Setting the record straight on bogus claims about exporting our water
Letter to the editor
Enough is enough. We have been silent for too long and it is time to directly address the baseless accusations made by the quiet title litigants that Paso Robles Agricultural Alliance Groundwater Solutions (PRAAGS) is conspiring to sell the basin’s groundwater for a profit. These ridiculous rumors are not supported by any facts or proof. Now we are speaking out to set the record straight.
Allow us to state this as plainly as possible; our board of directors and members want no individual, group or agency to take our groundwater outside of the basin, period. We will continue to work with all the stakeholders in the basin to make sure this cannot happen.
If anyone is concerned in any way whatsoever about these claims, let’s sit down and discuss it as we all want to make sure we keep our groundwater here for our use. We remain committed to work with everyone in the community to sustainably manage our basin.
Signed,
Jerry Reaugh,
Dana Merrill,
Bob Brown,
Matt Turrentine,
Steve Sinton,
Kathleen Maas,
Steve Lohr,
John Crossland
Steve Lohr – the winemaker? The J. Lohr Winery that just put in hundreds of acres of new vines using water that we don't have? That Lohr? If it is, you may have the legal right to plant, but you don't have the moral right to plant.
You don't tell the whole story. By setting up the district, you set up the legal right to sell water. Water districts in California have the right to sell the water, period.
You can all say that you "don't want to sell the water" and it doesn't make any difference. You will not always be in charge of the water district. The other fact that you omit is that out of county and even out of the country property owners will have a legal way through your water district to participate in and possibly control the proposed water district.
Am I wrong?
PRAAGS will not be in charge of the water district in any way or at any time and the County, through the Flood Control District has the same legal right as we sit here today. However, that is not the point. Six of the nine people elected to sit on the district board must be landowners in the basin. They will have skin in the game. Three of them don't have to own land but must be registered voters and live in the basin.
Why any person who we elect would vote to do such a thing is beyond me. We all know we don't have any water to export, period and won't have as far as anyone can see. I am confident that the 4,400 landowners in the basin are not stupid enough to allow this to happen.
The makeup of the board favors the majority to be populated by the small landowner and only 2 of the 9 will be elected by those that own 400 or more acres. This was done with intent, not by accident so that no one group or individual can control it.
Also, this governance structure was poked, prodded and examined by 3 legislative committees and was passed into law by large majorities in the State Assembly and Senate. It is looked at as one of the most innovative ways to allow diverse landowners to govern themselves.
The County is working on drafting non-export regulations to specifically address this issue. I encourage you to participate to help ensure we keep our water here.
Steve Lohr – the winemaker? The J. Lohr Winery that just put in hundreds of acres of new vines using water that we don't have? That Lohr? If it is, you may have the legal right to plant, but you don't have the moral right to plant.
You don't tell the whole story. By setting up the district, you set up the legal right to sell water. Water districts in California have the right to sell the water, period.
You can all say that you "don't want to sell the water" and it doesn't make any difference. You will not always be in charge of the water district. The other fact that you omit is that out of county and even out of the country property owners will have a legal way through your water district to participate in and possibly control the proposed water district.
Am I wrong?
PRAAGS will not be in charge of the water district in any way or at any time and the County, through the Flood Control District has the same legal right as we sit here today. However, that is not the point. Six of the nine people elected to sit on the district board must be landowners in the basin. They will have skin in the game. Three of them don't have to own land but must be registered voters and live in the basin.
Why any person who we elect would vote to do such a thing is beyond me. We all know we don't have any water to export, period and won't have as far as anyone can see. I am confident that the 4,400 landowners in the basin are not stupid enough to allow this to happen.
The makeup of the board favors the majority to be populated by the small landowner and only 2 of the 9 will be elected by those that own 400 or more acres. This was done with intent, not by accident so that no one group or individual can control it.
Also, this governance structure was poked, prodded and examined by 3 legislative committees and was passed into law by large majorities in the State Assembly and Senate. It is looked at as one of the most innovative ways to allow diverse landowners to govern themselves.
The County is working on drafting non-export regulations to specifically address this issue. I encourage you to participate to help ensure we keep our water here.