City denies new well for Eberle Winery
The Paso Robles City Council this week rejected an appeal by Filipponi & Thompson Drilling, on behalf of the Eberle Winery, for a permit to replace a water well.
The rejection comes after the city council adopted an ordinance on March 4, which temporarily prohibits the construction of new wells, or the modification, rehabilitation, or reconstruction of existing wells that would increase the amount of groundwater capable of being extracted from the Paso Robles groundwater basin.
On March 6, Filipponi & Thompson Drilling filed a permit application with the city to drill a well at the Eberle Winery at 3830 Highway 46E. City staff determined that any issuance of a well permit must comply with the City Ordinance. In particular, the city is prohibited from approving the
proposed replacement well if it would “increase the amount of groundwater capable of being extracted from the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin,” according to a staff report.
For the permit to move forward city staff required the following conditions:
- The replacement well must have the same casing size (or smaller) as the well being abandoned.
- Construction details regarding the well being replaced must be provided, along with pumping records as available.
- The replaced well must be destroyed and abandoned in accordance with a permit obtained through the County Health Department.
- The City must be allowed to monitor water levels and pumping from the new well.
On July 24, Doug Filipponi requested an appeal hearing before the city council asking the city to issue a well permit without any conditions.
The appeal was rejected by 3-2 margin with Mayor Duane Picanco, Councilmen Steve Martin and Fred Strong voting to deny the permit. Councilmen Ed Steinbeck and John Hamon voted against the denial.
Way to go! City council standing up to the big wineries and actually following through on an ordinance! Great work.
Good job Councilmen Martin and Strong and Mayor Picanco. Is Steinbeck the guy who owns Steinbeck Winery on Union Rd.? And what's the deal with Hamon. We got a law, but only if we feel like it?
Absolutely a good decision by Martin, Strong, and Picanco. The proposed well is in a critical water depletion area, is against the city ordinance that the entire City Council approved, and would be unfair both to the city and the people living in the Jardine area with wells going dry. I truly don't understand why Hamon and Steinbeck voted the way they did.
So it's okay to punish a business just because they're big? I don't see why you can't replace a standing well? This is another bad law that is strictly a public stroke to get votes. BTW folks – we have plenty of water. Must be enjoying those new nose rings.
So it's okay to punish a business just because they're big? I don't see why you can't replace a standing well? This is another bad law that is strictly a public stroke to get votes. BTW folks – we have plenty of water. Must be enjoying those new nose rings.
Obviously the reporter did not listen to the hearing. The permit for Eberle Winery was applied for in August, before the city ordinance was enacted. A simple clerical error, checking the wrong box, caused this problem. Eberle is completely planted out and will use no more water with any size new well. I am afraid this is government not helping a good tax paying citizen with his business.
Just out of curiosity, why did he need a new well? And why a bigger casing?
I don't think so! This is my opinion If we have enough water why are so may well going dry especial in the Jardine area, Business and the small people need to take the burden together as the rest of us are doing. Oh by the way how big is your nose ring????
Just curious Why is it that no one complains about the wells the city has at the airport. The ones that run 24/7? Water conservation is necessary and should be practiced by all.
Hard call. There are a lot of facts not stated and it is hard to give a fair opinion without having all the info. Give him the water. It's existing.
If the proposed well is a replacement well, and is an exact replacement or smaller, the permit should be allowed. If the proposed well is supplemental to existing, properly performing wells, then it should be denied. (This is my understanding of the intention of the ordinance — admittedly, I may be mistaken). The same should apply to any property owner, be they a home owner, farmer, industry, RV park, etc.
I'm sure that there's more to the story… there always is, but on its face (as presented in the brief article) the decision seems to fly in the face of the intentions of the ordinance, and common sense, too.
Caveat: All of this assumes that the well permit was pulled after the imposition of the ordinance. If the permit was applied-for before the imposition of the ordinance, then — obviously — the permit should be approved.
