Santa Clara Valley Water District parcel tax, Measure B (November 2012)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Santa Clara Valley Water District parcel tax, Measure B was on the November 6, 2012 ballot for voters in the Santa Clara Valley Water District in Santa Clara County, where it was approved.[1]

Measure B replaces an existing parcel tax. Although the amount of the proposed Measure B tax varies depending on the size of a given property and the uses to which the property is put, the new tax will initially be $56.00/year for the hypothetical "average home" in the district. At least $548 million is expected to be raised by the tax through 2028. According to the provisions of Measure B, the water district's governing board will be allowed to increase the tax by at least 3% every year. Measure B will be in effect for 15 years (through 2028).[2]

Property owners in Santa Clara County already pay a parcel tax to the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The existing parcel tax was approved in November 2000. When the tax first was levied, it was $39.00/year for the hypothetical "average home." When voters approved the tax in 2000, it came with a provision that allowed the water district to adjust the tax levy upward every year by at least 3% to account for inflation. The water district has increased the levy every year by at least 3.00%, which is why in Fiscal Year 2012-2013, the tax will be $54.22/year.[3] That tax is set to expire in June 30, 2016.[4]

A 2/3rds supermajority vote was required for approval.

Election results

Measure B
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 434,021 73.69%
No154,97026.31%
Final official results from the Santa Clara County elections office.

About the district

  • The district's office is in San Jose.
  • The district provides flood control and drinking water to 1.8 million people.[5]
  • The district has been the subject of seven critical grand jury reports; these reports have criticized the district for high salaries, unnecessary spending and delays in projects. An example of spending that was criticized in a grand jury report was the district's expenditure of $1.4 million in 2008 to build a gazebo and an education center in Alviso.[5]
  • In 2010, three new directors were elected to the District's Board of Directors on a reform platform. They say they are cleaning up the problems with district governance and management that led to the critical grand jury reports.[6]
  • Over the last decade, the district has doubled its water rates.[5]
  • In addition to the existing "Clean, Safe Creeks Parcel Tax," homeowners pay to the district about $47.36 per year for a "Flood Control Benefit Assessment."[7]
  • The district oversees 10 dams. Six of them cannot be filled to the top because they first need earthquake repairs.[5]
  • The district had 84 employees earning over $150,000, and 12 employees earning over $200,000 in FY 2010.[8]
  • The district has about 30 top managers who earn between $150,000 and $230,000 a year in base salary and, in addition, are given full medical and dental benefits, car allowances, life insurance, 28 vacation days, 7 days of personal leave and 12 paid holidays.[5]
  • The district has an annual budget of $285 million.[5]

Pro and con arguments

The main arguments made in favor of Measure B by its supporters were that if Measure B is approved, it will:

  • Measure B does not increase tax rates; it simply replaces existing local funding.
  • Ensure safe, reliable water supply;
  • Create 3000 jobs for the local area.[9]
  • Reduce toxins, hazards and contaminants in waterways;
  • Protect water supply and dams from earthquakes and natural disasters;
  • Restore wildlife habitat and provide open space;
  • Provide flood protection to homes, schools and businesses;
  • Provide safe, clean water in creeks and bays,
  • It would be better to renew the tax now, because the district might lose an opportunity for available federal matching funds in 2013. (Supporters say that the matching will certainly be lost, while opponents deny this.)

Arguments made against Measure B included:

  • The $300 million of seismic repairs for three different dams will be funded almost entirely from the Water Utility Capital Improvement Programm.[10] Environmentalists for Living Streams (ELS) assert that "the reason Measure B includes some funding for dams is not because Measure B funds are needed, but rather to make Measure B look more essential for water supply reliability than it really is."[11]
  • The spending by the Water District is unbalanced by devoting a disproportionate amount of revenue towards flood control projects compared to what it spends on its environmental responsbilities for restoring the streams.
  • The current tax expires in July 2016. Voters shouldn't wait until November 2016, but they should wait until June 2016 because that is before the current tax expires. This will give the Water District time to work with the environmental community to write a better, more balanced, amd more environmentally effective tax.
  • You are now paying 2 parcel taxes for flood protection. If Measure B renews one, you will still be paying 2 parcel taxes for flood protection.[12]
  • The Water Board can increase Measure B tax rates by at least 3% a year regardless of inflation.[13]
  • The water district spends too much on marketing and not enough on its mission.[14]
  • The District will not likely lose federal funding if Measure B doesn't pass in 2012, because getting federal funding for new projects in the next four years is highly unlikely because of reductions in the US Army Corps of Engineers flood control budget.[15]

