Adjudication of our basin does not solve our groundwater problems
Letter to the editor
By Bob Brown
Paso Robles
Laurie Gage’s fact-based analysis which exposed the fallacy that adjudicated basins are better managed obviously struck a nerve with the litigants who have filed the quiet title lawsuit. While they are oblivious to the fact that many believe they possess a selfish sense of entitlement by being more concerned about their rights than their sense of community, they repeatedly try to convince us of all the grand things a judge will do for the Paso Robles Basin. As cover for their unpopular approach, they accuse me, my fellow PRAAGS board members and PRO Water Equity of creating clandestine schemes to sell water for a profit. This is baseless conspiracy theory nonsense, which is not supported by any facts or proof.
I am as concerned as anyone about protecting my water rights and no one I know wants to lose them. However, the legal landscape for well pumping has changed almost overnight. This comes with the enactment of a new state law called the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, also known as Pavley-Dickinson. This has caught the litigants completely off guard as it was not even in draft form when their lawsuit was filed in 2013. If that weren’t enough, two recent court rulings – one in Siskiyou County and the other in the Russian River Watershed – could become the “canaries in the coal mine” for even more dramatic changes to state water law.
In January of 2015, Pavley-Dickinson requires us to begin managing our basin so that it is sustainable. Waiting years for a court to decide is therefore no longer an option. Another stubborn fact is that under the new law, appropriators and overliers are required to cooperate with each other to manage the basin’s groundwater. If we don’t, the new laws allow the state to intervene and do it for us, well before any court would be able to act. Why then do the litigants have to use the courts to force the cities and service districts to do something they must do anyway under these new laws?
Contrary to what some believe, adjudication does not guarantee a successful outcome. Every time we decide to use the courts, we want justice for us, not the other guy, but it doesn’t always work that way. To get their justice, the litigants must prove that the right to their water has been hindered by the appropriators (the cities, service districts and the county).
If the appropriators can prove they were pumping during times when the wells in the basin were pumping more than was being recharged annually over time, they win. The long awaited 300 page Paso Basin Groundwater Model Update Draft Report could be another body blow to the litigant’s case. It states that we have been pumping almost 2,500 acre feet more per year out of the basin on average than what is put back in since 1981.
One thing adjudication does do is force the rest of us into their lawsuit whether we like it or not. You will be forced to retain your own lawyer and pay them handsomely to defend yourself. Further, adjudication does nothing to bring in additional sources of water as the court only rules on who gets how much water.
Don’t think for a minute that the court will not be looking closely at these new laws before it rules. Once we demonstrate compliance with Pavley-Dickinson, would not they use our local plan as the template for its decision? After all is said and done, they will have incurred millions in lawyer fees (as will the rest of us), the defendants will have spent millions of our tax dollars and we will wind up in about the same place a decade or more from now. What then will the litigants have won?
Lastly, the litigants have pitted neighbor against neighbor and that is just plain wrong. It’s time to stop these silly conspiracy accusations. To anyone who is unsure about any schemes to sell our water, my colleagues and I are more than willing to meet at any time to openly and honestly explain why this cannot and should not happen. In the meantime, I’m hopeful the other 90 plus percent of the landowners will come together and work on local solutions to manage our basin.
Then just strike it from the bill. The County supervisors had the opportunity to do that, and did not. The bill has all the language for someone to come in and pump our water for sale. That is the fact, and proof you are trying to disclaim. And by the way, how is it legal to count as a yes vote if a landowner doesn't vote at all?
In Santa Maria those that joined a quit title action ( it only went to the court because of the response from the cities named) property values are much higher than those that did not. As to millions of dollars, I only pay based on the number of acres, and it is less money per year that a bottle of wine. My neighbors are excited to be given the chance to tell the court they are not giving up the right granted by the state of California to the water and Quite Title stays with the land. whole neighborhoods are joining, not fighting over it as you claim.
I believe you are referring to AB 2453 which it appears you are confusing with the Pavley-Dickinson bills I to which I referred. That said, the County is working on drafting an ordinance to prevent the export of water which I, PRAAGS and everyone else I know, fully and equivocally support. There is specific wording in AB 2453 which suspends the protest vote which I think you are referring to. Therefore it will take a majority of those who vote to form the district. Consequently, a non vote will not be counted as a yes vote. The California State Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program lists the Santa Maria basin with an overall basin ranking of 24.0 compared to the Paso Basin's 23.3. The higher the score the more at risk the basin is. Millions of dollars were spent in Santa Maria on lawyers and that is the reality.
