In case you were wondering

The District has posted a PDF with answers to all those frequently-asked questions about the amendments to the District Act.

Why wasn’t this amendment made
during [the] 2006 District Act change?

The 2006 District Act amendment ended the
duplicative county oversight of the Water District’s
budget and other procedural holdovers from a
40-year-old political arrangement between the Water
District and the County.

During discussions, the Water District board
requested that the County Board of Supervisors
continue to appoint two members to the Water
District board to maintain a seven-member board.
The County Board of Supervisors preferred a clean
split from the Water District and not to be involved in
determining the district’s board governance model.

Since the amendment was co-sponsored by the
Water District and the County, part of the agreement
between the two was to only deal with the severance
from County oversight and a minor amendment
relating to open space.

In view of the current and future challenges,
expanded responsibilities, larger population and
rising community expectations, the Water District
Board of Directors determined that there was a need
for a seven-member board. The board decided to
pursue it in future legislation, resulting in AB 2212.

I’m unpersuaded.