Water Shortage

By Caren Ray

Position paper from 12/30/13 on water situation countywide

An aquifer is a body of saturated rock through which water can easily move. Aquifers are filled with moving water. The amount of water stored in an aquifer varies from season to season and year to year.

No matter how fast or slow the water flows, it will eventually "discharge," or leave the aquifer, and must be replaced by new water to replenish or recharge the aquifer. Thus, every aquifer has a recharge zone or zones and a discharge zone or zones. Recharge zones are typically at higher altitudes or wherever water enters an aquifer, such as from rain, snow melt, river and reservoir leakage, or from irrigation. The amount of water in storage in an aquifer is reflected in the elevation of its water table.

To be productive, a well must be drilled into the aquifer. When water is pumped to the surface faster than the natural discharge rate, such as increased well water extraction, the water table will decline and the aquifer's storage will decrease, the water table is lowered and the well may go dry.

North County wells are going dry. At the current rate of water extraction, it's simply a matter of how long before the water runs out.

The Paso Robles Basin provides water for 29 percent of the county's population and an estimated 40 percent of its agriculture, according to the County's most recent management plan. For most residents in rural Paso Robles, Templeton, Creston, Shandon and Garden Farms to San Miguel, it is the only source of residential water.

According to the most current data, annual "safe yield" may be significantly lower than previous studies have indicated. Preliminary data shows a deficit of 2,900 acre feet a year. Consultants are putting together a model to enable much needed predictive capabilities that will allow County staff and the Board of Supervisors to make solid planning decisions going forward.

A City/County-Initiated Stakeholder Committee

A community volunteer effort, led by San Luis Obispo County and the City of Paso Robles, was assembled to resolve the groundwater crisis. Leaders of the effort warned that stakeholders were left with no choice but to put divisions about who drew more water and why aside and work together to develop a plan to resolve the crisis as soon as possible.

The committee is examining a wide range of solutions, most of which center on voluntary conservation and developing new water sources. Everyone involved in the effort understands that there will be no quick fix. Any solution will require three key components: the political will to make hard decisions, cooperation among the stakeholders and the money to pay for expensive new water sources and infrastructure.

Two stakeholder groups have agreed upon a governance structure for the basin: Paso Robles Groundwater Basin Overliers for Water Equity (PRO Water Equity), a group of rural homeowners, and Paso Robles Agricultural Alliance for Groundwater Solutions (PRAAGS). They believe the county needs to form a water district or other agency to effectively manage the basin.

The Threat to Homeowners

The water situation in the North County is only getting worse. With water levels dropping, many residents and property owners have been forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars to dig deeper wells.

Historically, the water table in the Paso Robles water basin was 300 to 350 feet deep. Now, a replacement well must be about 700 feet deep. A new well typically costs $25,000, forcing many homeowners to take out a second mortgage on their homes to afford the new, deeper one. A new, deeper agricultural well can cost as much as $200,000.

The situation is complicated by the impact to agriculture, which is the economic backbone of San Luis Obispo County. Any and all solutions must consider impacts to both rural residents and agribusiness.

The County Board of Supervisors Steps Up

Because most of the locations served by the Paso Robles Water Basin are in the unincorporated areas of North County, the Board of Supervisors has taken the lead in pursuing a multi-facetted approach, including:

Adoption of an Urgency Ordinance. The Board has enacted an urgency ordinance to stabilize the situation by addressing agricultural water consumption. It includes a number of temporary measures, such as prohibiting new agricultural ponds, requiring water off-sets for new irrigated crops or placing a moratorium on conversion of pasture land to irrigated crops until a permanent solution is crafted. Acquisition of Supplemental Water. While no single alternative water source is plentiful or dependable enough to solve the problem, it would take some pressure off the basin. The County has classified the groundwater basin as in a Severity Level III, which is the most severe level, meaning that water is being pumped out of the aquifer at unsustainable rates. However, the County and local officials are unwilling at this point to put any kind of restriction on pumping.

The Wine Industry

The wine industry has driven substantial economic growth as it has prospered and expanded over the past 30 years in San Luis Obispo County. It has become part of the fabric of the County's tourism industry, as well as a source of worldwide exports.

Tourism employs nearly 16,000 people in the county, with jobs ranging from hotel and food service to arts and entertainment, retail and transportation. Cutting wine-grape growth could have an adverse effect on the county's overall economy.

