The 2008 Final Judgment is here:  JUDGEMENT 1-25-2008

The 2005 Stipulation is here:  STIPULATION 6-30-2005 STIP

Relevant portions of the Judgment and Stipulation explained here: markman presentation 2-27-08

Most recent NMMA report for the Nipomo Mesa is here: 2010 ANNUAL REPORT

A review of these documents demonstrate that as part of the Santa Maria groundwater litigation the court has found the need to manage ground water on the Nipomo Mesa.  The Court has ordered the NCSD to acquire 2500 acre square feet of water, from Santa Maria.  The NNMA reports demonstrate that this supplemental water will further strengthen the health of the Nipomo Mesa Water, by reducing pumping that currently is producing depression areas in some areas of heavy pumping on the Nipomo Mesa by the NCSD.

Vote to approve the Nipomo Water Pipeline 

Today’s Tribune editorial comes out in favor of the NCSD’s efforts to construct a water pipeline from Santa Maria to Nipomo.  I think the Tribune editorial is well reasoned and well written.  I agree with this editorial, and repost it here to further encourage discussion on this issue in our community:

Property owners in the Nipomo area soon will vote on whether to increase their property taxes to pay for a $26 million pipeline to import water from Santa Maria.

The question isn’t so much whether the water is needed; even opponents of the project acknowledge that it makes sense to have another source of water. Rather, the debate is over whether Santa Maria water is the best source. Those opposed to the tax measure point to other projects — especially desalination — as better alternatives.

We recognize that the pipeline will be expensive. If approved, Nipomo-area property owners will not only see their taxes increase, they’ll also pay higher water rates.

However, we believe changing course at this point would be a huge and costly mistake.

The Nipomo Community Services District has done the groundwork. It has conducted three separate studies on supplemental water alternatives over a period of nearly 20 years. Importing Santa Maria water, combined with conservation, has consistently ranked as the least costly and most easily achieved project.

Desal remains a possibility down the road, but it would take millions more dollars and many, many more years to accomplish.

Just look at Cambria’s experience; it’s been trying for decades to build a desalination plant, only to have proposals rejected by the California Coastal Commission.

Even if Nipomo managed to expedite permitting and funding of a desal plant, a pipeline would still be needed to transport water, on top of other expenses.

Other arguments against the pipeline don’t pan out either:

• Opponents say the pipeline will induce growth. That same argument can be made for any water project.
• Opponents living in the area served by Rural Water, a for-profit water company, point out that they are being asked to help pay for the project, yet they won’t receive Santa Maria water. That’s true. However, other areas of Nipomo will be able to reduce their groundwater pumping. That will improve the health and reliability of the basin, and that will benefit Rural Water customers.
• Opponents who live outside the boundaries of the Nipomo Community Services District don’t like the idea that the district will be in charge of the project. Again, any project will require a lead agency to take charge, and the Nipomo district is the logical entity.
• Opponents maintain the pipeline won’t introduce any new water to the basin; it will move around the water that’s already here. In a sense, that’s true. However, opponents neglect to say that water will be transferred from an area where there’s a surplus — Santa Maria — to an area where there’s a documented shortage.
• Opponents accuse the Nipomo Community Services District of fabricating a report of seawater intrusion in an Oceano well. They point to a letter the Oceano Community Services District recently issued that denies the report of seawater intrusion.

Our take: This is a big red herring. Even if seawater intrusion never occurred in Oceano, there are other signs that the basin is in trouble.

A pumping depression — an area around a well where the water table dips — was documented on the Nipomo Mesa years ago.

A judge who presided over a big water rights lawsuit cited that depression as evidence of a problem with the basin. After years of expensive litigation, the parties in that case proposed a solution that became a judicial order. As part of that solution, the Nipomo Community Services District agreed to import water from Santa Maria.

Now, at the eleventh hour, opponents are objecting to the cost of the pipeline and pointing to desal as a preferred alternative.

That’s a pipe dream.

It would be a grave mistake to turn down an approved project — one that will guarantee a reliable source of water for decades to come — on a gamble that a desal plant might materialize some day.

As we’ve seen again and again, putting off a project today often leads to far greater expense later; the Los Osos sewer project is a prime example of that.

We strongly urge Nipomo-area property owners to vote in favor of the Santa Maria pipeline project.

Nipomo voters were persuaded by unsound and misleading arguments in the 1990′s to reject state water when they had the chance to obtain an additional water source.  I think it would be a mistake now to reject Santa Maria water as an additional supplemental source needed to protect our only current water source–the underground aquifer.  I too, urge a yes vote on the Santa Maria to Nipomo water pipeline project.

Vote to approve the Nipomo Water Pipeline 

Today’s San Luis Obispo Tribune notes the upcoming vote  allowing Nipomo residents to protect their only water source, the underground aquifer:

Over the next seven weeks, property owners on the Nipomo Mesa will have a chance to vote on whether to pay for construction of a pipeline to bring water to the community from Santa Maria.

The Nipomo Community Services District, which is leading efforts to form an assessment district to pay for the pipeline, will mail ballots to residents by March 23 asking whether they will agree to levy a tax to cover the pipeline’s estimated $25.9 million capital cost.

The ballot period will be open until the close of a May 9 public hearing; a majority of the returned ballots is required for passage. District board members voted unanimously Wednesday to start the balloting process.

Some residents could pay from $120 to $225 a year for 30 years to fund the construction costs, though many others could pay at least double that, depending on the size of their property, type of use and other factors.

The proposed assessment district covers about 8,800 properties.

District officials say the pipeline is necessary to reduce the area’s dependency on its only source of water, an underground aquifer, and to prevent saltwater intrusion — the pollution of a freshwater aquifer by seawater creeping underground and moving inland.

Even if you were assessed the highest amount, it would be less than $20.00 a month.  That’s about five cups of Starbucks or perhaps one less movie a month.  That’s certainly a reasonable sacrifice to invest in our community’s future and it’s future water supply.  I am voting to approve this pipeline.  You can read some of the reasons why, here.

The Threat to Nipomo Mesa Water Supply

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 

What is the Nipomo Community Services District?

The Nipomo Community Services District (NCSD) is the local public agency responsible for operating clean water and wastewater systems, solid waste collection and certain street lighting systems that serve our local community.  As a local government “special district”, NCSD is governed by a five-member publicly elected Board of Directors. NCSD is one of four large water providers on the Nipomo Mesa – others are Golden State Water Company, Rural Water Company, and Woodlands Mutual Water Company.

Where does our water come from?

ALL of the fresh water used by our community comes from a natural underground aquifer located hundreds of feet below the Nipomo Mesa and Santa Maria River Valley.  This precious fresh water source known as the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin is our ONLY water source.

Why is relying solely on the Groundwater Basin for our fresh water a concern?

If the source becomes unusable, we have no alternative other than severe water use restrictions. As demand on the supply continues to increase, our community is becoming increasingly vulnerable to interruptions in our solely groundwater-dependent water supply.  Over the past decade, engineers and water experts commissioned by the State and County have studied our local water supply and concluded that there is simply not enough water to meet existing, much less future, needs.

Isn’t there plenty of fresh water underlying the Mesa to meet current and future demands?

