Dear Editor, I’m responding to J. Brown’s April 9 letter
regarding the Santa Clara Valley Water District providing a safety
net for the perchlorate issue. I didn’t know whether to laugh or
cry.
Perchlorate fiasco was not the water district’s finest hour
Dear Editor,
I’m responding to J. Brown’s April 9 letter regarding the Santa Clara Valley Water District providing a safety net for the perchlorate issue. I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. The letter described the South County perchlorate crisis of February 2003 and how our water district first responders rode to the rescue, sirens sounding, in the name of health and safety. The punch line of the letter is to remember this episode when protesting the pump tax.
The district is supposed to protect the groundwater from its many threats. It failed to do that. The district’s mission is to insure a healthy and safe quality of living through its many programs. It failed to do that. Ask those who were drinking, bathing and cooking with this rocket propellant for many years if the district met its mission. More than 800 wells were originally contaminated stretching over a 9-mile plume originating at the old Olin site. Worse, the district knew there was a contamination problem several years prior to the “2003 crisis.”
A potential buyer of the Olin site, doing a due diligence investigation, found it contaminated in August 2000. The same month, Olin notified the Santa Clara County Environmental Health Department and the California Office of Emergency Services. In October 2000, monitoring wells were installed on the Olin site and perchlorate was found. In February 2001, Olin and the lead agency, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board were in contact. Several years later the contamination issue known in 2000, traveled at glacial speeds and landed with a thump as a “crisis” in February 2003.
Brown’s letter goes on about the district providing notification, free well testing and free bottled water until others took over. Let’s discuss the free stuff. The district funded perchlorate related costs from district reserves and federal grants as opposed to groundwater charges. The plan called for reimbursement to the district from the responsible party (Olin). The litigation filed by the district didn’t quite work out. Rather, a court supervised settlement agreement didn’t satisfy the district. The district felt short changed.
Fast forward to page 20 of the 2010 Financial Outlook of Water Utility System. A balance of $4.6 million dollars will be paid over two years by those of us in South County for monies over and above the settlement agreement with Olin. Morgan Hill was just collateral damage. Starting in 2004, a perchlorate surcharge was added to the water bill. For three of those years it was 15 percent. A surcharge continues today. Forget free.
J. Brown instructed the readers to “Think about it!” I did. I just got annoyed all over again after I had mostly put it out of my mind. This entire episode was not the district’s finest hour.
B. Terry Mahurin, Morgan Hill
Despite the rain, there’s still the need to conserve water
Dear Editor,
The Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Landscape Advisory Committee urges the community not to become complacent about the need to conserve water even though we’ve had above average rainfall this year. Our committee strongly supports the water district’s Save 20 Gallons.org campaign that has helped the community reduce water use by 18 percent.
For a list of appropriate rebates to assist you with your water conservation efforts and to find out more about water-wise house calls (for residences) or for the landscape survey program (for businesses), please visit www.valleywater.org.
Miguel Aspeitia, Chair of the Landscape Advisory Committee
