Letters: Opinions on the water district
Editor’s note: Due to the volume of letters received regarding the proposed water district, this post contains submissions from multiple readers.
Local control of critical resources has proven time and again to bear the best results
Let’s see…work together to manage things locally or invite the state in to tell us how much we need to cut back? When you get down to it, that is the underlying water district decision, isn’t it?
Yes, form the water district and manage locally. Local control of critical resources has proven time and again to bear the best results. North County landowners issues are unique, solutions are unique, and local management should also be viewed as unique. We support bringing people together through the local district, where others would pit neighbor against neighbor. If it doesn’t take as much money as the county thinks it will take, then have the locally voted board change the budget and don’t spend as much money and don’t hire as much staff. The city of Paso Robles is not included in the proposed district boundary, but the city is already organized to manage water and actively participates in the Nacimiento Water Project, recycled water, and other regional efforts. We look forward to working with the future water district on similar regional efforts.
We work best when we work together and when North County takes care of North County issues. There is much to gain by pulling resources together in the form of a water district and to tell the state that we here in San Luis Obispo County can and will take care of local water issues.
Paso Robles Public Works Director Dick McKinley
A voice for all with the Paso Basin hybrid board 
–The “hybrid” board of the proposed AB2453 Water District gives voters in the Paso Robles Basin a unique opportunity to achieve the essence of democracy – that governance closest to the people is the best.
Land use in our basin is diverse and unique as small residential properties are interspersed with rangeland and agriculture. Few basins in the state are like this. A hybrid governance structure was needed so that all these diverse interests would be represented. It would have been unfair to irrigated agriculture that will pick up the bulk of the cost to be under a metropolitan district one person one vote structure. However, rural residents needed a strong voice. They got it with three seats voted on by registered voters and two seats in the 1 to 40 vote-by-acre category. That’s five of the nine board members.
Equally, landowners who own 40 to 400 acres and 400 acres plus are constrained within their categories so they must be mindful of the needs of rural residents. This is the beauty of the hybrid board. No individual or group can control.
Let’s not waste this golden opportunity for the most representative board possible. It won’t come around again. Vote for Measures A and B.
CC Coats
San Miguel
Basin must ‘seize the moment’
–Opponents to formation of the Paso Robles Basin Water District do not grasp the importance of the district to the future of landowners in the basin. If the district fails, rural property owners will have lost their only opportunity for effective democratic representation for probably several more decades. The district under consideration by voters in Measures A-16 and B-16 democratically distributes the basin management and tax burden across the population of large and small landowners and registered voters.
If the proposed water district should fail to be approved by basin voters, our board of supervisors must next consider county management of the basin. Disregarding fiscal considerations, a probable result would be some sort of a structure in which the management would be appointed by the board of supervisors, and would not be directly elected by the basin property owners. If the county fails to act, the California State Water Resources Control Board will intervene and impose a system with the objective of bringing the basin into a sustainable state; again, this system need not directly involve the residents of the basin in any democratic sense.
Regardless of the outcome of the current election, the next logical step in achieving overall sustainability of the basin is to establish an umbrella organization which encompasses all existing population centers in the North County: cities, CSDs, and water districts. These existing centers have long been organized and ready to contend for their share of the available water. If the district is not formed, the total rural population of what would would have been the district will have no future representation in the overall competition for water.
Thus, it is readily apparent that a water district is required to provide rural residents their own “seat at the table” in future negotiations for our precious resource.
William Frost
Rural Paso Robles
At first we were undecided – Here’s why we are voting ‘yes’ on the water district
–My husband and I have attended meetings and reviewed information on both sides of the issue. What convinced us to vote yes was when we listened to the committed and intelligent resident candidates who addressed our concerns about having a local water district board. Some of these volunteer candidates have lived here for generations and all of these volunteer candidates want to preserve this resource for their children and grandchildren…and for all of us.
We are now confident that keeping control of our water basin management rather than letting the state-mandated new policy fall to the County Supervisors or the State is what is best.
