Pacific Institute's WeTap for ditching bottled water and finding the nearest water fountain

I had the opportunity to meet with Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute last week.  They're doing some really interesting things with water and climate change, and they vigorously oppose the wastefulness of bottled water.

And they've done something about it, creating the WeTap smartphone application for Android phones, letting people know where the nearest water fountain is located, and ultimately letting them input new fountains, as well as providing feedback if a fountain needs repair.

These video links don't always work, but I talked about it yesterday:


(If you can't view the video, click here, then click on the January 31, 2012 meeting video, and in the pop-up window advance to 04:47:00 time frame.)

I believe the crowd-sourced, added content feature isn't yet available, but that's part of future plans.  Santa Clara Valley Water District itself encourages drinking our water and discourages the wasteful practice of bottled water, which we've banned from our cafeteria and our events.  WeTap is an excellent tool to help people make use of their water.

Update on potential Safe Clean Water ballot measure

First of all, a somewhat-belated Happy New Year to everyone, and hopes for a healthy, safe, prosperous, well-watered, unflooded, and environmentally-restored 2012.

The Water District continues to research a special tax ballot measure that could happen in November this year, replacing an existing special tax that will expire in a few years.  The Safe Clean Water website has general information on the process and ideas.

I wrote two memos on this subject that I'll link to below, focusing on a few areas where I think the measure might want to go in a somewhat different direction than what's been proposed.  Yesterday, the Board discussed my ideas and others.  I think the feedback is fairly clear for interest in significantly expanding the Southbay Shoreline protection funding, which will both protect against tidal flooding and help restore thousands of acres of wetlands.  Spending on boat vessel inspections will also likely be dropped from the measure - it's not that it shouldn't be done, but the question is whether the public or boat owners should pay the bill, and that needs a lot more discussion.

I also pushed on transferring money within the "environmental" category from mitigation of flood control projects to projects with an actual environmental benefit.  The reaction of the other directors was less clear on this issue.  I think it will be up to the public and those other directors to continue to provide feedback on this and any other issue as staff reworks the proposal.  Sometime in March they hope to have a proposal that is close to a final version, leaving several months to determine whether the proposal is likely to work.  The District Board will have to decide in July whether to put the measure on the ballot for November.

The agenda item is here, just click on the January 31, 2012 link at the left, and then scroll to Item 6.1. My two memos are linked on the left.

The Water District reducing GHG emissions and California cap-and-trade

Today's Water District meeting featured an energy usage work study session.  We use a lot of energy moving water across much of the state and then treating it, about 5% of all our costs.  While we also have a policy saying we that want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, our policy isn't very clear.  I pressed staff on this issue and another director, Linda Lezotte, also followed up:

(Arrgh, something won't let me post more than one video excerpt.  It's here at the 01:28:00 mark, for about 4 minutes.  Two of us seven directors say we need to do more than merely "cost-effective" efforts to reduce GHG emissions, the other five don't say anything.)

We're pretty good overall in our energy usage.  Maybe we can partner with Sonoma County to be better.
We're part of a joint powers authority for buying our power at a rate that's both cheaper and with lower carbon emissions than our local utility provides.  Our CO2 emissions are 435lbs/MWh, one-third the national average (see the first link, Attachment 4, p 17). Not the one-tenth that we need, but pretty good.

While California cap-and-trade doesn't apply directly to us, it does apply to the joint powers authority called PWRPA that we helped establish to get our power, and we may have a chance to sell carbon allowances from environmental improvements that we make:



In addition to what you can see on the video is the 3 hours that we spent in closed (confidential) session to discuss internally the negotiations with labor unions for new contracts.  Obviously I can't talk about what happened then, but the financial issues highlight how important the economics of all this is. If doing the right thing environmentally can help us out financially, we're going to do more of the right thing, especially right now when finances are so tight.

To fluoridate, someday

Previous post dilemmaized over whether and how to fluoridate at my next Water District Board meeting, which was yesterday. Here's the news:

Santa Clara Valley Water District OKs adding fluoride to its drinking water

Silicon Valley's largest drinking water provider took the first steps Tuesday toward adding fluoride to the drinking water in most of Santa Clara County, including San Jose, the largest city in the nation without the cavity-battling additive.

After a lively 90-minute debate at a packed meeting, the board of the Santa Clara Valley Water District voted 7-0 to put the district on record supporting fluoridation.

It could've been 6-1 because of a side issue where I disagreed with my colleagues about creating yet another Board committee to oversee this, but they were willing to split up the vote so I could agree with them on the main issue and then get shot down over the new committee.

If you're so inclined, you can listen to a couple minutes of my comments while looking at uninteresting shot of the board room below (source link here):

I made clear that I wanted public education on infant formula and on reverse osmosis for those who don't want fluoride, and that we keep checking in on the scientific consensus. I think I'll win that fight. When we'll do this and who will pay for it is less clear. I think it's a legitimate expenditure of public funds, but we're not a public health agency. If they want Water District money to fix people's teeth, my vote would be that they have to wait a while. We need to fix our seismic risks at our dams, restore the environment, and reduce flood damages.

To fluoridate or not to fluoridate, that is the question. Next Tuesday at my Water District Board meeting

I'll reproduce below most of an old post about fluoridation. I had previously expected to see an identical situation with climate change in terms of the debate, but it's not. I think factors overall favor fluoridating, but not quite as overwhelmingly as I expected. On Tuesday, my fellow Directors and I get to figure out next steps.

Fluoridation opponents have made lots of mistakes in my opinion, but supporters have overstated the consensus. In particular, fluoride levels four to eight times the recommended level do have rare adverse effects, which isn't a huge safety margin in toxicity issues (UPDATE: I mean rare and severe effects - some cosmetic problems to teeth are common). Very slight adverse effects on larger groups would also be hard to rule out.

The Center for Disease Control recommends mixing non-fluoridated water in formula for babies that use formula exclusively. I can also attest to hearing from the significant number of people, if still a minority, who are just anguished that we're putting something they consider toxic in their water. Home-based reverse osmosis systems can remove their fluoride, I think.

And then there's the money cost - over $4m to construct and $800k to operate. We might get funding to construct but get stuck with operating, which people forget is the bigger cost.

So. The staff recommendation is to proceed if someone else pays for it. We'll see. If we do go forward, we may need to educate people about infant formula and let people know they can get reverse osmosis kits if they want.

