South County residents will continue to pay groundwater fees
after the protest spurred by Proposition 218 flopped. To eliminate
the groundwater rates in South County, 1,823 well owners needed to
submit a protest letter, which accounts for 50 percent plus one of
well owners.
Only 433 valid protests were counted from South County and 84
protests from North County.
South County residents will continue to pay groundwater fees after the protest spurred by Proposition 218 flopped. To eliminate the groundwater rates in South County, 1,823 well owners needed to submit a protest letter, which accounts for 50 percent plus one of well owners.
Only 433 valid protests were counted from South County and 84 protests from North County, according to Marty Grimes, a Santa Clara Valley Water District spokesman. Seventy-seven invalid protests were tabulated by water district clerk Michele King in a process that began April 28 and ended Tuesday.
“Of those (77), 17 were received after the close of the public hearing” on April 27, Grimes said. “The other main reasons were because of duplicates of the same well or they were not located in a groundwater recharge zone, or they lacked the required signature.”
The groundwater in South County is $275 per acre foot of municipal and industrial use and $16.50 per acre foot of agricultural use. For the third year in a row, the water district has maintained that rate.
Water district board chair Richard Santos said, “The results of this process shows that most well owners in this county understand the importance of ensuring a clean, safe, reliable water supply now and into the future.”
Well owners who did protest were less-than pleased about the results.
“The protest was designed to fail, the way the protest was held,” Mahurin said, who resides in Morgan Hill and sympathizes with his neighbors who own wells. “I’m sorry the district was not more open in mailing a ballot and self-addressed envelop.” Well owners and water watchdogs from across South County were e-mailed clearly written instructions penned by San Martin Neighborhood Alliance president Sylvia Hamilton. The original four-page letter informing them of the protest was done to disguise the information, opponents say, and some even threw it away because it appeared the letter was simply the water district tooting its own horn for not increasing groundwater charges.
“It was hidden on the last page … on page four of the document and many of those letters were just thrown out. I’m disappointed,” Mahurin said.
South County’s at-large director Cy Mann said he was pleased that the majority of well owners understood the importance of groundwater fees, but he wants to work harder on reaching out to those that did protest.
“I’m concerned with people who did protest and I feel like more information and communication needs to be readily available for these people,” Mann said. Last week, Mann gave staff direction to create a private well owner advisory committee to the water district.
Santos added that the water district “will continue to work to address your concerns. With the leadership of our new CEO, Beau Goldie, we have made a lot of changes to cut costs, become more efficient and do a better job informing the community on the services we provide.”
A simple majority vote of 3,644 well owners in South County or zone W-5 was needed to eliminate the monthly fee. The water district said it would lose almost $14 million from South County fees if the protest was successful – $6 million of which comes from a perchlorate surcharge over the next two years. That funding is regulated to replenish the groundwater basin, water recycling, water conservation and environmental projects.
The ability to protest stems from a decision by Superior Court Judge Kevin Murphy in November that said the district was illegally collecting groundwater fees, which are supposed to be put to a yearly vote by well owners under Proposition 218 and the Santa Clara Valley Water District Act. Murphy determined that the water district had to refund San Jose-based Great Oaks Water Co., which sued the district, more than $4.6 million – a year’s worth of illegally collected groundwater charges – after determining Great Oaks was overcharged in 2005-06.
Proposition 218 required the district to send out notices outlining the protest process. One acre foot can provide water for a family of five for two years.
The water district provides water supply and flood protection to the county’s 1.8 million people. The agency employs about 750 people has a budget of about $305 million.
PROTEST BREAKDOWN
Total protests processed: 454
In South County or zone W-5: 433 valid protests
Total needed in W-5: 1,823 wells owner protests
Total invalid protests in the county: 77
