Letter: Disturbing trend in rhetoric from water district opponents
To the editor,
I am the chairman of PRAAGS (the Paso Robles Agricultural Alliance for Groundwater Solutions), but I am submitting this letter as a private citizen.
I completely agree with Ms. Douglass’ Letter to the Editor on Nov. 18. Recently I’ve seen a disturbing trend in the rhetoric coming from Supervisor Debbie Arnold and other water district opponents. Are they just cheap political campaign tactics or a more troubling sign of intentional distortion of facts?
On Wednesday, Nov. 19, the day after the Board of Supervisors meeting, Supervisor Arnold was on KPRL. Her characterization of the Nacimiento pipeline project was far from correct. She said, “the county was the lead agency in organizing the cities that were interested in paying for a pipeline”. County Board of Supervisors acting as the Flood Control District were not leaders in getting the pipeline done just like they have not been leaders on any issue that would deliver new water sources to the Paso Robles Basin. The genesis of the pipeline came from the mayors of Paso Robles and San Luis Obispo. The mayors promoted the benefits of the pipeline and eventually convinced the voters of City of Paso Robles, Atascadero, Templeton and City of San Luis Obispo to approve and fund the building of the pipeline.
The County Board of Supervisors acting as the Flood Control District’s involvement only came after everything was approved by local voters when the County did act as the construction manager. The Nacimiento Pipeline is a great example of local people and local government getting together to build a project for local benefit. The County just watched as this happened and for Supervisor Arnold to claim the Nacimiento Pipeline as a great achievement of the County’s Water District is either a disingenuous campaign tactic or an intentional distortion of facts.
On the same show and at the Supervisors Hearing the previous day, Supervisor Arnold said the County has been doing a good job in managing the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin. If there is one thing that almost everyone in the Basin can agree on it is that the Board of Supervisors acting as the Flood Control District have done a horrible job managing the groundwater basin. They have done nothing to develop new water sources and they have done nothing to develop infrastructure to prepare the basin for this drought.
In summary, the County’s Water District, as Supervisor Arnold likes to call it, has achieved nothing. No projects other than a handful of studies which many don’t believe, no plans for or funding for projects and most importantly the County’s Water District has never delivered a drop of water to a rural resident, landowner or farmer in the rural Paso Robles Basin. This is an absolute failure on the part of the Board of Supervisors acting as the Flood Control District – not an achievement.
Forming the Paso Robles Basin Water District is the only way to guarantee local control of our water and to plan and prepare for the future. It gets the County Board of Supervisors out of managing our water – which they have done a horrible job of and it keeps the State from taking control of our water.
Creating an independent public water district governed by a nine-member locally elected board will comply with SGMA and keep the State of California from taking control of our water. Even if the County’s Flood Control District continued to manage the basin, the County would have to hire additional staff and open an office in North County so annual expenses would be about the same. We need to do what’s right or our community and ensure the people who live here are making decisions about our groundwater.
It is time to get the Board of Supervisors – the majority who don’t live in North County – out of managing our water. They have done a terrible job. It is also time for Supervisor Arnold and the other members of the Board of Supervisors to stop distorting the facts. On the same KPRL show and at the Supervisors Hearing, we hear Supervisor Arnold repeatedly using words like complex, confusing, and complicated in describing the proposed Water District. This is surprising because she’s been involved in this issue from the start and she’s experienced with politics and government both locally and in Sacramento. She testified, multiple times, against the AB 2453 District in Sacramento.
Is this just a cheap campaign tactic to scare voters or is Supervisor Arnold “confused”?
Jerry Reaugh
Paso Robles rural resident and farmer
Write a letter to the editor
The Paso Robles Daily News welcomes letters to the editor. They may be sent by clicking here >> Submit a letter to the editor to the Paso Robles Daily News, or email editor Skye Ravy at skye@accesspublishing.com.
Yes indeed, there is a disterbing trend in rhetoric! BUT it is coming from the special interest groups promoting the district. Who is using scare tacticts like, "The state will step in if we don't pass this water district!" Read the Sustainable Groundwater Managment Act (SGMA), it says the state can temperarily come in to show the county how to manage the basin then go home – it does not say they can or will take over. Who falsified the data to get the basin classified as being in critical overdraft (when the countys own model shows otherwise) and why? Acording to DWR, that was at the county request and the reason was to put SLO County first in line for Prop. 1 money. What is Prop. 1 money to be used for? The primary purpose is to develop underground storage – turn the Paso Robles Waterbasin into a water bank! Who will that benefit? Not you and me!