Anyway, here's most of the old post, with the science:

Fluoridating water, or a funny thing happened on my way to backseat driving

I originally labelled this blog Backseat Driving back in 2004 because I anticipated it to be a blog where I would second-guess decisions made by politicians and other people. That worked out fine more or less until November 2010, when for some reason I was elected to the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board. Turns out that San Jose is the largest city in the US without fluoridated water supplies (in much of the city, anyway), and the seven of us directors have to decide whether we'll help or hinder the fluoridation process. So I'm pushed into the front seat for this one.

We've got some legal and economic issues to handle (it's not quite as cheap as everyone says, I want to know where the money's going to come from), but the relevant issue here is science. I read the guest post at climate blogger Coby Beck's place, The Case Against Fluoride, fairly closely a while back, especially the raucous debate in the comments. As a spectator with some, limited reading of the available information, I'd say the fluoridators seemed more persuasive than skeptics, but it wasn't the absolute demolishing that I expected.

The fluoride skeptics really hurt their cause when say fluoride doesn't prevent cavities - it's so obviously effective that people making this claim are damaging their own credibility. I'd consider it comparable to denying that the planet has warmed in the last 50 years.

The closer issue is adverse effects, and whether a substantial number of people are very slightly harmed by fluoridation, or if a small number of people are substantially harmed. The 2006 National of Sciences report doesn't condemn fluoridation, but it doesn't absolve it, either:

Bone Fractures

....Overall, there was consensus among the committee that there is scientific evidence that under certain conditions fluoride can weaken bone and increase the risk of fractures. The majority of the committee concluded that lifetime exposure to fluoride at drinking-water concentrations of 4 mg/L or higher is likely to increase fracture rates in the population, compared with exposure to 1 mg/L, particularly in some demographic subgroups that are prone to accumulate fluoride into their bones (e.g., people with renal disease)....There were few studies to assess fracture risk in populations exposed to fluoride at 2 mg/L in drinking water. The best available study, from Finland, suggested an increased rate of hip fracture in populations exposed to fluoride at concentrations above 1.5 mg/L. However, this study alone is not sufficient to judge fracture risk for people exposed to fluoride at 2 mg/L. Thus, no conclusions could be drawn about fracture risk or safety at 2 mg/L....

(In California, 2 mg/L was the limit, and 0.7 is the new proposed goal. -Ed)

Neurotoxicity and Neurobehavioral Effects

Animal and human studies of fluoride have been published reporting adverse cognitive and behavioral effects. A few epidemiologic studies of Chinese populations have reported IQ deficits in children exposed to fluoride at 2.5 to 4 mg/L in drinking water. Although the studies lacked sufficient detail for the committee to fully assess their quality and relevance to U.S. populations, the consistency of the results appears significant enough to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence....

Endocrine Effects

The chief endocrine effects of fluoride exposures in experimental animals and in humans include decreased thyroid function, increased calcitonin activity, increased parathyroid hormone activity, secondary hyperparathyroidism, impaired glucose tolerance, and possible effects on timing of sexual maturity. Some of these effects are associated with fluoride intake that is achievable at fluoride concentrations in drinking water of 4 mg/L or less, especially for young children or for individuals with high water intake. Many of the effects could be considered subclinical effects, meaning that they are not adverse health effects. However, recent work on borderline hormonal imbalances and endocrine-disrupting chemicals indicated that adverse health effects, or increased risks for developing adverse effects, might be associated with seemingly mild imbalances or perturbations in hormone concentrations. Further research is needed to explore these possibilities....

(Removed discussion of bone cancer as not very troubling given its rarity. Ed.)

These were the most troubling findings, mostly about what hasn't been proven, and mostly dealing with levels that are five times what's planned for drinking water. The report expressly ignored the benefits of fluoridation. It's important to balance out potential concerns over rare, severe complications related to fluoride with the certainty that rare, severe complications can result from cavities.

The bottom line as a policy maker in my little arena is that I shouldn't try and figure out the science myself, but I should try to figure out what the scientific consensus is, figure out where the consensus doesn't yet exist, and then plug that information into everything else we have to balance.

The science seems to favor fluoridation, but it's not a slam dunk. And we still have potential policy barriers, and the overall cost issues. Figuring this all out will be interesting.

Tidal wetland sediment accretion might keep up with sea level rise in one location. Maybe.

I attended our annual Santa Clara County Creeks Conference last Saturday, with an even better than usual program that included a panel on tidal wetlands restoration in South San Francisco Bay, where we're bringing back 16,000 acres of tidal wetlands from former saltponds (will post a video link when it's online).

The restoration has barely begun, but the land that sank after being separated from tidal flows has gained sediment rapidly, something that's necessary to create a complex environment of open water, partially submerged, and emergent tidal environments. While it's slowed more after the first few years that individual ponds have been opened to the the tides, they're still adding sediment, two inches annually, far more than the worst projections for sea level rise.

So, good for us. Except that California is a geologically young area with lots of gradients, erosion, and sediment flow. Our particular part of San Francisco Bay might also disproportionately benefit from the "backwash" of sediment from the rest of the Bay.

Our tidal wetlands can keep up where they are, for now, but whether that will work in other places is less clear.  Still, it's one small piece of good news that demonstrates the value of restoring tidal wetlands, which have been lost to a far greater extent in the US than even freshwater wetlands have.

Occupy Wall Street's relevance to the Water District

It took me a little while to put the two issues in the blog headline together. Santa Clara Valley Water District has several hundred million dollars in financial reserves. I wonder if there's anything financially responsible that the Water District can do with the voters' financial reserves, in light of the abuse of the financial system by Wall Street titans.

Just thinking, no answers yet....

UPDATE: KQED's California Report shows other people thinking about the same thing.

Working for the Water District in Washington DC

I spent this week as one of two elected directors visiting Washington DC (the other was Vice-Chair Lezotte) to talk about our local flood control and water supply projects, and to try and scare up some money for more. Some notes:

• I can confirm the obvious statement that the budget process is broken. I respect the antipathy to earmarks and am open to replacing them with another process, but what we have instead is virtually no process to provide local input into federal decision-making about local projects. We had multiple meetings with Congressional offices where they often said they could do little to help, and just one with the Office of Management and Budget, which now has all the power.

• There is real interest in the Obama in the environment. We talked about environmental benefits to one relatively high-level official in the Department of Agriculture who'd been hired from an environmental organization. She raised Obama's Great Outdoors initiative that tries to reconnect Americans to our natural environment, including urban areas. So I pointed to a map that we brought. Here in south San Jose, wild elk will sometimes roam within city limits. In north San Jose where San Francisco Bay ends, leopard sharks swim. Connecting them is Coyote Creek, a major intact riparian system running through central San Jose with migrating, endangered steelhead, a bike/pedestrian pathway, great views of hawk nests. Our flood control project is a major tributary where we want to rip out concrete, replace it with vegetated-earth banks, and add riparian habitat next to an elementary school. She liked it.

