TimBenBoydstonThe Sanitation District will hold a special meeting on Wednesday, June 2, 2010, at City Hall at 6:30 PM with a chance for the public to weigh in. Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, as a member of the Sanitation District Board, will be in attendance. This proposed tax increase will apply to all of the SCV, not just the City.  Please join me in protesting the unneeded, unwarranted, and unacceptable $200 million dollar plus tax grab being proposed by our Sanitation District. Our elected officials must stand up to this scheme which is entirely based on junk “science”. Our Sanitation officials have caved into special Ventura County agricultural interests who want the citizens of the Santa Clarita Valley to pay for water which we will buy from Kern County to bank for them in drought years, to supply clean water for the Oxnard strawberry fields (although they won’t say how much), and to pay for a desalinization plant to take chloride out of the water we buy from the State. The State water project says that the level of chloride in the water that they sell us is fine, and yet our local State appointed Regional Water Quality Control Board says that we must take out the Chloride so that it is at maximum 117mg/L as measured at our County line as it goes into Ventura County.

The federal drinking water standard is 250mg/L. So why does The Sanitation District say we must take down the Chloride levels? It is because Regional Board has been convinced by the downstream agricultural special interests that high chloride levels are creating crop damage in “salt sensitive” crops.  The Sanitation district did not fall for this ruse in 2002 as evidenced in the Feb 6, 2002 Daily News. Vicki Conway, the head of the treatment monitoring section for the Los Angeles districts stated that “The proposed standard is scientifically unfounded, “and that “There’s no evidence that this is needed, based on the history of this area.” In addition in 2002 our “City Council pledged … to fight a proposed plant to reduce the amount of chloride…the council members unanimously agreed that the new treatments were not necessary and could cost some residents their homes” Alas though, a culprit was also identified as the main reason why there was too much salt “Ninety percent of the chloride in the water system, and therefore in the river, comes from self-regenerating water softeners like those used by many homeowners, water officials said”-Daily News 2-06-2002.

Never underestimate the power of special interests when there is money and water involved. By 2003 our City Council was convinced that we needed to remove our salt based water softeners in the SCV. In the Daily News Mar. 26, 2004 Mayor Bob Kellar said “We have a choice when it comes to the salt-in-the-river problem, and the answer is clear: Let’s get rid of these polluting machines once and for all.”  And Councilwoman Laurene Weste said. “If we put in salt, then we have to spend money to take it out.” In 2008 we passed an ordinance to make the softeners illegal and removed by June 30th 2009. So we have been taking those softeners out, and indeed the Chloride levels have been falling. But way before the full impact could be felt (there are still bootleg softeners in place), last year the Sanitation district was pushing for a $250 million tax increase. They were doing so because in 2005 a literature survey was done to justify the outrageous tax. Not a field studies mind you, only a review of studies done elsewhere. The contention by the agricultural interests, was that the “salt sensitive” crops of strawberries, nursery crops and avocados were being “harmed” by our salt levels.

Here is what the study actually says about evidence of chloride levels that would harm strawberries “…they did not provide sufficient data to determine an appropriate Cl threshold for irrigation water”; nursery crops “ …does not provide sufficient evidence upon which to base a recommendation for a Cl  threshold for nursery crops”; and avocados “Therefore, although there is clearly not enough evidence to propose an absolute threshold with the literature presently available, the best estimate of a Cl hazard concentration ranges from 100 to 120 mg/L.” That’s right folks, they are going to tax us a couple of hundred million dollars on a guess. Three of the six “experts” that comprise the panel that makes this guess, work for the agricultural interests in Ventura County. One of the panelists who do not work for the farmers of Ventura County, John Letey, Jr. Ph.D. a Professor Emeritus from Riverside, states that if a threshold had to be estimated, there would need to be at least 178 mg/L before any damage was done to the avocados.

So assuming that there is some threshold that would damage avocados, how many farmers are affected by chloride levels above 100 mg/L? One. According to the Sanitation District, between our county line and where the Piru creek dilutes the water down to around 50mg/L there is exactly one farmer with about 100 acres in avocados. Our government wants to tax us hundreds of millions of dollars to benefit one farmer, based on junk science.

And here is the kicker. The Sanitation District stated last year that they needed to meet a 150 mg/L level for Cl as the water left the treatment plant and 117 mg/L as it crossed the County Line. The measurement for the last 14 months coming out of the Valencia plant has been below 150 mg/L. The measurement for the last 20 months has been below the 150/mg threshold for water coming out of the Saugus Plant. And for the last six months the level at the County line was below the 117mg/L. with the April 10 measurement at 91 mg/L. The average Cl level has dropped 6% for the last year compared to the prior year average. To put in one penny for the design of a chloride removal plant, while the levels are still falling would not only be a travesty, but a misuse of public funds.

The Sanitation District laid out the whole plan last year, and the people were rightly shocked with the hundreds of millions in tax increases, but this year they are only talking about the costs to design the plant. They want our officials to commit us for the design and then tell us the cost for the building of the plant later, after we are committed to this robbery of our citizens. Our officials put this off last year until after the election, but this boondoggle should not be an election issue. This tax scam should be fought as the great injustice that it is. It should be fought legislatively at the State level, and if necessary in the courts. I call upon Mayor Weste and Councilmember McLean and the entire City Council to fight this tax scam.

At Your Service,

TimBen Boydston, Former Councilman

TimBen Boydston is a former City of Santa Clarita Councilman. His commentaries represent his own opinions and not necessarily the views of any organization he may be affiliated with or those of the West Ranch Beacon.