Follow the money folks and ask who has something to gain from this proposed water district being formed. Beg money is being spent to promote the water district while the opponents have nothing to gain, we are just trying to protect our rights, something the government is trampeling on more every day. And then there are all the comments about the county having done noting to manage the basin, why then was the Urgency Ordinance passed them followed up with the Conservation Ordinance? As I recall, those were passed to 'protect our basin'. We all need a good BS fliter to seperate the facts from the fiction.
"Scare tactics?" Erik Eckdahl from the State Water Resources Control Board made presentations at two LAFCO public hearings where he explained that if the locals don't get it together, the State Water Board is enabled by the SGMA legislation to step in and develop an interim plan for a basin. It is a matter of developing a State plan that will serve until the management agency can get onboard with a suitable plan of its own, not just assisting the management agency in writing a plan. The interim plan may include extraction limitations and may impose a physical solution. The State may charge fees to recoup its recoverable costs, in addition to requiring reporting from extractors and charging them for the privelege. "Recoverable costs include, but are not limited to, costs incurred in connection with investigations, facilitation, monitoring, hearings, enforcement, and administrative costs in carrying out these actions." I am quoting directly from Chapter 11, Section 10735 of the SGMA legislation. Looks to me like the State Water Board would be prepared to investigate, facilitate, monitor, conduct hearings, take enforcement actions, and incur administrative costs. And that sounds like a lot more than "showing the county how to manage the basin and then go home."
The county's model shows that extractions from the Basin exceeded inflows through 2011 at the rate of 2,400 acre feet per year. The model's estimate for the current and ongoing extraction excess is 5,500 plus acre feet per year with no growth, and with 1% growth, could top 25,000 acre feet per year. Sounds to me like the model shows that more is going out than is coming in. I believe that is an accurate description of overdraft.
And please don't respond that the model is using an incorrect number for the acre feet per year that grapes use. The number you might be tempted to use in response is 1.25 AF/Y, down from 1.7 AF/Y, which is a CROP DUTY FACTOR, and used for other calculations than the model. It is used to determine the amount of offset required for the Countywide Water Conservation Ordinance, for example. The model uses many different numbers for different crops, diffent soils types and topography, different climate conditions (wet years, dry years) and more. Nowhere does the model use just one number for all vineyard acreage.
There is $2.7 billion for water storage projects, dams and reservoirs in Prop 1. Seems like the primary purpose is…water storage projects, dams and reservoirs. Not just or specifically underground storage, which the Basin is hydrogeologically ill-suited for. Check out this website and you'll see how very little possibility for banking on a grand scale there is in our basin: http://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/sagbi/ It's an interactive site which shows the areas that would be likely candidates for recharge and where infiltration is easier than in other places. Compare our meager "green" areas to the vast water banking locations in the Central Valley.
I will mention yet again that LAFCO, having listened to the concerns of the public over banking and exporting water, specifically prohibited the water district from exporting from the Basin as part of the conditions of its formation. The County has written a very tight export ordinance which is basically a permitting structure, and it maintains the ability to export water if it so chooses and meets its own requirements. The district CANNOT export water under any circumstances, so banking is a moot point in terms of the district.
The Urgency Ordinance/Countywide Water Conservation Ordinance isn't management – they are attempts to hold the bleeding at bay until a sustainability plan can be implemented. They do nothing except attempt, and poorly, to keep the status quo (remember? More than 5,000 AF/Y going out beyond what is replenished). That isn't managing the Basin. That's a finger in the dyke.
And finally, nothing about the district or County management impinges on, alters or takes away your rights. You still maintain the right to pump for reasonable and beneficial use. The only way you lose your property rights is through the court system and litigation, where a final judgment by the court will determine who wins and who loses. The recent Antelope Valley Basin case saw the plaintiffs having to reduce their pumping by an average of 45%. That settlement was reached in order to preclude the defendants obtaining their prescriptive rights. So neither the State, the County, SGMA, nor a water district can take away your rights. Only the courts.
