Dear editor This is in regards to Mr. Wesley Rolley and his Nov.
1 opinion piece
“When It’s All About Me, Too Bad for You”. One element of the
article revolved around the Water District. Mr. Robert Cerruti and
Terry Mahurin wrote the July 30 opinion piece for the Times titled
“Keep rain-water here; don’t ship it north.”
Dear editor
This is in regards to Mr. Wesley Rolley and his Nov. 1 opinion piece “When It’s All About Me, Too Bad for You”. One element of the article revolved around the Water District.
Mr. Robert Cerruti and Terry Mahurin wrote the July 30 opinion piece for the Times titled “Keep rain-water here; don’t ship it north.”
We stated “It’s our belief that rain-water generated in South County for the Anderson and Coyote reservoirs, stay in South County. We also offered other important points in that same article which Mr. Rolley failed to mention.
He doesn’t mention that Morgan Hill’s percolation ponds (Madrone Channel and the Main Avenue ponds) used to be supplied by Anderson water. He doesn’t mention the Water District turned off this supply and shipped the water North. Nor does he mention the July article suggested that only 14,000 acre-feet be supplied to the Morgan Hill ponds from Anderson. He ignored that we said the excess water (which is a lot of water) should be shipped North.
Mr. Rolley wondered where Mr. Cerruti was going to get the money to repay for the cost of the dams? Not being certain as to the nature of the question, we can only say the four dams in South County have been paid off. Interestingly, at the time the bonds were voted on in the summer of 1949, the estimate for Anderson dam was $3 million. According to the book “Water in the Santa Clara Valley: a History,” the $3 million included land purchases and construction.
Mr. Rolley doesn’t reconcile his point of the legal precedent of “right of prior appropriation” with Water District deeds. It hardly explains the Water District supplying Anderson water to Morgan Hill percolation ponds at one moment in time and then turning off that water at a different moment. Did water law and the prior appropriative rights change during this period?
Mr. Rolley chides Mr. Cerruti for his Aug. 23 article “Who’s Looking Out for the Water District Rate Payers” Specifically, Mr. Rolley states Mr. Cerruti has called for the replacement of the current Water Board by “someone who can understand a budget”.
That’s a little out of context. What Mr. Cerruti said was “Supervisor Don Gage stated that once people get fed up with water rates and understand what’s going on, the Water Board will be accountable. That is the problem, the Water Board has not been accountable and needs to be replaced by people who can understand a budget”.
Mr. Cerruti was talking about both accountability and budgets. It’s impossible not to question a budget with five consecutive yearly increases in the groundwater pump tax in South County. It’s the difference between $115 per acre-foot for fiscal year 2000/2001 versus $215 today. What accounts for this? Who is held to account?
So we agree with Mr. Rolley on accountability when he says in the lead of his recent article “Politicians deal in words, symbols, perceptions and do not like deeds for which they may be accountable”.
The tone of Mr. Rolley’s piece relating to the Water District was shame on you with the comment “This is just one example of misguided concerns for effective government leading to small minded, protect me – too bad about you’. If you’re being mugged on a dark night you can either hand over your wallet, protest, or fight back.
Mind you, we’re not casting the Water District are muggers. But as ratepayers, while we hand over our wallet to the Water District to pay for unreasonable increases, it won’t be without some dialogue and some “fighting back.” The alternative of silently accepting one rate increase after another is not an option.
Bob Cerruti and Terry Mahurin
Morgan Hill
