Letter: You were already cheated out of two voting opportunities
To the editor:
–A recent letter to the editor expressed the concern that Supervisor Arnold’s vote against pushing forward with a public vote on the formation and funding of the proposed water district for the Paso Robles Ground Water Basin was to suppress the right of the public to vote. Clearly this individual is severely misinformed.
Had original state law been followed, the public should have already had two opportunities to vote regarding this matter. The AB2453 bill that Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian brought forward to bring about this “special” water district included amendments that changed the LAFCO rules, removing the requirement for the threshold to file from a majority of landowners (51-percent) to 10-percent or that a local agency such as the BOS could file without any landowner consent. What does this mean? Essentially, Katcho, Bruce Gibson, Frank Meecham, PRAAGS and Pro Water Equity decided that the tax paying public was not savvy enough to be able to handle the ability to have a choice in the need to even put forth the district application. You were thus stripped of your first opportunity to voice your opinion.
As if that was not enough, the LAFCO board led by David Church, then removed the public protest period against the application. Conveniently, two of the supervisors (Gibson and Meecham) sit on the LAFCO board, yet were also the applicants for the water district. Clearly they don’t know the definition of conflict of interest. This was the second time your voice was silenced! Actively participating members of the community, who have been engaged in this issue and are not sitting on the sidelines, protested none the less and presented the LAFCO board with over 1200 protest letters against the formation. Only 13 people presented letters in favor of the formation, representing only six different households.
If members of the community are just now thinking that they have been disenfranchised, they are late to the party. Supervisor Arnold voted against the public vote because there are flaws with the boundary of the proposed district. The state Department of Water Resources recognized boundary, known as the 118 boundary, is not the proposed district boundary. Instead, district proponents are pushing to use the Furgo boundary. This boundary has not been approved by the DWR. Furthermore, it is smaller than the recognized 118 boundary, thereby non-inclusive of the entire basin. If this boundary is used, it will not meet SGMA requirements. Why spend tax payer money on a district that would not meet SGMA nor function with state recognized boundary lines? The folks within the 118 boundary but outside of the Furgo line are being stripped of their right to vote as well. Supervisor Arnold recognized that and did not want those people to be later thrown into the district to meet SGMA without having been privy to a vote.
On a final note, those not residing within these boundary lines, for example, Santa Margarita, are not allowed to vote for this district at all because it does not include their properties. Large cities that are over the basin however, for example, Paso Robles, are excluded from the district, again making the district non-compliant with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Begging the question, why waste tax payer dollars on extra bureaucracy that is not meeting state management practices? Oh, by the way, the PRGWB already has a water management plan, AB3030, that meets SGMA and state management practices. It has been in place since December 2009 with help from DWR funding grants. Can we say wag the dog?
–Greg Grewal, Creston resident
Please forward this information to everyone you know!!!
Oh boy…there are enough errors and misrepresentations in Mr. Grewal's letter to take up quite a bit of time, so let's just look at the big ones:
AB2453 did not "change the LAFCO rules," it actually added the County's ability to bring the application to LAFCO, which is the same thing the County has done in the past for special districts such as Templeton CSD.
The likelihood of LAFCO commissioners having an interest, connection to, prior knowledge of, etc.in matters that come before LAFCO is almost impossible thing to avoid, which is why the legislation that guides LAFCO recognizes it and makes it clear that when acting in their capacity as LAFCO representatives, that is ALL that they are doing, with a fresh view. LAFCO would cease to function each time it considers a governmental item if every government representative had to recuse themselves.
The protests submitted to LAFCO actually numbered under 900, with something over 1,200 signatures. Of those 900 protests, 28% had parcels OUTSIDE the district boundaries.
Regarding the Fugro boundary and the Bulletin 118 boundary, the Fugro boundary represents the best and most recent science as to where the basin actually lies. The Bulleting 118 boundaries are more than 30 years old. DWR is currently seeking boundary modification requests beginning in January, which would be up to the County. And as to why they aren't already working on a boundary change for the Basin, based on the Fugro studies, which the County paid for, I can't speak. And apparently it also mystified Supervisor Arnold who, at the November 10 Board of Supervisors meeting said that the County needs to ask DWR to change the boundary and "Why aren't we asking?" Agreed – the County needs to request that change from DWR as soon as possible! They've got 90 days from January 1 to get the request in.