Support

Supporters

Measure B was endorsed by: (partial list)

The "Yes on B" campaign logo

Newspapers

  • San Jose Mercury News.[16]
  • Metro Newspapers.[17]
  • Palo Alto Weekly.[18]

Environmental Groups and Individuals

  • Coastal Habitat Education Environmental Restoration (CHEER)
  • Margaret MacNiven, Board President, Committee for Green Foothills
  • Committee for Green Foothills
  • Save The Bay
  • Santa Clara County League of Conservation Voters
  • Brian Schmidt, Environmental Activist, Santa Clara Valley Water District Board
  • Linda J. LeZotte, Environmental Activist, Santa Clara Valley Water District Board Chair
  • Protecting our Local Investment in our Creeks and Environment (Environmental P.O.L.I.C.E)
  • Acterra
  • Rita Norton, Former Chair, Environmental Advisory Committee
  • Lester Snow, Executive Director, California Water Foundation
  • Yoriko Kishimoto, Director, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
  • Clark Williams, Santa Clara County Open Space Authority
  • Charles Hammerstad, Conservation Committee Chairman, Flycasters, Inc of San Jose
  • Herman Garcia, President, Coastal Habitat Education and Environmental Restoration (CHEER)
  • Bob Levy, Chair, Environmental Advisory Committee
  • Helen Chapman, Former Parks Commission Chair
  • Rod Diridon, Sr., Chair, Santa Clara County League of Conservation Voters

Elected Officals, Business Groups and Community Leaders

  • Congressman Mike Honda
  • Carl Guardino, President & CEO, Silicon Valley Leadership Group
  • A. Yiaway Yeh, Mayor, City of Palo Alto
  • San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce
  • Sunnyvale Chamber of Commerce
  • Saratoga Chamber of Commerce
  • Santa Clara County Coalition of Chambers of Commerce
  • Gilroy Chamber of Commerce
  • Neil Struthers, CEO, Santa Clara County Building Trades Council
  • Don Eagleston, President/CEO Sunnyvale/Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce
  • Matt Mahood, San Jose/Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce
  • Mayor Chuck Reed, City of San Jose
  • Assemblymember Nora Campos
  • Assemblymember Paul Fong
  • Assemblymember Richard Gordon
  • Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski
  • Assemblymember Luis Alejo
  • Assemblymember Jim Beall

Arguments in favor

Arguments included in the ballot statements in favor of Measure B included:[19]

Water supply

  • "Vote YES on Measure B to ensure safe, reliable local water supply in the Santa Clara Valley, without increasing tax rates."
  • "By investing in long-term water supply projects in Santa Clara Valley, like retrofitting Anderson Dam so it's earthquake safe, Measure B will protect the community from water shortages during an extended drought."
  • "Measure B will help ensure the future health, safety and supply of our local water resources. Without the continued funding, there could be major reductions and potential eliminations of existing programs and services, and the long-term goals of ensuring safe, clean, reliable water resources could be severely threatened."[20]

Environmental

  • "Seventeen streams and 7 reservoirs in Santa Clara County have been designated "impaired" due to pollutants like mercury and PCBs in fish and the water. Without increasing tax rates, Measure B will replace local funding needed to continue improving water quality in our creeks and reservoirs - and track annual progress to ensure our water stays clean."[21]
  • "If local funding is not replaced, a lack of funding will slow down or end many current programs that fight toxins and contaminants in waterways and protect homes and businesses."[22]
  • "We cannot wait until 2016 to pass Measure B. By then, essential local funding will have expired, and many vital local water supply and clean-up projects (including environmental programs) will have stopped or disappeared completely. We will have delayed urgent seismic upgrades for no good reason."[23]

Fiscal

  • "Measure B does not increase tax rates; it simply replaces existing local funding."
  • "Measure B requires mandatory annual audits and independent fiscal oversight by a citizens' monitoring committee to ensure all funds are spent as promised. Measure B includes exemptions for senior citizens."
  • Since the program proposes the continuation of the existing Clean, Safe Creeks special parcel tax, there is absolutely no change in the tax rate structure, including the tax exemption for low-income senior citizens.
  • "Measure B will allow the Santa Clara Valley Water District to bring in $400 million in federal and state matching funds to stimulate our local economy, create 3000 new jobs, and expand the focus of the current program of protecting local creeks and waterways to fund additional water supply, pollution cleanup and earthquake safety improvements."[24]

