Front Page  »  

Judge rules: Atascadero sub-basin part of Paso Robles basin

February 10, 2016

justiceBy KAREN VELIE

A Santa Clara County judge ruled Wednesday that the Atascadero sub-basin is part of the Paso Robles basin raising new questions regarding an offset ordinance and a proposed water district.

In 2013, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors enacted an urgency ordinance, now a permanent ordinance, that limits water use over the Paso Robles basin, but not over the Atascadero sub-basin. Paso Robles vineyard owner Cindy Steinbeck and 600 other individuals and entities responded by filing a quiet title lawsuit seeking to protect their water rights.

In 2014, California passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act — referred to as SGMA — which requires groundwater management of the Paso Robles basin. As a result, a groundwater sustainability agency must be formed by June 30, 2017 to manage the basin.

The agency could be a public water company, the county or a district funded by taxes collected from landowners above the basin. The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors voted not to include the Atascadero sub-basin in their application to LAFCO to form the water district, reasoning it could be managed separately from the Paso Robles basin.

As a result, landowners above the Atascadero sub-basin are not subject to the offset ordinance and are not included in the boundaries of the proposed Paso Robles basin district.

In Nov. 2015, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors scheduled three separate vote-by-mail elections, which were mailed out Monday and need to be returned by March 8. Property owners will vote on whether they support the formation of a water district, then on who should serve on the district’s board of directors and lastly on whether or not to approve a parcel tax to fund the district.

SLO Board of Supervisors

SLO County Board of Supervisors

If passed, which requires voters to agree to both form the district and approve the parcel tax, the district board will have the power to tax landowners and limit water use.

However, Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Peter Kirwan, the judge presiding over Steinbeck’s quite title lawsuit, ruled Wednesday that the Atascadero sub-basin is part of the larger Paso Robles basin. While the boundaries of the Atascadero sub-basin are unclear, it is suspected to run from the south side of Santa Margarita north through Templeton.

The judge’s ruling calls into question the legitimacy of the proposed water district’s boundaries, the potential geographical application of the offset ordinance, and whether the SLO County Board of Supervisors made an informed decision.

The offset ordinance prohibits new development and the planting of crops in the Paso Robles basin area unless proposed projects save as much water as they use, but currently only applies to the northern portion of the Paso Robles Basin area.

“The judge’s ruling raises a whole set of new questions that no one knows the answers to,” Steinbeck said.


Loading...
Subjects:                         
Related:


20 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Not to worry about the basin drawing down. It will be replenished through global warming:

http://news.yahoo.com/parched-earth-soaks-water-slowing-sea-level-rise-231245199.html


0

Oh, and I didn’t attend any meetings when I was told existing districts would be exempted. You seem to indicate we won’t be, which is why I have questions and why lawsuits may soon follow.


0

If an existing agency/district is within the Basin it will not be exempted from compliance with SGMA. Don’t confuse the Basin boundary (defined by the State and which may be managed by multiple agencies) with the District boundary (defined by LAFCO and which may have management by either the Water District, the County or the State, depending on the results of the vote).


Mutual water companies do not have standing as governmental agencies, and if their service boundaries fall within the Basin, they must comply with SGMA as well under whatever agency winds up managing the area that comprises their service area. SGMA is very clear on this. And since SGMA appears to be able to withstand Constitutional challenge according to those who have reviewed it, I don’t think that there will be many willing to risk their rate payers’ dollars to try and fight inclusion in SGMA.


0

Apparently Jacksprat has me confused with Julie Tacker…


0

Judge Kirwin might want to take his ruling before our God who has created all that is. Seen and unseen. It is He who controls all of His creation. Gov’t, [Man], whom we are to adhere to based upon Biblical principles has flat out stuck out their middle finger at God and said, “Don’t bother us fairytale”, we know what we’re doing.


And many wonder why we are in the times of distress that we are.