We also know that voting “no” doesn’t mean that life will go on as before. But it will tell the county and the state that we don’t want the responsibility. It’s obvious we are not the county’s top priority and the state will tax all of us far more than what our local board will.
All the candidates were emphatic that they are against exporting water. It was made absolutely clear that exporting water to anywhere else is prohibited and they all said they will make sure this doesn’t happen.
We are impressed that such fine people are willing to step forward to represent us. This is why we are voting yes or Measures A and B and we hope you all will too.
Heather Carter
Rural Paso Robles
The Paso Robles Daily News welcomes letters to the editor from local people on local news topics. For more information, click here >> Write a letter to the editor.
please vote no on the water district
I should not have to pay because someone wants to grow grapes and overuse the basin resources
Please ask this question of those in favor of me paying so that they can run their wine business. If you are a Ag business with all the write offs then shouldn't you have to pay for everything related to that business including 100 percent of the water you use and not ask me to help pay for you to run your business
Obviously agriculture uses more than you and they will pay significantly more. Assuming you are a small landowner with one home, you could pay as little as $40 per year. A vineyard owner who has a house on 100 acres with 80 in grapes will pay about $1,500. The County Supervisors set these rates not Ag business. Those amounts will be the same whether it’s the County or the water district winds up as the basin management agency. The State has said it will charge much more. Those in the cities with one house on a city size lot are paying about $2,000 per year. Unfortunately the days of having a well and not paying anything are pretty much over. Not just here, but all over the State. We didn’t want this but it’s here. It all comes down to who do you want to make the tough decisions to get the basin into balance, the State, the Supervisors or nine of your neighbors who will serve on its board?
Mr. Tucker – voting No ensures that the State will come in as neither the proposed district nor the County will have the funds for the mandated management. Irrigated Ag will be paying for 80% plus of the cost of the District – if you are a small landowner on 10 acres with no production irrigated ag on your property, your annual bill will be less than $40.00. You will not be paying so someone else can overuse the Basin, you are paying so that there is management for sustainability, which will PREVENT overuse of the Basin. Irrigated Ag will have to be metered and will have to cut back, as well as pay the bulk of the costs of any supplemental projects for water infiltration. Unless you benefit, you will not be paying beyond your initial annual assessment for any projects.
please vote no on the water district
I should not have to pay because someone wants to grow grapes and overuse the basin resources
Please ask this question of those in favor of me paying so that they can run their wine business. If you are a Ag business with all the write offs then shouldn't you have to pay for everything related to that business including 100 percent of the water you use and not ask me to help pay for you to run your business
Obviously agriculture uses more than you and they will pay significantly more. Assuming you are a small landowner with one home, you could pay as little as $40 per year. A vineyard owner who has a house on 100 acres with 80 in grapes will pay about $1,500. The County Supervisors set these rates not Ag business. Those amounts will be the same whether it’s the County or the water district winds up as the basin management agency. The State has said it will charge much more. Those in the cities with one house on a city size lot are paying about $2,000 per year. Unfortunately the days of having a well and not paying anything are pretty much over. Not just here, but all over the State. We didn’t want this but it’s here. It all comes down to who do you want to make the tough decisions to get the basin into balance, the State, the Supervisors or nine of your neighbors who will serve on its board?
Mr. Tucker – voting No ensures that the State will come in as neither the proposed district nor the County will have the funds for the mandated management. Irrigated Ag will be paying for 80% plus of the cost of the District – if you are a small landowner on 10 acres with no production irrigated ag on your property, your annual bill will be less than $40.00. You will not be paying so someone else can overuse the Basin, you are paying so that there is management for sustainability, which will PREVENT overuse of the Basin. Irrigated Ag will have to be metered and will have to cut back, as well as pay the bulk of the costs of any supplemental projects for water infiltration. Unless you benefit, you will not be paying beyond your initial annual assessment for any projects.