told the overfilled room of frustrated ratepayers that he had learned his lesson.

“Trust me, we’re not high spenders,” he said during the rate hearing meeting.

However, it appears that Wilson continues to pass on the cost of lavish dinners to ratepayers.

A May 2012 reimbursement form, obtained via a public records request, that was submitted by board member Bob Wilson, shows that Wilson was requesting ratepayers cover his $69.91 solo dinner at Old Fisherman Grotto as part of travel and lodging expenses for attending a conference in Monterey, California. Wilson claimed at the public hearing that he only ate Cobb salads at California Pizza Kitchen but the reimbursement form does not list this restaurant.

He also requested $91 for tipping and valet parking at the hotel. The total expenses for the trip were $1,253.18 with the majority of cost going toward mileage and lodging. Mr. Wilson earned the nickname “Travelin’ Bob” on a local blog.

Overall, the board is facing another deficit and a water wheeling deal that may or may not bring in revenue for the district. Despite ratepayers concerns, and the board’s acknowledgement that they are trying to stay afloat in a bad economy, the board continues down a path of financial mismanagement that at least goes back as far as 2010, with the failure to secure the water wheeling dealing in time to cover last year’s fiscal budget.

After Tuesday’s meeting, Cooke was asked how he justified pay raises and bonuses in a turbulent economy, especially after so many ratepayers came out against the rate increase. Cooke accused assembled reporters and media of not being “fair and balanced” and refused to give an answer.

Ratepayers will see their first increases beginning July 1. Average ratepayers with a 1-inch meter will expect to see an increase of 11.98%, or $51.48 total for the year.

LHHCWD Superintendent Rick Vigil snaps photo of journalist Stephen Blagden at his information table on Tuesday, June 5.

LA HABRA HEIGHTS, CA – Despite receiving no objections from Los Angeles County election officials to have a table at the County’s polling place earlier this week, Stephen Blagden, a local journalist spearheading the protest of an upcoming La Habra Heights County Water District water rate increase, was questioned by a city official and targeted by a District employee who pulled up in a district owned vehicle, snapped several pictures, and drove away.

“I was asking and helping ratepayers to fill out cards to protest the water rate increase,” says Blagden. “Ratepayers expressed the desire to do something to oppose the rate increase but did not know how. The mailer gives them an easy way to say “no”.”

Photos and video show Blagden with a small table set a distance from the entrance of the polling place at La Habra Height’s main park known as “The Park.” A witness says that Blagden had been there for a few hours when a white pick up truck pulled up some 10-feet from Blagden, blocking one of the entrances to the polling place.

A man exited the District owned vehicle, stepped a few feet in front of the truck, with the drivers side door still open, and began taking pictures of Blagden.

The man is identified as Rick Vigil, superintendent and longtime employee of La Habra Heights County Water District (LHHCWD). He never spoke with Blagden, but after scanning the pictures taken by his digital camera, re-entered the vehicle and drove away.

Blagden said that ratepayers at the table were disgusted by Vigil’s actions, but was not so surprised himself, “If [Vigil] was doing it at the direction of the Water District or on District time, it is another example of the District not spending ratepayers’ money wisely.”

Undeterred, Blagden, continued to meet with ratepayers when Grace Andres, a La Habra Heights deputy city clerk, approached the journalist with a large measuring wheel in hand.

City Manager Shauna Clark, who is also facing her own levy on taxpayers and which some feel that the recent rate increase attention will make it hard for the city to push its $500-$600 assessment, says that Andres was sent to speak with Blagden as a courtesy, after receiving a complaint that Blagden was circulating a petition.

“I didn’t think that was something we need to be involved in but our city attorney was here and looked up the election code and saw it did say something about electioneering at the polls.”

She continued, “Grace, one of our people, went out to talk to Stephen, and told him about the 100-feet requirement if you are electioneering during an election. My understanding is that he agreed to move and nothing else happened.”

Blagden confirmed that he moved, but only out of courtesy for the city’s concern.

Clark made it clear that the city and LHHCWD are two different bodies and that the city has no say in what the District does. She said that a clerk contacted LHHCWD to verify whether the District had an initiative on the ballot, but did not tell the District the reason for the call, “So as far the water department being out there, I know nothing about it.”