No. We are using more water than is being replaced in our fresh water supply.  Over the past decade, water levels beneath the Nipomo Mesa have fallen significantly.  In many areas of the Mesa current groundwater levels have fallen below sea level.[1]  Since 1970, groundwater levels in the Blacklake area have dropped by more than 58 feet.[2]

Studies over the past 20 years have concluded that water providers must obtain an additional (supplemental) source of water.[3]  Without an additional water source, we face critical water shortages that would severely affect our quality of life.

How do we know we have a water shortage?

The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) conducted a groundwater study that shows that groundwater usage in the Nipomo Mesa area exceeds supply.[4]  This finding is consistent with the conclusions of the County’s Resource Management Agency which has put conditions in the Nipomo Mesa Area at “Level of Severity – III,” meaning that existing demand currently equals or exceeds the dependable water supply.[5]  Both the DWR and San Luis Obispo County Department of Public Works have determined the safe volume of groundwater water that can be pumped from our wells (without harmful depletion of the aquifer).  Since 2007, our community has been using twice that amount of fresh water per year.[6]  Without an additional fresh water source, this difference will eventually lead to seawater intrusion.

We have had a lot of rain the past two winters.  Didn’t that solve our water shortage?

While above-average rainfall over the past two winters has helped, it is not nearly enough to solve the problem.  A “Key Well Index” developed by the Nipomo Mesa Management Area Technical Group shows water levels dropping since before the year 2000.[7]

I have heard from long-term residents that our local aquifers are replenished every year, or in multiple years of ample rain.  Is this true?

No.  Our fresh water aquifers are replenished by natural rainfall, but current demand (even without additional urban development) is exceeding supply.  Recent studies show that our community is actually using twice as much water today as is being replenished by rain.  Safe pumping levels in the past allowed for aquifer replenishment.  This is no longer the case.  Today we are seeing an unmistakable drop in our fresh water supply.

What do studies say about our local groundwater level?

For over 30 years, studies have identified a water problem in our community.  A 1979 Study by the State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR) reported that groundwater levels were declining in all parts of the South County.  This condition was found to be a direct consequence of water demand exceeding the natural supply.[8]  In 1993, the DWR renewed and expanded this study.  In the early 2000s, a number of water resource evaluations were conducted by independent consultants,[9] and all of these studies have concluded that current water demand exceeds the natural supply.  The studies also say that continued over-use could lead to seawater intrusion into the fresh groundwater supply.

What will happen if we continue to use water at current levels?

If we continue using fresh water at current levels, the most likely result will be seawater intrusion from the Pacific Ocean moving progressively eastward inland into the aquifer under the Nipomo Mesa.  If seawater intrusion occurs in our community (as it has in other nearby coastal communities) it will ultimately contaminate our only water supply, making it unsafe and unusable for drinking and agriculture – this could trigger a drastic reduction in property values and impact the local economy.

Are water levels being measured at different points within the Groundwater Basin?

Yes. The County and local water agencies, including Nipomo Community Services measure groundwater level in more than 200 different wells throughout the Nipomo area. The representative ‘index’ of these water levels has trended down over the last several years.

We have been getting along with local wells for years.  Why is this a problem now?

Water demand across the Mesa has increased steadily for decades while the supply of water (groundwater) is linked to long-term average rainfall and remains essentially constant.  As long as there is sufficient groundwater in storage above sea level, there is no danger of seawater intrusion.  When fresh water well levels fall below sea level, salt water from the Pacific Ocean can contaminate the aquifer.  We know much more about the warning signals of seawater intrusion now that it has occurred along other areas of the Pacific Coast including neighboring communities.  We are seeing those warning signals (supply wells operating below sea level) now in Nipomo.  We must address this problem before seawater intrusion occurs, not after.

What about agriculture on the Nipomo Mesa and the Conoco Philips Refinery?

Large commercial growers and ConocoPhillips have their own water rights, and they pump their own water directly from the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin. The amount that they pump is based on their water rights and not under our control. However, the largest users of water in the Nipomo area currently are urban residential consumers. Further, urban use has increased steadily the past two decades and is projected to continue to increase in the future.

If seawater intrusion occurs – WHEN will it occur?

The exact timing cannot be determined, but every case of seawater intrusion has been preceded by aquifers being pumped below sea level.  The heaviest production wells in our community are either consistently or seasonally below sea level.  Once seawater contaminates an aquifer, reversing the damage is nearly impossible without a large additional (supplemental) water supply.  Most seawater intrusions are dealt with by 1) abandoning the contaminated water wells; 2) flooding the area with fresh water (unavailable to Nipomo); and 3) accessing an existing additional (supplemental) water supply (which Nipomo currently does not have).

If seawater intrusion does occur here, what can we expect? WHAT will happen?

If seawater intrusion occurs in the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin, we will have to stop pumping groundwater from the affected wells and severely curtail our demand on the groundwater basin.  Absent a supplemental supply, this would require significant reduction in water use across the Mesa.  Non-essential water uses (irrigation of landscapes, including golf courses and parks) would likely be curtailed or prohibited These restrictions could be in place for years and would significantly impact property values in the area.  The only viable way to avoid seawater intrusion is to reduce groundwater pumping before it happens (conservation) and import a supplemental source of fresh water to meet the existing demand.

Honestly, isn’t the threat of seawater intrusion many years down the road?

The threat of seawater intrusion is here and now.  While it is not possible to predict exactly when it will occur, the recent experience of our neighbors is a good guide.  By 2005, Los Osos had seawater intrusion over 1 mile inland.  By 2009, the seawater intrusion accelerated to 2 miles inland.  Within two years after of Oceano’s near-coastal well levels dropped below sea level, seawater intrusion was identified 1/2 mile inland — within just 1 mile of their municipal wells.

What other communities have experienced seawater intrusion and contamination?

As demand for fresh water increases, the available supply of fresh groundwater decreases and the groundwater table (level) lowers.  This has lead to a number of instances throughout the State where seawater has intruded into groundwater basins, contaminating local drinking water.  Close to home, the communities of Los Osos, Avila Beach, Ventura/Oxnard area, and the Monterey Bay area have all been forced to deal with difficult and expensive seawater intrusion issues.  Without careful planning and alternative options, the same thing could happen here.

Isn’t this a regional problem that is better dealt with by the State or the County?

No. This is a local problem that threatens the Santa Maria Groundwater basin as a whole and the Nipomo Mesa most seriously. All other water agencies that rely on the Santa Maria Basin have already developed supplemental water sources (reservoir and state water).  Urban water users on the Mesa must now make the same effort and commitment to develop supplemental water sources. When our neighbors in Oceano experienced seawater intrusion they significantly reduced groundwater pumping and used their supplemental water supplies to meet demand.

Can conservation of the existing water supply solve the groundwater shortage?

No.  Simply conserving water cannot solve this problem. Conservation does extend the current supply but it does not provide a supplemental supply or alternative supply. Nipomo area water conservation efforts are important and necessary–these efforts are already exceeding local and State conservation goals and expectations.[10]  Even with no new development in our community, we are still over taxing the water supply at our current level of use.  The fact is for over 20 years our community has over used the existing water supply.

How can I stay informed about the water shortage problem?

To learn more, visit www.NCSD.ca.gov or contact NCSD General Manager Michael S. LeBrun at (805) 929-1133 or email him at mlebrun@ncsd.ca.gov.

