While many well owners say they plan to protest Santa Clara
Valley Water District’s groundwater fees this year, the city’s
staff advised the City Council not to do so.
While many well owners say they plan to protest Santa Clara Valley Water District’s groundwater fees this year, the city’s staff advised the City Council not to do so.
The district currently charges $16.50 per acre foot for agricultural use and $275 per acre foot for municipal and industrial use, and has proposed not to raise rates this year.
However, debate is raging among well owners who can vote this year to veto the groundwater charges entirely – meaning they would not pay the district to pump water. In addition, many residents are using the veto as a way to express general dissatisfaction with the district. As for Gilroy, the council was slated to direct staff on how to cast its nine votes when it met Monday night.
“It’s a complicated issue,” Councilman Perry Woodward said late last week.
On one hand, Woodward has been a longtime critic of the water district, and he believes it needs to cut its costs, he said.
On the other hand, a staff report from City Engineer Rick Smelser indicates that the city’s groundwater must be manually recharged to keep up with demand, and the water district operates the conveyance systems and water quality programs to make that possible. If enough well owners oppose the groundwater production charge to void the fee, it could result in decreased water reliability for the city, Smelser’s report said.
“I can’t make a decision that actually culminates in not having water for my constituents,” Woodward said.
All well owners within the Santa Clara Valley Water District – including 3,644 in South County – have the option of protesting the district’s water fees this year. This is a new right stemming from a decision by Superior Court Judge Kevin Murphy’s 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 the 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. In this case, the district would lose out on $70 million in charges, including $8 million from South County.
If that were to happen, the city’s ability to recharge its aquifer and to receive other groundwater services provided by the district would be jeopardized, according to Smelser’s staff report. The district artificially replenishes about two-thirds of the total water pumped from the ground in Gilroy through water conveyance systems controlled by the water district, the report said.
When considering the issue, Woodward said he must balance the scientific needs of the city with politics surrounding the water district. He believes the water district needs to implement reforms by cutting costs, but he also does not want to jeopardize Gilroy’s water supply.
“One of the problems with a monopoly is it’s very hard to make a price competitive,” Woodward said. “(The Santa Clara Valley Water District has) our entire district, which they serve, over a barrel.”
Councilman Craig Gartman has advised that the city use private aquifers. He has always protested groundwater rate hikes while serving on the valley water district’s water commission and he has no plans to change that stance now, he said.
“There is a lot of pressure to bring South County water rates up with North County water rates, and I am completely against that,” Gartman said.
In North County, residents pay almost twice as much – $520 per acre foot – for home and business use.
While the district’s rates are not slated to go up this year, Gartman attributes that to the economy and he expects rates to increase again once the economy improves.
Both Councilwoman Cat Tucker and Mayor Al Pinheiro said last week they would have to gather more information before deciding whether to protest.
The city has received some correspondence regarding groundwater charges, including a letter from Eagle Ridge Golf Course recommending the city protest the groundwater charges.
“Gilroy and Morgan Hill have a fiduciary duty to all of us to protest and, if necessary, file suit to recover the millions of dollars unlawfully collected by the District,” wrote Rick Smith, vice president and general manager of the golf course.
HOW TO PROTEST
To protest the water district’s pump tax, send the written protest received in the mail in a sealed envelope to:
Santa Clara Valley Water District
ATTN: Clerk of the Board
5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118
– You must write your name, sign the protest, and include the addresses, well numbers or parcel numbers of your properties on the outside of the envelope.
– No e-mails or faxes will be accepted, and letters must be postmarked by April 27, 2010.
