Busy people, are busy people, San Martin resident Sylvia
Hamilton said Friday, that’s why e-mailing en masse a clarification
to the
”
confusing
”
letter sent by the Santa Clara Valley Water District worked
best.
Busy people, are busy people, San Martin resident Sylvia Hamilton said Friday, that’s why e-mailing en masse a clarification to the “confusing” letter sent by the Santa Clara Valley Water District worked best.
Six-hundred South County neighbors are on the e-mail list, rocketing a grass-roots effort to make sure every well owner understands their right to protest the groundwater pump tax. If 50.1 percent or 1,823 South County well owners protest, the tax will be nullified and the water district would lose roughly $63 million.
“I want to make sure people know what’s going on and make a decision from there with the facts,” said Hamilton, who has lived at her San Martin home for 34 years. “Protest or not protest, people should have the facts.”
At a recent San Martin Neighborhood Alliance meeting, members asked if the SMNA’s board, of which Hamilton is the president, could write a letter that better explains the water district’s Feb. 26 letter. They claim the letter buries the information on the last of four pages, that it disguised the protest information with propaganda on the district’s no-rate increase and two residents say the district’s letter was purposely deceptive.
Hamilton wrote a simple outline with bullet points describing how a well owner can protest the pump tax – a rate that has not increased since 2007 – if they so choose. The e-mail, which also reached people who may not own wells, included an example protest letter and envelope detailing what information is needed, per the water district’s specific requirements.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District issued this statement about the Feb. 26 letter:
“The purpose of the annual well owner letter is to provide well owners with the recommendation for the next year’s groundwater production charges and to inform well owners of the services funded through groundwater production charges such as infrastructure, imported water and protection of the groundwater basin. Since the district is implementing a protest procedure this year, specific information on how to protest is included in the letter following the information on the recommended charges and services provided.”
The district also included the many ways it says it has been transparent, such as meeting with newspaper editorial boards, holding public meetings throughout the county, posting documents to its Web site and phone numbers that residents can contact with questions. Water district spokesperson Susan Siravo wrote by e-mail that the district has received calls from about 30 well owners.
This district’s letter is the first chance for 3,644 South County well owners to protest paying the pump tax; a letter disagreeing must be received by the water district by April 27. The current charge in South County is $16.50 per acre foot of agricultural use and $275 per acre foot of municipal and industrial use. One acre foot can supply water for a family of five for one year. In North County, agricultural charges are the same but home and business use increases to $520 per acre foot. If the water district receives protest letters that are filed to their specifications – by mail and not e-mail, with an original signature to name two requirements – there will be no monthly charge.
The water district has reported that the district clerk will open and count the protest letters on April 27, and if the protest is successful, it will lead to severe reductions or eliminations of water utility services, such as purchasing imported water and well inspections.
“Besides locally captured water, the district also uses much of the water imported from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to recharge the underground aquifer,” according to the water district’s Web site, www.valleywater.org. “Without imported water, local groundwater basins could be depleted, resulting in higher costs to secure other water supplies and to pump water from deeper wells.”
In 1987, the water district charged a $22 per-acre-foot pump tax; now, it’s $275 per acre foot, a 1,150 percent increase, according to water baseline bills kept by San Martin well owner Bob Cerutti. The increase is not even comparable to other utility company’s increases since 1987 through 2008: PG&E’s rate has gone up 165 percent and land-line phone bills about 25 percent.
Also in 1987, the water district acquired the four-person Gavilan Conservation District that did not charge a pump tax – that year the district began the pump charge at $22 per acre foot.
Greg and Mary Tomlinson have lived in their San Martin home for 15 years and seen their water rates increase even though, “the water comes from God, not from (the district).”
“The letter sent out by the district, it said nothing, it didn’t clarify what you’re protesting,” Greg Tomlinson said. “What’s the effect? They tried to make it look like this is a non-issue, like there’s no impact one way or another.”
“All the bold (words in the letter) was on ‘there’s no increase,'” his wife Mary said.
The couple say the district’s letter is convoluted and they say that anyone who doesn’t have the knowledge on the issue would find it impossible to understand.
Greg Tomlinson, an engineer at Cisco Systems and Mary, an avid volunteer, share a well used both for agriculture and drinking water, but since the Tomlinson name is not on the water bill, their neighbor will be responsible for mailing in their protest letter.
“We’re not happy about the charges,” he said, “I don’t know why they would have to legitimately grow their department. The department has grown by hundreds of percent over the years. There’s accountability needed.”
The water district says the “pump tax” is not even a tax but, “a charge for services and programs to provide a reliable supply of water.” The process of doing this has “always been an open and public process with the community encouraged to participate.” Thirteen water retailers work with the water district to distribute the water to farms and homes, including Great Oaks Water Co., which have been diametrically opposed to groundwater charges for some time.
The water district is appealing a case with the Great Oaks Water Co. after a judge ruled in 2009 that the groundwater charges were illegal because they were not voted on by residents, a requirement by Proposition 218.
The 1,823 well owners who live in zone W-5, which stretches from Calero Reservoir to the southernmost part of Gilroy’s city limits, must protest in order to eliminate the groundwater charges.
The city of Morgan Hill owns eight wells and will not send in its protest letters for any, according to City Manager Ed Tewes. He said the city council will ask the water district to reduce the groundwater fees, but “it’s not our intention to protest … the city very strongly supports the recharge program,” he said that the city would be “severely disadvantaged” if the protest was successful.
Gilroy has not decided whether to protest the water charges. City staff is in the process of gathering detailed background information for a report that it planned to present to the city council at its Monday night meeting, City Engineer Rick Smelser said.
The council will then have the opportunity to provide city staff with direction on the matter, according to an item on the council agenda regarding Proposition 218.
“It’s the first time we’ve ever had a letter like this from the district,” Smelser said. “It’s new to us. That’s why we’re taking it to the council.”
The water district provides water supply and flood protection to Santa Clara County’s 1.8 million people. The government agency employs about 750 people and manages an annual budget of $305 million.
