Letter: Vote ‘yes’ on water district to protect your interests
To the editor,
–We’ve all been bombarded with news and commentary about the water district election. Despite all the rumors, wild conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated claims. The issue before voters and landowners in rural North County is quite simple.
Who is going to be responsible for management of the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin Rural residents and landowners like me and my neighbors have an opportunity to say “yes.”
We have a choice.
• “Yes” we want to be in control of managing our water.
• “Yes” we want that management to be local, just like we have local management of our school districts.
• “Yes” we want to keep the county supervisors out of managing our water.
• “Yes” we want to keep the state out of managing our water.
• “Yes” we want to insure there will be no export of water. The local water district can not export water because it’s in the law. The county and state can export.
• “Yes” we want rural residents and small landowners to have a “say.” Rural residents and small landowners will elect 5 of the 9 directors.
If either of the two measures fails, then you will have no choices and others in San Luis Obispo or Sacramento will be making the decisions for you starting 2017.
• A “no” vote means higher taxes. That’s right, higher taxes. Just the opposite of what you have been told; you have been lied to. The county has determined what it will cost to manage the basin according to the new State Law SGMA. Both county and state officials have said locals will pay for management. If there are no funds available locally for management and a GSA is not formed, then the state will step in and you will be charged whatever the state determines without your consent, just like the new fire protection fee most rural resident have been charged. It will cost you a lot more if the state is managing.
• A “no” vote means you want to let someone else other than your neighbors manage our basin.
Yes, let’s keep it local.
Jerry Reaugh
Rural Paso Robles resident, landowner, farmer, chairman of Paso Robles Agricultural Alliance for Groundwater Solutions.
Here is a direct quote from Tom Peltier of the State Water Resources Control Board talking about the Paso Basin; “Anyone who tells you the State won’t step in is misinformed.” Do we really want to thumb our nose at the State?
All I want from either side is the truth in the information you are presenting. I see 2 non-truths in your letter: 1.) There will be no fee this is incorrect. 2). There will be no water banking.
I attended a VERY good informational presentation sponsored by CWA – California Wome For Agriculture. All sides were there, For, Against, Sate Water Board Represenatives and John
Diodati, San Luis Obispo County Public Works Department. It will cost landowners and citizens no matter which way the vote goes. Anyone telling you there will not be a fee is miss-informed….. Water Banking is a HUGE issue and it is happening in Kern County with their private Water District. This issue seems to be glossed over by the Vote Yes side of the debate. There is NO guarntee that there will be no water banking. You can still get a permit to bank water from SLO County. Please speak directly with John Diodati. Also the formation details are not all in place. Still many unkowns from the State Water Board and SGMA about the GSA. I feel at this time we the citizens really do not have a CLEAR base of information to be voting on anything at this time. There is no protocol in place, we are the test subjects on this and it could be one of the biggest water and land grabs in history. We need ALL the questions and concerns addressed and a guarntee of NO water banking… before any voting.
check into Protect Our Water Rights for the truth, not the sales job the big wineries are pushing for their own self interests
Yes on the District not only to protect your interests but your water rights. The District cannot take your water rights away – it's part of SGMA. The only place you can lose your water rights is in court. The District has no more powers or authorities than either the County or the State so to demonize it as having excessive powers is another of the tactics the opposition is using to frighten people into voting No.
There are several reasons why the water district is our best protection against export of water from the Basin. 1) The water district is prohibited from exporting water by law. See LAFCO Condition 6 on page 12 of the district formation ballot package. The County and other entities can get a permit to export water, but the water district cannot do so. 2) Landowners overlying a groundwater basin have a shared right to the underlying water. It's called a correlative water right. If an overlying landowner sells that right to someone who takes the water out of the basin, that new use is considered appropriative (because it isn't an overlying use) and is junior to all the overlying landowners' rights. So, unless there is surplus water available for appropriation (which there isn't, since the Basin is in critical overdraft), overlying landowners can stop the export of groundwater from their basin. Similarly, the water district can prevent any public or private entity from doing so. 3) The water district is a public agency which must comply with SGMA – including the prevention of "undesirable results. The lowering of groundwater is an undesirable result under SGMA. Export of water could not be done without causing lowering of groundwater, so it cannot be done by the water district which will be charged to comply with SGMA. 4) AB 2453 (which amended the California Water Code to provide for formation of the Paso Robles Basin Water District) was enacted in order to provide a local governmental framework to balance the supply and consumption of groundwater underlying the district, and thereby sustaining its resources for the beneficial use of all landowners overlying it. Export of water would clearly not meet these requirements. 5) I am a candidate for the water district board. I am personally opposed to exporting water from the Basin. I will vote against any attempt to export water. All of the other water district candidates have made similar pledges. 6) How can anyone talk about exporting water when many of us have lost our wells? The water level in my well fell over 150 ft and we had to drill a new well into poor quality water. We need to sustainably manage the basin, not export water.