General Manager for LHHCWD, Mike Gualtieri, was not available for comment, despite several calls and voicemails to his office. We have previously tried to get comment from Gualtieri on a related rate increase article to no avail. Vigil was also unavailable for comment. A customer service representative for the District noted that Vigil was on vacation as of Thursday and would not return until Monday of next week.

Blagden feels the board was inadequate in its openness about the protest proceedings saying, “The District’s notice did not tell people how they could oppose, where they should send opposition or a deadline.”

Ratepayers who get water from La Habra Heights County Water District are facing a step-laddered rate increase through a series of 5 raises, over a 4-year period, that would lead to total increases anywhere from 31% to 1050%. Most residential customers have 1” meters and will see an increase of 11.98%, or $51.48, over a one-year period, as soon as the first increase goes into effect on July 1.

Ratepayers are not happy with the possible increase. Many have expressed a sense of betrayal, in particular regarding board members who ran in 2011 on a platform of no future rate increases.

Protesting ratepayers feel unable to handle increased rates, “I have cut back on watering and I am on a fixed income.” Another person wrote, “We pay a very high rate before we use any water.”

One protester cited past examples of possible abuse of power, “they have wasted money, entered into bad business deals with other water districts and abused the trust and confidence of the rate payers”. The protester went so far as to write, “[t]he gross mismanagement that the board has demonstrated will lead to a recall at the extreme”.

However, there are still those who support the increase. An Improvement Association board member, Adrienne Murphy, spoke to Blagden at his table, saying she would like to send a letter of support for the increase. It is reported that she also tried to encourage others who were at the table to also write that they support the increase, too.

District Vice President Pam McVicar is also on the board of the Improvement Association and her husband, Michael Higgins, is the editor of Heights Life.

The Association chose not to notify La Habra Heights households in this month’s issue about the rate hearing, saying it had become too much of a political issue. However, Heights Life has had no problem with discussing an upcoming road tax that will be up for vote later this year.

At least 200 protest letters have been turned into Blagden. Ratepayers who do not return a protest letter to Blagden still have an opportunity to turn them in on the day of the hearing. He says, responses have been 99.5% in favor of protest.

However, there is a chance that the increase could flounder if opposition from ratepayers is strong enough. If a majority of ratepayers, a total of at least 986 objections, submit a written protest, the increase will not go into effect. The hearing is scheduled for June 19 at the La Habra Heights City Hall.

The City of La Habra Heights currently has no plans to protest the rate increase, but according to Clark, “Anything is possible however, at this time the City had no involvement in the proposed rate increase.” The City is one of the largest consumers of water from LHHCWD.

McVicar and La Habra Heights City Councilman Howard Vipperman blame Blagden and fellow journalist, George Edwardz for the rate increase saying the two played a major role in delaying a water wheeling agreement that would have brought in a purported $200,000 a year in revenue.

The water wheeling agreement is shrouded in controversy as it does more than just move water from one district to another, the final destination of the water is not clear, leading some to calling the agreement a water “trafficking” agreement.

The claims of these elected officials have been shown to be misleading. What is more truthful is McVicar’s statement that the board was “overly optimistic” about the signing of the deal when they included it in the budget for the 2011-2012 fiscal year. When the deal did not come through on time, the board had to find money elsewhere. The board signed the water agreement last month but will not see revenue until at least 2013. The board anticipated a revenue of $200,000 a year, but is now asking rate payers to collectively raise $750,000 in revenue through the rate increase, half a million more than what was claimed to be needed to replace the delayed funding from the agreement.

Video of the incident at The Park can be see here.

Margot Paez, founder and reporter for InsightOut News, spoke today about the future of the occupy movement, examining the issues of co-optation by outsiders, and new ways of making real change for Americans.

The La Habra Heights County Water District (LHHCWD) board agreed last month on a plan to increase rates and fees anywhere from 31% up to 1050% over a 4-year-period. According to California Assembly Bill 3030, which came into law in 2009, water districts are allowed to set rates for 5 years at a time, suggesting a new study must be implemented every 5 years. However, the law does not say that the districts must set rates for exactly 5 years, only that it must not exceed.

