EDITOR: The recent editorial chastising the Santa Clara Valley
Water District for raising groundwater rates for private water
wells in South Valley from about $5.83 a month to $6.67 per month
is off the mark.
EDITOR:
The recent editorial chastising the Santa Clara Valley Water District for raising groundwater rates for private water wells in South Valley from about $5.83 a month to $6.67 per month is off the mark.
The editorial contends the district is “selling poisoned water to well customers in the San Martin area and to the City of Morgan Hill through perchlorate-contaminated wells …” The fact is, testing by the water district and state investigators has found perchlorate in 401 of the more than 2,600 “single-use” domestic wells in South Valley. Three municipal wells in Morgan Hill are temporarily off-line because of contamination.
The widespread nature of contamination from a shuttered flare-manufacturing firm was discovered in January. As your readers know, within 28 hours after realizing a plume of perchlorate was sitting beneath San Martin, the water district quickly scrambled field crews, engineers and others in what is now a five-month-long campaign to find out where the perchlorate is, at what concentrations, and to represent South Valley’s needs in the state investigation.
In that time, we’ve visited more than 1,000 homes in South Valley to search for perchlorate in private wells and to provide some 1,100 families with bottled water. Nobody was charged for the well-testing; nobody has been charged for the bottled water, which is costing the district about $20,000 a week.
As your editorial points out, health experts are recommending that water containing perchlorate not be consumed by humans. The groundwater in South Valley, however, remains suitable for other uses.
Yes, farmers will see their price per acre-foot, or roughly 326,000 gallons, rise from $14 to $16 and the price of water for municipal systems owned by the cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill increases from $140 per acre-foot to $160 an acre-foot. For the average municipal customer, that translates into a 65-cent to 83-cent increase in monthly water bills.
But your editorial failed to note that the rate for agricultural users is subsidized by the district. Nor did it mention that farmers can qualify for discounts of up to $4.50 per acre-foot by participating in programs that show them how to increase crop yields using less water and less fertilizer. The editorial suggests “reversing” the fee hike or exempting water users who can’t drink the water or use it for cooking.
Morgan Hill continues to supply tap water to customers of the three affected wells with water from other municipal wells. No one there is being charged for water they can’t drink.
The district uses an honor system, letting those on private wells tell us through a questionnaire how much water they use. Based on those surveys, the majority of South Valley’s domestic customers pay for half an acre-foot of water per year. An acre-foot currently costs $140. The new rate will be $160 an acre-foot. That means their annual bill increases from $70 a year – or $5.84 a month – to $80 a year – or $6.67 a month. That’s a monthly increase of 83 cents.
Since only about 1 percent to 2 percent of water from the tap ends up being used for drinking or cooking, are you suggesting a rebate for single-use domestic well owners that would fall between 5 cents and 13 cents a month? The editorial expressed “doubts that the notoriously bureaucrat-heavy, money-laden water district needs to raise rates at all.”
Despite the increase in water rates, the revenue falls short of paying for services. In fact, revenue generated by water rates in South Valley has fallen short of costs for the past several years. In 2001-2002, for example, there was a $280,000 shortfall. In the current budget year, we expect to see a $1.8 million gap between costs and revenue.
With the new rates, there will still be a deficit next year of $2 million. But rather than make up the shortfall now, we’ve chosen to avoid “rate shock” by slowly raising rates over the next decade.
To suggest that the water district is unsympathetic toward affected well owners is insulting. Suggesting that we are raising rates to line our pockets is both inaccurate and offensive.
The Times has a duty to the community to keep an eye on public agencies, including the water district. By the same token, the newspaper has an obligation to its readers to get the facts straight.
Sig Sanchez, Joe Judge, Director Antonio “Tony” Estremera, Rosemary Kamei, Richard Santos, Larry Wilson, Gregory Zlotnick,
Santa Clara Valley Water District Board of Directors
