A call to vote ‘No’ on Measure U
I am an SLVWD ratepayer. According to information included in the paper from the Yes on U campaign, I am one of those using a lower than average amount of water, at less than 4 units per month. I am willing to pay the new rates, because I know that there are many ratepayers who do not pay their bills, some because they have very low incomes and are unable to pay anything, others because they don’t pay their bills until their water is shut off, and the District is no longer doing that.
Some properties use very little water because the owners do not live here most of the year. The school district pays a lower rate than other users, because the community values public education and wants to keep costs for the school district low.
As a member of this community, I am willing to subsidize those not paying their bills, because I am acutely aware that, like with public health, we are all in danger if we do not take care of those unable or unwilling to take care of themselves. If our pipelines and tanks are not repaired, if we do not protect our watershed, if we do not protect our common aquifer, we will all suffer the consequences together.
I wonder how many of the people trying to roll back the rate increase really can’t afford an extra $25/month for water? The increase in homeowners’ insurance was much more than that, and it will probably increase again, especially if the water district cannot guarantee that water and staff will be available to fight the next fire.
If you really want to help your neighbors who are having trouble paying their bills, get them to sign up for the Low Income Ratepayer’s Assistance program, which at present is underutilized, and pay your bill on time, so District staff don’t have to waste time and money trying to collect overdue bills.
How much money and time was wasted on the campaign for Measure U? How many low income ratepayers could have had their bills paid for a year with that money?
Please vote “No” on Measure U, and please attend water board meetings or volunteer for a committee to encourage the water district to make the investments in infrastructure and staff we will need going forward. Make suggestions for how the District can save money without losing staff or delaying improvements. Show the new interim general manager that this community cares about water.
Cynthia Dzendzel
Felton
Vote for candidate who understands community’s challenges
Fifth District supervisor—a hard decision! Both candidates have much to offer. And some of my friends are voting based on gender identity. OK, I totally “get” that for a number of reasons. But here’s the bottom line: the person who has been actually living and dealing with the challenges in SLV and deeply understands what many in the Fifth District have been living and dealing with, is the one I’m voting for.
The CZU fire and water issues—sadly, these remain ongoing issues. It’s about who personally understands and relates to these experiences, and therefore is the most passionate, committed and understanding of what’s going on and affecting our communities (Scotts Valley and SLV), and wants to passionately advocate for our district’s needs. Not just promote his/her political agenda.
I urge you to vote for Christopher Bradford.
Suzy Hunt
Scotts Valley
Holloway will deliver results for water district
I’m a member of the San Lorenzo Valley Water District (SLVWD) Board of Directors, but am speaking only for myself in this endorsement.
SLVWD directors have two critical jobs: Oversight and Finances. These are tough jobs because doing them well means going up against narratives established by special interests. But not doing these jobs leads the agency to lose its focus on maintaining efficient operations, transparent finances and improving infrastructure.
Fortunately for our community, we have someone running for the position of SLVWD Director—Bruce Holloway—who not only understands these two critical jobs but, unlike his competition, has a strong track record of delivering results.
The most recent example: Bruce single-handedly ensured that the money raised by the sales tax increases for the unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County (Measure G in 2018 and Measure K in 2024) would be spent only in the unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County. To any fair-minded person, this is only logical. Unfortunately, this was not guaranteed in the text of either sales tax measure. In response, Bruce took action with his own money to ensure that more than $15 million per year of our community’s money was protected.
Everyone, we collectively owe Bruce a big “thank you” for his courage and determination. This is a concrete demonstration of the qualities we urgently need on the SLVWD Board. Like with the sales tax measures, Bruce will make sure the District does the right thing with your money.
With respect to Oversight, Bruce understands much more about District operations than his competition, given his involvement with the District over many years. Bruce has demonstrated his commitment to ensuring that the District, as a public agency, be transparent and follows the rules.
Just like with Christopher Bradford, Bruce is up against the establishment as a change agent. If there’s any doubt, that expensive mailer from Bruce’s competition has an endorsement list with significant overlap with Christopher’s competition.
