I don
’t know how “brief” this will be, but I am going to correct some
of the errors in Jack Sturla’s recent Letter to the Editor.
EDITOR:
I don’t know how “brief” this will be, but I am going to correct some of the errors in Jack Sturla’s recent Letter to the Editor.
He starts in by describing the functions of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, sure sounds good on paper.
They do a pretty good job on the mechanical aspects of their responsibilities, with some notable exceptions. But they certainly fall down on the job in one of their main responsibilities, “Flood Prevention”. They call it “Flood Control,” but in reality there is not such animal as no one has ever stopped or contained a flood while it is flooding. As the saying goes, “A stitch in time saves nine,” meaning preventive maintenance before hand, before its too late, is the only thing that works.
This means maintaining the flood channels so as to assure the volumetric flow integrity to pass what could be flood flows safely to their destination.
This means physically removing all impediments that would slow or stop the orderly flow of water up to the total capacity of the channel.
Even though our SCVWD has the authority and the responsibility and the financial capability for this purpose, it’s not being done and hasn’t been done for a long time. Yet they stick us with “flood control,” and “benefit assessments” and bond issues for this purpose and where does the money go?
Not to accomplish what it was intended for, that’s for sure. Yes they’ll do a large project when they can’t escape the need, otherwise they do a few “cosmetic” minor cleanups. I believe more for public relations than anything. Sorry, that’s the way I’ve seen it for too many years.
Jack says that what the SCVWD is doing is proper and necessary. They are not doing what is necessary, and what is “proper” is what they can get by with. That means doing very little except lip service. We need a separate flood prevention district.
Jack also says that “trees in a channel do not make a difference.” He, of anyone, with his background should know better than to make a statement like that. A tree in a channel may not make a difference, but a grove of four-inch and five-inch eucalyptus trees clear across a channel is a different kind of problem. Second only to nature’s first choice of clamming up a stream with a landslide, trees with their ability to “leine” all flotsam (floating) and jetsam (in or under the water) in and against the trees. This forms a somewhat leaky dam, but a dam just the same. All it takes in unmaintained channels and a higher than normal water flow and nature would have an almost perfect opportunity to cover some new ground.
This is what happened in the Gilroy flood and it never should have happened as the SCVWD was warned of that growing problem over several years. Maybe that’s why they didn’t do anything? I hope that lesson is remembered by them, even though you seem sort of blasé about it. Still think they do what is necessary? I don’t believe that even at its maximum growth, that grove of trees couldn’t have cost more than (for them) $500 to clear. That was a costly penny they saved.
Now back to perchlorate – looks like it’s getting to be a problem in more than 20 states and at many times the scope of our little catastrophe, ours is a peanut and needs to be addressed and not with lip service. I’ve asked where and how many people who have been drinking this for over 50 years or did they just build up a tolerance to it? We have most of the questions. Who is going to get us the answers? And when?
At least one thing has come out of this, the fact that in 50 years and more (plus the length of time the company was in operation) this water borne material has failed to reach Gilroy and that bothers me (not that I want it to be here), but it certainly signifies that the under-ground water flow in the upper stream stratus is next to nothing.
Even with the added push of the percolation pond just upstream from the point source of the perchlorate problem, that water mound which is so nicely described in your letter as San Felipe water for the Gilroy, San Martin areas. It sure doesn’t seem to be coming our way. Over 60 years is one heck of a long time for water to move less than 20 miles.
I fail to see how we down here can get any benefit from San Felipe water if it can’t get here. So far the only benefit seems to be “No Perchlorates” but we are still being charged for “our share” of the imported water. Doesn’t seem right to me.
It’s been 16 years since our local water district’s merger with the SCVWD. As you can probably remember this was all triggered by the threat that if we didn’t merge a whole laundry list of add on taxes would be levied against us. I very much doubt that these charges would have held up in a court of law, but being a simple pay as you go, with no reserves, our then board of directors caved in.
Anyway we came out on the wrong end of the election by another mistake and it’s much to late to do anything about it. Incidentally they levied their laundry list of extra taxes on us anyway, cute things like sticking us with 19 percent of the cost of the operation and maintenance of the rest of the county dams and reservoirs. And they didn’t do any channel maintenance in our area or any of the other things they claimed.
Back then directors personally did most of the repair work. No charge. Contrary to your the letter we would have saved our taxpayers quite a few millions of dollars instead of it being wasted on the “lip service” of the SCVWD and no charges for San Felipe (imported water which we may or may not have gotten). Also being an independent legal district we could have knocked out the phony add-ons that the SCVWD stuck us with.
Alfred R. Angelino, Gilroy
