SLO County water ordinance not extended

October 2, 2013
Debbie Arnold

Debbie Arnold

The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors voted on Tuesday against extending an urgency ordinance that prohibits new development and the planting of crops in the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin area unless proposed projects save as much water as they use.

Due to the death of Supervisor Paul Teixeira in June, all four sitting supervisors need to vote in favor of extending the ordinance for another two years. It is currently slated to end on Oct. 11.

Supervisors Bruce Gibson, Adam Hill and Frank Mecham were in favor of the two-year extension.

Supervisor Debbie Arnold, the lone vote against the extension, voiced her concern about the impact on working families and the economy. She noted that the county had not done an economic analysis of the ordinance to determine how many jobs would be lost.

The meeting ended shortly after 4 p.m. with the board agreeing to continue the hearing to next Tuesday. If the ordinance is not extended for two years during that meeting, the supervisors will reconvene on Oct. 11, the day the emergency ordinance is set to expire.


Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

It is time for Gov. Brown to appoint the fifth supervisor!

Perhaps, it’s time for Jesus to turn the wine back into water!

I If she cares that little about the people in North County who don’t have water, she should be recalled.

Like any questionable act, whether legal or illegal, all you have to do is follow the money. I’m disappointed with Ms. Arnold as it appears that she is fully supporting personal interest and her source of money to feed her political career. The litlle guy will usually loose when it comes to a fight with big money. The vineyards may loose some money while the little guy will loose everything when the wells go dry. I think this is only the beginning for what I think will be a disaster for the little guy.

Why should this surprise you, the bar was set very low since we already have a supervisor who fails to admit to conflict of interest and votes for his special friend and the funneling of large sums of money her way.

First, Kudos to Debbie for standing on her principles.

While perception clouds all vision, water rights are complicated and need to be addressed in a methodical, well researched manner. As is typical of most of the agencies in the County, I haven’t seen anything that shows depth of thinking or insightful and thorough research presented.

Lots of emotional, angry people on both sides doesn’t indicate a need for emergency action. Before leaping, it’s a good idea to check and see if you’re plunging off a steep cliff.

Look past the dry wells and the knee jerk reactions. Look at the economic, legal (what property rights are being taken / compromised) and multitudes of other issues. While unintended consequences occur with most legislation, perhaps a step back and engaging in some honest, verifiable, in-depth research (unlike the flawed research posted by APCD about the dunes / wind issue) would bring forward a solution palatable to all sides.

Arnold voted on an issue in which she has a financial interest. She has no ethics. People without ethics seldom have principles much above your basic prostitute.

If you’re concerned with property rights appropriation, look at the property rights being taken from the folks whose wells are drained dry by the greedy goobs who support Arnold. Geez, can you even logic yourself in a straight line?

No wonder Ms Arnold is smiling. She got her wineries what they wanted.

Another republican serving the people. Oh, excuse me, the businesses.

Wonder what she is doing about water? Anybody know?

Businesses have nothing to do with people? What are businesses, then?

She doesn’t live in the affected area, so why should she care? The people who vote for her don’t live in the affected area. It’s Mecham’s problem, and his constituents’, not hers. She’s just a vote for the wine goobs.

So far no one else has commented on the obvious. With this vote, it is crystal clear who ‘butters’ Debbie’s bread. She is so in bed with the big wineries that it isn’t even funny.

Others have said it in various ways – but my read on her statements is “Damn everyone else, I am getting mine now.” Pretty close to the same attitude being taken by the stupid Tea Party in DC.

Since Ms. Arnold is so convinced that suffering a ‘little’ pain now to help prevent a ‘major’ disaster later has no merit – maybe she would be so kind to plainly state where she thinks the water will come from? Bet she can not and will not do that.

Since Arnold’s family is in the winery business, why is she even allowed to vote? She wouldn’t be in office if it wasn’t for her family’s backing.

What a lame comment. Nobody would be in office without their family’s backing.

She could vote because her family property is not within the Paso Water Basin so their is no conflict. At least as far as the FPPC’s definition of what constitutes a conflict.

That’s unlike Jim Patterson who crafted and brought forward the TDC Moratorium in So Atascadero a few years ago. And he lives right in the middle of So Atascadero. Now that’s conflict as defined by the FPPC

I smell a rat in the vineyard woodpile.Is this not a form of political earmarking?

Where is the water going to come from? Has Ms.Arnold experienced some sort of divine intervention? Has the Lord been in touch with her this time instead of Noah?

I hope she knows what a cubit is.

Pay attention. Patterson is not in office. He is not the one being discussed here.

In addition, Arnold’s family’s money helped put her in office, and her family is part of the local wine industry. They have a vested interest in keeping her in office, and she has a vested interest in keeping them happy because they will continue to pay her way to being a supervisor.

She should not have voted.

Anyone on the Board that is affiliated in any way with the wine industry should recuse

themselves from voting on the water issue.

Since I have purchased a bottle of wine from a winery within the basin with your logic then I should recuse myself from voting if I was able too.

Apparently flunked reading comprehension 1. Or logic sub-zero.

When one pays yearly to the government their “water rights”, what exactly is it that they are getting?

Answer: You get recognized rules and the right to $ defend $ your rights. Rural life requires the land owners to avoid being negligent and losing their rights for that reason.

I did not buy in your mom’s area because of the zoning that allowed for more residential, iffy water and the vast surroundings of dormant ag land. It was just to risky for the long term.

I never considered the possibility of controlling the type of ag use, for others, on their land.