• We can at least take some actions to adapt to climate change. We're trying to restore 15,000 acres of abandoned salt-making ponds to tidal wetlands, but the pond levees form part of the antiquated levee system protecting urban land in the South Bay. We want to rebuild and strengthen the landward side of the multi-ring levee system, and only then can we breach the bayside of the salt pond levees and restore them to tidal flow and vegetation. This was our one meeting with OMB, and there I emphasized that we're sizing the levees to accommodate 50 years of sea level rise (based on Cal. Academy of Sciences 2006 report, using the high end of three scenarios), and sized so they can be built up higher if needed. The OMB people seemed interested, so we'll see.

I sure wish I knew politically-viable ways to make GHG emissions pay for our climate adaptation projects, either on a local, state, or national level, but it's not jumping out at me (don't forget that "politically-viable" requirement). Our riverine flood protection projects also have to be sized for sea level rise because they empty into the Bay, so the costs add up.

My one other observation is that a lot of people we met with sure are young. Our nation is in the hands of twenty-somethings, presumably because we can get away with paying them nothing and working them constantly. Let's hope it works out.

Mysterious flows of Permanente Creek

I've heard hard-to-understand stories about water flows in Permanente Creek starting and stopping for no apparent reason during our cloudless summers and fall months. I heard it again this weekend and decided to check it out, and to refamiliarize myself with potential flood protection changes.

I live near the lower creek between El Camino and 101. It always flows there, and today was no different.

Across and upstream of El Camino, Hale Creek joins Permanente (very near McKelvey Park, one of the planned detention basins). Hale Creek was flowing, Permanente wasn't, so Hale is where Lower Permanente gets its water.

I tracked Permanente up to Cuesta Drive, viewing it completely dry in several places. The creek came out from Miramonte where it's underground for a short distance, and there was a small trickle, so that trickle must seep in/dry out before getting far downstream. Further upstream at Covington, still dry.

Back on Miramonte upstream of Eastwood, you can see (if you climb a tree) the cement channel where the diversion to Stevens Creek splits off. This channel had muck in it, but was basically dry. Still dry at Heritage Oaks Park.

I finally got to where the creek crosses underneath Fremont, and there was flowing water again, although not very much. I didn't go further from there, but yesterday I saw a lot of water flowing at Rancho San Antonio Park. I think we can assume that flows gradually peter out from Rancho going downstream to the Fremont bridge.

So nothing too strange today, but no explanation as to why water would just start flowing in the middle of summer as people have observed.

District Board approves reforms increasing the involvement and flexibility of advisory committees

Just a quick note to say I'm very glad the District Board unanimously approved the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee that I chaired, recommendations intended to significantly increase the flexibility and involvement of advisory committees. This was one of my key campaign promises.

The decision occurred at the July 19 meeting, which you can watch here, as Item 9.2.

Six months at the Water District: a status report

I've now finished one-eighth of my term in office. At my web page you can see the issues that I've run on, and I thought I would report on them and other issues at the District.

Mercury: the District continues to work on existing mercury problems, with funding moving ahead. The idea I have for state legislation on Extended Producer Responsibility on mercury hasn't gone beyond discussion stage. So far. I figure it will take a while, and I'm still working on it.

The District as an environmental champion: on the two big issues of continued work on environmental enhancements and on watchdog work to protect streams, both are moving forward. The District continues to work on its Three Creeks Habitat Conservation Plan (although I am worried about how much the planning is costing), as is the multi-agency County Habitat Plan. There hasn't been new money spent on Clean Safe Creeks environmental enhancement, although existing projects have continued to operate, such as the opening of a major tidal pond off of Alviso.

The other major environmental development is a budget of a half-time employee to make sure development is not violating guidelines for land use near streams.

Greater public transparency and control: I think this is the area where we've made the most progress. The Board established an Ad-hoc committee to improve our work with advisory committees. I was appointed to the committee and made its chair. We've completed our work in just a few meetings to propose significant improvements in increasing advisory committee involvement with the District Board, ability to channel recommendations, and flexibility with agenda.

We've had some progress on involvement with other groups, like the new Friends of Adobe Creek group and helpful work by the Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce on emergency access to Alviso. I would like to see more progress here.

We've held a number of evening meetings and will hold at least one a month, starting in July. It's an experiment, and if it works then we can expand it. Obviously, I continue to stand by my promise of no more than two terms in office. I and the other Directors made clear that the Redistricting Committee isn't limited on what district boundaries it can choose, although it would be inappropriate for us to bias their selection. I continue to be interested in changing the Board's structure to be more like a City Council, and as part of that, the Board will consider my suggestion of reversing the pay raise it gave itself, to be considered this August.

So overall, I think there's been significant progress. I wish it could be faster, and I'll keep working on it, but still I believe it's going well.

-Brian

On avoiding conflicts of interest at the Water District

I've made clear during and after the campaign that I intended to avoid conflicts of interest between my day job as an environmental advocate for Committee for Green Foothills and my service on the Water District Board. Today the Mercury News wrote about the issue:

In March, members of the water district board were discussing at a public meeting whether to shift money for environmental restoration of streams to flood control work. Schmidt openly asked if he might have a conflict.

He asked water district counsel Stan Yamamoto for a ruling. He met afterward with Yamamoto's staff. The lawyers issued a memo spelling out when Schmidt should recuse himself from voting.

"Before I even started the campaign last year, I said I wanted to avoid any conflicts between my job as an environmental advocate and the work the water district does," Schmidt said Monday.

Yamamoto declined to be interviewed.

Asked to make the memo public, Schmidt said he could not, because he isn't the client in the attorney-client relationship, the water district is. Instead, he said, he has asked the state Fair Political Practices Commission for a ruling. He declined to comment on whether he supports making the memo public.

That's the core information in the article, although I think there was some sensationalizing of it. My main complaint is that I gave the reporter a reason why I shouldn't publicly declare whether the memo should be public, which wasn't included in the article: because the memo's about me, I shouldn't be involved in the process of deciding whether it should be released, and that includes publicly lobbying the Water District to release it (or not).