Imposition of water restrictions could result in fewer wine grapes and mean fewer jobs at wineries, in the vineyards and in other sectors that support the industry, including the harvesting of wine grapes, processing and production. It could impact utility providers, people who produce fertilizers and the ancillary businesses that form the supply chain for wineries.

Wine grapes now exceed every other agricultural crop in the county in cash value except one -- strawberries, grown in the South County. Last year, the county's wine grapes set a new record for value at more than $197 million. Total production of wine grapes increased 31 percent in 2012, largely because the crop rebounded from the previous year's April frost.

Grape acreage continues to grow as wineries expand and plant new varietals. In 1972, wine-grape acreage stood at 540 acres. By 1989, it had increased to 7,649 acres, and by 1998 to 11,897. As of last year, county agriculture officials reported that there are 36,550 bearing acres of wine grapes and more than 38,000 planted acres in the county, with the majority of them -- about 32,000 -- in the North County.

There are no land-use permitting requirements for crop production and the County's agriculture officials do not track vineyard plantings outside of pesticide use. Therefore, it's not known exactly how many acres of North County wine grapes will be planted in the future or which property owners are planting. However, last year, planted wine-grape acreage expanded by 3 percent, mostly in the North County.

Seeking a Compromise Solution

From an economic standpoint, the community cannot afford to run out of water or lose vineyards. A compromise solution that balances the needs of citizens with that of agriculture, which would not include broad restrictions for wineries alone, may be viable.

Vintners argue that limits on vineyard development would assist those with established vineyards and access to water, and harm those with undeveloped land for which they paid a high price, expecting to be able to plant a vineyard, but later were unable to do so. As a result, the Board of Supervisors recently approved a "vesting rights" definition to assist County planners in fairly and quantitatively determining if a business was far enough into the development process to avoid offsets required by the moratorium. Vintners are still able to plant during the moratorium period: they simply have to offset any new water usage on a 1:1 basis.

Part of an equitable solution could include obtaining supplemental water from an outside source such as Lake Nacimiento or the State Water Project, but would be costly and possibly unreliable. Another action would be to create a local agency that would have the authority to manage groundwater resources.

Water District Management

The current Paso Robles Basin Plan identifies numerous management activities that are needed for the basin, including the need to establish funding and inter-agency coordination. The Plan does not, however, include management activities that are compulsory on those who pump groundwater. The Groundwater Management Plan for the Basin does not include a funding plan and no enforcement provisions exist.

Sections 10750 et seq. of the California Water Code (created by Assembly Bill 3030 or AB 3030) provide for a systematic procedure by an existing local agency to develop a groundwater management plan. An AB 3030 Plan creates a groundwater management district that attempts to ensure that the development of the plan includes participation of interested landowners and their support.

A successful AB 3030 plan's groundwater management district would develop and include a comprehensive funding plan, establish the authority to fix and collect fees and assessments needed for the groundwater management activities and ensure that the plan includes a proposition for registered voters to authorize the ability to generate revenues. Consequently, the adoption of the rules and regulations needed to specifically address the details of how the district would enforce its groundwater management activities, including any effort to limit or suspend groundwater extractions, is needed in the future. Additionally, the groundwater management district would need to ensure that the plan provides for coordination with other Agencies and other efforts.

A Compromise Agreement

In early December 2013, following months of discussion brokered by North County Supervisor Frank Mecham, PRO Water Equity and PRAAGS agreed on a hybrid proposal that meets the goals of both groups. Both organizations understood that some form of water district needed to be established, but a key sticking point was who would oversee it, and how it would be governed to ensure that all landowners would be represented fairly. PRAAGS wanted a California Water District, in which at least five board members would be elected to four-year terms by a vote of landowners. Voting in this kind of a district is weighted according to the amount of acreage owned. PRO Water Equity took issue with that approach, saying it would unfairly tip the balance in favor of the largest landowners. Instead, PRO Water Equity proposed a modified AB 3030 Plan that would create a groundwater management district and ensure that the development of the plan included participation of interested landowners and their support.

The compromise agreement proposed a structure that would include a board consisting of seven members, elected at large. Two directors would be elected by large landowners and two directors elected by small- or medium-sized landowners. The remaining three directors would be elected by popular vote of residents who are registered voters living within the district. Landowner votes would be cast by one of the owners on the deed, a current trustee if a trust or a designated officer if a corporation or partnership owns the land.

