The Santa Clara Valley Water District has hired a Certified
Public Accountant firm to tabulate the groundwater charge protest
letters at the rate of $100 per hour. The process will take about
three days, or 24 hours, according to the agreement between SCVWD
and C.G. Uhlenberg LLP based in Redwood City.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District has hired a Certified Public Accountant firm to tabulate the groundwater charge protest letters at the rate of $100 per hour. The process will take about three days, or 24 hours, according to the agreement between SCVWD and C.G. Uhlenberg LLP based in Redwood City.
The groundwater protest letter is due by the close of a public hearing scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday at the SCVWD headquarters in San Jose.
Senior project manager at SCVWD Darin Taylor said starting at 8 a.m. April 28, the assigned CPAs will count the protest letters in a secured room at the water district headquarters.
“They’ll be locked in there for as long as it takes,” Taylor said. In a proposal letter to SCVWD, C.G. Uhlenberg wrote it estimates the count will take three days, which could cost the water district about $2,400.
The water board made its announcement at a public hearing Thursday evening at Gilroy City Hall. Eight people spoke before the board to air their grievances with the protest process, specifically the confusion of the letter that was sent out Feb. 26 which is in fact a ballot to vote for or against paying the fee.
“The method of this process was perfectly designed for people to not read it,” said Randy Scianna, holding the four-page letter that in the first three pages describes the water district’s no-rate increase and not until the fourth page does it give instructions as to how to mail in a protest. “This is perfect if you don’t want any response.” He added that whether it was done on purpose or not, “if you’re trying to be transparent, this is deceptive.”
Morgan Hill City Manager Ed Tewes asked the water board to consider reducing the fees from $275 per acre foot for municipal and industrial use to $245. He said Morgan Hill will not protest the fee because it would do more harm than good since the consequences would reduce services such as replenishing the aquifer. Within the groundwater fee is $2.4 million that will pay for legal fees associated with the perchlorate crisis in 2004. Another $2.4 million will be inserted in the groundwater fee next year also, if the protest is unsuccessful.
San Martin well owner Bob Cerrutti said he found it “very disturbing that the water district will charge us for a problem Olin has created.” He pleaded with the board, “don’t put it on the backs of the rate payers.”
Tewes asked that the water district spread out the $6 million it needs to repay legal fees to Olin over six years instead of two.
“We’ll pay the interest if it’s spread out … and (you) lower the rates,” Tewes said.
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 requires the district to send out notices outlining the protest process. A majority vote by well owners – or 1,823 objecting votes in South County – would mean groundwater charges will be void for the fiscal year beginning July 1. The district now charges $16.50 per acre foot for agricultural use and $275 per acre foot for municipal and industrial use in South County. An acre foot is enough water to supply a family of five for two years. The district has proposed not to raise rates for the third straight year.
