Lompico faces dire water supply deficit
Oct 11, 2012 | 3212 views | 54 54 comments | 43 43 recommendations | email to a friend | print

EDITOR,

There is great confusion about water resources involved with the proposed merger of the Lompico County Water District and the San Lorenzo Valley Water District.

The Lompico district possesses an “Appropriative Water Right” that defines the district's allowed diversions of water from the creek. The State Water Resources Control Board would never issue a new water right to send water out of Lompico for any possible purpose. A merger with SLV can only result in water flowing into Lompico, not out.

The confusion over this issue has created the fantasy that a merger with SLV would result in a loss of water from Lompico. This is impossible under state law.

Everyone needs to understand that Lompico has a severe water supply shortage. Lompico is notorious for drying up the creek during droughts in its attempt to produce water. This problem was demonstrated dramatically during the 1986-to-’92 drought, when the Lompico district had to truck water in tankers into the canyon each morning for weeks, at great expense. This Lompico water shortage was enshrined in the state code with a State Health Department Order issued in 1977 during the 1976-77 drought limiting the district to a maximum of 500 water connections to its system. The district has also been threatened for its violations of the State Fish and Game Code.

Since the 1986 drought, a major new 500-plus-foot-deep well was added to the system. It did not solve the problem.

Voters need to re-elect the current Lompico Water board of Lois Henry, Rick Harrington and Bill Smallman. If all three are not re-elected, the district will be faced with a deadlocked board and the fundamental financial and water supply problems of this public utility will not be solved.

Kevin Collins, Felton

Comments
(54)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Duane Davis
|
October 22, 2012
It seems Kevin Collins likes to makes up "facts" as it conveniences him.

On his website for the lompico watershed conservancy he states "The Water District has been under a State ordered moratorium preventing the release of any new water meters continuously since 1988 due to a lack of supply, and has been under previously instituted moratoriums going back to 1974."

According to the California Department of Public Health, which regulates our water district, there is NO document or order issued by the DPH, or any other prior state agency with oversight over drinking water, restricting the number of connections in Lompico.

When asked what he based his statement on he refused to discuss the matter.
Bernice Benn
|
October 23, 2012
Because they are trying to "change behavior" per their climate action plan.

It has nothing to do with water supply, which is abundant.
Duane Davis
|
October 31, 2012
I've done more research on the 500 connection moratorium.

Here are the facts:

It's actually 512 connections.

The restriction was imposed by Santa Cruz County, not the state.

The restriction is due to limitations of the water district's capability of being able to provide a minimum number of gallons per minute to it's customers.

'the maximum day demand for LCWD is determined to be = 255 gallons per connection per day. The needed source capacity of your currently active service connections of 495 is therefor 126,700 gallons per day or 88 gallons per minute.'

At the time our capacity (the gallons per minute that the creek diversion and wells combined could produce) was 77 gallons per minute.

This is NOT how much is available in the creek or aquifer, it's how much our pumps can pump per minute. Larger pumps, larger pipes, higher GPM.

Today we have about a 100 GPM capability. Once the Lewis Treatment plant is brought back online that will go up to about 118 GPM. Well above the 88 GPM requirement.

Again, this NOT about water shortage. It IS about the pumps being able to keep up if all of us start using a bunch of water all at the same time.

Duane Davis
|
October 31, 2012
To clarify... Once the Lewis Treatment plant is back online Well 6 can be brought back online which will provide an additional ~18 GPM.
Voice of Reason
|
October 17, 2012
Dear Merrie -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronyism

Cronyism is partiality to long-standing friends, especially by appointing them to positions of authority, regardless of their qualifications. Hence, cronyism is contrary in practice and principle to meritocracy.

Cronyism exists when the appointer and the beneficiary are in social contact; often, the appointer is inadequate to hold his or her own job or position of authority, and for this reason the appointer appoints individuals who will not try to weaken him or her, or express views contrary to those of the appointer. Politically, "cronyism" is derogatorily used.[1]

Lompico Voter
|
October 17, 2012
Lompico will vote only if there is a bond involved. The so called "vote" you are talking about will take palce if/when LAFCO approves the application and a certain percentage "protest" it will go to an "election". Look it up, LAFCO has a website.

