The plan to save the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin is failing.
In 2014, the California Legislature passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), requiring local communities to form groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) to be administered by groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs).
If you’ve been following the saga of the critically overdrafted Paso Robles Groundwater Basin for the last 10 years, the following news may depress you, but it probably won’t surprise you. Some things have changed over that time—the basin now has a groundwater sustainability agency and a groundwater sustainability plan—but some other things have not, including the mindset that still believes the problem can be solved by voluntary conservation, supplemental water projects, and digging deeper wells.
On June 23, the SLO County grand jury released its report on the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin. It’s a stark accounting of the failure of the Paso Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan and GSAs. The grand jury found that “without faster progress toward a sustainable basin, more rural resident wells will continue to go dry and water quality could deteriorate.”
For years, the Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club and North County Watch have submitted comments to the California Department of Water Resources, the county, and other decision-makers that have said pretty much the same things the grand jury report says.
The various GSAs responsible for governance of the basin and the development and implementation of a GSP meet under the umbrella of the Paso Basin Cooperative Committee (PBCC). The report notes that the PBCC has held a lot of meetings since its formation in 2017, but, as the grand jury delicately put it, “although continued outreach and engagement of stakeholders is necessary and ongoing, the PBCC will need to take immediate action.”
The main body of the report is 28 pages long, so let’s just hit the highlights from the summary of findings and recommendations:
• The Paso basin is in decline and the water deficit continues as noted in the GSP and annual reports.
• The well monitoring network (water levels) dataset is incomplete and does not provide information from some key areas.
• The dataset on agricultural user pumping volumes (extractions) is incomplete.
• Neither feasible supplemental water options nor conservation measures can balance the basin.
• The combination of drought conditions and increased agricultural lands in production has resulted in an unsustainable decline in the Paso basin.
• Since 1998 there has been a more than 700,000 acre-foot reduction of groundwater storage, resulting in dry wells for many rural residential properties and jeopardizing long-term agricultural viability.
• The current number and location of groundwater monitoring well data collected by the PBCC is insufficient for decision making.
• 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.
• 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.
• The failure of the PBCC to apply equitable pumping restrictions has resulted in continued decline of the Paso Basin.
• Public information and outreach on Paso Basin status is inadequate.
• Fees that would make the GSP self-sustaining are not uniformly applied across the GSAs.
• Rural residential wells remain at risk. Many rural residential users lack the resources and means to correct the situation.
• Management efforts have not advanced sufficiently to begin regulation of basin activities.
• The GSAs need to expedite their plans to expand the monitoring network for use in the 2025 GSP update.
• The GSAs need to employ the most accurate satellite data for determining groundwater utilization or adopt regulations that mandate reporting of groundwater extraction for agricultural production wells within the Paso basin by the 2025 GSP update.
• 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.
• 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.
These problems are not confined to Paso. By coincidence, as the grand jury was preparing its report, the Groundwater Leadership Forum was performing a similar review on a statewide level. The forum reviewed more than 19,000 pages of data and found that groundwater sustainability plans are generally failing to achieve the goals of California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, as telegraphed by the title of their report, “Achieving Groundwater Access for All – Why Groundwater Sustainability Plans are Failing Many Users.”
The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors, Paso Basin Cooperative Committee, and Shandon-San Juan Water District are required to respond to the grand jury report. Responses by county agencies to grand jury reports frequently bear the unmistakable stamp of file and forget. This time let’s hope the responses acknowledge reality and what needs to be done to deal with it. Δ
Andrew Christie is the executive director of the Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club. Respond with a letter to the editor by emailing it to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Aug 24 – Sep 3, 2023.
We had a heavy rainy season in 2022-2023 and were ill prepared to capture the stormwater. That’s a failure by everyone in government. The River was overflowing with no capture of that runoff. If everyone is so concerned about the basin, find the ways to get water that are alternatives. Quit whining. Do something. Quit painting bike paths and building round a bouts and wasting other $. Invest it in water infrastructure like stormwater and recycled water.
Most of Australia is desert & arid …WATER is the gold that gives life as we all know.
I believe that we had around 50 inches of rain back in May, two and half times our annual rainfall in a few days.
As an expat Australian I have lived on the central coast SLO county, very happily since I arrived 17 years ago.
I have noticed that most farm houses etc .. don’t have rain run off water tanks to capture life’s most precious commodity.
All Australian farm house’s etc… have all the roof run off captured into big tanks …my friend had 2 x 5,000 gal corrugated steel tanks with tank & roof overflow going into a dam …
So my idea would be to get the government to back … tax incentives, regulations to assist to get the tanks & guttering pipes etc fitted…
If you look at the effort that was put into solar panels, equipment etc. an incredible success, then why not the same push with ‘water capture & retention in situ, on the site ?
This is not the complete answer however I believe this would ease demand on the system, until a *solution is rendered
The main reason I chose SLO to live in was because it was situated on the 36 North Latitude and close to the Pacific Ocean, I had come from the 36 South Latitude~Pacific Ocean .
Thank you for your time
best