Gilroy
– Putting a stamp on state and federal water policy is no cheap
affair, according to expense reports from the Santa Clara Valley
Water District.
Gilroy – Putting a stamp on state and federal water policy is no cheap affair, according to expense reports from the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
Nearly half of the water board’s $90,000 in board-related spending covered the expense account for one member, Gregory Zlotnick, a three-term director who serves as the legislative pointman for the district.
Zlotnick racked up $44,614 in board expenses in 2003 traveling to conferences throughout the country and lobbying in Sacramento and Washington.
Although he represents District 5 (Cupertino, Palo Alto, Los Altos, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Saratoga, and parts of San Jose, Stanford, and Sunnyvale), Zlotnick says his cross-country trailblazing is vital to the entire region.
Zlotnick, who accounted for $74,139 in total compensation and reimbursements from the district, serves on five water-related boards that seek to influence water policy on regional, state, and national levels.
A nine-day trip in April 2003 to Washington, where Zlotnick met with fellow board members of the Association of California Water Agencies and the National Water Resources Association, cost the water district nearly $5,000 in airfare, lodging, registration, and other fees. About a third of the cost went toward Zlotnick’s stipend.
In addition to pay for regular monthly meetings, Santa Clara water-board members receive pay for any function they attend as a “district representative,” according to spokesman Mike Di Marco.
Pay reports show the water district also covered Zlotnick’s membership dues in the American Bar Association, subscriptions to magazines related to water policy, and other miscellaneous expenses.
He said the water district has secured half a billion dollars in state and federal funds for perchlorate clean-up, flood control, and other water projects in his eight years of service.
In addition to Zlotnick’s expenses, the water district spent $45,073 on registration fees, membership dues, travel expenses, and other costs associated with the office. All expenses require board approval. In 2003, directors signed off in advance on 79 percent of extra spending.
“The proof is in the pudding,” he said. “We tend to be very successful in getting results from Washington.”
He said travel and other expenses should be viewed in light of those successes and the district’s $415-million budget.
“This is pennies,” he said, “and the benefit we’re getting is huge.”