REV 072111

The Tribune editorialized:

Editorial Opinion of The Tribune

Proposed Nipomo hotel deserves water service

Growing community will need taxes that more businesses would provide

When it comes to conserving scarce water resources, it’s better to err on the side of caution — which is why we support the Nipomo Community Services District for postponing a decision on granting water service to a proposed 71-room hotel.

The district’s board will reconsider the request in June, after it has the results of groundwater readings taken in the spring.

Certainly, the district’s board of directors is obligated to put the health of the basin first, especially since that remains Nipomo’s sole source of water.

But here’s our concern: After a nearly decade-long boom in homebuilding, we hope the district isn’t forced to deny water service to the businesses needed to serve the growing community.

That kind of lopsided development is bad from an economic standpoint; bad for the environment because it forces residents to drive further for shopping and services; and it’s just plain inconvenient for the growing number of residents and visitors to the community.

With a population of about 22,000 residents in the greater Nipomo area, the community is overdue for a hotel.

It does have a bed-and-breakfast inn, but Santa Maria and the Five Cities area are the closest places with a sizeable inventory of hotel rooms. That’s no doubt forcing visitors to those communities — which means less revenue for Nipomo.

If Nipomo is to ever have a real option of incorporating—an issue that’s been discussed, off and on, for years — it’s going to need the sales and bed taxes that more businesses will provide. But until it gets its water supply problem solved, that will continue to be a problem.

The district is moving forward on construction of a pipeline to Santa Maria, so it can import water from that city. That’s good.

But that project is expected to take three years, and in the meantime, Nipomo must continue to rely completely on the groundwater basin.

Until then, the community services district is going to have to be cautious in signing on new customers.We urge the agency to give priority to those services that are most needed—and we’d put a hotel among those at the top of the list.

The Tribune points out the obvious need for a hotel in Nipomo.  It will bring much needed local revenue to support Nipomo’s incorporation efforts.  It will help balance the growth our community has experienced which has overwhelming been residential over the last several years.  Now that the commercial is beginning to catch up with projects that Nipomo desperately needs, the NCSD Board falters.

The Tribune, and presumably the NCSD  Board implies we must be cautious in allowing new developments water because of Nipomo’s water situation.  This reasoning fails on several counts:

First, the water crisis in Nipomo is a politically created crisis that has little or no foundation in fact.  I have posted on this alleged crisis several times–which you can review here.  Others have also written on this on the Nipomo Community egroup.  It is a matter of record that the NCSD’s paid water conservationist,  Celeste Whitlow, has taken an aggressive and unsupportable stance by issuing misleading information to the public and the press–see here.  The questions the NCSD must answer if the public is to believe the current “the sky is falling” outlook are these:

Were the NCSD’s water experts who testified at trial all wrong in their analysis, data, and interpretation of that data?  Were all those hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not more) wasted on the studies used to support the NCSD’s legal position at trial?  Is the current data used by some with political agendas to stop or limit growth in Nipomo accurate?  If so, then why didn’t the NCSD’s water experts know of this other data at trial or prior to trial?  Why wasn’t this data more persuasive to convince the trier of fact that Nipomo’s water supply is in immediate danger of exhaustion and/or sea water intrusion?  Why isn’t the NCSD suing their water litigation counsel for legal malpractice because they got it all wrong?

Second, this same NCSD board approved an intent to serve letter for this very same project on 9/14/2005, for an even larger projected water use.  That intent to serve letter expired before the project could move forward.  So, had the project been able to meet all its deadlines in a timely manner this water allocation would have already been made.  Is the NCSD Board arguing that the water conditions have changed so significantly in the past two years that the basin no longer has the water sufficient for this project?

Third, the NCSD staff which makes the calculations, does the ground work, and makes the decisions on whether projects do or don’t deserve intent to serve letters actually recommended that the NCSD Board approve this intent to serve application on Wednesday.
And, it was an intent to serve recommendation for less water use than the prior intent to serve letter.  It was also based on conservative based estimates of actual water use by this proposed facility.  See the NCSD Board packet outlining all these facts here.

Fourth,  the NCSD Board walks a very dangerous line if it denies a project within its district boundaries an intent to serve letter without having met the conditions outlined in the California Water Code dealing with building moratoriums.  The NCSD has not met those guidelines for this or any other project, of which I am aware.  If I were Rob Marinai, I would be warming up litigation counsel in the bull pen for the June meeting, and perhaps even bring him to the board meeting to help make the case for that intent to serve letter.

Yes, the Tribune is correct that the NCSD Board  is obligated to put the health of the basin first, especially since that remains Nipomo’s sole source of water; however, given the facts established at the water litigation trial, and the fact this very same project has already been approved by this same board, it is quite unlikely the 71 room hotel will put the health of the Santa Maria Water basin in any jeopardy.  I welcome any responses by the NCSD, or community at large.

The “press release in question, was posted on the Nipomo Community e-group on 1/27/07.  I repost it here in its entirety:

For Immediate Release – 01/27/2008

From:
Celeste Whitlow, Conservation/Public Outreach Specialist, Nipomo
Community Services District
Email: cwhitlow@…
Phone: 805-929-1133 ext. 209

FALL GROUNDWATER STORAGE READING IS DOWN TO 66,000 ACRE-FEET (A LOSS
OF 27,000 ACRE-FEET SINCE SPRING READING)

The October 2007 groundwater storage level of the Nipomo Mesa Management Area aquifer is 66,000 acre-feet. The reading in Spring 2007 was 93,000 acre-feet. The new reading represents a 27,000-acre-feet drop since April 2007.

The measurements and analyses of data were performed by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), which also performed the Spring groundwater study.

It is estimated that a groundwater storage level below 60,000 acre- feet would risk saltwater intrusion into the aquifer. If saltwater entered the aquifer, the areas that held saltwater would never again be able to store potable water.

This is the first Fall groundwater storage reading obtained. Whether this large drop is normal or abnormal is unknown. As Spring and Fall readings are obtained in future years, more will be known about the relevance of the Spring versus Fall readings.

More is being learned about the Nipomo groundwater storage area, and this Fall reading is a healthy evolution of what we can learn about the aquifer.

In response to that posted “press release”, Jesse Hill responded to the Community egroup with this:

Please provide any back up for this statement.  Not one hydrologist who testified at trial ever presented any such analysis including SAIC.  In fact, the testimony was that as the water levels dropped less water flowed to the ocean.  Do you have any evidence of salt water intrusion in any of the coastal monitoring wells to back up this claim from 1950 to the present.  Thanks.  JH

I also posted my thoughts to the egroup:

Dear Ms. Whitlow:

Like Jesse, I am quite curious about parts of your “press release.”

Who specifically has estimated that groundwater storage below 60,000 acre feet risks saltwater intrusion into the aquifer?  Can you please provide the names of these individuals, their organization, and the empirical data upon which they rely?

If, in fact this was a press release to inform the community, why weren’t these individuals or organizations named in your press release?  You took the time and trouble to specifically identify SAIC in your “press release” but not a word about those who are interpreting this data.  Why?

