[{ "name": "Ad - Medium Rectangle CC01 - 300x250", "id": "AdMediumRectangleCC01300x250", "class": "inlineCenter", "insertPoint": "8", "component": "2963441", "requiredCountToDisplay": "12" },{ "name": "Ad - Medium Rectangle LC01 - 300x250", "id": "AdMediumRectangleCC01300x250", "class": "inlineCenter", "insertPoint": "18", "component": "2963441", "requiredCountToDisplay": "22" },{ "name": "Ad - Medium Rectangle LC09 - 300x250", "id": "AdMediumRectangleLC09300x250", "class": "inlineCenter", "insertPoint": "28", "component": "3252660", "requiredCountToDisplay": "32" }]
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act is designed to force an end to groundwater depletion but does not actually "kick in" until 2040. A requirement to create a sustainability plan for the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin was submitted by the county, rejected, and then resubmitted.
The plan had to select a target for conservation and chose the 2017 water storage levels, probably because that was when the memorandum of agreement was signed by parties to the plan. It also had to choose a representative 20-year period (1991 to 2011) that would ostensibly record past conditions that could be applied to future planning.
Taking apart the data from 1991 to 2011 shows a generally consistent trend. During the two dry periods, the basin lost stored water at a bit under 40,000 acre-feet per year (AFY)—an acre-foot is the volume of water that would cover an acre to a depth of 1 foot. This is close to the amount gained in wet years, which is also about 40,000 AFY. As there have been more dry years than wet years, during the 20 year period the basin lost 350,000 AF of storage.
The updated plan doesn't include the last few extremely dry years in the calculations because they were, according to the plan's definition, atypical.
If the plan intends to bring the basin back to 2017 levels, it has already mined the basin to far below that level. Why was 2017 chosen? The only reason seems to be the memorandum of understanding between the plan's responsible parties, even though the basin in 2017 was far below the levels at the start of the 20-year study period. The company GSI (Groundwater Solutions Inc.), showed that 236 wells went dry between 2013 and 2017, and 95 more between 2018 and 2022, so the 2017 basin conditions were already causing considerable harm.
So one might think the signatories to the memorandum would want to apply the brakes on water extraction, like plugging holes in a sinking ship. Not so. The plan's "future groundwater budget" shows that in 2040, the calculated inflow to storage in the basin will be 69,500 AFY but extractions are 83,000 AFY. The plan accepts a progressive depletion in basin storage of 13,700 AFY over the next 20 years. Yup. The plan clearly states we have a sinking ship, and they plan to sink it a lot deeper.
You might look around for any other opportunities to plug the ship's holes. If we look at urban usage, the current city of Paso Robles Urban Water Management Plan shows that extractions in "river wells" will increase from 3,609 AFY in 2020 to 4,200 AFY in 2040, and deep basin wells increase from 954 AFY to 2,378 AFY over the same period. The county has also predicted a county-wide increase in rural residential water demand of 2.3 percent per year. So if the urban sector is going to use more, and as the dominant user is agriculture, one might expect the plan to explain how it would institute a reduction in pumping. Not even close.
The county seems to have lost touch with any sense of reality with its Paso Basin planting ordinance. While citing the ordinance as a vehicle for the county to have some say in agricultural land use, and while being disliked by many influential agricultural organizations, the terrible part is the way it deals with the groundwater issues. The temporary ordinance that will sunset as this new planting ordinance comes in had a 5 AFY allowance for any property owner to increase water use. The new ordinance multiplies this by five times—to 25 AFY.
The draft environmental impact statement for the ordinance states that "the proposed ordinance would also exempt new or expanded crop plantings with an estimated total water demand of 25 acre-feet per year (AFY) or less per site," and, "This would equate to an annual increase in groundwater use of approximately 450 AFY, for a total increase of 9,900 AFY by Jan. 31, 2045."
So every sector aims to take out more water, apparently hoping for a wetter climate. What are the chances that we will return to wetter conditions? California's fourth climate change assessment shows that climate prediction models put us between a drier Southern California and a wetter Northern California, but the models all agree that we will be much hotter. So water demand will be up. There is no certainty that rainfall will increase, although other studies predict infrequent years of extreme rainfall, much of which would not contribute to groundwater recharge unless runoff is captured.
It is 17 years until 2040.
If we look at a realistic picture, keeping the historic balance of 38 percent wet years to 62 percent dry years, we end up with a deficit of 123,260 AF over the 17 years. The ship will have sunk.
So where exactly is the management part of the groundwater sustainability plan? The plan itself calculated that between 2020 and 2040, the groundwater will be depleted at a rate of 13,700 AFY or 274,000 AF over the span of the plan's "implementation period." The water levels of 2017 will be a distant memory. As every sector is aiming to increase extractions over this period, the only hope is the Water Supply Fairy. The Fairy will deliver the needed extra water from unknown sources by an unknown date. The Fairy's identity remains secret, but we all believe in fairies, don't we? Δ
David Chipping is an environment-at-large member of the county Water Resources Advisory Committee. Respond by sending a letter for publication to [email protected].
September 15, 2022 Opinion » Commentaries