[env-trinity] Trinity Water to Santa Cruz County

[Tom Stokely]

This is a very interesting development, and one that could affect the future disposition of some CVP water (Mercy Springs in the Delta-Mendota Unit) which was assigned to Pajaro in the late 1990's.  That water contract for 6,250 ac-ft is currently out for public comment (comments are due Feb 2, 2005).

TS


http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2005/January/19/local/stories/03local.htm 

INFRASTRUCTURE / SANTA CRUZ COUNTY
Farmers file suit to halt pipeline
Santa Cruz Sentinel - 1/19/05
By Tom Ragan, staff writer
WATSONVILLE - Nearly 100 farmers opposed to the construction of a $200 million 
freshwater pipeline they say would only benefit a few learned Tuesday there's hope 
on the horizon: Pending lawsuits could stop the funding and the project.

But the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency is pushing ahead with the 23-mile 
pipeline, which would run from Hollister to the Pacific Ocean, despite the 
litigation. And that could potentially become a double-edged sword: The more the 
lawsuits slow the project, the more the agency will have to borrow money against 
higher interest rates to fund the pipeline.

At the heart of the three lawsuits now pending in Santa Cruz County Superior Court 
is whether the water agency broke California law when it started increasing the 
water rates to pay for the pipeline two years ago - to the tune of nearly $100 per 
acre-foot - without holding special elections.

Nearly $17 million of the pipeline has already been built along Beach Street from 
Highway 1 to the Pacific Ocean. At a meeting this afternoon, the agency and its 
board members plan to talk about the construction planned for 2005-06.

The water agency believes the new pipeline will solve the intrusion of saltwater, 
which has been hurting many coastal farmers where they are overdrawing in the 
basin.

But many of the people who attended a special meeting Tuesday at the Rod and Gun 
Club are inland farmers who feel they're already paying exorbitant fees to foot 
the bill for an expensive pipeline that isn't needed and will only benefit other 
farmers.

"Why, if I'm a farmer in Aromas, should I pay a fee to help deliver water to a 
farmer in Moss Landing?" said Dick Peixoto, an organic vegetable grower who has 
farms along the coast and inland and believes the problems of saltwater intrusion 
have been greatly exaggerated.

The agency, however, contends the invasion of saltwater is a reality and the 
pipeline will help all farmers in the 110-square-mile district because the 
aquifers in the basin are slowly being depleted.

"If we were to lose in court, we'd still have to find the same amount of money 
from the same people - but in a different manner," said Charlie McNiesh, general 
manager for the water management agency. But he's confident that alternative 
funding could be found and the pipeline would not have to be stopped.

The lawsuits, filed on behalf of a few inland farmers and John Eiskamp, a board 
member of the water agency, allege the water fees, known as "augmentation fees," 
are really taxes and the farmers, who make up 80 percent of the district, own the 
water and therefore should not be taxed on it.

And if farmers are to be taxed on their water, then at least they should be able 
to vote on it in a special election, which is something the water agency failed to 
hold, the lawsuits allege.

"This is a property rights issue," said Tom AmRhein, a strawberry farmer in the 
Pajaro Valley. 

So far, some farmers are having a hard time accepting the fees. Three years ago 
they were paying $60 per acre-foot. Today, they're paying $160 per acre-foot. And 
that's not the end. If the pipeline is to be constructed in its entirety, water 
rates are expected to rise as high as $220 per acre-foot by 2008.

An acre-foot equals 325,900 gallons. But farmers know the importance of an acre-
foot as this: It takes roughly two-three acre-feet to sustain one acre of crops 
per year.

The lawsuits are expected to be heard and resolved by the end of the year.#


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20050119/08261dae/attachment.html>