Of course Paso Robles is excluded from the proposed district – it has its own authorities and manages its own water. What Mr. Grewal missed is the fact that it is NOT exempt from SGMA and, in fact, will have to work with all the other basin partners sitting at the table together to bring the basin to sustainability; these include the San Miguel CSD, Shandon CSA (County), the proposed district, Monterey County, Camp Roberts, etc.
And the AB3030 plan? It is not compliant with SGMA,, which has specified that rewarmed AB3030 plans will not be accepted as a Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Our AB3030 plan is missing major components that SGMA requires. Some of its components and studies will be useful to the future GSP, whoever writes it, but to say that it is compliant and ready to go is incorrect.
You well know that the Bulletin 118 boundaries were set by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) back in the early 70s when much less was known scientifically about the Paso Basin . Since then, there have been numerous technical and peer reviewed studies that determined from a hydrological and geographical basis the current Basin boundaries as was put forth by Fugro West Consultants, a world recognized firm in this field. When they first published thier findings and map, no one including you took any issue with their conclusions. Instead you now create a false narrative made out of whole cloth that it's all political by public servants who don't agree with you.
You also fail to mention that DWR has just approved guidelines that allow agencies to petition the Department to adjust their basin boundaries for this very reason. Again, this is another attempt to yell "squirrel" in hopes of districting voters in the Basin from comming together as a community to solve our own problems. This is the only way to get the County Supervisors (four of which you have railed against for months) out of our hair. By the way, how do you square this with wanting them to continue to manage our basin?
If we are unable to do this, the State will be here and not to kiss us on both cheeks to tell us what a great job we are doing with our dusted off AB 3030 plan. They will assess fees greater than what is being proposed and we will have no say; just like we will have no say if a judge gets involved. You know this too and it's disingenuous at best to say otherwise. It is our water, our community and it's about time we all start to recognize that we have but one chance to get this right. I say let us vote. Let us decide who we want to manage our Basin.
Thanks, Scott!
Greg is right on two items. First there was not a presentation made by those opposed to the county plan like the County staff presentations in front of Lafco or the board of supervisors. Every one was limited to three minutes which is not enough time to make such a presentation. Second using the Fugro boundary leaves those outside the Fugro boundary but inside the DWR 118 boundary in LIMBO. Do they have to form their own SGMA plan now? No one wants to address that.
The final straw in the plan presented to voters will be the financing of the SGMA plan by the proposed district. The water table droop has been caused by one activity- irrigation of areas not previously irrigated,. That group { mostly corporate Vineyards} is demanding that all land owners " share" in the pain of payment for a water district without water. The water district is not a districtas proposed. IT is a regulatory body with police powers that is being proposed. It has a long list of possible things it can do but none were included in the Lafco formation proposal.
The Cities and CSD's appropriated excess Lake Nacimiento available water before people had an opportunity to vote on using water that would make a district self supporting. People say that these districts will supply that water cheaper than a proposed water district can. Perhaps that is so, but by taking the unallotted water now, the unincorporated areas will always be under the control of those districts.
The LAFCO hearing is designed to present the proposed governmental agency to the public, which is what the County staff's presentation was about. Then the public is offered the opportunity to weigh in, which it did in almost equal numbers of pros and cons. The process is not designed to be a debate, with a pro side given a a presentation oppportunity, along with the con side. Those members of the public who were opposed to the district had ample opportunity to organize their thoughts and present a coherent argument if they had one.
Regarding those people residing in the area between the Fugro boundary and the Bulletin 118 boundary, they are not in limbo. If DWR accepts the argument that the Fugro boundary better defines the basin because it is more sound in terms of hydrogeology, then the people outside the Fugro boundary will not need to be managed by anyone. If DWR decides to stick with the Bulletin 118 boundary, then the decision will have to be made as to whether those people join the district, or are managed by the County or even possibly the State. If the County is to manage them, they will have the opportunity to vote on whatever funding mechanism the County decides is needed through a Prop 218 vote. If the State winds up managing them, there is no saying what that will look like except more expensive. And if they are annexed into the district, they will take part in future funding votes as well as board of directors votes. Applications for boundary revisions are due in the first three months of 2016 and absent a district, would need to be applied for by the County.
The SGMA funding was designed to equally spread the basic cost of SGMA compliance among all parcels ($15). Then there is a component that looks at land use – varying rates from $10 for vacant land, to $20 for a single family residence to $100 for commercial land designations. And then the County staff worked hard to come up with a way to describe water useage which would be simple if all had meters, but that's not the case. Under that design, the irrigated ag users will be paying based on acreage for 89% of that component.
