Water District asks voters for $682M parcel tax for floods.
The ballot measure would continue existing $67.67 annual levy, but with no expiration
After years marked by a historic statewide drought and devastating floods around downtown San Jose, Santa Clara County’s largest water provider has decided to ask voters to approve a parcel tax to pay for a wide variety of projects, from flood control to creek restoration, along with some costs of rebuilding the county’s largest dam at Anderson Reservoir.
The measure, called the “Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Program,” will appear on the November ballot across Santa Clara County. It would make permanent an annual tax of $67.67 per home that voters approved in 2012 and which is scheduled to expire in 2028. But it needs a two-thirds majority, and potential opposition from some environmental and taxpayer groups could make the vote close.
“This a renewal with no tax increase of an existing measure,” said Gary Kremen, a member of the water district’s board. “It will keep our creeks clean, protect us from drought and help reduce the risk of floods.”
The water district, a government agency based in San Jose, provides drinking water and flood protection to 2 million people in Santa Clara County.
In 2012, the current parcel tax passed with 74% of the vote. Supporters of extending it say the funding is critical for the quality of life in the South Bay, as the population grows and climate change makes weather extremes more volatile.
The measure has been endorsed by the Santa Clara County Farm Bureau, the San Jose Water Company, San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP and several city chambers of commerce, along with other community groups.
Some opponents say the district, with 795 employees and an annual budget
of $609 million, already has enough money from water rates and other taxes.
“Everybody’s unemployed. They are working from home,” said Mark Hinkle, president of the Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association. “People are having trouble paying their mortgages. This isn’t the right time to raise taxes.”
The measure contains $263 million for flood control construction projects, $54 million to help with seismic upgrades to Anderson Dam, $155 million for creek restoration and wildlife projects, $51 million to remove trash, homeless encampments and graffiti from creeks and $53 million in community grants for environmental education and conservation projects.
A coalition of environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society,
Tuolumne River Trust and others have raised concerns. They said they wanted the district to streamline and improve its environmental grants program, dedicate more money to conservation programs like grey water reuse and remove $10 million in funding earmarked for a new $1.3 billion dam and reservoir the district is hoping to build at Pacheco Pass. The district granted most of those requests and cut the Pacheco Dam money to $2 million.
Like the taxpayer group, the environmental groups also have criticized the fact that the measure would not expire in 15 years, and would require voters to repeal it.
“We are considering opposing it, although we haven’t made a decision on that yet,” said Katja Irvin, co-chair of the conservation committee for the Sierra Club’s Loma Prieta chapter. “Our concerns primarily revolve around the fact that there is no sunset date. We want to be able to reevaluate how they are doing every 15 years and have more say on it.”
District officials and their supporters say the open-ended nature is needed to provide a regular flow of money for maintaining flood protection by removing tons of sediment, trees and vegetation across the 278 miles of streams and rivers they own, along with providing more certainty to businesses and homeowners.
If approved, the program will continue to have a citizen oversight committee, with independent audits every five years, and an annual public report. The measure allows the district’s seven-member board of directors to raise the parcel tax up to 2% a year for inflation, which could bring in roughly $817 million in the first 15 years.
Of the measure’s flood control funding, $41 million would go to Coyote Creek between Montague Expressway and Tully Road in San Jose, including in the flood-prone Rock Springs neighborhood.
In February 2017, after weeks of heavy storms, torrents of water roared down Coyote Creek and flooded streets and homes in and around downtown San Jose, causing at least $100 million damage. For weeks, city officials and the water district pointed fingers at each other, with the city saying that the district hadn’t provided enough warning, and the district saying the city hadn’t done enough to evacuate residents.
The city and district have drawn up plans to better coordinate flood emergency efforts. The district pledged to beef up flood control construction along the creek, although a full protection against a 100-year flood could cost $500 million to $1 billion — money the district does not have. The project in the measure would provide 20-year flood protection, a stop-gap effort.
The measure also would continue work on flood protection projects on the Upper Guadalupe River in San Jose from Interstate 280 to Blossom Hill Road; Lower Berryessa Creek in Milpitas; Sunnyvale East and West Channels; Upper Penitencia Creek in East San Jose; San Francisquito Creek in Palo Alto and Llagas Creek in Morgan Hill, San Martin and Gilroy; and shoreline levees on bayfront land around Alviso.
Water district CEO Rick Callender recently wrote that projects promised in the 2012 measure are on track. Those include upgrading pipelines, removing 6,642 pounds of trash from local streams, cleaning up 417 homeless encampments, finishing flood control projects along parts of Berryessa Creek, and awarding $13 million in grants to community groups to restore streams, fund environmental education, and research projects such as viability of rainwater harvest barrels.