Much has happened since the District first initiated the groundwater pump charge in 2007. We members of the Board of Directors have found ourselves in places we never thought we would be. We have gone from public hearings with angry people standing in the back yelling "Lynch the bastards!" to sitting in a court room hearing arguments during a trial, to kicking up dust along a campaign trail. Meetings, which were for many years quiet and boring, have turned hostile and gut wrenching. It has been a long two years, and there isn't a single person associated with the Board or staff that isn't asking himself if the cause is really worth the level of frustration we now experience. There is no one on the Board of Directors that does not regret the mis-steps we took to initiate the groundwater pump charge in early 2007. Threats from the State Water Resources Control Board to revoke our water right and the dire need to raise revenues to implement recharge projects and district improvements clouded our perspective and caused us to rush. This resulted in anger and confusion from the constituents and gave the appearance that the Board was attempting to pass a new charge in the dark when no one was looking. Nothing could be farther from the truth, and we are very sorry for the bad impressions we have left and the misconceptions we have fostered. In hindsight, the path always seems clearer. The proper way to fund projects to recharge our water basin would have been to take whatever time necessary to educate voters about the declining state of our aquifer and explain our concerns related to the State Water Resources Control Board's threats of revocation of our water right and adjudication of our basin. If we had done this properly, we probably could have accomplished our goal and by now be on our way. Instead, we continue to explain our actions again and again, back-pedal and put out brush fires. The Board is now trying to pull together a strategy for proceeding with some forum of revenue raising device for 2009-2010. What we want is for the people of our district to have a say in the matter, and we are examining ways to make this possible. And while we recognize that it will never be possible to make everyone happy about the outcome, we are very hopeful that if we are able to slow the process down, there will be less confusion and distrust and more support. What needs to be stressed, however, is this must be done in accordance with the law. One might think that this would be very simple, but it is not. Water conservation districts are governed by a set of laws with overlapping constitutional requirements. While one set of laws are clear and specific on this matter, the constitutional mandates of Proposition 218 are not. The latter, having been changed with judicial interpretation, is ambiguous open to interpretation from many sides. I encourage our constituents to join us and offer ideas and encouragement. We all have a vested interest in one of our most precious resources: our ground water. Unless measures to correct the overdraft, our children and grandchildren will see a vastly different landscape than the one we now enjoy. That job falls on all of our shoulders. ` ` ` ` `   =/2$   (3/3/9 3/3/9