Second complaint is that no one ever releases attorney-client communication (for the reason that it would impair frank communication), and the article declined to mention that. I told the reporter that I considered that an essential part of the information that the public doesn't know, but he didn't. I should note that the Water District hasn't (so far anyway) decided to release the memo, but it's up to them. I did make clear to the reporter that as a general matter I oppose releasing attorney-client communication, but there could be specific exceptions, and I wouldn't weigh in on whether this memo was one of them.

It's somewhat ironic that we were in disagreement over what the newspaper is withholding from the public.

One additional thing the article brings that I do think is fair is that to the extent I have a conflict that keeps me from voting, I can't weigh in on issues on behalf of my constituents. On the other hand, it's the same experience at my day job that gives me relevant knowledge for the job. Overall, I think I'll need to recuse myself between one and three times this year, and fewer times in subsequent years. I noted this during the campaign as well and felt that it wasn't so broad a problem as to keep me from doing the work, and nothing's changed my mind since then.

Drought conservation response

At our last Water District Board meeting on April 26th, we had an interesting discussion on the District's call from last year for a voluntary 10% water conservation effort as a "drought conservation response". That request for a drought response is still in effect, despite the fact that everyone acknowledges that the drought is over. District staff brought the matter to the Board, with the recommendation that the drought conservation resolution, set to expire at the end of June, be allowed to expire without renewal.

The Board had three responses. I said that the District should encourage conservation for general reasons but should also signal when special efforts are needed during droughts. That meant signalling when the drought ended, and since it's already ended, we should repeal the drought resolution as soon as practicable.

Director Lezotte said we shouldn't let the conservation resolution expire, at all. Her approach is that our conservation needs are so great that the conservation effort should basically be always increasing, instead of relaxing. I can see her point, and I agree with her to the extent we're discussing efforts unrelated to droughts, but as to droughts, I think we should clearly signal when a need for special conservation begins, and to maintain credibility then we should clearly signal when that need ends.

The remaining Board members didn't agree with either of us, and simply voted to let the drought resolution expire. I joined their position when mine failed to get support, but I don't see why it's preferable to wait an extra two months after a drought has expired to officially take note of the expiration.

I do hope though that when it expires, we have a replacement resolution that emphasizes the need for non-drought related conservation.

Evening meeting democracy!

So we had a our first evening meeting since I've been sworn in, and you can watch it here. I was very happy that it happened, as that's one of my campaign promises - hold the meetings when people can actually attend. Starting this summer, we'll do at least one a month. I'd prefer to do it all the time, but we're trying this for now.

The meeting had a lot of people there, so that was a great start. They were there primarily to discuss fluoridation (more on that later).

Another campaign promise has been to reverse the pay raise that the Board gave itself. It's been a frustratingly long process, but I will get the chance to do just that in August, assuming I can get the others to come along.

So, slower than I expected, but it's progress.

Capital costs, desalination, understanding hydrology

Might not sound like interesting stuff, but the above is what I found interesting from today's February 15 meeting. Planned sales of recycled water will not recover the capital costs of building the water treatment facility. This might not be totally unusual in the world of water, but I think it makes it difficult to compare costs of various options - should we invest in recycled water versus invest in conservation, say - if we don't account for all costs. Also, I understand that water retailers want to tap into and sell recycled water. I'd be concerned if, among other things, they got the water at prices that didn't cover capital costs. We'll find out.

Desalination has been treated as a subset of recycled water. It does use similar technology, but everything else about it is different (and worse). I'd like to see it separated out from recycling. There's the interesting issue of whether cancellation of it might damager relations with partner agencies, but I also wonder if there are people in those partner agencies that have the same concern that I'm expressing.

There are apparently some water rights issues related to water recycling. Not sure I understand that yet.

Finally, I would like to better understand how flood analysis is done. I think that might help understand natural flood control and how climate change effects on snow line might affect flooding. I'd also be interested in seeing predictive uses of flooding models.

-Brian

Chromium-6

I was chagrined to learn recently that we may, emphasis may, have a problem with chromium-6 in the Water District.

The Environmental Working Group came out with a report in December that found hexvalent chromium (chromium-6) in many US cities, including San Jose. We had a Water District Board meeting the next day that said the District hadn't found any in its tests from our water treatment plants. However, the District went back through its records and informed us that it had subsequently found testing records for groundwater. The treatment plants only get surface water, but groundwater could be contaminated from natural sources, and that appears to be the case here. Making things worse, the state has significantly reduced the proposed safety level to one that's extremely low, 0.02 parts per billion, something that most labs can't even test.

The good news, such as it is, is that the proposed levels are only proposed, there is no existing level, the District is not in violation of any regulation, and the levels that are ultimately considered appropriate may not turn out to be as strict as first thought.

On the other hand, the levels found in groundwater were a median of 1 part per billion, with a high of 23 parts per billion. Obviously, that's a far cry from .02 ppb. We don't know where the official level will ultimately end up, but we may have a problem.

Anyway, we talked about it at the February 1 meeting, Item 5 (although not until near the end of that item, close to the end of the day).

Unrelated item from that same meeting was Item 4, water treatment. It occurred to me when I looked at the map that our west side treated water system could be connected fairly easily to the Hetch Hetchy water system in Mountain View, and since Hetch Hetchy is connected to our east side treatment system in Milpitas, we'd have a (somewhat) interconnected treated water system. Might be something worth investigating.

New chair and vice chair, and thoughts about the Gold Street project

Yesterday we elected Don Gage as Chair and Linda Lezotte as Vice Chair, and I'm looking forward to their leadership. I also look forward to Patrick Kwok taking a leadership role in 2012 as Vice Chair and 2013 as Chair.

Three of the seven directors thought that given Director Kwok's long experience, he should be Vice Chair this year instead of 2011. I think that's a very reasonable argument, but given that the continuation of the existing rotation system that will start again in 2012 means that Director Lezotte will be Chair, it makes more sense that she be Vice Chair this year.

I very much appreciate a memo and statement by Director Kwok that in effect says there was no racial issue involved in whether he or Director Lezotte should be Vice Chair this year. I agree with him. Similarly, I wrote a Letter to the Editor to the Mercury News that said honest disagreements like these don't split us into camps of reformers and non-reformers, and I will work to avoid any split.

Finally, we reconsidered the Gold Street Educational Center in Alviso, and on a 3-3 vote, considered moving the project to the County Marina but did not do so (a tie vote means the motion fails and the originally-approved project moves forward). I was one of the three voting to move the project - I thought the cost savings that strongly favor the County Marina location outweighed the other factors that favor the Gold Street location, but I think the contrary view is reasonable. This issue has now been dealt with by multiple Boards of Directors, and I think it's finished.

