Debbie Arnold criticizes Countywide Water Conservation Program
–By Fifth District San Luis Obispo County Supervisor Debbie Arnold
The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors recently took under consideration a proposed Countywide Water Conservation Program (CWWCP). The CWWCP was being offered as a tool to manage water basins countywide. I am concerned that using this county planning document is not the most efficient way to manage the basins, in part because it does not include all water users and primarily restricts the rural land owners.
Currently, we have three tools available to manage our water basins:
1) County Land Use (CWWCP);
2) Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA); and
3) Adjudication.
The CWWCP proposes regulatory solutions, creating an inequitable situation amongst property owners by mandating any new development pay offset fees. CWWCP only applies to some water users in the basin. Both SGMA and adjudication are more inclusive tools to manage the basins because they take into consideration all the water users, creating a more fair distribution of water.
It should be noted that after a two year moratorium via the Urgency Ordinance for the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin, it has been reported that only five acre-feet of water was saved through the offset program. Those that can afford the cost of this added regulation have the ability to improve their property, while those that cannot afford the added costs find themselves restricted.
My concerns with the CWWCP included the lack of any economic analysis being done, the added cost of regulation to small agricultural producers and rural landowners, and the use of deed restrictions on private property. Instead of creating more regulation for property owners and asking County staff to spend more time and money on enforcement of the CWWCP, it was my hope that we would use our resources to work on our State mandated groundwater management plan. I believe a SGMA compliant groundwater plan is the best means to create a fair distribution of water for all users while ensuring that our basin is balanced.
Not much point in working on a sustainable groundwater plan if there's no longer enough groundwater left to affordably pump it from the basin. I haven't seen any solutions for putting water back in the ground which will improve the basin(s) within a foreseeable time span, meaning many generations. Change is difficult, and seldom fair, when it requires sacrifice. Those with the least resources are always the hardest hit—that's reality. No amount of procrastination or lack of foresight will bring substantial relief to folks dependent on the basin. In fact, waiting to enact controls just prolongs a history of bad decisions and willl make it that much harder for basin residents later on. The Supervisors have been elected to respond to immediate as well as future community needs, not dally about looking for perfect solutions while the barn is burning down.
A very well presented argument in favor of conservation efforts rather than regulation. SGMA seems designed to be more fair to all interests.
Mrs. Arnold seems to foget that the CWWCP was designed to continue the "time out" of the Urgency Ordinance until a management plan for the Basin can be put into place. As to the 5 acre-feet of savings, it was made clear by staff that it was 5 acre-feet that was used for offsets, and that the amount actually saved was probably more but difficult to determine because that savings would depend on how many people chose not to expand or create new crop production and so didn't apply for an offset. The ordinance is not intended to save water – it is intended to stop the hemorrhaging. Additionally, she mentions adjudication but doesn't expand on the fact that it will take YEARS before a court decision will take place, and any eventual court ordered management will have to comply with SGMA.
If she hadn't made the City Council agree to the "exemptions" on the Moritorium, more water could have been saved. The Tribune published the names of people who had received "exemptions" and there were many. One of them is across the street from us and it is a huge well – the rig is giant and the well piping looks like 18". They have been working on this well since last spring. This company is a large farming operation from the valley, where the water is almost used up. Now they are coming here. In reviewing the stipulations for exemptions, we can't imagine how they even qualified. Lots of lawyers. That well is really going to be sucking the water out of the ground. This canyon is already having lots of water problems and this is really not going to help. We are tired of all these groups and their ideas on "fair" water distribution. Just stop the well drilling and we can save our county and what property values we have left.
More government involvement where none is needed. Misinformation rears its ugly head again.
Not much point in working on a sustainable groundwater plan if there's no longer enough groundwater left to affordably pump it from the basin. I haven't seen any solutions for putting water back in the ground which will improve the basin(s) within a foreseeable time span, meaning many generations. Change is difficult, and seldom fair, when it requires sacrifice. Those with the least resources are always the hardest hit—that's reality. No amount of procrastination or lack of foresight will bring substantial relief to folks dependent on the basin. In fact, waiting to enact controls just prolongs a history of bad decisions and willl make it that much harder for basin residents later on. The Supervisors have been elected to respond to immediate as well as future community needs, not dally about looking for perfect solutions while the barn is burning down.
A very well presented argument in favor of conservation efforts rather than regulation. SGMA seems designed to be more fair to all interests.
Mrs. Arnold seems to foget that the CWWCP was designed to continue the "time out" of the Urgency Ordinance until a management plan for the Basin can be put into place. As to the 5 acre-feet of savings, it was made clear by staff that it was 5 acre-feet that was used for offsets, and that the amount actually saved was probably more but difficult to determine because that savings would depend on how many people chose not to expand or create new crop production and so didn't apply for an offset. The ordinance is not intended to save water – it is intended to stop the hemorrhaging. Additionally, she mentions adjudication but doesn't expand on the fact that it will take YEARS before a court decision will take place, and any eventual court ordered management will have to comply with SGMA.
If she hadn't made the City Council agree to the "exemptions" on the Moritorium, more water could have been saved. The Tribune published the names of people who had received "exemptions" and there were many. One of them is across the street from us and it is a huge well – the rig is giant and the well piping looks like 18". They have been working on this well since last spring. This company is a large farming operation from the valley, where the water is almost used up. Now they are coming here. In reviewing the stipulations for exemptions, we can't imagine how they even qualified. Lots of lawyers. That well is really going to be sucking the water out of the ground. This canyon is already having lots of water problems and this is really not going to help. We are tired of all these groups and their ideas on "fair" water distribution. Just stop the well drilling and we can save our county and what property values we have left.
More government involvement where none is needed. Misinformation rears its ugly head again.