On Thursday, the revision of the Santa Clara Valley Water
District Act crept through the third reading in the Assembly and
was passed. AB 2483 now moves to the Senate for approval. The bill
will make the inevitable move to the governor’s desk, who must sign
it into law.
On Thursday, the revision of the Santa Clara Valley Water District Act crept through the third reading in the Assembly and was passed. AB 2483 now moves to the Senate for approval. The bill will make the inevitable move to the governor’s desk, who must sign it into law.
The act specifies the district’s powers and duties and has been amended repeatedly since its inception in 1951. Now, under the direction of Assemblymember Joe Coto (D-San Jose), the old act will be repealed and an updated version will add accountability, clarify confusing language, strengthen the district’s power and update it with modern problems like climate change, according to the Legislative bill analysis.
Yet, some say the new act will do more harm than good.
“I hope the people of South County really wake up and see what they’re doing. And I hope Coto throws this thing out,” said Bob Cerruti, a San Martin well owner. Cerruti’s fellow appointees to the San Martin Advisory Planning Commission will take a closer look at the act in the next few weeks and air their concerns in letters to Coto and Assemblymember Bill Monning, who was a co-author of the bill.
According to the district, since 2007 it has held more than a dozen meetings in the county to solicit input on changes to the act. The water district has said the process has been open and transparent and the bill has seen some significant changes based on recommendations from the Santa Clara County Farm Bureau and Great Oaks Water, which won a lawsuit against the district last year over groundwater fees.
In February, the bill was read in the Assembly and has since moved onto its third reading Thursday. It passed June 3 to meet the June 4 deadline for all bills. It will now move to the Senate for analysis, back to the Assembly and finally to the governor for approval.
The Santa Clara County Farm Bureau’s Executive Director Jennifer Williams said there have been some “significant improvements to the bill” and the bureau is in constant conversation with the district to make changes. She referenced a measurable change: If the act passes, the district will have greater accountability to ensure that the public is aware of meetings, issues and changes at the district level.
“We’re constantly in negotiations with them as it relates to ag … We’ve made some progress there,” Williams said.
On May 18, the Farm Bureau sent a letter of opposition to the Assembly Appropriations Committee firmly opposing the bill because it would “threaten the economic viability of (the county’s) farmers and ranchers.”
In it, the bureau expressed concern that agricultural water rates would increase to match the rates for municipal and industrial use that have historically been much higher.
The act would increase the district’s jurisdiction over increasing groundwater rates. In section 100127 (c) of AB 2483, it states that the board may impose and increase charges if it explains the reasons by paid mail to affected customers and if a public hearing is held, then the increase may be imposed.
Opponents point directly to California Proposition 218, which requires voter approval for any tax or property related fee such as the groundwater charge.
It is because of the district’s violation of Proposition 218, that it lost the lawsuit against Great Oaks Water for overcharging its San Jose area customers groundwater fees from 2005-2006. Currently, Proposition 218 is being debated in the appellate court as to how groundwater charges fit into the taxpayers right to vote on increasing or levying taxes “except for fees or charges for sewer, water, and refuse collection services, no property related fee or charge shall be imposed or increased unless and until that fee or charge is submitted and approved by a majority vote of the property owners … by a two-thirds vote of the electorate residing in the affected area.”
In the Great Oaks decision, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Kevin Murphy ruled in April 2009 that groundwater charges are not a water collection charge, but rather a property-related “extraction fee.”
The district has the ability to assess a groundwater management charge under the current Act and has done so since 1964, water district spokeswoman Susan Siravo said.
“The bill would not change that authority,” she wrote in an e-mail. “The applicability of Proposition 218 to the district’s groundwater management charges remains an open legal issue, and will not be resolved by AB 2483.”
The district doesn’t anticipate the process to be complete until October.
History of the water district act: AB 2483
1951: Legislature passes what is now known as the Santa Clara Valley Water District Act.
2007: Water district begins exploring updates to the 40-year-old act.
Oct. 11, 2009: AB 466 is amended to the old act, specifying the board will have seven members: Five elected and two appointed directors.
Feb. 19: AB 2483 is introduced to its house of origin by Assemblymember Joe Coto.
May 28: Bill passes the Assembly Appropriations Committee 12-5.
June 3: Bill is read for third time and remains on the floor for public hearing.
June 4: Assembly passed AB 2483; it moves to the Senate.