There never was and still isn't a guaranteed "vote". No negotiation, no contract and possibly no vote. It's a screw job!
B. Essers
|
October 17, 2012
If you're planning on voting for the incumbents, let me tell you what kind of people you're voting for.

Evidently the incumbents are making up their endorsements. Three of the endorsements that they have claimed, either on their web site or on their signs:

Valley Woman's Club

Lompico Watershed Conservancy

Sempervirens

Are 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations. They CANNOT, by law, endorse any political candidate and can loose their non-profit status if they do so.

Two of then so far have stated that they have not endorsed the incumbents and were not aware that their name was being used in this manner.

I wonder how many others are lies as well.
Merrie Schaller
|
October 17, 2012
Nowhere do the incumbents claim organizational endorsements; they do say that Lompico Watershed Conservancy, Valley Women's Club, Zayante Fire District and Supervisor Mark Stone support merger between Lompico County Water District and San Lorenzo Valley Water District. The first two organizations are nonprofits and cannot make political endorsements, but can support positions.

(Perhaps the story has changed in the retelling, exchanging Semper Virens for Zayante Fire; no one claims Semper Virens support, because they were never asked.)

It would be good to check facts before posting.
B. Essers
|
October 17, 2012
Attaching these organizations names to your campaign sign implies support by those organizations even if not specifically stated.

These organizations are being contacted and are telling us they have no wish to be associated with your campaign
B. Essers
|
October 17, 2012
Also when you go to the incumbents web page and click on "Endorsements". It goes to a page titled "Endorsements". This page contains the names of these organizations.

I also note that you've recently removed Kevin Collins title as being with the watershed conservancy. We have printouts of the way it was before you people changed them.

So don't feed us your lies.
PT in LP
|
October 16, 2012
Big Basin Water Company is next.

A 1998 county report detailed a plan to move all privately operated water systems into county control to accommodate county ease of water transfer between districts to accommodate growth.

Housing has been and will continue to grow dramatically in county areas with less water. Areas of abundant water, like Felton and Lompico, are limited in growth due to terrain and the septic ordinance.

In short, the County, SLV Water District, and the county-organized-FLOW created a false narrative of "local control, lower rates, Cal Am will send our water away". What happened is loss of local control, higher rates, and now SLV Water District is sending our water away.

Look at Smallman's list of endorsers. Why would Mark Stone need to endorse in a small water district race like Lompico when he has not done so before? Sprenger/FLOW endorses Smallman. What does that say?
PT in LP
|
October 16, 2012
Why is excessive housing important in areas which value open space and the "environment"? Because excessive housing and development feeds county salaries and bloated pensions (e.g. County Planning Head Tom Burns retired at age 55 with $162,500/year).

So, none of this is about better delivery of water for Lompico or Felton.

It's all about money.
Pete Norton
|
October 15, 2012
The way I see it, the anti-merger candidates are the ones forcing their will on the people of Lompico. You disregard the wishes of 187 actual LCWD customers who asked the district to continue to pursue merger negotiations. This is opposed to the 17 who were against the idea, and 12 undecided. That is the travesty. I just hope these same people come out and vote on Election Day. If even one of you is elected, you will deny these people the opportunity to vote on a merger plan.

A merger or bond cannot be forced on anyone. A real vote is required, but can’t be held until details and costs are known.



I see that now you are changing your strategy from anti-merger to let’s merge later. I don’t think that is going to fly. We disagree on just about every single point. I do have more to say on each, but it seems pointless as you have already made up your mind for all of Lompico.

Duane Davis
|
October 15, 2012
Are you talking about that joke of a survey? The one written by the pro-merger people, slanted to their pro-merger views, sent out by the pro-merger people and counted by the pro-merger people. The one that the pro-merger people refused to let others see proof of the results when asked?

I've yet to find anyone that will admit that they responded to it. If anything THAT survey is the real travesty.

A bond has to be voted on by the community. A merger does not.

When will the costs be known? The incumbents have been supposedly working on this for FOUR YEARS now and all we've seen is an ESTIMATE from 2 years ago. There is no merge proposal but they continue on as if it's a sure thing.

The incumbents are so focused on their merger agenda that the district is falling apart around them. What have they been doing the past 2 years besides running the district into the ground? Taking 18 months to approve the tank repair with a cost of under $6,000. Refusing to fund a few hundred dollars to fix the SCADA system. Pushing out the replacement of the Lewis 2 tank by 8-10 YEARS. A tank that 2 years ago was estimated to have 3-5 years life remaining. Refusing to upgrade the billing system which caused the recent billing problems and pissed off a bunch of customers. Refusing to hire, or even look for, a new district manager.

