DEAR EDITOR:
To read opinion pieces of late in The Dispatch and Morgan Hill
Times, you’d think South County residents are paying outlandish,
punitive rates for water. That simply isn’t true.
DEAR EDITOR:
To read opinion pieces of late in The Dispatch and Morgan Hill Times, you’d think South County residents are paying outlandish, punitive rates for water. That simply isn’t true.
Residents in Gilroy, Morgan Hill and San Martin are paying less for water than it costs the Santa Clara Valley Water District to supply it.
Despite hyperbole to the contrary, those costs can only be paid through fees charged to the cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill, and to private well owners, to pump water from the Llagas groundwater basin. And that revenue can only be used for South County’s water operations.
The pump tax, as the fee is known, is designed to cover South County’s cost for importing water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, for maintaining recharge ponds that allow that water to “percolate” into the groundwater basin, meeting strict state requirements to maintain South County’s reservoirs, maintenance of the pipelines and pumping stations that move water from local reservoirs to the recharge ponds, and for the costs of helping Gilroy and Morgan Hill expand distribution of recycled water to lessen demand on drinking water supplies.
Despite a 25 percent increase this year in wholesale water rates – which translates into a $1.36 increase in monthly bills for the average residence – South County’s operating budget faces a projected $1.75 million shortfall this year and a projected operating deficit next year of about $3.2 million.
The South County water budget deficit stems from several factors, including increased costs to the district for water imported from the Delta. This year, the federally owned Central Valley Project is projecting a $6.8 million increase in imported water costs, $700,000 of which must be borne by the South County. Without that water, South County’s groundwater basin is unable to meet demand from homeowners, businesses and growers.
A Dispatch columnist opined that higher water rates threaten the viability of South County’s agricultural industry. That’s not true. Since 1990, growers paid $11.50 an acre-foot, which is the equivalent of about 326,000 gallons of water. The district board of directors agreed to keep the price unchanged despite gradual rate increases for water used by municipalities and businesses because of agriculture’s benefit to the community, and to the district’s groundwater basin recharge efforts.
Even with the 25 percent increase in wholesale prices this year, farmers can continue to receive their water for only $14 an acre-foot if they participate in water conservation programs, which also help them save money.
As people who’ve spent most, if not all, our lives in agriculture, we’re surprised to see your columnist assert that the cost of water is second only to labor when it comes to farming. It costs somewhere around $350-$400 to rent an acre of ag land, and the costs of fuel, pesticides, fertilizer and harvesting a crop are pretty steep.
With an average crop using anywhere from two to 20 acre-feet of water, the $28 to $35 spent for water is a deal for South County growers. Their colleagues in the northern half of the county are paying $69-$86.25 for the same amount of water.
Some columnists and editorial pundits would like you to believe that the deficit stems from extravagant salaries. One letter-writer claims district employees received a 52.4 percent increase in salaries and benefits over the past couple of years.
Most of that increase is in the district’s cost of providing benefits to its employees. For example, district employees are enrolled in the state’s public agencies retirement program. Up until the 2002-2003 fiscal year, only employees were required to contribute to the program. That changed last year when the district received a bill for $2.5 million. This year’s bill is expected to be about $8 million.
Like other private and public agencies, the district is also seeing continual increases in health insurance costs of about 20 percent a year. Salaries for classified employees have risen about 4 percent a year, based on agreements with the district’s three bargaining units. Those increases keep district salaries in line with similar jobs in comparable public agencies.
The increase in district-wide salaries and benefits are driven by new hires, rather than raises. With the recent downturn in the economy, the district has been filling vacant positions that, during boom times, were difficult to fill because of higher salaries offered in the high-tech industry.
Why fill vacant positions? Because a reduction in services ensuring an adequate supply of clean, safe drinking water is unacceptable. Likewise, failing to control excess water that threatens residents with flooding during the rain season is intolerable.
The same columnist who tried to call the new water rates “a nasty blow to farmers” accuses the district of monopolistic practices.
The proposed rate increase was reviewed and approved by three advisory bodies. One is the Santa Clara County Water Commission, comprised of representatives from the county and cities throughout the county, including Gilroy and Morgan Hill. Another staff advisory committee, consisting of the county’s retail water providers (including the cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill) also agreed to the rate increase.
The higher water rates also received unanimous support from the Agricultural Water Advisory Committee, which includes half a dozen South County growers and ranchers, most of whom are active in the Santa Clara County Farm Bureau.
That same columnist asks how “the average person (can) fight back against an entity like a water district.”
We don’t operate in a vacuum. Board meetings are held on the first and third Tuesday of the month, and copies of our agenda are posted on our Web site, www.valleywater.org. If you have a concern, let us know.
Sig Sanchez, At-Large Director (846-1136)
Rosemary Kamei, District 1 Director (297-9255, ext. 24)
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Submitted Wednesday, June 30 to ed****@****ic.com
