This site was created by concerned citizens of Lompico who are interested in an alternative to the current proposal to merge by the San Lorenzo Valley Water District. If you are reading this, it probably means you are of the same mind set and we would like you to know that you are NOT ALONE. We want to encourage you to create an account and to visit the Forum and FAQ tabs for more detailed information and to start and/or participate in a forum topic. This site will be updated daily, so come back often.

Glad you can join us!

"The merge will happen, either democratically or undemocratically" - Bill Smallman, LCWD Director

Is this childish, or what?



Not that I'm suprised, considering the source. Talk about sore loosers.

Just get over it. Time to move on.



Katie Cullen from Lompico Canyon 4h ago
I voted yes. The outcome sickens me to know how much ignorance exists in this canyon! Not only the naysayers, but the non voters as well. One stinking vote!
Hey naysayers! Are you going to pay our bills now?!!!
There go our home values!

Now where have I seen that before....

Lompico water bond fails by one vote

By Calvin Men, Santa Cruz Sentinel

Posted: 02/27/15, 7:51 PM PST

FELTON >> The $3.2 million bond that would have cemented a merger between the San Lorenzo Valley Water District and the ailing Lompico Water District failed by less than half a percent — or about one vote.

Of the 516 votes, 343 backed the measure — 66.47 percent — and 173 voted against it — 33.53 percent. If one of the no votes been a yes or if three additional votes come in as yes, the bond would have passed, said Gail Pellerin, Santa Cruz County Clerk.


The rest of the story can be found HERE

Final Official Results for CFD No. 2 (Lompico Water) Special Election (Measure N)

It appears that Measure N has been defeated by a single vote.


CFD No. 2 (Lompico Water) Bond
1/1 100.00%

  Vote Count Percent
Yes    343     66.47%
No     173     33.53%
Total 516    100.00%


Never let anyone tell you that your vote doesn't count.





Results of LCC survey on measure N

Lompico residents overwelminly say that they have not received fair and unbiased information on the merge or bond.

How can anyone vote for these actions with incomplete information?

See the attached pdf file for the complete survey results.

REAL answers to the ongoing fear-mongering

  • “We will be paying the same rates as the rest of SLVWD”
  • “Lompico will have much lower rates as part of SLVWD”
  • “Lompicans will SAVE money”

We keep hearing this but have yet to see any proof that this will be the case. In fact, SLVWD has said on several occasions that Lompicans WILL pay more. They’ve mentioned using “teaser” or “introductory” rates to help insure the merge and bond are approved by Lompico then raising them later.

Proponents point to a SLVWD Board resolution as proof that we will pay the same rates but don’t tell you that resolutions are not legally binding and can be changed or revoked at any time by a simple majority vote by the board.

This is just another trick to get you to vote for the merge and bond.

  • “Lompico has to merge or it will burn to the ground”
  • “Lompico doesn’t have enough water to fight fires”

More fear mongering to get you to vote for a merge/bond.

The FACT is that Lompico hasn’t seen a large fire in, like, forever. Ok, maybe not that long but at least as long as the Lompico community has existed. We have our share of house fires in the canyon but, with houses in Lompico spread so far apart, it’s almost unknown for them to jump to another structure. The other reason is the redwoods. Redwood trees are VERY high in water content (as much as 500 gallons of water in each tree) so they are VERY hard to burn.

The FACT is that there has never been a case in Lompico where there wasn’t enough water to fight a fire.  

  • “SLVWD has a much larger staff and can handle emergencies better and faster”
  • “We keep having to have SLVWD fix things because Lompico water employees are useless”

Lompico Water has sufficient staff for the size district we have.

Per the SLVWD web page “The SLVWD serves more than 7300 metered connections”. They currently have 18 field employees. This is ONE field employee for every 405 customers (7300 / 18 = 405).

Lompico water has two field employees. That is ONE field employee for every 250 customers (500 / 2 = 250). The Lompico system is also much simpler and in many areas, newer, than SLVWD.

Lompico has MORE field staff per customer than SLVWD.

Either these people can’t do the math or they are hoping you don’t.

  • “Lompico field staff are unable to handle emergencies”

It’s funny how they have been able to handle the emergencies for the past 30 years but SUDDENLY,  just since this board took over and started pushing for a merge, it can’t. The FACT is that this board DOESN’T WANT them to because it’s counter-productive to their efforts to give our water district away. The worse they can make it all sound the more likely you will vote for a merge and bond.