Bob Brown ,
This is the paragraph that address ground water extraction. Clearly it will be allowed, and fees collected on if this goes forward. This is cut and pasted from the summary. It will be only a matter of time before the greedy use this to push through permission to extract water. There is billions of dollars to be made by controlling the basin, they will not mind spending a few million to sue for the right under this provision to extract water.
"Groundwater management. This bill allows, if the board determines, that groundwater management activities are necessary in order to improve or protect the quantity or quality of groundwater supplies within a groundwater basin or aquifer by ordinance, exercise any of the following powers:
A. Require conservation practices and measures within the affected portion of its territory.
B. Control groundwater extractions by regulating, limiting, or suspending extractions from extraction facilities, the construction of new extraction facilities, the enlarging of existing extraction facilities, and the reactivation of abandoned extraction facilities.
C. Commence and prosecute legal actions to enjoin unreasonable uses or methods of use of water within the district or outside the territory of the district to the extent those uses or methods of use adversely affect the groundwater supply within the district.
D. Impose spacing requirements on new extraction facility construction to minimize well interference.
E. Impose reasonable operating regulations on extraction facilities to minimize well interference, including requiring pumpers to operate on a rotation basis.
F. Require extraction facilities to be registered with the district within 30 days of notice being given to the operator of the extraction facility.
G. Require that the operator of a registered extraction facility provide the district annually with the following information regarding the extraction facility:
(1) The name and address of the operator of the extraction facility.
(2) The name and address of the owner of the land upon which the extraction facility is located.
(3) A description of the equipment associated with the extraction facility.
(4) The location of the water extraction facility.
H. Require extraction facilities to be equipped with water flow measuring devices installed and calibrated by the district or, at the district’s option, by the extraction facility operator.
Groundwater Extraction Charges. This bill allows by ordinance, the district to levy groundwater extraction charges, including volumetric charges intended to provide an incentive for reduced water use, on the extraction of groundwater from all water extraction facilities within the territory of the district for the purposes of paying the costs of initiating, carrying on, and completing any of the powers, purposes, and groundwater management activities described in this bill. Any groundwater extraction charges shall be uniform for groundwater extraction within the territory of the district.
This bill provides that the monies collected by the district shall be available for expenditures by the district to carry out its groundwater management functions.
All monies collected by the district pursuant to this bill shall be available for expenditure by the district to carry out its groundwater management functions pursuant to this bill. "
I believe you are still a bit confused. The three Pavley-Dickinson bills (SB 1168, SB 1319 and AB 1739) contain the same powers and authority as those in the AB 2453. Completely take away AB 2453 and you are still faced with the same regulations. Those three bills are now laws that apply to all basins in the State. No one locally had anything to do with these bills. For the first time in history the STATE WILL NOW REGULATE ALL GROUNDWATER in the State, NOT JUST HERE. The law requires local agencies implement these powers so that basins are sustainable. It is not optional.
Again, doing nothing or waiting a decade for a judge to rule is now off the table. It is because of these three bills that this is so; not AB 2453. It will be up to the 4,400 landowners in the basin to decide if they want a water district, run by locally elected people who must own land or be registered to vote in the basin; continue to allow the Flood Control District to implement these new laws when 3 of the 5 don't represent us, or the State comes in to do it for us. Those are the only three options. If the litigants want to keep spending their money, it is their choice. Forcing me to spend my own money as they bring me into this mess is what I object to.
Then just strike it from the bill. The County supervisors had the opportunity to do that, and did not. The bill has all the language for someone to come in and pump our water for sale. That is the fact, and proof you are trying to disclaim. And by the way, how is it legal to count as a yes vote if a landowner doesn't vote at all?
In Santa Maria those that joined a quit title action ( it only went to the court because of the response from the cities named) property values are much higher than those that did not. As to millions of dollars, I only pay based on the number of acres, and it is less money per year that a bottle of wine. My neighbors are excited to be given the chance to tell the court they are not giving up the right granted by the state of California to the water and Quite Title stays with the land. whole neighborhoods are joining, not fighting over it as you claim.