I’m certain you are aware of the following facts, which can be found here :

On May 23, 2007, Brad Newton, P.G. SAIC, the engineering experts hired by our local NCSD board of directors to keep them apprised on the overall health of the Nipomo aquifer presented a report to the NCSD board. His complete report is located here on the NCSD website. His conclusion and presentation to the NCSD board as reflected in the NCSD minutes for that meeting reflect:

D. PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENT

D-1) DR. BRAD NEWTON OF SAIC

Dr. Brad Newton of SAIC made a presentation of 2007 Groundwater Storage Update and Report on Coastal Monitoring Well Water Quality Results With testing of sentinel wells along the coast line, it was determined that there is no evidence of seawater intrusion. There has been little or no change in the water quality since 1975.

If, as you suggest the basin is now in danger of overdraft, why didn’t SAIC’s expert comment on that fact last May?  Last May, Doctor Newton specifically stated that there is no evidence of seawater intrusion ; yet, your “press release” based on the interpretation of unnamed sources is claiming the basin is now in danger of seawater intrusion.  How can this be?

You further write in your “press release”

This is the first Fall groundwater storage reading obtained. Whether this large drop is normal or abnormal is unknown.

If, in fact this is the first fall groundwater storage reading, how do you know this is a large drop?  The second sentence specifically states whether such a drop is normal or not, is unknown.  These two sentences seem contradictory?

May I inquire who wrote this press release?  Was it approved by the Board of Directors?  The clear implication is that Nipomo’s aquifer is now threatened by seawater intrusion.  Please clarify now to the community, and to the media, which is undoubtedly going to grab on to an official NCSD “press release” containing a warning that we are about to experience seawater intrusion.

I look forward to your reply.

Regards,

Guy Murray

In response, Jim Harrison, a Director and currently the Vice President of the NCSD posted his response to the group:

Guy

I also am curious about parts of this release. I had asked the specific question of Staff what is the difference in the Water in Storage for the Fall and Spring of 2006 and 2007. I have not as of this time received the answer it is my belief that no date exist to determine if this reduction from the Spring to the Fall is abnormal or not if there is data I have not seen it.

I have also not seen any data to indicate that storage below the 60,000 acre feet would cause sea water intrusion, what I have seen is that the level of the storage has been below the 60,000 acre feet level two times in the last 35 years and as we know no sea water has gotten in.  That said I do believe that we need to determine what the minimum level of water in storage would  cause this problem, I do not know how this can be done without destroying this water source so we need to error on the high side because none of us want salt water intrusion into the aquifer.

Jim Harrison

I responded to Jim’s post, thanking him for his comments.  This post is a further response to Jim, highlighting my continuing concerns about Ms. Whitlow’s “press release” and its subsequently being further quoted in the Santa Maria Times.  On Friday, 1/18/08, the Santa MariaTimes, picked up the NCSD’s “press release” and ran the following story, on the front page:

Nipomo basin groundwater takes sizable drop

By Mike Hodgson/Associate Editor

Water in the Nipomo groundwater basin dropped 27 percent from April to October last year, from 93,000 acre-feet to 66,000 acre-feet, according to figures released Thursday by the Nipomo Community Services District.

While the drop surprised district officials, no one is sure if the decrease is relatively normal or an aberration.

However, the October level is just 6,000 acre-feet above the level many experts believe would result in saltwater intrusion from the ocean.

That intrusion could have devastating effects on the aquifer, because areas invaded by saltwater could no longer be used to store potable water, said Bruce Buel, NCSD general manager.

“It just was mind-boggling,” Buel said of the storage analysis conducted by Science Applications International Corp., headquartered in San Diego. “We didn’t expect half of that, much less nearly 30,000 acre-feet.”

This marks the first time the district has taken storage level measurements in October and compared them to measurements taken in April.

“We’re trying to understand the storage of the basin,” Buel said, noting the district has been measuring water levels in the groundwater basin since 1975.

“So we have a 32-year record of water level measurements. This is literally the first time we’ve calculated water storage in the fall.

“We were quite surprised,” he said. “We believed and expected water in storage would decrease in the six-month interval, but we were surprised it decreased as much as it did.”

San Luis Obispo County records the water levels in 52 wells, most of them private and inactive, so they are not pumping water at the time the measurements are taken, which could affect the readings.

To compute the storage in the groundwater basin, SAIC feeds those levels into a computer that creates an isohytal, or contour, map of the water levels in the aquifer.

Using those figures in a formula including sea level and bedrock level, analysts can compute the number of acre-feet stored in the basin, Buel said.

An acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons – enough to cover a football field one foot deep – and is the amount of water generally needed to supply the annual needs of four to 10 people in an urban environment.

With more water now being drawn out of the Nipomo aquifer – a subregion of the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin that stretches from Santa Maria to the Five Cities area – NCSD officials are worried.

Not only is the community exceeding its supply of water for current uses, but not enough water is available for full build-out of the community. And saltwater intrusion also could mean less storage space for potable water, further reducing future supplies.

To deal with the looming water shortage, NCSD is forging ahead on a plan to buy surplus State Water from the city of Santa Maria for short-term needs, and is planning to build a desalination plant for long-term needs.

At the same time, the district is hammering out emergency water-shortage regulations that would trigger voluntary conservation measures at Stage 1.

Increasingly stringent mandatory measures – enforced by rate surcharges, fines and even jail time – would apply to stages 2 through 4.

A storage level of 70,000 acre-feet or less would trigger Stage 2 conservation measures, but Buel said that even if the regulations were in place, the 66,000 acre-feet recorded in October would not initiate a Stage 2 warning.

Instead, any decision on the level of severity would be made after the April figures are computed, usually in May. That’s because groundwater levels are expected to be higher in spring and lower in fall.

“It wouldn’t make sense to impose water conservation restrictions in October because we would expect levels to be lower,” Buel said. “This midpoint (measurement) is sort of the ‘canary in the coal mine’ sort of deal.”

He added, “If we have a barn-burner of a winter with lots of rain, levels could be back up by spring.”

A meeting to explain the proposed emergency water shortage regulations and obtain public feedback is set for 6:30 p.m. Jan. 30 at Nipomo High School on North Thompson Road.

If, as expected, the regulations are approved by NCSD directors as early as April, they would become immediately effective, Buel said.

If the April groundwater measurements are received by May 1 and show a deficiency, the district could determine the water shortage stage May 14, and conservation measures could kick in as early as May 18, he said.

The Santa Maria Times article is even more troubling.  The “press release” does not even attribute to experts, the conclusion that dropping below 60,000 acre feet of water risks seawater intrusion.  Rather, it just assumes as fact that conclusion without attributing it to any source at all:

It is estimated that a groundwater storage level below 60,000 acre- feet would risk saltwater intrusion into the aquifer. If saltwater entered the aquifer, the areas that held saltwater would never again be able to store potable water.

And, it’s only an “estimated” danger.  No mention of experts, or any other source for this conclusion.  Yet, by the time the Santa Maria Times’ editors printed the story, this “factual” conclusion was attributed to “many” yet unidentified and undisclosed experts:

However, the October level is just 6,000 acre-feet above the level many experts believe would result in saltwater intrusion from the ocean.

What?  How on earth, in one day did this never before seen conclusion go from just estimated, to being supported by “many experts?”  The Times doesn’t bother no name even one of these experts?  With whom did the Times reporter speak?  Did he actually speak to “many experts” to actually confirm such a conclusion?  Not even Ms. Whitlow’s press release made the bold, and so far unsupported assertion, that many experts believe that falling below 60,000 acre feet risks seawater intrusion.

