"Digger"

1.         FIND ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF WATER

            A.  Import Colorado River Water or California Project Water:

The report on groundwater prepared by the California Department of Water Resources in the 1980s identified the cost to obtain and transport Colorado River and California Water Project water to Borrego.  Those figures were updated and evaluated by the Technical and Policy Committees in preparing the current plan and it was unanimously agreed that obtaining water from either source was both functionally and economically impossible. Therefore, it was not included as a program in the Groundwater Management Plan, but always returns as an issue.

Recent events would suggest that this solution is even less realistic now. The Board has specifically excluded this option by not including it in the BWD adopted program.

B.  Acquire and import water from adjacent basins:

The BWD Board listed this solution as a low priority in the Groundwater Management Plan. This was done as the district spent nearly $300,000 in studies regarding this approach and  those advising the district concluded that it si not an option because  there is insufficient water in these adjacent basins, there are problems of high salt content, problems of having a legal right to any water and the high costs for transporting and treating it.

Agricultural interests in the valley are currently pursuing further evaluation of this alternative.  It is assumed that their results will be brought to the Board. Acquiring water in adjacent basins and transporting to this valley to help resolve the overdraft is an adopted program of the current GroundwaterPlan. Therefore, no additional action is needed by the BWD Board until  the new studies show evidence of it being a practical solution.

2.         VOLUNTARY REDUCTIONS IN WATER USE

A.  Informational programs for domestic water users:

We have published a column in the “Borrego Sun”, purchased handouts and books on water conservation for distributions at the office and festivals, funded school programs.

There has been a slight reduction in domestic water usage but even if we had the success that Marin County had in reducing domestic use by 10% during a water crisis, this would only give us a one percent decrease. Such a reduction could only be achieved by significant economic incentives to conserve.

B  Informational and technical programs for agriculture:

We assisted in funding the program for experimenting with heavy mulching.

So far it has not proven very effective in reducing water use.

C.  Voluntary reduction in water use by golf courses and agriculture:

The response in talking with golf course managers has been that the costs of

changing water systems is too expensive and there is little interest in reducing

turf areas by those making decisions.  At least one manager has stated that he does not believe there is any problem in regard to groundwater availability. At Rams Hill, a project that has a specific County requirement to only use low water use planting, the turf area was expanded to over 150 acres and lately low water landscaping at the entrance to the golf facility and development has been replaced by grass.

There has been a substantial change in agricultural planting, but it appear that non-profitable uses such as grapefruit trees are being replaced with uses such as lemon trees which require the same amount of water.  Also, the potato farm on Borrego Springs Road was replaced with a higher water use activity.

Individuals knowledgeable about golf course irrigation and Borrego Valley golf courses have stated to me that by upgrading water systems and reducing non-essential turf we could probably have a 30% or greater  reduction in golf course watering without going to the extreme of having target courses.  The BWD alone has no authority to enforce this. It would require State or County action. Reduction in agricultural use seems much more questionable without fallowing.

It may require that the BWD take legal action if it wishes to require that the County take seriously its provisions for low water use on projects.

A. Revising the County General Plan regarding new agricultural uses:

The conversion of undeveloped land to agriculture or the conversion of existing agricultural land to higher water use agriculture is the one land use that does not require any permit or evaluation (unless significant grading or clearing of natural vegetation is involved).  All other new uses – such as residential and commercial subdivisions and golf courses and even new resorts – have requirements, but the continued enforcement of approved low water use landscaping is non-existent.

(see item 2 C above)

B. The County Grading and Clearing Ordinance:

Under state requirements about water run-off from new development, the County has implemented a countywide grading and clearing ordinance that has required the clearing of native vegetation for agriculture be subject to environmental review.  Under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, this review has triggered a broader environmental review than just the impact of run-off and that has included groundwater use impacts.

