Recall Vote Tuesday Will Settle Bitter Feud Over Water Board in Mountain Community

A dispute that has pitted neighbor against neighbor in Green Valley, a small, close-knit community in the mountains above Saugus, will culminate Tuesday when voters decide if they want to recall any or all of the five members of the local water board.

The special election was initiated in July when a group of residents, unhappy with the way the Green Valley County Water District board conducts its business, obtained the signatures of more than 200 of the area’s 405 registered voters on recall petitions. At the same time, seven candidates put their names on the ballot to replace the incumbents.

“This thing has split the whole community right down the middle,” said water board Chairman George C. Fulton, who described Green Valley as the kind of community in which residents always have pulled together, whether to defeat construction of a state prison proposed nearby or to raise money to help pay for an injured neighbor’s hospital bills.

Five of the seven challengers are running as a slate: Dean D. Hayes, an environmental test technician; Orick Ratzlaff, a retired builder; Eileen Hoenshell, a secretary and office manager; Martha Love, a buyer-merchandiser, and John Ameluxen, a retired school consultant.

Other Candidates

Also seeking to unseat the incumbents are Michael S. Murphy, an engineer, and contractor Carl Blevins.

Incumbents are Fulton, a retired engineer; Dallas E. Getz; Joseph Salinas; Michael S. Sonntag, the board’s vice chairman, and William M. Tibbett. Board members are paid $50 a month.

Each side has accused the other of being pro-growth.

The water district, which serves about 500 homes, was formed by Green Valley residents in 1978 when they decided to buy the local water company from a commercial vendor.

The group secured a $400,000 grant from the state, in addition to a $500,000 loan, to complete the transaction. Homeowners then assessed themselves $42 a parcel annually to pay back the state loan and set a $5,000 water-meter installation fee to cover operating costs.

Until about a year ago, when the feud began to develop, the board apparently had governed the district’s business to the satisfaction of most residents.

But that began to unravel after a meeting last February at which many residents, concerned about what they called the board’s “sloppy budget keeping,” were angered at what they saw as arrogance on the part of the board.

“They told us . . . that we had nothing to say about what they did,” challenger Ratzlaff said. “The community wants to have a say on the major expenditures.”

Fulton, referring to the same meeting, said the board had limited some discussion by residents in an attempt to conduct a businesslike meeting.

Too Many Meters

Residents at the time also were concerned that the board was issuing permits to install too many water meters, thus allowing more construction than residents wanted. In June, the board adopted an ordinance limiting the issuance of water-meter permits to one a month, but by that time the recall movement already was afoot.

Ratzlaff contended that, in any case, the disputed ordinance has not controlled growth because, before the board passed the law, it allowed many annexations to the district and permitted installation of 55 water meters in 1986 alone. He said the board, by implying that there would be a shortage of permits to install water meters, created “a landslide of building.”

Fulton, who points to the fact that local real estate broker Rick Dulmage and developer Blevins favor the recall rather than the incumbents, denied Ratzlaff’s allegation. He said the board is intent on controlling growth.

“If we build too fast, we’re going to have to suffer the consequences of ground-water contamination,” he said, because sewage from septic tanks used by homeowners may eventually seep into the district’s five wells, which supply the community’s water.

Other Objections

Some residents also objected to the board’s attempt to provide the district with a new office. The district’s two employees, a general manager and a secretary, work out of an old real estate office next to the general store on Spunky Canyon Road, Green Valley’s only commercial street.

The building has outdated equipment and no filing space or restroom, Fulton said. He said employees use the restroom in the store next door.

But recall proponents said they want the district’s money spent on laying new water pipe needed by residents.

“The system is not complete,” Ratzlaff said. “It won’t hurt the employees to use the facilities next door a little longer. They’re about a hundred feet away.”

Recall proponents also have other complaints, among them that the board held secret meetings, refused to open some of its records to the public and raised taxes to $60 a parcel in 1985.

‘Miscalculated Needs’

“Well, we were a new board and we miscalculated our needs a little,” Fulton said of the tax increase. “We want taxes cut back to $42 before we build an office building.”

Whatever the outcome, Fulton said, the day after the election the community plans to hold a bonfire to burn all the campaign signs that have appeared on Green Valley streets.

“It’ll be a symbolic bonfire to bury the hatchet,” he said. “I hope it can go back to being the way it was.”