February 7
SUPERVISOR MANU KOENIG SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF FROM GREENWAY PETITION DEBATE
Chairman Manu Koenig was the Executive Director of Greenway until shortly before launching his 2020 Supervisorial campaign, and he was well-funded by wealthy Greenway proponents. This was made clear in public testimony, and questioned by Supervisor Greg Caput. So, why didn’t he recuse himself from the discussion and ultimate vote of the Board on this matter, as a member of the public requested and Supervisor Greg Caput hinted???
Last Tuesday’s County Board of Supervisor debate about what to do with the Greenway Petition included Chairman Manu Koenig’s declaration that “It is high time to put this matter before the voters.”
Supervisor Zach Friend recused himself immediately from the discussion, because he owns property within 500′ of the rail line.
Ultimately, the vote of 4-0 supported staff reporting back to the Board by March 2 with analysis of the initiative’s potential impacts on land use, housing, infrastructure, parks and schools. Supervisors McPherson and Coonerty made that motion, citing that the public needs clear information about how the initiative would affect the County General Plan (which has not been updated since 1994, by the way) and the Sustainable Santa Cruz County Plan, which is still undergoing environmental analysis by Dudek consultants and no Draft EIR has been released.
So what will be the measuring stick for staff’s analysis of the Greenway Initiative???
In my opinion, on March 8, when the Board votes on this matter, Supervisors Manu Koenig and Zach Friend should both recuse themselves from any further action on this matter. Supervisor Greg Caput clearly stated he is against the Greenway Initiative because it is unfair to the South County residents. The ultimate vote regarding what to do with the Initiative will require a vote of three Supervisors. Stay tuned for the unfolding drama…..
You can watch last Tuesday’s (Feb.2) debate, which included excellent public comment from many perspectives (click on Item #10)
NO JUSTICE RENDERED IN SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT DECISION.
Last week, the Judge did not bother to take time to read any of my legal argument and supporting documents that could have saved me from having to borrow hundreds of dollars more than I had to, in order to call off the Soquel Creek Water District’s legal attack on my family member. I took emergency action in court, submitting the documentation to the Court in advance of the hearing, but the Judge did not review anything, and in fact, asked Soquel Creek Water District’s attorney for her interpretation of the legal question I managed to present in oral argument before he rushed the proceedings to closure. He agreed with her non-sensical opinion.
The legal issues were:
1) Is payment marked “paid in full” submitted for an amount that is less than the debt but an administrative error declares is the “remaining balance” is paid and accepted by the agency legally acceptable as full payment of the debt? In this case, the District accepted my $50 payment, acknowledged the payment with a statement that I owed $46.45, for a total of $96.45 when their attorney wanted me to pay $3313.00. I paid the $96.45 and marked “paid in full”, and the District did not dispute or reject the payment.
2) Can Soquel Creek Water District legally charge me 10% interest on court filing fees ($715 in this case) when the District has never had to pay the filing fees to the Court?
The judge asked the attorney from Soquel Creek Water District what her interpretation of the law that prohibits interest collection on the filing fee for which the District is exempt from paying but has discretion to collect for the Court. This meant me paying $550 more than I should have had to pay.
The judge admitted he had not seen any of my documentation.
He ruled I had to pay the maximum amount…$3400.58, in order to immediately call off the impending Soquel Creek Water District’s action to viciously interrogate my family member regarding family finances.
The Soquel Creek Water District’s attorney (who for a change, participated via Zoom and did not fly up from Riverside for the day for a personal appearance) claimed she did not receive service of my documents, even though she was electronically served them two hours previous (at my cost of $51.36 at FedEx).
The next day, when I questioned the Court Clerk about why the Judge did not receive my documents. She assured me that he HAD received them, BUT HE HAD NOT TAKEN TIME TO READ HIS E-MAILS BEFORE COMING TO COURT.
“You got a judgment from the Court, what’s the problem?” she asked? The problem is that there was no justice allowed me for the matter that could have significantly lowered the amount of money I have had to borrow, in order to protect my family’s health and well-being. All because Judge Volkmann could not be bothered to read his e-mail before coming into the Court to rule on my emergency request.
At least, I can take comfort in the fact that my family member is not in the hospital with a stress-induced heart attack….and that the $350/hour attorney for Soquel Creek Water District finally chose to appear in Court on Zoom, rather than fly up from Riverside for the day.
However, I really have to wonder why Ron Duncan, General Manager for the District, refused to sign my Receipt of Acknowledgement of Payment when I delivered the $3400.58 money order to his office later in the day? In fact, he threatened to call the police when I repeatedly asked him to sign. Isn’t that something???
WHAT HAPPENED IN ORANGE COUNTY GROUNDWATER WHEN RECYCLED WATER WAS INJECTED
When a project similar to the Soquel Creek Water District’s Modified PureWater Soquel Project happened in Orange County, contaminants showed up in the groundwater, including arsenic and carcinogenic NDMA, a disinfection by-product. The same thing happened in other areas of Northern California.
Will Soquel Creek Water District cause the groundwater in the MidCounty to also become contaminated?