California Proposition 218 requires that water districts notify their ratepayers of any new rate increases and that they hold a public hearing. LHHCWD plans to hold its public hearing at 6pm on June 19 at City Hall. The board is accepting written protests from those who would be affected by the increase. Ratepayers may also submit a letter of protest on the day of the hearing.

In a written statement, McVicar stated the planned rate increase will be in the single digits. However, based on the notice mailed to the public by LHHCWD, a ratepayer on a 1” meter will increase a total of 59% or $251.76 each year after the 4-year plan is fully implemented. Ratepayers with 6” meters will see the highest increase, a total of 131% or $10,819.56. Address label costs will be raised 1050% from $12.17 to $140. In the first year alone, 1” meter ratepayers will see an 11.98% or $51.48 increase.

District Board Vice President Pam McVicar, says that while the district is a non-profit organization that does not aim for a profit, it has struggled to balance the budget and has had negative income for the last two years.

In November of last year, McVicar ran for re-election on a platform that suggested that if she stayed on the board, LHHCWD would remain one of the few districts to have managed to stave off a rate increase. In strong red lettering, a campaign flyer for her re-election clearly read, “No Rate Increases for 5 Years”.

When asked why she ran on such a bold campaign, only to agree on a rate study a few months later that suggested a phased rate increase over a 4-year-period, which according to Raftelis Financial Consultants was designed to prevent “rate shock” among ratepayers, McVicar responded, “at the time we thought the water agreement would fix the issue.”

The issue she is referring to is money. Reduced assessed property values in La Habra Heights have led to a loss of $60,000 in property tax revenue for the district, with no sign of improvement over the new fiscal year. The board is facing another financial burden, as part of the agreement for pulling water from the Central Basin Municipal Water District, the LHHCWD is required to pay a water replenishment fee. This year, Central Basin increased this fee by 18%.

However, the Los Angeles Times reported last month that the Water Replenishment District announced that it would freeze any rate increases for the first time since 2003. Central Basin announced a rate increase freeze in April and is currently the focus of a government audit backed by California state Assemblyman Richardo Lara (D-Bell).

The La Habra Heights County Water District’s 2011-12 budget shows total revenue of about $3.6 million.

But the board made a financial miscalculation. In the 2011-2012 budget, the board decided to include the revenue they predicted would come from a water wheeling agreement between LHHCWD and Rowland Water District despite neither party signing onto the plan. The agreement was delayed, and as a result, the budget inaccurate.

The board claims that the increases described in the rate study conducted by Raftelis will offset the $200,000 a year loss of revenue from the delayed deal for the 2012-2013 budget. The board spent $39,830 on the rate study and the water wheeling agreement was signed earlier this month. Revenue will not begin until January 2013, if it is not legally challenged.

The controversial water agreement between Rowland Water and LHHCWD has been called by some as a “trafficking” agreement between the two districts that would lead to water being siphoned out of the Central Basin through LHHCWD wells and pipes. A new pipeline is proposed to be built that would move water to Rowland Water.

Yet, while the deal is between LHHCWD and Rowland Water, an agenda for a Puente Basin Water Agency (PBWA) meeting dated May 17, 2012, lists the water deal in the updates section. PBWA consists of both the Rowland Water District and the Walnut Valley Water District and during the same meeting, members of the agency noted that Rowland Water and Walnut Valley share projects evenly. Walnut Valley provides water to the city of Industry and portions of Diamond Bar.

The lack of clarity over which agencies are actually involved in this deal, as well as the question raised by LHHCWD attorney about a small agency like LHHCWD using half its capacity to move water for the deal is what makes this such a controversial plan.

Howard Vipperman, a member of the La Habra Heights city council, has blamed investigative journalists, Stephen Blagden and George Edwardz for the delay. However, it is unclear whether he supports the rate increase or not.

According to the 2011 Water District Master Plan, Vipperman was ranked as the number eight water user in La Habra Heights. Vipperman has a 2” meter at his residence and will see an 89% or $1,017.36 annual rate increase under the new 4-year rate plan.

Vipperman called out the journalists by name during a recent council meeting saying, “I think when the time comes to pay your increased bill, you can actually thank those two gentlemen.”

