Centuries ago, explorers sailed Poseidon’s Seven Seas looking for beautiful mermaids and lands full of golden treasures.
Although some of the hapless adventurers may have found what they were looking for, those who didn’t drink too much seawater were usually disappointed.
Today, it looks like Poseidon, the God of the Sea, is up to his old tricks again.
This time, taking corporate form (same as being human under American law), he’s promising to build a new source of water–an ocean desalination plant in Huntington Beach–that will create an additional and reliable supply of water for the Orange County Water District’s ratepayers.
At least that’s what most people think he is promising.
But is he?
Any proposed deal between the OCWD and Poseidon Resources Inc. to build an ocean desalination plant will depend upon a subsidy of $400 million, doled out to Poseidon for a 15-year-period, courtesy of water ratepayers throughout Southern California.
The OCWD manages the Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin, which supplies over 70 percent of the drinking water for Central and North Orange County.
A public forum held by Garden Grove mayor Bao Nguyen last night at the city’s community center examined the cost of and alternatives to a proposed $1 billion ocean desalination plant promoted by the Orange County Water District.
Those issues–and the panel of local experts who discussed them last night–have been all but ignored by most of the OCWD Board of Directors, some of whom have strong financial and political ties to Poseidon Resources Inc., the company that would build the plant, and its big-business allies.
The OCWD maintains the county’s groundwater basin, which holds 66 million acre-feet of water and provides about 70 percent of the water used in central and northern Orange County, serving 2.3 million people.
For the past 18 months a clique of four board members, Cathy Green, Shawn Dewane, Stephen Sheldon, and Denis Bilodeau, joined last January by Garden Grove Councilmember Dina Nguyen, have steered the District straight toward a long-term contract with Poseidon.
OCWD staff presented a proposed term sheet (pre-contract) to the board on May 14.
The board approved the term-sheet 7 -3. Nugyen voted for it.
Nguyen, who was the beneficiary of $11,000 in “independent expenditures” by a Poseidon related PAC in her recent election to the OCWD board, was invited to participate in the forum but was a no-show.
Staff is now negotiating a contract with Poseidon that would lock the district into buying 56,000 acre-feet of desalinated ocean water per year, regardless of need, for the next half-century.
Poseidon’s water would cost about $2,000 an acre-foot out the door, more than 3 times what OCWD currently pays for the untreated water it imports from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET) to help maintain the county’s groundwater basin supply.
Poseidon and its allies on the OCWD board claim that its more expensive water would be a “reliability premium” akin to car insurance that would add to the county’s water supply portfolio and guarantee water during a drought.
But, in order to be financially viable, Poseidon is demanding hundreds of millions of dollars in ratepayer-backed subsidies for the first 15 years of the contract. In return, MET rules require that Poseidon’s 56,000 acre-feet of desalinated water replace an equal amount of (cheaper) imported water, which would then be made available to water agencies outside of OCWD’s service area.
There would be no net gain in water supply for the district, which would be paying three times as much for Poseidon’s replacement water while subsidizing the cheaper imported water for other agencies. And the county wouldn’t receive more water during a drought.
This reporter has repeatedly asked Poseidon officials and OCWD directors to explain the benefit to ratepayers of paying three times as much for water than necessary and subsidizing cheaper water for ratepayers outside of Orange County, but to so far mum’s the word.
For the first 15 years, the proposed pricing scheme would pay Poseidon a surcharge of up to 20 percent on imported MET water (at the higher MWD treated rate) on top of a 3 percent annual compounded surcharge that recurs for the life of the contract, underlying subsequently declining variable surcharge rates.
A Surf City Voice review of the proposed pricing scheme shows that after 15 years ratepayers would pay up to $2,700 per acre-foot for Poseidon’s water (assuming the required $56,000 af) versus about $1,048 per acre-foot for untreated MET water, which comes out to about $1.8 billion versus about $700 million in total for that period.
That’s about $1.1 billion dollars that could be used for the cheaper and more efficient water supply alternatives ignored by OCWD and Poseidon but examined by the forum panel of experts.
Panel members are former Huntington Beach mayor Debbie Cook, Irvine Ranch Water District’s Peer Swan, Coastkeeper’s Ray Hiemstra, and Garden Grove water officials. Members of the public, including Westminster City Councilmember Diana Carey, also spoke.
