IT WILL BE NICE TO HAVE A $44,000-FRIEND IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
Still more action taken by the Soquel Creek Water District Board was to approve a contract for a lobbyist in Washington, D.C. for $44,000/year.   I pointed out that the work outlined in the lobbyist contract really fell into the purview of the General Manager’s job and urged fiscal responsibility.  NOPE.  Contract approved. But not to worry, the anticipated 17% rate increase billed to customers will pay for it. 

“WELL, IF CUSTOMERS DON’T LIKE THE RATE INCREASE…THEY CAN JUST MOVE.”
That’s what a citizen member of the Soquel Creek Water District’s Rate Payer Advisory Committee said at last week’s meeting.  The group (I am not sure how they were chosen) had previously been given information by Ms. Strohm, the Director of Financial Services, telling them that the rate payers are only covering 30% of the cost of capital improvements and that there are many old pipes that are now failing and need to be replaced.  Based on that, the Committee felt it imperative to recommend steep rate increases but at tiered rates that customers can select, based on the amount of water use.  If customers exceed that level of water use, they will be fined.  If they use less, they will be given rebates at the end of the year, but the rebates will be paid at the end of the year and low water use will not be rolled over from month to month as a cushion for months when use could be higher due to temporary changes in the household (i.e., extra family or a special event). 

I was amazed to hear the five members of the Committee (there were name tags prepared for about twelve) discuss how best to substantially raise customer rates.  One did not know what the PureWater Soquel Project was (I passed around a sign-up sheet for a Technical Tour of the San Jose facility) and another member that I talked with afterward was not aware of the multiple high-priced outside consultants, including the Washington, D.C. lobbyist, which the District employs. 

Ms. Strohm seemed to want the Committee to sign off on the proposals and disband, saying that she wanted to take their report to the Board and had not scheduled their Community Foundation  meeting room into the future.  The Committee asked to meet one more time to review the material before Ms. Strohm presents it to the Board.  MS. STROHM ANNOUNCED LAST TUESDAY (8/15) TO THE BOARD THAT SHE WILL PRESENT THE RATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT AT THE SEPTEMBER 5 BOARD MEETING BUT THERE ARE NO  COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED BEFORE THAT.   I wonder how the Committee members will review the material before it gets to the Board, as they had decided?  I wonder which tiered plan Barry Swenson Builder will choose for the Aptos Village Project’s illegal connection?

WHY WERE ALL WATER PIPES IN THE APTOS VILLAGE PROJECT RECENTLY DUG UP AND REPLACED?
I had to ask the Water Board more than once before (gasp!) they answered.  Engineer Taj DuFour replied at the strong suggestion of the Board (“We are curious about that, too” said Chairman Tom LaHue), explaining that the pipe had not been laid in the trenches to meet the District’s specifications.  “At the contractor’s expense?” asked the Chairman.  “Yes” replied engineer Taj Dufour.  No further discussion.  Really?  A major flaw in a large District project, inspected by the contractor and overseen by District engineers gets no discussion before the public?

HUMAN RIGHT TO AFFORDABLE, CLEAN WATER ALLOWS STATE TO AUTHORIZE MANDATORY WATER COMPANY CONSOLIDATIONS
I attended the joint meeting of the California Public Utilities Commission and the State Water Board in Sacramento to learn more about the plan to MANDATE consolidations of small water companies with larger water providers in the area.  State agency representatives presented the case that troubled small utilities simply cannot compete with the lower rates of larger utilities because of economy of scale and lack of expertise.  Beside, SB 88 allows for it, all without CEQA, and the State will pay for the costs of consolidation.  More than one agency representative implored that this is necessary to help disadvantaged communities and that society is responsible for all peoples’ rights to clean, affordable water.

There were a number of people from small water companies who spoke about not wanting to be consolidated, and a few larger company representatives spoke who said they did not want to be forced to assume small water companies.  One citizen pointed out that this mandatory state action is unconstitutional under California Constitution Article 13 (C) and (D).

CalAm staff gave a presentation about two cases in which that large company took over small companies.  One was in Monterey County.  The State agency reps then THANKED CAL AM FOR BEING SO SOCIALLY-RESPONSIBLE AND HELPING THOSE PEOPLE.   Cal Am forgot to include the part about their 79% rate increases in Monterey County.  Here is a link. 

CalAm is the largest investor-owned water and wastewater treatment company in the U.S., with 15 million customers in 32 states and Ontario, Canada.  There are over 700,000 in California…and soon to grow.  You may remember the 2008 struggle in Felton to take back local ownership of their water from the multi-nationally owned CalAm giant.  Here is a link

What worries me now is that it appears the State will mandate consolidations and CalAm will benefit by taxpayer-funded subsidies to cover the costs of consolidation, waive CEQA, and upgrade system improvements, possibly including the addition of recycled water facilities (think Soquel Creek Water District’s PureWater Soquel project to inject treated sewage water into the aquifer, the local drinking water supply).  Are you beginning to connect some water dots here?

The Office of Ratepayers Advocate rep, Suzie Rose, gave a presentation stating that any acquisitions of small water companies by investor-owned utilities (like CalAm) would have an annual 9%-10% rate of return BUILT-IN  to the rate structure of the consildated utilities.  If the acquisition is ordered, the poor rate payers have relief, BUT NOT OTHERWISE.  That office recommends all consolidations be handled on a case by case basis, but the Public Utilities Commission authorizes the permit for rate collection, while the Dept of Drinking Water issues operating permits. http://www.ora.ca.gov/

Read the California Constitution Section XIII (C) and (D) here: http://www.boe.ca.gov/lawguides/property/current/ptlg/ccp/art-XIII-all.html

Take a look at SB 88 and decide if you think this violates the Constitution: https://votesmart.org/bill/20211/#54458

Contact California Public Utilities Commission Public Advisor <public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov> OR PHONE 866-849-8390 or 415-703-2074 and ask to be placed on notification lists for this topic.

Commissioner Martha Guzman-Aceves presided over last week’s joint power workshop, along with Dee D’Adamo and Steven Morris of the State Water Board. 

What the Sentinel reporter,  Mr. Nicholas Ibarra, did not discuss in last Sunday’s article was that:

1. All of the parking along Aptos Creek Road that runners and cyclists use to access Nisene Marks State Park will vanish.  Mr. Jessie Nickell, Sr. Vice President of Barry Swenson Builder, has stated (in writing) that the public will have free and open parking available in the Aptos Village Project, including Nisene Marks State Park users.   However, the Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R) for the Project state that tenants have full right to limit parking uses to best benefit tenant needs.  Do you see the writing on the parking meters?
2. Why did the County continue to use 2004 traffic counts to assess traffic impact fees for the Project and to design traffic improvements to accommodate the Project?  Will adding two traffic lights in the Village really fix everything? Why did the Public Works staff use the lowest visitation value for all businesses within Project when some, such as a grocery store, have one of the highest visitation rates?  Those numbers also were used to calculate the miniscule amount of transportation improvement fees requested of the developers.
3. Why are the taxpayers funding virtually all of the street improvements to accommodate the 8,000 new vehicles trips per day that Public Works forecasts the Project will cause?  All other developers are responsible for 100% of the development’s impacts. Why are taxpayers funding the Metro bus stop relocation (not ADA-compliant) in order to make way for the Parade Street gateway to the Project from Soquel Drive? 
4. Why hasn’t the County required Barry Swenson Builder to follow the law regarding the diesel contamination problem that occurred last year when crews illegally extracted a 5,000 gallon underground storage tank?  Why won’t the County require additional soil testing and remediation for the contaminated soils where the tank was located?  The true site was never evaluated because Barry Swenson Builder crews had already hauled out the tank and covered everything up with soil by the time County Environmental Health inspectors were notified of the contamination.  Witnesses have submitted testimony and video, but are ignored.  New Leaf Market is next to this polluted site.  Does New Leaf Market know about the judgment Santa Cruz County District Attorney has filed against Barry Swenson Builder for their illegal action?
5. Other concessions the County gave Barry Swenson Builder waived the $1000/bedroom park development fee for the 69 new residences (not 65, as the article stated), most of which are 2800 square feet and over.  The County also gave the developers FREE easement across County park property for storm water drainage (parking lot runoff) directly into Aptos Creek.
6. Affordable housing concessions likely will allow Barry Swenson Builder to rent at market rate the 10 affordable units (the public was told all through the process that there would be 12 affordable units) for 7 1/2 years before selling them at affordable rates.  Swenson was also allowed to make the affordable units smaller than is normally allowed and to reduce the number of bedrooms in affordable units.
7. Why has the County allowed Barry Swenson Builder to excavate massive amounts of earth within a recorded Ohlone Village archaeologic site(CA-SCR-222) and have no qualified archaeologist  or Native American observer present?  Why did the County allow Barry Swenson Builder to demolish the foundations of the historic Lam-Mattison Apple Dryer and Vinegar Works last year without a permit or involving the Historic Resources Commission or having a qualified archaeologist present?  What about the historic 1880 railroad turntable known to be buried on site and for which initial explorations supported but the findings eliminated from the environmental review reports?  Now, developer Joe Appenrodt is asking County Environmental Services for permission to excavate the soils in that area and use it for fill elsewhere in the development, even though the soil is contaminated with lead, arsenic, and petroleum pollutants, as one would expect of railroad soils.
8. The article claims that We Are Aptos “unsuccessfully filed suit against the County in February 2016 over what the group claimed was an inaccurate development map.”  In truth, We Are Aptos filed a petition for a Writ of Mandate of the County in March, 2016.  We were demanding that the County do its job to force Barry Swenson Builder to follow the law with respect to Conditions of Project Approval that were violated.  Judge Paul Burdick agreed with We Are Aptos in the court room that the County had not followed its own requirements.  County Counsel said staff would “probably” do better in the future while making sure the developer had maximum feasibility benefits.  Judge Paul Burdick denied our petition, then disclosed that he was a long-time friend and neighbor of Joe Appenrodt, one of the Project’s developers.

Both Supervisor Zach Friend and Mr. John Hibble trivialized the noise and traffic congestion problems that are inherent of the Aptos Village Project.  Zach Friend touted Measure J in the article but in 2015 when the Planning Department unrolled its Code Modernization mess, Supervisor Zach Friend said “MEASURE J IS OLD AND NO LONGER SERVES THE MODERN NEEDS OF THE COUNTY.”  

Measure J, passed by voters in 1979, was an effort to slow the County’s growth rate at a time when it was second-fastest in the state.  It was an effort to require 15% of all development be dedicated to affordable units (recently diluted to allow developers to pay in-lieu fees instead, and those units have not been being built). 

Old documents?  I wonder if Supervisor Zach Friend wants to also shred the U.S. Constitution?

(Becky later asked..”I wonder what the Sentinel reporter meant in the article by “formerly known as Barry Swenson Builder“? She’s trying to find out… BB)

THE COUNTY IS NOT OBLIGATED
In an effort to understand the soil contamination problem with the County taxpayer-funded Aptos Village Traffic  Phase I Improvement Project, I had to file a Public Records Act request to obtain any information.  Nearly one month later, I still do not have the answer because County Counsel formatted the CD in a manner that made the information inaccessible on all computers I am able to use.  In order to read the CD, Counsel advised I have to download a program called ‘Outlook’.  However , the public library system does not allow that practice.  The CD also does not work on the computers at the County Law Library.

Counsel David Nefouse informed me last week that “The County is not obligated to ensure that the public can access materials provided in a Public Records Act response.”   Other materials on CD and flash drives have worked fine, but this request seems blocked.   Hmmm…  Is there a First Amendment Coalition doctor in the house?

