At the last meeting for South County’s sitting directors,
17-year veteran Rosemary Kamei and recently appointed Cy Mann, the
Santa Clara Valley Water District moved to defer several decisions
to the new board of directors.
At the last meeting for South County’s sitting directors, 17-year veteran Rosemary Kamei and recently appointed Cy Mann, the Santa Clara Valley Water District moved to defer several decisions to the new board of directors.
The new members – Don Gage, Brian Schmidt and Linda LeZotte – will review segments of the water district’s updated governance policies that would effectively make it impossible for any of the new directors to become chair of the board, adopt an extensive code of conduct and determine if the clerk of the board should no longer be appointed by the board of directors.
In October, Mann, who served 10 months, and Director Patrick Kwok advocated that no new member should serve as chair until he or she had served a full four-year term. Though at the board of director’s meeting Tuesday, both backtracked, asking that the item be left to the new board to discuss.
“If it’s not broke, I don’t know why we need to fix it,” Mann said at the meeting.
Also leaving the board is Director Larry Wilson, who along with Director Joe Judge, was adamant about letting the new elects have a say on how the chair is selected. Kamei, too, voted in favor of moving the issue to the next board meeting in December.
Presently the chair position is rotated among members to serve a one-year term after first being on the board for at least two years, according to the board’s governance policy.
“I’m dumbfounded,” Judge said. “This is not good government. We’re stymieing change. I don’t agree with any of it. If it were up to me, I’d dump the whole thing right now.”
The chair conundrum was just one of several non-water related issues the board spent time discussing Tuesday.
A proposed “Board members’ code of conduct and enforcement” was also put off until the next meeting, though it did cause a stir on the dais over why the code was needed “right now,” Judge questioned. Director Tony Estremera who along with the board’s chair Director Richard Santos worked on the code based on the county’s and other city’s codes, was taken aback by the comments.
“You’re attacking the characterization of this when we did this a long time ago,” Estremera said. “This isn’t a last minute effort to get this through. It’s just coincidence (that) it’s November,” he said.
Nonetheless, whether the code of conduct is adopted will be discussed at the directors’ next meeting in December. The board of directors currently has a vague code of conduct, and the proposed code outlines consequences for behavior such as censure, sanctions and admonition; rules when talking with the press or public; and ensuring that “members will be properly prepared for board deliberation.”
Tucked within the new governance policy is a glossary of terms, including a change that the Santa Clara County Farm Bureau firmly objects and claims it would effectively increase water bills for commercial farmers and ranchers.
It was definitive water-related issue – changing the explanation of “agricultural water” – that had the Santa Clara County Farm Bureau and a local winery scratching their proverbial heads.
The only adjustment to the governance policy glossary was adding the definition of “agricultural water” as “water primarily used in the growing of commercial crops or commercial livestock. All other uses of water are considered non-agricultural use.” The redefining of a long-established term, since the District Act was passed in 1951 that created the water district, was distressing to Dhruv Khanna, who addressed the board Tuesday.
“I’m alarmed by this proposal and the legality of the process,” said Khanna, who stated he was speaking on behalf of Kirigin Cellars on Watsonville Road in Gilroy.
“(Giving) farmers time to review the issue would be appropriate. There’s no use for defining it in your governance process. I’m not really familiar with your governing structure, but this doesn’t smell good,” Khanna said.
The point of contention with the new definition is the word “growing.” Khanna and the Santa Clara County Farm Bureau’s president Tim Chiala say that the pigeon-holing the new definition would create could give the district power to charge farmers and ranchers the municipal and industrial water rates for all processes beyond “growing.” Currently, they pay the agriculture rate of $16.50 per acre foot, while the municipal and industrial rate in South County is $275 per acre foot. One acre foot is enough water to provide for a family of five for a year.
“Growing commercial crops and commercial livestock is only half the challenge. The definition of agriculture water should be broad enough to encompass all the step necessary to turn raw agricultural crops into a commodity that can be consumed … (It) includes washing produce, rinsing equipment, food processing, sanitation for employees and equipment, irrigation water and a host of other uses. The water district’s definition of ‘agricultural water’ must include these uses as well,” Chiala wrote.
Jim Fiedler, the water district’s chief operating officer, said the proposed change came up in discussion of, “when does it shift from agriculture use of water to municipal and industrial use?” Fiedler said it does present concerns over the two disparaging rates.
The board decided to send the issue to the water district’s Agriculture Water Advisory Committee, which will provide a recommendation to the board of directors. The move pleased Khanna and likely Chiala who wrote: “This discussion falls into the purview of the committee and should be brought before them for their consideration and input to better inform the board’s deliberations.”