Other arguments included:

  • Linda LeZotte, chairwoman of the governing board of the water district, said, "The district's revenue is not sufficient to continue to supply clean, safe, reliable water going forward. Some of the state and federal funding we've counted on in the past is being significantly diminished. So in order to meet our long-term goals, we need an additional source of revenue."[1]

Opposition

The Environmental "NO on B" campaign logo

Opponents

The official voter guide arguments opposing Measure B were signed by:

  • Richard K. McMurtry, Former Water Resources Engineer/Treasurer, Environmentalists for Living Streams
  • Lawrence M. Johmann, President, Western Waters Canoe Club

The major environmental opponents of Measure B included:

  • Environmentalists for Living Streams ([http:www.envirosforlivingstreams.org)]
  • Friends of Coyote Creek
  • Rick Lanman, founder, Friends of Abode Creek
  • Western Water Canoe Club
  • Roger Castillo, Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Group
  • Michael Stanley Jones, former staff of the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition
  • Richard McMurtry, member, Santa Clara Valley Water District Environmental Advisory Committee
  • Meng Syn, Dentist, Fly Fisherman

Columnist Scott Herhold opposed Measure B. He calls the water district "The Golden Spigot." Herhold gave these reasons to vote no:

  • "It needs a couple of years more of maturation and a better-calibrated proposal."[25]
  • The water board considered granting lifetime health benefits to retired board members, their spouses and one dependent each.[26]
  • Wasteful spending.[27]
  • There are 2 existing parcel taxes for flood control.[28]

Newspaper editorial boards opposed to Measure B included:

  • The Los Altos Town Crier[29]
  • The Milpitas Post[30]

Arguments against

Environmental


The organization "Environmentalists for Living Streams" said, "Before supporting another Parcel Tax the community should require the District to keep its environmental promises to the November 2000 parcel tax and to its 2003 agreement with fishery agencies." This organization listed five main reasons why they opposed Measure B:[31]

  1. "The District has not kept its commitments to the environment made in the 2000 Parcel Tax - diverting most of the income for environmental restoration into "reserves" and not spending it on the promised purposes.[32]
  2. The District made an agreement in 2003 to implement a specific set of projects to restore the trout fishery on the Guadalupe River, Coyote Creek and Stevens Creek.Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag
  3. End the double standard. Environmental groups wrote to the District during the development of Measure B asking the District to develop the same standard for specificity for the environmental projects as they had for the flood control projects.[33]But the District ignored the environmental groups major suggestions.[34]
  4. The District is likely to do a few good environmental projects both for pollution and for streams, but most of the money will get spent on "feel good" projects that don't make a real environmental difference.
  5. Basic changes are needed at the Water District that will only come about if people who care about the environment say YES to streams and NO to Measure B. The District out of common sense will then have to develop a tax that is balanced between flood control and the environment and whose environmental components include a focus on restoring the health of the streams and the fishery. They can bring that new tax back to the voters in June 2016 before the current tax expires in July."

Taxpayer

The Taxpayer "No on B" campaign logo

Taxpayer groups made these arguments against Measure B:

  • "Under Measure B, "tax rates will increase at least 3.00% per year from $55.85 to at least $84.48 when the tax expires! The tax rate would be allowed to increase by more than 3.00% when the local inflation rate is higher. The existing parcel tax that Measure B seeks to replace has risen 3.00% or more every year since 2001."[35]
  • In addition to the $54.4 million that the water district receives in property taxes, the water district also receives $19 million for debt service, $35.9 million for the Clean Safe Creeks parcel tax and $19.2 million for an additional flood control assessment."[36] Here's the breakdown:
  1. $54.4 million - SCVWD property taxes
  2. $19 million - SCVWD debt service
  3. $35.9 million - SCVWD Clean, Safe Creeks
  4. $19.2 million - SCVWD Flood Control
  • The water district spent and budgeted $4,911,561 over the past 3 fiscal years to get Measure B ready for the ballot! The water district uses operating project 00042037 to track the "Safe, Clean Water Project. This project's goals are, "Place the Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Plan on the November 2012 ballot, provide communication support, and complete the Safe, Clean Water Plan report." The Safe, Clean Water project budget is on pages 91-95 in Book One of the Fiscal 2012-2013 Adopted Detail Budget.[37]
  • John Roeder, president of the Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, said, "We feel that the water district spends far too much money. They haven't spent money wisely in the past. They don't deserve to be given more."[5]

Accountability

The District has an "Independent Monitoring Committee" in place to oversee the November 2000 Parcel Tax. They wrote to the Water District in June 2012 and indicated that the Water District had not achieved the goals of the environmental restoration portion of the November 2000 Parcel Tax. Their June 2012 report also said that the Water District should develop a plan for expending revenues collected from taxpayers but not spent on the intended purposes.