Oh! Small town politics…
Clerical error? He applied to the COUNTY and was approved for a new well right before the moratorium on new water uses/plantings was voted in, but alas, his property is in the city limits. His county application does not count as applying to the city before the ordinance was enacted.
Besides, the city has already made at least one resident connect to city water after their property was annexed by the city. The city did not allow them to drill a replacement well. The cost was approximately $27,000 to connect, and this was for a family, not for a vineyard.
The 10" casing for the requested well would double the amount of water that could be pumped according to the information provided by the city http://www.prcity.com/government/citycouncil/agenda-items/2014/08_August/2014_08-19_cc_itm_06.pdf.
Mr. Eberle did not want a "replacement" well, he wanted a well with double the capacity, and he applied to the County in August, not to the city. His city application was made in February, months after the city ordinance on new wells was enacted.
Way to go! City council standing up to the big wineries and actually following through on an ordinance! Great work.
Good job Councilmen Martin and Strong and Mayor Picanco. Is Steinbeck the guy who owns Steinbeck Winery on Union Rd.? And what's the deal with Hamon. We got a law, but only if we feel like it?
Absolutely a good decision by Martin, Strong, and Picanco. The proposed well is in a critical water depletion area, is against the city ordinance that the entire City Council approved, and would be unfair both to the city and the people living in the Jardine area with wells going dry. I truly don't understand why Hamon and Steinbeck voted the way they did.
So it's okay to punish a business just because they're big? I don't see why you can't replace a standing well? This is another bad law that is strictly a public stroke to get votes. BTW folks – we have plenty of water. Must be enjoying those new nose rings.
So it's okay to punish a business just because they're big? I don't see why you can't replace a standing well? This is another bad law that is strictly a public stroke to get votes. BTW folks – we have plenty of water. Must be enjoying those new nose rings.
Obviously the reporter did not listen to the hearing. The permit for Eberle Winery was applied for in August, before the city ordinance was enacted. A simple clerical error, checking the wrong box, caused this problem. Eberle is completely planted out and will use no more water with any size new well. I am afraid this is government not helping a good tax paying citizen with his business.
Just out of curiosity, why did he need a new well? And why a bigger casing?
I don't think so! This is my opinion If we have enough water why are so may well going dry especial in the Jardine area, Business and the small people need to take the burden together as the rest of us are doing. Oh by the way how big is your nose ring????
Just curious Why is it that no one complains about the wells the city has at the airport. The ones that run 24/7? Water conservation is necessary and should be practiced by all.
Hard call. There are a lot of facts not stated and it is hard to give a fair opinion without having all the info. Give him the water. It's existing.
If the proposed well is a replacement well, and is an exact replacement or smaller, the permit should be allowed. If the proposed well is supplemental to existing, properly performing wells, then it should be denied. (This is my understanding of the intention of the ordinance — admittedly, I may be mistaken). The same should apply to any property owner, be they a home owner, farmer, industry, RV park, etc.
I'm sure that there's more to the story… there always is, but on its face (as presented in the brief article) the decision seems to fly in the face of the intentions of the ordinance, and common sense, too.
Caveat: All of this assumes that the well permit was pulled after the imposition of the ordinance. If the permit was applied-for before the imposition of the ordinance, then — obviously — the permit should be approved.
Oh! Small town politics…
Clerical error? He applied to the COUNTY and was approved for a new well right before the moratorium on new water uses/plantings was voted in, but alas, his property is in the city limits. His county application does not count as applying to the city before the ordinance was enacted.
Besides, the city has already made at least one resident connect to city water after their property was annexed by the city. The city did not allow them to drill a replacement well. The cost was approximately $27,000 to connect, and this was for a family, not for a vineyard.
The 10" casing for the requested well would double the amount of water that could be pumped according to the information provided by the city http://www.prcity.com/government/citycouncil/agenda-items/2014/08_August/2014_08-19_cc_itm_06.pdf.
Mr. Eberle did not want a "replacement" well, he wanted a well with double the capacity, and he applied to the County in August, not to the city. His city application was made in February, months after the city ordinance on new wells was enacted.