I agree; we do need to accurately separate facts from fiction. Where are your citations, Penny?
Follow the money. That overworked and unsubstantiated claim that hangs out there so some can nod, wink and poke each other in the ribs that you know something we don’t. You work on the premise that if you keep repeating it then it must be true. Then start dropping the word “they” into the mix. “They” are going to steal your water; “they” are going to take away your rights. This Saul Alinsky tactic is an attempt to make your opponent t prove they are innocent based upon the rumor you started.
So Ms. Duckworth, it’s time to put up or shut up. Give us proof, with facts, that evil is afoot in Paso Robles. For over two years, I have been intimately involved in all aspects of trying to form a water district. So I must be in on the scam too. Where are the millions I will make selling my water? Your cronies spent hours on KPRL warning that DWR’s turn out in Shandon could be converted to a turn in to pump water for a profit to Los Angles. When it was discovered that this pipe was 2 inches, yes that’s right – 2 INCHES IN DIAMETER, all you could hear are crickets! How am I expected to make a fortune off a 2 inch pipe!
The bigger question is why don’t you want to join with your fellow neighbors to work this out locally instead of suing everybody? If you worked with them and us you would understand that there is no grand scheme. We all want to keep our water here and have put checks and balances in place to make sure this very thing does not happen. How about you start following the money you and your quiet tile litigants are spending on lawyers? Why don’t come clean with all of us about the millions that will be paid to them by all landowners in the basin if this goes to full adjudication? Follow the money indeed.
I agree with Ms. Duckworth, “follow the money”. Let’s look at who’s spending the big bucks. The proponents of the water district have been PRAAGS and PRO Water Equity. PRAAGS will have spent several hundreds of thousands of dollars in its effort to bring this issue to the voters. That’s right voters, which is the most open and public way to decide an important issue. PRAAGS will go away after the election.
Now let’s look at where the real money is being spent. A group of local folks have decided to file a Quiet Title action in the courts. The Quiet Title action which could lead to full adjudication of the basin are notorious for their length with complex basins like ours taking 15 plus years to decide. These actions are also notorious for their cost. Santa Maria litigation which is still going after 18 years cost between $10,000,000 to $20,000,000 in legal fees and expert testimony. You have to ask yourself why would these folks want to file a lawsuit? I think the answer is that the Quiet Title folks are pursuing their self-interest at the exclusion of others. The Quiet Title folks will be spending millions of dollars and that’s what I call ‘big money’.
If you think I’m kidding, just consider this. Go to the Superior Court in Santa Clara County website and look at the Quiet Title legal filings ( website: http://www.scefiling.org/cases/docket/newdocket.jsp?caseId=962). These are all the documents that attorneys file in preparation for a trial. As of today there are 251 separate filings. Go look at these filing and in your own mind think about how much this is costing in attorney fees. The Quiet Title Lawsuit will have its first two trials in January. These trials are scheduled for 15 days. It’s easy to calculate that the cost of these trials in attorney fees and expert testimony could likely be in excess of $300,000. As this litigation progresses over the years, maybe decades, the expense will eclipse PRAAGS spending by 10, 20 or 30 times.
Now this is where it starts getting ugly. You and me are paying part of the cost of this legal action. That’s right, you and me as tax payers in the County, in Paso Robles, in Atascadero and in Templeton. The Quiet Title folks are suing you and me. Our respective governments are defending against the lawsuit. The money spent by our government in its legal defense could have otherwise been spent on roads or parks or programs for the benefit of the needy.
If that’s not bad enough, it gets uglier. If the Quiet Title Action becomes full adjudication which Quiet Title supporters claim they want, then guess what? You and me have to pay again. With full adjudication, all landowners over the basin will be forced to become litigants and you and I will have to hire our own attorney to protect our interests. Now you and me will be paying on both sides of the lawsuit. That’s not very fair because this is being forced on me without my consent. Contrast that with the upcoming election where I get to vote either ‘YES’ or ‘NO’.