It's a crying shame that the County Supervisors (Flood Control District) decided over the last 10 to 15 years to ignore the growing issues of water in the North County and made no attempt to secure Nacimiento water for the Basin. That's the kind of management they have been offering. If a water district had been in place, it would have had an equal seat at the table to obtain Nacimiento water along with Paso Robles, Atascadero, Templeton, and the County which is sending its portion over the Grade to South County.
It's also "shame on us" for not electing representatives who had the 30,000 foot view, and put something in place long ago that would have reduced or eliminated the pickle we find ourselves in now. They would have had a hard row to hoe against those screaming "property rights," but if they had had the tenacity and the foresight, our Basin might not be where it is today. So I say let's all work on it together to find solutions and for my money, the best way to get that done is through a democratically-elected, locally representational water distric board; if we don't take advantage of what is being offered to us with the water district, we will have lost a golden opportunity to have our voices heard.
Laurie Gage Laure, that si BS
Laurie Gage Thanks for your comments. I do agree that the supervisors were asleep at the wheel for years. But the thought that the majority of land owners should have to pay for a district that was needed because a few were greedy is not representative of fair government. The allocation of excess Naciemento water to those who had a drawing right already and the ignoring others who would like to have a place at the table was the last straw for me.
This county represents the cities. They ignore rural residents who have the right to their property and want a slower paced life. The next election vote for someone who does not live in an incorporated area to keep our rural lifestyle.
Please forward this information to everyone you know!!!
Oh boy…there are enough errors and misrepresentations in Mr. Grewal's letter to take up quite a bit of time, so let's just look at the big ones:
AB2453 did not "change the LAFCO rules," it actually added the County's ability to bring the application to LAFCO, which is the same thing the County has done in the past for special districts such as Templeton CSD.
The likelihood of LAFCO commissioners having an interest, connection to, prior knowledge of, etc.in matters that come before LAFCO is almost impossible thing to avoid, which is why the legislation that guides LAFCO recognizes it and makes it clear that when acting in their capacity as LAFCO representatives, that is ALL that they are doing, with a fresh view. LAFCO would cease to function each time it considers a governmental item if every government representative had to recuse themselves.
The protests submitted to LAFCO actually numbered under 900, with something over 1,200 signatures. Of those 900 protests, 28% had parcels OUTSIDE the district boundaries.
Regarding the Fugro boundary and the Bulletin 118 boundary, the Fugro boundary represents the best and most recent science as to where the basin actually lies. The Bulleting 118 boundaries are more than 30 years old. DWR is currently seeking boundary modification requests beginning in January, which would be up to the County. And as to why they aren't already working on a boundary change for the Basin, based on the Fugro studies, which the County paid for, I can't speak. And apparently it also mystified Supervisor Arnold who, at the November 10 Board of Supervisors meeting said that the County needs to ask DWR to change the boundary and "Why aren't we asking?" Agreed – the County needs to request that change from DWR as soon as possible! They've got 90 days from January 1 to get the request in.
Of course Paso Robles is excluded from the proposed district – it has its own authorities and manages its own water. What Mr. Grewal missed is the fact that it is NOT exempt from SGMA and, in fact, will have to work with all the other basin partners sitting at the table together to bring the basin to sustainability; these include the San Miguel CSD, Shandon CSA (County), the proposed district, Monterey County, Camp Roberts, etc.
And the AB3030 plan? It is not compliant with SGMA,, which has specified that rewarmed AB3030 plans will not be accepted as a Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Our AB3030 plan is missing major components that SGMA requires. Some of its components and studies will be useful to the future GSP, whoever writes it, but to say that it is compliant and ready to go is incorrect.
You well know that the Bulletin 118 boundaries were set by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) back in the early 70s when much less was known scientifically about the Paso Basin . Since then, there have been numerous technical and peer reviewed studies that determined from a hydrological and geographical basis the current Basin boundaries as was put forth by Fugro West Consultants, a world recognized firm in this field. When they first published thier findings and map, no one including you took any issue with their conclusions. Instead you now create a false narrative made out of whole cloth that it's all political by public servants who don't agree with you.
You also fail to mention that DWR has just approved guidelines that allow agencies to petition the Department to adjust their basin boundaries for this very reason. Again, this is another attempt to yell "squirrel" in hopes of districting voters in the Basin from comming together as a community to solve our own problems. This is the only way to get the County Supervisors (four of which you have railed against for months) out of our hair. By the way, how do you square this with wanting them to continue to manage our basin?