On March 11, the San Diego Union-Tribune posted an op-ed, “Desalination makes sense for Orange County”, written by Assemblywoman Pat Bates (Laguna Niguel). It is unclear why she was addressing the California Coastal Commission since the project was not on its March agenda.
The paper chose not to allow comments on her article. So here is my response to her piece which reads as if lifted from a Poseidon Resources press release.
She goaded me from her first sentence: “Anyone who has stepped outside in the past year has undoubtedly seen the effects of our state’s historic drought conditions.”
Perhaps Ms. Bates should take a look around her own district before she goes off with her dire news of “empty reservoirs, dry wells, and brown, arid landscapes across California.”
Orange County is the poster child of disregard for the drought: lush green expanses of grass in front of strip malls, road medians, HOAs, government facilities, and private properties. Any claim she makes that Orange County has “tried” to do its part is laughable.
It is interesting that Ms. Bates would chime in on a project outside her district that runs roughly from Dana Point to Cardiff by the Sea in San Diego County. Her district imports nearly 100 percent of its water. North Orange County imports only 30 percent and it could be zero if we managed the groundwater basin equitably.
“Trying” isn’t good enough, especially when it places the burden of costly boutique desalinated water on those who are actually “doing” something.
Residents of Santa Ana and Westminster are close to an ideal goal of consumption of 100 gallons per person per day. At the other extreme are communities like Villa Park and Northern San Diego County, where 500 gallons per person per day is the norm.
Why is 100 gallons per person per day ideal? Because at that level, North Orange County could get nearly 100 percent of its water from the groundwater basin.
The manner of water allocation used by the Orange County Water District and its member agencies places a disproportionately higher cost burden on those who consume the least amount of water. In effect, those who aren’t just “trying” but are implementing conservation will be subsidizing the explosive costs of ocean desalinated water.
And if North Orange County goes all in for an ocean desalination project, will Ms. Bates be sponsoring a bill to enable the OCWD rate payer to subsidize water sales to South Orange County water agencies?
Ms. Bates then goes on to cheer lead for desalination: “Southern California communities have rallied behind desalinated ocean water as a reliable, safe and environmentally friendly solution to long-term water shortages.”
It is interesting to note that a small consortium of communities in her own district have spent millions of dollars building and evaluating a pilot project in Dana Point only to discover they couldn’t “rally” enough support for such an expensive endeavor.
Ms. Bates reports on the “nearly completed” project in Carlsbad. But we are still waiting to see how the San Diego County Water Authority allocates the costs of this project, a painful task they have been discussing and postponing since 2012. The devil is in the details, details that were not sorted out prior to signing a “take or pay” contract.
Ms. Bates calls desalination “out of the box” thinking but in reality it is a knee jerk reaction by politicians who have ignored California’s failed water policies, archaic water laws, and fractured governance.
Addressing long term water needs requires long term thinking which will never be the domain of politicians in Sacramento.
It is much easier for elected officials to apply a “technical” fix knowing they will be out of office before the bill arrives.
What we need are courageous politicians who dare to engage with citizens in understanding and exploring solutions that actually address water needs and not water wants.
North Orange County does not need an ocean desalination project and hasn’t even figured out what they would do with the water. If Ms. Bates thinks one is needed in South Orange County, then she should address her own district’s needs first.
Some of Orange County’s water managers and politicians insist that a proposed partnership between Poseidon Resources Inc. and the Orange County Water District to build a $1 billion ocean desalination plant in Huntington Beach is a good deal at even three or more times the $600 an-acre-foot price currently paid by OCWD for imported water.
That’s a great price to pay for a reliable source of water during shortages caused by drought, earthquakes, and population growth, they say, because it would protect our economy and general welfare.
Conservation, rainwater retention, and expanded wastewater recycling are suggested as cheaper alternatives to ocean desalination.
Those proposed changes are much more cost effective than desalination and would help to maintain a reliable marine life population along the California coast.
Now a new idea has come forth from one of the County’s most experienced water managers, Peer Swan, who serves on the Irvine Ranch Water District Board of Directors.
Speaking to over 200 Orange County residents at a town-hall meeting in Huntington Beach on March 4, Swan explained how a commonsense change in the way we manage our groundwater basin and water imports could provide all the reliability we need, avoiding nearly $1 billion in desalination costs every 10 years.
On average, north Orange County gets about 70 percent of its water by pumping it from the groundwater basin. The 30 percent difference is made up with water purchases that member agencies make from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD).
