Return to
HOME PAGE

Return to Menu of
MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT BOARD

From the Monterey County Herald
Serving Monterey County and the Salinas Valley

April 17, 2002

Water-credit transfers may be all dried up

NO BOARD ACTION ON BAN PETITION

By DENNIS MORAN
dmoran@montereyherald.com
 

It may be premature to say that water-credit transfers will rest in peace, but they appear to be buried.  

By taking no action Monday on petitions seeking a repeal of its ban on transfers, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District board of directors may have put one contentious issue behind it as it prepares to face others in the near future.  

The petitions, circulated by a group led by the Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, sought to force the water board to put its transfer ban up to a popular vote in November if it didn't first repeal it.  

The petitions fell far short of the required certified signatures, but some members of the public and a few board members suggested the board put the matter on the November ballot anyway. Bob McKenzie, one of those supporting the petition campaign, suggested it would be a "good PR move" for the board.  

The board has until August to do that, though it would require a change of heart from at least one of the four board members who enacted the ban in the first place. While that seems unlikely, the ban does face one other potential challenge in the form of a lawsuit by the city of Seaside, which argues that the ban forecloses on some key projects that city wants to move ahead on.  

To qualify the issue for a ballot, the petitions needed to reach 3,650 valid signatures, or 10 percent of the votes cast within the water district in the last gubernatorial election. The petition-gatherers turned in 2,729 signatures, but 1,292 of those were discounted as "insufficient" by county Registrar of Voters Tony Anchundo, leaving 1,437 valid signatures.  

Alexander Henson, one of four board members who passed the transfer ban in February, said he gave "a good deal of thought" into putting the measure on the ballot anyway. But the "quite high" failure rate of the petitions to garner certifiable signatures and the cost of placing such a measure on the ballot - $58,000 to $62,000, according to estimates provided the district by Anchundo - dissuaded him.  

Three other board members apparently would support such a move. Board member David Potter said voluntarily seeking a popular vote could "help with some healing around here." He said the board "might have been a little discourteous to the public on the last vote" on the transfer ban during a contentious meeting on Feb. 28.  

Potter was in Washington, D.C., on county business and missed the meeting, and the board majority denied his request that the vote be delayed until March so he could participate.  

"I think we ought to allow the public to be more a part of the process," Potter said. Though he also felt deterred by the cost of a ballot measure, he added -- to some laughter from the audience -- that he's "seen the district spend a lot more money for a lot less yield."  

But board member Judi Lehman said the district is "wasting a lot of time on 60 acre-feet" of water, the total number involved in completed water transfers from 1993. "We need to get to the solution," she said, meaning a new water source.  

The board will discuss that contentious topic during a study session open to the public on April 25.