#USA #Ontario #Inland Empire #Rate Increase #local agencies

Local Agencies Criticize IEUA's Hasty Rate Increase Vote

In a striking decision that disregards public opposition and local economic realities, the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) recently approved a significant 18% rate hike to be implemented over the next two years. This move has drawn deep criticism from various local agencies, including leaders from Chino, Montclair, and Ontario, who argue that the process lacked the necessary transparency and accountability.

During a vote that came as a surprise to many, IEUA's board moved forward despite visible concerns from their member agencies and the public at large. The members of these agencies expressed disappointment, calling the decision a “deeply disappointing procedural failure.” Mayor Eunice Ulloa of Chino articulated her concerns, stating, “This was not collaboration; it was merely a box-checking exercise. The IEUA misrepresented this process as thorough while withholding crucial documents.”

Ulloa emphasized that the study underpinning the rate adjustment was withheld until the last minute, leaving no time for critical evaluation by city representatives or local residents. This lack of transparency has raised alarms about the integrity of the public governance process, with Ulloa stating, “Governance requires more than legal compliance; it demands transparency, accountability, and respect towards those it serves.”

Despite numerous written objections to the proposed rate hike, the IEUA board executed a unanimous vote in favor of adopting the increase. Notably, there was no support for the proposal even from the IEUA's Policy Committee or its Technical Advisory Committee, which further emphasizes the contentious nature of this decision. Local agencies had previously requested additional time to review the proposed hikes, but were met with a denial from the IEUA based on internal deadlines that were not communicated ahead of time. Previous rate hikes had been extended until July, providing ample time for assessments; however, this latest decision was not afforded the same consideration.

At the center of the uproar is the Chino Basin Program (CBP), a massive recycled water treatment initiative spearheaded by the IEUA. This project aims to transfer up to 100% of its output to the California State, while communities such as Chino and Montclair remain burdened by issues of water reliability and affordability in their local systems.

“IEUA has chosen to ignore the voices of the very people it was established to support,” claimed Debra Porada, a council member from Ontario. She further pointed out that this rate hike serves to finance a billion-dollar project that diverts local water resources to the state. Local communities, she claimed, are left with the financial burden without adequate services or support.

The discourse surrounding the board meeting revealed a disturbing trend in how IEUA board members regard public opinion. One board member infamously remarked, “It’s not much money, and people will be able to eat,” demonstrating a condescending attitude toward those raising concerns. Sandra S. Rose, Chair of the Monte Vista Water District Board, condemned this attitude, asserting, “Such disdain for public opinion is unacceptable. These decisions affect real families, and agencies must act as equal partners in regional infrastructure planning.”

In addition to these criticisms, the IEUA’s changes in how it allocates public funds, particularly property taxes, have raised additional flags. Historically, a portion of the property tax revenue was earmarked for specific purposes, such as wastewater treatment. However, these funds are now being reallocated into general reserves without adequate notice, which has circumvented safeguards meant to protect taxpayers from unjustified charged fees.

Montclair Mayor Javier “John” Dutrey pointedly remarked, “This behavior is precisely why IEUA is facing increasing legal scrutiny. You cannot run a public agency like this—making decisions behind closed doors, spewing misleading public statements, and demonstrating blatant disregard for accountability.”

Despite the voiced concerns of local agencies, IEUA has yet to release sufficient information regarding future capital investments, debt obligations, or the financial implications tied to the CBP. A collective letter from city officials was sent on March 28, demanding clarity on how taxpayer dollars will be utilized; to date, the IEUA has not responded.

With mounting pressure and lack of communication from regional authorities, local residents are encouraged to stay informed, voice their concerns, and maintain pressure for accountability. For further updates, individuals can visit Ontario's municipal website.