In a phone interview, McVicar echoed Vipperman’s sentiments, “it was delayed because certain citizens were going to both meetings protesting and the attorneys had to go through and take extra time to review.” McVicar refused to give specific names, but referred to an online video dated October 5, 2011 of a Rowland Water District meeting where Blagden and Edwardz are present as well as Judy Hathaway Francis, wife of La Habra Heights council member Roy Francis.

Edwardz counters Vipperman’s finger pointing, “I’m surprised he doesn’t also blame me for the $500 road assessment tax when I was present at all the city council meetings.”

Edwardz also points out that the water rate increase is just one in a series of increased costs for La Habra Heights taxpayers. He says the $500 road assessment tax will be mailed out in June to property owners and a local school district bond measure will “unfairly target La Habra Heights property owners since it is based on assessed value”. The bond measure will be on the ballot in November.

LHHCWD President, Brad Cooke, was also contacted for comment on the rate increase but did not return multiple calls.

Stephen Blagden, an investigative journalist for LaHabraHeights.net and longtime resident of La Habra Heights, has been reporting on city issues since 1999. On September 13, 2011, Blagden stumbled into what was a special water board meeting. Blagden says his intention was to find out if “anything had changed” after discovering in 2009 that the board had been, “wining and dining on” Chivas Regal and filet mignon at the expense of ratepayers. He indicated he was unaware of any type of agreement until he sat in on the September meeting.

After hearing the attorney for the La Habra Heights County Water District express concern that, “such a small agency using almost half their capacity for another agency” could lead to a resident legally challenging the deal, Blagden decided to find out more about the agreement.

George Edwardz has been covering local city issues for several years and is also a long time resident of the city. His outlet, The Avocado Express, makes its mission quite clear, “Use excess capacity to report and educate with an emphasis towards protecting the public’s right to know.” After learning about the wheeling agreement from Blagden, Edwardz began to investigate as well.

Both men have attended water board meetings for Rowland Water District, Orchard Dale Water District and La Habra Heights County Water District. Edwardz says that LHHCWD has been particularly hostile, regularly threatening and calling the Sheriffs and Fire Department to intimidate the two.

Vipperman also says that he has heard that the board has called police and fire departments, but says that the journalists were creating situations that were “hostile”, although he did not elaborate on what made these situations hostile.

Edwardz disagrees. “Brad Cooke at one meeting took issue with the placement of a camera. He then summoned the fire marshall who noted there was no occupancy sign posted. The following meeting an occupancy sign was posted for a maximum of 13 people. The new limit means there is often only room for two observers.”

After some digging, Blagden unearthed a series of memos from Rowland Water District’s general manager, Ken Deck, that date to a time before his mid-September visit, showing serious delays in the agreement proceedings that pre-date not only the presence of either journalist at these meetings (and thus questioning the validity of claims that they delayed the agreement), but also McVicar’s campaign promises.

In a memo dated from September 1, 2011, Deck writes that proposed changes by LHHCWD were “unfavorable” and that, “due to the lengthy time period devoted to trying to develop a mutually acceptable agreement, other projects and agreements have come to fruition. If this project were to move forward, it could create some cash flow constraints.”

In a separate memo from LHHCWD General Manager Mike Gualtieri, dated September 9, 2011, Gualtieri stresses his board’s determination to keep the dying negotiations alive, “I talked with Ken Deck, and stated that the deal is not completely dead, yet.”

McVicar contends that when she ran for election, she was under the assumption that the plan would go through within 30 days and within another month or so, revenues would begin flowing in. She began campaigning on a no rate increase platform as early as October 13, 2011 and was elected in a November 8, 2011 election.

Contradicting McVicar’s claims, new budgets are approved before the start of the new fiscal year, which according to McVicar, begin July 1 of each year. As a result, the board approved a budget that would include income from the unsigned wheeling agreement at least 2 months before any reporter picked up the story. Furthermore, the three memos from Gualtieri that were acquired by Blagden date back to November 18, 2010 and not one shows signs of an agreement that was within a month of being signed either when the budget was approved or when McVicar ran for election.

A lack of transparency is a growing concern for Edwardz and Blagden. They do not believe that the board has done its job of making ratepayers aware of the increases. However, the board says that they sent out a mailer about the increase and have planned to send a second one.