Please join me in voting for Bruce Holloway for SLVWD director, who will be effective on Day 1. And, please vote Christopher Bradford for supervisor.
Bob Fultz
Director, SLVWD
Commentary on Measure U
Measure U on the ballot for voters in San Lorenzo Valley Water District is rocking the proverbial political boat. Ordinary citizens have managed to do what the water district board could not, propose a rate structure that 1) preserves affordability, 2) promotes conservation and 3) provides money for operations and infrastructure projects, all in a fair manner spread among all users as per the District’s Mission Statement for equitable rates. All it takes is a shift in the rate structure.
Opponents of this citizen-led Measure are having a meltdown due to a shift of political power, not our rates, and are taking the Kitchen Sink approach. Puzzled voters have asked us what do natural disasters, leaking pipes, CZU fire recovery projects, infrastructure, budget allocations, staffing shortages, and elected and former State and local officials not residing in our water district have to do with Measure U? The answer is: Nothing.
Measure U rewinds to a two-element water rate structure that has worked well in the past and is practiced in most other water districts: a fixed basic service charge, plus a charge that varies depending on how much water you use. The more you use, the more you pay. Fair and sustainable, as it’s the familiar structure we paid this time last year, and decades before that.
Opponents who designed the new rate structure tilted it toward higher fixed charges. To overcome customer sticker shock and make the fixed charges easier to swallow, they broke it into pieces. Despite labels like “capital,” all those pieces go into the same general fund, and along with water sales, are a combined total revenue. The board was offered seven rate structure options to get the same amount of income, and they picked one that puts the heaviest burden on low water users, rather than one spreading the lift out evenly across all users.
Measure U asks the district to take another look at a fair rate plan, this time one that honors water conservation, and helps those who use little water with affordability. The path to doing that is by putting a lid on the fixed rate and shifting the load to water use. The latest financial analysis for the rate increase is less than a year old, so a major part of the rate study is done, and a restructure shifting revenue income to water use will be swift. The district finance director recommends this action as the sensible plan.
Opponents have spent the last few months loudly campaigning against political power-sharing, the Constitution and ratepayers. It’s time to bring political showboating to an end.
Measure U is a practical solution to fix a controversial, inequitable water rate structure. It comes from the heart of our community in honor of fairness, affordability and water conservation. Fair rates can still bring in the same amount of needed revenue. Seasonal water use shifts, emergencies and infrastructure progress depend on good management, including fair rates. It’s our water district, our vote. Yes on U.
Debra Loewen
Lompico Canyon
Disastrous?
Christina Wise called my term “disastrous” (“Measure U Forum Marred By Misinformation,” Oct. 25), and she listens to this group we call the “Status Quo.” One of the things you need to be a member of this group is that there still exists racism. I believe racism no longer exists, but there is a new form of hatred, which is to hate people with different viewpoints.
If it had not been for Lois Henry and myself getting elected on the Lompico Board in 2008, we probably would not have merged with SLVWD.
On SLVWD, I was introduced into closed door sessions talking about how we were going to win the court case against Terry Vierra. I fought against wasting $500,000 on lawyers on hope to find a corrupt judge.
They were not prioritizing important repairs for Lompico, adding costs and liability. They wanted to use Glyphosate. All these chemicals must be banned. Someone promoted it on Nextdoor. A slip of the tongue, I called him “gay”—a slur frequently used among boys my age.
I got divorced, my Mom died, I got a puppy for my daughter who I named “Trovah,” my Dad broke his hip, and I became estranged from my siblings. I took a job with a two-hour commute. That is why I resigned.
My daughter ran away several times. I felt guilty because I was not there for her. I met my wife Beth, and her and Trovah’s help was immeasurable. I think of dogs as angels watching over us. My daughter came back to live with me in Lompico. With a tear in my eye, I remember having to go down with my daughter to take Trovah to be put down on Jan. 5 of this year.
Ms. Wise, what you wrote about me was hateful and wrong.
Bill Smallman
Lompico