Finally just a one more sobering thought. The Quiet Title folks say their lawsuit is to protect their water rights. The opposite is true; it puts theirs and our water rights at risk. When they, the QT folks walk through the courtroom door, they have relinquished their rights because they are asking the judge to tell them what their water rights are. Of course the QT folks expect to win, but there are no guarantees. Most experts and pundits predicted that the Supreme would overturn Obamacare, but they didn’t. Expensive and lengthy litigation seems like risky business to me. Local folks, rather than black robes in San Jose, in charge of our groundwater basin seems like a better solution to me.
Jerry Reaugh rural Paso Robles
I am so grateful to have left the state of California. It appears things have only gotten incredibly worse there.
And a Happy Thanksgiving to you too. I love your comments Mr. Brown, because you have described your own activities to a T! By all means, let’s follow the money – How many PR firms have been hired to promote this water district? How much have they been paid? Where did that money come from? You are on the PRAAGS board so you should know the answers and if you don’t, take a look at your own Form 460s that answers all those questions. These forms are public record available to anyone interested. As Mr. Reaugh says, PRAAGS is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on this and even managed to get the county to chip in a few hundred thousand of taxpayer dollars when PRAAGS couldn’t get the required application signatures on their petition. The “Yes or No” vote is all well and good, it’s the campaign tactics that get flakey and that’s where the ‘big money’ gets invested. If this proposed water district is such a good deal, why do you have to work so hard trying to convince us that we should have it?
Mr. Brown, please show some leadership in providing proof to statements you’ve made like “The State will take over.” And, “The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) doesn’t allow the AB 3030 plan to be used.” Or “We have to set up this AB 2453 water district to satisfy SGMA.” I’ve read that law many times and cannot find such references anywhere in it so please show us where they are. I agree that one end of the pipe in Shandon is just a two inch diameter, but why not talk about the rest of that pipe. What is the diameter of the other end and how many reducers are in the line? How difficult is it to remove those reducers or tap into a larger section of that pipe midway? Give us ALL the facts.
Why don’t I join my neighbors…? I have joined my neighbors in filing for Quiet Title on our property. Quiet Title was NOT filed as a law suit, it was a very simple legal action until the water purveyors chose to claim prescription against us and turned it into a law suit. We only have one attorney working on our behalf while the county, cities and CSDs must have a dozen or so trying to keep us from getting the quiet title attached to our deeds. If they would just disclaim and allow us to have our quiet title, it could all end tomorrow. When Mr. Reaugh says that we may not win our QT case and risk losing our water right, he is showing how little he know about the law. We are guaranteed to get the QT. The worst case situation is that we could end up with a very small cloud on our title indicating that the purveyors are entitled to a minute fraction of the water under our property IF they can prove their case. You keep saying that all property owners in the basin could get dragged into the suit, having to hire their own attorneys and spend big money defending themselves from the Quiet Title action. Only those selling water have that problem and only because they chose to claim a priority right to the water under our property while the California Constitution clearly states that purveyors have the secondary right to groundwater so please tell us how anyone else could possibly get pulled into the suit. This is another example of how you like to use unsubstantiated “fear tactics”. Hey, while you are looking at the court records, you might take note of comments made by the judge that this appears to be a rather simple case that should turn out to be the shortest case in California history. I’ll be very happy to work with my neighbors in making the basin sustainable but the AB 2453 plan being used to form this proposed district does not satisfy the SGMA requirements at all.
PRAAGS is an organization made up of growers and ranchers small and large who simply want a seat at the table so that those in agriculture can at least have their voices heard because they will be paying for most of it. We represent the backbone of the economy in the North County. Without agriculture, your land would be worth a fraction of what it is today. Agriculture is our livelihood, so we have a lot at stake. We want our community to continue to thrive. The water issue is no different. Simply, we chose to work on a compromise solution that gives everyone a voice.
You sat in the same meetings and heard Dr. Ekdahl and others from the state say precisely what they will do if the landowners vote down the special tax. That’s the trigger. We and the County become powerless if we don’t vote to fund it. The state does not need our consent to unilaterally assess every well owner, set pumping limits or put meters on our wells. You continue to paint adjudication as blue skies and bright lights and a piece of cake to claim your rights. Time, a lot of time, will tell. It really makes no difference at this point as our fate will already have been decided in March
Bob Brown How about telling everyone who is giving you all the money for supporting the water district?
Lauire, I would have to say scare tactics is a very mild way of saying "lies" coming for PRAAGS.
