The Gilroy Chamber of Commerce and the Santa Clara Valley Water
District are locked in a public records battle, highlighting the
suspicion and displeasure that some chamber members have about how
the water district is drafting a key piece of state
legislation.
The Gilroy Chamber of Commerce and the Santa Clara Valley Water District are locked in a public records battle, highlighting the suspicion and displeasure that some chamber members have about how the water district is drafting a key piece of state legislation.
The water district seeks to change parts of the Santa Clara Valley Water District Act, which governs operations. Representatives from different agencies cast the changes in various lights – from a mere update in rules reflecting the changing times to a ploy by the district to gain power. Chamber officials are wary that they were not involved in the process or even informed about the changes in any of the regular meetings between the water district and the chamber’s government relations committee, Gilroy Chamber of Commerce CEO Susan Valenta said.
“That is unacceptable,” she said. “If there is key legislation going through, it is incumbent on them to bring this to our attention.”
The water district only discussed proposed changes to the act with the chamber after the committee opposed them, Valenta said. Those changes included language – since removed – that would have given the district powers that superseded local planning and zoning authority, wrote past committee chair Terry Feinberg in a column that will appear in a chamber newsletter. Furthermore, a continued lack of local input could have troubling impacts, Valenta said.
“This piece of legislation was moving too quickly through the Assembly from our perspective,” Valenta said.
Because of its concern regarding the legislation, the chamber filed a state Public Records Act request – the first ever filed by the Gilroy organization – for all communication at the water district related to the development and drafting of the updated District Act. The request included “everything that relates to changing the water district act: e-mails, notes from meetings, memos, reports, correspondence within and outside of the agency, drafts, etc.” The chamber board also officially opposed the legislation.
Lonnie Spin, the water district’s records and library unit manager, effectively denied the request because it was too broad, she said. In an e-mail to the chamber, Spin wrote that the district could respond more promptly if the chamber focused its request to a specific, identifiable record, or set of records. The water district file on the bill was in Sacramento and included 1,000 to 2,000 pages of both public records and exempted legal matters, Spin later wrote.
The water district only has one person, who Spin manages, devoted to researching requests for public records full time, and the district receives an average of 400 Public Records Act requests each year, she said.
“We have a high success rate with getting these out promptly, but I am also mindful of the public’s expense,” Spin said.
In order to satisfy the initial request, the district would need to hire a consultant to sift through material, and the chamber should narrow the scope of its request, Spin wrote.
However, “When I asked for a clarification, rather than focusing it, they broadened it,” Spin said.
While the chamber understood that it needed to get more specific, Timothy Guster, general counsel for Great Oaks Water – which recently won a lawsuit against the water district over groundwater fees – sent an e-mail to the chamber Tuesday saying he believed the water district was stonewalling the chamber. He then provided recommendations on more specific language to get the information desired.
He also said the district could only exempt “attorney work products” from public records when the materials are prepared “in anticipation of litigation” – a statement disputed by Rick Callender, the water district’s government relations manager.
The chamber plans to work with the water district to find ways to narrow its request, Valenta said.
Spin said she would be happy to elaborate what types of pertinent public records might be available. However, she said Valenta only has corresponded with her by e-mail and not by phone.
Valenta said the e-mail format was helpful for her as a lay person to understand what steps she needed to take.
Valenta hopes the Assembly’s Appropriations Committee tables the legislation when it convenes today to provide more time for input from stakeholders.
The changes being considered would update regulations created in 1951 District Act, which governs the local water district. The changes range from new wording about climate change and water quality to specific language that prevents groundwater charges from being eliminated if well owners protest them. The chamber was upset, however, that legislators did not mark up the original law from 1951 to make it clear what the changes are, Valenta said.
Callender said there has been nothing secret about the legislative process. He counted off at least seven public meetings regarding the legislation that have occurred in Santa Clara County during the past two years, and said state legislative committee meetings also have been open to the public. In addition, he felt a nine-month legislative process is hardly a rush.
“This has been a slow-moving turtle,” Callender said.
The water district welcomes the chamber’s input, he said, adding that the water district bill already has improved as a result of recommendations from Great Oaks and the Santa Clara County Farm Bureau, which opposes the current legislation.
“I’m not sure how much more open this could be,” Callender said.
Still, Guster was not convinced.
“Do not be discouraged by the responses you’ve received so far,” Guster wrote in an e-mail to the chamber regarding the public records request. “They are a sign that you’re asking for things the District doesn’t want you to see. You are entitled to the records, especially for a bill that is intended to promote accountability and transparency.”
