Supervisors oppose spending SLO County funds to manage Paso water basin

If efforts to form a water management district for the Paso Robles groundwater basin fail, San Luis Obispo County supervisors say they would be very reluctant to spend any county general funds to manage the basin, opening the door for state water officials to step in and oversee the distressed aquifer.

When polled by The Tribune on Monday, all five supervisors also said that it is unlikely that they would support the county trying to get a new Proposition 218 vote on a future ballot to pay for basin management activities. The cost of such an election — in which taxes on property owners are subject to voter approval — is estimated to be $250,000.

“If the voters of the basin decide not to fund the district, it is going to be very tough for me to say let’s go back and try it again,” said Supervisor Frank Mecham, whose district includes the groundwater basin.

Voters and property owners in the 350,000-acre Paso Robles basin are voting on whether to form a management district. There are actually three separate votes: whether to form the district (Measure B), whether to create a parcel tax to fund the district (Measure A), and the election of district board members. Both Measures A and B must pass in order to form the district.

Mail-in ballots went out Feb. 8 and must be returned or postmarked by March 8.

The state has classified the Paso Robles basin to be in critical overdraft, meaning pumping exceeds nature’s ability to replenish it. Water levels have gone down by 100 feet or more in areas east of Paso Robles, causing wells to go dry.

The parcel tax requires the approval of two-thirds of the 6,000 voters in the basin. It is considered the biggest hurdle to the formation of the district. County public works officials have said they do not have the staffing needed to develop a sustainable groundwater management plan and would need supervisors to find a source of funding for that work.

If the district proposal fails, county supervisors would have an opportunity to manage the basin sitting as the Water Conservation and Flood Control District. If the county fails to act, the state would step in and manage the district.

“State intervention happens when local efforts fail, including doing nothing,” said Jessica Bean with the State Water Resources Control Board. “The state will certainly come in under those circumstances.”

If the district fails, the county will need to “step back, take a deep breath, and see where we want to go from there and what other options we have,” Mecham said.

Supervisors Adam Hill and Bruce Gibson said they would be open to turning management over to the state.

“At the very least we should see what state intervention would look like,” Hill said. “That may be the most drastic way, but it may be necessary. If people are relying on the county to be a backstop, that’s wrong.”

Gibson agreed, saying that the residents and property owners should step up to the plate and manage the basin themselves.

“I am not going to support spending general fund monies,” he said. “If the district fails, I don’t see why the state should not come and manage the basin.”

Supervisors Debbie Arnold and Lynn Compton have both opposed the district’s formation. Compton said she usually errs on the side of not supporting new taxes but would be amenable to the vintners and other growers in the basin forming an irrigation district in which they would decide whether to tax their property to pay for the district.

Irrigation districts are formed solely by property owners who agree to have their land taxed for a specific purpose, and registered voters are not involved. Agriculture will benefit the most and should pay the majority of the cost, Compton said.

“I am not totally opposed to all new taxes, but they would have to make a very good argument, because the majority of the people don’t want a district,” she said.

Arnold said she, too, would be willing to consider an irrigation district as an alternative to the hybrid district on the current ballot. She has also said the county has done a good job of managing the basin and could continue to do so.

State grants may become available to defray the county’s cost of managing the basin, she said.

“There are other funding opportunities available, so I would not be in favor of another Proposition 218 vote,” Arnold said.

This story was originally published February 22, 2016 at 7:06 PM with the headline "Supervisors oppose spending SLO County funds to manage Paso water basin."