THE COUNTY’S APTOS VILLAGE PUBLIC WORKS BLOG IS FINALLY INTERACTIVE
Business owners and residents of the Aptos Village area receive NO information about the stalled progress of the taxpayer-funded road improvements to benefit Barry Swenson Builder and the other Aptos Village Project developers.  Businesses in the area are suffering due to the major disruption and problematic parking.  County Public Works Project Engineer Carissa Duran had informed me at the project’s beginning that I could not leave comments on the blog site, even though Supervisor Zach Friend and Public Works engineer Colt Essenwein had assured my community that the Public Works blog site would provide interactive information.

Here is the link: http://aptosvillageimprovement.blogspot.com/2017/07/aptos-village-improvement-plan-update.html#comment-form

The site is rarely updated, but finally, it seems the public can post comments and get an answer…maybe?

NO CONSTRUCTION DELAY WARNING FOR BARRY SWENSON BUILDER’S TRAFFIC DELAYS
The Aptos Village Project crews are also digging up Trout Gulch Road in order to connect storm water pipes and utilities.  The only way to get information about those traffic delays is via the 24-HOUR APTOS VILLAGE PROJECT ANSWERING SERVICE:  831-427-8050.  Nowhere on the site is there any sign with this number posted as the County-required 24-hour disturbance contact, but if you look closely at one of the cheery little turquoise signs on one of the many construction trailers at the site, you’ll see it.  By the way, did you know that the Project’s Conditions of Approval state there is to be ONE construction trailer on site?  I think I counted eight or ten…oh, well, what do rules matter?

ADIOS TO APTOS/ LA SELVA FIRE CHIEF JON JONES
Last Thursday (8/10), after listening to further public testimony and over an hour of deliberation, the Aptos / La Selva Fire District Board of Directors announced that they were granting severance to Chief Jon Jones and immediately replacing him with Division Chief Todd Skrabak.  The audience of 100+ stood and applauded.  The sense of tired relief from the firefighters who had gathered was palpable.

Thank you to the Board for listening to the firefighters, and the public.  Healing is long-overdue.

AND ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST IN THE RANCHO DEL MAR CENTER
Yet another long-established Aptos business in the Rancho del Mar Center is going away.  Aptos Jewelers is closing its doors, having been in business since 1972.  Is it related to the remodel work on the horizon by owners TRC Retail?  The owners Mr. Bill Hoffman and Mr. Donald Coldwell, say it’s just time to retire and have a change.

Other existing business owners are wondering what to do, with the $10 million remodel project around the corner, and no information from the TRC Retail folks about what to expect.  I try to patronize those independent businesses as much as possible…it’s hard to make a living in a ghost town atmosphere.

BUSINESS AND INSTIUTUTIONAL REPS NEEDED TO HELP SOLVE MIDCOUNTY WATER PROBLEMS
The Midcounty Groundwater Agency Nominating Committee decided to re-open the window for applications of business owners and institutional reps.  The Groundwater Sustainable Planning Committee will be working to develop the plan for healing the area’s critical groundwater overdraft problem.   The new deadline for applications is August 22.  Applications are available at http://www.midcountygroundwater.org/

Stop in at the Community Foundation (10am-noon) this Thursday, August 17 and get answers to your many questions about the agency and the tasks mandated by the State.

SUSTAINABLE SANTA CRUZ COUNTY PLAN STILL IN EIR PROCESS…NOT A DONE DEAL !!
I was surprised to hear from Supervisor John Leopold that the Sustainable Santa Cruz County Plan, which calls for massive dense mixed use developments throughout the County, is still in the EIR process and has not been approved by the County Board of Supervisors.  It had seemed to be a done-deal and not discussed much.  However, at his constituent meeting recently in Porter Memorial Library, a woman asked specifically about the status of the Nissan dealership proposed for the Soquel Drive/41st Avenue intersection.   In that discussion, Supervisor Leopold stated that, much to his chagrin, the Planning Department has not followed through with the environmental review deadline for the Plan, as has been repeatedly requested by the Board.  Now, it seems, Planning Director Kathy Previsich stated during budget hearings that the report may not be ready until June, 2018.

Personally, I think smearing the likes of the Aptos Village Project throughout the County is a mistake, especially with inadequate infrastructure to address the impacts of dense, multi-story developments.  Water??  What water??  Gridlock?  Well, just hop on the bus and be gridlocked there, too.  Significant historic structures in the way?  Just bring in the bulldozer.

WITH LIBERTY AND ACCESS FOR SOME…PRIVATE’S BEACH
Last week’s ruling by the First District Court of Appeals in San Francisco that forces the land owner to allow public access to Martin’s Beach over private property seems like it could have implications on a similar local access issue at Private’s Beach in Capitola.    Here is a link to information about last week’s ruling: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/10/martins-beach-ordered-open-to-public-by-appeals-court/

So now take a look at the local Private’s Beach issue:
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/article/NE/20160625/NEWS/160629797

Requiring people to pay $100/year for a key to the gate and beach access seems counter to the Coastal Commission’s mandate of free access to the public’s beaches.  Interestingly, Mr.Mark Massara provided legal counsel in both cases.  He represented SurfRider for access at Martins Beach, and has represented the Opal Cliffs Recreation District to restrict access at Private’s Beach. 

It will be interesting to watch what area Coastal Commission Pat Veesart (725 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Ca 95060) does with the 9′-high wrought iron fence and locked gate restricting access to Private’s Beach (it’s a nude beach, by the way).

WHAT’S ON TAP FOR THIS WEEK’S SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT BOARD MEETING?
At last month’s Board meeting, Chairman Tom LaHue scolded me severely for not having thoroughly read the thick agenda packet in advance of attending their meeting.  How dare I want to ask questions of staff AFTER their reports to the Board, rather than BEFORE the reports are even given?  Tsk, tsk…

To mend my ways, I requested a copy of the full agenda packet last Friday afternoon as soon as it became available.  My, what interesting reading.  Here are some highlights:

Item 5.1 page 53  Work to develop a memorandum of understanding with the City of Santa Cruz for obtaining secondary or tertiary treated water for the PureWater Soquel Project has been completed. Both agencies approved final draft agreements on June 27, 2017.  WAIT A MINUTE…THE EIR IS NOT DONE YET AND THE BOARD INSISTS THEY HAVE NOT DECIDED TO PURSUE PUREWATER SOQUEL TREATED SEWAGE WATER INJECTION INTO THE AQUIFER.  Hmmm…

Further staff reports in Item 5.1 (page 55) is  a notice that the Danish helicopter investigations to identify the location of the saltwater interface will be ready in October.  That’s good news.

NO Engineering report items?   Not even news about the stalled Granite Way well that will serve the Aptos Village Project?  How about the treatment for the new O’Neil Ranch Well that has been taken off line due to unexplained increasing ammonia levels?  Not even a whisper about the possible treatment of the Country Club well, now offline due to high 1,2,3-TCP carcinogen contamination?  Hmmm….

What’s this?  (page 56) agendize a conversation about changing the District name?

Oh, oh.  (Page 64) Assembly Bill 574 would require the State Water Resources Control Board to develop regulations in four years for direct potable reuse of treated sewage water.  Well, maybe Soquel Creek Water District should hold off on their rush to inject that nasty stuff into the groundwater supply of the entire area and just sell it to their own customers outright then.  I’m not sure I can trust their water anyway (they’ve been knowingly pumping carcinogenic 1,2,3-TCP into the drinking water for years).

Item 6.2 (page 90) Funding the Pipe Loop Study with Santa Cruz City to test corrosive issues for river water transfers.  That’s a good idea.  The folks in Flint, Michigan would have benefited by such careful study.

Item 6.6(page 121)  A request to extend the consultant contract with HydroMetrics before the greater contract finally goes out for bid.  HydroMetrics, with former Soquel Creek Water District manager Laura Brown as a principle, has been on call since 2005.  Consultants charge $200/hour for their time spent monitoring management, equipment and data collection.   Wow.

PUBLIC WORKS NEEDS TO BE CLEAR ABOUT BID REQUESTS
Also on the August 8, 2017 Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisor Agenda is Item #67, awarding the bid for the County’s yard and wood waste.  This item was taken off the consent agenda in June by Chairman John Leopold to allow more time for scrutiny…and indeed, it was needed.  Vision Recycling, the company that has had the contract for many years, contested the County Public Works recommendation to award the bid to Keith Day Company, for several good reasons. 

Now the Public Works again recommended the Board approve award to Keith Day Company for reasons that were not even mandated in the Request for Proposals (RFP).  It seems that the State has two mandates on the horizon, AB 1826 adn SB 1383, that will require local governments to reduce organic waste, including food waste, from going to the landfill.  Here is what the Department of Public Works Director, Mr. John Presleigh, rationalized for recommending Keith Day’s approval: “Although NOT MANDATED BY THE RFP, direct access to Keith Day gives added benefit of allowing the County to more easily meet these mandates and to make further progress toward our zero waste goals.”   The earlier rationalization in June was because Keith Day could process gypsum from construction waste, which was also NOT mentioned in the RFP language issued to bidders.

How can it be transparent and legal to award a contract based on issues that are not included in the description of what the County wants and needs to have included in a proposal?  How can the Department of Public Works or the County Supervisors endorse awarding a contract to Keith Day when it will mean immediately closing the wood and yard waste facilities at the Ben Lomond Transfer Station and the Buena Vista Facility, and instead HAUL EVERYTHING TO MOSS LANDING IN TRUCKS?  Does this make ecological sense in terms of carbon footprint increase, road surface impacts and public safety?  I hope that the Board will reject all bids, rescind the existing RFP and ask Public Works staff to write a new RFP that is clear about what the County needs to have included in a bid proposal that will address future state mandates.  Stay tuned…

WOULD YOU PAY $3 PER DAY TO BE ABLE TO DRIVE INTO DOWNTOWN SANTA CRUZ?
I found myself feeling quite depressed  to hear that some Bay Area municipalities are considering this option, the Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) per diem tax, according to Mr. Steve Raney, Joint Venture Silicon Valley transportation consultant.  He recently spoke in Santa Cruz, as part of the Campaign for Sensible Transportation group’s public workshops.  What really bothered me was that Mr. Raney repeatedly said that people respond more to “sticks” (punishments) than to “carrots” (incentives).  He talked a lot about the effectiveness of the SOV tax, and also a $5 gas tax and a 20 cents/mile toll…  What about people who are barely able to pay their housing and food costs?  What about those who live and work in areas poorly-served by public transportation?  What about those whose work involves driving for delivery services?  What about people who are on fixed incomes, need to transport children to multiple places at odd times, or have companion pets that are not allowed on public transportation?

I left the workshop feeling as though I had been beaten by a big stick…I have tried using the bus to get to work from Watsonville, but it took two hours.

GOOD NEWS FOR METRO BUS RIDERS, AND HOPEFULLY FOR THE BUS DRIVERS AS WELL
The Board of Directors for Santa Cruz Metro met in Special Session last Friday (08/04) to approve allocating $2.78 million to match funds for a federal grant application that could provide funding for nine new natural gas-fueled buses.  The matching funds come from Measure D and SB 1 money that is all brand-new money but estimated to be enough to allow a 50% match in local support.  Metro staff reported that there are 61 diesel buses that are long overdue for replacement.  I hope this all works out and eventually service levels can be restored.

The Board also approved a pilot project to allow three articulated buses for the UCSC area, beginning this winter and into the spring.  UCSC will fund the project 100%, with the hopes that students will approve a ballot measure next spring to tax themselves more for better public transportation to serve students.  One Metro bus driver spoke at the meeting and expressed support for improving the service in the UCSC area because often he has to pass up riders waiting at stops due to his bus being full.  The articulated buses will be able to hold more passengers, and will, under the current Union contract, require that those drivers are “paid premium wages”. The driver mentioned that negotiations for the current contract required all drivers to accept a 2% pay DECREASE in order to minimize deeper cuts to bus service and greater lay-off numbers.

