Letter: Who could export water from the Paso Robles groundwater basin?
To the editor,
If you want to protect our water and prevent it from being exported then you should vote yes on Measures A & B.
The locally-elected water district is the only agency prohibited from selling our water and all candidates for the water district board have publicly stated they are against exporting water.
The proponents of the district and the overliers have made it clear that they opposed water export. LAFCO slammed the water export door by making the district’s power to export inactive. Exporting water by the district for any reason is prohibited.
How about the current basin management agency, the county? The county has an ordinance that allows for the export of water, but it takes a permit that is difficult to qualify for. The supervisors have wiggle room if they want to grant a permit to export water or change the rules.
How about the state? If the state becomes the basin management agency there is nothing to keep the state from exporting water any time it chooses.
The locally-elected water district is the only basin management agency prohibited from selling our water. A yes vote on Measures A and B means our water stays where it should…in the basin.
Harry Hilliard
Paso Robles
Thank you, Mr. Hilliard. Great points, one and all. We need the funding of Measure A and the approval of the District in Measure B to ensure that our water stays where it is. And is managed by the most local representation available to those of who live in the Basin.
Yes, protect our water from export. Vote Yes on Measures A and B!
But this "district" is proposing $1 million over the next 5 years for administrative costs with no water services? And why are corporations outside of the basin contributing tens of thousands of dollars to support the formation of this district? That's enough to tell me that something "don't smell right…"
What are called outside corporations are farming landowners, many vineyards which is the primary Ag crop now. They are insuring their future water supply. They are landowners just like the rest of us and realize that a district is the most rational approach.
The letter expresses logical thinking.
The county did what it could (requiring permits) to stop the exportation of water, but in California a water district can buy and sell water by virtue of being a water district. So, if a permit is not granted by the county, then the water district can appeal through the court system and they will win as state law trumps county law.
Very accurate and logical which is very rare in this very important discussion on managing our most important resource.
I am stunned at the lies and misinformation that is being presented in opposition to local management. It sickens me to listen to KPRL in the morning. The same people calling in every morning with the same BS that first of all there is not a problem, second of all that the City of Paso Robles is the problem and third that the County can handle what is required by SGMA. I guess if I was retired on a great pension like these guys calling in it would be easy to criticize. But you would think that they would do their homework. No. I wish that they would spend their retirement years doing something more positive for the community.
Sorry to get off your positive analysis but am deeply disappointed in the other negative discussions proposing the County or State managing our basin.
Local control is the answer.
Larry, if you don't like what you hear on KPRL, don't listen! We have done our homework and have learned that while the district promoters are saying they are totaly opposed to any water exports, they are in total support of water banking which is a way of selling our water without calling it an export. Go to pr-win.org and read "Not All Water Stored Underground Is Groundwater" a report from the Goldn Gate Univerity Environmental Law Journal. There you will find exactly what this proposed district is all about.
Thank you, Mr. Hilliard. Great points, one and all. We need the funding of Measure A and the approval of the District in Measure B to ensure that our water stays where it is. And is managed by the most local representation available to those of who live in the Basin.
Yes, protect our water from export. Vote Yes on Measures A and B!
But this "district" is proposing $1 million over the next 5 years for administrative costs with no water services? And why are corporations outside of the basin contributing tens of thousands of dollars to support the formation of this district? That's enough to tell me that something "don't smell right…"
What are called outside corporations are farming landowners, many vineyards which is the primary Ag crop now. They are insuring their future water supply. They are landowners just like the rest of us and realize that a district is the most rational approach.
The letter expresses logical thinking.
The county did what it could (requiring permits) to stop the exportation of water, but in California a water district can buy and sell water by virtue of being a water district. So, if a permit is not granted by the county, then the water district can appeal through the court system and they will win as state law trumps county law.
Very accurate and logical which is very rare in this very important discussion on managing our most important resource.
I am stunned at the lies and misinformation that is being presented in opposition to local management. It sickens me to listen to KPRL in the morning. The same people calling in every morning with the same BS that first of all there is not a problem, second of all that the City of Paso Robles is the problem and third that the County can handle what is required by SGMA. I guess if I was retired on a great pension like these guys calling in it would be easy to criticize. But you would think that they would do their homework. No. I wish that they would spend their retirement years doing something more positive for the community.
Sorry to get off your positive analysis but am deeply disappointed in the other negative discussions proposing the County or State managing our basin.
Local control is the answer.
Larry, if you don't like what you hear on KPRL, don't listen! We have done our homework and have learned that while the district promoters are saying they are totaly opposed to any water exports, they are in total support of water banking which is a way of selling our water without calling it an export. Go to pr-win.org and read "Not All Water Stored Underground Is Groundwater" a report from the Goldn Gate Univerity Environmental Law Journal. There you will find exactly what this proposed district is all about.