You Must Remember This: A little history lesson on water

By NANCY GARDNER

When it comes to water, Newport has been – I was going to say quite progressive, but given the conservative nature of our community that might not be viewed as a compliment. A quick check of Roget, and I will say that in water issues, Newport has been forward looking.

The topic of water often brings up Los Angeles and images from the movie Chinatown, and certainly L.A. threw a lot of elbows in gaining control of that area’s main water supply. Once it had mastery it was the 500-pound gorilla. If surrounding communities wanted water the only way they could get it was by annexing themselves to L.A., a significant factor in the way the city grew.

Newport has been far more genteel in its pursuit of water security. For many years the city well met residents’ needs, but the well fell victim to saltwater intrusion and the alternative, imported water, was expensive, so in 1993, the council (Hedges, Sansone, Watt, Turner, Hart, Cox, DeBay) approved the Groundwater Development Program to find a new local source. Attention immediately turned to Fountain Valley which, as its name suggests, sits on a lot of water. Fountain Valley was leery at first. They didn’t want Newport doing to them what Los Angeles did to the Owens Valley, but eventually an agreement was reached. Four wells were drilled, Fountain Valley didn’t turn into a desert, and Newport could import less water, thus lowering water bills.

That wasn’t the only effort at water security, however. In 1999, the council (Adams, Glover, Ridgeway, Noyes, O’Neil, Debay, Thomson) proposed that Newport become part of the Groundwater Replenishment System. As a reminder, this is a program between the Orange County Sanitation District and Orange County Water District which takes wastewater and treats it to drinking standards. It seems like a no-brainer now, but at the time it was hardly a slam dunk. The popular name was Toilet to Tap, and it was much easier to develop a snappy negative sound bite (“Do you want to drink someone’s pee?”) than to get people to read about reverse osmosis, microfiltration and the like, but the council persisted and eventually prevailed. Another layer of water security was procured for the city, and since people must urinate, etc., this was one that wouldn’t dry up.

When it came to water quality in the coastal waters, the city was pretty blasé for a long period, but so was every other coastal entity. Nobody understood just what an impact all this population growth would have on the ocean, and even when reports began to appear, the city wasn’t that concerned – until someone made the connection, “It’s the economy, stupid.” It was one thing if some surfers were coming down with things. It would be completely different if the outside world began to view the water in the harbor and the beaches as unsafe. That could affect PROPERTY VALUES! At that point, Newport shed any former indifference and became a leader in handling urban runoff and other water quality issues.

