Water Education Foundation
This is just one post in the Bay Area Category
Click here to view all posts

Judge: Santa Clara Valley Water District owes $4.6 million refund

Posted by: Maven on December 1, 2009 at 6:07 am

From the Gilroy Dispatch:

“The Santa Clara Valley Water District has to refund more than $4.6 million, a year’s worth of illegally collected groundwater charges, to Great Oaks Water Co., according to a Santa Clara County Superior Court ruling.

The decision announced Monday also found that, based on violations of the state law which determines appropriate uses of groundwater charge revenues, Great Oaks was overcharged more than $1.3 million in 2005-2006.

The refund of fees paid to the water district that same year, plus interest, was ordered because the groundwater charges violated Proposition 218, a constitutional amendment that requires all taxes and property related fees to be approved by voters, according to an order filed by Judge Kevin Murphy Monday.

The total remedy due to Great Oaks is $4.6 million. The overcharges became a moot point, as Great Oaks claimed it was charged too much based on a different state law – the Santa Clara Valley Water District Act – as an alternate award if the judge disagreed with the company’s claim of Proposition 218 damages. … “

Read more from the Gilroy Dispatch by clicking here.

December 1, 2009 · Filed Under Bay Area

Comments

One Response to “Judge: Santa Clara Valley Water District owes $4.6 million refund”

  1. dfb on December 1st, 2009 8:31 pm

    Queue a citation from the rule of unintended consequences.

    Despite the water agency’s apparent failure at complying with Prop 218, I have a difficult time believing the full $4.6 penalty will stand on appeal. For one, the fee may not be entirely a tax since ground water pumping is taking water the district paid money to replenish and clean. The aquifer does have a history of overdraft and the parties who are drawing water should pay their fair share of the cost of replenishment. It is more appropriate to call that a user fee than a tax, unless there is no distinction between the two. Regardless, the agency needs to request adjudication of the groundwater basin water rights like has happened in SoCal. There is some precedence to rely on for adjudication and retroactive application of the adjudication of water rights at issue.

    I think the district will get its 2/3 if it sells the ballot initiative as a fairness issue. Who wants to pay for the sly laziness of others to pay their fair share. ;-)

Leave a Reply