Mesa Community Alliance to NCSD: Fess up

February 14, 2012


In mid-March, Nipomo Mesa customers of the four water companies – Nipomo community Service District (NCSD), Golden State, Woodlands Mutual and Rural Water – will be sent ballots to vote on whether to increase their property taxes to fund construction of a pipeline to bring water from Santa Maria to the Mesa.

Unfortunately, people are being asked to vote without full  and accurate information, because NCSD’s slick public relations campaign omits some very important facts. Here are examples of what is missing from their brochures and town hall presentations:

• The environmental impact report cited two negative impacts that cannot be mitigated: impacts to planning and housing and perhaps more importantly, impacts to growth. The EIR states:” The proposed project’s potential long-term and cumulative population and housing impacts resulting from the elimination of a constraint upon future development of areas served by the additional water supplies provided by the proposed project are considered to be significant impacts which cannot be reduced to an insignificant level.”  This fact should have been made clear to those who will have to vote.

• The NCSD has divorced the pipeline cost from the increases in water rates that must follow. There is no reason to build a pipeline without putting water through it. That water will cost customers dearly, and the rates are sure to continue to increase. Furthermore, the pipeline operation and maintenance costs are being folded into the water rates. It is easy to see how costly O&M will be. Their presentations are geared to make customers feel comfortable with the amount of tax increase on their property when that is one small part of the cost customers will have to bear. Voters are entitled to know the ultimate financial impacts before they vote.

• The NCSD should answer questions about what happens to Santa Maria’s water supply in drought.   When Santa Maria cannot get its allotment of state water, what happens then?  This topic is deflected in public meetings.

• The technical groups advising the NCSD and the courts have strongly recommended that a hydrology study of the aquifer be conducted. This is the only way we will know the impacts of additional pumping on the aquifer. So far, NCSD has not funded the necessary hydrological study on this issue, which somehow also was not addressed in the EIR. Should not the voters be advised that these impacts are before they vote?

In addition to not telling the entire story, the NCSD consistently misleads the voters in its brochures and town hall meetings in an effort to scare them into supporting the project. One example is the claim that the project is needed because of impending saltwater intrusion. The attached letter blatantly refutes this argument.

These are just some of the issues that voters should consider before casting their ballots in March. And if the NCSD is not forthcoming, or worse,  not telling the truth with regard to these issues, what else do we not know?

Mesa Community Alliance is a group of Nipomo Mesa professionals and retirees who have been studying this issue for some time.  We encourage Mesa water customers to vote as soon as they receive their ballots, and vote NO.  For more information,  go to



  1. fairminded says:

    right, a real name like slorider

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

    Go to the home page and scroll down to the bottom. It’s no big secret.

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

      The above post is in reply to SloRider and Racket.

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

      Link, please.

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

        For heaven’s sake. The link is in the last paragraph of the op-ed piece for this folder:

        Mesa Community Alliance is a group of Nipomo Mesa professionals and retirees who have been studying this issue for some time. We encourage Mesa water customers to vote as soon as they receive their ballots, and vote NO. For more information, go to

        If you’ve not yet been there, I think you will amazed at the amount of documentation available on the website. If you are interested in the Nipomo issues, or the issue of the discredible sampling of the contaminated Oceano testing well, you can save a lot of time searching for information yourself.

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

          I saw that. I was looking for a link to the name of the person or persons who wrote the editorial. I even scrolled down to the bottom as you suggested.

          Link, please.

          (1) 1 Total Votes - 1 up - 0 down
  3. Black_Copter_Pilot says:

    Gonna keep my eye on this one!

    (4) 6 Total Votes - 5 up - 1 down
    • MaryMalone says:

      John has put a lot of work into the website. For instance, there are some audio recordings of the NCSD board meetings (and the OCSD board meetings) where he will document, with location on the audio recording by minute and second, statements made by officials. From experience, I can tell you this is a pain in the kiester to do, and it takes a bit of time and effort.

      Example: At this url, [], scroll down and see the specific comments made about the saltwater intrusion scam.

      For instance, there is a comment Mike Winn made before the SLOCo BOS:

      2/07/12 Mike Winn’s public comments at the San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors, in which he continues to assert–as recently as 8 days ago–that the “saltwater intrusion” finding in 2009 was real. Quoting the audio documentation on the NOWIP site (

      0:00:07 Good Morning chairman Patterson supervisors . My name is Mike Winn.
      0:00:09 I do serve in Nipomo, in the Community Services District board as well as the chair of your Water Resources Advisory Committee WRAC…..
      …..0:01:06 The second thing also briefly has to do with seawater intrusion in Oceano, I will not beat this to death.
      0:01:14 If it were not for the fact that there are a number of people who continue to say this did not happen.
      0:01:18 As you know well, it was amply documented.
      0:01:23 It was done quite independently by your own staff.
      0:01:27 It went to the court in the 2009 report, on page 29 in the second bullet,
      0:01:35 It’s a legal document and it’s real….


      In addition, remember that NCSD has used this “finding” as a cudgel to frighten its customers into accepting whatever assessments and increased water rates NCSD wants to assess.

      NCSD has spent almost $75,000for the “slick” information the public-relations firm they hired has produced, and their advice to NCSD on how to manipulate the NCSD customers by fear of saltwater intrusion into their drinking water.

      Of more concern is Mr. Winn’s position as chairman of WRAC. The fact that he made it a point to remind the SLOCo supervisors, in his public comment, that he is “chair of WRAC,” indicates he is quite willing to pimp that position to back up NCSD’s clinging to the “saltwater intrusion” scam.

      (-1) 7 Total Votes - 3 up - 4 down
  4. SLORider says:

    Opinions should have a name or names. “Professionals and retirees” is obfuscatory.

    (2) 10 Total Votes - 6 up - 4 down
  5. racket says:

    Looks like an unsigned editorial.

    (5) 9 Total Votes - 7 up - 2 down

Comments are closed.