Front Page  »  

Mecham views water basin with new eyes

August 20, 2013

vineyardBy DANIEL BLACKBURN

A North County supervisor said a new county-produced map showing Paso Robles’ incredibly shrinking groundwater basin was a revelation to him and has impacted the way he looks at the issues.

“I didn’t expect to see what I was seeing,” First District Supervisor Frank Mecham told CalCoastNews. “It’s got my thinking going in a different direction, for the most part.”

County leaders have been examining a variety of options to address an accelerating draw-down of the water table, one of which is a controversial emergency ordinance to sharply stem use.

Supervisors will consider this option Aug. 27, when a proposal will be up for a vote. To pass, an emergency ordinance requires a four-fifths vote, meaning the current board — following the death of Fourth District Supervisor Paul Teixeira June 26 — will need to unanimously agree in order for the temporary measure to take effect.

It has been known for a decade that new development, primarily of vineyards and other agriculture, was taking a greater toll on the underground basin than ever before. Since 1997, according to county estimates, the basin’s level has fallen at least 70 feet, maybe as much as 100 feet in some areas.

But until the wells of some influential ranchers and residents in outlying areas began pumping sand in recent months, the potential problem was politically easy to ignore.

Now, neighbors, friends, large and small business entities are divided by the pending water crisis, and by proposed fixes.

Mecham has been publicly cautious about supporting an emergency ordinance, and recently asked county staff for more information.

“I asked to see a current map, because I wanted to see if there was ‘creep’ (declining levels in the basin) between 2009 and now,” he said. “That was much bigger and much broader than I thought it would be. I thought it would be bigger in terms of the ‘red zone’, but I didn’t expect to see what I was seeing.”

The ‘red zone’ is a deeper part of the basin underlying much of Paso Robles north to Bradley where most of the pumping activity over the past few years has been occurring.

Mecham said he thinks “all agree there is a problem. I knew there was a problem but I didn’t know the extent of the problem. Now there’s much more data, which will help to put (any decision) on a firm footing. I wouldn’t say I was surprised by (the basin overdraft’s) broad expansion, but I didn’t expect to see this. I thought there would be a little, but not near as much” as the new map shows.

As mayor of Paso Robles in 2005, Mecham signed an agreement with area ranchers regarding water supplies.

“I am concerned that it might affect that agreement if any emergency ordinance were to cover the  entire area” over the basin, he said.

Update, By request.

Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the San Luis Obispo County. Groundwater basin agreement. by CalCoastNews


Loading...
Subjects:                     
Related:


72 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Frank may see the Basin doc and the revised data but I just don’t see him allowing a Trojan Horse cloaked with more of that (we’ll decide for you at your expense language) control over your title fall into the needed cash cow to fund the under funded government pensions. Again, my opinion of his get real stance.


I don’t doubt that there is an emergency for those with empty tanks but that is nothing new, just wide spread and outside of this basin foot-print too. So do we pay to have the tanks filled everywhere or is this just an excuse to create a new policy that will ripen into a taking without compensation.


I say have the planning staff do something productive and fill the dry tanks. If it is not their job then maybe this emergency can get funding like those in the hurricane belt. It’s bad but do we meter everyone’s well, pay for government oversight and open your gate for that industry?


0

Looks like an attempt was agreed to by certain land owners and a special district to monitor the ground water basin with the intent to “mitigate adjudication or other specified actions affecting groundwater rights.” So what are the specified actions and what land does the PRIOR group represent outside of CSA 16? The parties do recognize adjudication in this agreement.


0

‘monitor the ground water basin” agreement. Considering the progress to date, isn’t that like a oxymoron?


0

Yep. I think Jorge is saying let’s slowly wait, and allow more plantings and get more studies and allow more vineyards and collect more data, then wait until Debbie can understand it…


0

If they were “monitoring” the GW basin by reading the reports produced by Fugro, the group that did the earlier report that said there was enough water forever more, then they were not doing any monitoring at all. They were just sucking up the findings desired by planning and development and spitting them out as a reason to continue the plundering of the Paso GW basin.


