The Tribune urges ‘yes’ votes on Paso Robles water district and parcel tax

Voters and property owners in the Paso Robles groundwater basin have a rare opportunity to shape the future of their region by approving the formation of a local water district in a special mail-in election.

Management of the Paso Robles basin is a North County issue — not a countywide issue. We believe the people of North County are best suited to carry out that job. It would be a mistake to reject that opportunity by giving in to complacency, scare tactics or — even worse — false assurances that things really aren’t so bad.

Things are bad: The basin is in decline. Water levels in some areas dropped 80 to 100 feet between 1981 and 2011. Wells have been drying up, leaving property owners — who range from homeowners on small acreages to huge, corporate-owned vineyards — no choice but to pay tens of thousands of dollars to drill deeper wells.

And here’s the final straw: The state has declared the Paso Robles basin in critical overdraft and groundwater legislation signed in 2014 requires that a management plan be in place by 2020.

In other words, doing nothing is not an option; some agency must manage the basin. There are three choices: the state, the county and a local water district.

Whatever agency is in charge, property owners will have to foot the bill for staff, office space and other administrative costs and for preparation of a basin management plan.

Here’s a look at each option:

State control

We believe this is the worst choice. For one thing, it would likely be more costly for property owners. While the state has not given any hard estimates, the Water Resources Control Board issued a letter saying that state intervention would require actions “which could lead to higher costs.” That’s not a surprise; the state has a history of charging considerably more than local government when it’s been called on to intervene to solve infrastructure problems.

Another disadvantage: If Paso Robles groundwater basin property owners believe fees charged by the state are unreasonable, they will be powerless to protest. Proposition 218 — which allows ratepayers to challenge fees and rate increases proposed by local governments — does not apply to the state.

What we find most disturbing, though, is that the state is unlikely to initiate any supplemental water projects.

“Generally, local agencies and their community members will be in a better position than the State Water Board to decide whether to proceed with any particular project …” said the letter from the Water Resources Control Board.

In other words, the state’s actions would likely be restricted to managing the existing supply of water, which would almost certainly mean metering and restrictions on water use. That may be fine with some residents who are leery about bringing in supplemental water. But we don’t believe it makes sense as a long-term strategy, especially if extended droughts turn out to be the “new normal” in California.

County control

If the county takes over, the Board of Supervisors — acting as the Flood Control and Water Conservation District Board of Directors — would make decisions, and the Public Works Department would be responsible for carrying them out.

We have confidence in the Public Works Department; for example, it stepped in when the Los Osos sewer project unraveled and did a commendable job.

But there’s a downside: Putting decision-making power in the hands of the Board of Supervisors means a majority of those deciding the future of the basin would reside outside of North County. What’s more, basin management would be one of myriad issues they would have to juggle.

On top of that, there’s no guarantee the Board of Supervisors would differ much from the state in its management approach. One supervisor, Bruce Gibson, told us the tack he’s likely to take: He would support the installation of water meters, a 10 percent reduction in water use and the imposition of a pump tax. Developing supplemental water was not on his list.

True, Gibson has only one vote, and based on the political leanings of the current board, it’s questionable as to whether he’d prevail. But the makeup of the board can change every two years, and the will of the board could wind up being at odds with the will of the majority of basin residents.

Local water district control

Formation of a local water district would put decision-making power in the hands of a nine-member board of local residents and property owners who have but one job to do: manage the basin.

Those nine people would be chosen by local residents and property owners who have the most to gain — or lose — depending on how the district is managed.

That makes sense to us: After all, why should voters in Nipomo or Pismo Beach or San Luis Obispo elect leaders to make critical decisions about what happens to the Paso Robles basin?

Opponents don’t really have a good answer for that, other than to say that a water district would amount to “another layer of bureaucracy.”

We find that odd reasoning. Are school boards, city councils and community services districts “other layers of bureaucracy”? If so, perhaps our lives would be better if we disbanded those governments — those many layers of bureaucracy — and put the county Board of Supervisors in charge of everything.

Absurd? You bet it is.

Equally absurd is the argument that the county should be in charge because the people of the Paso Robles basin lack the experience and expertise to manage such a precious resource.

Nonsense. We don’t believe the people of the Paso Robles basin are any less capable of taking charge of their water resources than the people of Nipomo or Oceano or Cambria, for example, who have special districts with locally elected boards.

Do those districts make poor decisions sometimes? Of course. But so does every government, including the state of California and the county of San Luis Obispo. That’s no reason to deny residents of the Paso Robles basin the opportunity to govern themselves.

The Tribune strongly urges “yes” votes on Measure A, the parcel tax, and Measure B, the formation of a Paso Robles groundwater management district.

This story was originally published February 6, 2016 at 1:32 PM with the headline "The Tribune urges ‘yes’ votes on Paso Robles water district and parcel tax."