If we are unable to do this, the State will be here and not to kiss us on both cheeks to tell us what a great job we are doing with our dusted off AB 3030 plan. They will assess fees greater than what is being proposed and we will have no say; just like we will have no say if a judge gets involved. You know this too and it's disingenuous at best to say otherwise. It is our water, our community and it's about time we all start to recognize that we have but one chance to get this right. I say let us vote. Let us decide who we want to manage our Basin.
Thanks, Scott!
Greg is right on two items. First there was not a presentation made by those opposed to the county plan like the County staff presentations in front of Lafco or the board of supervisors. Every one was limited to three minutes which is not enough time to make such a presentation. Second using the Fugro boundary leaves those outside the Fugro boundary but inside the DWR 118 boundary in LIMBO. Do they have to form their own SGMA plan now? No one wants to address that.
The final straw in the plan presented to voters will be the financing of the SGMA plan by the proposed district. The water table droop has been caused by one activity- irrigation of areas not previously irrigated,. That group { mostly corporate Vineyards} is demanding that all land owners " share" in the pain of payment for a water district without water. The water district is not a districtas proposed. IT is a regulatory body with police powers that is being proposed. It has a long list of possible things it can do but none were included in the Lafco formation proposal.
The Cities and CSD's appropriated excess Lake Nacimiento available water before people had an opportunity to vote on using water that would make a district self supporting. People say that these districts will supply that water cheaper than a proposed water district can. Perhaps that is so, but by taking the unallotted water now, the unincorporated areas will always be under the control of those districts.
The LAFCO hearing is designed to present the proposed governmental agency to the public, which is what the County staff's presentation was about. Then the public is offered the opportunity to weigh in, which it did in almost equal numbers of pros and cons. The process is not designed to be a debate, with a pro side given a a presentation oppportunity, along with the con side. Those members of the public who were opposed to the district had ample opportunity to organize their thoughts and present a coherent argument if they had one.
Regarding those people residing in the area between the Fugro boundary and the Bulletin 118 boundary, they are not in limbo. If DWR accepts the argument that the Fugro boundary better defines the basin because it is more sound in terms of hydrogeology, then the people outside the Fugro boundary will not need to be managed by anyone. If DWR decides to stick with the Bulletin 118 boundary, then the decision will have to be made as to whether those people join the district, or are managed by the County or even possibly the State. If the County is to manage them, they will have the opportunity to vote on whatever funding mechanism the County decides is needed through a Prop 218 vote. If the State winds up managing them, there is no saying what that will look like except more expensive. And if they are annexed into the district, they will take part in future funding votes as well as board of directors votes. Applications for boundary revisions are due in the first three months of 2016 and absent a district, would need to be applied for by the County.
The SGMA funding was designed to equally spread the basic cost of SGMA compliance among all parcels ($15). Then there is a component that looks at land use – varying rates from $10 for vacant land, to $20 for a single family residence to $100 for commercial land designations. And then the County staff worked hard to come up with a way to describe water useage which would be simple if all had meters, but that's not the case. Under that design, the irrigated ag users will be paying based on acreage for 89% of that component.
It's a crying shame that the County Supervisors (Flood Control District) decided over the last 10 to 15 years to ignore the growing issues of water in the North County and made no attempt to secure Nacimiento water for the Basin. That's the kind of management they have been offering. If a water district had been in place, it would have had an equal seat at the table to obtain Nacimiento water along with Paso Robles, Atascadero, Templeton, and the County which is sending its portion over the Grade to South County.
It's also "shame on us" for not electing representatives who had the 30,000 foot view, and put something in place long ago that would have reduced or eliminated the pickle we find ourselves in now. They would have had a hard row to hoe against those screaming "property rights," but if they had had the tenacity and the foresight, our Basin might not be where it is today. So I say let's all work on it together to find solutions and for my money, the best way to get that done is through a democratically-elected, locally representational water distric board; if we don't take advantage of what is being offered to us with the water district, we will have lost a golden opportunity to have our voices heard.
Laurie Gage Laure, that si BS
Laurie Gage Thanks for your comments. I do agree that the supervisors were asleep at the wheel for years. But the thought that the majority of land owners should have to pay for a district that was needed because a few were greedy is not representative of fair government. The allocation of excess Naciemento water to those who had a drawing right already and the ignoring others who would like to have a place at the table was the last straw for me.
This county represents the cities. They ignore rural residents who have the right to their property and want a slower paced life. The next election vote for someone who does not live in an incorporated area to keep our rural lifestyle.