Lompico water has sufficient field staff to handle normal day-to-day operations. No, they don’t have enough staff to handle every possible situation but I challenge you to show me a SINGLE business or governmental agency that does.

Law enforcement and Fire districts quite often depend on help from neighboring districts when events occur that are beyond the capabilities of local staff and resources to handle alone. This is normal and accepted practice.

There is nothing wrong with asking SLVWD, or another district, for help in an emergency.

  • “The current intertie isn’t enough. It HAS to be upgraded”

Per the State’s Sanitary survey report (July 29, 2014) all of our current water sources combined (wells + creek) can produce a maximum of 64gpm (gallons per minute). Without the creek we get a maximum 47gpm and the tanks are still staying full. Our regular water sources exceed the minimum day demand as required by the state.

The same report says that the existing emergency intertie can provide 70gpm. More than the maximum of all of our regular sources combined.

Why does the intertie have to be upgraded to a capacity of 250-350 gpm (as stated by Rick Rogers)?

Why does it need redundant pumps? It's supposed to be a backup system for the rare times that the regular system is operating in reduced capacity or demands exceed capacity. Why does the backup need a backup? What if both pumps fail? Maybe we should pay for a 3rd pump, or a 4th...


Tell me again how we can't possibly cut costs more

Proof that that are ways to cut costs further. All it takes is a board that's willing to think creatively and put some effort into it instead of taking the easy way out.

This is right here in the SF Bay Area.

A redwood water tank that held 100,000 gallons of water for her first 75 years finds new life in Retirement! Heritage Salvage has repurposed the old growth clear heart redwood that constituted a 30′ in diameter 20′ tall water tank and blanketed the Bay area. When Marin Municipal Water District in San Rafael requested proposals for removal of wooden water tanks, the project stalled when all bids were too high. Seeing the value and beauty of the redwood, Michael “Bug” Deakin, founder Heritage Salvage offers to take down the tank for one dollar.


The future of Lompico

Lompico is one in a dwindling group of water districts that can claim a sustainable water supply. Almost every other water district faces continuous growth in population, housing, business and recreation. They MUST continuously search for and acquire new sources of water to supply the growing demand. This is why we're seeing a lot of district buyouts and mergers. When demand outstrips supply they must either locate another source of water or force customers to reduce usage. The number of available traditional sources are finite. Eventually there won't be any more and customers will face the choice of drastic rationing or the huge expense of a non-traditional source like desalination. Several communities have tried desalination, pouring millions of dollars into it, only to abandon it as too costly and/or problematic. THIS document lists some of the concerns that have been raised about desalination.

Lompico, on the other hand, is not growing. There aren't any new home being built. There isn't any new demand being added. Hence, It doesn't need to keep looking for new sources, it only needs to maintain the sources it has. This has been sufficient for the past 30 years that the current system has existed, and beyond that with previous systems. In all that time Lompico has had to truck in water ONCE due to a failed well. More wells have been drilled since and we no longer face potential disaster if a single source fails.  Yet some people continue to use this one occurence as proof that we don't have enough water. The emergency intertie that was recently installed further reduces the possibility of Lompico not being able to get enough water to meet demand. Interties have been mandated by the state for all water districts and would have been put in even without a merge.

When Lompico merges with (or is taken over by) another district it will lose this distinction and becomes part of the unsustainable machine. Water WILL be shared. If Lompioc doesn't have enough water (very rare) the intertie will be used to pump water (if it's available) into Lompico. If Lompico is producing more water than there is local demand for (almost always) the intertie will be used to pump water OUT of Lompico. This is the whole reason for merging districts. To share the available water sources with everyone.

This means, as the rest of the areas served by SLV Water District continue to expand, there will be LESS water available for everyone, including Lompico.  As the rest of SLV finds itself with more and more deficit in water they will pump more and more water out of Lompico in order to share the pain. Lompico, even though its local sources are enough for its local demand, will be forced to reduce its usage so water can be pumped out to other parts of the SLV district. In addition as water becomes more scarce, and customers further reduce usage, SLV will have to continue to increase rates to cover the lost revenue.

I've heard people say that our water supply is not stable enough and this is going to hurt property value. I see just the opposite. If everyone else is having to tighten up on water, forcing more and more cuts, and Lompico has plenty, I don't think it will be Lompico that takes the hit.