Thank You so my question is this. There is at some point in time the possibility of exporting water out of the "Water District"? The Board can vote to do so? So if this was to happen and the overlying landowners were to object, does that mean they would have to get a Court Order to stop this action???
Thank you for attending the CWA presentation and pursuing information on this topic. In reference to the fees, I believe the author meant No means higher fees than Yes. Unfortunately there will be fees for SGMA compliance no matter who administers it. I believe a local district will be the least expensive.
The water banking is a longer topic than can be put here, but a few items. 1. This district is not "private" like the Kern Water Bank. 2. Export by the 2453 district is prohibited by it's LAFCO formation. If you would like to discuss banking and export further, please message me.
I am having trouble understanding the supposed non-truths. My letter did not discuss fees nor banking, so I am having trouble how there could be non-truths. What I did say is “both county and state officials have said locals will pay for management.” ‘Banking’ is nowhere to be found in my letter.
You also expressed your concern about the “unknowns”. Yes there are unknowns as there are also unknowns about the County, the State, SGMA, and GSAs. I would like to point out that the folks in Los Osos waited for a decade or so before they were willing to accept the truth. Our truth is that we can act today and take control of our water future and not roll over and let the County or the State take control.
Mr. Brown, that's called lying by omission! You negelect to mention the extreme circumstances that would have to exist for the state to step in.
Very good Katherine, you are on the right track. Step one in setting up a water bank is to get the voters to establish an independent water district that they can deal with. Neither the county or state can do it, only the type water district that we are being asked to vote in and these people clearly want it bad eough to say and do ANYTHING to get your vote.
Here we have aother example of lying by omission. When non-native water is deposited in a basin (even paper water) it is the property of whoever deposited it, just like a bank account. The depositor can then withdraw it at any time, leaving thier paper water IOU behind (a void in our basin) and they can do whatever they choose with that water and it is not classified as an export. Welcome to Water Banking 101.
No Ms. Gage, this district would protect your interest but not mine and to vote for this district would be voting to turn our warer rights over to the nine menber board to make decisions on our behalf. We would no longer have any control over our rights. The candidates for the board seats may be my neighbors, and I even know many of them but, with two exceptions, I do NOT trust them at all. This district has noting to do with SGMA, it is all about AB 2453 and to say that the powers in each are identical is one more huge lie being told. Anyone interested in the truth needs to read both bills and see for your self. You can find them both at PR-WIN.ORG.
By the way, Sue Luft has worded for the Kern Water Bank in the past so she knows all about how the water banking game works.
Your water rights are protected by SGMA, which outlines the authorities of any agency that manages a basin. SGMA specifically addresses property rights and the fact that they cannot be taken away. Any agency that manages the Basin will have the same ability to regulate extractions – the County, the Water District, or the State – but regulating extractions is not the same as taking away property rights. Please do compare the authorities in SGMA and AB2453 – an item by item comparison will show there is little that is different between them. And if the Water District is approved by the voters who are interested in coming together as a community and working with the Board to find solutions instead of obstructions to effect sustainability, then this vote most certainly is ALL about SGMA as the Water District will be required to meet SGMA's mandates, requirements and timeframes.