The Times story was quite predictable, given the NCSD “press release.”  It appears to have been calculated to generate such headlines.  Not only did it succeed in generating the headlines, it took the assumptions several steps further.

I’m not a water expert, and don’t pretend to be.  I rely on the conclusions of water experts, which I assume to be supported by appropriate foundational data.  I have already posted here, and here, what appear to be completely opposition conclusions, based on empirical data that well accepted by the leading hydrology experts in California.

As Director Jim Harrison pointed out in his reply, there have apparently been at least two occasions since the NCSD has been keeping records that the water storage level has in fact dipped below the 60,000 acre foot level.  Yet, there has been no sea water intrusion.  Why has this fact not been pointed out by the NCSD in their “press release?”   To what levels did the water levels actually drop?  What conclusions can we draw from these facts?  Do they contradict or support what the NCSD released, and the Santa Maria Times enhanced?

Was the NCSD’s “press release” accurate?  Or, has Ms. Whitlow, the voice of the NCSD mislead the public?  Was it reponsible journalism for the Santa Maria Times to hype the so called facts in that “press release” in its article?  I don’ t know the answers to these questions.  I would like the NCSD to provide further clarification on the factual basis for its press release, and I invite its representative to do so.

If there are facts to support the NCSD’s most recent “press release” then the public should know of them.  We are entitled to know the identity and qualifications of the individuals or “experts” upon which  the NCSD has relied to support this “press release.”  If the factual interpretations are accurate, then one has to wonder, why the NCSD didn’t present these experts in the Santa Maria water litigation?  Are they different experts than those the NCSD did retain and pay to testify at trial?  Are they they same experts, who have simply changed their opinions?  We, as the general public are entitled to know these and other answers.

I eagerly await any replies from the NCSD’s representatives.

The first place to look is at the pre-trial and trial testimony of experts hired by the NCSD and other water purveyors in the Santa Maria water basin complex litigation. I have already posted the actual deposition transcript of the NCSD’s expert Robert Bybee as well as the relevant testimony portions here.

You can read the entire transcript and the relevant excerpts in that prior post; however, the bottom line according to Mr. Bybee, is that the water basin is currently meeting the water needs of the community and it is not in over draft:

It’s my understanding, according to Mr. Scalamini’s testimony, and my review of the whole thing that, yes, there is no long-term overdraft, which is another way of saying that the basin’s current demands are being met.

And, as to the specifics of the health of the Nipomo aquifer, there is sufficient water already in storage for several years usage even in the unlikely event of zero recharge, which has never occurred for the period of time records have been kept:

It’s a parallel statement for Nipomo Mesa. Number six reads, “There are presently 84,000 acre-feet (year 2000) in groundwater storage above mean sea level in the Nipomo Mesa management area. This would meet projected water demands at 2030 levels for five years without replenishment. There has never been zero recharge or rainfall in any annual period for the entire period of record.”

Mr. Bybee was not the only expert who opined at trial that there was no current evidence of any seawater intrusion. Joseph Scalmanini, the Water Conservation District expert, rendered opinions at trial about the overall health of the Santa Maria Basin and whether or not there was evidence of seawater intrusion:

“The picture is generally the same as I just described. There was an increase in water levels from the 1930’s to the 1940’s. There was a progressive decline through the late 1960’s. There has been fluctuations, but let’s say to the 1990’s at least with intermittent recovery of the groundwater basin to close to or at the historically experienced high levels both in the mid-1980’s and the late 1990’s or close to the turn of the century. There is no continuation of the downward trend which was occurring in the part of the 1960’s, and there has been stable to increasing water levels since.” (Reporters Transcript, Scalmanini, at 1257:3-13)

“So, compared to all of those conditions in the context of all of those [coastal basins], the conditions in this basin are uniquely good. I could sort of mentally walk down the coast and say water levels range from a few tens to as much as 100 feet below sea level in a number of coastal basins at or near the coastline. There is history of intrusion in numerous places.

This basin has none of that, never has had and today doesn’t have it. Today, again, in the confines of coastal basins, if you wanted to try to personalize it, others would be envious of the conditions of this basin. It fluctuates, meaning the pumpers can extract water from dry periods from storage without detrimental effects and it replenishes during [wet] cycles and has done that repeatedly for a minimum of the last 35 years [and] actually back through the entire period of available record.

Man has taken it from no development to upwards of 60,000 acres of agricultural land use and the associated pumping and with that that exceeds 100,000 acre feet a year. I’m including now the municipal demand that’s increased with time as well, without, you know, any of the detrimental effects. That’s a pretty good set of basin conditions particularly along a coastline.” (Reporters Transcript, Scalmanini, at 1303:4-26.)

The emphasis in red above is mine; but, I thought that particular conclusion important regarding the question of seawater intrusion throughout the entire Santa Maria water basin, including Nipomo. This basin has none of that, never has had and today doesn’t have it.

This was testimony given at trial and in depositions during the various phases of the trial, between approximately 2005 and 2006–pretty recent data. But, that’s not all. There is further, even more recent data to support the conclusion that the Nipomo aquifer is healthy and that there is no evidence of any seawater intrusion.

On May 23, 2007, Brad Newton, P.G. SAIC, the engineering experts hired by our local NCSD board of directors to keep them apprised on the overall health of the Nipomo aquifer presented a report to the NCSD board. His complete report is located here on the NCSD website. His conclusion and presentation to the NCSD board as reflected in the NCSD minutes for that meeting reflect:

D. PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENT

D-1) DR. BRAD NEWTON OF SAIC

Dr. Brad Newton of SAIC made a presentation of 2007 Groundwater Storage Update and Report on Coastal Monitoring Well Water Quality Results With testing of sentinel wells along the coast line, it was determined that there is no evidence of seawater intrusion. There has been little or no change in the water quality since 1975.

Present at this meeting were Directors Trotter, Vierheilig, Eby, Harrison, and Winn–all five. According to the minutes, not one of those directors challenged Mr. Newton from SAIC about his conclusion that there was little or no change in water quality since 1975, or that there was no evidence of any seawater intrusion. Again, I have added the emphasis in red; however, this is a verbeitm quote from the NCSD minutes of this meeting.

The question that comes to my mind, is that if any of our elected NCSD directors had questions about seawater intrusion, or felt there was legitimate evidence that there was seawater intrusion into the Nipomo aquifer, wouldn’t they raise it directly to their hired expert Mr. Newton? Rather than question the veracity of Mr. Newton’s conclusions that there was no evidence of seawater intrusion, the minutes reflect that the entire board thanked Mr. Newton for his informative report.

I can only conclude that the board as a whole believed Mr. Newton, and accepted his conclusions. This same board, after all, hired him to perform this research. Clearly they must have confidence in his years of training, experience and expertise in the field. SAIC is the same engineering company the NCSD board hired to provide expert testimony on their behalf at trial. Clearly the NCSD board has confidence in this engineering firm, their abilities and professional opinions and conclusions.

