May 15, 2003

The Honorable Bruce McPherson
California State Senate
P.O. Box 942848
Sacramento, CA 94248-0001

Re: SB 149 - Oppose

Dear Senator McPherson:

The League of Women Voters of California (LWVC) opposes your bill, SB 149, which would revise the governance structure of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. The bill would change that structure from a board, which is in large part directly elected, to a board that is similar in form to a Joint Powers Agency. Additionally, it would remove the public's right to vote on public works projects and revenue bonds. This legislation does not address or guarantee a reduction in the costs of the district, a new water supply, or the production of new affordable housing for the area.

Since its formation, the League has promoted representative government that is both accountable and responsive to its citizens and that assures opportunities for citizen participation in decision-making. We believe that elected legislative bodies should be apportioned substantially on population.

The LWVC has authorized the League of Women Voters of the Monterey Peninsula to oppose your measure, based on its local water position that is derived from several yearlong studies of water issues on the Monterey Peninsula and that addresses, extensively, local water concerns.

We are concerned about your use of the advisory vote in November 2002 to justify SB 149. This advisory measure did not speak explicitly to the removal of the public's right to directly vote for the board members; rather it only addressed dissolving the district. The ballot argument mentioned boards that might serve as examples for a replacement board, but not how those boards are governed. It is not good enough to assume that the public read the arguments and indirectly understood the difference in the governance structure of the examples and how the change would affect the participation level, the responsibilities, and the rights the public currently enjoys concerning the water board.

Neither the ballot measure nor the ballot arguments mentioned the removal of the public's right to vote on projects and on revenue funding. This issue needs a frank and public discussion, if not also a vote. While we recognize that not every district is structured to include such voter approval, your legislation is negating a portion of the public's direct input into the decision-making process that it is currently afforded.

Finally, neither the advisory measure nor its arguments included any language describing the proposed weighting scheme among the appointed members of the board. In 1992, the district's representation was changed from an at-large representative system to a district system making the district truly representative of its constituents and their diversity. The proposed governance with its weighting scheme destroys that equity in representation and may lead to a board controlled by the two largest communities, with the citizens of the five smaller communities having little, if any, independent voice in its decisions.

We believe that the public deserves an open and full discussion about the change in governance, public approval of funding, and the public's role in the decision-making process. That has not happened.

Sincerely,
Barbara B. Inatsugu, President

cc:
Senator Deirdre Alpert, Chair, Senate Appropriations Committee
Assembly member John Laird