Dear Editor,
As chairman of the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board, I’d
like to share with you some accomplishments during these difficult
financial times.
South County Water District representative responds to editorial, fends off comparison
Dear Editor,
As chairman of the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board, I’d like to share with you some accomplishments during these difficult financial times.
On June 1, the board passed the $305 million budget for fiscal year 2009/2010. The budget is $108 million less than last year’s, mostly due to completed capital projects, staff reductions, cutbacks, reprioritizations and consolidations of programs.
Although the water district expects a $9.5 million revenue loss because of the board’s call for 15 percent mandatory conservation, the staff still cut $24.5 million from the budget. Staff increased efficiencies and cost savings which enabled the board to not have to raise groundwater production charges. Although we’ve made major reductions, providing safe, reliable water and high-quality flood protection projects remains constant for the water district.
Regarding your May 28 editorial, I respectfully suggest that comparing the number of employees at the water district to those at the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is not useful. Met is an umbrella agency composed of 28 cities and special districts; it only deals with water supply issues.
The water district’s responsibilities include water supply, flood protection and environmental stewardship. The water district does benchmark itself against other agencies in a variety of contexts, but to be meaningful the comparison should be apples to apples.
With regard to positions at the water district, executive managers scrutinize every job opening and only allow recruitments to proceed if there is no other way to get the work done. Over the past two years, we’ve eliminated 57 vacant positions. When positions have been eliminated that were funded by restricted dollars, such as those from groundwater production charge revenues, the funds we saved are still only used for their intended purpose.
An editorial page is not the appropriate place to debate complex issues pending in a court of law.
I will say the district’s approach has been, and will continue to be, to abide by all laws that apply to our operations. Sometimes there are differing viewpoints on the meaning of those laws and parties end up in court.
For example, the water district and other water agencies have been drawn into various court cases in state and federal courts to preserve our ability to obtain critical imported water supplies to recharge our groundwater basins. We’ve also defended a number of court cases filed by a for-profit water company that seeks to overturn practices that we feel are lawful and benefit the community, including the lower groundwater production charges paid by South County agricultural users, as provided in the law that created the water district.
As with every decision, we consider all the facts and proceed based on what is consistent with our obligations and in the interests of the community we represent and serve.
The issues I’ve addressed are complicated and difficult to explain in 500 words.
Sig Sanchez, board chair, Santa Clara Valley Water District