Based on Mr. Newton’s conclusion that there is no evidence of seawater intrusion in the Nipomo aquifer and the NCSD board’s acceptance of this report and conclusion, I would assume the NCSD would naturally share this information with the public at large. I would think this would be information readily available on the NCSD website. Isn’t this the type of information, of which all rate payers of the NCSD should be made aware? One would think. But, one has to know where to look to find this information. It is buried on the NCSD website. There is no mention of this, that I can see, other than in these minutes, that, up to now have never been cited by the NCSD about the issue of seawater intrusion. I will have more to say on this subject in a future post.

We are a leading provider of scientific, engineering, systems integration and technical services and solutions to all branches of the U.S. military, agencies of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), the intelligence community, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other U.S. Government civil agencies, as well as to customers in selected commercial markets. Our customers seek our domain expertise to solve complex technical challenges requiring innovative solutions for mission-critical functions . . . .

Mr. Beeby gave sworn deposition testimony prior to testifying in Phase V of the water litigation. Depositions are legal proceedings that lawyers use to question a witness about the potential testimony that witnesses will give at an upcoming trial. Depositions are legal proceedings and the witness is placed under oath, and sworn to tell the truth. A deposition carries with it the same penalties of perjury as does testimony at trial before a judge and jury.

Mr. Beeby was a special witness, in that he was retained by the NCSD to study and analyze certain issues and render certain opinions during this particular phase of the case. These opinions related to the status of the health of the water basin. I have a copy of a memorandum containing all of Mr. Beeby’s opinions that he formulated for Phase V. You can see a copy of Mr. Beeby’s opinion memorandum here: Beeby Deposition Opinion Memo

I believe his first six opinions are the most significant as they relate to the water basin, and I have reprinted them:

1. The stipulated judgment adequately provides for the management of the water resources, both surface and ground water of Santa Maria Basin.

2. In general, the availability of local service water, local ground water and imported water, along with the existing infrastructure, is sufficient to meet the water demands of the Basin through 2030. This opinion is based on implementation of technically sound management principles and maintenance as set forth in the stipulation.

3. Local areas may require special attention from the technical experts of the three management committees because of differing hydrogeologic characteristics among the three management areas.

4. It is highly unlikely that the availability of groundwater resources to the contesting parties will be significantly impacted by anticipated growth in the Nipomo or Santa Maria Management Areas.

5. There are presently 2,500,000 [as of 2002 (Alroth, 2002)] acre-feet in ground water storage above mean sea level in the Santa Maria Basin. This would meet the projected water level demands at 2030 levels for 15 years without replenishment. There has never been zero recharge or rainfall for any annual period for the entire period of record.

6. There are presently 84,000 acre-feet (Year 2000) in ground water storage above mean sea level in the Nipomo in the Nipomo Mesa Management area. This would meet the projected water demands at 2030 levels for 5 years without replenishment. There has never been zero recharge or rainfall for any annual period for the entire period of record.

In his pre-trial phase V deposition testimony, Mr. Beeby went through and explained each of those opinions in detail. He begins his explanation of these opinions on page 21 of his deposition, lines 23-25. You can read the actual Beeby deposition testimony here:

Beeby Phase V Deposition Testimony

Notice, this is a rather recent deposition, which was taken on 5/15/06. For those not wanting to wade through the deposition transcript itself, I will re-post the relevant portions below so that anyone can read Mr. Beeby’s actual testimony in stating and explaining each of these opinions:

Q. By Mr. Zimmer: Let’s turn, Mr. Beeby, to the opinions in Exhibit A, taking them in order.

The first opinion says “The stipulated judgment adequately provides for the management of the water resources, both surface and groundwater of Santa Maria Basin.” Can you tell me what that means?

A. What it means, from the engineering standpoint, from the management standpoint, is that technical committees of professionals will be made and will be formed for each of the three management areas. And those technical committees will be charged with the responsibility of monitoring both surface and groundwater resources with land use, and will be preparing an annual report reporting on the condition of each of the three subareas.

And these reports will then guide whether or not measures need to be taken to either sustain the resource, whether–whether additional recharge should be required, whether there are water-quality issues that may or may not be developing, and, essentially, give a sense–a report of the health of each of the management areas to the court.

So if adverse circumstances do appear to be occurring, we will have advance–we, the technical committee–I’m assuming that I might be part of that–would be given advance notice and could make changes to the way water demands are used–or water is used, I should say, maybe changing pumping patters, doing those kinds of things that would affect the physical health of the basin.

Q. And this is based upon current information that you have available to you?

A. Well, it’s based on current information and my understanding of what the responsibility of the technical committees for each subarea, or each management area, will be assigned to do, yes.

Beeby Deposition pp. 21:23-25; 22:1-23; 23:1-8.

Ok, so what do we learn from his first opinion? Well, to me, one of the most significant points he makes is that there are technical committees of professionals the sole purpose of which is to watch over the respective subareas of the water basin to make certain there are no problems with that particular area. Nipomo is one of those sub areas of that has a committee of professionals. One of those appears to be the NCSD’s own expert, Mr. Beeby himself. And, what do these professionals do? Why, they get advance notice of any potential pumping or other problems with the subarea over which they are charged.

Why is this important to Nipomo? Well, each year these professionals will monitor their area of management of the basin. They will prepare annual reports on the basin’s health. In other words, we are not left alone to guess by ourselves how things are going in our Nipomo Mesa Management area of the water basin.

This means that if the Nipomo Mesa Management subarea of the basin begins to get into trouble, these professionals engage and the portions of the stipulated judgment that govern management of the basin come into play. They do this to avoid any serious long term damage to that particular portion of the basin. In other words, we here in Nipomo, as part of the stipulated judgment reached during this trial will have professionals monitoring the basin, in conjunction with our own NCSD. They will implement measures if there is a need to insure the water quality and overall health of the Nipomo Mesa Management area. This is what I understand from this opinion and also from reading the stipulated judgment. If others have a differing interpretation, please leave a comment or send me an email, and I will post that version.

Let’s continue with Mr. Beeby’s deposition testimony and opinions:

Q. Okay. Number two, why don’t you just read that for us and tell us what that means?

A. “In general, the availability of local surface water, local groundwater and imported water, along with the existing infrastructure, is sufficient to meet the water demands of the Basin through 2030. This opinion is based on implementation of technically-sound management principles and maintenance as set forth in the stipulation.”

Q. The basin currently is meeting demands correct?

A. It’s my understanding, according to Mr. Scalamini’s testimony, and my review of the whole thing that, yes, there is no long-term overdraft, which is another way of saying that the basin’s current demands are being met.

Beeby Deposition p. 23:9-24.

What strikes me as significant from this opinion is the amount of water available to the overall basin. There is sufficient water available in the basin to meet needs and the water demand of the basin through the year 2030, which is some 23 years away. Currently the water demands and needs of the basin are being met. This is good news. There is no long term overdraft. We are not in imminent danger of sea-water intrusion into the aquifer. There is not an imminent threat that if we go to our water faucet and turn it on that either sea water or dirt will come pouring out.

Let’s continue with Mr. Beeby’s next opinion:

Q. Can you read item number three for us and tell us what that means.

A. Ok. Item three, “Local areas may require special attention from the technical experts on the three management committees because of differing hydrogeologic characteristics among the three management areas.”

Q. And what does that mean sir?

A. Well, it means that each of the three management areas were defined because there are differing hydrogeologic characteristics. And because they’re different, they can’t be managed, necessarily using a standard cookbook that would apply to all.

