San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
• 2022-2023
Can One Wet Year Wash Away the Paso Robles Basin’s Water Worries?
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 11 findings
F1
The combination of drought conditions and increased agricultural lands in production has resulted in an unsustainable decline in the Paso Basin.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The GSAs need to expedite their plans to expand the monitoring network for use in the 2025 GSP update.
F2
Since 1998 there has been over 700,000 AF reduction of groundwater storage resulting in dry wells for many rural residential properties and jeopardizing long-term agricultural viability.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The GSAs need to employ the most accurate satellite data for determining groundwater utilization or adopt regulations which mandate reporting of groundwater extraction for agricultural production wells within the Paso Basin by the 2025 GSP update.
F3
The current number and location of groundwater monitoring well data collected by the PBCC is insufficient for decision making.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Implementation of the proposed MILR Program, to establish voluntary land fallowing, needs to be initiated by the 2025 GSP update. If voluntary measures are ineffective, the PBCC will need to implement a mandatory program.
F4
The PBCC currently does not require or have full access to the annual volume of groundwater pumping by all agricultural users to determine the extent of the demand on the basin.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The GSAs must establish and implement the necessary governance structure to build public trust and execute procedures up to and including formal regulations to define equitable groundwater extractions and enforcement mechanisms.
F5
The GSP initiatives for feasible supplemental water options and conservation measures are insufficient to balance the basin. Basin recovery depends upon reduction in active agricultural production pumping.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
GSAs should intensify outreach to solicit public input and educate residents and property owners, particularly those whose wells have run dry. Outreach should include the development of a collective single website for the PBCC.
F6
The failure of the PBCC to apply equitable pumping restrictions has resulted in continued decline of the Paso Basin.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
In consideration of equitable use of groundwater, the PBCC needs to develop a plan to set aside funds and an administrative mechanism to ensure that rural residential users have access to water.
F7
Public information and outreach on Paso Basin status is inadequate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
By Fiscal Year 2024/25, the County GSA should impose user fees to eliminate the need for County General Fund contributions and to implement the necessary programs for basin sustainability.
F8
Fees that would make the GSP self-sustaining are not uniformly applied across the GSAs. Unincorporated areas governed by the County are not collecting fees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
Once the GSAs have enacted management measures which ensure the basin is stabilized, the County Board of Supervisors should revise their existing planting ordinance to allow for equitable agricultural use of properties.
F9
Rural residential wells remain at risk. Many rural residential users lack the resources and means to correct the situation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
For the 2025 GSP annual update, the Cooperative Committee should update the GSP timeline to show a realistic and deliverable set of management actions.
F10
There remains an inequity between rural properties in using groundwater for agricultural production under the 2013 County Planting Ordinance.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
Management efforts have not advanced sufficiently to begin regulation of basin activities.
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 12
-
CL1The Paso Basin is in decline and the water deficit continues as noted in the GSP and Annual Reports.
-
CL2Annual Basin overdraft is approximately 12,600 AFA based on historical data (1981- 2011).
-
CL3The well monitoring network (water levels) data set is incomplete and does not provide information from some key areas.
-
CL4The dataset on agricultural user pumping volumes (extractions) is incomplete.
-
CL5Neither feasible supplemental water options nor conservation measures can balance the basin.
-
CL6Municipal groundwater agencies have Master Water Plans with conservation programs to regulate usage while the unincorporated lands and agricultural areas have none.
-
CL7Information on studies, datasets, meetings, and budgets are contained separately under each GSA. Submitted June 23, 2023 24
-
CL8Outside Funding for GSP development and implementation includes: o $ 7.5 million from DWR (GSP) development o $ 4.5 million from Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board for recycled water o $ 9.73 million from 2021 Federal Infrastructure bill
-
CL9Local Funding includes: o Parcel Fees under SSJWD and EPCWD o Ratepayers in City of Paso Robles, SMCSD o Over $ 3.5 million in County General Funds
-
CL10236 Rural Residential wells have run dry between 2013 and 2022.
-
CL11Use of rural properties, which did not have a historic water usage prior to 2013, remains restricted and has at present not been resolved by the County under their land use powers.
-
CL12The GSP Timeline included in the submitted GSP is behind schedule.
Commendations 1
-
CM1Commendation to local government and water boards for the substantial number of grants obtained toward management of the Paso Basin. The City of Paso Robles has made great strides toward implementing their recycled water project.