One Man’s Opinion: The County Must Take Responsibility for Its Special Districts

By Stanley Bissmeyer, Candidate for District 1 Supervisor

Between 1969 and 1971, Mariposa County assumed responsibility for water and sewer systems serving Coulterville and Lake Don Pedro. They also accepted responsibility for Mariposa Pines and Yosemite West. The purpose was to protect public health, support community development and provide reliable management of essential infrastructure.

In Coulterville, inadequate infrastructure had prompted a building moratorium. Establishing a County Service Area helped development resume. In Don Pedro, county oversight helped address wastewater requirements. Centralized management through Public Works was intended to coordinate operations, maintenance, emergency responses and funding for improvements.

The county accepted responsibility then. In my opinion, it must accept responsibility now.

Funding and Accountability

Proposition 13 changed how local property taxes were collected and distributed. Later, the state shifted local property-tax revenues toward school funding through the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund, reducing its own funding obligations. I consider that a transfer of financial burdens onto local government.

Proposition 218 subsequently strengthened taxpayer protections, including the ability to protest certain proposed fee increases. These funding constraints matter, but they do not excuse inadequate planning or deferred maintenance.

Property owners have opposed proposed increases that, in some cases, would push combined base water and sewer charges beyond $750 monthly. For many households, that is simply unaffordable.

Residents also question why years of stagnant fees and neglected infrastructure should suddenly become their financial emergency. That is a fair question.

Failure Should Not Be the Answer

Financially troubled districts may face restructuring, consolidation or other intervention. My concern is that failure could mean reduced local control without resolving the underlying question: What responsibility does the county bear for the condition of systems it manages?

I cannot establish whether this situation resulted from neglect, poor judgment or deliberate decisions. But residents should not have to prove intent before receiving answers and assistance.

Presenting homeowners with a choice between unaffordable rates and financial collapse is unacceptable. Nor should county management escape scrutiny while ratepayers shoulder the consequences.

A Different Solution

I believe the county should begin by forgiving district loans associated with failures for which county management bears responsibility, where legally permissible. Assistance to correct those failures should not become another long-term burden on residents.

Next, available county funds—including legally available property-tax, surplus or Transient Occupancy Tax revenue—should help stabilize these systems. My goal would be to limit routine rate increases to a reasonable cost-of-living measure, with transparent accounting of any additional needs.

Districts should then pursue grants and affordable infrastructure loans to modernize their systems. Borrowing must remain manageable; replacing one unaffordable obligation with another solves nothing.

Public Works must also be held accountable through enforceable maintenance schedules, financial reporting, reserve planning and clear performance standards. Residents deserve to know what their money supports and whether promised work is completed.

Finally, the county should pursue a lawful funding arrangement that combines reasonable user fees with tax support, rather than insisting these small rural systems survive on customer charges alone. Changing a label is not enough; the funding policy must change.

In my opinion, treating the enterprise model as an excuse to avoid county responsibility is a copout. These systems protect public health and sustain our communities. Their future requires shared responsibility—not simply a larger bill handed to homeowners.