Onward!

Second board meeting: environmental review issues, ag water, and water rates

Our December 21 meeting video is here, also with accompanying documents. Also try here if you have trouble opening the documents.

Among the issues: I learned at this meeting (Item 5) that private applicants or their consultants will prepare preliminary versions of environmental documents used by the Water District, as opposed to the more typical practice of cities preparing the documents themselves (or hiring consultants themselves), and requiring reimbursement from applicants. I have some concerns about this process, and intend to look into it.

Water rates for farming operations are far cheaper than the rates for everyone else (Item 7). In the last two years, these rates have been kept held down, in part, through the use of money meant to protect open space. I can understand the reasoning, but at a cost of over $1 million annually, I think that needs some analysis.

It's also clear from the presentations that the current water rates, frozen for three years, are going to have to increase (Item 7 and Item 8). The proposals are for about 9% annually for a number of years, or even more to deal with some additional infrastructure problems. Keeping rates frozen, by contrast, would put us in the same bind as San Francisco and the water it supplies to North Santa Clara County, where the rates are going up much, much higher due to deferred infrastructure replacement. Still, this is going to be very controversial politically.

Next meeting is January 11. Happy Holidays, everyone!

-Brian

First day on the job, and questions about being the Chair in 2011

While we took our legal oath of office on December 3, you could say our first day on the job was Tuesday the 14th, the first Water District Board meeting for the new Board. You can watch this meeting and other meetings by going to the meeting video page and clicking on the date (you can watch it live as it happens, and usually within 24 hours afterwards the video is posted on that page).

Probably the most interesting and controversial issue was the decision over the rules governing who could become chair of the Board (Item 13 on the agenda). I co-authored a memo along with Directors Lezotte and Gage that went in the complete opposite direction of a prior initiative to extend the time required before a Board member - we eliminated the experience requirement entirely, and our motion passed on a 4-3 vote. We also set a rotation system in place that continues the current planned rotation starting in 2012, with 2011 being a transition year that doesn't follow rotation and simply has an election.

I can see the advantage of experience and reasons for wanting to wait, but I disagree in that experience should be an absolute requirement that trumps all other reasons why someone should be chair. If a new director is in line to become chair, that director can choose to skip his or her turn.

Even though we ended up on different sides of the vote, I thought Director Estremera had some interesting statements on the issue, where he said what was being done was simply applying majority rule. Of course, that's always true - a majority determines the rules and can change the rules, and the system we think should happen in 2012 or later according to rotation, could be changed by a future majority of Board members if they chose.

Thinking more broadly about the question of how to select the chair, I think there are two perspectives that apply. One is that the chair is the leader of the Board of Directors, and therefore should be the person who has the support of the majority of the Board. Alternatively, the position of chair is a duty and right that comes from being from a Board member and should therefore be shared proportionately between members, just like committee memberships are shared proportionately.

I don't see a reason why one of those two perspectives is the clearly right one, but you have to make some kind of decision. What we did, in effect, is set up a single, transitional year where the first perspective of majority rule is in effect (2011), followed thereafter by a rotational system. Given the large number of new Board members and our desire to make a number of changes, I think it's an appropriate decision and the best one, and obviously that's the reason I supported it.

I understand the reasoning behind other systems though, like a pure majoritarian system that Director Estremera was proposing. While politics sometimes offers "clean" decisions of clearly right and wrong positions, I think other times it's a matter of each person using one's best judgment. I have no problem with Director Estremera's best judgment that happened to disagree with mine in this case, and I look forward to hearing his ideas on other issues that will come to the Board.

-Brian

UPDATE: Probably worth mentioning that opinions expressed here are just my own - I'm not trying to express the official opinion of the Board, and the last word on any opinions of other Directors, like my recollection of Director Estremera's statements above, belongs to that Director.

UPDATE 2: Per Diana's excellent suggestion in the comments: the 4-3 vote had Schmidt, Lezotte, Gage, and Judge on one side, with Estremera, Santos, and Kwok on the other. I should say there were two votes, the first voting down a substitute motion by Director Estremera with the sides I've just mentioned, and the second supporting our own motion. One of the three votes against may have dropped out in the second vote - I just listened to the video and that seemed to be the case.

Thank you!! We've done it!

We posted the message below to the main page of the campaign website:

Thank you!!

After all this time, it's hard to believe that we're here. I'm so very glad to tell you that, barring some last minute strange returns, we've won, and due to your efforts I will be the District 7 Director for the Santa Clara Valley Water District.

So thank you all for voting, for helping, and for all that you did. This was a group effort in the best sense of the word, with different people rising up at different times to seize the opportunity of pushing the campaign forward. The fact that there are too many people to thank is the reason why we've won.

We've won despite our decision to severely limit the size and influence of individual campaign contributions, by voluntarily setting a maximum donation by individuals at $250. We won despite that, because of everyone's work on the ground, and we're now set to bring real campaign financing reform to the Water District in time for its next election.

We will be able to fix the District governance, and work to improve its mission. There's so much I want to do, in addition to cleaning up mercury contamination, keeping development away from streams, and putting environmental restoration on an equal footing with the flood control and water supply. I want to thank everyone who's helped and above all, everyone who voted to make this happen. And I very much appreciate my opponent, Los Altos City Council Member Lou Becker, for his thoughtful and civil campaign.

Now the work begins. Onward!

-Brian

This is it! Thank you everyone, and please vote!

Hoping for the best! As we wait for the returns, I just want to thank everyone for the tremendous amount of support and enthusiasm during this race.

The Registrar of Voters has information on where to drop off vote-by-mail ballots (too late now to mail them) and a link for how to find your polling place if you vote at the polls.

Let's keep our fingers crossed on local, statewide, and national results.

-Brian

Why I hope to earn your vote for the Water District election

Tomorrow is Election Day, and I thank every voter reading this for taking the extra step of researching this election by coming to my campaign website and blog. This post explains why I think my campaign has been endorsed by the Mercury News, the Mountain View Voice, super-majorities of the Mountain View City Council (five of seven members) and Palo Alto council (eight of nine), and majorities of the County Board of Supervisors and Los Altos Hills City Council. And from the County Democratic Party, the Sierra Club, County League of Conservation Voters, and community members, businesses, and unions, with the endorsements found here.