I believe you are referring to AB 2453 which it appears you are confusing with the Pavley-Dickinson bills I to which I referred. That said, the County is working on drafting an ordinance to prevent the export of water which I, PRAAGS and everyone else I know, fully and equivocally support. There is specific wording in AB 2453 which suspends the protest vote which I think you are referring to. Therefore it will take a majority of those who vote to form the district. Consequently, a non vote will not be counted as a yes vote. The California State Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program lists the Santa Maria basin with an overall basin ranking of 24.0 compared to the Paso Basin's 23.3. The higher the score the more at risk the basin is. Millions of dollars were spent in Santa Maria on lawyers and that is the reality.
Bob Brown ,
This is the paragraph that address ground water extraction. Clearly it will be allowed, and fees collected on if this goes forward. This is cut and pasted from the summary. It will be only a matter of time before the greedy use this to push through permission to extract water. There is billions of dollars to be made by controlling the basin, they will not mind spending a few million to sue for the right under this provision to extract water.
"Groundwater management. This bill allows, if the board determines, that groundwater management activities are necessary in order to improve or protect the quantity or quality of groundwater supplies within a groundwater basin or aquifer by ordinance, exercise any of the following powers:
A. Require conservation practices and measures within the affected portion of its territory.
B. Control groundwater extractions by regulating, limiting, or suspending extractions from extraction facilities, the construction of new extraction facilities, the enlarging of existing extraction facilities, and the reactivation of abandoned extraction facilities.
C. Commence and prosecute legal actions to enjoin unreasonable uses or methods of use of water within the district or outside the territory of the district to the extent those uses or methods of use adversely affect the groundwater supply within the district.
D. Impose spacing requirements on new extraction facility construction to minimize well interference.
E. Impose reasonable operating regulations on extraction facilities to minimize well interference, including requiring pumpers to operate on a rotation basis.
F. Require extraction facilities to be registered with the district within 30 days of notice being given to the operator of the extraction facility.
G. Require that the operator of a registered extraction facility provide the district annually with the following information regarding the extraction facility:
(1) The name and address of the operator of the extraction facility.
(2) The name and address of the owner of the land upon which the extraction facility is located.
(3) A description of the equipment associated with the extraction facility.
(4) The location of the water extraction facility.
H. Require extraction facilities to be equipped with water flow measuring devices installed and calibrated by the district or, at the district’s option, by the extraction facility operator.
Groundwater Extraction Charges. This bill allows by ordinance, the district to levy groundwater extraction charges, including volumetric charges intended to provide an incentive for reduced water use, on the extraction of groundwater from all water extraction facilities within the territory of the district for the purposes of paying the costs of initiating, carrying on, and completing any of the powers, purposes, and groundwater management activities described in this bill. Any groundwater extraction charges shall be uniform for groundwater extraction within the territory of the district.
This bill provides that the monies collected by the district shall be available for expenditures by the district to carry out its groundwater management functions.
All monies collected by the district pursuant to this bill shall be available for expenditure by the district to carry out its groundwater management functions pursuant to this bill. "
I believe you are still a bit confused. The three Pavley-Dickinson bills (SB 1168, SB 1319 and AB 1739) contain the same powers and authority as those in the AB 2453. Completely take away AB 2453 and you are still faced with the same regulations. Those three bills are now laws that apply to all basins in the State. No one locally had anything to do with these bills. For the first time in history the STATE WILL NOW REGULATE ALL GROUNDWATER in the State, NOT JUST HERE. The law requires local agencies implement these powers so that basins are sustainable. It is not optional.
Again, doing nothing or waiting a decade for a judge to rule is now off the table. It is because of these three bills that this is so; not AB 2453. It will be up to the 4,400 landowners in the basin to decide if they want a water district, run by locally elected people who must own land or be registered to vote in the basin; continue to allow the Flood Control District to implement these new laws when 3 of the 5 don't represent us, or the State comes in to do it for us. Those are the only three options. If the litigants want to keep spending their money, it is their choice. Forcing me to spend my own money as they bring me into this mess is what I object to.