Let's see….the first "extreme circumstance" will occur on June 30, 2017 if there is no Groundwater Sustainability Agency in place. If the funding of Measure A is not approved, the County will not have the funds or the staff to be that agency. And they are not required to be that agency; they must apply to the State first. They have not done so and if there are no funds for them to be the managers, I fully believe what the representatives of the State have said in four different public meetings and in written correspondance: they will begin the process of managing the Basin through an interim plan and, according to the same State reps, it will cost more and we will not have local control. Please don't try to say that the County is already managing the Basin; it may be in title, but until it applies to the State, it isn't managing under SGMA. And please don't say that the County's AB3030 plan is sufficient with a little tweaking to be the Plan the State wants to see; of the 55 draft requirements for Groundwate Management Plans, our AB3030 plan contains only THREE.
So, Mr. Brown's quoting what the State representatives have said multiple time is truth. If I have to believe what the State has said it will do, what it is authorized for the first time in California history to do which is to manage basins in trouble that have no local control, or people who seem to think the State won't come in, I know whom I believe.
Your arguments against the the Water District would be more effective if you ever were to come up with alternate solutions that would satisfy SGMA – but you know that it is only the County (which you have said is untrustworthy), the Water District, or the State. Those are our only choices.
Ms. Duckworth, not long ago you attempted to argue that adjudication would exempt you from SGMA compliance. Now you know it won't. Now you say the State won’t step in but they say they will if we don’t establish local governance. I site specific quotations and references from reputable sources. You offer none. I mentioned in an earlier post that don’t argue on the merits, instead you resort to ad hominem attacks. You have done it again. Again, who are we to believe, you or the State?
Laurie Gage Well, after all the half truths coming form your group, I would gladly accept the state. I don't like the ideal of a Nancy Pelosi water district, you will have to vote yes to find out what it will do.
Laurie Gage Well, after all the half truths coming form your group, I would gladly accept the state. I don't like the ideal of a Nancy Pelosi water district, you will have to vote yes to find out what it will do.
Oh, please! Throwing out baseless accusations is easy to do; to find out the truth requires just a little more work. Ms. Luft owned an environmental engineering firm and have you ever directly asked her what her involvement with the Kern Water Bank Authority was? I did and this is her response: "The Kern Water Bank Authority (KWBA) was one of our firms clients, but certainly not a substantial client. We performed several environmental site assessments for the KWBA during the years 1995 through 2001. Environmental site assessments involve the review of properties for potential environmental contamination.
Our work for KWBA was strictly environmental site assessments and did not involve any allocating, accounting or distributing water from the Kern Water Bank or working with the State Water Project." She further encouraged those interested in looking past the accusations to visit her website at http://www.sueluft4pasobasin.org.
If you cannot come up with alternative solutions to managing the Basin and instead lean on demonizing the proposed Water District and its candidates for the Board, you show the weakness of your arguments. Ms. Luft has been involved with water issues since her arrival here in the County, and has a wealth of knowledge and an engineer's approach to finding solutions. I would be honored to have her as one of my representatives on the Board as she spends her energy on finding solutions and not on groundless accusations of others.
Ms. Duckworth. The facts are presented on my website (www.sueluft4pasobasin.org). I’m sorry that I cannot make you understand them.
Laurie Gage Come on Laurie, you don't have to play the dumb role, you know that the state has already named the county as the GSA and the county would have to petition DWR with some very good reasons to opt out of that positon. And before going on with the charade of the county not having the money to manage the district, please explain how they can afford to manages the other 21 basins in the county but this one must have an additional million dollars a year to be managed. Oh yes, there is one other problem with your scenario – can anyone that knows anything about Bruce Gibson or Adam Hill imagine any situation that would cause either of them to voluntarily relinquishing any power or control of any part of this county? That just ain't gona happen!
You may want to check your FACTS. Yes, lacking application by another GSA, the County is "presumed" under Section 10724 of SGMa to be the management agency, but it must still provide notice to the DWR that intends to be that under section 10723.8. If it doesn't and there is no other GSA by June 30, 2017, the State will proceed. The only place "opt out" is mentioned is in regards to a specified list in the legislation of management agencies and their boundaries – those listed agencies can choose to opt out, but only those agencies may opt out. And our County is not on that list.