0

I guess we better check with the county since if you take a drive out Peachy Canyon you will see a brand new irrigation ponds being built next to the road as well as up on the hill. The county approves these things and makes bank off the permitting process. Just how many irrigation ponds have been approved this year? Hmmm, or last year. How do we check that out? Just thinkin out loud here.


0

The county freely issues the permits. I guess all you need is proof of identity, have an address, can sign your name and away you go. No enviromential impact study.


0

Who made the map! Consider the source!


0

Fine Wine: Are you saying that the County government officials who made the map from data collected, the studies done by experts in the field, the USGS should all be ignored, and that we should listen to the Wine Industry people who have done no research, have obtained no expert opinions, have an agenda (make money and leave) because—–why? Do you think we’re brain dead stupid?


0

You don’t think the county has an agenda! The fact the data is put together by those that want the regulations in place not third party’s that have nothing to gain. They have the water to gain that they will take from the rightful owners. It’s about power and control over you. Not sure why people trust government so much out here. Maybe when you have nothing left after they take from you, you will thin differently.


0

They ARE NOT RIGHTFUL owners! Public ie The Public Trust is the rightful owner-along with fish and wildlife-You cannot own air or water-unless you scam the State like Resnick did-Now he’ll attempt to flex his muscle here…wise up people-Meter the wells NOW! Fine Wine is going to have to face facts that our god given rights include access to Earths water for ALL species, not just land owners…


0

……. makes the very best


0

The prior Fugro study on the Paso GW basin has been riddled with holes by a subsequent peer review. Fugro actually based its reports on extrapolations from a 1933 study. Even with that approach, however, the peer review called into question several major “findings” by Fugro.


Fugro said there would be enough water forever more, just what planning and development wanted to hear.


If you think government agencies don’t hire “experts” who will give the county the results they want, then you are very naive.


BTW, Fugro is still quite active in SLO County.


0

Daniel Blackburn wrote:


“As mayor of Paso Robles in 2005, Mecham signed an agreement with area ranchers regarding water supplies.


“I am concerned that it might affect that agreement if any emergency ordinance were to cover the entire area” over the basin, he said.”


So exactly what was this 2005 agreement between the City of Paso Robles and area ranchers regarding water supplies? Do you have a link to that agreement that you could share, or the name of this agreement?


0

Mecham is still bending to special interests if he is concerned about ONE agreement with ONE interest group on water supplies being impacted if the emergency measures are passed by the Board of Supervisors.


The measure up for the BOS vote consists of emergency measures, which supersede other agreements, policies and rights.


The BOS are going to have to be willing to look to the greater long-term good of the people if the Paso groundwater basin is going to escape catastrophe.


I’m not sure that Arnold and Mechum are up to the task because their roles as county supervisors seem to be so firmly entrenched in serving the best interests of their financial supporters first and, if the best interests of the common people are served at all, it is only as a fortuitous collateral event.


The only payback any of the supervisors will get is, in the future, if they act now and act strongly by accepting the emergency measures, likely being remembered as folk heroes.


While many see being remembered as a hero as a legacy that is far superior to being toadies for special interests, I don’t think Mechum and/or Arnold do.


0

See the agreement at end of article.


0

Thanks for posting the agreement, Daniel Blackburn!


0

I recognize that the wine industry makes major contributions to our county. It is a source of revenue,destination for tourists etc, however vineyards should not be considered part of the agricultural base of the county. Water for agriculture is essential. Water to support vineyards is largely a matter of supporting a recreational pharmacutical. Wine consumption is recreational, not medicinial and should be considered as such. Therefore the decisions made on water use need to differentiate between agriculture and recreation.


0

When it comes to sustainable water use, agriculture types are the same in that they all–based on the amount of water they withdraw from the groundwater basin– have the same amount of impact on the GW basin and the future of the area overlying it.


