Quick Take
Measure U makes no sense, writes Nancy B. Macy, a 50-year resident of Boulder Creek. The measure asks voters in the San Lorenzo Valley Water District to reverse a recent water bill hike and cap future charges. Macy sees the measure as shortsighted and foolish and against all the advice of experts. “Was the structure of the rate increase responsible? Thoughtfully designed by experts? Legally adopted? Is the rate increase necessary and was it carefully considered with public input and adapted to customer needs? Yes, yes, yes and yes!” she writes, while urging a no vote.
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.
It actually is important that voters in the San Lorenzo Valley Water District vote no on Measure U.
Simply take a look through the impartial analysis of Measure U on the Santa Cruz County Elections Department website. Seeing how Measure U would lower rates soon makes it obvious that the initiative lacks common sense.
ELECTION DAY NOV. 5
The consequences would be counterproductive at minimum. In fact, common sense says the consequences would be serious, even dire.
Please note that an impartial analysis (IA) is a requirement of the information guide for each measure under both state and local election law. By definition, it must be unbiased, neutral, nonpartisan. Further, it must be “written in language that shall be easily understood by the average voter.” It may “contain background information, including the effect … on existing law.” It “shall generally set forth … the information which the average voter needs to understand the measure adequately,” including financial impacts. (Cal gov’t Code 88033). In the case of water districts, the district counsel will write the IA.
The IA tells it like it is.
Measure U would delete the capital charge. The IA states that the charge “is a fixed rate for installing, maintaining and updating District capital improvements, such as water tanks and mains. It also helps fund rebuilding District water supplies which were damaged in the CZU fire. These improvements are necessary for the District to provide water.”
These improvements will enable the district to be ready for future disasters. However, without the increased funding, the district “could not proceed with these … projects unless an alternative funding source is identified.”
After describing what the new water rates include, the IA states, “These rates were adopted to cover the District’s operation and maintenance costs, capital replacement and refurbishment costs, recovery from CZU fire damage and financial reserves.”
Each of those purposes is important and provides ample reason to increase rates. But was the structure of the rate increase responsible? Thoughtfully designed by experts? Legally adopted? Is the rate increase necessary and was it carefully considered with public input and adapted to customer needs? Yes, yes, yes and yes!
The IA says, “As required by California law, the rates are based on a legally required rate study conducted by an independent consulting firm that showed the rates reflect the actual cost of providing water service.” (The consulting firm was chosen by the board based on the recommendation of staff, after it had performed a careful evaluation of companies bidding on the job.)
After months of study and analysis of the district’s situation, consultants said a new rate structure was needed. It is responsible and expertly designed. Public input was sought and encouraged. After lengthy public meetings and deliberation, the new water rates with both fixed rates and variable rates based on water use were adopted by the board, 4 votes to 1.
One of the water main improvements needed is the replacement of 25 miles of pipes currently unable to provide adequate pressure for fire hoses, impacting our fire departments’ ability to fight fires in high-fire-threat areas.
If Measure U passes, the board would need to again go through the expensive, required monthslong rate study process to return to lower rates. This means paying for the study again, while undermining revenue in the meantime.
This reboot will delay the board from focusing on completing planned improvements and addressing other pressing issues.
Measure U would also limit any increases of the service charge to no more than 2% per year. That is less than inflation and ties the board’s hands for decades. The service charge, according to the IA, “is a fixed rate that covers the District’s operating and maintenance costs.”
With this limitation of the rate increase, “the District would need additional funds from other sources to continue providing safe, clean and reliable drinking water.”
The IA is clear: This carefully designed rate increase is needed and without it, the district will, over time, have to raise rates even higher.
It will be taking out loans at higher interest rates while scrambling to find other sources of funding. In sum, district customers will end up paying more over time while desperately needed repairs and improvements will be delayed. The next flood, fire or other natural disaster will cripple the district further.
We need to vote no on U.
Nancy B. Macy is a 50-year resident and rate-payer in Boulder Creek.