New SLO County rules give farmers more water to irrigate crops. So why are they upset?
Farmers in the Paso Basin Land Use Management Area can use more water to irrigate their crops under a new ordinance recently approved by the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors.
On Dec. 6, the board voted 3-2 to pass a new planting ordinance managing groundwater usage for the area, even after farmers urged them to maintain the current rules.
In 2015, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance that limited the amount of water farmers could draw from the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin for irrigation, according to Planning Division Manager Airlin Singewald.
In order to receive a county permit to plant crops irrigated with water from the basin, a farmer’s new crops had to be water neutral — meaning the new crop could not use more water than the previous crop on that site, with an exemption of 5 acre-feet of water per year, Singewald said.
The new ordinance, however, grants each property a 25 acre-feet of water per year exemption to the water neutral planting permit, according to Singewald.
Supervisors Debbie Arnold, John Peschong and Lynn Compton said that the planting ordinance restores property rights to people who couldn’t farm under the 2015 ordinance.
“What I’m trying to change is the fact that, for 10 years, some people have been allowed to use most of the sustainable yield ... and many, many other landowners have no ability to irrigate on their ag zoned land,” Arnold said. “They had constitutional rights taken from them in a kind of roundabout way and never returned to them.”
Larger, wealthier farms could afford to import water or install larger water systems to irrigate their crops, but smaller farms couldn’t afford to do that, Arnold said.
She said that the new ordinance gives small farmers a “pathway” to plant crops and start farming again.
Templeton resident Kay Kartsioukas bought land with her husband 14 years ago with the plan to start a vineyard, but they weren’t able to plant the grapes under the 2015 water ordinance, she said during public comment at the Dec. 6 meeting.
Still, what she called an “enormous” vineyard next-door has thrived, she said.
“They exist under the same constitution, under the same flag, and upon the same ground as we do. How can it be that they have more rights than we do?” Kartsioukas said. “How can it be that there’s ample water for them under the ground, and none for us on the other side of the fence?”
The new ordinance restores one of the farmers’ property rights: the right to water underneath their land, Arnold said.
“The mission has been, from the beginning, the fair distribution of water,” Peschong said. “There are thousands of small family farms and generational farms in our community right now that do not have access to grow fresh fruits and vegetables.”
Supervisor Bruce Gibson, however, said that the county had to limit how much water farmers used because the basin is in overdraft.
“Folks who might have had the expectation of being able to plant irrigated agriculture might not be able to do so,” Gibson said. “There’s a reason. We have a basin in crisis.”
Gibson and Supervisor Dawn Ortiz-Legg voted against the ordinance, citing concern for the basin’s water levels.
In April, a report showed that the Paso Robles groundwater sub-basin was had been “pumped beyond sustainable levels.”
“The tragedy of the commons is going to play out,” Gibson said.
Allowing properties to draw 25 acre-feet of water per year will further deplete the basin, which may cause the state to step in and manage water usage in the area, Ortiz-Legg said.
She suggested that the county extend the 2015 ordinance, and use the Groundwater Sustainability Management Act to improve water levels in the basin — which would ensure that there’s water available for farmers in the future.
Many of the farmers who spoke during public comment on Dec. 6 asked the board to take similar action.
“I want to make it clear that the reason why I oppose this is not because I want to penalize the people who lost out initially, I want to make sure there’s water for them down the road,” Ortiz-Legg said. “I care about every one of the people that have acreage out there.”
Some public speakers expressed concerns about how the ordinance would impact the basin’s water levels.
“We’re alarmed. We’re over a basin that’s already in severe overdraft,” Paso Robles Wine Country Alliance representative Patricia Wilmore said.
“Don’t do this,” she urged the supervisors. “It does not help the people that you have set out to help.”
Ordinance places new environmental mitigation measures on farmers
The 25 acre-feet of water comes with strings attached.
When a farmer applies for a new planting permit, they must adhere to a few environment mitigation measures, including planting crops at least 50 feet away from riparian areas, providing a hydrology report for use of well water, and implementing carbon sequestration measures, according to county documents.
One carbon sequestration measure might involve planting two acres of legume mix cover crop for a 20-acre vineyard, county documents said.
During public comment, farmers denounced these new mitigation measures, saying that they burden growers.
The San Luis Obispo County Farm Bureau; the Growership Association of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo; the SLO Cattleman’s Association and other organizations oppose the ordinance.
SLO County Farm Bureau Executive Director Brent Burchett called the measures “costly and burdensome bureaucratic red tape.”
“All these things just add up. More burdens are piled on farmers,” Burchett said. “We don’t want to go to court. We want to work this out. But we want you to be aware of the legal implications of what you’re doing.”
Shandon farmer Randy Diffenbaugh explained that the new policy penalizes farmers who rotate their crops — as they have to apply for a new permit each time they change what they’re growing.
Crop rotation is a commonly-used agricultural practice that helps maintain soil health, he said.
“This is a far cry from the smaller, more efficient government, lower taxes, and freedom District 1 constituents have been told to expect,” Diffenbaugh said. “There’s a reason that every agricultural organization in this county has opposed this.”
Arnold called the mitigation measures “a necessary evil” to pass the ordinance.
“No one’s rights to irrigate on their property will be restored unless it comes through this land use ordinance,” Arnold said. “I’m representing the landowners that have been cut off from any opportunity to irrigate, and I strongly believe I’m doing the right thing here.”
