Letter: Mayor urges ‘yes’ on water district
To the editor,
–We in the North County have a proud history of taking care of business. It was our efforts that forged the delivery of Nacimiento waters, our efforts that resulted in affordable housing and a solid employment base, and our collective efforts that resulted in a world-renowned wine industry.
There is now new business at hand to take care of: the business of managing the groundwater basin that benefits us all. Yes, the basin is strained; that is the bad news. And yes, there are steps we can take to sustain water supplies. That is the good news.
Steps that North County can take include using recycled wastewater, using surplus Nacimiento supplies, and perhaps obtaining state water entitlement. But organization is needed to take those steps.
The 12,740 acres within city limits is organized and has taken steps toward sustainable water supply, including a $69 million investment in the Nacimiento Water Project, a $49 million wastewater treatment plant upgrade soon poised to produce recycled water, and success in citywide water conservation. City residents and businesses have saved 479 million gallons of water since the Governor’s drought proclamation, equal to 1,470 acre feet of water.
Paso Robles fully supports owners and others in the 350,000 acres in the unincorporated area adjacent to Paso, in their efforts to create a Water District. By now, you’ve heard many opinions – “it’s just another layer of government,” “just let Sacramento do it for us,” “it’s just another tax,” and so on. Well, what the water district offers is local control – the best way for the North County to once again come together and take care of business.
I cannot emphasize enough what is at stake here. Water supply is foundational to not only North County goals and plans, but the life we share with our families in each of our households, as well as our future economic vitality.
Let’s do this, North County. Please vote to form the water district, fund the water district, and forge ahead to take care of business, as we have always done, to ensure we control our future. If we don’t, we will be subject to state control and be required to adhere to policies in which we have had little input..
Sincerely,
Steven W. Martin
Mayor of Paso Robles
I don't know what the best solution is dealing with water loss but at least I can knock on the doors of the directors to give them a piece of my mind if I don't like what they're doing. I will be voting yes for this reason.
This is a really good summary of why local control is so important. It makes me proud as a citizen of the north county and Paso Robles that we do as a community take on issues an open and honest approach to solutions. I have been closely involved with this issue and have heard both sides in great detail which makes me a strong advocate for the local water district.
Since I'm amazed that Martin was ever elected mayor, I'll take his advice with several grains of salt. As far as giving away our rights to the most precious commodity we have in the North County, I think it's insane. Clear and open thinking figures out this is a shame. The County already has the ability to handle this situation without more taxes and another governmental body NOT entirely elected by their constituents. Bad for the citizens and bad for the community. If you want to keep big outsider dollars from coming into our county, vote NO!
Unfortunately the County does not have the ability to handle this without new taxes as they have made abundantly clear in multiple public hearings and staff reports. Remember, the funding provided in Measure A will go to the District, if formed, OR to the County. The County has neither the funds nor the staff to do it without the funding of Measure A.
I hope you took the opportunity to attend one of the Candidates Forums put on by CALM as it would have given you the opportunity to meet the candidates and ask questions of them regarding where their loyalites. If you missed last night's forum, you missed hearing each of them say that they are not beholden to anyone except all the constituents in the Basin, they don't support export of the Basin water, and that their sole focus will be on bringing the Basin to sustainability.
The shame comes in trying to pant the District as taking water rights, which is cannot (only the courts can do that) and being controlled by Big Ag, which it can't be.
Very well stated Mr. Martin. Here in the North County we have a strong tradition of independence coupled with a sense of community that can do amazing things. This local district is an opportunity to put that combination to use to not only maintain our water basin and a vibrant economy, but to circle the wagons and keep outside interests out.
Great article by the Paso Mayor. Let's manage our basin locally. The State has made it clear that they will charge more and we don't have a say in the costs. The County has made it clear that we must fund management of the basin and that they don't have the money to do so. We didn't pay for the Los Osos sewer, the people in south county or the coast don't want to pay for managing our basin. All of the candidates for the water district board are volunteers who live and have wells in the basin. It is time to begin implementing solutions!
Laurie Gage The problem, which you seemed set on, is the premise that more money and government will be an answer. It never is the answer. The only answer this new district will have is to offer up our water to outsiders. And you can't say it won't, because those behind this treacherous money grab are NOT in the citizens of this county's best interest. Shame on you, shame on the mayor and shame on any others who believe in lollipops and unicorns. Hey, and by the way, why won’t the biggest user of water (city of Paso Robles) NOT be involved in the water district? Keep laying your pipes and lying to the public – it’s all you have.
Daryle W. Hier I have done a little research and the major funders of the opposition, in addition to Steinbeck, are a Salinas farmer, a chemical/landfill company from Bakersfield, and a political candidate PAC from southern California. The two spokespeople are retired L.A. firefighters who don't even live in the district. That sounds like outside interests to me.
District proponents don't want more government. The State told us we will have that (SGMA) We want local people in charge of our area. The district is the only way to do that. Will the Supervisors who's largest voter base is those cities look out for the rural guy, or the court city vote? From your comments, I think you agree the cities have been getting the better deal.