0

Nice try Julie.This ruling does not raise additional questions about the district that you couldn’t answer if you wanted to. You have attended most of the Supervisor, Planning Commision and LAFCO hearings to know what’s going on and know that contingencies were put in place if this very thing happened. Atascadero and the Templeton CSD still have their petition into DWR to become their own GSA. If DWR says no, then they can elect to be annexed into the district if it’s formed or be under County management. Regardless they, along with all the other municipalities must cooperate under SGMA, It still comes down to whether it’s the State, County or the water district that’s in charge of the rural areas.Don’t take my word for it. The State Water Board people and the County made all this abundantly clear last night at the CA Women in Ag forum.


I’m waiting for CCN to accurately report on exactly what was said last night. You folks were there last night, right? Sobering news for those who thought Quiet Title would get them out of SGMA compliance or that the State would not step in. Extra County money for the County to manage it? No. They also said the powers in AB 2453 and SGMA are virtually the same.


Let’s put our lightweight metal hats back on and get back to talking about big outside money interests exporting our water.


0

Who is Julie??


0

Before the Salinas Dam, the Steelhead Trout would swim upstream, as far as the Pozo area to spawn and currently to the Tassajara Canyon water haven to spawn, never knowing anything about different water basins. The fish just considered the source and thankfully the Santa Clara County judge sees it the same way. Water still flows down hill and quenches all that it crosses. The idea of segregating water holes is only about creating an exemption from a live stream. Common sense has finally prevailed!


0

Indeed good news! Maybe now when Bruce Gibson frantically claims something urgent must be done–and that urgency magically lies outside his district–maybe now people (voters?) will smell a rat. Oh, and let’s not forget the laughable Tribune trying to convince us that voting for the district is the way forward. *puke!


Now, thanks to Bruce, we have a legal hornets nest that will only get bigger. Great news for lawyers, but bad-as-Bruce for the people of SLO County.


0

How is this good news?


Now the concept of the district will be rehashed, the election probably suspended until who knows when, because LAFCO is going to have to hold a new round of informational meetings for those of us south of Templeton.


Templeton, Atascadero, Santa Margarita and Garden Farms have water districts or water companies that manage the basin and run metered wells already, so we had better be excluded from this district and from the parcel assessments.


If you think we are getting dragged into this mess because some clown in a black robe, 200 miles away, thinks we should then stand by. More appeals and lawsuits to follow.


In the end I bet the state has to step in and manage the basin and then no one will be happy.


0

If these towns are included in the basin, then the city of Paso Robles also has to be included.


0

Paso Robles IS part of the Basin. It’s not part of the proposed public Water District. The Water District and Paso Robles will have equal seats at the table along with Monterey County, San Miguel CSD, Shandon CSA, Hunter-Liggett and possibly Templeton CSD and Atascadero in managing the entire Basin collectively. Paso Robles will have to comply with the State law mandating sustainable management just as much as the other agencies in the basin.


0

Agreed about the State stepping in. But this ruling has no effect on the District. The District, if formed, will manage the area defined by LAFCO. Who manages Atascadero and Templeton and points south is now up in the air, but likely AMWC and Templeton CSD who are planning on or have applied to the State manage that area. The judge’s ruling only affects issues involving the Quiet Title suit and has no bearing on the formation of the Water District. It may weaken AMWC/Templeton CSD’s argument to the DWR that the sub-basin is distinct and separate from the Paso Basin, but that decision, in terms of management, is up to DWR, not the court.


0

This is good news. The notion of the Atascadero sub basin being distinct from Paso was a political call. It rankles me every time I hear Debbie repeat it.


0

just4fun: So is it your contention that the Atascadero sub-basin is not hydrologically distinct from the PR basin, or is it your contention that it is irrelevant whether the Atascadero sub-basin is hydrologically distinct from the PR basin?


To quote http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PL/PR+Groundwater/rcs.pdf:

Internally, the Atascadero sub-basin was defined as a single hydrologically distinct sub basin (see Fugro 2002 for an explanation of the distinction between the basin and sub-basin).


and to quote http://www.prcity.com/government/departments/publicworks/water/pdf/GBMP/reports/BasinUpdate-Dec07.pdf:

The Atascadero Subbasin lies west of the Rinconada fault, which has been identified as a barrier to groundwater flow. Therefore, the Atascadero Subbasin is considered to be hydrologically distinct. Pg10


0
1 2