Again FACTS: there are 5 basins, not 21, that are required to have management under SGMA. Cuyama, where Santa Barbara is taking the lead and a water district is being discussed. Los Osos, where there is are two small areas left out of the adjudication. Santa Maria, similar to Los Osos, primarily under court order, but with a small area not included. San Luis Obispo Valley (Edna), which is currently looking at water district or private water company formation. And the Paso Basin. So the County's role in those other, smaller areas or basins may be limited or zero.
And remember, the FACT is that general funds cannot be appropriated for ongoing projects, which is what basin management is. So if there is County management in any of the five basins, there will have to be a zone of benefit and a Prop 218 vote, with a budget sized appropriately for the management costs, just like the budget developed for County or District management of our basin. The reason general funds cannot be used? Because they are contributed to by all the taxpayers in the County, and we can no more ask the taxpayers for the entire County to pay for managing our Basin any more than they can ask for our tax dollars to pay for the Los Osos sewer project.
It all comes down to FACTS.
Here is a direct quote from Tom Peltier of the State Water Resources Control Board talking about the Paso Basin; “Anyone who tells you the State won’t step in is misinformed.” Do we really want to thumb our nose at the State?
All I want from either side is the truth in the information you are presenting. I see 2 non-truths in your letter: 1.) There will be no fee this is incorrect. 2). There will be no water banking.
I attended a VERY good informational presentation sponsored by CWA – California Wome For Agriculture. All sides were there, For, Against, Sate Water Board Represenatives and John
Diodati, San Luis Obispo County Public Works Department. It will cost landowners and citizens no matter which way the vote goes. Anyone telling you there will not be a fee is miss-informed….. Water Banking is a HUGE issue and it is happening in Kern County with their private Water District. This issue seems to be glossed over by the Vote Yes side of the debate. There is NO guarntee that there will be no water banking. You can still get a permit to bank water from SLO County. Please speak directly with John Diodati. Also the formation details are not all in place. Still many unkowns from the State Water Board and SGMA about the GSA. I feel at this time we the citizens really do not have a CLEAR base of information to be voting on anything at this time. There is no protocol in place, we are the test subjects on this and it could be one of the biggest water and land grabs in history. We need ALL the questions and concerns addressed and a guarntee of NO water banking… before any voting.
check into Protect Our Water Rights for the truth, not the sales job the big wineries are pushing for their own self interests
Yes on the District not only to protect your interests but your water rights. The District cannot take your water rights away – it's part of SGMA. The only place you can lose your water rights is in court. The District has no more powers or authorities than either the County or the State so to demonize it as having excessive powers is another of the tactics the opposition is using to frighten people into voting No.
There are several reasons why the water district is our best protection against export of water from the Basin. 1) The water district is prohibited from exporting water by law. See LAFCO Condition 6 on page 12 of the district formation ballot package. The County and other entities can get a permit to export water, but the water district cannot do so. 2) Landowners overlying a groundwater basin have a shared right to the underlying water. It's called a correlative water right. If an overlying landowner sells that right to someone who takes the water out of the basin, that new use is considered appropriative (because it isn't an overlying use) and is junior to all the overlying landowners' rights. So, unless there is surplus water available for appropriation (which there isn't, since the Basin is in critical overdraft), overlying landowners can stop the export of groundwater from their basin. Similarly, the water district can prevent any public or private entity from doing so. 3) The water district is a public agency which must comply with SGMA – including the prevention of "undesirable results. The lowering of groundwater is an undesirable result under SGMA. Export of water could not be done without causing lowering of groundwater, so it cannot be done by the water district which will be charged to comply with SGMA. 4) AB 2453 (which amended the California Water Code to provide for formation of the Paso Robles Basin Water District) was enacted in order to provide a local governmental framework to balance the supply and consumption of groundwater underlying the district, and thereby sustaining its resources for the beneficial use of all landowners overlying it. Export of water would clearly not meet these requirements. 5) I am a candidate for the water district board. I am personally opposed to exporting water from the Basin. I will vote against any attempt to export water. All of the other water district candidates have made similar pledges. 6) How can anyone talk about exporting water when many of us have lost our wells? The water level in my well fell over 150 ft and we had to drill a new well into poor quality water. We need to sustainably manage the basin, not export water.
