Cerritos officials outline aging water, sewer needs after C‑4 well failure as residents urge alternatives to steep rate hikes

City officials told the Cerritos City Council on Jan. 12 that the city's water and sewer systems—built largely in the 1970s—require significant near‑term investment after staff discovered sand and gravel intrusion that forced the C‑4 groundwater well offline.

“Staff this evening would like to provide an update regarding the well repair as well as our city infrastructure on our water and sewer system,” City Manager Robert Lopez said before Director of Public Works Alvin Papa reviewed the system map, the age of assets and a staff‑identified list of critical projects.

Papa said the council approved an emergency repair in December totaling approximately $643,000 to address the C‑4 well wall problem. While the well is offline, the city has purchased imported water; Papa reported the city bought 176.6 acre‑feet of imported water to date, resulting in roughly $196,000 in additional cost.

“We are purchasing water on an as‑needed basis,” Papa said, adding that repair work was tentatively scheduled to begin in late January and that the fix would take roughly four months but could take longer depending on what contractors find.

Staff told the council that critical water infrastructure needs total about $23,000,000 (about $25.3 million adjusted for inflation) and critical sewer needs are about $3,900,000 (about $4.3 million adjusted). The list includes well rehabilitation and replacement, pump station and sewer‑main work, valve replacement programs, and a citywide CCTV inspection program for sewers.

The presentation set the stage for an extended public comment period focused on a Proposition 218 rate‑adjustment process the council is considering to address the shortfall. Dozens of residents urged the council either to delay the hearing, scale back the proposed increases, or ensure existing water‑fund collections are being spent on maintenance.

“You raised over those years about $6,200,000 … and not spent on water infrastructure,” resident Steven Stallings said, arguing prior collections should be spent on repairs before new rate increases are adopted. Several speakers urged more transparent, quantitative budgeting and additional community engagement.

Others who spoke— including a water utility worker and municipal finance experts—urged the council to move forward with lawful funding options. “Water systems are enterprise funds. The people who use the system should pay for the system,” said Deborah Berry, who advised the council that general‑fund dollars are typically not lawful for water system capital needs and that enterprise rates should reflect cost of service.

Council members stressed they had directed staff to limit proposed spending to “critical” projects given constrained budgets and emphasized a proposed low‑income discount program. The mayor noted the council approved the largest discount option staff presented: a flat $40 per bill credit for qualifying low‑income households modeled after discounts used by Southern California utility programs. “That means their bill, when the rates go up this year, is only gonna go up less than $10 a month,” the mayor said as an example for qualifying households.

Staff signaled it will continue tracking imported water costs and will return with updates and with details for the public hearing on rate adjustments required by Proposition 218. No vote was taken on rate changes at the Jan. 12 meeting; the presentation and the public comments were informational and the council will consider formal rate action at upcoming hearings.