“AN ITEM WE ARE FAMILIAR WITH”
That is what Metro General Manager Mr. Alex Clifford said when the Metro Board member asked why County Public Works would support moving the inbound #71 Metro bus stop in Aptos Village when the design may not be ADA-compliant.  I asked the Board to investigate the matter of the relocation design that has raised issues with not only the Regional Transportation Commission Elderly and Disabled Technical Advisory Commission (E&D TAC), but also the Aptos Chamber of Commerce.  The E&D TAC approved moving the bus stop “in concept” in 2013, but never saw the final specifications before the project went to bid as part of the $2+ million Phase I Aptos Village Traffic Improvement Project, currently in progress but stalled due to soil contamination problems.   Moving the bus stop is only to assist the Aptos Village Project developers, but the work is being paid for by the taxpayers.  Mr. Clifford said he will send information to the Metro Board, but would not discuss the issue publicly.  I have written him and asked that I also receive the information…stay tuned.

ANSWERS REGARDING THE PILE OF BLUE PIPES WILL COST $100 OR MORE
That was the news when I requested information from Soquel Creek Water District to understand why the new water pipes in the Aptos Village Project were dug up last week and replaced with different pipes.  I received a letter informing me that I will have to pay $100 minimum charge for the IT provider to extract emails, and the information will not be available until August 22, 2017.  Wow.   I am forced to file Public Records Act requests to get answers to my questions….rarely does staff reply otherwise.

HOW MUCH CAN WE RAISE OUR RATES?
That is the question being discussed ongoing by the newly-formed Soquel Creek Water District Rate Committee.  That group will meet next on August 14, 3pm-4:30pm at the Community Foundation Building in Aptos.  I have already seen the draft District budget plan for next year’s 17% rate increase to accommodate the PureWater Soquel project.  Environmental process?  Not really.  Additional staff will soon be hired to begin the initial work on the project that the Board insists has not been decided upon.  Tell me again why this District was recently given two transparency awards?

WATER FOR SANTA CRUZ COUNTY HAS BETTER, CHEAPER SOLUTIONS
A group of intelligent, educated local citizens has formed the Water For Santa Cruz County in an effort to help bring alternative information about affordable and realistic solutions regarding groundwater problems to the public.  Soquel Creek Water District seems to have an endless supply of money to fund consultants who develop slick, expensive advertising to support the energy and technology-intensive plan to inject treated sewage water into the MidCounty region’s drinking water supply.  Take a look at www.WaterforSantaCruz.com  and look for their educational display at the Aptos Library next month, along with a panel discussion TBA.

NEW SANTA CRUZ POLICE CHIEF ANDREW MILLS BRINGS HOPE
When I read in the Register-Pajaronian and Santa Cruz Sentinel that Andrew Mills had been chosen to fill the Santa Cruz City Police Chief’s job, I wondered what it would mean to the Community.  I telephoned a couple of homeless resource agencies in Eureka, where Chief Mills was Chief of Police..  Based on what those community members told me, I felt hopeful that there will be some positive changes happening in Santa Cruz.  “You are SO lucky to get Andy Mills,”  said one director, and then she added, “I am near tears at the thought of him leaving our city.”  Another resource director described a City Council meeting wherein Chief Mills was being asked to ban homeless people from a particular area of the city.  “Chief Mills threw up his hands and said ‘Well, where are they supposed to go?!” 

Chief Andy Mills is officially being sworn in Monday, August 7 but I have already heard radio announcements that he invites the public to meet with him on Mondays, 9am-10:30am at the Santa Cruz City Police Station.  Already, I see positive change…….

TEAR ANOTHER OLD HOUSE DOWN…
The Soquel Creek Water District Board voted at their July 18 meeting to request bids to demolish the old house at 2850 Capitola Avenue in Soquel to make way for the West Annex sewage water treatment plant and PureWater Soquel Project.  The District has budgeted $60,000 for the demolition.  Nothing important there, staff claimed.  The District bought the 1.2 acres and the 836SF historic house on August 12, 2016 for $1,980,000.

However, with a bit of research, i discovered that the house was built in 1890 and was the childhood home of Mr. Darrel Millsap, a nationally-recognized commercial artist.  Mr. Millsap attended Santa Cruz High School and went on to a professional art school, then teamed up with Mr. Kinyon and won over 35 national awards in various exhibits.  Mr. Millsap’s parents, Isabelle and Poley, were very active in Soquel community activities. Learn more here.

Don’t you think it might be a good idea to postpone this demolition project?  Why not try to preserve the house, or at least offer some of that 1890 virgin redwood timber for public salvage?  What is the rush to clear the way for the proposed West Annex, when the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is still in process and the District’s Board and staff insist they have not made any decisions about the PureWater Soquel Project?  Hmmmm….   Do you still think Soquel Creek Water District deserves that Transparency Award?

WHY IS SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT REMOVING THE NEW WATER PIPES IN APTOS VILLAGE PROJECT?
Strange but true..last Friday (7/21), the new blue water pipes that Soquel Creek Water District installed to supply the Aptos Village Project with 38.2 Acre-feet/year water were dug up and taken from the trench.  I wonder why?

The District had done the right thing last summer by having Native American and archaeologic observers on site during all earth disturbance work within the registered Pre-Historic Archaeologic site CA-SCR-222.  The report from ESA, the archaeologic and environmental consultant, stated that isolated artifacts had been found in the trenching process, and buried back on site.  I wonder if the District had those observers present last Friday? 

Maybe Barry Swenson Builder’s lack of observers during major excavation throughout the entire construction project to date has shown Soquel Creek Water District that no one from the County cares about upholding the mitigations approved to address important Pre-History, Chinese and Industrial Age resources.  Let us hope that the District continued to take the higher ethical ground on this issue.

A FIELD TRIP TO PUREWATER SANTA CLARA VALLEY
I took a trip over to San Jose to tour the Advanced Purification Water Treatment Plant to better learn about what it is that Soquel Creek Water District wants to do in my backyard and to the region’s drinking water supply.  It was an interesting tour.  I learned that the reverse osmosis purification process takes a tremendous amount of energy ($50,000-$70,000/month) to process about 8 million gallons of sewage water/day.  I learned that the pumps are EXTREMELY NOISY AND RUN 24/7 (not good news for the residential neighborhood bordering the proposed West Annex treatment plant behind the District Office).  I learned that while the State does NOT allow selling the treated water to customers (Direct Potable Use), it does allow treatment plants to inject the treated sewage water into groundwater supplies (Indirect Potable Use) to be pumped out after sitting in the aquifer for 2 months (how can anyone keep that promise?). 

I learned that the treatment plants are also allowed to give away treated water samples for educational purposes, but must have a permit to bottle it for this use.  The San Jose facility does not have this permit, but does hold open “tasting events”, much like what Soquel Creek Water District did during the July 20 Open House.  However, what the San Jose treatment facility does specially for those tastings is USE A DIFFERENT TREATMENT METHOD TO MAKE THE WATER TASTE BETTER.  Rather than adding chlorine to the treated water after the final ultra-violet light (UV) treatment, they add in hydrogen peroxide, which is virtually tasteless.  I thought that was a bit dishonest.

SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT TAKES A WELL OUT OF SERVICE AND ADMITS THE WATER IS CONTAMINATED
The Santa Cruz Sentinel July 26 article reported Soquel Creek Water District finally shut down pumping water from the Country Club well in the Seascape area, due to contamination with 1,2,3-TCP, a carcinogen.  The District has known for years that the levels were high, up to three times above the limit proposed by the State Drinking Water Agency, but refused to stop pumping the water into the customer supply.  The explanation offered by a Board member was that if the District were to shut the well down for 6 months or longer, the State would require the well to be abandoned and destroyed.  It would cost too much to have to drill another well if that were to happen. 

The argument was that the State had not adopted the official Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)for 1,2,3- TCP, so it was okay to sell it to people for drinking water.  I am glad the State finally adopted the 5 parts per trillion MCL, forcing Soquel Creek Water District to stop pumping the contaminated water for people to drink. 

Do you think Soquel Creek Water District really deserves the recently-awarded Transparency Award?  Hmmm…

Write the Board with your thoughts:
Soquel Creek Water District Board of Directors
c/o Ms. Karen Reese  karenr@soquelcreekwater.org
The next Board meeting is August 15.

ALL  WATER SYSTEMS GREAT AND SMALL: THE STATE WANTS TO  CONSOLIDATE THEM
About five years ago, a rural water system consultant told me the State was planning a push to consolidate all small water systems.  Well, folks, here we go…  On August 17, 1pm-5pm, the State Water board will host a public workshop in Sacramento (no action will be taken) to discuss consolidation of small water systems.  Contact Ms. Mary Yang Mary.Yang@waterboards.ca.gov for further information.  If you ask me, this is not a good sign.  Losing local control of your water system is a potentially dangerous situation.

YES, INDEED, IT IS TIME TO WORRY ABOUT OVERBUILDING IN SANTA CRUZ COUNTY
See Gary Patton’s column above if you haven’t read the great OpEd contributions in last Sunday’s Santa Cruz Sentinel (July 30, 2017, page C9)  Mr. Jerry Christensen and Mr. Gary Patton wrote “It’s time to worry about overbuilding in Santa Cruz”, and Mr. Casey Beyer wrote “Public process needed for corridors.   In last week’s Good Times, Corralitos resident Rowan Lindenfeld wrote an excellent letter “Vision for Who?”  I wonder what the “Save Santa Cruz” group has in mind?

While the Santa Cruz City and County governments claim public process is being followed, in truth, it is not because the public’s comments are largely ignored.  A good example is the Aptos Village Project, and more recently, the property at 7th and Brommer located  above the Santa Cruz Harbor.  Unless some united citizen action gets the wheels turning to balance the Planning Departments’ steamrollers, our beautiful Santa Cruz County will very soon resemble San Jose.

Why the sudden frenzy?  The Planning Department staff always claims it is a mandate driven by State and the Associated Monterey Bay Area Government (AMBAG).  However, AMBAG’s Planning Director, Ms. Heather Adamson, insisted that her organization has absolutely no power to enforce any growth policies when I asked her about the issue at last May’s public workshop in Watsonville.  Here is her contact information: Heather Adamsonhadamson@ambag.org   831-264-5086

According to the statistics based on AMBAG information in the July, 2017 LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission) of Santa Cruz County Public Review Draft “Road Maintenance County Service Areas Service and Sphere of Influence Review” (page 5)

The projected population growth for the County is as follows:

City of Capitola – 0.07%
City of Santa Cruz – 0.99%
City of Scotts Valley – 0.08%
City of Watsonville – 1.01%
Santa Cruz County (unincorporated) – 0.42%

You can review this report that is included in the documents for the August 3, 2017 LAFCO hearing (10am at 701 Ocean Street)  http://www.santacruzlafco.org/meetings/2017-agenda-packets/

And what about the water supply?  What water supply?

Contact the County Environmental Health Department and ask that soil testing be conducted throughout the Aptos Village Project in addition to the railroad bed adjacent to Soquel Drive.  Let New Leaf Market owners know there are soil problems at the location that need to be addressed.  After all, the Aptos Village Project site was also a railroad yard, a saw mill, an apple dryer and vinegar works, as well as an apple packing barn.  And all storm water runoff eventually goes into the creeks…  Shouldn’t the Aptos Village Project developers be held accountable as well?