This past year they FINALLY started doing something but only because the State inspected the system and gave them deadlines, forcing them to make the repairs.

Yet they can spend $30,000 and more to study a merger that may never happen.

The health of the system should be the boards number 1 priority. It hasn't been and that is one thing that will be MY first priority if elected.

I am not apposed to a merger, IF IT MAKE SENSE. To run up this much debt and then give it away with absolutely no guarantees does not. If we are going to merge it better be beneficial to the Lompico community. We are, after all, putting in millions of dollars to fix a system that is already valued at about $12 million and which WILL benefit SLVWD.

This isn't the first time SLVWD has tried to take over Lompico and I'm sure it won't be the last. Like every other time SLV continues to be unreasonable. They gain everything and we get the bill. An SLVWD board member admitted in 2010 that this merger is not a good deal for Lompico. Other professionals have told our board that giving away our system and water rights is NOT a good idea. I tend to listen to the professionals.

Then there are the numerous complaints from residents of other districts that have been taken over by SLVWD. I know people that have gone to practically EVERY SLVWD board meeting for many years. SLVWD aren't the saints they make themselves out to be or portray on their web site. Yet that is the information you went by while on the Citizens Advisory Committee. Do you think we are the only district with dishonest management and/or board members? They are going to tell you, and the public, whatever will cast themselves in the best light.

I've heard all the arguments for a merger. I've weighed the benefits and the potential consequences and I am not convinced that THIS merger, at THIS time, is the best thing for our community.

There is a well thought out, and sound, alternate plan. Let's give it a chance.

SLVWD isn't going away and a merger will always be an option down the road.

numbers guy
|
October 16, 2012
187 out of well over 500. That is less than half, last time I checked. So who is forcing who here?
Lompico Voter
|
October 15, 2012
John Schnedier - Do you reside in Lompico and vote here? Or are you another outside influence who can't vote and won't pay?
Lompico Voter
|
October 15, 2012
To Lompico: Only Lompico should decide for Lompico (not outside organizations, they can't even vote on it). There is no reason we cannot merge at a later date if it makes sense for all of Lompico. We should not have this "shoved down our throats" by the current incumbents.They have stated that we should merge "at any cost". Really? Wow, Not sure about anyone else but that's not the way I'd conduct a business deal. You can vote for any three candidates of your choice. But if you elect all three incumbents, you will get a merge "at any cost".

Kevin states that water will not flow out of Lompico "for any possible purpose". If you read the Prop 50 intertie application, it states "Water

transfers from Lompico to SLVWD would be gravity flow using pressure reducing valves located

in vaults outside of the pump station building."

And that pump station will reside in the SLVWD, not in Lompico, we will not have any control over the valve and water can flow out of Lompico.

Pete Norton talks about the water rates from SLVWD as if they never go up. SLVWD has raised their rates 45% in the last five years. Do the math, you'll be paying through the nose, until by the end of this bond (as if there won't be more), you'll be paying about $3000 more per year.

Stop the madness Lompico, do what you know is right!

John Schneider
|
October 15, 2012
My understanding is that in order for a bond to be passed, there will have to be a public vote. The current board can only propose a bond. The decision will still be in the hands of the voters. The people running against the incumbents are trying to prevent the locals from having the opportunity to vote because THEY don't want the merger.
Roselynn P
|
October 15, 2012
It does not make sense to me why a group of 3 would run to end the board they are running for. Isn't that closely akin to sabotage?
Sam S
|
October 14, 2012
This is the FLOW mess all over again. No thanks.
Duane Davis
|
October 14, 2012
I would be interested in hearing about any negative experiences from Felton, Zayante or other areas that have merged with SLVWD.

You can email me at duane (at) duanedavis.info or leave a message at 831 477-6775
Aiden Venustum
|
October 15, 2012
There are many people who wish to speak with you about the Felton water takeover. Will be in contact.
Lompico Lars
|
October 13, 2012
Once you pay SLV Water District $6 million to take your water company way, you will never get it back.

