Supervisors eye water basin control

March 19, 2014
Paavo Ogren

Paavo Ogren

In a professed attempt to better manage water resources in the North County, supervisors Tuesday voted 4-1 to approve a resolution increasing its authority over use of the Paso Robles aquifer.

Supervisor Debbie Arnold cast the lone vote against the resolution, saying her fellow supervisors did not yet have the information needed to make productive management decisions. Arnold said the existing plan should be given time to work, and noted that some areas of the water basin are more threatened by overuse than are others.

Paavo Ogren, the county’s public works director, said the current water plan is restricted in the areas of funding and enforcement of pumping limits.

Ogren said the county’s efforts would not adversely affect formation of a water district in the North County.



  1. pasoman2 says:

    Supervisor Arnold seems to be the only one that is trying to get as many answers about this
    issue before jumping in.
    Now lets see how much the rest of the Supervisor’s are going to take from the people of this
    county and who are going to be holding out hands for a profit!
    Remember Hill,Gibson,Mecham and Ray come election time.
    look out people, better watch this!

    (0) 10 Total Votes - 5 up - 5 down
  2. Pelican1 says:

    Here is a perfect example of how bureaucracy gives birth to itself and then expects maternity benefits.

    (6) 10 Total Votes - 8 up - 2 down
  3. Jorge Estrada says:

    Very perverse.

    (2) 12 Total Votes - 7 up - 5 down
    • mbactivist1 says:

      Yes, and some of us believe that the real reason the County is trying to lure Morro Bay into a regional wastewater plant at the CMC is that the County wants control of the reclaimed water. These characters never do anything with altruistic motives. They’re big focus is always what is in it for them, personally, and for their cronies.

      (6) 10 Total Votes - 8 up - 2 down
  4. pigsrule says:

    More power grab. Scare everyone off with the bogeyman line (State) and the lemmings are sure to follow. The powers that be will not stop trying for more power and control of one of the most precious resources out there.

    (16) 26 Total Votes - 21 up - 5 down
  5. r0y says:

    Just love when government “approves” increasing its own authority – and why not, they think it’s a swell idea! Can’t ever have enough of that authority.

    Makes me feel all safe and protected. What could possibly go wrong with that?

    (20) 28 Total Votes - 24 up - 4 down
    • MaryMalone says:

      QUOTING r0y: “What could possibly go wrong with that?

      Dee Torres needing a new job.

      (11) 13 Total Votes - 12 up - 1 down
    • SLOBIRD says:

      More control, costs and regulations! This does not come without a price tag, because the County will have to hire a school of Piranhas to administer and monitor the families because the wineries will be contributing to their re-election funds.

      (14) 16 Total Votes - 15 up - 1 down
      • MaryMalone says:

        I don’t think the county’s supervision will inconvenience the wineries one bit.

        The County’s moratorium included a moratorium on planting new vines, yet some of the wineries continued doing it…and the County BOS did NOTHING to bring them into line with the requirements of the moratorium.

        (12) 16 Total Votes - 14 up - 2 down
  6. Gsan says:

    “… restricted in areas of funding” … taxpayer $ to the same folks who manage the Los Osos project.

    (10) 16 Total Votes - 13 up - 3 down
  7. mbactivist1 says:

    Oh great. They did such a wonderful job managing the Los Osos sewer project, they will surely do an equally-fine job of managing water resources.

    (17) 21 Total Votes - 19 up - 2 down
  8. kayaknut says:

    It seems Ms. Ray in District 4 did vote in lock step with her coffee mate, hmmmmm.

    (15) 33 Total Votes - 24 up - 9 down
    • willnose says:

      So you are with Debbie Arnold on this issue, I gather ….INTERESTING.

      (-10) 16 Total Votes - 3 up - 13 down
      • kayaknut says:

        Not sure how a comment about Ms. Ray’s vote indicates whom I may vote for come June, but it does show your colors. I am also unsure why you think getting all information and being well in formed before voting is a bad thing.

        (17) 23 Total Votes - 20 up - 3 down
        • willnose says:

          Maybe because you only mention her, none of the other supervisors who voted like her – you think? So the only one you left out was Debbie Arnold, not unreasonable to assume you are with her on this issue – thus “Interesting” to me.

          Well informed should be a requirement before anyone votes, that was never a question nor the issue. Or are you saying, four supervisors don’t know what their doing. …and where is the lock-step analogy come from, Post-WWII perhaps? …hm-mmm

          (-4) 12 Total Votes - 4 up - 8 down
          • SLOBIRD says:

            Maybe because Ms. Ray, who is up for election (not re-election as she was an appointee by Gov Brown) is playing a game of being for it, then questioning it, then supporting it, then delaying it, etc. She is certainly being coy with her position but have no doubt, she is on board 100% with Gibson, Hill and Mecham, When it is safe for her to look independent to the voters she sieges the moment.

            (6) 16 Total Votes - 11 up - 5 down
            • kayaknut says:


              (5) 11 Total Votes - 8 up - 3 down
            • MaryMalone says:

              I agree. Ms. Ray is being quite coy about her stance on issues related to the Paso Groundwater Basin.