David Ginsborg, Chair of the Independent Monitoring Committee, complained about excessive director expenses, "During the past few years this expense account has paid for a range of items including shoes, computer software, an iPad and even membership dues in civic organizations at a cost to the District of over $18,000 annually."[38] (Ginsborg has, however, endorsed Measure B.)[39]

Parties Remaining Neutral

Several environmental organizations in the area opted to take a stance of neutrality on Measure B, neither supporting nor opposing it. Those organizations included:

  • Sierra Club (Loma Prieta Chapter). The Loma Prieta Election issues summarized the reasons for and the reasons against Measure B that the Chapter considered.[40]
  • Santa Clara County Creeks Coalition. This organization said on its website, "The Creeks Coalition is remaining neutral on the Water District’s Measure B for various reasons we do not wish to state. But be aware that some of our former members were supporters, some neutral; our current members are opponents."[41]

Other organizations remaining neutral on Measure B included:

  • The Santa Clara County Republican Party[42]

Lawsuits

To change date

The Santa Clara Valley Water District went to court to order the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters to amend the expiration date of the tax from 2029 to 2028. The ballot text they had submitted to election officials erroneously gave 2029 as the expiration date. It should have been 2028, because the ballot text said that the tax would begin with fiscal year 2013-2014 and that tax would be levied for a total of 15 years.[43]

On August 30, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Mark Pierce ruled in favor of the water district's request. The district had to go to court for this change because they failed to realize their error by the August 15 deadline for submitting ballot text to election officials.[44][45]

To remove

The Silicon Valley Taxpayers' Association filed a lawsuit in mid-August requesting that a California court remove the parcel tax from the ballot.[46]

These facts were the basis for the lawsuit:

  • Ballot titles cannot exceed 75 words.
  • The ballot title sent to the county clerk had 77 words.
  • When the governing board of the water district realized their error, they called a meeting on August 8 to approve a description with 75 words, instead of 77 words.
  • However, when they called this meeting, they did not post a public agenda for the meeting on their website. They also did not send an agenda to the media 24 hours in advance of the meeting. Both acts were required under California's open meetings law.[46]

Linda LeZotte is the chairwoman of the water district board and an attorney. She said, "We were not changing the essence of the measure. We were removing two innocuous words that mistakenly put us over the word count. It was a minor technicality. I just don't see the substantial damage that has been done to the public."[46]

Terry Francke is the general counsel of "Californians Aware," a statewide group that speaks out in favor of government transparency. With respect to the lawsuit, Francke said, "It's conceivable a court might say we're not going to invalidate the chance for voters to speak...But a court could just as easily say that if the district thought this was all that important, they should have filed it in time. If it was that important to them, why did they cut it so close?"[46]

Ballot arguments

David Crites of Los Gatos filed a petition in Superior Court alleging "false and misleading" information in the "Rebuttal to the Argument Opposing Measure B.[47] He alleged that the rebuttal arguments about when the tax would expire and the allusion to seismic projects being delayed were simply untrue and intended to mislead voters to be alarmed (for no valid reason) about the consequences of not passing Measure B in 2012.

In their argument, opponents of Measure B wrote that the community could wait until 2016 to pass what they think would be a better tax because the current tax doesn't expire until July 2016. Supporters of Measure B wrote in their rebuttal that "We CANNOT wait until 2016...by then the current tax would have expired." The petitioner alleged that the statement in the supporter's rebuttal was "false and misleading" because, he said, it is not true that the tax would have expired by the June 2016 election. In the opinion of the Measure B opponents, the Measure B supporters appeared to be trying to mislead voters into being alarmed that the tax would expire if they didn't vote for it in 2012.