I really don’t have the time for this little tag team game but Ms. Gage’s post almost demands a response. After reading through her long description of what the state can do (under very specific circumstances) in the way of getting the basin management moving in the right direction, I came to the conclusion that she is actually agreeing with me that the state cannot and will not “take over the basin.” Thank you Laurie.
Now about the matter of the Flood Control District not doing anything to manage the basin – I really find it strange that just before PRAAGS started asking for the water district, our First District Supervisor, and many others, were praising the Flood Control Department as being such a shining example and saying that the rest of the state needed to follow their lead in created the AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plan. Almost overnight, San Luis Obispo County is supposedly one of the worst in the state at managing groundwater. So did they do a good job with the AB 3030 plan or not? By the way, we keep hearing that SGMA will not allow the AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plan to be dusted off and revised to use as our Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan. If that is true, please explain to me how it is that Atascadero is doing precisely that! And it isn’t costing them $950,000 to do it – or even $250,000 either. Hey folks, let’s take a close look at what Atascadero is doing and find out what kind of scam is being perpetrated on us with the claims that it cannot be accomplished for less than a million dollars a year. Just vote NO on the water district financing and formation.
First thing that came to my mind when I read this was….mmmm, here's where there is someone who actually states that the SLO Flood Control District does not do it's job, Well, they don't but it's on purpose so that LAFCO will deem SLO county incapable of managing it's own water. Thus making the case that there must be another additional water district overriding the one that is already in place through the County. Thanks PRAAGS for really making me dislike my hometown. You are greedly people who just want control. I really can't see why there isn't a cry out for our County to do it's job and manage it's own water for all cities within it's juristiciton. I'm so sick of seeing what these OUT of TOWN vineyard owners are doing to our natural resources as well as the imbalance that all the vineyard fencing causes with our wildlife. Funny how Fish & Game doesn't seem to worry so much about that, but now we can't harvest sand from the riverbed. What a messed up place this is becoming.
Yes indeed, there is a disterbing trend in rhetoric! BUT it is coming from the special interest groups promoting the district. Who is using scare tacticts like, "The state will step in if we don't pass this water district!" Read the Sustainable Groundwater Managment Act (SGMA), it says the state can temperarily come in to show the county how to manage the basin then go home – it does not say they can or will take over. Who falsified the data to get the basin classified as being in critical overdraft (when the countys own model shows otherwise) and why? Acording to DWR, that was at the county request and the reason was to put SLO County first in line for Prop. 1 money. What is Prop. 1 money to be used for? The primary purpose is to develop underground storage – turn the Paso Robles Waterbasin into a water bank! Who will that benefit? Not you and me!
Follow the money folks and ask who has something to gain from this proposed water district being formed. Beg money is being spent to promote the water district while the opponents have nothing to gain, we are just trying to protect our rights, something the government is trampeling on more every day. And then there are all the comments about the county having done noting to manage the basin, why then was the Urgency Ordinance passed them followed up with the Conservation Ordinance? As I recall, those were passed to 'protect our basin'. We all need a good BS fliter to seperate the facts from the fiction.
"Scare tactics?" Erik Eckdahl from the State Water Resources Control Board made presentations at two LAFCO public hearings where he explained that if the locals don't get it together, the State Water Board is enabled by the SGMA legislation to step in and develop an interim plan for a basin. It is a matter of developing a State plan that will serve until the management agency can get onboard with a suitable plan of its own, not just assisting the management agency in writing a plan. The interim plan may include extraction limitations and may impose a physical solution. The State may charge fees to recoup its recoverable costs, in addition to requiring reporting from extractors and charging them for the privelege. "Recoverable costs include, but are not limited to, costs incurred in connection with investigations, facilitation, monitoring, hearings, enforcement, and administrative costs in carrying out these actions." I am quoting directly from Chapter 11, Section 10735 of the SGMA legislation. Looks to me like the State Water Board would be prepared to investigate, facilitate, monitor, conduct hearings, take enforcement actions, and incur administrative costs. And that sounds like a lot more than "showing the county how to manage the basin and then go home."
The county's model shows that extractions from the Basin exceeded inflows through 2011 at the rate of 2,400 acre feet per year. The model's estimate for the current and ongoing extraction excess is 5,500 plus acre feet per year with no growth, and with 1% growth, could top 25,000 acre feet per year. Sounds to me like the model shows that more is going out than is coming in. I believe that is an accurate description of overdraft.
