Name: Brent Parsons

Place of residence: Sutter Creek

Present water source: Amador Water Agency

Years in district: 19

Employment situation: Own and operate Sutter Creek Gallery and Pioneer Hardware

Related experience: 16 years on Sutter Creek City Council and Amador Regional Sanitation Board

Educational background: BA in art/science, lifetime teaching credential

Reasons for candidacy: I believe I have some skills that lend themselves to public decision making (intellectual curiosity, ability to think on my feet, tolerance for diverse opinions, an even temperament, consensus building). I'll miss my city council, but feel life needs change to realize a potential (or a limitation).

Changes you would make: I would work to improve communication between the agency and the people it serves and the other political bodies it must deal with. I believe cooperation is a byproduct of trust. Capital projects have to be carefully scrutinized and phased in a manner that will best guarantee that costs are allocated to new users.

What private sector jobs have you held and for how long?

I taught fifth through eighth grades for five years before taking what I thought would be a temporary break to pursue art. I started a picture framing business in Campbell and sold it in 1989, when I purchased my gallery in Sutter Creek. I acquired the Pioneer Hardware in 1994 and continue to operate both small businesses.

What public sector jobs have you held and for how long?

I've been on the city council in Sutter Creek and the Amador Regional Sanitation Authority Board since 1992. I've been mayor and chairman of ARSA about half that time.

What are your "hot button" issues?

I'm not fired up with an agenda to push except the acknowledgment that water and wastewater issues are among the most critical facing Amador, California and the world. Conservation and cooperation on a wastewater and recycling plan are my top priorities. I believe an elected official who listens, researches and questions is much more effective than a one- or two-issue extremist. But I listen to them, too.

Do you think there is adequate water for future growth in Amador County?

According to an agency study using a 2.9 percent growth rate, we'll max out our Mokelumne water rights in 2030. The actual growth rate might differ, but at some point in the not so distant future at the present consumption rate we will run out of water. Fairly monumental decisions will have to be made regarding growth similar in scope to piping the ditch. The only way to increase our water supply is to better use and reuse what we have and/or pursue some expensive and controversial increased storage projects on the Mokelumne.

Do you favor a federal classification of any part of the Mokelumne River as "wild and scenic"?

I am leaning toward supporting the wild and scenic designation for the two river sections eligible. There are interests fighting the classification, presumably for two reasons: 1. a fear of losing local control and riverside property rights; 2. the elimination of increased storage options on the river, which caps growth. According to a recent AWA study, remaining service capacity from the Amador Transmission Pipeline/upgraded Tanner plant will be 8,000 acre feet per year or enough water for 16,000 dwelling units. An effective conservation/recycling program will undoubtedly increase that potential. I believe that's not a restrictive growth limit. You never like to reduce your options, but in this case, preserving a portion of a vanishing natural asset might be worth it.

Do you belong to any local organizations?

Not really. I'm not much of a joiner. I stay quite active and socially involved, but I don't often rub elbows with the movers and shakers.

How do you feel about the water agency's involvement in wastewater systems?

It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. I wonder if AWA could rewind the tape back to when they agreed to take over the county's sewer service whether they would make the same decision. Wastewater is a challenge even beyond the fact that a leak or spill is not just wet, it's toxic. There should be an advantage with less duplication of engineering, administration, planning and O&M (operation and maintenance), but I'm not convinced there is. The cities, already reliant on the AWA for "water in," have been reluctant to increase dependence with their "water out." Sutter Creek and AWA have recently shown a renewed spirit of cooperation. I could further facilitate that.

Should the water agency get involved in the land use decision making process, or should it maintain its existing policy of simply responding to requests for water and/or wastewater service once a project has been submitted or approved?

The water agency's ability to provide adequate water and, in some cases, sewer service is critical to project approval. A new requirement for service, especially for larger projects, should include a verifiable commitment to conservation and recycling. Due to a diminishing water supply, there is a need for countywide coordination in identifying where, for the common good, growth should be located. Criteria should include access to transportation and service infrastructure as well as impacts to visual assets, agriculture, and sprawl inducement. The present sales tax system would probably preclude rational cooperation on commercial planning, but agreement on residential growth should be obtainable. AWA should have representation on the regional planning board.