The GW basin is at overdraft now and, if it continues, is at risk for permanent damage to the GW basin.


Trying to make designations for the worthiness of the agriculture crops being grown by the use of water from the GW basin is a subjective call, and opens up the situation to time-wasting arguments over what is “recreational” and what is not, and whether “recreational” crops are less worthy than other crops.


Ag operations that depend on a GW basin underlying an arid region have to be realistic about the crops they grow. Crops requiring irrigation are unsuitable for such arid regions. Indeed, growing such crops should be defined as a “wasteful” use of water since there are other crops that can be grown without irrigation.


Since water is the major defining requirement for life, we cannot afford to allow the rich and powerful to waste and ultimately befoul and/or destroy the Paso GW basin for everyone else.


0

I suspect geologically, ground subsidence in the absence of water (or oil), has already inflicted irrecoverable damage to the aquifer. At best you might be able to halt it, but that would take some very unappetizing and progressive measures.


0

You are correct. Notice they haven’t mentioned subsidence at all in this discussion.


0

As good of news as this may be about Supervisor Mecham recognizing the potential problem, the apparent “real” question about the emergency ordinance passing is how Supervisor Arnold will vote; anyone have any idea about her position?


0

This “good” news about Mecham has underlying “bad” news in that Mechum is just now realizing there are major problems with overdrafting of the Paso GW basin.


Really, where the he** has he been for (at least) the last 10 years?


0

He’s been sitting in Gary Eberle’s hot tub. I should know, I was there.


0

Pioneer is going to be gone like the rest of that generation who insist there is a finite supply


0

Aside from being in Gary Eberle’s hot tub…


Supervisor Mecham been in the thick of things regarding water in Paso Robles since at least the early 2,000’s. His prints are all over the place on everything to do with water and Paso Robles. He was the Mayor of Paso Robles. NOTHING to do with this groundwater basin should be of surprise to the Supervisor. That’s what is so amazing about his professed “revelation”.


0

I agree, unfortunately. I’ve known Frank for many years. I have respected him and have held him in high regard. But, when my family is at risk of losing hundreds of thousands of $ due to this oversight, all bets are off. Supervise or go.


0

She’s going to toss her constituents to the winds. Listen to her on the Dave Congalton show 8-16-13 (fast forward to about 1:14) She says she wants to help those with dry wells. She’s been saying that for 5 months! Yet, no action. More research. She says she doesn’t want to act hastily and have unintended consequences. Dana Merrill of PRAAGS says she’s going to vote to support them (no urgency ordinances) They bought and paid for her, I guess they’d know.

She meets weekly with Mike Brown, of COLAB, who financed her campaign. He wrote her views last week.

We lose, money wins. Good bye rural residents.


0

Here is the thing about the wineries that bugs me. They go around talking about the drip systems in place and how it doesn’t use much water. What they DON’T talk about is how much is used in the production rooms. I was at a guys ranch a year ago and he had a micro winery. I was SHOCKED when he told me the water amounts for production. I wish I remembered exactly but I can tell you it was an eye opener. I WAS in the corner of the wineries defending, saying there isn’t much use in growing. Didn’t know or think about the fact that they still have to go to production.


I would like to see more of our local pundits start asking that question. Don’t just keep asking about how much goes for the watering of the plant but HOW much is used overall per liter.


0

The wineries in my opinion ARE THE PROBLEM!!! I have lived here since 1980. In 1989 we talked about how abundant our water supply was. Now……………So what has changed in the last twenty four years?? Well just drive out highway 46 west or east. Or the backroads around Paso. I can tell you that there is a HELL of a lot more wineries than there are people growth in that time. But the wineries want to take the focus off them and their industry. The time has COME to put them under the microscope and see what the hell is going on!!!!!!!!!


0

That’s the point there wasn’t the problem and if you look at what ag uses now, its actually less than what was used than. They are lying to you! to take the water and destroy our only industry.


0

So the fact that people are drilling deeper and deeper wells, how do you explain that? By your reasoning, if we are using less, why are wells going deeper? It is you sir that believe the lies of your industry.


