Lea este artículo en español aquí.
In less than a month since the release of the San Benito County Civil Grand Jury report that says a 1977 bond measure expiration, or lack of, is open to interpretation, the San Benito County Water District filed a response claiming ongoing operation and maintenance funding is “explicit” in Proposition B language.
The water district said it is declining to implement all of the recommendations made by the grand jury including ceasing to collect tax revenue and seeking a new measure.
“That maintenance can only occur with funding, which is the explicit purpose of the tax and maintenance language of Proposition B,” the water district’s response states. “Any interpretation of Proposition B that ignores the need to fund ongoing maintenance after the loan repayment period implies abandonment of the facilities once the loan is paid off.”
The water district’s position on the tax opposes that of the grand jury, which found the continued tax collection “is not reflected in the intention” of the measure and that the language is “open to many interpretations.”
The grand jury is convened annually and composed of 19 citizens who are sworn to serve in their role and investigate the operations of various government departments and agencies.
In its 2024-25 report, released on June 17, the grand jury found the bill “appeared to have expired.”
The grand jury recommends the water district stop collecting the tax and work to pass a new measure to cover operations and maintenance costs for the imported water system known as Zone 6, or the San Felipe Division of the Central Valley Water Project.
The water district, however, said the grand jury “mischaracterizes basic facts and obfuscates a straightforward issue.”
The water district claims an example of mischaracterization is the interpretation of a 2018 memo from the district’s legal counsel that it concedes the language is “ambiguous.”
“The memo clearly states in its ‘brief answer’ that ‘the voters did not intend that a tax expire at the maturity of the loan for the Zone 6 distribution system,’” the water district said.
The water district disagreed with the grand jury’s recommendation that it needs to partner with the county to hire an independent law firm for an interpretation of the 1977 ballot measure and that it needs to conduct an audit of the budgets to determine the average cost for operation and maintenance.
“The district is understandably frustrated that this issue has been raised again,” the water district said. “After a review of Proposition A and Proposition B, the report and the 2018 memo it is clear that there is no end to the ongoing tax for operations and maintenance, and the ongoing tax after loan repayment was both explicit and inherent in the voter measures.”
Related BenitoLink articles
We need your help. Support local, nonprofit news! BenitoLink is a nonprofit news website that reports on San Benito County. Our team is committed to this community and providing essential, accurate information to our fellow residents. Producing local news is expensive, and community support keeps the news flowing. Please consider supporting BenitoLink, San Benito County’s public service nonprofit news.