The two groups believe their proposal equitably includes all affected landowners, not just the largest property owners. With good stewardship of the groundwater basin, the wine industry can continue to flourish, without creating hardships for neighboring residents.

This structure will be presented to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in January 2014. Given the new, hybrid nature of the proposed water management district, if approved by LAFCO and the Board of Supervisors, special state legislation will be necessary to implement the groundwater governance structure. If all of the practical and regulatory hurdles are cleared, a sponsor of the legislation will likely be Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian.

While the two lawsuits challenging the county emergency ordinance limiting pumping from the basin are still moving forward, representatives of the two groups said the lawsuits will not hinder the progress of forming a water management district. The water groups agree that the basin will need to be managed no matter what happens with the lawsuits.

Adjudication

Most of those working to find a solution to the North County water crisis believed one thing would throw a monkey wrench into the process for finding an equitable solution ¬+ a lawsuit resulting in adjudication of individual water rights. Cindy Steinbeck of Steinbeck Vineyards and Winery, along with two newly formed organizations + Paso Robles Water Integrity Network and Protect Our Water Rights + threw in the wrench.

Two lawsuits were filed in San Luis Obispo County Superior Court in late November 2013 challenging the county emergency ordinance that limits pumping from the Paso Robles groundwater basin. The lawsuits could be the first step in putting the basin into adjudication, a lengthy and expensive process that puts a Judge in charge of managing the basin.

One lawsuit asked the courts to overturn the emergency ordinance. The Plaintiffs are a newly formed group called the Paso Robles Water Integrity Network. The other lawsuit was a complaint of quiet title that asks the court to affirm the right of overlying property owners to have access to the basin. The quiet title claim was filed by another new group called Protect Our Water Rights, made up of about two dozen property owners in the basin, including many in the Steinbeck family as well as other vineyard owners.

The groups that have been working to find a cooperative solution to the crisis in the groundwater basin were taken by surprise by the lawsuits, but said they remain committed to working toward a governance process for the basin.

Water Availability in South County

The situation with water availability in South County is no less dire than in the north. However, two things in the South County that have not occurred in North County put us in a better situation to avoid the type of crisis those in the north are currently facing. Water rights in the South County have already been adjudicated. In addition, the City of Arroyo Grande went through a public process and internal review in 2009, resulting in an emergency water management program being adopted as part of the City's General Plan. In short, we already have a framework from which to work.

In 2009, the City of Arroyo Grande was in a "Severely Restricted Water Supply Condition." The city was consuming 95% to 99% of its annual available water supply. Water conservation was moved to the top of their priority list. The City developed a community plan update of the Conservation and

Open Space Element of their General Plan. As a part of the Conservation element, water conservation was one of the most prevalent concerns.

South County Adjudication Settled

In 2008, an appeal was filed by two groups of mostly farmers -- known as the Land Owners Group and the Wineman group -- who did not sign a stipulated agreement in a lawsuit over rights to water in the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin. The groups claimed that the city did not have rights to groundwater. Part of the management plan stated that the city of Santa Maria had the right to pump water from the aquifer, in addition to piping in water from Twitchell Dam and the State Water Project.

In November 2012, the state Appeals Court found for the water purveyors, Santa Maria, Golden State Water Co., Nipomo and Oceano Community Services Districts (CSD)s, Pismo Beach, Grover Beach and Arroyo Grande. Virtually all of the appeal filed over the 2008 decision was rejected by the state Court of Appeal.

The appeal challenged the stipulated agreement approved by a Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge that assigned certain water rights to the purveyors who use water from the groundwater basin that extends from southeast of Santa Maria to Pismo Beach.

Those who sued and appealed claimed no "physical solution" was necessary because the basin was not in overdraft and challenged purveyors' rights to water they said was lost through lack of use. They also claimed the trial court erred by not declaring the landowners' overlying rights supreme, as well as in allocating return flows and salvaged water to the purveyors.

The Court of Appeal disagreed, noting an overdraft condition is not required for the court to impose a physical solution. It also upheld the decision that gave annual prescriptive rights of 5,100 acre-feet to Santa Maria and 1,900 acre-feet to Golden State Water of the "native water," or what would occur naturally in the basin even absent a basin overdraft.