OCWD manages the basin to prevent excessive overdraft, but not necessarily to maximize its potential capacity.
There are three major sources of water used to recharge the basin: 1) rainfall/Santa Ana river flows; 2) the Ground Water Replenishment System (turning waste water into drinking water); and, 3) imported water from MWD.
Swan’s solution for water reliability is simple.
Historically, severe drought has caused MWD to reduce water allocations in one out of 15 years. To be conservative, Swan assumed water rationing in two out of ten years.
If OCWD and its member agencies withdrew less water from the basin during the eight years that have rain while maximizing their use of imported water, the basin would be full for dry periods, acting as our water reliability “insurance” policy during years of water rationing.
The groundwater basin, our water bank, eliminates any need to create additional “reliability” supplies at enormous cost.
Before shifting an exorbitant $1 billion insurance policy to the ratepayers, water managers should thoroughly analyze all of the commonsense alternatives.
But the OCWD’s board of directors has been loath to use commonsense over the past year, rushing toward a draft contract with Poseidon, while limiting transparency and public discussion of important issues left unanswered.
Ratepayers want reduced water bills. Conservationists want reduced environmental impacts. These two constituencies are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but Swan’s commonsense approach would answer both of their concerns.
It is simply not good enough for our elected representatives on water boards to respond with the hollow claim that, “Even if we did all the alternatives first, we still need the water Poseidon is offering.”
Without numbers and analysis attached to that unsupported claim, we shouldn’t give Poseidon our trust, or our money.
Poseidon is pushing OWCD hard to sign a “take or pay” contract—the ratepayers must buy its boutique water even in the 14 years that it isn’t needed (assuming it ever would be).
But as ratepayers in Australia recently learned, racing to build desalination facilities before exhausting better alternatives has turned out to be short sighted and costly for ratepayers who were forced to take water they didn’t need after all.
If OCWD signs Poseidon’s proposed “take or pay” contract before implementing preferable alternatives, Australia’s costly lesson on water mismanagement will have been lost at the expense of Orange County’s ratepayers.
Give me a chimpanzee with a dart board and I’ll give you an equally unreliable water demand forecast as we are getting from Orange County’s water leaders.
Who cares about a forecast you say? It’s just garbage in, garbage out?
We will all care when we discover that taking out the garbage just cost us a billion dollars for an ocean desalination project!
In business, you risk your own money when you make a bad forecast. In the public arena, the public pays the cost of bad forecasting in expensive and unnecessary projects.
In Orange County, hardly a meeting of a water agency goes by without a board member championing the need for ever-increasing water supplies. On two recent occasions I have heard Orange County Water District Board Member Cathy Green project that “we” needed another 80 to 90 thousand acre feet of water by 2035 due to projected population increases.
Many, if not most public agencies rely heavily on population growth as a driver of future water demand forecasts. It seems logical at first blush; more people, more demand. But the reality is more nuanced, and population and consumption are becoming poorly correlated due to many factors.
The Seattle Public Utilities is a case on point. Prior to investing heavily in massive infrastructure, they decided to re-visit their demand projection forecasts that were constantly revised downward, as shown in the chart below.
For example, they discovered that in 1985 the City of Seattle projected that demand by 2000 would be 200 million gallons per day (mg/d) and by 2005 would be 210 to 215 mg/d. The actual 1987 demand turned out to be 147mg/d and in 1992 it was 130 mg/d.
In the Seattle region, the reevaluation of demand forecasting ushered in the adoption of new forecasting models that serve the unique characteristics of each community. Population is still a consideration but it is now modified by mitigating factors. These changes have resulted in the determination that water demands could be met through 2050 without additional and costly infrastructure projects.
Indeed, nationwide, urban water consumption is responding to practices that are driving down per capita consumption, including the price of water, frequency of billing, changing demographics, housing types, the extent of adoption of efficient technologies, conservation, and the effect of education and public attitude.
Has Orange County avoided this national trend? Let’s see.
OCWD manages the Orange County groundwater basin and serves those cities that hold rights to pump from the basin. This year, the basin is providing 72 percent of North Orange County’s water needs.
From the OCWD website I was able to download Engineer’s Reports from the past eight years. From these and other public documents you can see that OCWD members are making the same forecasting errors that were being made in the Seattle region.
