Subscribe

Concerns About the Merger

Loss of Independence and Water Rights:

1. A merger between SJWD and SSWD would result in both districts ceasing to  exist as independent entities, creating a new agency. This transition poses a significant risk to our water rights, which have been increasingly targeted by state and federal agencies. If not managed properly, the merger could lead to the loss of these valuable rights. Once forfeited, recovering them could prove nearly impossible, threatening our district’s control over its most critical resource.
2. Non-Contiguous Districts:
   Our districts are not contiguous, complicating the management, distribution, and infrastructure development necessary for efficient water delivery. As a resident of Granite Bay, I believe it would be more beneficial to focus our resources on enhancing our own infrastructure, rather than merging with a non-contiguous district. Such a merger could introduce inefficiencies and create governance challenges, diluting our ability to effectively serve our community.
3. The "Current Board Dynamic”:
   I have observed that the current General Manager and certain board members hold disproportionate influence over decision-making, often sidelining alternative viewpoints, including my own. This environment stifles innovation and prevents the consideration of new, forward-thinking solutions. Given the significance of the merger decision, it is crucial that all perspectives are heard and that the board operates transparently to ensure the best outcome for the district.

Advocacy for Groundwater Investment

Rather than pursuing a merger, I strongly advocate for investing in our own groundwater wells. Here’s why:

1. Self-Reliance and Resiliency:
   By developing groundwater wells, we can store excess water during wet      years and access it during dry years, creating a reliable, independent      water supply. This approach strengthens our district’s resiliency, reducing reliance on external water sources and safeguarding against the impact of fluctuating state and federal regulations.
2. Proven Success and Feasibility:                                                                     Other districts, like Roseville, have successfully implemented this strategy,                                             and I recently had the opportunity to tour their facilities.  Their use of federal infrastructure dollars and low-interest loans to fund groundwater projects has been highly effective. We can follow their example, utilizing long-term financing to make this investment feasible while benefiting from federal and state funding opportunities.
3. Financial Prudence and Long-Term Planning:
   While the initial cost of building groundwater wells may seem significant, the long-term benefits far outweigh the expenses. By securing our water supply, we maintain the district’s independence and ensure that future      generations are protected. Furthermore, by extending loan terms, we can manage the financial burden more effectively, spreading      costs over time without straining current resources.

Conclusion

I understand the motivation behind the proposed merger to address climate change and future drought challenges. However, I firmly believe that investing in our own groundwater infrastructure offers a more sustainable and secure path forward. This strategy allows us to retain control over our water rights, enhance our district’s resiliency, and safeguard its future—without the complications and potential risks posed by a merger.

Thank you for considering my perspective. I am committed to working collaboratively toward a solution that best serves the long-term interests of our district and community.