I have been involved with water issues and other civic issues for over fourteen years since I moved to our area to study environmental law at Stanford. As an environmental lawyer with a special interest in water, I have worked to protect our water resources and for safe and environmentally-sound flood control. Working for over seven years as the Santa Clara County Advocate for Committee for Green Foothills, over six years at the Water District's Environmental Advisory Committee, and at the District's Performance Audit Committee, I have seen helped get the right work done but see the possibility to do more.

The Water District is a solid organization with trouble at its Board of Directors, with inadequate democracy and inadequate citizen involvement. I propose evening meetings so working citizens can attend and serve as Directors. I would remove artificial restrictions on citizen advisory and oversight committees, letting them operate more like similar city and county committees in being able to set agendas and offer recommendations. I would support reasonable and meaningful term limits - while Measure C deserves support, it doesn't go far enough because it isn't retroactive, and I'm pledging to serve no more than two terms regardless of Measure C's success.

Fixing these problems will help us address core issues for the Water District. I believe we can do much more to address mercury contamination in what is one of the worst, if not the worst-contaminated county in the state. We can champion state efforts to get any company bringing mercury into the state to either retrieve all their mercury or help our existing mercury cleanup efforts. We can do more to ensure cities are following policies to keep new development away from streams. We can specifically work on maintaining recent progress to address flooding along San Francisquito Creek, and to start addressing the major problem of protecting our cities from sea-level and Bay-level rise that will result from climate change.

We can do this all while controlling costs. I've called for cutting Water District Director compensation by over 50%, to more closely match City Council compensation. I've been calling for close examination over Water District involvement over the economically and environmentally risky proposals to dredge a port in Alviso. I'm the only candidate who's observed that emergency boat evacuation could possibly be done more cheaply from Moffett, or that the money might be better spent for disaster preparation in totally different ways.

Finally, the effort shown in my campaign mirrors the effort I would bring if elected. The Brian For Water campaign website is by far the most detailed. This is the only campaign blog, a place where we can provide details about new ideas, and we have the only Facebook campaign page in this race, detailing outreach to the community. The extensive outreach door-to-door, at farmers markets, at Caltrain stations and elsewhere, are also chances to interact with community where we are the only ones doing so in this race. I have attended the last three Water District Board meetings before the election and have been the only candidate there.

I'm eager to put the experience and the new energy I can provide by serving at the Water District Board, and I thank you for considering this opportunity to do great things to protect our water supply, to provide safe and environmentally-sound flood control, and to take significant steps to protect our streams and watersheds.

-Brian Schmidt

Stopping incumbent protection through limited public funding of Water District elections

Like water recycling, I've talked about this idea a few times at public events and so I wanted to make sure to get the idea out on the blog. While I've been very hesitant to propose any increase in spending for the District, my proposal to cut Director compensation by over 50% would easily pay for limited public funding of Water District elections. We need some real reform at the level of the District Board, and this is an important way to level the playing field between incumbents and challengers.

The idea is to budget $25,000 annually for the elections. Since elections occur only ever other year, that would leave $50,000 available for an election. All candidates could get matching funds for the first $50 of a contribution by an individual to that candidate (someone donating a large amount only gets $50 matched, another equalizing element), up to a total maximum amount per candidate. Even if this program had $10,000 in administrative costs, it would still leave a reasonable chunk of money to match small contributions. And my proposal to cut Director compensation from over $30,000 annually per Director to less than half would more than compensate for this cost.

I do have to emphasize this is a just a general idea, and if the details prove it unworkable, then so be it. I think it could work though, and it could be an important part of democratic reform at the District Board.

Water utility decoupling for water conservation?

This subject is an idea to be explored rather than a firm commitment, but it's an idea for promoting water conservation in the same way that California has promoted energy conservation: decoupling the profits that regulated companies make from selling energy, or water, from the amount that's used.

See here for more information. The electricity system in much of the country lets private utilities make a profit that depends on the amount of electricity used, so naturally, those companies are not at all enthusiastic or cooperative in energy conservation efforts. In California, the utilities can make money by investing in conservation efforts that reduce the amount of energy that customers use, and the utility then is allowed to charge a little more. The result is that total bill Californians pay is typical for Americans, but the total used is much less, down to almost half of the typical usage.

We can explore the same solution for water (and there has been some work in this area). This could do a lot to increase water conservation, and help align the private and public interest together in doing more to protect our most essential natural resource.

Aquacue blog: Brian Schmidt has right water conservation priorities for the Water District

A nice blog post by a new water-efficiency business, Aquacue:

....In Santa Clara county the average residential monthly water bill is less than $50 per month. A morning cup of plain coffee at a coffee shop costs more than the 300 gallons or so per day that most households use.

Instead of focusing on reducing the water bill, the new board ought to focus on ensuring the long term supply of clean and abundant water, adding infrastructure to support delivery of recycled water for irrigation, and improving water conservation. Cost cutting to support these objectives is a good plan, but not cost cutting to reduce the water bill. Couple of the candidates:Brian Schmidt and Linda LeZotte appear to have these as their top priorities for the board.

I agree that for many residents, the water bill is exactly what they say, smaller than the daily cost of coffee. Of course some people do have high bills though and that is where water conservation efforts can help. And getting people to be water conscious through adding meters to the currently-unmetered use in many apartments and mobile homes could also do a lot to promote conservation.

More on getting work done: comments submitted to the Water District on protecting streamside areas

(As was the case last week, I attended a Water District meeting today and submitted comments yesterday. Again as was the case last week, I was the only candidate who either attended or submitted comments. The submitted comments are below (I made them on behalf of Committee for Green Foothills), and I also spoke on these issues and asked for further clarification of the seismic stability problem at Anderson Dam, a serious issue that's likely going to cost a significant amount of money to fix. I intend to watch that issue closely. -Brian)

October 25, 2010

Santa Clara Valley Water District Board of Directors

Re: Agenda Item 12, BMR-10-0064 regarding exceptions to riparian ordinances

Dear Chair Santos and District Board Members;

The Committee for Green Foothills agrees with the Staff recommendation that the two options that Staff identified for performance evaluations of riparian protections would likely be unproductive for the cost involved. However, it may be productive to broaden the BMR to consider more generally whether land use agencies have provided the adequate riparian protection that was the necessary counterpart to revoking Water District Ordinance 83-2 as well as the decision to desis from expanding the District's permit authority to a 150-foot buffer. The BMR might also consider whether the District could do more to assist in the application of adequate riparian protection policies.

I would encourage consideration of specific examples to see whether the protection the District sought through expanding Ordinance 83-2 has been achieved under present conditions. Several examples that immediately spring to mind include:

· Los Altos Hills, with a 25-foot riparian buffer policy.