IS THIS BRIDGE SAFE?
The 1928 historic Aptos Creek Bridge continues to show signs of distress as the Aptos Village Project construction traffic barrels over it daily.  The next inspection scheduled by CalTrans civil engineers is due this September.  Take a look at the photo here of the erosion at the abutments.  This photo was sent to me by Santa Cruz County Counsel as a response to my Public Records Act request regarding the safety of the bridge after last winter’s storms.

Contact Mr. Jim Shivers jim.shivers@DOT.ca.gov and ask that the September inspection assess the need for a weight limit on this 1928 historic bridge.

FIRE ACCESS FOR SANTA CRUZ SHAKESPEARE AND DeLAVEAGA PARK?
The recent wildland fires in upper DeLaveaga Park have brought a spotlight to the possible need for emergency access routes to be re-established for the upper DeLaveaga Park, home to Santa Cruz Shakespeare and the County’s 911 Center.  The main rod is narrow and reduced to one lane in an area, due to the severe winter storms.  Apparently that was a problem for fire responders during recent wildland fires in the dense undergrowth near the National Armory.  Maybe local fire officials will develop a plan to re-establish the multiple access routes that once existed within the park, and also create better fire defensible space near the 911 NetCom towers?  Contact the City of Santa Cruz Parks Dept. 420-5270 and the Santa Cruz City Fire Prevention Dept. 420-5280 and ask about this issue. 

WILL APTOS /LA SELVA FIRE CHIEF JON JONES MOVE ON?
The embattled Aptos/La Selva Fire District Firefighter Local 3535 remains in the dark and under stress as all wonder whether or not Chief Jon Jones submitted a written request to the Board by last Thursday to extend his contract.  As you may remember, the Local 3535 took an unprecedented action of a unanimous vote of “No Confidence” against the Chief, and the Division Chiefs followed suit with a similar vote of “No Confidence”.  Meanwhile, the Board continues to be unresponsive and uncommunicative on the entire issue and as of last Friday would not answer queries by Local 3535 leaders regarding the status of Chief Jones’ contract extension.  Write to the Board with your thoughts:

Aptos /La Selva Fire District Board of Directors c/o Tracy New tracyn@aptosfire.com and make sure you request your communication be included in the publicly available communication in the next agenda packet.

STATE FIRE TAX NOW SUSPENDED
Thanks to Governor Jerry Brown’s Cap and Trade flurry, we each will have $135-$150 more in our pockets.  That’s because he suspended the State Fire Tax immediately in order to encourage support for the Cap and Trade deal.  The Fire Tax was enacted by AB x1-29 in 2011 and fees of $152.33 per habitable parcel collected to bolster fire education, outreach and safety programs.  None of the money had been used for work in Santa Cruz County until last year.  If you have a community fire protection project you would like to see accomplished, contact your local fire department administration, and ask that it be included in projects for the County FireSafe Council consideration.  

MIDCOUNTY GROUNDWATER AGENCY NEWS
Last Thursday the MidCounty Groundwater Agency Board met to discuss how to select the committee that will write the groundwater sustainability plan for the region.  There were 30 applications received, with a total of eight positions available.  Senior Water Planner Ms. Darcy Pruitt discussed with the Board the public comment she gathered at the June 29 workshop on the Committee application process.  The main item of discussion was a suggestion that the names of all applicants be withheld from the Nominating Committee that will be winnowing the applications.  Ms. Pruitt said it would be possible to accommodate this suggestion.  Boardmember Ms. Cynthia Mathews (Santa Cruz City ) said she did NOT favor that idea.  After much discussion, the Board agreed to allow the Nominating Committee to decide this issue (Ms. Mathews is on that committee).

It was greatly refreshing to hear Boardmember Mr. David Baskin (Santa Cruz City) state that he wanted two actions taken for consideration by the Board at the next meeting, in response to public comment:

1. The Board considers contracting with a video recording agent to record the proceedings of all Board meetings and workshops for public posting.
2. The Board consider how to clearly communicate its public comment policies in an effort to encourage better public participation.

THANK YOU MR. BASKIN!
The Board selected new leadership: Chairman Rob Marani (Central Water District), Vice-Chairman Tom LaHue (Soquel Creek Water District), and Secretary Cynthia Mathews (Santa Cruz City).  It would have been good to have a private well owner representative as an officer…maybe next year?

SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT BOARD AUTHORIZES DEMOLITION OF 1890 HOUSE
The District purchased the land adjacent to the headquarters at 5180 Soquel Drive to supposedly expand their equipment storage yard.  That’s what their letter at the time to local residents stated.  Suddenly, however, the site got labeled for the PureWater Soquel West Annex treatment station…and possible sewage treatment plant.  Local residents resisted, causing the District to take the sewage treatment idea off the table, start the EIR process over, and evaluate the possible acquisition of a commercial parcel at Soquel Avenue and Chanticleer. 

At last week’s Board meeting, they approved the issuance of a bid to demolish the two houses at 2820 and 2850 Capitola Avenue, adjacent to the District Office, to move ahead with the West Annex development.  When I asked that the houses be offered for salvage, repurposing the wood from the old structures while saving the District customers the $60,000 earmarked for the demolition, the Board did not even discuss it.  When I asked if the houses had any historic significance, Mr. Taj Dufour said “no”.

I was somewhat shocked when I later checked the County Assessor information and learned that one of the houses was built in 1890.  I’ll bet there is some amazing redwood lumber in there that many local tradesmen would gladly salvage if they only knew about it and were given the opportunity to do so.  Instead, the Board will gladly append $60,000 to have it all splintered and hauled to the dump.  The claim by District staff that there is asbestos is a somewhat hollow excuse because the asbestos is only in a small area of kitchen counter top.  Contact the Board with your thoughts on this issue: http://www.soquelcreekwater.org/ and tell the local trades people about the 1890 house scheduled for demolition upon bid openings August 8.

IT’S WHAT YOU CAN’T SEE THAT SHOULD WORRY YOU…WHY DRINK EXPENSIVE SEWAGE WATER?
The Soquel Creek Water District held an Open House last Thursday to drum up support for their “PureWater Soquel” project.  It featured a water tasting of Soquel Creek Water District tap water, purchased bottled water, and treated sewage water from the PureWater Santa Clara facility.  Somehow, the District got permission to serve treated sewage water, even though State law only allows a treatment plant to give the water away at the plant for educational purposes. 

It always bothers me to see the District staff wave a clear container of treated sewage water in the air and extol the purity of the water.  Do they really think that if people do not see brown chunks floating in the bottle they will accept that the treated sewage water is safe?  As I have explained to the Board and staff, it is what you CANNOT SEE that is worrisome.  If one were to stir in a gram of arsenic or other potent toxin into a clear bottle of water and hold it up, it would look the same…but would not be safe to drink.  One cannot see the carcinogen NDMA, a carcinogen and liver toxin that is found in advanced treated sewage water and in the groundwater of areas that have injected treated sewage water into the aquifer.

Carollo Consltants, hired by Soquel Creek Water District to study the contaminants in the sewager stream and treatment process, admitted that the purification process could not remove NDMA 50% of the time, but it was okay because the levels were low.  Here is a link to an Australian study regarding the effectiveness of the reverse osmosis and associated problems:

Membrane biofouling is like a bacterial “super glue”, finds Australian study

A benchmarking study has been carried out on the bacterial build up on 14 reverse osmosis membranes at the Perth…

One cannot see the TCP carcinogen in the Soquel Creek Water currently being pumped into the drinking water from the Country Club well in the Seascape area.  The District Board and staff have elected to continue pumping this contaminated water into the supply in order to avoid having to abandon the well, while hoping to win the current lawsuit against Dow and Shell to get money for the water treatment.  Last Tuesday, the State Waterboard approved the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for TCP in drinking water at 5 parts per  trillion.  The Country Club well often tests at 15 parts per trillion, that’s three times the now-official legal MCL limit.

One cannot see the hexavalent chromium that the State Waterboard agreed to revoke MCL and treatment timelines due to litigation.  Soquel Creek Water District sent a letter to the Waterboard complaining the fact that they have spent over $9 million in studies and treatment planning in the anticipation of having to be compliant with the MCL requirements.  They have suspended the chromium treatment plans…but the chromium is still in the District’s customer’s drinking water.

It’s what you CANNOT see that you must worry about.  Maybe we should also be worried that Soquel Creek Water District recently received an award for transparency.

TO SPEAK OR NOT TO SPEAK?
Moving along with transparency, the Soquel Creek Water District’s Board meeting last Tuesday had less than a handful of people in the audience.  The Board has recently revamped their department staff reports into one comprehensive agenda item, and the public can only have a total of three minutes to address the multi-faceted comprehensive item.  The problem now is that it is unclear to the public when comment is allowed on this item…as well as others. 

Chairman LaHue chastised me for asking to comment after the staff reports had been made because he said he had asked if there was public comment initially before any reports had been given.  In all other meetings, public comment has been invited after the report and Board discussion of it…not so now, apparently.  Chairman LaHue grudgingly allowed me to comment when I explained it had not been made clear that there would be no opportunity for comment after the staff reports.  “You are expected to arrive at meetings having read the material beforehand and ask appropriate questions at the appropriate opportunity.”  He scolded.  Thankfully, he changed his mind later in the meeting after audience member Ms. Monica McGuire begged that he respect the time that people had taken just to get there through rush-hour traffic and miss time with family in order to participate in the District government and to actively learn more about the water problems.  So, I wonder what the policy will be at the next meeting?????

In 2014, the City of Cambria’s Water District was able to convince the State that their water supply was in peril due to the drought.  The State responded with approval to qualify for an advanced tertiary sewage treatment plant and groundwater injection wells, fast-tracking the project under the Governor’s Executive Order of Drought Emergency.  That waived all environmental review normally required for a project like this, and the plant zoomed through construction.  From the time it went online in 2015, there were problems with cost over-runs,  late monitoring reports, and other documentation required.  The State Waterboard staff quickly jumped in to assist the City’s management, and actually reduced the amount of reporting necessary and the complexity of the information to be reported.  There were still multiple violations.

Local residents started observing irregularities, such as strong odors of chlorine in local creeks.  They, along with nearby State Parks officials, noted that the treatment plant was dumping treated brine into the creeks, rather than into the appointed evaporation pond.  Upon investigation, the State Waterboard determined there had been multiple instances of contaminated water being injected into the aquifer because the treatment plant staff had not noticed that the alarms signaling such problems were not functioning properly. 

Because of citizen outcry and documentation of problems, the State began to seriously monitor Cambria’s advanced tertiary treatment management.  Penalties of over $400,000 should have been assessed, had the State followed the usual formula for such assessments, but since the plant was already experiencing cost over-runs, the fines were reduced to $54,000 so as not to place a further financial burden on rate payers.  The violations were uncontested by Cambria’s Water District.  State Waterboards prosecution staff stated that there are about 100 such recycled water indirect potable projects in the state, but that he had been spending 25%-30% of his time just to assess the Cambria management’s problems. 

Roughly 30 Cambria residents had travelled to Watsonville to testify before the Regional Water Quality Control Board as to their negative experiences with the Cambria City Water District’s mis-management and the concerning health effects of the now-contaminated groundwater due to system failures.  They also have concerns associated with big problems linked to the associated evaporation pond that has leaked effluent into the high groundwater table.  The Board acknowledged that it had enabled the problem initially by assisting Cambria’s management in processing early documents that seemed problematic. 

I explained during the break to one of the Cambrians who has been instrumental in documenting these problems that I was interested in this case because Soquel Creek Water District wants to install a similar facility in my area.   He exclaimed “Oh, God, don’t let it happen!  Just don’t.  You’ll be sorry.  Get them to build a reservoir instead.” The public hearing regarding whether the plant will be allowed to continue to operate went on for a long time, with resident after resident speaking about the problems encountered.  Unfortunately, I was not able to stay to learn the outcome, but will by next week.  Stay tuned. 

