San Bernardino supervisors approve most county water and sewer rate increases after Proposition 218 hearings; Lidle Creek blocks hike

San Bernardino County supervisors on Tuesday adopted new water and sanitation rates for most of the county service areas considered at a series of Proposition 218 hearings, while one small district, Lidle Creek (CSA 70 zone S3), succeeded in blocking the proposed fee change through a written majority protest.

Noel Castillo, special districts staff, told the board the proposed adjustments were driven by sustained inflationary pressures, higher prevailing wages and rising materials and treatment costs. "The proposed adjustments are driven by sustained inflationary pressures, including increases in county workforce and contract labor," Castillo said during the presentation.

The hearings covered 10 board‑governed county service areas, including CSA 42 (Oro Grande), CSA 64 (Spring Valley Lake), CSA 7J (Oak Hills) and others. Staff said rate studies by an outside consultant were used to align charges with cost‑of‑service obligations and to preserve reserves. For many districts the board approved ordinances setting new rates because staff said no district reached a majority protest threshold.

But residents from several communities challenged the outreach and timing, and questioned cost drivers. Kathy Arch, an Oak Hills resident who organized volunteers to notify neighbors, said volunteers collected 557 written protest letters delivered to the clerk of the board. "We ultimately collected 557 protest letters," Arch said, urging the board to postpone action so more residents could participate.

Staff said they mailed Proposition 218 notices in April and held local workshops and webinars in March–April. Several Oak Hills speakers said many customers did not receive or notice mailed materials and asked for a longer timeline to absorb increases that in one zone could nearly double certain usage charges over five years.

In Lidle Creek (CSA 70 S3), residents organized a successful protest. County staff confirmed a majority written protest had been received (220 of 392 parcels, about 56.1%), so the board struck the Lidle Creek increases from the proposed ordinance and left the current rate in place ($66.30 per EDU per month as stated in the clerk's revised ordinance language).

Board members and staff discussed consolidation and long‑term options for small, isolated systems that face high per‑customer capital costs. Several supervisors suggested exploring annexation to larger neighboring systems or other long‑term consolidation options to spread costs and reduce volatility for small districts.

The clerk will finalize ordinance language reflecting Lidle Creek's retained rate and move forward with adoption of the adjusted rates for the other districts as approved by the board. Several residents asked staff to continue outreach and to provide clearer breakdowns showing how much of the increase is for chromium‑6 compliance, operations and capital needs.

The board approved the rate ordinances for the districts that did not reach a majority protest; the Lidle Creek increase was not imposed following the majority protest determination. The board also directed staff to continue community engagement and to examine consolidation opportunities for small districts.