Letter: Water district’s rate increase a small price to pay for consistent, quality water supply
Oct 10, 2013 | 4671 views | 13 13 comments | 193 193 recommendations | email to a friend | print
EDITOR,

I support the rate hike proposed by the San Lorenzo Valley Water District to ensure that we keep up with needed infrastructure repairs; establish emergency interties; protect and maintain our watershed and ground water sources of water; and build a new energy- efficient, seismically safe, consolidated location in Boulder Creek for all of our district facilities.

Even though there have been plenty of publicly announced committee and board meetings about these issues, I feel that there could also have been an on going public outreach effort explaining these needs and plans to achieve them in more detail.

Even though it costs a little more money and takes more time to do so, PR on the web site, in the papers, and at public outreach meetings should have started many months ago and been on going.

I am thankful for the great water and water district that we do have.

The rate hikes are a relatively small price to pay to ensure that we maintain a dependable, safe supply of water in the potentially turbulent climate change years to come.

Fred McPherson, Boulder Creek
Comments
(13)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Rick Stark
|
October 16, 2013
Interesting to read the comments on the Watchdogs facebook page. SLV Water District has turned out to be ten times worse than Cal Am in terms of rates, hostility, lack of transparency. Pretty bad.

https://www.facebook.com/slvwd.co
Zed Baumgartner
|
October 14, 2013
To learn more about the San Lorenzo Valley Water District rate increase and activities, please visit:

https://www.facebook.com/slvwd.co

http://www.slvwd.co

seriously????????
|
October 11, 2013
wow. harsh responses to level headed opinion. Obviously all of these people below have NOT been doing their homework on this! Its sad that people have to resort to such discourse. its not a "college campus" and its not $12.8 million. do the homework and get the facts.
tianna barrett
|
October 11, 2013
The water district calls it a campus and the district's own accounting references a total of $12.8 million dollars.
The Watchdogs
|
October 11, 2013
seriously???????,

We invite you to review "the facts" of the true Campus costs at: http://www.slvwd.co/dp/content/white-paper-administrative-campus

This white paper was created by a registered engineer, and a CPA who used SLVWD documents to revel the true costs. These highly-experienced professionals use only the facts and always "do their homework".

Scotts Valley Lola
|
October 12, 2013
Okay... I can see on the Watchdog site why it's a 12.8 million dollar campus. Why do you say it's not? Those of you who are in favor of this ridiculous rate increase to primarily pay for this bloated campus project never seem to have any facts to support your lame positions. Give us some... otherwise you're not credible. Inform us... Do something intelligent. Don't just spew your emotional blithering.

And another thing... why on Earth would anyone from Scotts Valley favor locating this boondoggle campus all the way at the other end of the district in Boulder Creek? That's fully 20 minutes away from us at the best of times. Absolute nonsense. These directors ('cept for Randall Brown) have been drinking the bong water.
Felton Resident
|
October 11, 2013
Why is it that an Engineer can sit in a cubicle and design a rocket, whereas a San Lorenzo Valley Water District Board Member or politician requires building a College Campus to oversee some water pipes?
Ferdinand Bell
|
October 11, 2013
A $12.8 million campus. Vote them out. All of them.
Cathy Howard
|
October 10, 2013
Here are the lies in Fred McPherson's letter:

Emergency interties - the truth is that we will only ever ship water out. And not for emergencies, for sharing with districts that are in overdraft due to bad planning.

Protect watershed - their $80,000 year analyst has been spending more time working as a lobbyist than watershed protector.

Energy efficient building - 17,500 square feet! And all this after having spent $500,000 to remodel their existing buildings.

What a joke.

Leslie McFadden
|
October 10, 2013
It comes as no surprise Fred McPherson's position on the rate increase, after all, he is a former board member for SLVWD that has fortunately been replaced by a more sane and pragmatic voice. Three more to go.
BL Charlie
|
October 11, 2013
Building a $9 million dollar anything in BC is just plain nuts. Complete insanity. Fred's lost it, period.
Freda Caughlo
|
October 11, 2013
3 new board members. No FLOW. No SLVWD. No Valley Womens Club. They are one and the same and all have brought us to the mess we are in today.
Theryl McCoy
|
October 11, 2013
The whole town of Boulder Creek is barely worth 9 million dollars.


We encourage your online comments in this public forum, but please keep them respectful and constructive. This is not a forum for personal attacks, libelous statements, profanity or racist slurs. Readers may report such inappropriate comments by e-mailing the editor at pbeditor@pressbanner.com.