The first week in March, residents of my area will have the chance to vote either for or against formation of a new water district to manage the dwindling groundwater levels in our basin. All over the county there are "Yes on Water District" and of course "No on Water District" signs.
The conflict has been civil thus far, with both sides respectfully disagreeing with the other. My boss, for instance, is a "vote yes" kind of guy, as most vineyard owners are. We, owning just under two acres, are a "no" family. It's not so much the idea of a water district we're against -- a different district make-up and we probably would have voted yes for it -- it's just that we're uncomfortable with the make-up of members and how they are chosen.
If no water district is chosen, the County will end up managing the basin, something they've said they are prepared and ready to do.
Anyway, the proposed district's make-up goes like this: Three members are homeowners, voted in by other homeowners. The other nine seats are chosen via vote for slots representing the size of the acreage you own. So there are three slots for large landowners, three for medium landowners, and three for small landowners.
Wherein lies the problem. Because a "small" landowner is defined as owning 30 acres or less. Unfortunately most of the real "small" landowners here -- the ones whose wells have been going dry -- own 5 acres or less.
Everyone I personally know who owns over 20 acres is growing something on it -- either alfalfa, wine grapes, or olive trees. And members will be chosen by voters being allowed one vote per acre. Meaning that the business people growing wine grapes on their 30 acres will have 30 votes, versus our two votes for our small holding of just two acres. Thus, the category that should be fighting for the little guy probably will not be, as they're not so little after all.
One morning at work about six months ago I met a very lovely older gentleman who owns a small winery and 30 acres of land not far from where we are. We had a very respectful discussion about water and water rights. His position is identical to that of most of the larger landowners who are growing something on their land -- they consider the water under their property to be theirs, to use as they wish.
In his words, "The day someone comes to my gate with a meter they want to put on my well -- so they can know how much water I'm using -- is the day I meet them at the gate with a shotgun. It's my water and I'll use it as I please." This is an exact quote.
I tried mentioning to him that the aquifer under our feet was more like the air we breathe -- his air does not stay directly on his property for his use, as air flows. The water flowing underground onto his property comes from somewhere and (if there's any left) goes somewhere else -- probably to his neighbor's. It didn't matter. I think since all he could see from his back patio was his land and his vineyard, he also believes it all must be his water underground, too. And so we elected to disagree on the topic of water rights.
But that gentleman could very well end up representing us "small" landowners on the new water district board, should it go through. He's got 30 votes after all. If he decides to run, he'll get lots of help with election costs from his business friends, who are larger grape-growers he's chummy with who would probably love to see him on the board, due to his sympathies towards large landowner water usage. And that scares me.
So I will be voting "no" on the new water district, because, although County control is not ideal, I'm more confident they will take our needs into account than a grape grower whose livelihood relies on them being able to use water, at will, to keep their tonnage weights up and their profits good. If there were endless water, that would not be an issue, but until we have a permanent solution in hand for our water woes, conservation is the order of the day -- for everyone, whether you own 2 acres or 2,500.
I'm not confident that a "fox guarding the hen house" situation is what's needed here.
I am concerned about the large vineyards and other acreages controlling the district. I am also concerned about turning it over to the county, but it may be the lesser of two evils. The vineyards have proven that they are willing to do anything to continue dumping precious water on their grapes. All at the risk of homeowners running out of water and not having $40K for a new well. We have about 5 acres so we fall into the very small group as well. Come on, let it rain and rain and rain.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, the County is not ideal but is our best bet considering the alternative. I'm not sure if it can ever rain enough to replenish what's being taken out at this point, though. I wish more vineyards would turn to dry farming but the profits are lower so they'll fight that tooth and nail, you can bet!
DeleteI sure wish I could send you some of our Ohio water. It's water, water everywhere and more to spare. I walk my dog daily at the local park, and after the recent snow melt, the trails have been thick with mud.
ReplyDeleteI heard somewhere that the next war will be over water.
Wishing you lots and lots of rain.
I also want to add that I am glad you are discussing this. The concept of drought is so foreign in this part of the country, yet we depend on California for much of our produce.
ReplyDeleteThank you Molly! At stake in this region is wine grapes, but an hour or so east of here it really is the food basket of the nation, and they are pumping like there's no tomorrow there, out of an aquifer that's been there since the last ice age. That water, once gone, is NOT coming back. The next 100 years should be interesting as far as California agriculture goes!
DeleteThanks for the explanation; I didn't realize they'd kept the "one acre, one vote" concept. The first time I read about it, I hardly believed the proposal could be legal. Very discouraging.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. It's ridiculous to slant it so totally in favor of agricultural enterprises. This was a chance to create a really good water district where everyone was represented, but the whole thing got hijacked by special interests.
DeleteThat seems outrageous! I guess I could see the "yes" that it prioritizes the crops over the people in a business sense? Of course one wonders if home wells run dry, won't the people/employees leave? So confusing. And I'm kinda glad I don't have to vote on it! We had a similar issue here last fall, with legalizing marijuana. The legalization had so many ludicrous rules and catches in it that it was simply a bad deal. Therefore, many in favor of legalization voted no due to it all being rather crooked. If only politics and common sense would unite...occasionally.
ReplyDeleteThat is so true. You always have to look at the loopholes and catch-22's, which often change good ideas into bad ones. The main problem with voting "yes" is that most businesses are looking a few years down the road, not at 50 years. And that's what's necessary for the aquifer to be protected.
Delete