In 2005/06 OCWD forecast demand would jump from the then current demand of 500,000 acre-feet to 614,000 acre feet by 2025. By 2012/13 they had modified projections from the then current demand of 435,000 acre feet to 525,000 acre feet by 2035. In an eight year span the demand forecast had been reduced by 89,000 acre feet without any analysis or comment.
But what is the trend in the OCWD service area? In other public documents I found historic data going back to 1989. If you run a linear trend line forward you see that consumption is trending downward, not upward.
There is no debate that population has increased in Orange County. However, reading OCWD’s reports shows that perhaps we need to bring back the chimp for another round. Here are the reported then-current populations and projected populations listed in the reports:
2005/06 2.3 million, grows to 2.55 by 2025
2006/07 2.3 million, grows to 2.55 by 2025
2007/08 2.4 million, grows to 2.67 by 2025
2008/09 2.38 million grows to 2.7 by 2035
2009/10 2.38 million, grows to 2.7 by 2035
2010/11 2.28 million (census year), grows to 2.54 in 2035
2011/12 2.28 million, grows to 2.7 in 2035
2012/13 2.28 million, grows to 2.7 in 2035
The reality check was the 2010 census, but future and past population numbers appear to be plucked from thin air, lacking any kind of objectivity or scientific rigor. I think it is fair to say that these figures are random at best.
Orange County has not bucked the nationwide trend of declining per capita consumption. But like many water agencies, OCWD ignores the data or uses it to promote a self-serving agenda.
What we focus on determines what we get. Unions and consultants want to build massive infrastructure projects and favor forecasts that show growth in demand. Ecologists want multi-benefit solutions that reduce environmental harms. Rate payers want abundant water and stable rates but are caught in the middle, confused by bad forecasts and misinformation.
Accurate forecasting allows agencies to meet water needs in an efficient manner and at the minimum cost. But if our forecasting is consistently bad, if we never submit our data to a reality check, then we can easily forecast a future of costly water decisions.
The table takes up almost half of the room, which is less than the size of the garage space provided at your local self-service car wash.
Bilodeau sat with five fellow members of the OCWD Board of Directors (Sarmiento, Green, Anthony, Flory and Dewane), their legal counsel, a staff member, and the general manager who always sits at the head of the table under a wall TV.
The wall facing the general manager from the other end of the table and the wall to his right were lined with chairs occupied by other staff and a couple of public citizens.
Bilodeau sat on the side of the room to the general manager’s left. And there I was, standing a few feet behind him, with my iPhone perched on a monopod far above the back of his neck.
Directly behind me was a counter-top with the usual breakfast buffet of hard-boiled eggs, Danish, muffins, bagels, and fruit for the directors—bought with ratepayers’ money for about $95.00
Commentary By Debbie Cook
Special to the Surf City Voice
The Orange County Water District runs its public meetings as far from the public view as its obsequious interpretation of the law will allow, always justified by its accommodating legal counsel, Joel Kuperberg.
So the casual disregard for the Brown Act (the California law that protects the public’s right to open government meetings) displayed on behalf of a shadowy applicant during a recent OCWD board meeting does not surprise me.
But it makes me ask, who is really more at fault, the board members and their cronies, who play mischievously behind the public’s back, or the public citizens and their news media who don’t bother to look?
The incident occurred during the Dec. 12 meeting of the Property Management Committee (PMC), held once a month to consider property related issues.
Like OCWD’s other committees, the PMC is described as a joint meeting with the full board of directors; which, as I wrote previously, is a slight-of-hand tactic used to pass suspect policies without the full public disclosure required by law.
As the PMC meeting opened, only three board members were present, committee chairman Stephen Sheldon, committee member Denis Bilodeau, and alternate Cathy Green.
Chairman Sheldon called the meeting to order and then asked, “Are there any items too late to be agendized?”
If we can ignore, this time, whether the PMC meeting was properly announced to begin with (a question I answer in my previous analysis), Director Sheldon was, so far, following the Brown Act, which, among other things, requires public agencies to post the agendas for regular meetings 72 hours in advance.
But, in order to add items to an agenda that has already been legally posted, the following conditions have to be met, according to the Act:
[T]he legislative body may take action on items of business not appearing on the posted agenda under any of the conditions stated below. Prior to discussing any item pursuant to this subdivision, the legislative body shall publicly identify the item.
(1) Upon a determination by a majority vote of the legislative body that an emergency situation exists, as defined in Section 54956.5.
