Opinion: Moving forward with water solutions for Paso Robles basin
By San Luis Obispo County Supervisors Debbie Arnold and Lynn Compton
The San Luis Obispo County Clerk Recorder’s office has reported preliminary results regarding the formation of a special water district, also known as the AB 2453 Water District, for the Paso Robles water basin area. At this time, based on these preliminary results, it appears that the vote to form this special water district will fail.
We believe we can all agree that we are in the midst of a severe drought, and we will continue to have regulations handed down from Sacramento and targeted at high or medium priority basins, pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). San Luis Obispo County has five such basins that have been identified as fitting into one of these categories.
The landowners of the Paso Robles Basin have spoken clearly. They do not want to create another layer of government to do the job that the county’s Flood Control & Water Conservation District has performed for more than 70 years. The voters have also indicated they do not want Sacramento to control the Paso Robles basin. The people want to maintain local control and voted against what would have been one of the largest tax increases in the county’s history. The landowners recognized that, if formed, the AB 2453 Water District would have had special authority to tax and regulate their property, making it more difficult for small family farms to continue to operate. The process of pursuing this AB 2453 Special Water District, initiated by a handful of large, mostly out of town irrigators, has cost the taxpayers of this county approximately $1 million to date.
So, what’s next given the preliminary ballot results? We know that the county’s Public Works Department is fully capable of doing the work necessary to comply with the new state laws (SGMA). There are actually five basins in San Luis Obispo County that must comply with SGMA. The county, in its capacity, will play a role in the management of each of these identified basins.
We look forward to working with the Public Works Department in the coming months to better understand how to bring the Paso Robles Basin back into balance. The SGMA-identified basins will all have become sustainable, basically through increasing their water supply, or by conserving water. If large agricultural interests in the Paso Robles basin wish to expand, then it would be a business decision for them, to create irrigation districts to bring in more water. Meanwhile, the many thousands of users in the Paso Robles Basin, that do not use their property for commercial irrigation purposes should retain their rights to use their wells and work with the county to ensure that the basin is brought into balance.
The county’s efforts to create additional water supply are just coming on-line. The Nacimiento Pipeline Project will provide a new source of water (17,500 acre/feet/year) to alleviate some of the pumping in the urban areas of Paso Robles, Templeton, Atascadero and San Luis Obispo, and could possibly be used in the South County under emergency situations. The county is also actively pursuing a partnership with PG&E to provide desalinated water to the county.
Our goal through all of this has been to ensure that we are looking out for the best interest of the people that live in the Paso Robles Basin and protect our County’s precious water resource.
In the meantime, the county will continue to manage the unincorporated areas of the basin, and work with the cities to design a basin management plan which satisfies the State’s SGMA mandates.
Re: "In the meantime, the county will continue to manage the unincorporated areas of the basin…"
What, exactly, has the county done to "manage" the water situation in the unincorporated areas of the basin? South and East of Paso Robles has seen hundreds of acres that were formerly pasture converted to irrigated vineyards in the eighteen months since we've moved to the area. Longer term residents have seen even more dramatic changes. All of this has been ocurring during these extreme drought conditions, which are well known.
1. Are prospective vineyard operators required to get County permission before they can dig a new well, or expand an existing well?
2. Are prospective vineyard operators required to get County permission before they can place a larger pump in an existing well?
3. If the above is "yes," has the County ever said "no" to a request? How many times has the County said "no" to a new well request?
4. How many wells have run dry in the County?
5. Does the small landowner who's well has run dry have the option to have the large irrigators pay for a new well to be dug?
6. If not, is it the County's position that it's the fault of the small landowner that his/her well has run dry?
As a small (3.5 acre) landowner, I personally haven't seen evidence that the County has been "managing" the water situation. Debbie, Lynn, perhaps you could enlighten us.
Thank you.
Dan Penkauskas
WHY IS THE COUNTY NOT RESTRICTING MORE HOUSING!!!???
Good point. I have heard anecdotelly that individual homes use far more water per acre than agriculture. That is, if a developer places homes in a normal city density per acre, the water requirements far exceed what grapes would require in the same amount of land. I wonder if someone could check on this and post the results?
Until the county starts restrictions more development such as housing, hotels, etc., let alone all the new vineyards that have popped up in the last year, it is hard to take them seriously that there is a water situation. If the county can't restrict the development I certainly don't want them restrictin my water use. I do that on my own.
"Whiskey is for drinking. Water is for fighting over." Mark Twain
Re: "In the meantime, the county will continue to manage the unincorporated areas of the basin…"
What, exactly, has the county done to "manage" the water situation in the unincorporated areas of the basin? South and East of Paso Robles has seen hundreds of acres that were formerly pasture converted to irrigated vineyards in the eighteen months since we've moved to the area. Longer term residents have seen even more dramatic changes. All of this has been ocurring during these extreme drought conditions, which are well known.
1. Are prospective vineyard operators required to get County permission before they can dig a new well, or expand an existing well?
2. Are prospective vineyard operators required to get County permission before they can place a larger pump in an existing well?
3. If the above is "yes," has the County ever said "no" to a request? How many times has the County said "no" to a new well request?
4. How many wells have run dry in the County?
5. Does the small landowner who's well has run dry have the option to have the large irrigators pay for a new well to be dug?
6. If not, is it the County's position that it's the fault of the small landowner that his/her well has run dry?
As a small (3.5 acre) landowner, I personally haven't seen evidence that the County has been "managing" the water situation. Debbie, Lynn, perhaps you could enlighten us.
Thank you.
Dan Penkauskas
WHY IS THE COUNTY NOT RESTRICTING MORE HOUSING!!!???
Good point. I have heard anecdotelly that individual homes use far more water per acre than agriculture. That is, if a developer places homes in a normal city density per acre, the water requirements far exceed what grapes would require in the same amount of land. I wonder if someone could check on this and post the results?
Until the county starts restrictions more development such as housing, hotels, etc., let alone all the new vineyards that have popped up in the last year, it is hard to take them seriously that there is a water situation. If the county can't restrict the development I certainly don't want them restrictin my water use. I do that on my own.
"Whiskey is for drinking. Water is for fighting over." Mark Twain