And please don't respond that the model is using an incorrect number for the acre feet per year that grapes use. The number you might be tempted to use in response is 1.25 AF/Y, down from 1.7 AF/Y, which is a CROP DUTY FACTOR, and used for other calculations than the model. It is used to determine the amount of offset required for the Countywide Water Conservation Ordinance, for example. The model uses many different numbers for different crops, diffent soils types and topography, different climate conditions (wet years, dry years) and more. Nowhere does the model use just one number for all vineyard acreage.
There is $2.7 billion for water storage projects, dams and reservoirs in Prop 1. Seems like the primary purpose is…water storage projects, dams and reservoirs. Not just or specifically underground storage, which the Basin is hydrogeologically ill-suited for. Check out this website and you'll see how very little possibility for banking on a grand scale there is in our basin: http://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/sagbi/ It's an interactive site which shows the areas that would be likely candidates for recharge and where infiltration is easier than in other places. Compare our meager "green" areas to the vast water banking locations in the Central Valley.
I will mention yet again that LAFCO, having listened to the concerns of the public over banking and exporting water, specifically prohibited the water district from exporting from the Basin as part of the conditions of its formation. The County has written a very tight export ordinance which is basically a permitting structure, and it maintains the ability to export water if it so chooses and meets its own requirements. The district CANNOT export water under any circumstances, so banking is a moot point in terms of the district.
The Urgency Ordinance/Countywide Water Conservation Ordinance isn't management – they are attempts to hold the bleeding at bay until a sustainability plan can be implemented. They do nothing except attempt, and poorly, to keep the status quo (remember? More than 5,000 AF/Y going out beyond what is replenished). That isn't managing the Basin. That's a finger in the dyke.
And finally, nothing about the district or County management impinges on, alters or takes away your rights. You still maintain the right to pump for reasonable and beneficial use. The only way you lose your property rights is through the court system and litigation, where a final judgment by the court will determine who wins and who loses. The recent Antelope Valley Basin case saw the plaintiffs having to reduce their pumping by an average of 45%. That settlement was reached in order to preclude the defendants obtaining their prescriptive rights. So neither the State, the County, SGMA, nor a water district can take away your rights. Only the courts.
I agree; we do need to accurately separate facts from fiction. Where are your citations, Penny?
Follow the money. That overworked and unsubstantiated claim that hangs out there so some can nod, wink and poke each other in the ribs that you know something we don’t. You work on the premise that if you keep repeating it then it must be true. Then start dropping the word “they” into the mix. “They” are going to steal your water; “they” are going to take away your rights. This Saul Alinsky tactic is an attempt to make your opponent t prove they are innocent based upon the rumor you started.
So Ms. Duckworth, it’s time to put up or shut up. Give us proof, with facts, that evil is afoot in Paso Robles. For over two years, I have been intimately involved in all aspects of trying to form a water district. So I must be in on the scam too. Where are the millions I will make selling my water? Your cronies spent hours on KPRL warning that DWR’s turn out in Shandon could be converted to a turn in to pump water for a profit to Los Angles. When it was discovered that this pipe was 2 inches, yes that’s right – 2 INCHES IN DIAMETER, all you could hear are crickets! How am I expected to make a fortune off a 2 inch pipe!
The bigger question is why don’t you want to join with your fellow neighbors to work this out locally instead of suing everybody? If you worked with them and us you would understand that there is no grand scheme. We all want to keep our water here and have put checks and balances in place to make sure this very thing does not happen. How about you start following the money you and your quiet tile litigants are spending on lawyers? Why don’t come clean with all of us about the millions that will be paid to them by all landowners in the basin if this goes to full adjudication? Follow the money indeed.
I agree with Ms. Duckworth, “follow the money”. Let’s look at who’s spending the big bucks. The proponents of the water district have been PRAAGS and PRO Water Equity. PRAAGS will have spent several hundreds of thousands of dollars in its effort to bring this issue to the voters. That’s right voters, which is the most open and public way to decide an important issue. PRAAGS will go away after the election.