Q. And why is that? In other words, you couldn’t just reat it all as one big, large basin–

A. Not in my opinion, no.

Q. –to manage it?

A. No, you could not.

Q. Any why is that?

A. Maybe I should back up to say that you could–you could manage the principals. I mean the principals could be set to manage the whole basin. But the individual subareas are unique, and therefore, you wouldn’t apply the same techniques to each.

For example, in Nipomo Mesa area, its source of water is principally rainfall, and it gets no–no recharge from Twitchell. It has no imported water supply right now, although they have an agreement to have one. So consequently, that is totally different than the Santa Maria basin where there may be some slight differences in rainfall. But Twitchell certainly has an impact on the water supplies of Santa Maria basin that is covered in the stipulate–in the stipulation. the northern cities are fairly independent in that they are served primarily by Lopez. So each of the three are unique. And that’s basically what I am trying to convey by my item three here.

Q. So the–the source of water in the various areas is different? The hydrogeologic structures in those areas are different? Essentially, what makes water rise and fallin the groundwater basins in those areas is different?

A. With regard to the source of supply, yes. I would hesitate to say that the demand are essentially different. In other words, there is urban and ag uses in both or all three subareas, or all three management areas. And both urban and ag require a certain amount of water. While climatic differences may be fairly close, they aren’t exactly the same. But essentially, you still have to pump for urban demand and for ag demand in all three basins.

Q. So the sources of water are different?

A. Right.

Q. Are the demand different in terms of urban versus ag in the different areas?

A. They probably are, but it’s minor. It that sense, we pretty much used overall figures, weighted average numbers for the agricultural demand and the urban demand in the three areas.

Q. Across the board?

A. Across the board, yes.

Q. And what about the hydrogeologic structures in those areas? is there any difference that is significant between the areas in that respect?

A. Well, yes. The principal sources of rechage in the Santa Maria basin are infiltration from the river channels, the Sisquoc, the Santa Maria, and the Cuyama, where they come together. There is an aquitard near the coast in the Santa Maria basin. Treatment of waste water is pretty much the same in that it is treated and used for recharging for all basins. The Nipomo Mesa area, the bulk of it, not counting the sand due area, is substantially higher in elevation than either the northern cities area or the Santa Maria Valley area. I think all are subject to sea-water intrusion if they basins are not–or the management areas are not managed to preclude that. That’s all I can think of a the moment.

Beeby Deposition pp. 23:25;24:1-25; 25:1-25; 26:1-25; 27:1-2.

I think the important points Beeby makes in this rather lengthy testimony is that the overall basin is divided into three management areas, one of which is the Nipomo Mesa Management area. He also points out that if not managed properly, all three areas of the basin could be subject to sea water intrusion. This is an obvious fact, that I don’t think anyone denies. Mr. Beeby did not say, however, that any of the three management areas were close to sea water intrusion or that it had occurred. In fact such an opinion would be contradictory to the healthy basin testimony he previously gave in the preceding opinions. All he is saying is that we have to manage the water basis properly in order to avoid any potential disaster such as sea water intrusion. Of course we know from sad historical fact that basins up and down California’s coast are subject to sea water intrusion. So, we want to manage ours to avoid any potential intrusion in our own community. Fortunately the litigation has provided these area management protocols staffed by well trained professionals who report yearly to help us avoid such a problem locally.

Continuing with Mr. Beeby’s opinions:

Q. Okay. Let’s move on to number four.

A. Number four says “It is highly unlikely that the availability of groundwater resources to the contesting parties will be significantly impacted by anticipated growth in the Nipomo or Santa Maria Management Areas.”

Q. You used that term “contesting parties.” What does that mean?

A. What it means to me is the parties that did not sign the stipulation.

Q. So they’re–you understand they are not actually contesting the stipulation? They don’t have any problem with people entering into the stipulation if they want to?

A. Again, it’s just my understanding that they are the parties who did not sign the stipulation.

Q. So really, what the–when the word “contesting” is used in these opinoins, it means the nonstipulating parties?

A. Yes. It would be an engineering definition of a legal term, I suppose.

Q. You are saying here it’s unlikely that the availability of groundwater resources to the stipulating parties would be significantly impacted by the anticipated growth in Nipomo or Santa Maria?

A. That’s correct.

Q. Explain to me what the basis of that one is.

A. Basically, there’s limited potentially-developable land in either of those two management areas. That means native vegitation that might convert either to agriculture or to rural use. So there’s not very many acres, number one, that could be developed into, quote, new land that would create new water demand. Secondly, as urban growth continues, it will largely take place on existing agricultural land were the demands are already being experienced in the basin. and according to the stipulation, any additional urban growth will be provided for by the urban purveyors through either the imported supply or the use of their allocation to the Twitchell supplies. so when you convert from ag to urban, you move the supplier from the groundwater to the–the responsibility for supplying water, you move it to the urban purveyors, leaving water that the ag guys did pump for the remaining ag pumpers.

Q. Are you saying here, in shorthand version, that the–the stipulation is not going to take water from the notstipulating parties?

A. Well, I think so. Yes.

Beeby Deposition pp. 27:3-25; 28:1-25; 29:1.

In this opinion, Beeby explains what he means by the term contesting parties. He means those parties in the litigation who decided not to sign the stipulation, but rather be bound by the eventual judgment of the court. Several landowners who are parties to the litigation decided not to enter into the stipulation. The wisdom and reasoning of such a decision is really a topic of a different post, so I won’t engage that issue right now. Perhaps one of the landowners would like to submit to me a guest post on that issue and I can post it as well.

We also understand that Beeby believes, based on his years training, study, and experience it is unlikely that the availability of groundwater resources would be significantly impacted by the anticipated growth in Nipomo. This means his opinions include the fact that Nipomo will continue to grow and develop to its eventual build out capacity. Why? Because as growth continues it will take place on land that already makes demands on the basin water supply.

On to the next opinion:

Q. Ok. What’s number five? can you read that and tell us what that means?

A. Sure. Five, “There are presently 2,500,000 (as of 2002) from Alroth, acre-feet in groundwater storage above mean sea level in the Santa Maria basin. This would meet projected water demands at 2030 levels for 15 years without replenishment. There has never been zero recharge or rainfall for any annual period for the entire period of record.”

Q. And that’s based on a projected water demand for the year 2030?

A. The projection of 15 years supply in the underground stroage is based on 2030 levels of demand, yes.

Q. So you are saying there is enough water in the Santa Maria basin to meet all the water de3mands, even projected out at 2030 levels, year 2030 levels, for 15 years without any replenishment at all?

A. That’s what the numbers show, but I wouldn’t recommend they do it that way. But yes, there is enough in the underground storage that you could ride through a drought with limited recharge. And if there was no recharge, which is just the assumption we used for this, it would last 15 years before you dropped the water level below mean sea level and then started to have problems, serious problems, with sea-water intrusion.

Q. so in other words, you could go through a 15 year drought, and assuming things pi8cked back up after that, you wouldn’t have a problem?

A. I wouldn’t say you wouldn’t have a problem. Clearly you would have increased pump cost, and there may be quality changes in the groundwater. I’m just saying that in terms of wet water, you could meet the demands for that period of time, yes.

Q. And there have been time periods in the past in the Santa Maria basis where there has been more water, less water, drought?