The "lollipops and unicorns" are emanating from out on Union Road. I have been to one of the pep rallies; long on conspiracy but short on facts or details.
Mr. Hier, County Staff and the Supervisors have been clear. There is no extra money lying around somewhere in their budget to mange the Paso Basin. No county in the State works that way. Counties create what are called "Zones of Benefit" so those landowners in these zones fund it and those outside don't. Read your ballot. The County created Zone of Benefit 19 for the proposed Paso water distrct just like they did for the Los Osos Sewer Project. We in Paso didn't pay for their sewers and they will not pay to manage our Basin.
Don Kinne Hey Don, how about provideing similar research on the nearly $100,000 dollars the YES PAC has raised. Nearly all from the big ag business in the area and well beyond. There are individual contributions in the YES PAC that exceed the entire opposition budget. If this water district is such a good deal, why do the big money players have to spend so much trying to convince us that we need a water bank in our back yard.
Mr. Martin says that if we don't vote for a water district we will be subject to what the state tells us to do. Aren't we under restrictions now because of the state. How is a local district going to change that?
Allen Duckworth If you follow the string, you will see the comments were a response to claims of "outsiders." From what I can see, the pro donors are landowners in the basin. If just "big money" was the topic, I would have brought up the $400,000 or more of the Quiet Title group. Since you seem to be close to the subject, please tell me why some folks from L.A. that planted hundreds of acres of grapes just before the County Ordinance want to plant their last 40, and are suing the County to do so, AND the "No big ag" people are supporting that? Sounds like more out of town big ag in the opposition camp. Also, if the County is doing such a fabulous job, why do you have to sue them?
Don Kinne If you want to spew rhetoric from the big money side, good for you. The fact is, this district creates a governmental agency – without having to answer to anyone – and where legally it doesn't and shouldn't exist. We already have a legal method to manage our water basin and that is what this fight is about. This water district and the power behind it, is simply and deceitfully trying to maneuver and take advantage and in-turn sell our water to outside interest, while eroding our current rights. This is a true situation of taxation without representation. Pathetic.
Don Kinne Wow! I have no idea what fiction book you are getting your information from but if you are truly interested in following the money, you should know that not one cent of the Quiet Tile money is getting into the election process in any way shape or form. Furthermore, the Quiet Title was filed as an action not a law suit, the action became a suit when the cities and county claimed that we no longer have the constitutional right to the water under our property so you will have to ask the cities and county why they chose to make it a law suit. Why are you not concerned that tens of thousands of dollars have entered the YES campaign from as far away as Washington while you complain about a farmer that lives within the proposed water district providing two or three thousand dollars to oppose the water district? As for those that have been planting the new vineyards, their money has been going into the Yes campaign not the opposition so you really do need to work a little harder at getting your fact right before making such accusations. However, I do totally agree with you that everyone really does need to ‘Follow the money!’
So, how do you explain the $12,000,000 setting the the SLO County Flood Control and Conservation District bank account? They seem to have lots of money to promote the water district, spend $800,000 to install 57 feet of 2 inch pipe for a turnout in Shandon and all sorts of other things but not enough to do the jobs that we are paying them to do. Something smells fishy to me.
Allen, this is a direct quote from County staff; "The County Contingency Fund cannot finance ongoing operations like a basin management agency.” You are encourged to call Public Works Director Wade Horton, or John Diodati to confirm this.
I don't know what the best solution is dealing with water loss but at least I can knock on the doors of the directors to give them a piece of my mind if I don't like what they're doing. I will be voting yes for this reason.
This is a really good summary of why local control is so important. It makes me proud as a citizen of the north county and Paso Robles that we do as a community take on issues an open and honest approach to solutions. I have been closely involved with this issue and have heard both sides in great detail which makes me a strong advocate for the local water district.
Since I'm amazed that Martin was ever elected mayor, I'll take his advice with several grains of salt. As far as giving away our rights to the most precious commodity we have in the North County, I think it's insane. Clear and open thinking figures out this is a shame. The County already has the ability to handle this situation without more taxes and another governmental body NOT entirely elected by their constituents. Bad for the citizens and bad for the community. If you want to keep big outsider dollars from coming into our county, vote NO!
Unfortunately the County does not have the ability to handle this without new taxes as they have made abundantly clear in multiple public hearings and staff reports. Remember, the funding provided in Measure A will go to the District, if formed, OR to the County. The County has neither the funds nor the staff to do it without the funding of Measure A.
I hope you took the opportunity to attend one of the Candidates Forums put on by CALM as it would have given you the opportunity to meet the candidates and ask questions of them regarding where their loyalites. If you missed last night's forum, you missed hearing each of them say that they are not beholden to anyone except all the constituents in the Basin, they don't support export of the Basin water, and that their sole focus will be on bringing the Basin to sustainability.
The shame comes in trying to pant the District as taking water rights, which is cannot (only the courts can do that) and being controlled by Big Ag, which it can't be.
