I was taken by surprise with Peter Frusetta’s July 31, 2003
letter about the Pajaro River Watershed in which he stated that I
said one thing then did another on the original bill on this
subject.
First of all, like Frusetta, I didn’t vote for the original bill
by then-Sen. Henry Mello. The bill I voted for was AB 807 authored
by then-Assemblyman Fred Keeley.
Different year, different author, different bill.
I was taken by surprise with Peter Frusetta’s July 31, 2003 letter about the Pajaro River Watershed in which he stated that I said one thing then did another on the original bill on this subject.
First of all, like Frusetta, I didn’t vote for the original bill by then-Sen. Henry Mello. The bill I voted for was AB 807 authored by then-Assemblyman Fred Keeley.
Different year, different author, different bill.
As was reported in the Free Lance at the time, AB 807 gave each of the four involved counties an equal voice on the eight-member Pajaro River Flood Prevention Authority. This was a very important compromise at the time because previous proposals would have created a nine-member board that favored Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties.
I supported Fred Keeley’s bill because it made sure that upriver counties had just as much power as those downriver.
Additionally, my support of AB 807 was contingent upon the inclusion of strict protections from taxes and assessments on the residents of the watershed. That legislation provided that two-thirds of the voters in the water shed would need to approve any special taxes, and about 75 percent of the voters in the watershed are in the “upriver counties” of Santa Clara and San Benito.
In the case of a special assessment, a public hearing must be conducted before the assessment is levied, and if a majority of the parcel owners object to it, the assessment proposal dies.
It is worth noting that, while Fred Keeley’s bill was being considered, I pledged to get $2 million for a hydro-logical study on the Pajaro River Watershed and succeeded by including those funds in a statewide, voter approved water bond in March 2000.
I continued to believe that much of the responsibility for correcting the deficiencies in the Pajaro River rest with the federal government which constructed and designated it as a flood control channel.
That said, I will continue my work at the state level to protect the interests of all the residents within the Pajaro watershed.
Today, as in the 1990s, a long term solution needs to be approved for the Pajaro River which flooded four of seven years through 1998. Doing nothing doesn’t get it. Another wet winter will result in another flood and none of us wants that.
Sen. Bruce McPherson, 15th Senate District