The best interests of Lompico residents and their water system should be made by Lompico water residents with thoughtful leadership on the part of their elected water board.

Think about it. 3 candidates for Lompico Water Board are running on a slate of ending the Lompico Water Board. Those are the last people who should be put in charge of the district.

Erin K
|
October 14, 2012
I think it's frightening that those 3 are running on a ticket with the intent to end the Lompico Water District's independence.

It seems to be a safer route to go with the candidates who will proceed more cautiously.
Farmer Ted
|
October 13, 2012
Help us close Lompico Park, and give away our Water! Re-Elect Ed and Debbie! Oops, I mean re-elect their puppets! Wait, I meant the incumbents, yeah, that's it...
Duane Davis
|
October 13, 2012
If I am wrong, and I don't think I am, we will still have the option to merge. The State will NOT allow the district to fail.

If the incumbents are wrong, and we do merge, there

's no going back. We're stuck with the mistake FOREVER.

How much are you willing to gamble on who is right?
Duane Davis
|
October 13, 2012
If I am wrong, and I don't think I am, we will still have the option to merge. The State will NOT allow the district to fail.

If the incumbents are wrong, and we do merge, there

's no going back. We're stuck with the mistake FOREVER.

How much are you willing to gamble on who is right?

Duane Davis
|
October 12, 2012
Between 1991 and 2003, the water levels in SLVWD wells have fallen approximately 90 feet.

The City of Santa Cruz suffers from lack of water supply.

Water level in Scotts Valley aquifers has been dropping for decades.

Soquel Creek aquifer has been degrading since 1955. Officials say the districts aquifer is consistently overdrawn. Currently has the worst saline level in 20 years they’ve kept records. It's widely accepted that Soquel Creek's groundwater basin is nearing exhaustion.

Pajaro Valley wells are suffering from seawater intrusion.

That's from a 2003-2004 Grand Jury Report.

A July 2010 report from the City of Santa Cruz says:

“If the city were faced now with drought conditions similar to the 1976-77 time period, there would not be enough water to meet current demands and the city would be forced to ration water supplies to reduce demand by up to 45 percent.”

Lompico is the only one that isn't consistently over drawing it's water supply.

Lompico is the only one that has a moratorium on new construction.

Lompico is the only one that doesn't have to keep scrambling for additional water sources.

Other districts are hurting much more than we are. How much water do you think they are going to give (sell) us during a drought?

Duane Davis

Candidate for Director, Lompico County Water District
Pete Norton
|
October 12, 2012
Mr Davis stated “Lompico is the only one that isn't consistently over drawing it's water supply.” I would like to know what you base that statement on. I have heard that we run our well pumps 24/7 and can barely keep up with demand. It is a known fact that we sometimes draw more water from the creek than is allowed by Fish and Game. The LCWD wells draw from the same aquifer, called the Lompico Aquifer, which Scotts Valley, San Lorenzo Valley and Mt Hermon water districts draw from. Those districts all report declining water levels in the aquifer. LCWD simply does not study the water table. Just Google “Lompico Aquifer” to see numerous reports on the situation. It is concerning, but not surprising, to me that someone running for the water board does not know where our water comes from.

Mr. Davis also stated “Other districts are hurting much more than we are. How much water do you think they are going to give (sell) us during a drought?” As customers of SLVWD we will be guaranteed the same amount of water that any other San Lorenzo Valley water district customer is entitled to. This is a considerably better situation then the water table dropping below the depth of our wells and us having no other source. We are all residents of the San Lorenzo Valley and should band together with them to protect our water.

Duane Davis
|
October 13, 2012
Mr. Norton,

I base that statement on information provided by employees of the district. Yes, the pumps were running 24/7. But, of our 4 wells, we've had one well completely offline and another operating at about 33% of capacity. Since fixing the latter the pumps no longer need to run as much. The question to ask is why the incumbents have taken 3 years to start fixing these problems.

If SLVWD is facing a shortage due to drought so will we. Lompico already has the lowest water usage per capita. How much more can we cut? As a separate entity we CAN truck in water. As part of SLVWD we won't have that luxury.

And again, "drought" is just a scare tactic. We've had only two droughts in more than 35 years.

Betsy Herbert the environmental cog at SLV Water District admits that drought scares are merely to "change behavior" and have no basis in reality.