I've heard people say that our water system is falling apart. Not so. The State and other professionals that have inspected the system all say that it is in pretty good shape. That's not saying that it doesn't need work. Maintenance has been neglected for some time and it will take some time to get caught up with it.

I've heard people say that our water is not safe. This is absolutely not true. Lompico's water has never failed a state water quality test. Yes, there are things that can, and should, be done to further insure the quality of our drinking water but again it's not as bad as some would have you believe.

30 years ago Lompico's water system was state of the art. Even today it is newer and in better condition that most of SLV water district. It is a simple system that relies primarily on gravity feed plus a few pumps to move water from the treatment plant up to the tanks. Because of this there isn't a lot that can go wrong. It's a good system that will serve us well far into the future.


So how much difference in cost between the bond and no bond?

Let's do a REAL comparison of what your cost will be between getting the bond and not getting the bond.

In our comparison we're only looking at what it will cost you (in addition to your regular water bill) without a bond vs what it will cost you (in addition to your regular water bill) with the proposed bond. You see, unlike the comparison sent out with the last bill, we are making a valid comparison. We don't talk about water "rates" because no one knows what our rates will be (except maybe SLVWD but they aren't telling). The Lompico water board is using SLVWD current rates as a comparison. Given that SLVWD has called them "introductory rates" and said that Lompican's WILL pay higher rates than the rest of their customers means that no one (again, except maybe SLVWD) can say with any amount of certainty what our rates will be.

The planned bond will cost us a total of about $8,000,000 paid for over a 30 year period.

The quotes we've acquired say we can do everything for about $1,200,000. These quotes are available for viewing online at

If we presume a 10 year period to accomplish the repairs, bi-monthly billing, 500 customers.

  NO on N   YES on N


1 $40 $240   $89 $533
2 $40 $240   $89 $533
3 $40 $240   $89 $533
4 $40 $240   $89 $533
5 $40 $240   $89 $533
6 $40 $240   $89 $533
7 $40 $240   $89 $533
8 $40 $240   $89 $533
9 $40 $240   $89 $533
10 $40 $240   $89 $533

Without the bond we're fully paid off after 10 years! But what about with the bond?

11 0 0   $89 $533
12 0 0   $89 $533
13 0 0   $89 $533
14 0 0   $89 $533
15 0 0   $89 $533
16 0 0   $89 $533
17 0 0   $89 $533
18 0 0   $89 $533
19 0 0   $89 $533
20 0 0   $89 $533
21 0 0   $89 $533
22 0 0   $89 $533
23 0 0   $89 $533
24 0 0   $89 $533
25 0 0   $89 $533
26 0 0   $89 $533
27 0 0   $89 $533
28 0 0   $89 $533
29 0 0   $89 $533
30 0 0   $89 $533

Whew, the bond is finally paid off!!!

It took 20 years longer and $10,600 more per customer to pay it off, even though we were paying more than double the 'no bond' installment every year.

Even if we shorten it to a 5-year repair plan, that doubles the "No Bond" per billing installment.  It's still less than with the bond and it's paid off in 5 years while you'd keep paying on the bond for an additional 25 years!

So what do YOU think is better?

  1. $20 more per month for 10 years.
    Total cost to YOU: $2,400
  2. $44.50 more per month for 30 years.
    Total cost to YOU: $15,990

I know what I would choose....

Their Numbers vs The REAL Numbers - Why such a difference?


The numbers used by the Lompico Water District's Board are numbers provided by San Lorenzo Valley Water District. SLVWD/LCWD has produced no supporting documents to justify these numbers. It's "Because we say so", and LCWD and their supporters repeat these numbers as "facts".

The REAL committee, on the other hand, has procured actual quotes from companies that sell and install the products we need to upgrade our water system. These quotes can be viewed under the "Costs to stay Independant" section on the left side of this page.

As you can plainly see the numbers provided by SLV are more than double the actual quotes provided.

The numbers used by LCWD for costs if we stay independant also use these highly inflated numbers.

LCWD says it would require a rate increase of $100 per billing period to stay independent. Well, using REAL (supported by quotes) numbers would cut that in half to $50 per billing period.

If we also go with a 7-10 year plan (instead of the 3-5 year compressed plan shown in the LCWD comparison) the needed rate increase drops even more.

Without the bond we won't be paying $8 MILLION dollars over a 30 year period for the $1.2 million needed to upgrade our water system.

Lompico Resident Cheryl Trapp Interviewed by KSCO


Subscribe to Front page feed