Letter: Will the state intervene in water basin issues?
I talked with good friends who attended one of Cindy Steinbeck’s recent meetings about the water district. They said she emphatically says the state will never step in.
You have to ask yourself, why is it that she never invites officials from the county and the state to her public meetings so both sides can be heard? The new state law, state officials and the county supervisors say that an agency must declare itself to manage the Paso Basin by June of next year. That agency could be the county or the water district. Which one has not as yet been determined because the results of the Measure A & B election won’t be known until after March 8th.
The county also says it will cost money to do this, be it the county or the district, but they are required to get our consent by approving Measure A. Defeating it sends a signal to the state and the county that we refuse to fund it ourselves. The county’s hands are tied as they say they don’t have extra money lying around for something we just told them we don’t want to pay for. This is choosing to do nothing. Doesn’t this trigger state intervention?
Last Wednesday in Templeton, Tom Peltier and Jessica Bean of the State Water Resources Control Board addressed the public on this very matter. Mr. Peltier said and I quote: “Anyone who tells you the state won’t step in is misinformed.” Jessica Bean said, “State intervention happens when local efforts fail, including choosing to do nothing. The state will certainly come in under those circumstances.” Obviously Sacramento is watching what‘s going on here very closely. The question then becomes, do we want to become the poster child for the first state intervention under the new law? Do we want to be the headline in every major newspaper in the state?
So Ms. Steinbeck says the state won’t come in. The state says it will. Those urging a yes vote on the district are merely saying what the state says it will do. Now, who are we supposed to believe, the state or Ms. Steinbeck?
Bob Brown
Paso Robles, Calif.
The Paso Robles Daily News welcomes letters to the editor. They may be submitted here or emailed to scott@pasoroblesdailynews.com
From what I am hearing from concern property owners that have wells in the basin is that if Measure A and B passes than there are quite a few land owners and business that want to sell water from the water basin to other cities and even counties. I don't know how most well water tables are quickly going down but my well has drop of an average of 15 to 20 feet a year the past 5 years. If our wells dry out than our properties become almost worthless. Paso Robles City is the biggest users and they need to SLOW the growth down. Until we pipe water in from up north.
LOL – Who am I suppose to believe? Since when do we ever trust and believe what the state says?
Their concern is unfounded as it would be illegal for private landowners to sell their water as violates the State Constitution and a County ordinance. Property owners do not own the water under their land. They only have the right to use it reasonably and beneficially for themselves. Likewise, as you correctly point out, there is no excess water to sell. Such a taking of water would also violate the new Sustainable Groundwater Management Act enacted in 2014. By law, the proposed district cannot export water. The State has no such restriction.
Rich, the rumors are unfounded but make good soundbites. Had you spoken strongly for the district, the opposition probably would have painted you as a spokesperson for your employer, since Justin is one of the favorite targets. The reality is We do have a problem. We do need to comply with a state law called SGMA. We do have supply options that could help us minimize pumping. What we don't have is someone looking out for us, the rural resident of the North County.
Unfortunately, some are more invested in attacking those trying to solve the problem than actually trying to find a solution. When was the last time you heard a proposed solution from the opposition? You don't. They offer none.
Do you think County Supervisors elected by the larger populations of cities will force water cutbacks to protect rural residents? Neither do I. Only rural residents will look out for rural residents.
My experience is that when the State has the opportunity to build it's empire and gain more control, they are all too happy to do so.
Thats makes good sense Randy. Its amazing how so many people think if you vote yes than this measure will give land owners the right to sell their water. I just want to make sure I clearly understand what voting yes or no meant. Its a little confusing. I reading and listening to many people.
