The legal push and pull between a San Martin well owner and the
Santa Clara Valley Water District in small claims court is still
undecided since Steve Coney’s Feb. 24 hearing, though Commissioner
Gregory Saldivar is accepting a motion to consider new evidence
that Coney believes presents a clear resolution.
The legal push and pull between a San Martin well owner and the Santa Clara Valley Water District in small claims court is still undecided since Steve Coney’s Feb. 24 hearing, though Commissioner Gregory Saldivar is accepting a motion to consider new evidence that Coney believes presents a clear resolution.
Coney was sued by the water district for not paying his groundwater bill from 2008-2009 plus interest – about $2,700 – and he counter-sued for $7,500 for the water bills he paid since 2002 that he says were collected illegally based on Proposition 218. The 1996 state constitution amendment requires either majority approval of affected property owners, or two-thirds approval from the electorate, for any proposed tax or increase in property-related fee.
Previously, Saldivar said Coney would have to wait until the multimillion dollar lawsuit with the San Jose-based Great Oaks Water Co. is decided in appellate court. Great Oaks sued the water district also based on Prop 218, claiming it illegally collected groundwater fees since 2006 because the increases were never approved according to Prop 218’s rules and has filed subsequent lawsuits every year after.
Intricate to his suit, Coney says, is the water district’s own admission during the appeals with Great Oaks.
“(The water district) indicated that Great Oaks would not be able to get the judgment because they were not ‘property related fees’ and Proposition 218 only applies to property owners only who pump water for use on their own property,” Coney wrote in his letter for Saldivar’s consideration.
Therefore, the Great Oak suit and pending appeal is irrelevant to Coney’s suit and counter-suit with the district. His should not depend on Great Oaks’, Coney argues.
“The little guy’s got a big mouth,” Coney said in August, who has no law background and is representing himself. “We don’t have to take this anymore. They think we’re just little people living in the country. I believe it in my heart that this is the right thing. I believe they’re doing wrong.”
Groundwater rates are measured in acre feet. One acre foot is enough water for a family of five for a year. About 2004, the water district placed a meter on Coney’s property because they believed he wasn’t properly estimating how much water he was using, about nine acre feet a year.
Last year for the first time, the district held a protest procedure in compliance with Prop 218, though the design of the procedure was criticized by local well owners. Nonetheless, 433 legitimate protest letters were submitted. A simple majority vote of 3,644 well owners in South County was needed to eliminate the bi-annual fee. Well owners said in April they were not given enough time to respond and the announcement of the protest was buried on the fourth page of a letter that some well owners said they threw away because it appeared to be district junk mail.
According to the water district, it would have lost almost $14 million if the protest was successful. That funding is regulated to replenish the groundwater basin, water recycling, water conservation and environmental projects.
Coney’s next hearing is set for March 17 in the South County Courthouse, 301 Diana Ave.
More Water District: Meeting times changed