How will this affect the two small water mutuals (Pine Tree Lane Mutual and Bluff Mutual) and private wells nearby and downstream of the groundwater flow?
One of the many big problems with the Modified PureWater Soquel Project is what will happen when Soquel Creek Water District pressure-injects treated sewage water into the pristine waters of the Purisima Aquifer. The District to date has released no FINAL Anti-Degradation Analysis of the Project, and refuses to do so, even though such analysis is required by State law.
District staff boldly state the water injected will meet all state drinking water regulations, but what they do NOT admit is that there are many contaminants, such as carcinogenic NDMA, pharmaceuticals and hormones, that are under investigation but not yet regulated by the State.
Read more about the problem in Orange County and a study that shows how the problem can be addressed:
Does NDMA Biodegrade at Ground-Water Recharge Facilities?
Read about carcinogenic NDMA found in groundwater in Northern California near projects like the Modified PureWater Soquel Project:
[NDMA and Other Nitrosamines – Drinking Water Issues]
In 1998 N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) was found in a drinking water well in northern California. NDMA was subsequently found elsewhere (including groundwater recharge projects), and also found to be a byproduct of drinking water treatment (see studies). There’s more on the NDMA history page.
Given the NDMA detections associated with drinking water sources and treatment, NDMA is a good candidate for future regulation (i.e., establishment of a drinking water standard, also known as a maximum contaminant level or MCL).
Informational sheet on NDMA…most labs cannot detect low levels of the contaminant.
Preliminary analyses suggested that NDMA’s presence in drinking water was related to disinfection processes, but very limited data were available, and often they appeared to be inconclusive. In November 1999, DHS initiated studies with drinking water utilities to investigate the occurrence of NDMA in raw, treated and distributed water, the role water quality and treatment processes may play in the production of NDMA, and the possible extent of NDMA production at various steps in the water treatment process.
In April 2000, the American Water Works Association Research Foundation and the Water Environment Foundation released a Request for Proposal for the study of factors affecting the formation of NDMA in water and occurrence. In May 2000, two wells in Orange County had NDMA at concentrations of approximately 0.03 to 0.04 µg/L, and were taken out of service.
A nearby groundwater recharge operation involving injection of treated wastewater contained NDMA in its injected water. DHS informed the wastewater treatment plant that its activities were impairing groundwater, and directed them to reduce the levels of NDMA accordingly.
In May 2000, a system in Los Angeles County found NDMA in its groundwater sources at concentrations of 0.032 to 0.076 µg/L, apparently associated with chemicals formerly produced in the aerospace industry.
In June 2000, a system in Los Angeles County found NDMA at about 0.03 µg/L, apparently related to resins used in water treatment for nitrate removal. In June 2000, also in Los Angeles County, NDMA at concentrations of 0.049 and 0.074 µg/L (duplicates) and 0.091 µg/L was found in treated wastewater that was blended for use as groundwater recharge.
Soquel Creek Water District has been forced to modify the PureWater Soquel Project multiple times because the secondary treated sewage water that will be the supply source has much higher nitrite, ammonia and total organic carbon than was known when the District certified the original Project EIR in 2018. As a result, those major design changes delayed construction start-up by eight-months.
Here is the EPA information about NDMA, an unregulated contaminant…
Second Unregulated Contaminant Rule
Please write Soquel Creek Water District Board of Directors and demand a FINAL AntDegradation Analysis be conducted and publicly released (the 2018 EIR only included a Draft version that has never been finalized for accuracy):
Email: bod@soquelcreekwater.org
- Mail: Board of Directors, P.O. Box 1550, Capitola, CA 95010
The groundwater model showing impacts of the injection well at Twin Lakes Church states that if contamination is detected in the monitoring well, the Soquel Creek Water District will provide bottled water to the nearby private well owners and small water mutual customers. The district changed the location of the monitoring well to the Cabrillo College Drive public right-of-way….but did not publicly release any modification to the groundwater model related to the injected treated sewage water Project.
Here are some photos:
CONTAMINATED WELL WATER AT COUNTY REHAB FACILITY IN WATSONVILLE
Last Tuesday (Feb.2) correspondence to the Board of Supervisors included notification from Michael Beaton, Director of General Services, that the well water serving the County’s Rountree Correctional Rehab Facility (next to the Buena Vista County Dump) is contaminated with PFOA at levels that exceed state drinking water notification levels.
PFOA has been linked to various types of cancer, liver damage and immune system problems:
WebMB: What is PFOA?
The notification level for PFOA is 5.1 parts per trillion. DDW did not find that the levels of PFOA detected at Rountree Correctional Rehab Facility met or exceed the response level for PFOA, which is 10 parts per trillion.
The origin of the contaminant in the Sheriff’s Rehab water supply at this time is presently unknown but is being investigated by County staff in collaboration with the State Board Water Resources Control Board and other agencies. Additional information will be provided in the Consumer Confidence Report that will be released next year. Based on the current evaluation of recent human and animal toxicity data, exposure to PFOA and PFOS in tap water over certain levels may result in adverse health effects including hepatotoxicity, immunotoxicity, thyroid toxicity, reproductive toxicity, pancreatic and liver cancer.
