"My opponent will not committ to dedicating Middle Fork Project revenues to infrastructure projects, instead he wants the monies to go straight to the general fund. I doubt the taxpayers will appreciate their representative at PCWA acting like a member of the California Legislature."
[Ben Mavy's home page]

PCWA is limited by state law to spending revenues ONLY on water and energy projects, as PCWA is governed by state irrigation district law. I've laid out the details of the facts in Issues: Post-2013 Middle Fork Revenue plans and policies. PCWA's policy is clear, and was voted unanimously in May 2008 (PCWA's policy, PDF**, 54 KB). Ben Mavy's characterization of my position is a fabrication; in fact, I am totally committed to spending PCWA MFP funds on water and energy projects.

"Predictably, my opponent wants to put the money into the general fund, where it can be wasted, government style, on new administrative buildings."
[Ben Mavy's home page]

PCWA built a perfectly adequate administration building fifteen years ago, out-of-pocket without financing for a very modest $120 per square foot. Mavy has again completely fabricated what he claims is my position, which cannot be substantiated anywhere in the record or by the facts.

"My opponent believes the solution to our water crisis is for everyone to simply use less water. Frankly, that approach to our situation is both shortsighted and dangerous."
[Ben Mavy's home page]

"While we should all be conservation minded, using less water is not a solution for those whose wells have gone dry. It is not a solution to the neighborhood that needs fire hydrants as a defense to catastrophic fires. And it is not a solution to the threat of losing water to the central valley and southern california [sic]."
[Ben Mavy's Issues page]

Conservation has never been used to prevent those whose wells have gone dry or have inadequate fire hydrants from accessing treated water from PCWA or other water purveyors — and it never will. What has prevented people access to water systems is the price tag of construction to hook up. Residents have to bear the cost of systems which serve their properties and increase property values; PCWA has no current source of funds that can be used in that way. Hookup fees paid by development go to pay for development. Rates paid by customers go to provide water to customers. To use those funding sources to bring other neighbors on line is called a "gift of public funds" and is illegal. After 2013, this will change, and funds from the Middle Fork Project will become available to better serve areas where groundwater is becoming unreliable. For details, see Issues: Groundwater use throughout Placer County.

Conservation is important for two reasons:

1. Here in Placer County, 80% of our treated water is used for landscape irrigation. That means that our water plants run at full capacity in July and August, but in January and February we are using only 20% of our plant capacity. Quite simply, we need to conserve water in our approach to landscaping, because we cannot afford to build water plants that cost $250 million just so we can lavishly water our landscapes and build new water features in our back yards. It is just not affordable. And water efficient landscapes are skyrocketing in popularity across this water-short state, as highlighted everywhere from Sunset Magazine to Sierra Magazine. Conservation for us in Placer County does not mean penalizing ourselves; it means planting landscapes that are water efficient and use a reasonable amount of natives rather than water-thirsty non-native plants.

2. Placer County has one of the highest water consumption per capita rates in California. State law is being made right now in the legislature and with the State Water Control Board's ability to regulate beneficial uses and water waste. If Placer County residents are found to be out-of-step with the rest of the state, and fail to undertake conservation measures, this is a true threat to the water rights of our county. We will lose our water to Southern California if we don't use our water wisely.

"We have a water crisis. California is growing faster than it has water to support."
[Ben Mavy's Issues page]

We have no "water crisis" in Placer County. This is one of the few areas of the state where we have substantially more water and water rights than we are currently using. PCWA has more than enough water to supply all projected development build-out until 2030 and beyond. Why is Ben Mavy trying to create a crisis where one does not exist?

"Water rates must be adequate to cover operations and maintenance, including the repair and replacement of existing infrastructure, but rates should NEVER be used to add infrstructure [sic] for new development."
[Ben Mavy's Issues page]

PCWA's policy has been for thirty years that new development has to pay its own way, and that water rates by existing customers shall not be used to subsidize development. Ben Mavy is trying to imply the opposite, but his view is nowhere substantiated by the record.

Water rates do need to be adequate to cover not just O&M, but also "renewal and replacement". This has been one of the most difficult decisions the PCWA Board has ever made. It began in 2000, when the Board determined that the system could no longer wait to address aging infrastructure and a failing system. The Renewal and Replacement monthly rate was set up, and is totally dedicated to repair and replacement of the ancient water system that PCWA inherited from the old PG&E water system. Rates went up to establish that dedicated fund. But this year, rates in Zone 3 will go down, a welcome relief to the customer. For more details, see Issues: Water rates and affordability

"For too long the 5th district has been treated like the step child of the County, it's time we had someone represent our area."
[Ben Mavy's home page]

District 5 gets equal attention at PCWA as does the balance of the county. We've established an entirely new Zone 4 to serve residents in Martis Valley. PCWA's Financial Assistance Program has distributed $1.6 million in grants from tax funds, and almost the entire amount has gone to entities in District 5, including Lake Tahoe purveyors, Squaw Valley, Alpine Springs, and Foresthill. The operations of Zone 3 are now combined with operations of Zone 1, and the two are operated and maintained as one integrated system. District 5 has gotten the lion's share of the Renewal and Replacement monies which are collected county-wide; PCWA is just completing replacement of the Gold Run 36" pipeline at a cost of over $20 million. There is no inequity as implied by Ben Mavy.