The County Board of Supervisors have expressed reserve about regulating agricultural grading, particularly our supervisor. DPLU has been lax in requiring environmental reviews  and the enforcement staff has been very reluctant to act on violations.  This ordinance alone is insufficient to regulate the conversion of much land in the Borrego Valley.

C. The County Groundwater Ordinance:

The County Groundwater Ordinance deals only with conversion of land to residential uses and Borrego is exempt.

The ordinance is currently being revised, but even if Borrego is included it would not cover agriculture unless the entire intent of the ordinance is changed. Currently, it just sets residential densities based upon the amount of rainfall an areas gets.

D.  Developing a special ordinance for the Borrego Valley regarding new land use activities with heavy water demands:

As part of the 2020 general plan revisions the County is undertaking, John Peterson developed proposals to limit the expansion of heavy water use activities in the Borrego Valley. One approach was to have environmental review and mitigation on all new uses that would use more than 5 acre feet of groundwater.  Planning Department management never sent these to either the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors.  At the Planning Commission hearing on the 2020 plan, members of the commission made the motion to have the issue brought to public hearing.  The planning director asked that the department first go before the Board to see if they wanted to have a study of the matter, and if they do, have them create a committee of interested parties to make recommendation on what the ordinances should be.

We are now told that after six months the planning department management is prepared to at least send the letter to the Board asking if they want to create a committee to look into the matter.

There is expressed reluctance on the part of the fifth district supervisors to get involved in resolving the groundwater problem in Borrego.  Supervisor Dianne Jacob represents most of the  unincorporated area with groundwater problems and is generally more concerned about the issue.  It may be best to try to work with her staff or other back county planning groups with similar issues.

            4.         ECONOMIC INCENTIVES TO REDUCE “MUNICIPAL” USE

            This involves implementing a tiered water system to reduce use by district

            customers.  The argument against it has been that water district customers only

use 10% of the water, so it would have a significant impact on costs to some – those with high water use landscaping -- with little benefit to the aquifer.  The alternative argument has been that it would show that the district is doing its maximum share to reduce water use and would call attention to the groundwater problems.

No actions have been taken in regard to this program.

5.         ACQUIRING THE WATER RIGHTS OR THE LAND OF AGRICULTURAL WATER USERS WHO ARE WILLING TO SELL

Bob Reniers has been concerned for some time with developing proposals for funding this acquisition. At this time, however, there does not appear to be an interest on the part of agricultural interest to sell or to change their production to lower water use.   

Therefore, the  more significant problem may be that we have no willing sellers at a price that we or any other entity could pay. It is reported that agricultural water use in this valley costs below $150 an acre-foot while those on the coast involved in agriculture are paying over $400.  Also, the local supply does not have concerns of government interrupting the use.   While the water won’t last forever, most seem to believe that it will last as long as they are involved.   Recent efforts by a local real estate firm to try and acquire agricultural land  for a solar facility have been turned down by those agricultural interest who would seem to have the best reasons for selling.  Before we pursue this issue further we may need to contact the property owners to see if there is any interest in this approach.  It may not exist until water rights are adjudicated.  Both determination of water rights and a willing seller may be conditions precedent to having any foundation to consider committing funds.

6.         ADJUDICATION OF WATER RIGHTS

This has the lowest priority of all programs.  It has that position as it would be  expensive, time consuming, very controversial and would have a major impact on the value of undeveloped land.

In consideration of this alternative it should be noted that we are learning that trying other approaches also involves high financial cost, such as replacing well due to falling water levels or building more reservoirs, and the danger of additional depletion and contamination of the resource. If the problem is not resolved, the costs will escalate and be reflected in higher and higher water rates.

 A different approach discussed by some in the community  would be to bring legal action against the County for inadequate environmental review if the new general plan doesn’t deal with the issue of groundwater protection in an effective manner. At the hearings on the 2020 plan many persons opposed to various aspects of the draft plan  have threatened legal action, so this might be a confusing matter if all were combined.