Water will continue to be an issue, but hopefully current leaders will take a lesson from past councils and continue to ensure that the city remains progressi–oops. I mean forward thinking when it comes to water, both in terms of supply and quality.

 ~~~~~~~~

Nancy Gardner, former Mayor of Newport Beach, long-time resident and daughter of Judge Robert Gardner, and past Citizen of the Year, is a regular contributor to Stu News Newport.

Letter to Newport Beach City Mayor and City Council

Subject: Encouraging Comprehensive Resident and Business Communication on Emergency Preparedness

Dear Mayor Stapleton and Members of the Newport Beach City Council,

Good Neighbor Newport (GNN) commends the City of Newport Beach for its proactive approach to emergency preparedness.  We encourage the Council to take additional steps and ensure all residents and businesses are informed of and prepared for potential fire threats and other natural disasters.

At the recent January 14th Council meeting, the presentations by the Fire Department and Public Works Department highlighted the extensive measures the City has taken to prepare for disasters. Newport Beach’s Fire Department has been particularly commendable in providing detailed guidance to homeowners on topics ranging from evacuation routes to strategies for enhancing the fire resilience of our homes. These efforts have undoubtedly enhanced the safety of our community. However, to achieve optimal success, it is crucial to extend this vital information to every resident and business within Newport Beach.

While digital platforms like social media and the City’s website are valuable communication tools, they do not reach everyone. Many residents, including renters, employees of local businesses, and those not actively engaged online, may remain unaware of the critical resources and guidelines available. To address this gap, GNN urges the Council to implement a direct mail campaign targeting all Newport Beach residences and businesses.

GNN suggests that this mailing be a standalone direct mail campaign (rather than bundled with utility bills) to ensure every household and business receives the information. The content need not be extensive, but should prominently direct recipients to the City’s website and resources, including:

• Emergency notifications in case of natural disasters

• Evacuation routes and maps

• Fire and earthquake preparedness guidelines

• Contact information for relevant City  departments

Furthermore, the City should consider coordinating with apartment complexes and multi-unit housing managers to ensure tenants receive this essential information. Engaging with local businesses will also help ensure employees working in Newport Beach are prepared in case of an emergency.

While direct mail incurs costs, this investment is a prudent and essential step toward protecting the well-being of our community. The advantages of an informed and prepared population far surpass the expenses, particularly in the face of disasters that could have devastating consequences.

Thank you for your ongoing dedication to the safety and resilience of Newport Beach. We trust the Council will consider this proposal and take action to expand outreach efforts for the benefit of all residents and businesses.

On behalf of Good Neighbor Newport (GNN),

Nancy Gardner

About Good Neighbor Newport: Good Neighbor Newport is a volunteer group of residents who are involved in and passionate about the City of Newport Beach. Members include former mayors; former and current members of city boards, commissions, and committees; leaders of local environmental and other non-profit groups; and three citizens of the year.  It is a diverse group in terms of age, expertise, and politics. This diversity is fundamental to its mission: to preserve and protect the quality of life of Newport Beach. You can submit comments to GNN at: https://www.goodneighbornewport.org. 

Food For Thought

TIMELINE OF CITY’S BATTLE TO KEEP 3 INITIATIVES OFF THE 11/26 BALLOT

December 23, 2025

Former mayor Marshall “Duffy” Duffield and the Newport Beach Stewardship Association (“NBSA”) submit a ballot measure to the City Clerk to increase transparency in city government.

At that point, the City Attorney had a simple ministerial duty: to prepare a 500-word summary of the ballot measure. Instead, the City Attorney requested several extensions.

March 2026

The City Attorney files suit against NBSA, claiming that the transparency measure violates the state rule that a ballot measure must relate to a “single subject.”

The problem was so serious, the City claimed, that it would be wrong even to prepare the one-page summary. NBSA responded that the transparency measure addressed a single subject—increasing residents' rights with respect to public records and public meetings—and that, in any case, the City Attorney should prepare the 500-word summary and litigate later about the single-subject issue. While this issue was before the Superior Court, NBSA filed two further ballot measures with the City Clerk, one to tighten the term limits for City Council members, so they could serve only eight years, and one to change the system of voting, so that Newport Beach would have district-by-district voting like most other cities in California.

April 29

The Superior Court orders the City Attorney to prepare the 500-word summary of the transparency measure within 24 hours. He did and also provided the summaries of the two other measures.

May 6

NBSA publishes notices of the three measures in the Orange County Reporter, one of the papers listed on the website of the Superior Court for such purposes. NBSA notified the City Clerk the next day and then began gathering signatures for the three measures.

June 24

The Superior Court decides the “single subject” issue against the City. The Superior Court moved quickly on this—and all the other issues presented—to allow the ballot measures to appear on the November 2026 ballot.

July 7

NBSA files more than 10,000 signatures with the City Clerk for each of the three measures.

July 8

The City Clerk informs NBSA that she will not forward the signatures to the Registrar to check against his files, claiming all the signatures were invalid because notice was not published in the Daily Pilot.

One glaring problem with the City Clerk’s argument was that NBSA had published notice of another ballot measure, about housing, in the Orange County Reporter in September 2025. The City Clerk had not raised any question about whether that was a proper paper for notices in 2025; indeed, the City Council in November 2025 approved the housing measure for inclusion on the November 2026 ballot.

July 26

To “solve” this problem, the City claims the City Clerk erred in the notice for the housing measure. The City then sues its own City Clerk and the County Registrar—seeking to force them to remove the housing measure from the November 2026 ballot based on the allegedly insufficient notice.

August 19

The Superior Court rejects the City’s notice arguments with respect to all four measures. The Court noted the City’s pattern of “obstructionism,” such as raising the notice question at the eleventh hour. The Superior Court ordered the City to set the election date and report back to the Court.

August 21

Instead, the City filed emergency appeals in the Court of Appeals seeking an immediate stay of the Superior Court’s August 19 order.

August 25

Just hours before another City Council meeting, the Court of Appeals summarily rejected the city’s appeals. At the council meeting that night, every single resident who spoke urged the City to place the three measures on the November 2026 ballot. Without explaining themselves, the council then voted five-to-two to place the measures on the November 2028 ballot.

August 27

The Superior Court rules that the City Council had abused its discretion by attempting to delay the ballot measures until 2028.

September 2

The Superior Court confirms this decision with a mandate directing the City to arrange an election on the three measures on November 3, 2026, regardless of whether that was part of the county consolidated election or a separate city election.

September 8

The City files two separate 70-page briefs with the Court of Appeals, one seeking an immediate stay and one arguing that the order should be reversed.

September 9

The  Court of Appeals issues two single-sentence orders denying the City’s appeals.

September 17

The City files an appeal in the California Supreme Court, seeking an immediate stay of the Superior Court’s September 2 order. The City’s principal argument is that the Superior Court improperly invaded the City Council's legislative discretion to choose a proper date for voters to consider the three ballot measures.

The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on this.

The issue here is about following procedures. The proponents completed the required paperwork and gathered the required signatures. Instead of accepting this and including the initiatives on the general ballot, the Council has fought every step of the way, resulting in the City having to run its own election, which, since it has no experience with this, will probably be confusing and certainly expensive. This is not the best way to spend public funds.