The appeals court also agreed that the "salvaged water" stored in the basin from the Twitchell Reservoir project was properly assigned to members of the Twitchell Management Authority by the stipulation. In addition, the court found that "return flows" from water imported from the State Water Project also belong to the city.

However, the appeals court said the Santa Clara County Superior Court should affirm that the appellants' overlying rights to the native groundwater supersede that of the purveyors, not including the prescriptive amounts allocated to Santa Maria and Golden State. The court further ruled that rights to the Twitchell water added to the basin did not appropriate the appellants' overlying rights unjustly.

The landowners and farmers appealed the ruling of the 6th District Appellate Court upholding the initial Santa Clara County Superior Court decision to the California Supreme Court, which refused to hear the appeal, validating the basin management plan. In October 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the 2008 and 2012 rulings, ending 16 years of costly litigation over water supplies.

As part of the initial judgment, the court ordered the Nipomo Community Services District (NCSD) to pipe 2,500 acre-feet of water per year from the city of Santa Maria to the Nipomo Mesa. The project is expected to cost around $20 million, and the NCSD incurred more than $3 million in adjudication expenses. Its first phase is currently under construction, and should be complete in 2014. The Santa Maria basin adjudication process cost all parties more than $11 million through just the first 12 years of the court battles.

Additional Court Battles

Like the Santa Maria basin, the Los Osos Groundwater Basin and Paso Robles Groundwater Basin have suffered declining levels of water in recent years. The Los Osos Groundwater Basin is already in adjudication. The LOCSD filed a lawsuit in 2004, asking the San Luis Obispo Superior Court to determine rights to the basin water. San Luis Obispo County, the LOCSD and two other water purveyors are now collaborating under a court order to determine water rights.

Protecting and Preserving Our Water Supply

We need to commit South County to a program that will obtain water security based on a foundation of water conservation, watershed reclamation, increased supply and decentralized recycling. Luckily, two South County water management programs have already been adopted and adjudicated.

Protecting and preserving our water supply is an enormous challenge, and it calls for a well-reasoned, well-engineered solution. We need to voluntarily commit ourselves to developing and offering a groundwater reduction plan that creates a regional solution and allows all the water users in South County to work together to access and use our groundwater in a more efficient and less costly way. Addressing our County's groundwater shortage is imperative, and a countywide solution makes the most sense from many different perspectives, including economic. Water conservation and drought contingency plans work together to help us manage short-term and long-term water shortages. The goal of a water conservation plan is to achieve lasting, long-term improvements in water use efficiencies using strategies to reduce the amount of water withdrawn from a particular source, and to ensure that the water withdrawn is used in an efficient manner.

General goals we should work to agree upon include:

Continued information, education and awareness Incorporating re-use and recycling strategies Utilizing innovative technology as opportunities arise to implement such technologies Indoor/Outdoor residential water conservation Industrial and commercial water conservation Plant and turf irrigation efficiency Water-efficient landscaping Minimizing losses due to inefficiency and waste Metering Water pricing reform Increased use of data to underpin decision making. Example: South County Municipal Irrigation Use Municipal irrigation users include golf courses, resort facilities and other large, water consuming customers that receive water. To achieve effective conservation from this use, we must establish goals such as the following:

Encourage best management practices that reduce the unnecessary loss of water. Through its contracts with municipal irrigation users, include language that requires water conservation. Techniques such as irrigation system design, center pivot irrigation and other field delivery methods are encouraged through dialogue with these users. The Water Conservation Plan should include the following water conservation methods: Customer Information and Education Metering and Record Management Meter Testing, Repair and Replacement Leak Detection, Repair, and Minimization of Conveyance Losses Contractual Requirements of Customers for Water Conservation Rate Structure Recycling and Reuse Implementation, Enforcement and Updating of the Plan

Much More to Do

Obviously, this is just a starting point for a comprehensive water conservation plan that includes input from all stakeholders.

A compromise agreement as to how to manage groundwater in the North County is moving forward, as well as the two lawsuits challenging the County's actions limiting pumping from the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin. However, progress has been made and all parties understand the consequences of failure to reach an equitable, workable agreement as to how to best manage and distribute the county's scarce water resources.

In the meantime, I will work to assure a continuing dialogue that leads to planning for a water conservation effort to ensure the accessibility, availability and affordability of groundwater in South County and beyond.