· Los Gatos and the development recently proposed along Ross Creek.

· San Jose and the relatively recent development projects on Duckett Way and Guadalupe Mines Road.

In each case the District might analyze whether it could help with riparian protection under current policies. For example, in the case of the Guadalupe Mines Road project, the District submitted a useful comment letter prior to the initiation of CEQA review for the project, but the District did not comment on the CEQA document itself and did not provide comments when the project approval was appealed by environmental groups and another governmental agency, the Guadalupe Coyote Resource Conservation District.

We believe that more can be done to improve riparian protection. Because we are aware of interest in different cities for improving policies (for example, San Jose's proposed Draft General Plan revision to reduce exceptions to its 100-foot buffer policy), we think this could be advanced in a way that shows the District's concern but is still productive and cooperative.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Voter: "I'm a Republican, and I'm supporting you."

I had a very encouraging conversation yesterday meeting a voter while handing out flyers at the Mountain View Farmers Market. While the race for the Water District is a non-partisan race, I personally am a Democrat and have been endorsed by the Santa Clara County Democratic Party. My opponent is a Republican who's endorsed by the County Republican Party (he hasn't chosen to list it on his website but can be seen here). Still, we both are free to encourage people to vote for us regardless of their party affiliation, or non-affiliation.

So it was great to talk to this Republican voter - he said that although he's Republican, he's voting for me because he's seen me out at the farmers markets talking to people and really making an effort. I think it shows something to people - having been to art festivals, farmer markets, and Caltrain stations, not to mention all the precinct walking that volunteers and I have done - that the effort trying to reach people in this campaign reflects the effort I will put into the job if elected. I am also more than happy to compare campaign websites for content and specificity, not to mention this blog with over 30 different posts, and our more recent Facebook page.

The majority of the work that the Water District Board will do isn't work that splits people along ideological lines, it's just a matter of getting the work done and putting in the effort. We very much appreciate the voter recognition of that effort.

Water recycling is a great idea; water desalination has serious problems

I've been asked a number of times about my opinion on water recycling. I think it's a great opportunity to do more with our existing water supply, rather than constantly searching for new water sources. Water recycling treats used water so it can be reused, currently for landscaping and agriculture (the "purple pipe" we see increasingly in various parts of the County is the separate piping system for recycled water).

It certainly makes much more sense to use recycled water instead of drinking water on landscaping and farmland. The next stage, something already done in southern California, is to purify recycled water and pump it back into the groundwater table, where we can fully reuse it.

So I support the existing programs for recycled water, and the role it has in the Water District budget will allow recycled water to expand. I'd also be interested in even more expansion, but I don't see the Water District's budget expanding anytime soon, so we'd have to figure out where the money would come from to accelerate the process.

Desalination (the process of converting saltwater to freshwater), by contrast, has some significant problems. A huge amount of energy is consumed in the desalination process, making it both expensive and environmentally problematic. The remainder of desalination is a soupy salt brine that creates a big disposal problem, especially for us bordering the shallow San Francisco Bay. Any approach to desalination would have to be done very carefully.

Finally, while I distinguish between water recycling and desalination, the distinction is really a matter of degree. Recycling also consumes energy and also has leftover materials. But being able to think in shades of gray is an important part of policy, which is why water recycling should be more encouraged than desalination. Most important of all though is water conservation, reducing the initial demand, and we can still do a lot more on this issue.

Comments submitted to the Water District Board on changing its environmental policies

(Yesterday I attended the Water District Board workshop on changing its overall guidance policies. In addition to attending, I spoke at the meeting and submitted the letter below. The District invited the Board candidates, but I was the only one who attended (in my case, on behalf of Committee for Green Foothills). It might help to read the Board materials for October 20, 2010 and Agenda Item 4 to understand the letter I submitted. We did get some action on one item, but the others will have to wait another day. -Brian)

October 20, 2010

Santa Clara Valley Water District Board of Directors

Re: Agenda Item 4, Ends Policy Workshop and Recommendations of the Environmental Advisory Committee

Dear Chair Santos and Board Members;

I submit the following comments on behalf of the Committee for Green Foothills regarding the Ends Policies recommendations of the Environmental Advisory Committee. We thank District Staff for their work with the EAC and other committees, and for Staff's support of the large majority of Ends Policy changes that the EAC has recommended in recent years. In some cases discussed below we disagree with staff on certain recommendations, and in others we believe that staff misunderstood the purpose of the recommendations.

My comments refer to Attachment 2, Advisory Committee Recommendations:

Policy 1 E-2, language regarding change in winter storms from a mix of rain and snow to mostly rain. The staff response misunderstands this recommendation to deal with water supply, possibly considering it a reference to Sierra snowpack changes. It actually concerned our local hydrology, where winter storms that currently deliver snow at high elevations will increasingly switch to rain throughout, with a possible increase to flood risk. While Executive Limitation EL7.7 on understanding climate change impacts might apply here, the EAC hasn't been informed that flooding forecasts have actually been analyzed to consider this issue.

Policy 2 E-2, language on policies for geographic areas outside of the District. Staff misunderstands this recommendation to refer to adequate supplies of imported water. It actually referred to the environmental impacts the District doubtless has on geographic areas through our imported water use and other potential effects (examples may include downstream flooding on the Pajaro and operation of the San Luis Reservoir). The idea is that the District's interest in minimizing its environmental impact extends beyond District boundaries.

Policy 7 E-4, language regarding habitat conservation plans. We may need more specifics on this recommendation from the EAC's July 2010 meeting.

Policy 10 E-4.1.3, recommending a new Objective to "Protect, enhance, and restore the natural physical stability/dynamic equilibrium of streams." Staff disagree with this recommendation for two reasons. First they say (correctly) that the concepts are considered at Staff level. While true, the question is whether Objectives set by the Board provide sufficient direction for Staff to execute the Board Policies. The existing Objective most closely related to this issue is E-4.1.2, "Improve watersheds, streams, and natural resources." (See Attachment 6, page 1.) The opinion that EAC members and subcommittee members have expressed is that Objective 4.1.2 does not provide adequate direction. While details done at Staff level are helpful, they do not make up for inadequate direction given at the Board level in the Objectives.

The second objection raised by staff is that many factors need to be balanced for District projects. The EAC concurs and raises no objection to existing Objective 4.1.1, "Balance water supply, flood protection, and environmental stewardship functions." The proposed Objective no more conflicts with this balancing provision than does existing Objective 4.1.2 to improve watersheds, streams, and natural resources.

