The State just did tell you what to do. It’s call SGMA. Under the state, meeting SGMA is the individual’s responsibility. If there is a problem, the state will focus like a laser on the 300 big vineyards who pump 90% of the water, not the 3,700 di minimis users who pump 3% of the water and are considered exempt by the state.

Under the AB 2453 the big pumpers are trying to make it a collective responsibility with their search for “supplemental water” to solve their problem at everyone else expense. We will just say NO!

jacksprat, have you heard of the County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Right now they have oversite of the basin along with the Board of Supervisors who have gotten us into this mess. They need to do their job and stop pandering to money grabbers!

Put your property in this district but leave the rest of us alone!

QT does not work that way, it is protection against claims, not making any claims other than you have a primary right to use the water under your property. If you get dragged into adjudication, it will not be by the QT filers unless you are the one making a claim against them.

From the start it looked like the “whole damn watershed” was going to be dragged into adjudication by the County and at least the City of Paso Robles looking for a prescription. The QT filers have set up some defenses and warned you to do the same neighbor before it was too late. You ignored them to your own peril.

What is really scary to some of us who wouldn’t otherwise be involved is the plaintiffs claiming that because there is water”percolating” through their property that eventually ends up in the Paso Basin they are part of the basin. Water that touches my property may someday end up in that basin so it sounds like they are setting me up to be a part of adjudication when I may not otherwise be involved!

It’s mighty neighborly of them to drag in the whole damn watershed.

http://www.prcity.com/government/departments/publicworks/water/pdf/GBMP/plan/PRGroundwaterBasinAgreement.pdf

They agreed not to ever declare an overdraft of this basin. Both sides of this current lawsuit know about it and neither are talking about it. Quiet title is one of the first dominoes to fall that will start an adjudication. The defendants aren’t just going to walk away from the precious groundwater that they have been pumping for so long.

Even if this lawsuit ended tomorrow and Cindy won, there is still regulation coming at the basin residents like a train. SGMA. The state Judge hasn’t and won’t tell them they are not going to be subject to this new STATE LAW. Every Basin and everyone in each basin is subject to this. The timeline of requirements is just slightly different, it has been accelerated for basins listed by THE STATE as being in critical condition.

The for profit pumpers want and need supplemental water. The small landowners want protection and not to be subject to anymore fees and regulation. Cindy wants her rights upheld and to stop the pumping by the municipalities. EVERYONE wants to avoid WATER BANKING and EXPORT/SALES.

Everyone in that basin is in that basin together. Everyone is going to pay something at some point.

“Everybody Gets A Haircut”

Prefer neither. Wish that everyone could be straight forward and play fair but it always comes down to the Benjamins.

jacksprat is a member of PRAAGS who gave us this district and are the primary financial backers of the yes on measure A-16 and B-16. What he says ain’t necessarily so. Google AB 2453 the bill that governs the new district and make up your own mind if it is going to help or hurt you. Spend some time reading through the bill and see exactly what you getting into if you vote for the water district. It isn’t pretty. There is a highlighted copy of the bill on the pr-win website if you don’t have time to read the full bill.

Who cares as long I have good red wine and savory beef!

We both need to decide who we’d prefer to squeeze us: the gov or big money.

Sue is running for a seat on the district board in the group that registered voters will elect under Measure B. There will be three board members in this group. Add in the 2 board seats in the 1 to 40 acre category and that means the small landowner will be represented by 5 board members. All the people running in this group with Sue own 10 acres or so. They can control the nine member board.