WATER WARS BECOME SOUR GRAPES ©

            Well, well, well has become the pun of the day in Paso Robles. In a response to a long standing issue (throughout the west) of more people and business in a region that is arid much of the year and seeing a multi-year drought, San Luis Obispo County supervisors voted quickly last recently to fix the problem. Quickly is also a word in doubt here. The meeting that finally ended in a unanimous vote to pass an "Urgency" ordinance took nearly thirteen hours. One might question the actual urgency as the weeks long upsurge of public comment, often contentious, made it to the table in a flurry of good intentions that something needed done. But did it? Is the real issue turning water into wine or should that be whine?

There is well founded doubt that the measure passed - basically a two year (semi) moratorium on new well development - meets the test of urgency status. To many, the verdict was returned before the case was heard and legal action to block the result is considered likely. Many feel (and data seems to support) that the problem calls more for local action than a one size fits all county wide approach. Some support water districts in the limited areas of actual concern. That also has some problematic concerns; cost, power of larger owners and administration among them.

An underlying cause is a long standing and in some cases very deep rift between pre and post winery era residents of the area. There is no doubt that wine has been the driving economic engine of the county, especially "north" county (above the pass known as Cuesta Grade) and the rural western parts of SLO County. Much of that land was sparse cattle range or used for irrigated crops such as sugar beets and alfalfa.  When grape growing became a more profitable use of their property, many turned to growing wine grapes or sold their land to commercial winery operations. It is the second use that is  central to the current kerfuffle.

Not to over simplify, the large concentration of wineries around Paso Robles are split in a couple of ways. There are (Hwy 46) groups on the east and west sides of town. There are more on the west but those on the east side tend to be larger. The land is rolling pasture and lends itself to larger parcels but is water poor. Growers on the west side tend to higher yields per acre, more mechanized production methods and sell a lot of the grapes and juice to outsiders - large case production wineries. More than half juice produced in the county goes somewhere else.

West siders tend to be much smaller operations, estate style growers who produce smaller lots of wine and sell bottles direct to consumers rather than through the wholesale distribution chain. They support hands on growing methods, biodynamic techniques, low yields and are frequently dry farmed. They are also normally more expensive, sometimes considerably so. It is up to the consumer to determine the value but realistically the economics of two tons per acre vs. five makes it necessary.

East siders are more prone to drip irrigation both from necessity and to support larger crops. They also need water for frost protection. California has an unusual system of water allocation which I'm told rests on old Spanish law that was used in early days of the state. Basically, what is under your land is yours. Typically, the old timers had fairly shallow wells to support stock and residential use. Those irrigating crops might just drill more wells where they planted.

Without a lesson in geology, the available water in this area is part of the Salinas river system, which runs underground even in dry years. But there are also, in the larger region considered the water basin, many levels of trapped water in lenses. It is not one big puddle and there are many spots where the water is not so good. There are a lot of sulfur springs and other unwanted (for home use) minerals and general hardness. The bigger operations just drill down 1,000' or more, often using perforated pipe gathering whatever is there all the way down. For frost (and fire) protection they often install large holding ponds as well.

A recent 700 acre planting with such holding ponds combined with a few people, mostly in a hot, dry pocket known for low water availability, claiming their wells had gone dry. Many of those were shallow and over twenty five years old and there is a multi-year ongoing drought in the area. That aside, the argument became one of whose straw was in whose milkshake. Despite little evidence that the problem was widespread in the county as a whole, the Supervisors jumped to act in a manner that would affect everyone, even where no evidence of a problem existed.

Add to that the political division of the county, the north being more conservative and the south thus being "left leaning academic pinkos" and a current split in said politics of two from each group on the board with one open seat from a normally Democratic district. Stir in the concept that those representing the south county (by those in the north) are of the ilk that insists the government can and should solve all problems. Then add a pinch of who those urging a water district, thus taxes and fees, might have motivation driven by the dreaded outsiders (corporate, non-resident vineyard owners) rather than the local little guys.

The cherry on the top of all that is that the current unpopular outsider is the one that bought Justin winery and plans to use the above mentioned 700 acres to build that brand. Not only that, he lives in LA(!), is very successful in agribusiness and controls a lot of central valley water. AND he and his wife own Fiji Water, Pom juices, citrus operations and another winery. Certainly he deserves at least a tsk-tsk if not a wrist slap if you side with "wineries are ruining our quality of life" group. To the southern faction these outsiders are known as patrons of the arts.

The northern faction is not terribly fond of the Board of Supervisors generally held views or actions such as a ban on plastic bags for groceries. So, in the process of complaining about the water problem, and the Board taking notice, they are now in the position of needing to wait for two years to file for a permit to drill a new well if theirs go bad. Unless they are in the existing permit pipeline.

To further hoist themselves on their own petard, if their well does go dry they will need to truck in water (expensively) for basic needs. That includes a required compliance with state mandated rural fire protection and their own property insurance. Without such compliance, they would be liable to property seizure for not providing available on-site water to aid Cal-Fire if needed. Nor could they sell their property if the buyer could not obtain insurance due to lack of available water unless they bore the expense of outside water sources.

An unfortunate sidebar on this is some have claimed the inventory of dried up wells is incomplete as many didn't report them. They feared insurance and fire safety would become an issue, some claiming financial hardship in drilling a new well. Short sighted thinking at best if a fire were to take place, likely ending the lifestyle they were trying to protect.