Very well stated Mr. Martin. Here in the North County we have a strong tradition of independence coupled with a sense of community that can do amazing things. This local district is an opportunity to put that combination to use to not only maintain our water basin and a vibrant economy, but to circle the wagons and keep outside interests out.
Great article by the Paso Mayor. Let's manage our basin locally. The State has made it clear that they will charge more and we don't have a say in the costs. The County has made it clear that we must fund management of the basin and that they don't have the money to do so. We didn't pay for the Los Osos sewer, the people in south county or the coast don't want to pay for managing our basin. All of the candidates for the water district board are volunteers who live and have wells in the basin. It is time to begin implementing solutions!
Laurie Gage The problem, which you seemed set on, is the premise that more money and government will be an answer. It never is the answer. The only answer this new district will have is to offer up our water to outsiders. And you can't say it won't, because those behind this treacherous money grab are NOT in the citizens of this county's best interest. Shame on you, shame on the mayor and shame on any others who believe in lollipops and unicorns. Hey, and by the way, why won’t the biggest user of water (city of Paso Robles) NOT be involved in the water district? Keep laying your pipes and lying to the public – it’s all you have.
Daryle W. Hier I have done a little research and the major funders of the opposition, in addition to Steinbeck, are a Salinas farmer, a chemical/landfill company from Bakersfield, and a political candidate PAC from southern California. The two spokespeople are retired L.A. firefighters who don't even live in the district. That sounds like outside interests to me.
District proponents don't want more government. The State told us we will have that (SGMA) We want local people in charge of our area. The district is the only way to do that. Will the Supervisors who's largest voter base is those cities look out for the rural guy, or the court city vote? From your comments, I think you agree the cities have been getting the better deal.
The "lollipops and unicorns" are emanating from out on Union Road. I have been to one of the pep rallies; long on conspiracy but short on facts or details.
Mr. Hier, County Staff and the Supervisors have been clear. There is no extra money lying around somewhere in their budget to mange the Paso Basin. No county in the State works that way. Counties create what are called "Zones of Benefit" so those landowners in these zones fund it and those outside don't. Read your ballot. The County created Zone of Benefit 19 for the proposed Paso water distrct just like they did for the Los Osos Sewer Project. We in Paso didn't pay for their sewers and they will not pay to manage our Basin.
Don Kinne Hey Don, how about provideing similar research on the nearly $100,000 dollars the YES PAC has raised. Nearly all from the big ag business in the area and well beyond. There are individual contributions in the YES PAC that exceed the entire opposition budget. If this water district is such a good deal, why do the big money players have to spend so much trying to convince us that we need a water bank in our back yard.
Mr. Martin says that if we don't vote for a water district we will be subject to what the state tells us to do. Aren't we under restrictions now because of the state. How is a local district going to change that?
Allen Duckworth If you follow the string, you will see the comments were a response to claims of "outsiders." From what I can see, the pro donors are landowners in the basin. If just "big money" was the topic, I would have brought up the $400,000 or more of the Quiet Title group. Since you seem to be close to the subject, please tell me why some folks from L.A. that planted hundreds of acres of grapes just before the County Ordinance want to plant their last 40, and are suing the County to do so, AND the "No big ag" people are supporting that? Sounds like more out of town big ag in the opposition camp. Also, if the County is doing such a fabulous job, why do you have to sue them?
Don Kinne If you want to spew rhetoric from the big money side, good for you. The fact is, this district creates a governmental agency – without having to answer to anyone – and where legally it doesn't and shouldn't exist. We already have a legal method to manage our water basin and that is what this fight is about. This water district and the power behind it, is simply and deceitfully trying to maneuver and take advantage and in-turn sell our water to outside interest, while eroding our current rights. This is a true situation of taxation without representation. Pathetic.
Don Kinne Wow! I have no idea what fiction book you are getting your information from but if you are truly interested in following the money, you should know that not one cent of the Quiet Tile money is getting into the election process in any way shape or form. Furthermore, the Quiet Title was filed as an action not a law suit, the action became a suit when the cities and county claimed that we no longer have the constitutional right to the water under our property so you will have to ask the cities and county why they chose to make it a law suit. Why are you not concerned that tens of thousands of dollars have entered the YES campaign from as far away as Washington while you complain about a farmer that lives within the proposed water district providing two or three thousand dollars to oppose the water district? As for those that have been planting the new vineyards, their money has been going into the Yes campaign not the opposition so you really do need to work a little harder at getting your fact right before making such accusations. However, I do totally agree with you that everyone really does need to ‘Follow the money!’
So, how do you explain the $12,000,000 setting the the SLO County Flood Control and Conservation District bank account? They seem to have lots of money to promote the water district, spend $800,000 to install 57 feet of 2 inch pipe for a turnout in Shandon and all sorts of other things but not enough to do the jobs that we are paying them to do. Something smells fishy to me.
Allen, this is a direct quote from County staff; "The County Contingency Fund cannot finance ongoing operations like a basin management agency.” You are encourged to call Public Works Director Wade Horton, or John Diodati to confirm this.