Senate Bill 634 and its new amendments make a hodgepodge of changes that will have potentially detrimental and unforeseen consequences for California Water Law and LAFCO (local government agency formation) law.

These changes are made to legitimize the questionable acquisition of Valencia Water Co., a private company formerly owned by the Newhall Land-Lennar Corp. and developers of the 21,000-unit Newhall Ranch project. It will also allow the takeover of the Newhall County Water District, a 60-year-old voting district, without a vote of the people in that district despite their demand to have a vote.

And the bill specifically eliminates any of the voting processes that we all expect from our democracy and local government. There will be no election on the question of whether Newhall County Water should be dissolved.

The bill is being rushed through the Legislature so it avoids anyone having to stand for a 2018 election and then expands their terms for six years so no one can vote them out.

The bill makes sure no public input of any kind, referendum, environmental (CEQA) review or even forming a new district could be used by the public to stop the takeover of Newhall County Water.

Why is Sen. Scott Wilk so adamant about making sure the public can’t have a say? Newhall County Water District customers are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for lobbying efforts to get rid of their own water district and to make sure they have no say in the matter.

This is not democracy. Why are Newhall County Water’s own elected board members trying to eliminate these rights?

The amendments still do not include Valencia Water Co. and L.A. County Waterworks District 36, instead delaying their inclusion to some later date. There is no guarantee that either will agree to be included in the future.

When asked how this would be enforced, a legislative staff person stated: “The public would have to sue.” Isn’t this exactly what this bill was supposed to be seeking to avoid? The Castaic Lake Water Agency is a bad actor and has not complied with prior state laws; why would it comply with this one?

Some background: Valencia Water Co. was acquired through a “friendly” eminent domain proceeding in 2012 from Newhall Land-Lennar Corp. (now Five Point), developer of the 21,000-unit Newhall Ranch project, as a private investment, held by Castaic Lake Water Agency, the sole shareholder.

This governance structure of a private water company, held by a public agency, is not sanctioned currently anywhere in California law but would be codified as legitimately existing if SB 634 is approved.

It has resulted in Valencia Water Co. customers paying an $800,000 annual dividend to CLWA, as the sole shareholder. Valencia Water Co. does not hold public meetings and claims it is beyond any public agency law because it is private – as it and CLWA successfully argued to the 2nd District Court of Appeals. At the same time, Valencia Water Co. argued to the Public Utilities Commission that it is public, since it is owned by CLWA, a public agency, claiming therefore it was no longer subject to CPUC oversight.

Does the Legislature really intend to codify this structure into law and allow other water agencies to use this law as a basis for proceeding in a similar manner?

With this bizarre water governance – not public or private – Valencia Water Co. refuses to follow public process, does not respond to Public Records Act requests and holds no public meetings. It can therefore hide water data and other reports completed at its customers’ expense, to the detriment of public accountability and the sustainability of water supplies and the health of the Santa Clara River watershed.

Now this legislation will also allow Valencia Water Co. to avoid the LAFCO annexation process, in spite of the many areas proposed for development outside its current boundaries that should require LAFCO annexation review.

Why is Valencia Water Co. being excluded from the LAFCO process? Does the Governance Committee really want to pick and choose which water companies must be subject to LAFCO and what parts of LAFCO law they must follow?

This water governance structure should not be sanctioned by the Legislature. Water companies must have some legally required public oversight, either from the CPUC or legislated public processes, including the Brown Act (California open meeting law), the Public Records Act and the Political Reform Act. And they must be subject to the Knox-Cortese Hertzberg Act.

Amendment 49 will eliminate even the small protection that the public sought regarding Valencia Water Co.’s evasion of the Brown Act. Does the Legislature really want to ensure that all information can be kept secret while this company moves through this state-legislated process and begins work on the Sustainable Ground Water Act?

Instead of creating a new, consolidated district that will manage water in the area, this proposal leaves huge and questionable gaps that will supposedly be addressed in the future.

The deferral of Valencia Water Co. and District 36 into the future leaves a hole in the middle of the district and the fate of over 30,000 connections to future actions by a board that has a bad record of not following its own laws. This is not acceptable.

Again, when asked how the state would ensure that Valencia Water Co. actually complies with the law in the future, a legislative staffer told me that people would have to sue. I thought that was the action we were trying to avoid?

The bill requires L.A. County’s LAFCO to oversee the consolidation of the district but picks and chooses which parts of LAFCO law will be followed. It specifically states that LAFCO may not require a vote. I believe this statement is unfair to the community that has strongly objected to the loss of its 60-year-old voting district. Why would the Legislature mandate the elimination of a vote?

Not only does the bill eliminate any possibility of the long-requested vote for residents of the Newhall County Water District, but it also eliminates any possibility of Valencia Water Co. being reconstituted as a voting district under County Water District law as has been pursued by some members of the public. (See section 29 of the bill.) Why is the Legislature seeking to eliminate any kind of local voter control over existing ground water agencies and prohibiting them access to laws that would allow the public to reconstitute water governance to their liking?

This water legislation is complicated. It should not be done in Sacramento where the public is virtually precluded from presenting their case and everything is done by paid lobbyists whom we locals are funding out of our water rates.

Don’t like the sound of this? Contact your state senators, Scott Wilk and Henry Stern, and let them know what you think.

Lynne Plambeck is president of Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment. Her opinions are her own.