Pete Norton
|
October 14, 2012
Mr. Davis, the point is that “our” water is being overdrawn by the other districts that are tapping into the same aquifer, as your own statistics show. It does not matter whose pumps are drawing it down. If we are in such good shape, why are we currently under use restrictions? Do you think that is just another scare tactic?
Duane Davis
|
October 15, 2012
Mr. Norton,

Thank you for making my point.

If we are pulling from the same water source SLVWD will have just as much a supply problem as we do in a drought, except they have 14x the number of customers to supply. How then are they going to be able to supplement our supply? From the other inter-tied districts that are in even worse shape than SLVWD? Where is this benefit to Lompico during droughts if we merge? There is none.

Is merging going to reduce our, or SLVWD's demand on the aquifers? I seriously doubt it.

However; as a small separate district we have in the past, and can in the future, truck in water. Yes it's expensive but it's better than not having water.

I'm not saying drought isn't a concern. I'm saying that is a scare tactic being used to push the merger.

Why don't you tell me why we are under use restrictions? Nobody else I've spoken to can understand why. District staff tells me that our tanks are full and we have no shortage of water yet the board, currently controlled by the incumbents, have put usage restrictions in place. Scare tactic? I haven't heard a better reason.

Concerned Lompican
|
October 12, 2012
The timing of this letter is very concerning, another ploy by the incumbents to scare the bejesus out of the people of Lompico so they'll give up their rights. What's next Kevin, a fire? a broken water pipe, a mis-billing? Anybody out there find this all a little too coincidental?

Survey out - water main breaks

One month b4 Election time -Re billing

Makes you wonder what will happen next?
Pete Norton
|
October 12, 2012
Are you actually implying that someone caused the big water main break to influence the water district survey results? A bit paranoid, I think.
Lompico Lana
|
October 12, 2012
Please read From Kevin's website in 2009 - Bottom line, he states that Pajaro, Soquel Creek and Scotts Valley are all sucking the aquifer dry. How will they be pumping water INTO Lompico if they don't have any?

The most familiar well draw-downs are in the coastal plain where the problem of salt water intrusion is a major issue. Water from the ocean moves inland to replace water pumped out of the ground. This ruins a ground water basin. The lower Pajaro River plain and the Beltz wells used by the Soquel Creek Water District are both experiencing various levels of salt water problems. The Pajaro is already at a crisis with wells that are ruined and must be capped. In the San Lorenzo Valley well pumping has created disputes between water agencies over who gets first use of certain aquifers.

The City of Scotts Valley Water Department has drawn down its wells about 100 feet causing considerable alarm about their future water supply. Scotts Valley aquifers have also been polluted by fuel leakage which must be tracked by test wells. You may have seen one being drilled in the Kings Village parking lot. Heavy pumping of wells can damage an aquifer by extracting so much water that the ground actually sinks and colapses the storage abilty of a sub-surface water basin. All of these problems are common in many parts of California and easily demonstrate why government oversight of water resources is so important. However such regulation becomes ineffective if the public is not involved and playing a part in water resource protection.

Lompico Lars
|
October 12, 2012
Once you pay SLV Water District $6 million to take your water company way, you will never get it back.

The best interests of Lompico residents and their water system should be made by Lompico water residents with thoughtful leadership on the part of their elected water board.

Think about it. 3 candidates for Lompico Water Board are running on a slate of ending the Lompico Water Board. Those are the last people who should be put in charge of the district.
Pete Norton
|
October 12, 2012
Lars,

The estimate of needed improvements that SLVWD made in 2010 was 2.5 million dollars, not six million. This should be reduced by possible grant funding for the inter-tie and consideration of a different storage tank plan. This district sold over a million dollar in bonds to recover from previous mismanagement (when the county had to take over the water company because of corruption) in the seventies. Those bonds, which we are still paying, paid for the worn out infrastructure that now needs to be replaced. The good news is the current bonds will be paid off soon, further reducing the actual cost of a new bond. Take a look at your tax bills, your water bill and the rate comparison chart on TinyURL.com/Lompico or at the district office. The bond cost is completely offset by the lower rates. Yes, rates will always go up, it is inevitable like death and taxes, but the bond cost is fixed for the duration of the bond.

Duane Davis
|
October 13, 2012
Mr. Norton seem to think we'll get to borrow the money for FREE? He's delusional at best.

