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.
