CITRUS HEIGHTS, CA (MPG) - The San Juan Water District (SJWD) provides water to a retail service area that includes Granite Bay and a small portion of northeast Sacramento County. SJWD’s wholesale division also sells water to Citrus Heights Water District (CHWD), Fair Oaks Water District (FOWD), Orange Vale Water Company, and the City of Folsom (north of the American River). SJWD is governed by a five-member Board of Directors, who serve four-year terms after being selected in at-large elections by voters within the wholesale and retail service areas.

On March 26, 2020, the SJWD received a letter from the law firm of Shenkman & Hughes, on behalf of the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, asserting that the current at-large election system violates the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA). Mr. Shenkman has brought this charge against numerous agencies and municipalities in California, including the City of Citrus Heights. To avoid the cost of litigation, most jurisdictions have chosen to voluntarily switch to district-based elections. Those that have chosen to defend their at-large elections in court have lost.

Shenkman’s letter alleges that “SJWD’s at-large system dilutes the ability of Latinos (a ‘protected class’) to elect candidates of their choice or otherwise influence the outcome of the District’s board elections.” Data from the 2010 census data show that Latinos comprised approximately 13% of the District’s population, and Shenkman said that the proportion is likely greater today. But Shenkman pointed out that there haven’t been any Latinos on the Board for at least 20 years, showing a “lack of representation.”

Although the SJWD Board denies that their elections violate the CVRA, they still plan to transition to division-based elections to avoid costly litigation. The Board can take advantage of California’s Safe Harbor statute, which limits payment to the plaintiff (represented by Shenkman, in this case) to no more than $30,000 if the following requirements are met: adopt a resolution (within 45 days of receiving the complaint) to transition to district- or division-based elections, and conduct four public hearings within 90 days of adopting the resolution.

The Board discussed the timeline for the transition at a special meeting on April 14, 2020. To meet the statutory deadline, the Board would need to transition to division-based elections ahead of the upcoming 2020 election. Instead, the Board voted 3-2 in support of an alternative schedule delaying the transition until 2022. This alternative would require an additional monetary settlement with Shenkman.

According to SJWD Board President Ted Costa, the current social distancing measures implemented to slow the transmission of COVID-19 don’t allow for the numerous public hearings required in the districting process.  Some directors on the Board were also concerned that if they undertake the districting process now, they will have to redraw district lines again before the 2022 election after the release of the 2020 census data.

In a joint letter on April 22, directors of the FOWD and CHWD expressed disappointment with the SJWD Board’s decision, stating that transitioning to district-based elections is “just good governance” and that Fair Oaks and Citrus Heights “have been historically underrepresented on the wholesale SJWD Board and have been directly and significantly impacted by your Board’s decisions regarding cost allocation, water supply, and operational considerations.” They also offered to assist SJWD in the public outreach process.

At the April 22 teleconferenced meeting, members of the public addressed the Board before their final vote on the resolution. Mike McRae, a member of the FOWD Board of Directors, pointed out that four of five Directors on SJWD Board reside in Granite Bay: “That is the exact thing that is trying to be avoided with the [CRVA].” He asked the Board to reconsider their resolution to delay the transition, citing the famous quote “Justice delayed is justice denied.”

CHWD Board President Ray Riehle also addressed the Board: “There’s no technical reason, no legal reason, and no rational reason for you all to put off going to by-district elections at this time. Your staff has said it’s capable of doing it, the law is very clear, and you’re wasting money of the constituents.”  

Riehle said the SJWD Board could have avoided paying the $30,000 Safe Harbor settlement if they had voluntarily transitioned months ago, after warnings from staff in February and September 2019, instead of waiting to receive the letter from Shenkman. He also questioned just how much more the Board would have to pay for this extended schedule settlement.

Kendall Flint of Regional Government Services addressed the Board’s concern regarding public hearings: “The business of government is not stopping because of COVID.” She encouraged them to consider holding virtual public meetings, which she said often bring higher participation.  

Suzanne Jones expressed support for the decision to delay the transition. She said creating districts before the release of the 2020 census is wasteful, and the SJWD should not be rushed into this transition. Jones also stated that virtual meetings should not be relied upon for such an important process.

Pam Tobin, vice president of the SJWD Board, addressed the comments from the FOWD and CHWD: “I don’t appreciate the criticisms and the insinuations that our Board did not practice good governance. … What gives them the right to criticize our actions by the Board?”

“Yes, we knew eventually this was going to be a calculated risk,” said Tobin, “and we decided to wait and see at that point if we got the letter, because not everyone gets the letter. Which leads me to another question: I’d like to know if Fair Oaks Water District and Citrus Heights Water District initiated the complaint. I don’t know if I’ll get an honest answer, but I suspect that somehow that’s residing in their little envelopes.”

Tobin doesn’t believe ratepayers will be negatively impacted by the additional settlement cost of the delay. “The ratepayers would be more negatively impacted by the cost of redistricting twice in two years because of a rushed decision.” She also stressed that virtual public outreach meetings wouldn’t be as effective and would preclude input from disadvantaged groups.

Directors Dan Rich and Marty Hanneman were the two dissenting votes on the SJWD Board decision to delay CRVA compliance. Rich moved that the final vote on the resolution be held over until a special meeting on May 13. The Board voted 4-1 in favor of the motion, with President Costa dissenting. Staff then asked for direction regarding the Board’s preferred timeline ahead of the final vote: meeting the statutory deadline outlined in Safe Harbor; requesting a 90-day extension to the deadline; or asking Shenkman to waive the statutory deadline, requiring a settlement agreement.

Director Rich favored the 90-day extension, which would give the Board more time for public outreach but would still allow district maps to be drawn this year. He didn’t see any benefit to waiting for the 2020 census data, since district boundaries could easily be adjusted to reflect any population changes revealed by the new data. Rich also pointed out that the census is delayed due to COVID-19, so the release date of the 2020 data is uncertain at this time.

A motion directing staff to focus on the 90-day extension passed 4-1, with Tobin dissenting. The Board will vote on the final resolution in a special meeting teleconferenced on May 13.