The estimate was $2,643,000.

As there has not been an updated estimate these are the number we have to work with. The grant to pay for an inter-tie is not definite and it does not make sense to risk the health of our district on something that may never happen.

At an interest rate of 6.5% over 30 years there would be $3,371,000.83 in interest.

That adds up to a TOTAL of $6,014,000.83

The pro-merger crowd consistently fails to include the bond costs in their examples which makes a bond APPEAR to be cheaper. It isn't.

These are numbers furnished by the current board, I did not make them up.
Pete Norton
|
October 14, 2012
Mr. Davis,

While technically, the estimated debt is $2,643,000, you are correct on the total cost. When you buy a house with a mortgage, how much do you say you paid for it? Most probably never bother to figure out the true cost of their mortgage. What is important is the payments! If you had taken your calculations a little further, you see that $6,014,000.83 divvied by 30 years is $200,467 a year, divided by 500 connections is $401.00 a year. This is a considerably less scary number than 6 MILLION DOLLARS! As you know, the rate savings for the average customer is a similar number. Take into account that we expect the final proposal to have a smaller cost, and the fact that our current water bonds will be expiring, you can see that the actual cost may actually be very small. Once the final cost is negotiated, a bond engineer can figure the exact cost and how that would be collected. Only then can the measure and bond approval be put to a vote in a regular election.

So, what do we get for this?

All new steel storage tanks

All new water meters

A working Lewis treatment plant

An inter-tie pipeline

Mostly new lateral connections to each house

Sound management, professional staff, maintenance and construction equipment up to the task of keeping the district running.

You may say we don’t need these things, but why should we have to struggle on a shoestring budget to even do the modest improvements that are absolutely required. The biggest benefit is that we would be out of the business of managing the water district and the peace of mind in knowing all we have to do is turn on the tap.

Duane Davis
|
October 15, 2012
Mr. Norton,

So what's wrong with giving the public the TRUE TOTAL COST? Is your position so week that you think you'll benefit by being deceptive.

The fact of the matter is that we can do everything you say for more than $3 MILLION less without a bond. It will take longer but many of the items you list don't need to be done right away.

All new steel storage tanks: With the exception of one, all the tanks have 15 to 30 years of useful life left in them. Where's the rush to replace them all NOW? Even the ONE tank that should be replaced NOW is being pushed out 8-10 years by the incumbents.

All new water meters: This is only to make them compatible with SLVWD. No merge, not needed.

A working Lewis treatment plant: We have enough capacity at this time to operate without the Lewis plant and have been for ~10 years. Why the sudden rush to fix it? This should be a priority but isn't critical enough to warrant a merger.

An inter-tie pipeline: This WILL happen with or without a merge. It's been in the general plan of the various districts for years. They're currently trying to get prop 50 funds to help with the cost. However; I'm not sure how much it will benefit us. The proposed pipeline would send us water from Olympia and Quail Hollow, both of which have poor tasting water. The only other benefit might be if we have an infrastructure failure though our system is pretty simple. Any damage to it that would make an inter-tie necessary would also probably make the inter-tie useless.

mostly new laterals: These are already being replaced. If we try to do too many at one time it will only cut off water to customers for longer periods of time.

Sound management, professional staff: The incumbents refuse to hire, or even look for a new manager and how is our staff not professional?

1. following an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain: a professional builder.

2. of, pertaining to, or connected with a profession: professional studies.

3. appropriate to a profession: professional objectivity.

4. engaged in one of the learned professions: A lawyer is a professional person.

5. following as a business an occupation ordinarily engaged in as a pastime: a professional golfer.

Which part of Webster's definition of "professional" does the district staff not meet?

construction equipment: This is the ONE point I will agree with you on. But use of a few pieces of construction equipment still isn't a good reason to merge. The district can pick up a small tractor for under $10,000 that will handle the majority of jobs they run into. Anything else can be rented as needed. Once the laterals are all replaced they won't need to be doing as much digging or patching of roads.

By the way, the comment I made about a "shoestring budget" was made before I found out the district wasn't in as bad a shape as the board has been telling the public. The district has money in the bank, ~$160,000 in September, and there are ways to reduce some of the costs further without jeopardizing the water quality.

With your reasoning you would benefit by putting 100's of thousands of dollars into your house and then give it away to a contractor, because he could maintain it better, so he could turn around and rent it back to you. There must be benefit to ownership, otherwise why aren't we all renting?

