Letter: The quiet part out loud – What’s really driving groundwater ‘management’
To the editor,
– In a moment of rare and revealing honesty, a Paso Robles Area Groundwater Authority (PRAGA) member agency has finally said the quiet part out loud. And bless them for it—because we don’t have to wonder anymore.
Straight from a recent newsletter sent by one of PRAGA’s very own member water districts (you know, the ones tasked with “sustainable access to water for all”?), we get this gem:
“What’s at stake? A Cal Poly study […] found that the local economy would lose at least $49 million per year and could go as high as $146 million from reduced pumping. The direct losses to the wine industry would be even greater. This is why your Water Districts, along with other GSAs, have decided to agree to a Joint Powers Agreement… to get the work done.”
Get the work done, huh? Turns out, the “work” is making sure large-scale agricultural operations keep the pumps running—even as the rest of us are left crossing our fingers that our wells don’t run dry.
Let’s decode that together: A new groundwater sustainability agency was formed to (wait for it)… avoid reductions in pumping(?) Because, the wine industry and local economy can’t face a financial loss. We’ve apparently redefined “sustainability” to mean “economic continuity for the largest pumpers.” Strip mining the aquifer by some in the name of local growth and prosperity beyond the borders of our basin is now a sanctioned economic development strategy. Wasn’t this whole thing about protecting our access to water?
Of course we’ve all known this for quite some time.
And remember all those flashy plans from consultants over the past decade that John Q. Californian-Taxpayer has been footing the bill for? Infrastructure upgrades, recharge projects, basin-wide improvements? Cut. Scrapped. Removed during budget discussions. Too expensive, they said, so a “prudent budget” which leaves these projects out, despite prior claims that they were essential to balancing the basin, was presented. But hey, plenty of money for five more years of meetings, monitoring, modeling, and million-dollar admin overhead–”keeping the lights on,” as it was stated. All to arbitrarily appease the State while even this writer hears more stories of local wells going dry.
So what’s the strategy now? Stall. Monitor. Spend. Repeat.
And don’t worry—the Agency is doing all this in the “most efficient way it can, with the least impact on local business as possible.” That’s a direct quote, not parody. Some crisis. Efficiency here apparently means the least amount of change for the entities who helped overdraft the basin in the first place, if you buy the crisis narrative.
And what about you—the family homeowner, the rural resident, the de minimis pumper who’s just trying to water a garden or keep a home habitable? You’re not even permitted to support or oppose the budget aimed at managing the water below your property. Literally. The Prop 218 process that’s now underway to fund this new JPA excludes you from both notification and protest rights. You’re not a stakeholder, just a bystander. Fees for the new agency “apply” to our properties. We don’t have to pay those fees directly, at least not right now, so we don’t get a say in the budget or management of our own groundwater.
This brings us to two very bleak conclusions:
1) They don’t actually believe there’s a water crisis—this is business opportunism cloaked in conservation (sound familiar?), or
2) They do believe there’s a crisis—but believe that only a handful of “local” players (read: the ones with acreage and profits on the line) deserve to steer the response, despite being a minority of property owners and likely having business and financial ties to decision-makers.
In either case, the outcome is the same: more bureaucracy, more delay, and less water for everyone else. Meanwhile, your property is about to carry a new liability—courtesy of someone else’s pumping habits and a rate study with a budget discussion you weren’t invited to.
Let’s revisit another line from that same district newsletter:
“If the State takes over, it very well may not consider our local needs and wishes, so we feel that it is critical to keep control of this process in local hands.”
Here’s the question no one seems to ask: Whose local hands? Because it’s clearly not the hands of residents in Paso Robles, Creston, or Templeton.
Apparently, an out-of-county corporate vineyard counts as “local” but not the homesteader with a domestic well across the street.
Now before anyone tries to cast this op-ed as anti-ag or anti-business, take a deep breath. I love a good glass of local wine as much as the next Paso native, and my family tries to buy local and support local businesses as often as possible. But we don’t get to hide behind “local control” while gutting local participation–excluding the actual locals. We don’t get to spend a decade burning millions in grants, studies, and workshops, only to walk away with a JPA that shields big players from consequence while sticking homeowners with the burden—“contributions,” deferred payments, or worse: our water.
This isn’t about asking the State for help. No one. Read that: no one wants the State to get involved. However, as evidenced from the outcries of nearly 1,000 homeowners and growing who rely on the basin as their sole source of water who have signaled their opposition to PRAGA attests, we don’t want any money to be spent or decisions to be made regarding our groundwater supply without our consent and involvement. Period.
This is about demanding accountability from the people who told us for years–more than a decade–that they had it handled. They didn’t. They haven’t. And now that the clock has run out and State funding has run dry, they want more time, more money–and less scrutiny.
Sustainability doesn’t mean sacrificing the commons for economic convenience. And “local control” should never be code for “corporate carveout.”
Ultimately, the Prop 218 process currently underway and which will in all likelihood fund a new agency with old, costly, and failed strategies is morally, ethically, and perhaps even legally flawed. Despite likely legal challenges–more money–it will likely move forward, unless our “representatives” actually represent the majority of those affected and put a stop to this black mark of disenfranchisement which will linger for years. Local government is one of the only examples of direct democracy that exists in our beautiful blend of government. This should be left to truly local control–the property owners affected by management decisions and spending.
Some of us still believe in principle, and we’re not buying the wine-soaked, population-building definition of water stewardship PRAGA is trying to sell.
John W. Tucker, Templeton
Editor’s note: Opinion pieces and letters to the editor are the personal opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Paso Robles Daily News or its staff. We welcome letters from local residents regarding relevant local topics. To submit one, click here.
True, so true. It may come as shock to some, but the ‘bald-faced’ fact is that the wine industry carries much more weight than any group of individual homeowners.
As the old saying goes – “Just follow the money”
True, so true. It may come as shock to some, but the ‘bald-faced’ fact is that the wine industry carries much more weight than any group of individual homeowners.
As the old saying goes – “Just follow the money”