              (7) 11 Total Votes - 9 up - 2 down
              • roberttorrance says:

                she speaks out of both sides of her mouth all the time

                (3) 7 Total Votes - 5 up - 2 down
                • 1inthemiddle says:

                  Please clarity and expand on that statement

                  (1) 1 Total Votes - 1 up - 0 down
            • 1inthemiddle says:

              I would say she has been very clear if you actually listen to the BOS. In fact, the meeting where she dissented and went with Arnold as the others passed the district to Sac was very clear. She had issue with the voting structure and that is the issue that is being kicked back as unconstitutional. Sure looked like she knew what she was doing and took an independent position, differing both Arnold and Hill. Recall that at that meeting it was Arnold that suggested the county could regulate through the Flood control district which this article is about. When it came to that, Arnold changed her tune. It was Ray who stood up for the property owner rights in the North County and said that is not the best choice for them to have the rest of the county deciding their fate.

              When you pay attention, you see clear, independent, intelligent work by someone who does her homework, not a follower.

              (0) 2 Total Votes - 1 up - 1 down
        • 1inthemiddle says:

          Perhaps a candidate who is beholden to big ag money and out of district, both county support is what you are looking for in a 4th district supervisor. If that is the case, then there may be one for you.
          Ray has shown her independence wherever that may lead the vote which is why we see less partisanship now than a year ago. You are attempting to link a solid legislator to, let’s say a less stable one, in an attempt to undermine Ray. That is a step backwards towards ineffective partisan government.

          (1) 11 Total Votes - 6 up - 5 down
          • kayaknut says:

            A quick search shows that in BOS meetings since October 2013 Ms. Ray has voted the same as Mr. Hill 89 times and different 3 times, not sure of how independant that is, but a link certainly seems to be there.

            (3) 13 Total Votes - 8 up - 5 down
            • willnose says:

              Coincides with the sun coming up every day. Well, for most of us anyway…

              (-1) 3 Total Votes - 1 up - 2 down
            • 1inthemiddle says:

              A more accurate look would show that the board has voted together 91% of the time. Looking at the votes the really show some correlation, the 3-2 votes, Ray has voted with hill 3 times and against him 3 times, a 50-50 split. Of these, Tay was on the winning side 50% of the time. Even more interesting, that 50-50 voting record extends to here 3-2 votes with Arnold and Mecham, even more telling is that of these 3-2 votes, Ray has never voted with Gibson.
              If that does not show independent non-partisan conduct, I don’t know what would.

              (1) 3 Total Votes - 2 up - 1 down
    • 1inthemiddle says:

      That is just the type of issue ignoring rhetoric that serves no purpose but to attemp to link Ray to Hill. There is no comment on the fact that 4 supervisors voted together. If your goal is to link the two then you should also consider the more important 3-2 votes where the two of them differed, which happens to be more than when they voted the same.
      But more importantly you ignore the merits of the vote. This was a vote to open the discussion and gather stakeholder input while the research continues. This seems to be a far more prudent and conservative path than do nothing and certainly don’t prepare to do anything until time and studies continue. While one may try to argue the degree and cause of the problem, I don’t hear any person saying one does not exist.

      (-1) 7 Total Votes - 3 up - 4 down
      • kayaknut says:

        a copy of my comments seems due here “A quick search shows that in BOS meetings since October 2013 Ms. Ray has voted the same as Mr. Hill 89 times and different 3 times” I may be off one or two but it certainly seems you are wrong that Ms. Ray votes different from Mr. Hill more than not.

        (4) 8 Total Votes - 6 up - 2 down
        • 1inthemiddle says:

          No point in looking at procedural or administrative votes. The votes where there are real decisions being made are the ones that go 3-2. Those are the ones where she has more not with Hill.
          I was clear before, you attempt to distort does not forward the conversation

          (1) 5 Total Votes - 3 up - 2 down
        • OnTheOtherHand says:

          Perhaps your point would be more accepted if you had figures showing that those 89 “with” votes were mostly on controversial issues where the board was split 3-2. How many of those votes were unanimous decisions? The BoS has a surprising number of those in subjects that aren’t controversial. How many were 4-1 where Ray wasn’t the only one who joined the Hill-Gibson voting bloc?

          I am also uncertain about where Ray stands with regard to the Diabolic Duo and their politics but I want more than some vague numbers as a basis for my decision — and I live in Ray’s district.

          (1) 5 Total Votes - 3 up - 2 down
          • MaryMalone says:

            I live in Ray’s district, as well.

            Have you been to one of her meet-and-greets for the upcoming election? Quite interesting.

            (1) 3 Total Votes - 2 up - 1 down
            • 1inthemiddle says:

              No I have not been to one. What was your impression?

              (1) 1 Total Votes - 1 up - 0 down
          • kayaknut says:

            Not sure I consider the voting record from the posted minutes of the BOS meetings as some “vague numbers”, but I guess to a certain type of person it might be.

            (0) 2 Total Votes - 1 up - 1 down
      • MaryMalone says:

        Do you really think that, once the County has opened the door for them taking control of a very large groundwater basin that they are going to decide “Oh, I guess not”?

        (4) 4 Total Votes - 4 up - 0 down

Comments are closed.