Water district board members and staff will continue to discuss
the possibility of raising South County’s groundwater rates for the
eighth year in a row at a public hearing in Morgan Hill Wednesday
night.
Morgan Hill
Water district board members and staff will continue to discuss the possibility of raising South County’s groundwater rates for the eighth year in a row at a public hearing in Morgan Hill Wednesday night.
Last month, the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s staff recommended raising rates for retailers and unincorporated users of municipal and industrial water in South County from $275 to $285 per acre foot, or about 3.6 percent. District spokeswoman Susan Siravo said if the board decides to raise rates in June, it will equate to an average increase of 34 cents on each customer’s monthly bill.
Currently, the median monthly water bill for a single family household in Morgan Hill, a municipal retailer who purchases water from the district and distributes it to about 12,000 customers, is $22.18.
This year, the rate increase is necessary to cover costs associated with the district’s mandatory conservation program instituted in March, specifically outreach and advertising to encourage customers to cut back on water use by 15 percent or more, and the growing costs of water imported into Santa Clara County aquifers, Siravo said.
Wednesday’s public hearing, starting 7 p.m. at the Morgan Hill Community and Cultural Center at 17000 Monterey Road, is part of the annual outreach process when the district sets groundwater rates. Siravo said the purpose of the meeting is to gather input from the South County public to assist the district’s board of directors in making its decision on water rates for next fiscal year, which begins July 1.
Rates are different for South County and North County, where the increase is proposed to go from $520 to $545 per acre foot for municipal and industrial use.
In recent years, the public hearings in South County have been sparsely attended, but longtime water district critic Terry Mahurin said he hopes that changes this year.
“People ought to be interested in what’s going on in their community,” said Mahurin, who pointed out this rate increase, which would apply to the 2009-2010 fiscal year, would be the ninth in a row. Plus, district staff projects the rates will continue to increase for at least another 10 years, with South County’s reaching $550 per acre foot in 2019, Mahurin noted.
Along with the recommended rate increase, staff is also suggesting $20 million in budget cuts due to expected lost revenue from less water consumption, and these cuts will also be presented at Wednesday’s meeting.
Morgan Hill City Manager Ed Tewes said while the city does not yet have an official position on the recommended rate increase, he is concerned that the proposed budget cuts might result in diminished service to South County well owners and customers.
“The groundwater charges paid by Morgan Hill should go to services and facilities that benefit this portion of the groundwater basin,” where water used by the city is stored, Tewes said.
One possible cut is in the district’s ongoing efforts to analyze and monitor the status of perchlorate contamination and cleanup in the underground aquifer, Tewes said.
Siravo said the cuts will not affect service in South County.
“The purpose of this whole process is to become more lean and more efficient, and provide high quality service,” she said.
Another concern is what Tewes sees as the district’s intent to continue to defy proposition 218 of the California Constitution, which says “property related fees” such as groundwater charges must be approved by the voters.
In an April 23 ruling in the case Great Oaks Co. vs. the SCVWD, a Superior Court judge said the district violated the state constitution in 2005-2006 by imposing groundwater fees without voter approval. District staff say the public hearings and other outreach efforts satisfy the terms of Prop 218, and the district will likely appeal the judge’s decision.
Observers of that case, including Great Oaks attorney Tim Guster, say the district has used the same process to set rates each year since 2006, and this process has affected the county’s 4,000 well owners.
“It’s the same process the district has used for years, and it’s just as flawed now as it was in the time frame the judge ruled on,” said Guster, who also plans to attend Wednesday’s public hearing.
In the Great Oaks case, the judge also ruled the district violated its own enabling statute, the Santa Clara Valley Water District Act, by using revenue from groundwater charges for unauthorized purposes.
