<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1479" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>This is a very
interesting development, and one that could affect the future disposition of
some CVP water (Mercy Springs in the Delta-Mendota Unit) which was assigned to
Pajaro in the late 1990's. That water contract for 6,250 ac-ft is
currently out for public comment (comments are due Feb 2,
2005).</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>TS</DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR><A
href="http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2005/January/19/local/stories/03local.htm"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"
size=3>http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2005/January/19/local/stories/03local.htm</FONT></A><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR>INFRASTRUCTURE / SANTA CRUZ
COUNTY<BR>Farmers file suit to halt pipeline<BR>Santa Cruz Sentinel -
1/19/05<BR>By Tom Ragan, staff writer<BR>WATSONVILLE - Nearly 100 farmers
opposed to the construction of a $200 million <BR>freshwater pipeline they say
would only benefit a few learned Tuesday there's hope <BR>on the horizon:
Pending lawsuits could stop the funding and the project.<BR><BR>But the Pajaro
Valley Water Management Agency is pushing ahead with the 23-mile <BR>pipeline,
which would run from Hollister to the Pacific Ocean, despite the <BR>litigation.
And that could potentially become a double-edged sword: The more the
<BR>lawsuits slow the project, the more the agency will have to borrow money
against <BR>higher interest rates to fund the pipeline.<BR><BR>At the heart of
the three lawsuits now pending in Santa Cruz County Superior Court <BR>is
whether the water agency broke California law when it started increasing the
<BR>water rates to pay for the pipeline two years ago - to the tune of nearly
$100 per <BR>acre-foot - without holding special elections.<BR><BR>Nearly $17
million of the pipeline has already been built along Beach Street from
<BR>Highway 1 to the Pacific Ocean. At a meeting this afternoon, the agency and
its <BR>board members plan to talk about the construction planned for
2005-06.<BR><BR>The water agency believes the new pipeline will solve the
intrusion of saltwater, <BR>which has been hurting many coastal farmers where
they are overdrawing in the <BR>basin.<BR><BR>But many of the people who
attended a special meeting Tuesday at the Rod and Gun <BR>Club are inland
farmers who feel they're already paying exorbitant fees to foot <BR>the bill for
an expensive pipeline that isn't needed and will only benefit other
<BR>farmers.<BR><BR>"Why, if I'm a farmer in Aromas, should I pay a fee to help
deliver water to a <BR>farmer in Moss Landing?" said Dick Peixoto, an organic
vegetable grower who has <BR>farms along the coast and inland and believes the
problems of saltwater intrusion <BR>have been greatly exaggerated.<BR><BR>The
agency, however, contends the invasion of saltwater is a reality and the
<BR>pipeline will help all farmers in the 110-square-mile district because the
<BR>aquifers in the basin are slowly being depleted.<BR><BR>"If we were to lose
in court, we'd still have to find the same amount of money <BR>from the same
people - but in a different manner," said Charlie McNiesh, general <BR>manager
for the water management agency. But he's confident that alternative <BR>funding
could be found and the pipeline would not have to be stopped.<BR><BR>The
lawsuits, filed on behalf of a few inland farmers and John Eiskamp, a board
<BR>member of the water agency, allege the water fees, known as "augmentation
fees," <BR>are really taxes and the farmers, who make up 80 percent of the
district, own the <BR>water and therefore should not be taxed on it.<BR><BR>And
if farmers are to be taxed on their water, then at least they should be able
<BR>to vote on it in a special election, which is something the water agency
failed to <BR>hold, the lawsuits allege.<BR><BR>"This is a property rights
issue," said Tom AmRhein, a strawberry farmer in the <BR>Pajaro Valley.
<BR><BR>So far, some farmers are having a hard time accepting the fees. Three
years ago <BR>they were paying $60 per acre-foot. Today, they're paying $160 per
acre-foot. And <BR>that's not the end. If the pipeline is to be constructed in
its entirety, water <BR>rates are expected to rise as high as $220 per acre-foot
by 2008.<BR><BR>An acre-foot equals 325,900 gallons. But farmers know the
importance of an acre-<BR>foot as this: It takes roughly two-three acre-feet to
sustain one acre of crops <BR>per year.<BR><BR>The lawsuits are expected to be
heard and resolved by the end of the
year.#<BR><BR></FONT><BR></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>