(2) Upon a determination by a two-thirds vote of the members of the legislative body present at the meeting, or, if less than two-thirds of the members are present, a unanimous vote of those members present, that there is a need to take immediate action and that the need for action came to the attention of the local agency subsequent to the agenda being posted as specified in subdivision (a).
Next, Director Bilodeau announced that he did have a late item to place on the agenda.
Begging the committee’s indulgence, Bilodeau wanted to make a motion to put an item on the agenda concerning “assessor parcel number 093-010-74 and 75,” a piece of land for which he had no address.
The land is located in the City of Orange, which is part of the OCWD district that he represents.
Kuperberg inquired as to the legitimacy of the motion. “Explain what it is and why it came up after–”
Bilodeau: “Ok. I was recently—this committee only meets once a month, obviously, and I was recently approached by a property owner in Orange along Santiago Creek that desires to see if we can have an interest in buying his property that is along the creek. It is eight acres. He mailed me information…The purpose is just to impart this information to the staff to let them figure if it is of any use to use and what if anything we should do with it.”
Kuperberg: And the contact came up after the posting of the agenda?
Kuperberg: Okay. Then it meets the criteria
A motion was then made by Bilodeau and seconded by Green. But before the vote, Sheldon asked Kuperberg if they were following state law.
“Based upon what was described,” Kuperberg explained, “it came up after the agenda. And because it could go somewhere else, to another buyer, there is a need to take action before the end of January.”
Sheldon joked that he might be the one to buy the land.
Despite Kuperberg’s test, the item did not meet all of the legal criteria in the Act.
First, the late item must have been brought to the attention of the agency after the posting of the agenda, not to a member of the board as occurred in this case.
Second, the full board of directors would meet the following Wednesday, that’s only five days later, so there was no urgency to the matter as defined by the Act.
Third, the item was not posted an hour before the meeting as required by the Act.
But the three present members, Sheldon, Green, and Bilodeau voted unanimously to place the item on the agenda and then the discussion began.
Bilodeau explained that the parcel contains 8 acres along the Santiago Creek next to an area that the OCWD uses for recharging groundwater.
“The land is zoned for recreational open space, so I think it is of somewhat low value,” he explained, “because it’s not commercially zoned as some of the other properties we have recently purchased.”
Due to its proximity to OCWD recharge operations, he said, “I just wanted to bring it to the staff’s attention and allow them to analyze it,” to see if there’s any need to proceed.
Bilodeau added he had no idea what 8 acres of open space is worth, but noted that the “City of Orange has been somewhat adverse in giving out re-zones on recreational open space.”
Then Sheldon, after asking for the name of the property owner, disclosed that he might have to recuse himself and that, in fact, the entire board may not be able to consider the matter.
“I may have a conflict of interest,” he explained. “A member of this entity—I believe, could be I’m in a business arrangement with on a different property…I think this would even prevent the District from entering into a contract because of my arrangement.”
Sheldon was referring to California’s Political Reform Act, which prohibits individual government officials from influencing policies that they have a potential financial interest in, and to Govt. Code 1090, which prohibits the legislative body from entering into a contract where such a conflict of interest exists.
Kuperberg agreed that the possible conflict will have to be looked into and the matter will have to be dropped if there is a 1090 issue.
Topping it all off, staff member Bruce Dosier finally mentioned that staff had already been in touch with the property owner or his agent, and that the District would receive a proposal.
“So maybe that’s part of it,” he said, referring to the proposed land sale that Bilodeau was pushing, despite his disclaimers about the land’s value.
Had Sheldon not spoken up, the board would have violated three state laws instead of just one.
But it shows how vulnerable the public is to being ripped off by the OCWD’s behind the scenes approach to governance.
All of which demonstrates the need for live video streaming of all OCWD public meetings, something the board is slowly considering due to pubic pressure.
Turning on the video cameras at OCWD meetings would be a first for Orange County water boards and a good step forward for citizen participation.
Ultimately, however, video cameras or not, it’s up to the citizens to look in upon their government with due diligence, using whatever tools are available, even if it means trying harder to attend thinly disguised board meetings held at inconvenient hours of the day.
When we don’t participate, we elect blindly. And then we get the government that we deserve.
There are several substantial items on the Orange County Water District agenda tonight which deserve full attention but, in the usual fashion of the the board, will be on the consent calendar which is designed as a rubber-stamp mechanism to avoid full public discussion.