The supporter's rebuttal statement also said that "urgent seismic repairs would be delayed" if Measure B didn't pass in 2012. The petition asked the court to delete the statement, alleging that no urgent seismic repairs will be delayed if Measure B didn't pass in 2012. The affidavit by Enrico Callender, a staff member of the Water District, filed with the court stated that "included in the projects to be funded by Measure B are two projects to “Protect Our Water Supply and Dams From Earthquakes and Other Natural Disasters.” Specifically, such projects include the Anderson Dam Seismic Retrofit and Emergency Response Upgrades. Because of the priority of the Anderson Dam retrofit project, it would likely go forward even without Measure B funding, although it is possible that it could be delayed, since the District would have to figure out how to make up the $45 million in Measure B funds the District intends to use to help pay for that project. Conversely, the Emergency Response Upgrades project, which includes upgrades to the Districts’ facilities to provide flood warnings in the event of earthquake damage, would not go forward without Measure B funding, and thus would be discontinued and/or delayed if a new funding measure is not passed until 2016, even if such a measure appears on the June 2016 budget."[48].

Superior Court Judge Kevin McKenney ruled in the case. His ruling went against the Measure B opponents who filed the case, and was in favor of the Measure B supporters. In his Measure B ruling, McKenney wrote, "The (Yes on Measure B parties) point out that the Anderson Dam Emergency Response Upgrades would not go forward without Measure B."[49]

The Water District's description of their Emergency Response Upgrades on their website indicates that project is to: "Improve the overall emergency response by developing an automated flood-warning system that uses real-time rainfall data to predict streams flows, potential flood risk and timing." The group "Environmentalists for Living Streams" objected to the judge's ruling in the case. They wrote, "There is no such project as an 'Anderson Dam Emergency Response Upgrade'; Anderson Dam is a seismic project; the Emergency Response Upgrade is a flood prediction model and response system. The judge conflated the two."[50]

Text of measure

Ballot question

The question on the ballot:

Measure B:

"Safe, Clean Water Program

To:

  • Ensure safe, reliable water supply;
  • Reduce toxins, hazards and contaminants in waterways;
  • Protect water supply and dams from earthquakes and natural disasters;
  • Restore wildlife habitat and provide open space;
  • Provide flood protection to homes, schools and businesses;
  • Provide safe, clean water in creeks and bays,

Shall Santa Clara Valley Water District renew an existing, expiring parcel tax without increasing rates, and issue bonds, described in Resolution 12-62, with independent citizen oversight and annual audits?"[51]

Legal Counsel analysis

Election officials are required to obtain an impartial analysis of local ballot measures. The impartial analysis of Measure B was prepared by the Santa Clara County Legal Counsel and says:

Measure B would renew an existing special parcel tax assessed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) on each parcel of land within the District. The tax would remain in effect for 15 years (July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2028).

Proceeds from the tax would be used to carry out the District's Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Program, which identifies specific projects within the District that would (1) ensure a safe, reliable water supply; (2) reduce pollution in waterways; (3) protect the water supply and dams from earthquakes and other natural disasters; (4) restore wildlife habitat and provide open space; and (5) provide flood protection for homes, businesses, streets and highways. The funds may only be used for projects within the District.

The parcel tax would work exactly like the existing tax. Specifically, a separate tax rate per unit of area would be applied to each of five different land use categories, ranging from vacant undisturbed land (which is taxed at the lowest rate) to commercial/industrial (which is taxed at the highest rate). On parcels in any given category that are equal to or less than a specified minimum size, a flat minimum tax could be levied. For example, the maximum annual tax for a single family residential parcel of .25 acre or less in 2013 would be $56. The rates may be adjusted annually for inflation, by up to the larger of a cost of living adjustment (CPI) or 3%. The rate could also be adjusted upward (up to CPI plus 4.5%) for up to three years immediately following a year in which a natural disaster is declared in the District's flood zones to pay for the costs of repairs caused by the disaster.

An independent committee would annually audit the implementation and results of the plan. In addition, the Board of Directors of the District would be required to conduct two professional audits of the program, at the fifth and tenth anniversaries, to provide for accountability and transparency.

The District may provide an exemption from the parcel tax for parcels owned and occupied by low-income seniors.

The parcel tax would appear as a separate item on each property tax bill and would be levied and collected at the same time and in the same manner as the general tax levy for county purposes.[52]