Meanwhile, I hope the State Waterboard is taking a hard look at their goal to have 1.5 million Acre Feet per year of recycled water being used in California by 2020.  Their emphasis, the Director stated, is on small communities to construct advanced tertiary sewage treatment plants and injection wells into the aquifers.  If the City of Cambria is any indication of the problems that ensue when small, inexperienced water districts attempt to manage a complex, technology-dependent facility, we should all be asking ourselves….”Isn’t there a better way to solve groundwater overdraft?”

WATER FOR SANTA CRUZ HAS GOOD IDEAS
Take a look at www.waterforsantacruz.com for some better ideas to solve our area’s critical groundwater overdraft problem.  You will find a well-maintained calendar of all local water-related events and meetings, and a blog where you may post questions and actually get an answer!  These intelligent folks have excellent expertise, education and background experiences.  Some have served on state and local water advisory commissions.  All are concerned about the future of water in Santa Cruz County and want to work to solve the problems effectively and affordably.  Take a look at their website and contact your local government policy makers.

WHY DRINK EXPENSIVE SEWAGE WATER?
That is the question that all who attend the Soquel Creek Water District’s Open House, Thursday, July 20, 4:30pm-7pm at the District Office (5180 Soquel Drive, Soquel) should ask.  The District’s zeal to push the proposed PureWater Soquel Project will be the focus.  Their plan to inject treated sewage water into the local drinking water supply is supposedly one of four supplemental supply sources being considered to solve the very real threat of sea water moving inland and destroying the area’s drinking water supply.  So, why is Soquel Creek Water District only moving forward on the Environmental Impact Report for the PureWater Soquel Project and none others?  Why is the 2018-2019 budget planning for a 17% customer rate increase and the addition of new plant engineers/operators and administrative staff to handle the Project?

Although the District’s Board and staff insist there will be no decisions made until after the PureWater Soquel  EIR is complete, it seems rather transparent to many members of the public that the choice has already been made. 

THERE WERE NO BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT AND NO APPLAUSE AT SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT’S PRESENTATION ABOUT PUREWATER SOQUEL
Although the PureWater Soquel EIR Scoping sessions last November had highest attendance during the afternoon, the second Scoping session last week was scheduled for the evening.  Strangely, there were no members of the Board present.  The District had hired yet another consultant to run the event, and again, no members of the public were allowed to speak or ask questions publicly.  The entire event was carefully orchestrated to maintain control of the public, with small stations staffed by consultants and District staff who quickly directed people to submit their questions on the comment cards supplied.

All comments are due by July 22 at 4pm.  Examine the details of the proposed project at www.soquelcreekwater.org.  I wonder if the District will allow all who depend on the Purisima Aquifer for drinking water a vote on whether this treated sewage water injection project goes forward?  Over 300 signators on the petitions I have been circulating think that should happen.  Stay vigilant and write the Board with your thoughts.

MORE BAD NEWS ON THE SALINAS GROUNDWATER FRONT
Last week’s Monterey County Special Joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors and the Water Resources Agency Board of Directors was interesting because the consultant from USGS publicly released the groundwater model for the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin.  It was quite alarming.  Groundwater levels in King City monitoring wells dropped 35′ between 2013 and 2015.  Similar wells in Chular dropped 20′-25′ and the sea water intrusion moved four miles further inland.  There may be some indication of subsidence on the eastern Salinas Valley areas, but this is under further investigation. 

I left wondering what will become of this area without affordable fresh water?  I travelled back to Santa Cruz, wondering what we can all do to work together to solve this problem? I was glad to have seen what a groundwater model looks like (I am still waiting to see the MidCounty Groundwater model that has been long-delayed and a seemingly endless money pit), but I felt very troubled.

GOOD NEWS ON THE PAJARO VALLEY WATER FRONT
I attended the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency’s public workshop to begin environmental review of the proposed College Lake managed recharge project out near the Fairgrounds.  The idea is to use College Lake as a year-round storm water collection basin for recharge efforts and coastal farming irrigation rather than pumping out the storm water in the spring and sending it to the ocean.  The workshop was well-attended and offered the public the opportunity to ask questions of General Manager Mr. Brian Lockwood after his presentation (they even provided a portable microphone for those who had questions!).  Wow…Soquel Creek could take a lesson from these folks.

The workshop also featured interesting stations informing people about various other managed recharge projects the Agency is doing to halt the sea water intrusion into the Basin.  I toured two of these the following day, one in operation at Harkins Slough with a percolation pond near the coast, and the other in the works and located closer to the mountains on the Kelly Farm.

Now there is a real inspiration.  Mr. Ed Kelly and his family have been farming on their Pajaro Valley land since 1851.  He recently approached the local Resource Conservation District to help him with a groundwater recharge pond on his farm that will handle storm water runoff from the neighboring 15 farms as well as his own by creating  a ten-acre recharge basin with charcoal and woodchips to clean the nitrates and any pesticide runoff before infiltration into the overdrafted aquifer.  He is doing this, at great personal expense, because he wants to make a positive difference for the future generations that will carry on the family farming.  He wants to be a model for what he considers all farmers need to do: handle all their irrigation and storm water runoff and responsibly return the water to the aquifer.  He hopes this project will recharge the Pajaro Basin with 350 Acre Feet/year. 

The Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency has been working seriously for a number of years to find solutions to the aquifer overdraft there while continuing to support local agriculture.  One of the Board members stated that the Agency had hoped to have the problem solved by 2025 with goals stated in their Basin Management Plan, but probably will not achieve their goal until 2030.  That is ten years ahead of what the State is mandating. 

Good work, Pajaro Valley!

When I asked a member of the Pajaro Valley Groundwater Agency Basin Management Planning Committee what had been the greatest challenge in arriving at the Plan, he replied: “Getting good scientific information we could base our road map on.  Until we had a model, we were all making up ideas in the parking lot and drawing plans on napkins, and not really getting along with each other. But once we had a sound model, we could work together better and really know what it was we had to accomplish and how to go about it.”  That was good insight.

APPLY FOR THE PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR MIDCOUNTY GROUNDWATER AGENCY
If you live or have a business in the MidCounty area (La Selva Beach, Aptos, Soquel, Capitola and parts of Live Oak), make sure you visit www.midcountygroundwater.org to apply for a place on the Groundwater Sustainability Planning Committee to help write the Plan for the future of your water.  All applications must be filed by June 20 at 4pm with the Soquel Creek Water District Office or submitted online.  The group will meet regularly for the next two years, developing a road map for how to solve the critical groundwater overdraft problem in the area.

The MidCounty Groundwater Agency Board will meet Thursday, July 20 at 7pm at Simpkins Swim Center to discuss issues including how the Planning Committee applicants will be selected and by whom.  Attend if you are able.  I continue to ask that the Board budget a professional video recording agency to document the meetings for members of the public who cannot attend, but so far, the $1.3 million annual budget for the group does not allow for that expense.  For now, I will continue to borrow a video camera and pay a friend to upload the meetings on YouTube.  You might try contacting the MidCounty Board and ask for meetings to be recorded…those folks are making some mighty significant decisions that really ought to be more publicly available.

APTOS/ LA SELVA FIRE CHIEF JONES STILL DRAGGING OUT HIS PLANS FOR CONTRACT EXTENSION
Last Thursday’s Aptos/La Selva Fire District Board meeting was again well-attended by the public and fire fighters of Local 3535.  The meeting began at 7pm but the Board was in closed session with discussions regarding claims against the District by four Chiefs who were placed under investigation by Chief Jones without substantial evidence.  The four have asked that the District specify more clearly the claims against them, but the Board refused.  The Chiefs then filed charges for $25,000 and placed the District on notice…to defend their personal integrity.  The Board voted Thursday night to deny those claims. 

So, the matter is now in escalating litigation.  The District’s local 3535 members continue to function as dedicated public servants under stress, and members of the public continue to wonder why Chief Jon Jones stays on when he has no support to do so.  Members of the public also wonder if the legal action taken against the four chiefs is retaliation for their simple questioning of fiscal choices that Chief Jones made soon after being hired on at Aptos/La Selva District.  When will the Board take leadership here?

On April 21, 2014, the District hired Ms. Tracy New to replace Mr. Fred Malmlund as business manager when he retired after 14 years on the job.  On November 12, 2015, Ms. New complained to the Board that her pay was low compared with what the former person had been paid.  Chief Jones recommended to the Board that Ms. New’s job title be changed to Director of Business Services and that she be given an unprecedented 40.3% pay increase.  At the same time, Chief Jones recommended pay reductions for Local 3535 firefighters by reducing overtime, changed the overtime policy, eliminated all stipends for the Aquatic Rescue Response trainings, suspended other training programs and education incentives and denied new equipment purchases because he stressed the need for fiscal austerity due to budget deficits.   The Board approved everything that Chief Jones recommended, including the 40.35 pay increase for Ms. New.

Chiefs Skrabak, Peters, Calcagno and Houston merely questioned the Board’s decisions.  For doing that, Ms. New filed a vaguely-worded sexual harassment claim against them.  The matter has gone downhill from there, and you can read the legal background on the Aptos /La Selva Fire District website under Agenda Item 9.0 of the July 13 Board meeting.  It is, in my opinion, a case being brought against the chiefs who exercised their First Amendment rights to question matters of public concern, criticize employer fiscal policies, criticize employer leadership and question budget priorities.

Chief Jones has until July 20 to formally request that the Board extend his contract for another two years.  His contract ends in October this year.  We shall see what happens.  In the meantime, one must wonder if the spike in Workers Compensation claims during the past year is related to the extreme stress firefighters have experienced under Chief Jones.  When I asked the Chief publicly about that possibility, he said he did not feel there was a problem.  Wow.

Some residents, however, are aware and not supportive….take a look at the banners that went up at dawn but were removed within an hour by the Aptos Chamber of Commerce representatives…

It bothers me a lot that the Chamber of Commerce took down the banners to put up their own, especially on Independence Day, and for an event that a great group of brave souls in the Aptos Ladies Tuesday Evening Society gave birth to and kept in place for the Community for many years before the Chamber took over.  It bothers me A LOT that the remaining member of that Society and Aptos Parade founder, Mrs. Ann Isaacs, is still in Aptos but HAS NEVER BEEN ASKED BY THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO BE THE PARADE GRAND MARSHALL, despite local residents asking that she receive the honor and recognition. 

WOULD YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT APTOS VILLAGE PROJECT SOIL CONTAMINATION PROBLEM,….PLEASE?

I will be attending the State’s Regional Water Quality Control Board meeting in Watsonville this week to ask that the Board re-open the Aptos Village Project’s soil contamination problem case that may be also affecting groundwater quality in the area.  You may remember that in March, 2016, Barry Swenson Builder and Santa Cruz Underground Paving (SCUP) illegally removed a 5,000 gallon metal tank that had been buried since the early 1900’s (most likely a fuel supply for the historic Lam-Mattison Apple Dryer and Vinegar Works whose remaining foundation was destroyed in May, 2016 without permit by Barry Swenson Builder).  The tank ruptured, spilling hundreds of gallons of diesel and other petroleum contaminants into the soils near Village Drive and Granite Way.  I saw the workers frantically directing the liquid into a hastily-dug trench, and saw the hole in the ground from which the liquid issued.  Other people did, too.

Well, Barry Swenson Builder crews simply hauled the tank out that night, and covered everything up with soil, hoping no one would find out.  However, a County grading inspector showed up three days later and smelled the diesel on site, reporting the problem to County Environmental Health.  GIVE THAT WOMAN A PROMOTION AND PAY RAISE PLEASE because had it not been for her responsible action, the County would have done nothing. 

