A Santa Cruz County lobbying effort to make residents whose
properties lie within the Pajaro watershed basin pay for upkeep of
often-flooded river levees is being countered by Santa Clara County
Supervisor Don Gage.
A Santa Cruz County lobbying effort to make residents whose properties lie within the Pajaro watershed basin pay for upkeep of often-flooded river levees is being countered by Santa Clara County Supervisor Don Gage.
Gage is opposed to the Santa Cruz County proposal that would allow the state to make property owners within all 1,310 square miles of the Pajaro River watershed responsible for maintaining the levees that keep the volatile river from overflowing.
In recent days, the supervisor has called state Assemblyman Simon Salinas and other state officials, hoping to convince them that making taxpayers in San Benito and southern Santa Clara counties fund upkeep in Santa Cruz would be an unprecedented step that could change the way all of California sets taxes.
Under Santa Cruz County’s proposal, properties in Santa Clara and San Benito counties that lie within the Pajaro watershed basin would be taxed.
“We don’t charge Santa Cruz for maintaining our levees, why should we pay them for their levees?” Gage asked. “I think Simon and state Sen. Bruce McPherson were receptive. I think they understand it would change the way the whole state operates.”
Santa Cruz officials, however, believe they have an answer to the question Gage poses.
In a letter to the state Department of Water Resources, Santa Cruz County Supervisor Ellen Pirie argued that Santa Clara County makes up more than a quarter of the area containing water bodies – such as Uvas and Llagas creeks – which flow into Pajaro River.
“Currently, only Santa Cruz and Monterey counties share the costs of maintaining the Pajaro River levee system, however, the majority of the Pajaro River watershed is located in San Benito and Santa Clara (counties),” Pirie stated. “In fact, 91 percent of the watershed originates in San Benito and Santa Clara counties.”
Pirie could not be reached before deadline. The supervisor is currently on vacation, a spokesperson from her office said.
The state has already indicated it would accept control over maintaining the Pajaro River levees, but it has proposed taxing less people than now. Roughly 14,750 properties are assessed currently. The state’s proposal would tax only 2,950. Tax levels would vary for residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural property owners.
Santa Cruz officials want the state to establish a much broader maintenance area that would include Santa Clara and San Benito counties. Monterey officials, however, are not sure they want to shift control to the state at all.
Similar to McPherson and Salinas, Assemblyman John Laird, who represents Morgan Hill and San Martin, said he is still in “a fact-finding and consulting” phase and has not decided which plan to support.
All three politicians’ decision-making process is complicated by having constituents in multiple counties.
“This issue is like an onion. Every time you peel off some skin, there’s a whole new layer that unfolds,” Laird said.
Feuding studies
What may help lawmakers determine who should pay for Pajaro River levee upkeep are environmental studies lobbyists are touting. But the studies come with onion layers of their own.
Gage pointed to a recently completed $2 million watershed and hydrology study funded by the state. The study revealed that growth from upstream communities like Hollister and Gilroy has not contributed to Pajaro floods. Instead, Pajaro levees built high enough to only withstand 10- to 15-year level floods are the culprit to the breakdown of the 50-year-old levees. The study recommended levee improvements that can withstand 100-year flood levels.
“We (Santa Clara County) did not authorize housing to occur in the flood plain, so it should not be our responsibility to pay for damaged levees,” Gage said.
But Santa Cruz officials stand by their studies, too. In Pirie’s letter, she stated that geological studies show that increased construction has decreased the ability of the land to absorb rainfall, causing additional run-off.
“This additional run-off has increased the severity of 10- to 20-year flood events, putting lands in the Pajaro Valley at greater risk of floods,” Pirie stated.
Unknown costs
A lawsuit stemming from the 1995 Pajaro River flood that damaged homes and flooded fields gives Santa Cruz and Monterey county officials incentive to find new taxpayers. A judge found Monterey County, Santa Cruz County and Caltrans 36 percent, 53 percent and 11 percent liable for the damage, respectively.
It is still unknown how much the counties and the state must pay out, but estimates exceed $100 million.
It is also unknown if funds from any new tax boundary could be used to pay off the damages, be used for levee improvements or only cover regular maintenance.
“That’s the $64,000 question right now,” said Bruce Laclergue, senior civil engineer for Santa Cruz County. “The trick is to even get that dialogue to take place.”
Laird, Salinas, and a spokesperson for McPherson said the state has not yet set a timeline for resolving the maintenance area matter.
Eric Leins is a staff writer with The Gilroy Dispatch.
