The rainier-than-usual weather in South County this year hasn’t
been such a blessing if the increase of water rates is factored
in.
The rainier-than-usual weather in South County this year hasn’t been such a blessing if the increase of water rates is factored in.
Due to the rainfall, an effective conservation effort by the county’s residents coupled with a still-suffering economy, the Santa Clara Valley Water District faces falling revenue.
The rate payer will be penalized: a 3.6 percent increase is proposed for 2011-12, with rates increasing by about the same percentage each year through 2020.
Water usage has declined over the last year, according to senior project manager Darin Taylor, and the district needs to raise rates to keep the water flowing to the district’s thousands of well owners and operators. A public hearing is scheduled to start at 7 p.m. today at Morgan Hill City Hall, 17555 Peak Ave.
Water charges were flat from 2009 through 2011, but based on the district’s projections the charges will increase 18 percent over the next five years from this year’s proposed municipal and industrial rate of $275 per acre foot to $325 per acre foot; agriculture rates will go from $16.50 per acre foot to $17.10. One acre foot is enough water to supply a family of five for one year.
The water district’s seven-member board of directors will close the public hearing April 26 at its regular board meeting. If passed, the new water rate will go into effect July 1.
According to the district, the average household in South County would experience a monthly increase of 34 cents or about 1 cent per day if the increase is approved. True, the water district’s rates for South County do rank as some of the lowest per month in the state; Bakersfield and Sacramento are listed among those that pay between $21 and $29 a month on average, similar to Morgan Hill. Some of the higher paying customers elsewhere in the state, such as Palo Alto, San Francisco and San Jose, must purchase treated or imported water, which has a steeper price tag than using replenished water from South County’s own basin.
The conservation effort was purely voluntary in 2010 after district staff recommended a more lax approach following a “positive response” in 2009 amid a three-year drought. Residents conserved 9.7 percent and the district lost about $9.5 million in revenue in 2009, district officials said. The district can only recommend conservation levels. Water retailers, such as the cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy, have final say of what they require of their customers.
The city – the owner of eight wells and water retailer to more than 12,000 customers – also has an influence on whether or not an increase is approved. For the second consecutive year, the water district is allowing well owners to protest the rate increase with a letter. If more than 50 percent of South County’s almost 4,000 well owners, property owners or water retailers, mail their letters of protest by the close of the public hearing April 26 there won’t be an increase and charges will remain as they are now. The protest is colloquially known as the “one well, one vote protest.” Some local well owners, and frequent water district critics, have said all rate payers should have the opportunity to protest since some wells provide water for several homes.
Last year, the protest failed when fewer than 500 protest letters were counted. At the public hearing, the district is seeking public input and is planning to find a third party to observe the tabulation process of each letter; something the district did not do last year.
Thirteen water retailers work with the water district to distribute the water to farms and homes, including Great Oaks Water Co., which have been diametrically opposed to groundwater charges for some time.
The water district is appealing a case with the Great Oaks Water Co. after a judge ruled in 2009 that the groundwater charges were illegal because they were not voted on by residents, a requirement by Proposition 218. The two-year-old protest procedure is compliant with Prop. 218 though the water district maintains it’s not legally required to do so by Prop. 218 but by the District Act, which is the law that created the district in 1987.
Twenty-three years ago the water district charged $22 per acre foot for the sometimes referred to “pump tax” or groundwater charge. Since his first bill dated in 1987, San Martin well owner Bob Cerruti says the rate has increased by 1,150 percent (as of 2008). The rate is incongruent with other utility charges over the same time period: PG&E has increased 165 percent and land-line phone bills about 25 percent since 1987, Cerruti said.