One week later, Barry Swenson Builder staff met with Environmental Health Directors and were able to get a retroactive permit for removal of the tank, simply by paying double fees (about $2000), however a very responsible County hazardous materials specialist, Mr. John Gerbrandt, visited the site and insisted on sampling of the oily-sheen soils and tank site.  Because everything had already been covered up with soil, Barry Swenson Builder leaders were able to deceive the County into sampling a “tank site” that was actually 75′ away from the actual location from where the tank had been removed.

Even so, the soils were contaminated and had to be remediated to a depth of 16′.  The contaminants included gasoline-related compounds (which travel widely in groundwater), diesel, toluene, and all manner of nasty petroleum compounds, not to mention the elevated lead and arsenic that were also found there and in other areas of the Project as well.  The State’s Regional Water Quality Control Board accepted the opinion of Barry Swenson Builder’s environmental consultant, Mr. George Thomas, that there was no threat to the groundwater, and immediately turned the matter over to County Environmental Health to oversee soil remediation. 

Mr. Gerbrandt did an excellent job of doing that, (PLEASE GIVE HIM A PROMOTION AND PAY RAISE, TOO!) but seems to have been hampered by orders from others within the County government.  In Public Records Act request materials, information became available that County Administrative Officer (CAO) Susan Mauriello personally called Mr. Keith Henderson, Swenson’s foreman, and told him to “get rid of the piles of contaminated soil right away.”  County Supervisor Zach Friend also apparently contacted Mr. Henderson numerous times about the problem. 

Despite irregularities and an incomplete process, the County Environmental Health staff closed the case in June, 2016.  There were no “punch tests” conducted to ensure the contamination had not infiltrated the shallow groundwater table of the area.  The report submitted by Swenson’s consultant, Mr. Bird of EnviroAssets (he lacked many customary certifications normally attached to consultants who do this type of work), had many errors and, as was recently pointed out by a local hydrologist, the report could be considered fraudulent in a number of ways.  However, the County accepted it without question and closed the case.

County Environmental Health agents did, however, issue an Enforcement Order citing five violations of the Title 22 Health and Safety Code.

You may view the Enforcement Order 44-16-001 here.

 
Again, Barry Swenson Builder only had to pay money to absolve themselves of criminal behavior.  However, the real and disturbing issue remains:  Will Barry Swenson Builder be held responsible for testing and cleaning the contaminated soils from the Aptos Village Project and ensure the petroleum products are not hanging around in groundwater flowing into local creeks and the new Soquel Creek Water District Granite Way Well?  I wonder if Soquel Creek Water District will follow the advice of Mr. Tim Fillmore, Hazardous Materials Specialist for County Environmental Health, to test the water in that new well for the panel of contaminants found at the Aptos Village Project illegal diesel tank removal site?  By the way, both Mr. Fillmore and his immediate predecessor took early retirement.  Maybe they had a moral issue with accepting the possible orders of the CAO on this case?  Hmmm….

Well, stay tuned next week to find out what the State’s Regional Water Quality Control Board has to say about an appeal of the irregular and hasty case closure.

STILL NO ACTION ON THE APTOS VILLAGE ROAD CONSTRUCTION WORK.

Road work has come to a mysterious halt in Aptos Village and the contractor, John Madonna Construction, is nowhere to be seen.  The local businesses are struggling with the on-going construction disruption, but no one from County Public Works or any other local government official is providing any information to them (or the public) about what is happening and when the mess benefitting Barry Swenson Builder and the other Aptos Village Project developers might be completed.  The tractor remains blocking the ingress/egress from Trout Gulch Road, forcing all traffic to the local Trout Gulch Crossing businesses in through the Bayview Hotel’s private railroad crossing entrance (yes, the one the County Public Works says it will close to help Barry Swenson Builder get their new gateway entrance to the development from Soquel Drive).

The County Public Works Engineer, Ms. Carisa Duran, who is in charge of the road construction project, refuses to answer my questions about when the project might be completed, and anything at all regarding anticipated delays.  “There are signs posted at either end of the project advising delays during the project” she told me.  She is referencing the meaningless flashing signs stating “Delays 3/27/17 – 7/17/17”.  Well, the project, according to that, is to be completed this Thursday!  I am sure everyone traveling through and doing business in Aptos Village will breathe a sigh of relief.  Of course, the public information site promised by Supervisor Zach Friend is extremely informative and current.  Here is the link: Aptos Village Improvement

Please note that it was last updated June 21, and still states the work will resume June 26.  Not so.  Maybe we can all phone Ms. Duran and Mr. Sohriakoff at Public Works: 454-2160, or Mr. Christensen, the County Oversight Engineer who stands there all day every day watching the contractor crews work: 831-818-7655.

VALENCIA ROAD REPAIR ALSO DELAYED…A COINCIDENCE?

Crews working on the culvert replacement on Valencia Road also apparently are running into problems that are delaying the ability of rural residents to enter Aptos Village via Valencia Road.  The latest words (which come few and far between) are that maybe the temporary bridge could be installed by sometime in August.  Do you think the Valencia Elementary School staff and students will be able to return in August? 

I think, as do many Aptos residents, that it will all depend on how things are going for Barry Swenson Builder’s project on Trout Gulch Road, and the County’s project replacing the railroad crossing at Trout Gulch and Soquel.

Keeping that pesky school traffic out of the picture is imperative to helping Barry Swenson Builder’s ease of construction with minimal public outcry, you know.  Inconvenience for the school’s staff, students and the 1200+ rural residents?  Who cares!

MAYBE IT’S TIME FOR A REVOLUTION

A friend loaned me a CD of a talk by Mr. Thomas Linzey, an environmental attorney and director of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund.  He talks about how the corporations are running our Communities into the ground legally and financially, and what citizens can to take back local control of their cities and counties.  What he talks about makes sense…but I am wondering what to do without the leadership of the local government officials?  I am pondering action..

The Board of Supervisors did not care that this type of historic wooden door preservation has been successfully accomplished at Ano Nuevo State Park’s historic Steele Dairy Dickerson Barn. I provided them with a telephone number for the Park staff with whom I had discussed the project, after I became aware of it thanks to the State Historic Preservation Office. The Dickerson Barn, of the same vintage as the Hihn Apple Barn, has three such wooden doors that slide closed on metal tracks and were common for the late 1800’s era. Sadly, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors did not want to hear any further information about this successful historic preservation by State Parks that very well could have been applied to the Historic Preservation Plan for Aptos Village Project Hihn Apple Barn.

The Board of Supervisors also did not care if the New Leaf Market plan to add a modern skylight will alter the historic roofline silhouette feature clearly identified by County Historic Consultant Ms. Sheila McElroy in June 10, 2010. They did not even care that the photograph included in the Historic Resources Commission May 12, 2017 agenda packet clearly showed the wooden rafters had been altered to make it appear as though there have always been historic skylight frames built-in, even though there have not been skylights in the Barn.

All I asked of the Board of Supervisors was to take jurisdiction and hear the full appeal in August, when I would provide expert witnesses from the Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection Agency, Ano Nuevo State Park, and County Historic Consultant Ms. Sheila McElroy. But they refused. ” I took a look at this and it just seems like three minor changes to me” said Supervisor Caput. That is all the Santa Cruz Sentinel reported the following day, under large headlines of  “Aptos Village Appeal Denied”..

So, why does historic preservation matter to me enough that I borrowed the $1800 to pay the appeal fee and ask the Board of Supervisors to also care? The changes may seem minor, but the cumulative impacts are great. What will future generations know of the local history and its cultures, how we got where we are now, and how to respectfully guide the future events and way of life? I hold that if you lose your roots, you have lost your way to the future well-being and meaningfulness of the cultural foundations laid down by generations past. We will all become a faceless blur of MacDonalds, IHOP and high-tech stores, with nothing unique to offer residents or tourists.

But the Board of Supervisors does not care about that, as evidenced in their unwillingness to read the material I provided, watch the YouTube recordings I paid to have made of the April 10 and May 12, 2017 Historic Resources Commission hearings, or to listen to the many residents who waited three hours to testify at last Tuesday’s jurisdictional hearing. They did not care enough to even question anything the Planning Department staff presented concerning the absence of the required CEQA mitigation monitoring program and lack of reports by “qualified archaeologists” supposedly on site during excavation of a recorded pre-history archaeologic site and the demolition of significant Chinese sites. Sadly, the Board does not listen to the common people, and does not seem to care about historic preservation.

MAKE APTOS GREAT AGAIN…REBUILD THE POST OFFICE BIKE JUMPS!
Show your support for rebuilding the Bike Jumps and securing existing parking for Nisene Marks State Park users and future rail passengers! Contact us via e-mail: <rebuildthebikejumps@gmail.com> and let us know how you would like to support buying the Phase II Aptos Village Project land. We have a plan, and we won’t give up!

COUNTY HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMISSION TO MEET JULY 10, 9:30AM IN COUNTY BUILDING 5TH FLOOR CHAMBERS

The next County Historic Resources Commission meeting will be Monday July 10, 9:30am in the Board of Supervisors Chambers. There are some very interesting items on their agenda:

1. Discussion of the Demolition by Neglect ordinance for historic structures
2. Discussion of the Mills Act, which would allow property tax reductions for owners of historic property if they preserve and maintain the structures,
3. Discussion of the current County ordinance defining ‘partial demolition’ of historic structures that actually means TOTAL demolition of structures
4. How to describe ‘demolition’ to the public
5. Update on status of historic bridges, including Redwood Village Covered Bridge
6. Discuss asking State Historic Preservation Office staff to attend a future meeting

Well, that should be a good meeting. I want to ask Commissioner Carolyn Swift why she wants to REMOVE the historic Redman-Hirahara House in Watsonville from the National Historic Registry??? That the house and 14 acres of land are on the NR-1 list is all that is keeping it from being bulldozed and replaced with a hotel. Commissioner Merriam represents John Leopold’s area but happens to work for the Watsonville City Economic Development Department. I hope there is no conflict of interest here….Hmmmmm…….

I will once again personally pay to have it video taped and posted on YouTube so that you can find out what happens, just in case you cannot get off work that Friday morning to attend. Send any written correspondence to:  

Historic Resources Commission
c/o Ms. Annie Murphy <Annie.Murphy@santacruzcounty.us> 831-454-3111
Planning Department, 4th Floor, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060

COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER SUSAN MAURIELLO PASSED THE MAGIC WAND TO CARLOS PALACIOS LAST TUESDAY.
“I am grateful that you somehow were able to wave a magic wand to make the County budget work”,  said Chairman John Leopold,  “Even though I don’t understand it. I hope that the new CAO learns how to use the wizardry”, he continued.  Gee, is there a class offered somewhere in Applied Smoke and Mirrors? Somehow, I don’t have a good feeling about all that. I still wonder how the County suddenly had a $12.8 million deficit in 2015-2016 at the mid-year budget report. The magic wand swept all those details under the magic carpet, I guess.

The Supervisors approved a final 2017-2018 County budget that is $7.4 million in deficit, having borrowed $47 million in a short term bond to keep the County afloat until the property taxes start rolling in. Now do you understand why the Board has nothing but support for Barry Swenson Builder and the Aptos Village Project? And the Nissan auto dealership at 41st and Soquel Drive? And the multiple-story hotel at 7th and Brommer? And…take a look around YOUR neighborhood now, because this steamroller meant to feed the County machine is headed your way, too.