Thank You so my question is this. There is at some point in time the possibility of exporting water out of the "Water District"? The Board can vote to do so? So if this was to happen and the overlying landowners were to object, does that mean they would have to get a Court Order to stop this action???
Thank you for attending the CWA presentation and pursuing information on this topic. In reference to the fees, I believe the author meant No means higher fees than Yes. Unfortunately there will be fees for SGMA compliance no matter who administers it. I believe a local district will be the least expensive.
The water banking is a longer topic than can be put here, but a few items. 1. This district is not "private" like the Kern Water Bank. 2. Export by the 2453 district is prohibited by it's LAFCO formation. If you would like to discuss banking and export further, please message me.
I am having trouble understanding the supposed non-truths. My letter did not discuss fees nor banking, so I am having trouble how there could be non-truths. What I did say is “both county and state officials have said locals will pay for management.” ‘Banking’ is nowhere to be found in my letter.
You also expressed your concern about the “unknowns”. Yes there are unknowns as there are also unknowns about the County, the State, SGMA, and GSAs. I would like to point out that the folks in Los Osos waited for a decade or so before they were willing to accept the truth. Our truth is that we can act today and take control of our water future and not roll over and let the County or the State take control.
Mr. Brown, that's called lying by omission! You negelect to mention the extreme circumstances that would have to exist for the state to step in.
Very good Katherine, you are on the right track. Step one in setting up a water bank is to get the voters to establish an independent water district that they can deal with. Neither the county or state can do it, only the type water district that we are being asked to vote in and these people clearly want it bad eough to say and do ANYTHING to get your vote.
Here we have aother example of lying by omission. When non-native water is deposited in a basin (even paper water) it is the property of whoever deposited it, just like a bank account. The depositor can then withdraw it at any time, leaving thier paper water IOU behind (a void in our basin) and they can do whatever they choose with that water and it is not classified as an export. Welcome to Water Banking 101.
No Ms. Gage, this district would protect your interest but not mine and to vote for this district would be voting to turn our warer rights over to the nine menber board to make decisions on our behalf. We would no longer have any control over our rights. The candidates for the board seats may be my neighbors, and I even know many of them but, with two exceptions, I do NOT trust them at all. This district has noting to do with SGMA, it is all about AB 2453 and to say that the powers in each are identical is one more huge lie being told. Anyone interested in the truth needs to read both bills and see for your self. You can find them both at PR-WIN.ORG.
By the way, Sue Luft has worded for the Kern Water Bank in the past so she knows all about how the water banking game works.
Your water rights are protected by SGMA, which outlines the authorities of any agency that manages a basin. SGMA specifically addresses property rights and the fact that they cannot be taken away. Any agency that manages the Basin will have the same ability to regulate extractions – the County, the Water District, or the State – but regulating extractions is not the same as taking away property rights. Please do compare the authorities in SGMA and AB2453 – an item by item comparison will show there is little that is different between them. And if the Water District is approved by the voters who are interested in coming together as a community and working with the Board to find solutions instead of obstructions to effect sustainability, then this vote most certainly is ALL about SGMA as the Water District will be required to meet SGMA's mandates, requirements and timeframes.
Let's see….the first "extreme circumstance" will occur on June 30, 2017 if there is no Groundwater Sustainability Agency in place. If the funding of Measure A is not approved, the County will not have the funds or the staff to be that agency. And they are not required to be that agency; they must apply to the State first. They have not done so and if there are no funds for them to be the managers, I fully believe what the representatives of the State have said in four different public meetings and in written correspondance: they will begin the process of managing the Basin through an interim plan and, according to the same State reps, it will cost more and we will not have local control. Please don't try to say that the County is already managing the Basin; it may be in title, but until it applies to the State, it isn't managing under SGMA. And please don't say that the County's AB3030 plan is sufficient with a little tweaking to be the Plan the State wants to see; of the 55 draft requirements for Groundwate Management Plans, our AB3030 plan contains only THREE.
So, Mr. Brown's quoting what the State representatives have said multiple time is truth. If I have to believe what the State has said it will do, what it is authorized for the first time in California history to do which is to manage basins in trouble that have no local control, or people who seem to think the State won't come in, I know whom I believe.