Now let’s look at where the real money is being spent. A group of local folks have decided to file a Quiet Title action in the courts. The Quiet Title action which could lead to full adjudication of the basin are notorious for their length with complex basins like ours taking 15 plus years to decide. These actions are also notorious for their cost. Santa Maria litigation which is still going after 18 years cost between $10,000,000 to $20,000,000 in legal fees and expert testimony. You have to ask yourself why would these folks want to file a lawsuit? I think the answer is that the Quiet Title folks are pursuing their self-interest at the exclusion of others. The Quiet Title folks will be spending millions of dollars and that’s what I call ‘big money’.
If you think I’m kidding, just consider this. Go to the Superior Court in Santa Clara County website and look at the Quiet Title legal filings ( website: http://www.scefiling.org/cases/docket/newdocket.jsp?caseId=962). These are all the documents that attorneys file in preparation for a trial. As of today there are 251 separate filings. Go look at these filing and in your own mind think about how much this is costing in attorney fees. The Quiet Title Lawsuit will have its first two trials in January. These trials are scheduled for 15 days. It’s easy to calculate that the cost of these trials in attorney fees and expert testimony could likely be in excess of $300,000. As this litigation progresses over the years, maybe decades, the expense will eclipse PRAAGS spending by 10, 20 or 30 times.
Now this is where it starts getting ugly. You and me are paying part of the cost of this legal action. That’s right, you and me as tax payers in the County, in Paso Robles, in Atascadero and in Templeton. The Quiet Title folks are suing you and me. Our respective governments are defending against the lawsuit. The money spent by our government in its legal defense could have otherwise been spent on roads or parks or programs for the benefit of the needy.
If that’s not bad enough, it gets uglier. If the Quiet Title Action becomes full adjudication which Quiet Title supporters claim they want, then guess what? You and me have to pay again. With full adjudication, all landowners over the basin will be forced to become litigants and you and I will have to hire our own attorney to protect our interests. Now you and me will be paying on both sides of the lawsuit. That’s not very fair because this is being forced on me without my consent. Contrast that with the upcoming election where I get to vote either ‘YES’ or ‘NO’.
Finally just a one more sobering thought. The Quiet Title folks say their lawsuit is to protect their water rights. The opposite is true; it puts theirs and our water rights at risk. When they, the QT folks walk through the courtroom door, they have relinquished their rights because they are asking the judge to tell them what their water rights are. Of course the QT folks expect to win, but there are no guarantees. Most experts and pundits predicted that the Supreme would overturn Obamacare, but they didn’t. Expensive and lengthy litigation seems like risky business to me. Local folks, rather than black robes in San Jose, in charge of our groundwater basin seems like a better solution to me.
Jerry Reaugh rural Paso Robles
I am so grateful to have left the state of California. It appears things have only gotten incredibly worse there.
And a Happy Thanksgiving to you too. I love your comments Mr. Brown, because you have described your own activities to a T! By all means, let’s follow the money – How many PR firms have been hired to promote this water district? How much have they been paid? Where did that money come from? You are on the PRAAGS board so you should know the answers and if you don’t, take a look at your own Form 460s that answers all those questions. These forms are public record available to anyone interested. As Mr. Reaugh says, PRAAGS is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on this and even managed to get the county to chip in a few hundred thousand of taxpayer dollars when PRAAGS couldn’t get the required application signatures on their petition. The “Yes or No” vote is all well and good, it’s the campaign tactics that get flakey and that’s where the ‘big money’ gets invested. If this proposed water district is such a good deal, why do you have to work so hard trying to convince us that we should have it?
Mr. Brown, please show some leadership in providing proof to statements you’ve made like “The State will take over.” And, “The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) doesn’t allow the AB 3030 plan to be used.” Or “We have to set up this AB 2453 water district to satisfy SGMA.” I’ve read that law many times and cannot find such references anywhere in it so please show us where they are. I agree that one end of the pipe in Shandon is just a two inch diameter, but why not talk about the rest of that pipe. What is the diameter of the other end and how many reducers are in the line? How difficult is it to remove those reducers or tap into a larger section of that pipe midway? Give us ALL the facts.