Supervisor Greg Caput, in closing the final budget hearing, thanked the County taxpayers and said “I hope we are good stewards of your money”. He also said he would like to see all County Department Directors take a decrease in pay. “We can’t tax ourselves so much that we get a citizen revolt”,  he added. Thanks for the good sentiments, Supervisor Caput, but the rest of the Board will not support you while they happily tax the citizens more to increase their own pay. Public service? What’s that? Susan Maureillo will receive 95% of her nearly $350,000/year salary and benefits every year for the rest of her life. Wow. How long can the taxpayers support this level of retirement bliss?

CAN I TRUST YOU WITH OUR WATER SUPPLY?
The MidCounty Groundwater Agency held an interesting public workshop on June 29 to encourage members of the Community to apply for a place on the Groundwater Sustainability Planning Committee. This is the group that will make recommendations to the MidCounty Groundwater Agency Board about the Plan the State is requiring be filed by 2020. The problem evident at the workshop is a basic lack of trust by private well owners of Soquel Creek Water District policies, and maybe the County, too.

Mr. John Ricker, County Enviornmental Health Water Specialist, stated that there are about 2000 private wells in the MidCounty Basin. When asked how those well owners were noticed of current and past meetings, he replied that about 1800 postcards were mailed out. I reminded Mr. Ricker that, via Public Information Act request reviews, I have seen the list and found that there were 35 or so people on the list that I recognized as being customers of the small water company of which I am part of , but not private well owners themselves. There are probably others that I did not recognize but that collectively give a disproportionately high number of apparent contacts for private well owners when in reality it is false. He said he had reviewed the list but decided to leave everyone on to increase information dispersal. He did not address the bigger issue of private well owners not being involved.

Another member of the audience said it was not fair that there will be no private well owners allowed on the Planning Committee because, as it was explained by Ms. Pruitt, the Senior Water Analyst for the MidCounty Groundwater Agency, there are already three private well owner representatives on the Board that will make the ultimate approval of the Plan sent to the State. When the private well owner pointed out that those three representatives were chosen by the water agencies and NOT by the private well owners themselves, the issue was side-stepped.

“Why doesn’t the Board step back and allow the MidCounty Groundwater private well owners to select their own representatives, as is being done now in the Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency (in Scotts Valley and San Lorenzo Valley)?” I asked. “I have been to many of these meetings and there is a problem with trust. In order for this Plan to work, you must have trust. Let the private well owners select their own three representatives”.  Another well owner agreed that he has always seen a problem with lack of trust at all the meetings he has attended. Ms. Pruitt answered “That is why we have public meetings”.  Wow. I think she missed the point.

Well, I urge anyone and everyone living in Capitola, Aptos, La Selva Beach and parts of Corralitos to apply to be on the MidCounty Groundwater Agency Sustainable Planning Committee. Here are the interest areas:

Agricultural User (1) Institutional User (1)
Small Water System Management (1) Business Interest (1)
Environmental Interest (1) Water Utility Rate Payer (1)
At Large Representatives (2)

It is a two-year commitment, requiring about 10 hours each month. There is no plan at the moment to appoint ANY alternates, but I think that really must change, considering the County Grand Jury selects 12 alternates for their one-year member commitment. Get the application here: www.midcountygroundwater.org   

Interestingly, it was suggested by the audience that the applicants’ names NOT appear connected to the applications when the Nominating Committee winnows them for interviews. Good idea. The Board might consider it at their July 20 meeting.

DRINKING SEWAGE WATER IS GOOD FOR YOU!
That is the message you can be sure to hear at the Soquel Creek Water District’s July 12 Open House at their District Office (5180 Soquel Drive, Soquel), 2pm-6pm. As reported in the recent Aptos Times, staff will present information about the PureWater Soquel Project, one of four alternative sources identified to supply more water to this over-pumped aquifer area.

My question is: Why not provide information about the other three alternative sources, too? The Soquel Creek Water District seems to be on a determined steamroller path to shoving their plan to inject treated sewage water into the drinking water supply for everyone who lives in the MidCounty Groundwater Basin. The Project is very expensive and leaves many concerns unanswered regarding the potential health risks. Look for the “Alt Information Booth” near the Open House…information you really need to know but will not get from the Water District.

WHAT IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF INJECTING “POOPWATER” SOQUEL IN THE AQUIFER????
Plan to attend the Soquel Creek Water District Public Scoping Meeting on July 12 (same day as the Open House), 6pm-8pm, at Twin Lakes Church (near Cabrillo College lower campus). “The District has published a Revised Notice of Preparation (NOP) and is accepting comments during a 30-day public scoping period from June 22 to July 22, 2017”.  Your comments may be provided orally (recorded via court reporter) or in writing.

One question that I have regards the persistent low-dose levels of N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) that the Carollo Engineering studies (Soquel Creek Water District’s consultants on this project) have shown to occur in the advanced tertiary treated sewage water to be injected into our drinking water supply. NDMA is a potent liver toxin and is classified as a probable human carcinogen. According to the State website, “In a 2002 survey conducted by California Department of Health Services, elevated concentrations of NDMA were detected in locations where wastewater treatment plant effluent was used for aquifer recharge and near facilities that use unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH)-based rocket fuel”. There is no Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) yet established by the State Drinking Water agency, which means that Soquel Creek Water District could say it is okay to have NDMA in their sewage water injected into our drinking water. That is what they also currently are stating about the toxic TCP in the District’s County Club well, which continues to supply water to Soquel Creek Water District customers in the Seascape and Aptos areas, even though the well’s contaminant levels exceed the draft MCL levels. Wow.

For information visit www.soquelcreekwater.org/purewatersoquel To sign up for future project updates, contact Rebecca Rubin, Public Outreach Coordinator <beccar@soquelcreekwater.org> or phone 831-475-8501 xt118.

STATE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD MEETING IN WATSONVILLE JULY 13-14
If you are interested in local water quality issues, try to attend this two-day meeting at the Watsonville Civic Center, beginning at 8:30am. There will be discussions of local managed groundwater recharge projects and local watershed planning issues. Find the agenda at:

www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board info/agendas/2017/2017 agenda.shtml

On July 14 at 1pm, there will be a field trip to local groundwater recharge projects. The meetings and outing are open to the public, but please RSVP for the field trip by July 10 with Ms. Tammie Olson (805-549-3140) or Tammie.Olson@waterboards.ca.gov

Managed aquifer recharge projects are one of the four supplemental supply options that Soquel Creek Water District has included in their Water Management Plan but do not discuss much…the PurePoopWater Soquel Project is a done-deal in their minds, even though they deny it publicly. Their 2018-2019 budget includes a 17% rate increase to pay for it. Ouch. Where is the social justice of water affordability here?

RANCHO DEL MAR CENTER PLAN WILL BE ON JULY 21 COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AGENDA.
Get a look at the Rancho del Mar Center Project when it goes before the Zoning Administrator on July 21, 9am, in the 5th Floor Board of Supervisors Chambers. Project Planner Randall Adams (he handles the Aptos Village Project, too) will present the Project that includes an amendment to the Commercial Use Permit and a sign exception. I am not sure what that will mean, but try to attend the hearing if you can. I will try to pay for this to be video taped so it can be posted to YouTube…the Zoning Administrator hearings are NOT recorded by the County for public viewing.

Contact Mr. Scott Grady at TRC with your questions: 760-476-1134 <sgradt@TRCretail.com>

Mr. Bruce Walton recently assured me that the large redwood tree near Ace Hardware will be saved during the renovation work, but all other trees and vegetation will be demolished. He is still checking on the large cypress trees near Kentucky Fried Chicken to see if the use of the  chainsaw will be spared there.

HAPPY INDENPENDENCE DAY TO ONE AND ALL.
I enjoy reading over the Bill of Rights and the Constitution on this holiday, as I hum the national anthem. I like to read over Thomas Jefferson’s statement that there are really FOUR branches of government…the Executive, the Legislative, the Judicial , and the PEOPLE to watch over the other three branches. I recently read a quote that gives me great heart…

“The job of a citizen is to keep his (or her) mouth open”. Gunter Grass, Nobel-Prize Winning German author and artist.

I responded on June 8, asking “Why put ANY of this polluted water in your customer’s drinking water?  Why not eliminate the Country Club Well production completely and improve the safety of the drinking water you sell?”   Within hours, a Board member responded: “If a well is unused for even 12 months, the state DWR declares it abandoned and mandates it be destroyed.  Given how many millions of dollars we have invested in that one well, and therefore how many millions we would need to spend to replace that well, then we cannot risk its loss.”

Wow.  So the District recognizes the water is contaminated with a carcinogen at levels beyond proposed “safe” maximum contaminant level, but continues to add it to the drinking water they sell because it  would be too expensive to drill a new well for water that is not contaminated?  Think about that.

Now, ask yourself this: Can people really trust this agency to be honest in future proposed plans to treat sewage water and inject it into the region’s drinking water supply?  Somehow, I just don’t think so….not when the bottom line of profit seems to be higher priority than public health and safety.

PUREWATER IS REALLY POOP WATER…SCOPING THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Mark your calendar for Wednesday, July 12, 6pm-8pm, at the Twin Lakes Church for a meeting that “will include a short presentation followed by an open house with information stations.  Public comments may be provided orally (recorded via court reporter) or in writing.”  This meeting is the result of the District changing the Project description since the last Scoping Meeting  to “include consideration for additional advanced water purification facility sites and to eliminate treatment of raw wastewater.”  This is a direct response to the large and very vocal group of neighborhood residents living near the District offices who do not want a commercial sewage treatment plant in their backyard.  Good work, Soquel!  

The District has published a revised Project description and is accepting comments from June 22 to July 22, 2017.

CARCINOGENIC TREATED SEWAGE WATER INJECTED IN YOUR DRINKING WATER???
Do you think the District should consider the great expense of this proposed system that already has them planning to increase customer rates by 17% next fiscal year to pay for it?  Do you think the District should consider the merits of building such an expensive system that must function perfectly 100% of the time, without any operator error, to ensure that no spikes of unknown contaminants get completely eliminated from the water before getting injected into the region’s drinking water supply without any possible containment once the water is injected?  Do you think, based on the District’s priorities and operating procedures of the Country Club Well and known TCP contamination, that any of us should TRUST them to let the public know if there was a system failure or operator misjudgement?

I attended one of the District’s Supplemental Supply Committee meetings wherein the consultant hired to study the potential contamination problems of injecting treated sewage water into the public drinking water supply issued an initial report.  The report admitted that there were low levels of  N-nitrosdimethylamine (NDMA) that were found in the advanced tertiary treated sewage water.  NDMA is a potent liver carcinogen, but the EPA has not yet set the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for drinking water.  (Is this sounding like the TCP story?)

Read more about the potent human carcinogen NDMA and decide if you want to drink it.

On the EPA factsheet of January, 2014, NDMA is listed as “an unintended by-product of chlorination highly mobile in soil, with the potential to leach into groundwater.”  “In a 2002 survey conducted by the California Department of Health Services, elevated concentrations of NDMA were detected in locations where wastewater treatment plant effluent was used for aquifer recharge….”  That is certainly worth researching.  

The State Waterboards website also lists NDMA as a contaminant found in Northern California when  treated wastewater was used for groundwater recharge.  Read more >>>

 The EPA site continues:  “As of March 2011, NDMA had been detected in 1,787 samples out of 17,900 samples obtained from public water systems, which were monitored as part of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR).  The EPA uses the UCMR to monitor contaminants in drinking water that do not currently have health-based standards under the Safe Drinking Water Act.”

Here is the link to read more from the EPA on the issue.

Once again, I ask you….can we trust Soquel Creek Water District to be transparent about contamination problems seemingly inherent with injecting treated sewage water in the region’s drinking water supply?

Transparency award?  How did THAT ever happen?

