Santa Clara Valley Water District Director Sig Sanchez, a former
Gilroy mayor, recently penned a bristling and lengthy letter to the
editor defending the bloated agency which has been raked over the
coals by the Santa Clara County Grand Jury
Santa Clara Valley Water District Director Sig Sanchez, a former Gilroy mayor, recently penned a bristling and lengthy letter to the editor defending the bloated agency which has been raked over the coals by the Santa Clara County Grand Jury, embarrassed by its own internal hiring monkey business and now beaten badly in a court decision by a small, privately owned water company in a lawsuit that could – and should – cost the district millions.
For Mr. Sanchez, we request that he take up his pen again and answer a few questions for the folks that are paying the water bills:
1. Please explain the following: The Santa Clara Valley Water District has about 825 budgeted employees for 1.7 million customers. In comparison, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California serves more than 19 million customers with about 2,000 employees. That’s one employee for every 2,050 customers for SCVWD and one employee for every 9,500 customers for the MWD. If the MWD had the same employee-to-customer ratio, it would have nearly 10,000 employees. That would be one incredible hiring splurge.
2. Mr. Sanchez, has it been the practice of the Santa Clara Valley Water District to budget for positions, then leave those positions unfilled, yet still include those unfilled positions in its calculations for ground water extraction charges to retailers (like the cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill) – in other words, baking the budget fraudulently? If that’s not the case, explain why the the court found that to be the case in the suit recently won against the district by the Great Oaks Water Company.
3. Explain why the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board repeatedly ignored the Proposition 218 requirement passed by voters in 1996 which specifies that voters must approve property-related fees – specifically groundwater extraction fees in this case – when it was very clear from multiple court rulings that Proposition 218 was applicable?
4. Lastly, for now, please detail exactly how much you and your fellow Board members have approved spending for the law firm of Duane Morris to defend the water district in the multiple lawsuits involving charges of invalid fees for groundwater extraction and violations of Proposition 218 that Great Oaks Water Company has filed against the district. The ratepayers would like to know the total amount paid, all attorneys involved and each of their hourly charges and a list of all legal expenses related to the lawsuits.
We won’t even bother asking why the water district hired an out-of-the-area, out-of-its-delivery-scope San Francisco law firm. Is that any way to support the ailing Silicon Valley economy? … but we digress.
Those aren’t all the questions we have, but it’s a start. For now, the questions about adding two new Board members (and the expense, of course), redrawing representation boundaries and clandestinely rewriting the District Act, will wait. We thank you for your time and attention in advance.
P.S. – Please don’t engage any high-priced attorneys to respond to this. It’s written in straightforward, plain English, and responses in a like manner from our representative would be most appreciated.