Here are some important facts you need to read. Paso Robles Basin is
just one of many basins across the state poised to convert to privately
controlled, for-profit water banks.
http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1135&context=gguelj
Here are some important facts you need to read. Paso Robles Basin is
just one of many basins across the state poised to convert to privately
controlled, for-profit water banks.
http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1135&context=gguelj
Several things to keep in mind about this piece. The Golden Gate Journal is published by students and is not peer reviewed. One of the authors have been fighting the State and the Kern Water Authority for almost 20 years with little to show for it which is evident in the writings. Both of of their organizations are viewed by many as radical far left environmental organizatons, one of which is responsible for million of gallons of water that are allowed to flow into the Pacific to protect the Delta Smelt versus flowing south to help farmers and residents in the Central Valley. You can decide for yourself how much sense that makes. The function and hydrologicial makeup of the Kern Water Bank and the Paso Basin are night and day. The authors offer no references or citations to substantiate their assertion that water banking is or will take place here or that privatiztion is happening here other than citing local or state newspaper opinon pieces which are full of rumor and innuendo, They also fail to mention that the proposed district is prevented by law from exporting water. I'd be happy to go though it paragraph with you if you'd like. Email me at info@yesonaandb.com with your contact info and we could meet over coffee.
It's interesting that you say your friend attend, when it fact you were there and was asking questions. Makes me wonder what other things you say are untrue. Why are you so afarid the state will step in? Could it be that the state would put water meters on vineyards??? I think that would be a great thing.
From what I am hearing from concern property owners that have wells in the basin is that if Measure A and B passes than there are quite a few land owners and business that want to sell water from the water basin to other cities and even counties. I don't know how most well water tables are quickly going down but my well has drop of an average of 15 to 20 feet a year the past 5 years. If our wells dry out than our properties become almost worthless. Paso Robles City is the biggest users and they need to SLOW the growth down. Until we pipe water in from up north.
LOL – Who am I suppose to believe? Since when do we ever trust and believe what the state says?
Their concern is unfounded as it would be illegal for private landowners to sell their water as violates the State Constitution and a County ordinance. Property owners do not own the water under their land. They only have the right to use it reasonably and beneficially for themselves. Likewise, as you correctly point out, there is no excess water to sell. Such a taking of water would also violate the new Sustainable Groundwater Management Act enacted in 2014. By law, the proposed district cannot export water. The State has no such restriction.
Rich, the rumors are unfounded but make good soundbites. Had you spoken strongly for the district, the opposition probably would have painted you as a spokesperson for your employer, since Justin is one of the favorite targets. The reality is We do have a problem. We do need to comply with a state law called SGMA. We do have supply options that could help us minimize pumping. What we don't have is someone looking out for us, the rural resident of the North County.
Unfortunately, some are more invested in attacking those trying to solve the problem than actually trying to find a solution. When was the last time you heard a proposed solution from the opposition? You don't. They offer none.
Do you think County Supervisors elected by the larger populations of cities will force water cutbacks to protect rural residents? Neither do I. Only rural residents will look out for rural residents.
My experience is that when the State has the opportunity to build it's empire and gain more control, they are all too happy to do so.
Thats makes good sense Randy. Its amazing how so many people think if you vote yes than this measure will give land owners the right to sell their water. I just want to make sure I clearly understand what voting yes or no meant. Its a little confusing. I reading and listening to many people.
Here are some important facts you need to read. Paso Robles Basin is
just one of many basins across the state poised to convert to privately
controlled, for-profit water banks.
http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1135&context=gguelj
Here are some important facts you need to read. Paso Robles Basin is
just one of many basins across the state poised to convert to privately
controlled, for-profit water banks.
http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1135&context=gguelj
Several things to keep in mind about this piece. The Golden Gate Journal is published by students and is not peer reviewed. One of the authors have been fighting the State and the Kern Water Authority for almost 20 years with little to show for it which is evident in the writings. Both of of their organizations are viewed by many as radical far left environmental organizatons, one of which is responsible for million of gallons of water that are allowed to flow into the Pacific to protect the Delta Smelt versus flowing south to help farmers and residents in the Central Valley. You can decide for yourself how much sense that makes. The function and hydrologicial makeup of the Kern Water Bank and the Paso Basin are night and day. The authors offer no references or citations to substantiate their assertion that water banking is or will take place here or that privatiztion is happening here other than citing local or state newspaper opinon pieces which are full of rumor and innuendo, They also fail to mention that the proposed district is prevented by law from exporting water. I'd be happy to go though it paragraph with you if you'd like. Email me at info@yesonaandb.com with your contact info and we could meet over coffee.
It's interesting that you say your friend attend, when it fact you were there and was asking questions. Makes me wonder what other things you say are untrue. Why are you so afarid the state will step in? Could it be that the state would put water meters on vineyards??? I think that would be a great thing.