When asked if the hearing notification would be published in the Improvement Association’s monthly magazine, The Heights Life, McVicar, an Improvement Association Board member and past President, whose husband is The Heights Life editor, said it would not appear in the June issue since the magazine believes the rate increase has become a “political issue and it tries to stay out” of politics.

Edwardz alleges that the new website for lhhcwd.com was launched on May 1 (An employee of the water district staff denies an official launch date ever being set), but then taken down a few weeks later after the announced rate increase. Backing Edwardz claim, an online video from the April 24, 2012 water board meeting shows members of the board approving a May 1 launch date. A recent Google search shows that the website was still fully accessible as late as May 17, 2012. The site was taken down on May 18th.

McVicar says that the website was taken down because of some web design issues and would be up within the week, but no later than June 1 leaving only 19 days to review the rate study and submit a written protest.

Access to clear information from the district has been a difficult task, not just for Edwardz and Blagden, but for other journalists and the community at large.

When contacting the district’s office for further clarification on the upcoming hearing, an employee of the district, Tammy Wagstaff, refused to answer any questions. She initially stated she was the Treasurer for the district, but refused to explain what her job entails. She also denied reports that the board had recently voted for a staff pay raise and bonus for General Manager Gualtieri. Pay raises that McVicar confirmed over the phone, did in fact happen. According to the District, Ms. Wagstaff is one of three employees who drives an unmarked District vehicle.

Furthermore, members of the community who have begun turning in protest letters have been told by Gualtieri that protesters should include account numbers. The official notice does not set this as a requirement and California law does not, either. Gualtieri was unavailable for comment at time of publication.

The targeting of these two journalists by La Habra Heights officials is nothing new. Members of various city groups, such as the city council, the water board, and the La Habra Heights Improvement Association, have all been subjects of reports published by Blagden’s and Edwardz’s respective news outlets. In 2010, Edwardz was attacked by members of the city’s Improvement Association who were displeased with his presence at their public meeting, the incident was covered by multiple news outlets and video of the incident clearly shows Edwardz trying to protect his equipment while he was physically assaulted.

Blagden has been the subject of some controversy as well. A few years ago, he anonymously mailed out election-time flyers to residents of La Habra Heights questioning the close association of council members and a council candidate. The city investigated the flyers, going so far as having residents drop off the flyers in bags so that the California Fair Political Practices Commission could reportedly dust for fingerprints. Election officials concluded that Blagden had not violated any laws.

Vipperman recalls the mailings, saying that Blagden’s flyers “lacked civility.”

This tender relationship may explain why some see both journalists as a way out for avoiding blame for who really caused a delay in the signing of the water agreement. It also seems that simply blaming the rate increase on the delay of the agreement is unqualified. Based on the memos, and the timing for finalizing yearly budgets, it can be concluded that that the board was well aware that the agreement was on the rocks and that it was not possible that the water wheeling agreement would come through in time to cover the new budget.

Furthermore, the water wheeling agreement between Rowland Water and La Habra Heights County Water District will ultimately bring in a purported $200,000 in yearly revenue while, according to calculations based on the released rate increase table, the board will have a yearly revenue, after full implementation, of $750,000 per year. This is more than triple the revenue from the wheeling agreement.

If only $200,000 is needed to offset the lost wheeling revenue, why ask for over half a million more? What was the real reason for the delay in the water agreement? Why is the La Habra Heights County Water District using half of its water capacity to serve another district, as its attorney suggested and who really benefits from the deal, ratepayers or board members? These are all questions that Blagden and Edwardz have raised and continue to investigate, but rather than being met with straight-forward answers, have instead been met with false accusations, intimidation and finger pointing.

Two such bills, the Cyber Intelligence and Sharing Protection Act (CISPA) and the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, have been steadily making their way through the United States’ Congress. CISPA was overwhelmingly passed in the House of Representatives in late April and is likely to be voted upon in the Senate in early June. President Obama has stated his intent to veto CISPA if it reaches his desk in its current form. The White House was unavailable for comment on this issue at this time.  The Cybersecurity Act of 2012 (introduced by Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME)) has been having a more difficult time in the Senate, but has the seal of approval from the White House.
Among privacy advocates’ chief concerns is exactly what defines a “cybersecurity threat” in these bills. CISPA defines cyber threat information as:

“that which can be shared notwithstanding any law (see Secs. 1104(b) and 9d) as information directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to a system or network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network from– (A) efforts to degrade, disrupt or destroy such system or network; or (B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information (Sec. 1104(b)(f)(6))”.