The first is item #6 on the consent calendar, a recommendation from OCWD staff on what the format for further discussion of the proposed Poseidon Resources ocean desalination plant will be for a board meeting on Jan. 12, 2015.
This is despite that fact that at a recent joint meeting of OCWD’s producers and the OCWD board many important questions about project costs, better alternatives to be pursued first, and the legality of charging water agencies for much higher cost desalinated water that don’t want, were raised, along with a strong request for more time to study a financial analysis by a Poseidon preferred consultant that was supposed to answer those issues but did not—a request that was denied. Also, Poseidon project critics with long standing expertise or local standing are to be denied, as usual, an equal place in the discussion.
Item #15 is a recommendation by staff to approve a revised board policy manual that arbitrarily deletes the Executive Committee from the list of standing committees subject to the Brown Act, but, per a recent discussion at the committee level, allows it to exist and to operate as it always has, in likely violation of the Brown Act (California’s open meetings law), by assuming that the board’s president, Shawn Dewane, who presides over the that committee, and its other 3 to 4 members, understand the Brown Act well enough to distinguish between casual conversations amongst OCWD’s directors and its staff and holding illegal meetings, an assumption that past reporting by the Surf City Voice proves unwarranted.
But the most interesting of all, for tonight anyway, is item #18, a recommendation by the Property Management Committee to “Direct staff to enter into negotiations with Elaine Raahauge and to return to Board with information for Closed Session discussion.”
The quick take is that the Raahauge family, currently doing business as Mike Raahauge’s Shooting Enterprises, has leased almost 800 acres down to currently 135 acres of OCWD owned land in the Prado Dam Basin in Riverside County since 1971 to operate a shooting range that includes trap and skeet shooting, pheasant hunting, dog kennels, dog training, a clubhouse, and restaurant facilities, according to OCWD records. The Raahauges’ lease with OCWD is up in a year and they want to renew it, but for 20 years instead of the usual five.
The Raahauges are also facing a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) renewal for the land with the County of Riverside, which will require expensive building upgrades to meet current safety codes.
There is also a request, informal at this point, from the county that the family provide a letter from the OCWD stating that it has permission to use the District’s access road to the leased land, which sits on land owned by the Army Corps of Engineers.
The Corps granted an easement to the District but it doesn’t mention the shooting gallery, a “minor technicality”, according to Raahauge consultant Larry Buxton, who worked for OCWD and the Raahauge business when the original deal was struck 43 years ago.
Punting especially hard for the shooting gallery at a recent OCWD Property Management Committee meeting were committee chairman Stephen Sheldon and fellow committee member Denis Bilodeau, who, along with staff, put much effort and thought into directing staff to go full speed ahead negotiating the deal to the Raahauges’ specifications, with minor modifications, despite the minor technicality.
But, with the cooperation of committee members Harry Sidhu and alternate Cathy Green, Sheldon and Bilodeau also ran right over a strong request, relayed by staff, from absent member Jan Flory to open the lease up for Requests for Proposals (RFPs).
Flory also requested a complete history, to be made public, of the business relationship between OCWD and the Raahauge family, going all the way back when.
Oddly, Sheldon quickly asked to clarify if that history was to include the original owner, Linc Raahauge’s, grandson, Patrick.
The answer from staff seemed to be no.
That issue having been clarified, Bilodeau waxed on about how wonderful the Raahauge business has been for the OCWD and how and RFP would be a “disaster” and the District should continue the business relationship.
“This is a very unique operation,” Bilodeau said. “You’re dealing with firearms and obviously we want highly qualified people there that would operate this kind of an operation. The Raahauge family has, I consider, a stellar track record in terms of the safety of their patrons and indemnifying the District. Quite frankly, I wouldn’t feel comfortable with anybody else being there.”
What Bilodeau didn’t mention, and what Sheldon had earlier side stepped by the committee, was that Patrick Raahauge, Linc’s grandson and a twice convicted felon, had been arrested at the shooting range in August 2013 “on suspicion of possessing firearms and ammunition at the family range,” according to a report in the Orange County Register. He had been working at the range, in violation of the terms of his probation, according to the Department of Justice.
Another important fact left out of the discussion is that the Raahauge family and some of its employees have given thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to Bilodeau ($2,000), Sheldon ($3,500) and OCWD board president Shawn Dewane, who as president presides over all committees ($4,000).