Why don’t I join my neighbors…? I have joined my neighbors in filing for Quiet Title on our property. Quiet Title was NOT filed as a law suit, it was a very simple legal action until the water purveyors chose to claim prescription against us and turned it into a law suit. We only have one attorney working on our behalf while the county, cities and CSDs must have a dozen or so trying to keep us from getting the quiet title attached to our deeds. If they would just disclaim and allow us to have our quiet title, it could all end tomorrow. When Mr. Reaugh says that we may not win our QT case and risk losing our water right, he is showing how little he know about the law. We are guaranteed to get the QT. The worst case situation is that we could end up with a very small cloud on our title indicating that the purveyors are entitled to a minute fraction of the water under our property IF they can prove their case. You keep saying that all property owners in the basin could get dragged into the suit, having to hire their own attorneys and spend big money defending themselves from the Quiet Title action. Only those selling water have that problem and only because they chose to claim a priority right to the water under our property while the California Constitution clearly states that purveyors have the secondary right to groundwater so please tell us how anyone else could possibly get pulled into the suit. This is another example of how you like to use unsubstantiated “fear tactics”. Hey, while you are looking at the court records, you might take note of comments made by the judge that this appears to be a rather simple case that should turn out to be the shortest case in California history. I’ll be very happy to work with my neighbors in making the basin sustainable but the AB 2453 plan being used to form this proposed district does not satisfy the SGMA requirements at all.
PRAAGS is an organization made up of growers and ranchers small and large who simply want a seat at the table so that those in agriculture can at least have their voices heard because they will be paying for most of it. We represent the backbone of the economy in the North County. Without agriculture, your land would be worth a fraction of what it is today. Agriculture is our livelihood, so we have a lot at stake. We want our community to continue to thrive. The water issue is no different. Simply, we chose to work on a compromise solution that gives everyone a voice.
You sat in the same meetings and heard Dr. Ekdahl and others from the state say precisely what they will do if the landowners vote down the special tax. That’s the trigger. We and the County become powerless if we don’t vote to fund it. The state does not need our consent to unilaterally assess every well owner, set pumping limits or put meters on our wells. You continue to paint adjudication as blue skies and bright lights and a piece of cake to claim your rights. Time, a lot of time, will tell. It really makes no difference at this point as our fate will already have been decided in March
Bob Brown How about telling everyone who is giving you all the money for supporting the water district?
Lauire, I would have to say scare tactics is a very mild way of saying "lies" coming for PRAAGS.
I really don’t have the time for this little tag team game but Ms. Gage’s post almost demands a response. After reading through her long description of what the state can do (under very specific circumstances) in the way of getting the basin management moving in the right direction, I came to the conclusion that she is actually agreeing with me that the state cannot and will not “take over the basin.” Thank you Laurie.
Now about the matter of the Flood Control District not doing anything to manage the basin – I really find it strange that just before PRAAGS started asking for the water district, our First District Supervisor, and many others, were praising the Flood Control Department as being such a shining example and saying that the rest of the state needed to follow their lead in created the AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plan. Almost overnight, San Luis Obispo County is supposedly one of the worst in the state at managing groundwater. So did they do a good job with the AB 3030 plan or not? By the way, we keep hearing that SGMA will not allow the AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plan to be dusted off and revised to use as our Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan. If that is true, please explain to me how it is that Atascadero is doing precisely that! And it isn’t costing them $950,000 to do it – or even $250,000 either. Hey folks, let’s take a close look at what Atascadero is doing and find out what kind of scam is being perpetrated on us with the claims that it cannot be accomplished for less than a million dollars a year. Just vote NO on the water district financing and formation.
First thing that came to my mind when I read this was….mmmm, here's where there is someone who actually states that the SLO Flood Control District does not do it's job, Well, they don't but it's on purpose so that LAFCO will deem SLO county incapable of managing it's own water. Thus making the case that there must be another additional water district overriding the one that is already in place through the County. Thanks PRAAGS for really making me dislike my hometown. You are greedly people who just want control. I really can't see why there isn't a cry out for our County to do it's job and manage it's own water for all cities within it's juristiciton. I'm so sick of seeing what these OUT of TOWN vineyard owners are doing to our natural resources as well as the imbalance that all the vineyard fencing causes with our wildlife. Funny how Fish & Game doesn't seem to worry so much about that, but now we can't harvest sand from the riverbed. What a messed up place this is becoming.