Policy 11 E-4.1.4, a new Objective to "Protect, enhance and restore thriving populations of key species indicative watershed health." The same issue arises here as above, that Staff interpretation does not remove the need for adequate Board direction, and Objective 4.1.2 is too general to provide adequate direction.

Staff also state that restoring habitat is better wording than restoring species. If the Board agrees with Staff, then the solution here would be to reword this Objective rather than reject it outright.

Policy 12 E-4.1.5, a new Objective to "Protect, enhance, and restore riparian and in-stream and tidal habitat conditions conducive to watershed health, including diked historical bay land wetlands and former salt ponds." Same issues as with the previous two Objectives, that existing Objective 4.1.2, "Improve watersheds, streams, and natural resources," does not provide real direction to Staff.

We appreciate Staff's support for Policies 14 and 15, as well as Staff support for many EAC policy recommendations that have already been incorporated into Board policies.

Mercury News gives Brian its endorsement and news coverage

Pretty exciting news from the what is by far the biggest daily newspaper in Santa Clara County.

From the editorial endorsement:

Gage, Lezotte and Schmidt will help reform Santa Clara Valley Water District

According to the Mercury News:

The Santa Clara Valley Water District is ripe for reform in the Nov. 2 election, thanks to the pileup of board outrages over the past three years and the addition of new electoral seats. Finally, there's a real chance to shake up the leadership that too often has provided poor oversight of an agency with an annual budget of $315 million in taxpayers' money. Trustees sometimes stay for upward of 20 years on this board, perhaps addicted to the pay and benefits that are excessive for the part-time job.

Fortunately, in three contested seats for the seven-member board, there are good candidates. We recommend outgoing Santa Clara County Supervisor Don Gage in District 1, former San Jose Councilwoman Linda LeZotte in District 4 and environmental attorney Brian Schmidt in District 7....

District 7 offers the toughest choice. Both Schmidt and Los Altos City Councilman Lou Becker seem solid on reform and are qualified for the job. We lean toward Schmidt because of his longtime advocacy and deep understanding of environmental issues. His relative youth -- at 43 he would be easily the youngest board member -- could also inject new energy into the board. In addition, his North County orientation would balance Gage, who is backed by the farm bureau and cattlemen.

And from the news coverage:

In recent years, the Santa Clara Valley Water District has sparked major controversy, with accusations of gerrymandering and grand juries questioning its spending.

This year, Santa Clara County's largest water provider is facing a rare occurrence: multiple, high-profile candidates running for its board.

Seven candidates are running in next month's election for three open seats on the board, which oversees an annual budget of $315 million and supplies drinking water and flood protection to 1.8 million county residents....

In the final open seat, for District 7, which runs from Palo Alto to Almaden Valley, environmental attorney Brian Schmidt, 43, faces Lou Becker, 76, a retired civil engineer and member of the Los Altos City Council.

Schmidt, a registered Democrat, is a staff attorney with the non-profit Committee for Green Foothills. He supports a limit of two terms for board members, a reduction in their salaries -- from $260 per meeting to half that -- and a more pro-active environmental stance for the district. Chairman of the county Fish and Game Commission, he supports tougher state laws for mercury pollution, is leaning against an Alviso Port and wants more water conservation and recycling programs.

He is endorsed by the Sierra Club and by Kniss, Shirakawa and Yeager.....

Director compensation going the wrong way

(We submitted the letter below the Water District Board and argued in favor of it front of the Board - I was the only candidate there. Unfortunately, the Board voted to go in the wrong direction, with a 10% compensation increase. I hope to get that reversed if elected. -Brian)

October 12, 2010

Santa Clara Valley Water District, Board of Directors

Re: Agenda Item 5 - Board member responsibilities and compensation should be made roughly comparable to those of City Council Members

Dear Chair Santos and Members of the Board:

I am impressed with the importance of the Board's work and the time I have seen given to that work. Chair Santos in particular has been involved with some of the same projects that also concern my environmental work in San Jose, and he's always present and participating. While I believe the Water District Board needs to recast its responsibilities and reduce its compensation, my belief in no way denigrates the work and commitment of current or past Board Directors.

The main problem as I see it is that this Board is straddling an uncomfortable middle ground between the full-time, fully-compensated work of bodies like our County Board of Supervisors, and the more limited work and modest compensation of most City Councils in our County. I think it would make more sense to choose one of these two roles and to operate like a City Council, with comparable hours and comparable compensation.

Switching to evening meetings, like most City Councils, would make it much more feasible for people who have day jobs to serve on the District Board, as well as make it possible for more people to attend meetings. Switching to a rate of compensation that is similar to that of City Council Members would therefore be appropriate.

The rate of $260 per meeting and up to $2,600 per month is not similar to what Council Members receive. I suggest cutting the rate by more than 50%, to about $100-$125 per meeting and up to $1000-$1,250 per month. Such a rate would still be at the high end of what council members receive, but at least would be in the general range of comparable payment rates. Making this proposed cut would demonstrate that the District Board is serious about cost control and about reconnecting to the community by adopting a more broadly accepted compensation rate.

Two additional steps should also be taken. First, there is a potential conflict between Water Code section 20201 that allows the District Board to raise the compensation rate, and the District Act that sets a fixed limit significantly below the proposed compensation rate. While I appreciate the helpful explanatory paragraph in today's agenda item, I suggest the Board direct District Counsel to prepare a publicly-available memo explaining in more detail how these two laws interact and the reason why the District does not believe the fixed limit in the District Act is applicable. In particular, the memo should explain whether section 33 of the District Act was passed later in time than the Water Code section, or if the Water Code section has been subsequently restated or reauthorized. The memo should also state why the Directors compensation had not been reset to the rate fixed by section 33 at the time that the District Act was last reauthorized by the legislature (note that section 20201 uses the word "increases," not "changes," when saying increases should be governed by the Water Code and not by legislation).

Second, the District Board should set rules regarding when a Director can be compensated for participating in community meetings if that Director has determined that he or she has a conflict of interest over the primary subject matter of the meeting. My recommendation is that if the Director has determined that he or she has a conflict that prevents participation in a decision at the Board, then that Director should only participate in community meetings on the subject as a private person and should not be compensated for that participation. If the meeting also concerns other Water District subjects, then compensation may be appropriate, but only if the treatment of other subjects is more than de minimus. It is not clear to me whether any such rules currently exist, but I have not seen mention of them.

I thank the District Board for this opportunity to comment, and please feel free to contact me with any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian Schmidt

Brian Schmidt for Santa Clara Valley Water District 2010