WATER MORATORIUM
Why did the State Water Control Resources Board (SWRCB) impose the Compliance Order on HVLCSD and and Create the Water Moratorium in the first place?
I will attempt to explain, but first of all, I must point out very clearly that I am a layman on this matter. That said, I have made a determined effort to understand what is going on here and will try to explain as best I can – but again, I am a layman and that must be clearly understood.
There are two main kinds of water underground:
- Percolating Groundwater - groundwater from rain stored in dirt, sand and rock
- Underground Streams - exactly as the words imply
SWRCB said HVLCSD is getting some of its water from underground streams, and thereby depriving the downstream recipients of these underground streams who have rights to that water that are senior to HVLCSD's water rights.
SWRCB said diversion of those underground streams by HVLCSD negatively impacts those downstream recipients with senior water rights. Therefore, SWRCB ordered HVLCSD to come up with other reliable long-term supplies of water and imposed the Moratorium on new water meter hook ups until HVLCSD comes up with additional sources of water to the satisfaction of SWRCB.
SWRCB ordered HVLCSD to prepare reports to SWRCB in response to this which they call “Directives”. Directives 1 thru 5 appear largely administrative in nature.
Directive 6 required HVLCSD prepare a “Source Capacity Planning Study” to demonstrate how HVLCSD will secure a reliable long-term supply of water. Former HVLCSD GM Roland Sanford submitted the Directive 6 response on a timely basis in May 2015.
Directive 7 required HVLCSD to submit quarterly reports to SWRCB showing HVLCSD’s progress in meeting the requirement to secure a reliable long-term supply of water. HVLCSD failed to submit its required Directive 7 Quarterly Reports in writing.
There should have been 17 such Quarterly Reports since May of 2015, with the 18th due as of September 30th. I requested those Directive 7 Quarterly Progress Reports from HVLCSD via their information request procedure. HVLCSD could not produce these quarterly reports because they do not exist.
The current HVLCSD GM wrote me saying that the reports don’t have to be in writing and said he has submitted verbal reports which he feels have met the reporting requirement. I believe his response is utter nonsense. Why would the responses to Directives 1 through 6 be in writing but not Directive 7?
Of course the quarterly progress reports need to be in writing, because without a written report how can it be definitively proven that the reports were even made? – if not in writing how can it be definitively proven what was contained in those reports? - and without written reports how can we know what HVLCSD did or did not do during those five years – five years in which the 679 Vacant Lot Owners have been assessed over $5 million dollars by HVLA!
I view HVLCSD’s failure to provide written Directive 7 Quarterly Progress Reports (in writing and on a timely basis) to SWRCB as a clear breach of the responsibilities required of it by the Compliance Order. With the Moratorium approaching the five year mark in October I believe it is also fair to say that HVLCSD has not acted with the urgency required of it to seek a reliable long-term water supply for the 679 Vacant Lot Owners whose property rights were denied them as a result of the Moratorium imposed by SWRCB.
