By Letters to the Editor, Village Life, May 17, 2015


In the midst of California’s worst drought in 100-plus years, EID Directors Alan Day and Greg Prada voted “no” on pursuing additional area of origin (i.e. our) water for the county at the board’s May 11 meeting. After giving lip service to the El Dorado Water and Power Authority’s continuing efforts to obtain 40,000 acre feet of water for the county, both directors showed their true colors. “No” more water.

Little support was provided for their “no” votes (i.e. three or four folks) as compared to the myriad of “yes” supporters that spoke at the meeting, including representatives from the chamber of commerce, the Alliance for Responsible Planning, Citizens for Water, the Farm Bureau and the Department of Agriculture. In addition, 52 “yes” and zero “no” e-mails were received by the board from those who work day jobs. Fortunately, EID Directors George, Osborne and Coco voted “yes” and the motion passed. It’s clear that Directors Day and Prada are only representing their special interests (i.e. not you). Now it’s up to the Board of Supervisors and the county water agency to approve the same.

In support of Director Day’s position, one El Dorado Hills customer did a great analysis using demographic data to project future water needs. Unfortunately, he used Day’s inaccurate water supply data of 64,000 acre feet (i.e. during normal years) versus EID’s actual water supply of only about 36,000 acre feet during our current drought year. As such, he was misled too. I felt bad for him. Day just smiled.

In 2013, EID customers used approximately 29,000 acre feet of water. The county (in total) used more. According to the governor’s conservation plan, we need to cut water use by 28 percent this year. The good news is that EID still has enough water to satisfy current customer demand. The bad news is that another few years of drought and all bets are off. There goes your kid’s and grandkid’s water future.

The question I kept asking myself was: “Why would Day and Prada oppose more water?” After the meeting, one person summed it up for me. “Prada votes no to get his name in the press (i.e. controversy). Mr. No for short. Day blindly follows him. Prada is anti-progress, anti-agriculture and anti-facts.” Remember Prada’s $49 small farm rate fiasco? Prada was off by a factor of 10 times according to EID’s own staff ($49 vs $514 per acre foot). Can the county afford such errors regarding our water future?

Day and Prada are out of touch with the mainstream voters of this county. They are mismanaging our resources. Please remember their “no” more water vote the next time you vote! More at



No More Water. Village Life, May 17, 2015.