It has been brought to my attention that another candidate is spreading misinformation. The District is not voting on a merger with Scotts Valley and never was. The vote was for fact finding and starting the LAFCO process to see if it was even beneficial to do a merger. The board voted no on the LAFCO process and I don’t see this coming back to board in the near future if at all. When it comes to a merger with Scotts Valley I strongly believe that decision lies in the hands of the voters as I would be working for you and not my own interests.
As a scientist, I make decisions based on facts so I was curious to see pros and cons LAFCO would have brought forward when this was being reviewed by the board. At the time everything being presented about the merger seemed to be positive. In my opinion the pros were, we are a small water district that has to do everything big water districts do and more customers means we can spread the cost out easier. Also, watersheds are always managed better as a whole. Things I would have been interested in hearing about is how the recycled water plant that Scotts Valley operates would be beneficial to SLV Water. As climate change progresses I could see this facility being a great benefit to producing water during times of drought especially as we try to stabilize groundwater levels in the basin and stay in compliance with the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). Santa Cruz and Scotts Valley just got awarded a large grant to build interties between the two districts. Is Santa Cruz looking to merge with them? Right now Santa Cruz has petitioned the Water Board to change the water rights to be controlled at the Big Trees gauge. That will directly affect SLV Water because they will be limited on how much water can be removed from the system to maintain flows at a very low point in the watershed. A scenario that may happen, as the stage is being set now, is that it will be Santa Cruz controlling our water and it will be too late to take a merger with Scotts Valley.
However, the concerns that voters brought to the Board when this issue was raised were very valid and I agree with them. I am very apprehensive about entering into a merger with Scotts Valley when we don’t have our own city council to represent us which would put us at a great disadvantage. SLV’s water source is superior as they have surface rights where Scotts Valley has none. The SV aquifer is also less porous so it recharges slower than the SLV’s aquifer which will become a bigger issue as droughts increase and there isn’t as much water available to recharge the aquifers. It makes me nervous to enter an agreement where we have the water but may lose control of how it’s used. Even running for the Board of Directors would become more of a rich person’s game because every voter added raises the cost to run. For example in the voter handbook it cost about $1000 for 200 words, if you were to include SV voters that would jump to over $2000 to just start your campaign. I don’t want to be rolled over by the rich and powerful to get control of the Valley’s surface water rights. If we merged we would also be on the hook for nearly all of the costs associated with the GSP put forth by the Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency. SV could be a financial burden on SLV Water as we try to recover from the CZU fire and catch up on deferred maintenance or it could help pay for some of the cost. We don't know the full extent of the financial repercussions, good or bad, unless the two districts went through the LAFCO process. Again I work for the voter, they said they did not want to proceed with the LAFCO fact finding and I support their decision.
As a scientist, I make decisions based on facts so I was curious to see pros and cons LAFCO would have brought forward when this was being reviewed by the board. At the time everything being presented about the merger seemed to be positive. In my opinion the pros were, we are a small water district that has to do everything big water districts do and more customers means we can spread the cost out easier. Also, watersheds are always managed better as a whole. Things I would have been interested in hearing about is how the recycled water plant that Scotts Valley operates would be beneficial to SLV Water. As climate change progresses I could see this facility being a great benefit to producing water during times of drought especially as we try to stabilize groundwater levels in the basin and stay in compliance with the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). Santa Cruz and Scotts Valley just got awarded a large grant to build interties between the two districts. Is Santa Cruz looking to merge with them? Right now Santa Cruz has petitioned the Water Board to change the water rights to be controlled at the Big Trees gauge. That will directly affect SLV Water because they will be limited on how much water can be removed from the system to maintain flows at a very low point in the watershed. A scenario that may happen, as the stage is being set now, is that it will be Santa Cruz controlling our water and it will be too late to take a merger with Scotts Valley.
However, the concerns that voters brought to the Board when this issue was raised were very valid and I agree with them. I am very apprehensive about entering into a merger with Scotts Valley when we don’t have our own city council to represent us which would put us at a great disadvantage. SLV’s water source is superior as they have surface rights where Scotts Valley has none. The SV aquifer is also less porous so it recharges slower than the SLV’s aquifer which will become a bigger issue as droughts increase and there isn’t as much water available to recharge the aquifers. It makes me nervous to enter an agreement where we have the water but may lose control of how it’s used. Even running for the Board of Directors would become more of a rich person’s game because every voter added raises the cost to run. For example in the voter handbook it cost about $1000 for 200 words, if you were to include SV voters that would jump to over $2000 to just start your campaign. I don’t want to be rolled over by the rich and powerful to get control of the Valley’s surface water rights. If we merged we would also be on the hook for nearly all of the costs associated with the GSP put forth by the Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency. SV could be a financial burden on SLV Water as we try to recover from the CZU fire and catch up on deferred maintenance or it could help pay for some of the cost. We don't know the full extent of the financial repercussions, good or bad, unless the two districts went through the LAFCO process. Again I work for the voter, they said they did not want to proceed with the LAFCO fact finding and I support their decision.