A new agency formed to address flooding in the Pajaro Valley is already splintering.

Just two years after its formation, the Pajaro Regional Flood Management Agency is already at risk of splintering.

At a meeting on Wednesday, June 14, PRFMA’s board considered a request from one its member agencies – the Santa Cruz County Flood Control and Water Conservation District – Zone 7A – for a “one-time adjustment” to the funds it provides PRFMA for the upcoming fiscal year. The request was to reduce its contribution for this year by 50 percent – from $951,215 to $489,869.

This comes just six months after the Zone 7A board of directors adopted a cost-sharing agreement with PRFMA on Dec. 6.

PRFMA Executive Director Mark Strudley made a request for Zone 7A’s funds in March, and another request in April. Kent Edler, Santa Cruz County’s assistant director of public works, responded a few weeks later, saying other expenditures took priority – there were four drainage projects the county wanted to pursue right away, which shot up to nine projects by May.

During the June 14 meeting, Matt Machado, Santa Cruz County’s director of public works, clarified that these drainage projects weren’t due to damage from this past winter’s storms, therefore were ineligible for funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. But he added the storm clarified the need for the projects, which he characterized as “deferred maintenance.”

The other four public agencies that entered into a joint powers authority to form PRFMA include the counties of Santa Cruz and Monterey, the Monterey County Water Resources Agency and the city of Watsonville.

Board members representing the latter three agencies were none too pleased by Zone 7A’s request.

Ari Parker, representing Watsonville, pointed out the deferred maintenance was something known about before Zone 7A entered in the contract, and asked: “What’s to stop you from doing this next year?” She added, “I worry that we’re in our infancy. We already started behind, and this is moving us further behind.”

As the back-and-forth continued, Machado added that another option would be for Zone 7A to cancel its cost-sharing agreement with PRFMA altogether. “There are provisions [in the contract],” he said, that would allow for it.

After discussion about whether that would even be possible, PRFMA’s attorney, Gary Bell, said, “It would be difficult to withdraw.”

Machado told the board: “[Santa Cruz] County Counsel has weighed in on this and they have a vastly different opinion than what you just heard.”

Monterey County and MCWRA’s representatives to the board – county supervisors Glenn Church and Luis Alejo – echoed similar concerns to Parker’s.

“You made assurances this isn’t going to happen again, but there’s a little bit of a credibility gap here,” Church said. Alejo added that he wanted the agency to start off on a “strong footing,” and that the approximately $500,000 represented a “significant amount” for PRFMA’s capital reserves. (The loss of half the Zone 7A funds means there would only be $1.2 million in capital reserves for a whole host of planned projects, totaling tens of millions.)

Alejo, who is also an attorney, noted that attorneys disagree about how to interpret documents all the time, and that ultimately, those disagreements may need to be settled through litigation. The tense discussion made it sound like that’s the direction this could be heading.

Parker told Machado: “I did not like that you said if we didn’t play nice then you were just going to walk away. I want you to understand that.”

Machado responded, “If we can’t work together with similar community issues and concerns that we can’t work jointly to resolve, then I don’t know what choice the county [of Santa Cruz] or [Zone] 7A will have.”

The PRFMA board ultimately voted 3-2 against giving Zone 7A its requested discount, with representatives for Zone 7A and Santa Cruz County outvoted by Parker, Alejo and Church.