The Lompico water district IS OWNED by the community of Lompico. The infrastructure is valued at over $12 MILLION. You think us paying $6 MILLION to fix it and then giving $18 MILLIOM in value to SLVWD with absolutely no guarantees as to how it will be run or managed is a good deal for the community? Not to mention the loss of water rights forever. Think again.
Lompican
|
October 11, 2012
Based on current water needs, the City could experience a 45% shortfall in water supply during a drought event similar to the one experienced in 1976-77
Lompican
|
October 11, 2012
My post got cut off.

That is a quote from a document by the Santa Cruz City water district.

As big as they are, 95,000-100,000 people served, they won't even have enough to handle a drought.

At least Lompico is small enough that trucking in water is an option. That won't be possible as part of the ~8,000 connection SLVWD.

Pete Norton
|
October 12, 2012
Yes, we could truck in water, but who would we buy that water from?
Duane Davis
|
October 13, 2012
Mr. Norton,

Who did we get the trucked in water from before?

Drought has happened in the past.

We've been able to truck in water when needed.

I've seen no reason to believe that this won't be possible in the future.
Lompico Resident
|
October 11, 2012
Kevin also apparently doesn't know the definition of deadlocked. It's impossible to have a deadlocked board with 5 votes.

The exact opposite will happen if the challengers are elected. As they are mostly in agreement with the remaining two board members the board will be able to get a lot more done.

Pete Norton
|
October 12, 2012
Yes, but their main goal is to deny the residents a chance to vote on a merger proposal. Any merger would require the vote of the people, which is all we are asking for.
Duane Davis
|
October 13, 2012
The current board hasn't put the vote to the community (unless you count that joke of a survey they sent out).

The current board is spending tens of thousands of dollars to study a merger. The current board majority, being pro-merger, is putting out information slanted to push their agenda. They've already decided it will happen and are doing everything they can to make it happen. A vote based on misinformation is not an informed vote.

The Grand Jury provided three options. Only one was merger. Why is the board so hell bent on merging now and putting the community $6 MILLION in debt. Why can't we wait and fix most of the problems and then look at merging without a bond?

If we merge now we're guaranteed to have the highest water costs (water rate bond) for at least the next 30 years. If we wait 5-10 years, fix the problems, then merge our water costs drop immediately.

Going $6 MILLION into debt when it's not necessary is irresponsible.

Pete Norton
|
October 14, 2012
Mr. Davis,

I’m glad you read the grand jury report, I think everyone should. I am curious as to which option you would pursue if elected.
Duane Davis
|
October 15, 2012
We have enough staff currently to handle the day-to-day operation and maintenance of the district.

Just because SLVWD has a huge staff doesn't mean it will be dedicated to Lompico. If we're lucky they will keep one or two people in Lompico on a full-time basis. If additional personnel are needed they will be called in.

Just like fire departments and law enforcement we don't need to have enough staff to cover every possible scenario. If more expertise or people are needed they can be brought in for that need. Either from SLVWD, SVWD, a private company, or somewhere else.

As long as we agreements and sources in place and documented we don't need to merge with SLVWD for their staff or expertise.

In the almost 15 years I've been here I've never heard of a case that would require SLVWD's help. It's only with the current "pro-merger at any cost" board majority that SLVWD has been brought in and our staff told to stay out of the way. Our staff has handled the district maintenance for decades, why is it that all of a sudden they can't? Just because of the actions of one District Manager?
Duane Davis
|
October 15, 2012
By the way, I've been informed that the question about staff in Lompico was put to the SLVWD board in 2010. They responded that there would be ZERO staff manning the Lompico facilities. ZIP, ZERO, NONE.

The current Lompico staff will loose their jobs.

If there's a problem you'll have to wait for them to drive down from Boulder Creek, or wherever they happen to be on the road.

The Lompico district office will be closed permanently. If you want to pay your bill in person you'll have to drive to Boulder Creek.

Want to attend a board meeting? Yup, Boulder Creek.

LCWD Customer
|
October 11, 2012
No, the state wont issue a new water right to pull more out of the creek.

BUT, less than 20% of our water comes out of the creek. Most of it comes from wells. So they could pump our wells dry. Which would be even worse.


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.