Water woes

 

As I wrote last week, there are some changes happening with our local water district, but the scenario slowly unfolding before me has caused considerable concern among responsible members of the community who are now wondering where all of this will lead us.

I stated that I had talked to a knowledgeable person in the water district who told me that there were very few changes from what powers they have had for many years. The primary difference was the ability to capture and inject floodwater into the groundwater basin. I have since learned that there are a number of other changes, some of which do not seem particularly bothersome at first glance but, with reflection, present some pretty problematic situations.

There are three areas of concern that come to mind. The first is the wastewater issue that raises a whole set of questions, beginning with what our wastewater requirements are; what can be projected for the future and where these facilities would be located. Finally, whom would they serve? We know there are some relatively small areas in Santa Ynez and part of Los Olivos that need some attention.

 

Of course, the casino needs adequate facilities as well. It has never been the intent of the local water district to involve themselves in wastewater issues, until, and unless, the agency in charge of that came to them and asked them to get involved.

The second issue has to do with the numerous small water companies that are scattered throughout the valley, each serving a set number of customers. Cachuma Village has just such an entity that is responsible for providing water for the housing community there. The fear is that with authority being moved from the parent district to the Local Agency Formation Commission, (LAFCO), these small companies would come under its direction. This is not the case, particularly for those outside the water district boundaries.

Perhaps the most troublesome question that remains is just exactly what it means to have LAFCO replace the parent district. That this action was essentially forced on the district by LAFCO because the district wasn’t subject to LAFCO’s annexation has led a number of people, including myself, to have concerns about what potential changes could occur.

 

First of all, LAFCO will not have control over the district’s water code, meaning they can review service (municipal service review) and the district’s financials. In other words, this is more land use control than an ability to change what the district can do. As I mentioned before, there is very little that is new in this change except the ability to use floodwater to inject into the groundwater basin, and the fees for review will now go to LAFCO rather than the parent district. As someone has repeatedly told me, I have a long, cooperative history with any annexation between two willing parties. Unlike the National Park Service, this water district has to be asked by someone wanting to be in the district, not the other way around.

My remaining concern is having people who have no local address with oversight capabilities. It is too easy to make decisions when it is not your water and will not affect you in the least. At this point, time will tell whether our concerns are unfounded, but one thing is sure: we will all be watching.

 

 

Eco-issues

 

In the ongoing discussions about energy sources and what we are going to do about the rising price of fuel and food, I found a couple of references in which I thought you might be interested. Recently, a couple of studies were done at Princeton University and the University of Minnesota. These were reported on by David Ridenour, vice-president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, who concluded, “ethanol contributes more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere than does conventional gasoline, because it encourages the clearing of so-called carbon sinks, such as rainforests. Like the famous bridge to nowhere earmark, ethanol mandates mean we all pay enormous costs so a few can benefit.”

 

Interesting, huh? So why are the politicians still even talking about it? Are they connected to the profits?

Another topic I have had some familiarity with is that of so-called safe harbor agreements.

This is something the government offers a landowner when they want to do something to their land. In other words, they say if you agree to let them do something to your land, they will sign a piece of paper saying that you, as the landowner, are protected from being accused of harming a particular “endangered” species.

Several years ago I met with a representative from those people I refer to as the fish folks, people who wanted to “restore” what they claimed were huge steelhead runs to the Santa Ynez River. The other major participant in the meeting was a federal official from the National Marine Fisheries Service. The point of this meeting was to discover whether we could come to some agreement about the impacts to San Lucas Ranch that were already occurring and how they could avoid litigation. They offered me a safe harbor agreement that would protect me from any claim that I harmed the steelhead, if I agreed to not sue them for the plans they had for sending water down the river year ’round, which was never a natural condition. We had a lengthy meeting, at which — pretty early on — one disclosed to me that they had never done one of these agreements with fish as the subject, the obvious problem being that fish moved around and didn’t stay in a given location. There was quite a bit of discussion on how to deal with that, but with no conclusion — everybody was stumped. It was resolved in my mind when it was clear that they didn’t actually have any way to protect me. I announced to all present that because of that issue, and the fact that every agreement my family had reached with any branch of the federal government (Cachuma Village and Santa Rosa Island) the government had violated, I was unwilling to sign anything, because I knew it meant nothing to them. I left and spent the next four years in court with them, where I eventually prevailed as far as Upper Hilton Creek was concerned.

 

I would warn anyone being offered a safe harbor agreement, especially one involving fish, to be very wary of exactly what is being promised. I’ll bet it is not what you think. The fact that environmental activists are so supportive of it makes me think that this process allows them some loophole to access the landowner somehow. Be careful.

 

 

SYV Plan

 

Last week I mentioned a few things from the proposed SYV Plan that I thought you might find interesting. There is no shortage of items about which you surely will want to make comments, and I would encourage you to contact your representative and write letters to the editor to express your views in public. This is an extremely complicated document, one that will have considerable impact on all of us here in the valley, whether you are a property owner or not.

As a member of the Valley Plan Advisory Committee who attended almost every General Plan Advisory Committee meeting and commented, I find almost laughable the amount of verbiage in this document that was never discussed or brought before the public. I can’t say exactly who was involved in creating this monstrosity, because I know there was a revolving door of county staff appearing at meetings and that didn’t include the many donors behind the doors of Planning and Development. It really boggles the mind, the lengths to which this county will go to control its citizens.

As I read through the document, I was amazed at the number of either misrepresentations or out-and-out false information it contained. Some of the assumptions about what the county was able to do and what it was not able to do were patently false and will at some point need to be litigated.

 

For example, the county is not able to legislate that a property owner cannot use hundreds of acres of his property without financial compensation. Just because they proclaim that you can’t use that part of your property, doesn’t make it so.

I imagine a court would be only too happy to make that clear to them. One cannot downzone thousands of acres without expecting some backlash in the form of litigation from property owners who suddenly find their property worth a whole lot less than they’re paying taxes on.

In fact, the county is famous for continuing to tax property they no longer should because it has been condemned by the state. Perhaps, they are just behind in updating their records — for the last 40-plus years.

 

So, how about their insistence that the groundwater basin in the valley is in overdraft? Nonsense! More than 10 years ago, I served on what was called the AB 30-30 Plan, which was a declaration by the state that we needed to account for the condition of our water basin.

After putting together all of the data for a year, we sent the information off to the typist.

Three times we got back a plan that said we were in overdraft, which we weren’t. We believe it was written that way to bring about a judicial decision to take over control of the basin from the overlying landowners, contrary to California water law. We wouldn’t allow that to happen, so we were disbanded.

Here are a few more things to ponder:

• Ceonothus, Manzanita, and monkey flower are “sensitive” species — they grow in my yard and could in yours too!

• Oak program — no net loss, want more, but where do we get the water?

• Action BIO-SYV-1,1: “Critical connections between separate habitat areas, and/or migratory species routes, “should not be broken” — so how do the proposed trails not do exactly that?

• Limitations on signs that disrupt public views apparently do not apply to signs placed every mile recently along Highway 154

• Heritage sites, subdivisions of which will be approved by VPAC (which no longer exists).

Next week, along with other items of interest, I’ll discuss what I call eco-fascism, complete with definitions. This plan needs serious revamping before it is even considered for voting.