The vague nature of this language creates a wide loophole within existing privacy laws so that even ordinary activities such as e-mail encryption could be deemed threatening and incite surveillance. Furthermore, there is little protection of personal information once an apparent cyber-threat is detected, meaning an ISP (Internet Service Provider) can share any information regarding their customers’ identities and internet activities with the government and other ISPs if they believe “in good faith” that person may be connected to a threat.

While the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 is slightly more specific in its definition of  a cybersecurity threat, it raises another set of concerns that its implementation could directly violate net neutrality by giving companies the ability to divert traffic against any possible threat or action which may compromise an information system. It also mandates that individual companies ensure, at their own cost, that they meet the cybersecurity standards set by the government, which could retard the advancement of security technology by competitive industry.

The vast amount of money which has been contributed to Congress by companies who may benefit from this type of legislation is also of concern. Defense contractors, cable & satellite TV production/distribution, computer software, cellular systems equipment, and online computer services companies contributed more than $31 million to the House of Representatives from the fiscal years 2009 to 2011. AT&T alone is responsible for more than $24.5 million in contributions to Congress during that time period.

Proponents of CISPA, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, and other cybersecurity legislation have been quick to gloss over the privacy concerns related to these bills, citing the ever-increasing terror threats to cybersecurity. The most recent of these, an al-Qaeda video calling for an “electronic jihad”, has provided more fuel for the arguments behind this legislation.

While there has been an exponential increase in cyber attacks in recent years, opponents of the current bills have called for more transparency in the creation of such legislation and for the inclusion of more privacy advocates and security professionals when creating laws that have the potential to affect the privacy of millions. One such opponent, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has called on voters to put pressure upon their elected officials ahead of proposed voting in early June, citing the need for more citizen involvement in the drafting of any cybersecurity legislation.

NATO Summit Report for May 20, 2012
Several Thousand Demonstrate Against NATO Summit, Chicago Police Clash With Protesters
Protesters, possibly in the tens of thousands, marched from Grant Park to the site of the NATO Summit in Chicago on Sunday May 20 to protest NATO and its wars abroad. Many officers clashed with protesters, sending unknown numbers to the hospital, and arresting 45. Protesters marched peacefully despite minor altercations with Black Bloc mid-way through the march. Later in the evening, hundreds of occupiers marched through the streets of Chicago leading police on a wild goose chase.

Special interview with Jack of Occupy Wall Street, the protester who was run over by a CPD van the day before.

NATO Summit Report for May 19, 2012
Thousands Protest in Chicago on Eve of NATO Summit 2012
On the eve of the NATO Summit, thousands marched through Chicago to Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s home to protest the closing of city community health clinics. Activists gathered in front of the Mayor’s home for a short time before leaving to join a larger protest in Downtown Chicago. While the protest was peaceful with no arrests, reports allege that in the evening protest, activists were beaten and arrested, with one run over by a police van. More to come tomorrow. ]]> http://www.insightoutnews.org/2012/05/21/several-thousand-demonstrate-against-nato-summit-chicago-police-clash-with-protesters-44003/feed/ 1 http://www.insightoutnews.org/2012/05/20/insightout-news-live-from-chicago-nato-summit-71677/ http://www.insightoutnews.org/2012/05/20/insightout-news-live-from-chicago-nato-summit-71677/#comments Sun, 20 May 2012 16:27:45 +0000 Margot Paez http://www.insightoutnews.org/?p=1096

InsightOut New's investigative reporter, Margot Paez, will be giving live updates from the Chicago NATO Summit protests. Catch her every hour, on the hour.

InsightOut New’s investigative reporter, Margot Paez, will be giving live updates from the Los Angeles May 1st General Strike day of action. Catch her at these times live only on InsightOut News: 10am, 1pm, 2pm, 3-4pm on KPFK 90.7 FM only, 6pm, and 7pm.