See also

External links

BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Mercury News, "Santa Clara Valley Water District puts $548 million parcel tax on November ballot," July 24, 2012
  2. Santa Clara Valley Water District Agenda Memorandum to amend the end date and authorize legal action to change ballot text of Measure B, August 28, 2012
  3. Santa Clara Valley Water District Agenda Memorandum to set rates for 2012-2013, May 15,2012
  4. Section 4.H of Clean Safe Creeks and Natural Flood Protection Ballot Measure, November 2000 Election.
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 Mercury News, "Santa Clara Valley Water District seeks $548 million parcel tax," October 20, 2012
  6. "Mercury News editorial: Yes on Measure B to ensure safe water supply" October 20, 2012
  7. Santa Clara Valley Water District, 5/15/12 Board Agenda Memo, Item 2.1
  8. CA State Controller, Special District of Santa Clara Valley Water District Compensation
  9. Smart Voter, Full Text of Measure B
  10. Santa Clara Valley Water District, Capital Improvement Program, 2013-2018, http://www.valleywater.org
  11. Environmentalists for Living Streams website, http://envirosforlivingstreams.org/scvwd-special-tax/2-uncategorised/16-whos-endorsed
  12. SCVWD 2012/2013 Operating and Capital Budget - Financial Summaries
  13. Smart Voter, Full Text of Measure B
  14. Mercury News Internal Affairs 'Golden Spigot' takes turn on Silver Screen, 10/27/12
  15. [http://www.usace.army.mil/Media/NewsReleases/NewsReleaseArticleView/tabid/231/Article/269/presidents-fiscal-2013-budget-for-us-army-corps-of-engineers-civil-works-releas.aspx The Corps of Engineers budget for FY 2013 has only 3 "new starts" for the entire country.
  16. Mercury News-Yes on Measure B
  17. Metro Newspaper-Yes on Measure B
  18. Yes on Measure B-Palo Alto Weekly
  19. Smart Voter, Full Text of Measure B
  20. Smart Voter, Full Text of Measure B
  21. Smart Voter, Full Text of Measure B
  22. Smart Voter, Full Text of Measure B
  23. Smart Voter, Full Text of Measure B
  24. Smart Voter, Full Text of Measure B
  25. link titleMercury News, "Herhold: The Golden Spigot doesn't deserve to pass its new tax," August 22, 2012
  26. Mercury News, "Herhold: How the Santa Clara Valley Water District considered feathering its own nest," August 27, 2012
  27. Mercury News, "Herhold: Why you should be skeptical about two local tax measures," October 15, 2012
  28. ""Mercury News"," "Herhold: How to vote no this November, October 26, 2012
  29. Los Altos Town Crier Editorial, September 26, 2012
  30. Milpitas Post Editorial, October 11, 2012
  31. http://www.envirosforlivingstreams.org
  32. Independent Monitoring Committee Report on 2010-2011 and Letter from Chair David Ginsburg to Water District Board
  33. Letter from Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter Water Committee to Beau Goldie, CEO, Santa Clara Valley Water District, November 15, 2011http:www.http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~mcmurtriecfr/scvwdletterNov152011.pdf
  34. "Thanks mostly to a few more environmental members of the Board, the District made a few positive changes but in general paid little attention to the concerns of environmental organizations." in Sierra Club (Loma Prieta Chapter) "Water Committee Analysis of Santa Clara Valley Water District Safe Clean Water Measure, July 22, 2012"
  35. Santa Clara Valley Water District Agenda Memorandum to set rates for 2012-2013, May 15,2012
  36. SCVWD 2012/2013 Operating and Capital Budget - Financial Summaries
  37. SCVWD Detail_Book 1 CEO BAO and Admin.pdf SCVWD FY 2013 Budget
  38. David Ginsborg, public comment 11/15/11 SCVWD Board Meeting, Agenda Item 9.1
  39. David Ginsborg for Water District District Website
  40. Loma Prietan Election Issue, October 2012, page 8
  41. http://www.sccreeks.org
  42. Santa Clara County GOP Election Recommendations
  43. Santa Clara Valley Water District Agenda Memorandum to place special tax on the November 6, 2012 ballot, July 24, 2012
  44. Writ of Mandate, Superior Court of Santa Clara County, granted August 30, 2012
  45. Mercury News, "Water district wins court challenge to fix clerical error on $548 million parcel tax measure," August 30, 2012
  46. 46.0 46.1 46.2 46.3 Business Insider, "Two-Word Error Could Cost Santa Clara Valley Water District Half A Billion Dollars," August 20, 2012
  47. Application for Ex Parte Hearing: David Crites vs Barry Garner, Registrar of Voters, Santa Clara County, September 3, 2012
  48. Affidavit of Enrico Callender, September 3, 2012. Attached to Opposition to Ex Parte Hearing
  49. Measure B Writ by Judge Kevin McKenney, Superior Court, Santa Clara County, September 5, 2012.
  50. Environmentalists for Living Stream
  51. Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
  52. Smart Voter, Full Text of Measure B