0

I see. So based on your logic, a vineyard pumping 500 to a 1000 gallons per minute, 8 hours per day is using less water out of the basin than a homeowner pumping 10 gallons per minute a few hours a day? You might want to install that meter so you can monitor your own use.


0

Just because they’re using less now does not change the fact that they are still using 70% of the water (by the most recent figures, 2006, which are probably quite low) and they want more water. Who’s lying to who? Destroy our only industry? Perhaps they need to learn to conserve more and whine less.


0

Maybe using less but they have increased in number by 7000 % DO THE MATH!


0

-Some smaller wineries use reclaimed water: Its the vineyards taking most of the water-Most BIG vineyards have huge infrastructures and many many wells-pumping -some out of creeks and storing in reservoirs illegally outside of seasonal limits….Planting more all the time-Drive out Pomar road-Lupine Lane its a lowing frenzy ….


0

Just because the question is asked, even if it is answered, the answer may not be true.


All users of the Paso GW basin need to have their wells metered. The meters need to be consistent in type and the information and well reporting needs to be done by the county.


0

True Mary they may not answer but better we start asking questions then what we have been doing and that is asking none at all.


0

Most winerys have water reclamation systems. They reuse it. Get your facts straight


0

So you sound like an insider, how much water is being used overall? No one in the industry seems like they want to SHARE the real number. Oh we use drip, oh we use reclaimed water, oh this, oh that. Just give us a real number so we can see is it a little or is it a lot.


0

Their water reclamation system? Do tell. Most is put into the grapes and shipped out!


0

Well maybe you are using less water per bush, but you have added bushes a 1000 fold or more.


Explain how you reclaim water from irrigated bushes?


0

Grape acreage in the county has increased 7,032%! Most vineyards say they use between 10-18 gallons of water per plant per irrigation.


0

Then “most winerys” (sp) should be eager to have their well water use metered by the county.


Seriously, that sounds like a sound argument and, based at the public uproar over the rapacious consumption of groundwater by the wineries, you should be advising them to insist on county water well metering.


0

How about a link to the map…or is it too complicated for us lay people.


0

Look at the Tribune. They had maps last week on two different days for articles talking about it. Was on the front page both times.


0

The link to the current map is incorporated in this article.


0

I am one of the ‘lay’ people and cannot find the map. Could you please point out where the link is for us dummies. BTW I can’t afford the Trib.


0

Messenger in the first sentence of article you will notice the word map is highlighted in green. Click that and it will open the PDF of the map in question.


0

Um I hate to correct you Mr. Blackburn but you are wrong. The Trib used the same 1997-2013 map as yourselfs. Check out Friday Aug. 16 edition front page.


In the end does it really matter? I think we are all in agreement that ALL recent maps from recent years show a definite problem starting to arise.


0

Thanks. Corrected.


0

Mecham is a good man and a good supervisor.


0

Are you serious?


The GW basin went into overdraft and the gluttonous vineyards and their water-wasting practices exploded under Mecham’s watch.


I consider that to be the action of a “bad man.” There is NOTHING “good” about it–except for those who are responsible for the overdraft had explosion of new vineyards under Mechum’s watch.


0

Frank and Debbie are driving the train right now, and are clueless that they are heading the ground water basin to a wreck.


0

There’s a lot of rumblings that folks will vote them out, &/or RECALL if they throw us under the bus for profits. They don’t seem to understand that the whole basin is at risk, and they need to save it. Ms. Arnold seems to think we can buy our way out, buy importing water from elsewhere so that her big $$ friends can keep planting.

She should have to recuse herself, she (her husband) owns vineyards!


0

And her pals are stripping the Margarita Aquifer for That 1500 acre vineyard. They paid to get her elected as a sure vote for their Ag Cluster-Now the quarry on the Salinas-?

Meter ALL WELLS and limit withdrawals! Debbie-step up and do the right thing!


0
1 2 3