Your arguments against the the Water District would be more effective if you ever were to come up with alternate solutions that would satisfy SGMA – but you know that it is only the County (which you have said is untrustworthy), the Water District, or the State. Those are our only choices.
Ms. Duckworth, not long ago you attempted to argue that adjudication would exempt you from SGMA compliance. Now you know it won't. Now you say the State won’t step in but they say they will if we don’t establish local governance. I site specific quotations and references from reputable sources. You offer none. I mentioned in an earlier post that don’t argue on the merits, instead you resort to ad hominem attacks. You have done it again. Again, who are we to believe, you or the State?
Laurie Gage Well, after all the half truths coming form your group, I would gladly accept the state. I don't like the ideal of a Nancy Pelosi water district, you will have to vote yes to find out what it will do.
Laurie Gage Well, after all the half truths coming form your group, I would gladly accept the state. I don't like the ideal of a Nancy Pelosi water district, you will have to vote yes to find out what it will do.
Oh, please! Throwing out baseless accusations is easy to do; to find out the truth requires just a little more work. Ms. Luft owned an environmental engineering firm and have you ever directly asked her what her involvement with the Kern Water Bank Authority was? I did and this is her response: "The Kern Water Bank Authority (KWBA) was one of our firms clients, but certainly not a substantial client. We performed several environmental site assessments for the KWBA during the years 1995 through 2001. Environmental site assessments involve the review of properties for potential environmental contamination.
Our work for KWBA was strictly environmental site assessments and did not involve any allocating, accounting or distributing water from the Kern Water Bank or working with the State Water Project." She further encouraged those interested in looking past the accusations to visit her website at http://www.sueluft4pasobasin.org.
If you cannot come up with alternative solutions to managing the Basin and instead lean on demonizing the proposed Water District and its candidates for the Board, you show the weakness of your arguments. Ms. Luft has been involved with water issues since her arrival here in the County, and has a wealth of knowledge and an engineer's approach to finding solutions. I would be honored to have her as one of my representatives on the Board as she spends her energy on finding solutions and not on groundless accusations of others.
Ms. Duckworth. The facts are presented on my website (www.sueluft4pasobasin.org). I’m sorry that I cannot make you understand them.
Laurie Gage Come on Laurie, you don't have to play the dumb role, you know that the state has already named the county as the GSA and the county would have to petition DWR with some very good reasons to opt out of that positon. And before going on with the charade of the county not having the money to manage the district, please explain how they can afford to manages the other 21 basins in the county but this one must have an additional million dollars a year to be managed. Oh yes, there is one other problem with your scenario – can anyone that knows anything about Bruce Gibson or Adam Hill imagine any situation that would cause either of them to voluntarily relinquishing any power or control of any part of this county? That just ain't gona happen!
You may want to check your FACTS. Yes, lacking application by another GSA, the County is "presumed" under Section 10724 of SGMa to be the management agency, but it must still provide notice to the DWR that intends to be that under section 10723.8. If it doesn't and there is no other GSA by June 30, 2017, the State will proceed. The only place "opt out" is mentioned is in regards to a specified list in the legislation of management agencies and their boundaries – those listed agencies can choose to opt out, but only those agencies may opt out. And our County is not on that list.
Again FACTS: there are 5 basins, not 21, that are required to have management under SGMA. Cuyama, where Santa Barbara is taking the lead and a water district is being discussed. Los Osos, where there is are two small areas left out of the adjudication. Santa Maria, similar to Los Osos, primarily under court order, but with a small area not included. San Luis Obispo Valley (Edna), which is currently looking at water district or private water company formation. And the Paso Basin. So the County's role in those other, smaller areas or basins may be limited or zero.
And remember, the FACT is that general funds cannot be appropriated for ongoing projects, which is what basin management is. So if there is County management in any of the five basins, there will have to be a zone of benefit and a Prop 218 vote, with a budget sized appropriately for the management costs, just like the budget developed for County or District management of our basin. The reason general funds cannot be used? Because they are contributed to by all the taxpayers in the County, and we can no more ask the taxpayers for the entire County to pay for managing our Basin any more than they can ask for our tax dollars to pay for the Los Osos sewer project.
It all comes down to FACTS.