Is the County planning to treat the water before the inmates and staff drink it? We should.
Write your Supervisor and Sheriff Jim Hart to demand it be done.
WILL JOINING THE PLANNING DEPT. WITH PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVE PUBLIC SERVICE?
Why does Santa Cruz County management feel a Public Works and Planning merger to form the Unified Permit Center will improve efficiency and public service when Monterey County’s identical 15-year experiment had to be disbanded because it was just too big?
Last week, the County Board of Supervisors, in “accepting a report”, actually approved merging these two large departments with glowing testimony from Public Works Director Matt Machado that because the two share the fourth floor, they should be one department. Although no real process changes were outlined, Mr. Machado answered Chairman Manu Koenig’s question about a possible fee Ombudsman with a declaration that there will be a “Unified Permit Center Floor Manager” hired to make sure things go smoothly for the customers. That would be nice, wouldn’t it?
Resident Marilyn Garrett testified that when Monterey County tried this experiment, it had not gone well there, and after 15 years, the departments were separated in 2020. She urged the Santa Cruz County Supervisors to pause their decision and investigate whether to repeat the same mistake.
[Monterey Herald Article]
Did the Board pay any attention or ask questions of staff? Nope. Was there a cost/benefit analysis? Nope. Was there an estimate of what it will cost to remodel the 4th Floor of the County Building? Nope…that will happen at the June budget hearings.
Will this really improve customer service? Let’s hope so.
Watch the video of what happened (item #9)
CHANGING THE COUNTY’S PLUMBING CODE TO SUPPORT LOW WATER USAGE
The County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing February 15 to change the County Plumbing codes, changing the Current sizing metrics required of developers to install pipes that exceed the size necessary for modern-day low-flow fixtures and appliances. The development of the Peak Water Demand Calculator (PWDC), referenced in Appendix M of the 2019 California Plumbing Code, fixes this inefficiency. The PWDC accurately forecasts peak water demand in residential buildings, including single and multi-family dwellings, and therefore, Appendix M is proposed for adoption.
Perhaps we can all write to the Board and ask that the plumbing code also include required double plumbing to support higher water conservation practices for new construction.
MORE REMOTE CAMERAS WATCHING FOR WILDFIRES
This was on the Board of Supervisor Consent Agenda last Tuesday, as Item #30:
As part of the County Settlement agreement with PG&E two new ALERTCamera’s are being installed, the locations for these new cameras will be at the Dream Inn in Santa Cruz and at the Watsonville Airport. These two sites will be operational in time for the start of the 2022 fire season.
Another location that has been identified and funded through a generous donation will be located at the Silver Mountain Winery off Summit Road. This site will likely be operational by the start of the 2022 fire season as well.
With the addition of these 3 new locations our total number of ALERTWildfire Camera’s inside the County boundary will be 6. There are more than 7 additional sites that can look into Santa Cruz County.
DOC-2022-114 Accept and file report on ALERTWildfire camera system expansion in Santa Cruz County, direct staff to return on or before June 2022 with continued status update, implementation strategy and budget requirements, as recommended by the Dire
Take a look at the other existing sites.
ORANGE MAP II? PURPLE MAP II? YOUR MAP?
This Thursday (Feb.10) at 9am may be your last chance to weigh in on boundary lines for Central Fire District’s new method for electing the five-member Board of Directors. It matters because the Board that represents you decides how the money is spent, what the policies are about weed abatement and inspections, and oversees the actions of the Chief.
It also affects the chances of new people getting on the Board. There are two seats up for election this November.
Remember…you don’t have to be an “expert” or a retired firefighter to serve the public on this Board. Some of the best critical thinking and resulting actions on other similar Boards comes from sincerely-interested and informed people who really care, and are willing to ask questions of staff. This really benefits the public.
02/10/22 Board Meeting
GOATS ON THE RAILROAD TRACKS
The Santa Cruz RTC voted to try using goats for vegetation management along the railroad tracks, with a three locations chosen for the pilot project, happening now.
Work will take place February 4 through March 1 in these locations, starting in Aptos:
- Aptos (Doris Avenue to Sandalwood Drive)
- Capitola (Coronado Street to Wesley Street)
- Live Oak (38th Avenue to 17th Avenue)
The work will require use of electric fencing, goat herders, and herding dogs, all of which will also be on the railroad right-of-way.
Goats for vegetation control
Much better than noisy mowing machines and better for clean air!
MAKE ONE CALL. WRITE ONE LETTER. PARTICIPATE IN ONE MEETING….YOU CAN MAKE A BIGGER DIFFERENCE THAN YOU THINK.
Cheers, Becky
|
Becky Steinbruner is a 30+ year resident of Aptos. She has fought for water, fire, emergency preparedness, and for road repair. She ran for Second District County Supervisor in 2016 on a shoestring and got nearly 20% of the votes. She ran again in 2020 on a slightly bigger shoestring and got 1/3 of the votes.
Email Becky at KI6TKB@yahoo.com |