COUNTY BUDGET HEARINGS DRAWING TO A SMOKEY CLOSE
I must compliment the beautiful graphic design of this year’s Santa Cruz County Budget available in a thick binder at the 5th Floor County Clerk of the Board Office.  It is colorful, with photos leading off each Department’s budget section that were taken by a staff member from within the respective Department.  I wonder how much that glossy tome cost?  

I could not attend many of the Budget Hearings last week, due to work.  That is probably a common problem for most people who have to work to survive, and cannot attend any of the County Board of Supervisor meetings at 9am during the weekdays.  I wonder if the new CAO Mr. Carlos Palacios will change any of that?

I did attend the swearing-in of Mr. Palocios.  I felt somewhat like the mean witch who crashed Sleeping Beauty’s birth celebration when I stood up at the Board of Supervisor meeting to speak about the clouded past of Mr. Palacios, as outlined in the 2010-2011 County Grand Jury investigation report of Watsonville City government under the guidance of Mr. Palacios, the City Manager.  That report is about the only information left working on the internet….the Register-Pajaronian articles now all have broken links or are missing entirely.   

I asked Mr. Palacios to be transparent in all County administrative business.  I also asked him to re-instate the Citizen’s Building Code and Fire Code Appeal Board, which Ms. Mauriello disbanded, causing citizens to pay exorbitant appeal fees ($1800) and hire expensive attorneys to get anyone to listen to problems flying out of the Planning Department.

The Budget, complete with the approved $47 million borrowed to enable the CAO to claim a balanced budget, will wrap up Tuesday (6/27) afternoon. Following a glowing ceremonial tribute to outgoing CAO Ms. Mauriello, a consideration of the proposed Measure D 5-Year Transportation Projects, the Aptos Village Project jurisdiction hearing….and the list goes on.  It will be a busy morning, complete with smoke and mirrors in the afternoon.  Stay tuned….

WILL THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TAKE LEADERSHIP AT THE APTOS VILLAGE PROJECT MESS???
Stay tuned for next week when I will report whether the Board agreed to hear the Aptos Village Project appeals and if they will take the opportunity to make the Phase I mess… LESS of a disaster.   I have asked the Board to assist in negotiating a purchase of the Phase II land to rebuild the bike jumps and pump track for the County’s youth, and to secure the existing parking area for the Nisene Marks State Park users who will soon have nowhere to go.  And what about parking for all those future rail passengers?

CARLOS PALACIOS CHOSEN AS NEW COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.
Well, well, what a surprise.  Last week, the County Public Information Officer, Mr. Jason Hoppin announced that the Board of Supervisors will anoint Mr. Carlos Palacios as the new County Administrative Officer (CAO) to replace Ms. Susan Mauriello.  That has been a done-deal for a long time, and I think the County Board of Supervisors could have saved the taxpayers a tremendous amount of money by honestly admitting as much.  Taxpayers could have been spared the $20,000 contract price with Peckham & McKenney to supposedly conduct a nationwide search and thousands more dollars for the expensive interviews held for two days at Hotel Paradox.   

This farce reminds me of the “public workshops” commonly held to pretend that the public’s input will be used to shape plans for neighborhood developments.  No governmental transparency here.

People who have had dealings with Mr. Palacios are really quite worried about what taxpayers can expect to see happen in Santa Cruz County government under his leadership.  Although the elected Board of Supervisors is supposed to be the real decision-makers in this picture, in truth, it has been CAO Ms. Mauriello, and will quite likely continue as such under the financial whip of Mr. Palacios.  

He was the Watsonville City Manager for 18 years before being tapped as Santa Cruz County Deputy CAO in 2015.   I have read the 2010-2011 County Grand Jury Reports regarding the very disturbing and serious investigations into the Watsonville City business that leads me to urge all citizens to watch the new CAO closely.  These concerns stem from the City of Watsonville’s attempts to legally bluster through a push to essentially get rid of the airport in order to develop dense mixed-use construction (think Aptos Village Project) and thereby disregard deed agreements made in 1947 when the City bought the airport property for $1, provided it remain an airport in perpetuity.  Under Mr. Palacios’ guidance, the City fought a legal battle to ditch the airport with Resolution 74-05 (April 12, 2005) and ignore orders from the State Department of Transportation (April 21, 2006) to invalidate that Resolution.  The Pilots Association sued the City and won (March 15, 2010), causing the City’s taxpayers to pay about $692,000 in legal fees to the plaintiffs and about $442,000 in City attorney fees when the 6th Appellate Court denied the City’s appeal.

Mr. Palacios also refused to address inquiries by the City Council regarding why the City wrote a check for $225,000 for a new fire engine but did not sign a contract for the truck’s delivery.  It took three years to finally get an engine, and it was not the one originally purchased.  And then, there was the $18,000 cash paid to bands to perform at the Strawberry Festival…..

I noticed that many of the internet site searches for Register-Pajaronian articles discussing some of these interesting findings are now not responding to searches.   Hmmmm….

FOLLOW THE MONEY…ATTEND COUNTY BUDGET HEARINGS THIS WEEK
The County Board of Supervisors will be approving the proposed 2017-2018 Budget this week.  I wonder how the CAO will present it all as a balanced budget, as claimed in the glossy full-color document available for public view in the County Clerk’s office  (5th Floor)?  Maybe that is why the Board of Supervisors had to recently approve taking out a short-term $46 million bond?  How long can the County taxpayers support this?

A FINE GLASS OF PINOT FIXES EVERYTHING.
Last week, Pleasant Valley rural residents and I brought an appeal before the County Planning Commission regarding approval of a commercial event center at the Lester Winery.  Rural residents in the Pleasant Valley and Hames Road areas really have valid concerns about the negative impacts to County roads and public safety by allowing Lester Winery to hold multiple large commercial events with 200 guests and outdoor amplified sound until 9pm in the neighborhood.  This is not a permitted use under current County Code and was stated as such in the Staff Report.  

So, I was amazed to hear the Planning Commission acknowledge that it is not currently allowed under current Code unless the events support the agricultural use of growing grapes.  It was decided that if the Lester Winery could require all event customers to drink their wine while at the large events, it would then be okay.  Really?  So, how does amplified outdoor sound relate to that?  Well, since there was a report from Edward Pack Acoustic Consultants claiming that no amplified sound could be heard at the property boundaries, there would be NO PROBLEM with allowing outdoor amplified sound.  It seemed that Planner Sheila McDaniel may have “misinterpreted” some of the information, and hence required all speakers to be aimed south, but the consultant quickly said that he had not recommended that and that it really did not matter which way the speakers were aimed.  The Hills Are Alive With the Sound of ……a DJ?

It seemed to me that most things really did not matter in this public hearing.  Not even the fact that County Environmental Health had noted “due to the large number of event guests, porta- potties are not allowed.”  yet that is what was approved.  In the end, the Commissioners had individually visited the site and, I think, already made up their minds about how this would be approved as a test case for large commercial events in the rural areas.  I thought it was telling that the first question asked by Second District Commissioner Ms. Melanie Shaffer-Freitas of staff was “How far off is the EIR for the Code Modernization (that will make this sort of use legal)?”  When Planner Ms. McDaniel replied that staff has not had time to work on it much, and that the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) is at least two years away from completion, it was obvious that the Commissioners were going to approve the Commercial Use Permit for the Lester Winery, a rural residential and agricultural area.  The fact that the Lester family has been holding “Family Parties” there for years to raise money for various non-profits probably  helped influence the decision making as well.

Later, a Commissioner assured me that they had not approved a commercial event center.  So, can anyone please explain to me the difference between a Commercial Use Permit for large events (200 guests) with outdoor amplified sound and how it is not the same as a commercial event center?  Maybe it would make more sense to me if I had a glass of good Pinot…..

MAY I HAVE A GLASS OF CLEAN AFFORDABLE WATER, PLEASE?  
Soquel Creek Water District will this week be signing more agreements with the City of Santa Cruz for sewage water to inject in our drinking water supply within the near future.  That is the Pure Water Soquel project rumbling down the pipes, even though the Soquel Creek Water District Board insists publicly they have not made a decision about which supplemental supply they have chosen to solve the critical aquifer overdraft problem in their area.  On July 12, 7pm, they will hold a public hearing at Twin Lakes Baptist Church (next to Cabrillo College) to explain the new Scoping for their Environmental Impact Report (EIR) studies of the issue.  

Essentially, the EIR process has been set back due to the neighborhood outcry regarding the plan to place the industrial use sewage treatment plant at the West Annex location at District Office headquarters, which is immediately adjacent to a residential neighborhood.  Here we go again…another questionable land use in a residential community.  

So, if the Soquel Creek Water District Board has not decided what their plan is, why does the 2018-2019 budget include a 17% rate increase (to pay for the PureWater Soquel Project), and add in extra administrative, engineering and operations  staff to openly handle the Project?

Why don’t other well owners besides Soquel Creek Water District have any say in what gets dumped into the aquifer that we all depend upon for clean, affordable drinking water?  Over 300 local citizens have signed a petition demanding the matter be put to ballot votes, yet the District Board is unresponsive to that request.   I think I can see a Citizen’s Initiative in the near future….

PRIVATE WELL OWNERS IN SANTA MARGARITA GROUNDWATER BASIN AGENCY WILL GET TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN REPRESENTATIVES.
I attended the Board of Directors meeting last week for the Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency, a joint power group including San Lorenzo Valley Water District, Scotts Valley Water District, The City of Santa Cruz and the County of Santa Cruz.   Santa Cruz City had not yet chosen their representative, although a member of the audience pointed out that attending Supervisors Bruce McPherson and John Leopold both live within the Santa Cruz City Water service areas, so maybe the City had its representation there after all.

I was glad to learn that this Groundwater Agency has written into its By-Laws that the Private Well Owners are to choose their two representatives themselves.  There were about 12 private well owners at the meeting.  They will meet July 31, 7pm at the Scotts Valley Water District Offices (2 Civic Center Drive, Scotts Valley) to begin organizing and select their own representatives to help write the plan that is required by the State Water boards by 2022 for a sustainable water scenario healing  current critical overdraft problems.  This is excellent.

That was not how the three Private Well Representatives on the neighboring MidCounty Groundwater Agency were selected.  Those people were chosen by representatives of Soquel Creek Water District, Santa Cruz City Water Department, Central Water District, and Santa Cruz County.  There are no alternates.  Those who were not chosen but were very well qualified perhaps wondered what criteria were used in the selection process?

MIDCOUNTY GROUNDWATER AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 29 TO EXPLAIN SELECTION REQUIREMENTS AND DESIRED QUALIFICATIONS FOR PLAN COMMITTEE.
The Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) will dictate how much water can be pumped out of the ground in the future, who will get to have it, and how much everyone will have to pay to have water.  That’s a big responsibility to take on, and applications are now open for the job.  Applications are available on the website: www.MidCountyGroundwater.org and are due July 20, 2017.  To help explain the process and the requirements necessary for those who want to serve on the GSP, there will be a public meeting on June 29, 7pm at the Congregational Church in Soquel (that quaint white-steepled church in Soquel Village).  The Selection Committee is still working out the details of how they will evaluate and “winnow” the applicants.  I urge anyone interested in working together with others with a similar interest of solving this water dilemma to apply.  

I wonder if anyone on that GSP Committee will talk about a moratorium on new service connections in the area until this critical health and safety problem is corrected?   I wonder if Soquel Creek Water District bookkeepers would be able to justify writing checks on an overdrafted bank account?  Their Board is doing essentially that by continuing to hand out more and more new service connections for increased water use from a critically-overdrafted aquifer, justifying it by using a bogus Water Demand Offset Program with no measurable improvement results.