A San Martin well owner who refuses to pay his groundwater
charges was encouraged by a small claims court decision to delay a
case brought against him by the Santa Clara Valley Water
District.
A San Martin well owner who refuses to pay his groundwater charges was encouraged by a small claims court decision to delay a case brought against him by the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
Steve Coney owes the public agency about $2,700 in groundwater charges, late fees and interest for about eight acre feet of water he pumped from his well on Renaissance Court over a 12-month period that ended June 2009.
However, he is determined not to pay the “outrageous” bill. He presented Morgan Hill Commissioner Gregory Saldivar last Thursday with arguments upheld in a Santa Clara County Superior Court ruling last year, in which the groundwater charges were found to be in violation of the state constitution. That ruling found that the voters never approved the groundwater charges and other legal violations, and was the result of a lawsuit filed by Great Oaks Water Co. of San Jose.
Coney argued that because the groundwater charges were never approved by voters and they violate the law that created the local agency, he and all of the county’s 4,000 well owners do not have to pay their bills. He added that the water district does not provide a service for the charges, and it does not drill, maintain or repair wells.
Saldivar delayed his decision on the case until August so he has time to review the Great Oaks ruling and other legal matters, according to water district spokeswoman Susan Siravo. That result was uplifting to Coney, who also plans to seek refunds for another $4,000 he has paid to the water district since 2002.
“The little guy is not going to bend over and take it anymore,” Coney said. “What (the water district) is doing is wrong, and it’s against the law, and they didn’t give the voters a chance to vote.”
The same day Coney was in court, the water district won three similar cases it brought against well owners who did not show up to the hearing, Siravo said. The judgment in those cases ranged from $300 to $900 each, according to Coney, who sat in on the cases in open court.
In all, the water district has about 30 cases pending against well owners throughout the county who are delinquent on their groundwater charges, Siravo added. In addition, the water district has liens on about 50 properties belonging to well owners who still have not paid, even after losing to the agency in small claims courts.
Water district staff and directors have repeatedly said the charges in South County pay for refilling the groundwater basin, purchasing imported water and conservation efforts.
Another well owner, Morgan Hill resident Jon Persing, resolved not to pay his groundwater charges shortly after the Great Oaks ruling in April 2009. His invoice was only for about $100, but Persing didn’t want to pay it because of the judge’s finding that the charges are illegal.
However, Persing said last week that he spoke with an attorney about his case, who advised him to pay his bill “under protest,” which he did. He added the attorney is interested in pursuing Persing’s case.
“I’m not pursuing this for myself – it’s more on behalf of everyone else out there,” Persing said.
The Great Oaks decision said the water district has to refund the private water company to the tune of about $4.6 million in groundwater charges it paid in 2005-2006, based on the Proposition 218 violation.
It also said Great Oaks was overcharged by about $1.3 million for budgeted water district expenses related to employees, imported water purchases and other costs.
That overpayment is based on the violations of the District Act, a law that created the water district. Great Oaks has filed a number of almost identical cases, refuting groundwater charges it has paid each year since 2005. Those cases are still pending in Superior Court.
The water district will appeal last year’s refund order when it is finalized later this month. Because of this appeal, the decision cannot be invoked as a precedent in any other case, Siravo said. That suggests the small claims court will not be able to base its decision on the Great Oaks ruling when Coney’s case comes back in August.
But Coney said the judge told him that he would have “no choice” but to consider the Great Oaks ruling in his case.
Proposition 218 is a state constitutional amendment that requires either majority approval among affected property owners, or two-thirds approval from the electorate for any proposed tax or property related fee. There are about 4,000 well owners in Santa Clara County who are served by the water district’s groundwater recharge services.
The city of Morgan Hill is a well owner. City staff have indicated they are considering their options in response to next year’s groundwater charges because of the Great Oaks case.
The water district is in the process of evaluating groundwater charges for the year that starts July 1.
The rates will not be set before a public hearing in front of the board of directors scheduled for April 27.
Coney uses more water on his 5.5 acre parcel than most other individual residential well owners. As a result, the water district required him to install a meter on the well to accurately measure his usage. He said he has some fruit trees and “a lot of grass” on his property, and the landscaping in his yard uses an automatic sprinkler system.
In addition to the rate of $275 for each acre foot of water he consumed, his invoice also includes interest of 1 percent per month since his payment was due July 31, 2009, Coney said.
And this is not the first time Coney has been delinquent or refused to pay his groundwater bills. His original justification for not paying last year’s bill was that he thought the meter on his well was not working properly, Siravo said.
Water district staff made sure the meter was accurate, then Coney used the Great Oaks ruling as his argument. He was also delinquent on groundwater charges in 2002-2003, and he settled that case before the water district brought him to small claims court.
Coney, who is retired and on disability, now says the possibility that his groundwater charges might be overturned gives hope to other well owners who might not know about the ruling that they are illegal.
“If this is won, it speaks volumes for 4,000 people. This gave me a lot of hope. It says they’re going to make a ruling on the law, and not just what the big guys think.”
WHY YOU SHOULD CARE
If you are a well owner and pay groundwater charges to the Santa Clara Valley Water District, upcoming court rulings on a series of lawsuits challenging the fees could result in a refund.
