Letter: You were already cheated out of two voting opportunities
To the editor:
–A recent letter to the editor expressed the concern that Supervisor Arnold’s vote against pushing forward with a public vote on the formation and funding of the proposed water district for the Paso Robles Ground Water Basin was to suppress the right of the public to vote. Clearly this individual is severely misinformed.
Had original state law been followed, the public should have already had two opportunities to vote regarding this matter. The AB2453 bill that Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian brought forward to bring about this “special” water district included amendments that changed the LAFCO rules, removing the requirement for the threshold to file from a majority of landowners (51-percent) to 10-percent or that a local agency such as the BOS could file without any landowner consent. What does this mean? Essentially, Katcho, Bruce Gibson, Frank Meecham, PRAAGS and Pro Water Equity decided that the tax paying public was not savvy enough to be able to handle the ability to have a choice in the need to even put forth the district application. You were thus stripped of your first opportunity to voice your opinion.
As if that was not enough, the LAFCO board led by David Church, then removed the public protest period against the application. Conveniently, two of the supervisors (Gibson and Meecham) sit on the LAFCO board, yet were also the applicants for the water district. Clearly they don’t know the definition of conflict of interest. This was the second time your voice was silenced! Actively participating members of the community, who have been engaged in this issue and are not sitting on the sidelines, protested none the less and presented the LAFCO board with over 1200 protest letters against the formation. Only 13 people presented letters in favor of the formation, representing only six different households.
If members of the community are just now thinking that they have been disenfranchised, they are late to the party. Supervisor Arnold voted against the public vote because there are flaws with the boundary of the proposed district. The state Department of Water Resources recognized boundary, known as the 118 boundary, is not the proposed district boundary. Instead, district proponents are pushing to use the Furgo boundary. This boundary has not been approved by the DWR. Furthermore, it is smaller than the recognized 118 boundary, thereby non-inclusive of the entire basin. If this boundary is used, it will not meet SGMA requirements. Why spend tax payer money on a district that would not meet SGMA nor function with state recognized boundary lines? The folks within the 118 boundary but outside of the Furgo line are being stripped of their right to vote as well. Supervisor Arnold recognized that and did not want those people to be later thrown into the district to meet SGMA without having been privy to a vote.
On a final note, those not residing within these boundary lines, for example, Santa Margarita, are not allowed to vote for this district at all because it does not include their properties. Large cities that are over the basin however, for example, Paso Robles, are excluded from the district, again making the district non-compliant with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Begging the question, why waste tax payer dollars on extra bureaucracy that is not meeting state management practices? Oh, by the way, the PRGWB already has a water management plan, AB3030, that meets SGMA and state management practices. It has been in place since December 2009 with help from DWR funding grants. Can we say wag the dog?
–Greg Grewal, Creston resident