A. Correct.

Q. How many periods of drought have there been historically in the Santa Maria basin?

A. I don’t recall.

Q. Do you recall any drought period for ten years?

A. Well, there was a drought period from–again, I–don’t hold me to the years, but there was about a five-year drought period from ’86 to ’90, something like that. There was a dry period in the 70′s. There may have been three or four in the priod that we looked at for the Nipomo Mesa area.

But the main thing is that the water levels do go up and down based on recharge, and it does, as you say, go up and down. And you don’t deal with averages in this business. It’s nice to say that you have an average of 10,000 acre-feet, but you still have to provide for the year when your demands are higher and your supply is lower.

Q. All right. And that’s normal?

A. That’s perfectly normal, yes. And that’s what the management committees will be considering when they determine whether there should be any change in the way the water resources are managed.

Q. When I say “normal,” it’s normal for the area to go through periods of heavy rainfall, less rainfall, drought. That’s normal?

A. Yes, that’s normal.

Beeby Deposition pp. 29:2-25; 30:1-25; 31:1-16

The most significant portion of this opinion is the sheer amount of water contained within the Santa Maria Basin, 2,500,000 above sea level, that would meet projected demands at 2030 water levels for 15 years even without one year of rain. Of course that is the extreme, and no one would suggest that would be healthy for the basin. This was simply an assumption they made in terms of how long the water the basin contains would last without any recharge at all. The other significant portion of this opinion was the fact that there has never been a year over the course of their keeping of records where there has been absolutely no rain. In other words, even in the driest of years there has always been at least some measurable rain.

The next opinion, the last one that I think is significant, and probably the most significant as it relates to the Nipomo Mesa Management area is number six:

Q. Number Six.

A. It’s a parallel statement for Nipomo Mesa. Number six reads, “There are presently 84,000 acre-feet (year 2000) in groundwater storage above mean sea level in the Nipomo Mesa management area. This would meet projected water demands at 2030 levels for five years without replenishment. There has never been zero recharge or rainfall in any annual period for the entire period of record.”

Q. With the same comments that–in the discussion we just had with regard to item number five, the Santa Maria basin, in terms of, you know, the analysis of this, would it be the same for this section?

A. Yes. Yes.

Beeby Deposition pp. 31:17-25; 32:1-5.

This is the money shot for Nipomo’s water supply. Based on all the best evidence available to all the best water experts and water litigators in the state of California. For the Nipomo Mesa Managment Area there is 84,000 acre-feet of water in its basin area. Nipomo residents could consume water at year 2030 build out water pumping levels for five years, without one year of rain before the water levels would be in danger. Now, would that be prudent? No, of course not. Is that what any responsible person would or is advocating? No, of course not. This is simply an analysis of the best minds available on the most accurate levels available in what has been designated as the Nipomo Mesa Management area of the Santa Maria Water Basin.

This was Robert Beeby’s deposition testimony in preparation for phase V of the trial. I don’t have a copy of his trial transcript, assuming that he did testify. If I come across that trial testimony, I will post it here for public review; however, based on Mr. Bebe’s deposition testimony, if he did testify at trial, it is highly unlikely that he made any significant changes. Other experts have also testified. Thus far I don’t have either deposition transcripts or trial transcripts; but, I am trying to obtain them in order to post them for the public as well.

One other expert, on whom Robert Beeby, actually relied in formulating his opinions, was Joseph Scalmanini, the Water Conservation District expert. He rendered opinions at trial about the overall health of the Santa Maria Basin. While I don’t have any actual transcript yet of that testimony, I do have a summary that I will post here, because I think it is very significant.

“The picture is generally the same as I just described. There was an increase in water levels from the 1930′s to the 1940′s. There was a progressive decline through the late 1960′s. There has been fluctuations, but let’s say to the 1990′s at least with intermittent recovery of the groundwater basin to close to or at the historically experienced high levels both in the mid-1980′s and the late 1990′s or close to the turn of the century. There is no continuation of the downward trend which was occurring in the part of the 1960′s, and there has been stable to increasing water levels since.” (Reporters Transcript, Scalmanini, at 1257:3-13)

“So, compared to all of those conditions in the context of all of those [coastal basins], the conditions in this basin are uniquely good. I could sort of mentally walk down the coast and say water levels range from a few tens to as much as 100 feet below sea level in a number of coastal basins at or near the coastline. There is history of intrusion in numerous places.

This basin has none of that, never has had and today doesn’t have it. Today, again, in the confines of coastal basins, if you wanted to try to personalize it, others would be envious of the conditions of this basin. It fluctuates, meaning the pumpers can extract water from dry periods from storage without detrimental effects and it replenishes during [wet] cycles and has done that repeatedly for a minimum of the last 35 years [and] actually back through the entire period of available record.

Man has taken it from no development to upwards of 60,000 acres of agricultural land use and the associated pumping and with that that exceeds 100,000 acre feet a year. I’m including now the municipal demand that’s increased with time as well, without, you know, any of the detrimental effects. That’s a pretty good set of basin conditions particularly along a coastline.” (Reporters Transcript, Scalmanini, at 1303:4-26.)

You can read this small portion of his trial testimony directly from the Water Conservation District’s Opposition to Petition of Review, pages 6 to 7, which is posted here. Opposition to Petition for Review

If ever I find the actual transcript, I will certainly post that as well. I think what Mr. Scalmanini and what Mr. Beeby had to say at trial and in deposition is important. And, I think it should be made public so that people can see that there are other opinions out there about the Santa Maria water basin. There are other opinions that suggest the basin, while in the need of management and proper care, is in good over all health. This includes the Nipomo Management Area.

I do concede that there are others who rely on other reports or other data to proclaim that Nipomo is in the midst of the worst water shortage ever, that we are in imminent danger of sea water intrusion. Some of those individuals currently sit on the NCSD Board of Directors. My first question to them, then, is why didn’t you produce those individuals as experts at trial? Why didn’t you submit their opinions in the form of admissible evidence before the court? That is why Nipomo ratepayers have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for wasn’t it?

The NCSD position at the inception of this trial was that the entire basin was over drafted and had been for years. Yet, the court found that the basin was not in over draft. Just a quick review of the court’s findings, I think are appropriate here as well.

Oral and documentary evidence was introduced by the respective parties, and the matter was argued and submitted for decision. The court, having considered the evidence, having heard the arguments of counsel and being fully advised, issues the following partial statement of decision based upon the evidence presented regarding the issue of Basin overdraft.

Summary of Decision

The court finds based on all the evidence presented in this phase of the trial that the Basin is not presently and has not historically been in a state of hydrologic overdraft. The law defines “overdraft” as extractions in excess of the safe yield of water from the aquifer, which over time will lead to a depletion of the water supply within a groundwater basin as manifested by permanent lowering of the water table. (Court’s Decision Page 4)

Nature of the Evidence for Determining Overdraft

The Appropriators themselves selected the methods and the evidence whereby they attempted to prove overdraft. The court did not define overdraft or attempt to limit the introduction of evidence to any particular definition or scientific or legal approach to the issue, but rather indicated to all the parties that it would base a definition on the various decisions of the California Supreme Court and appellate courts that have considered the issue of overdraft.

For the reasons detailed below, Appropriators have not established by any standard of proof either the Basin’s safe yield or that long-term extractions from the Basin have exceeded any such safe yield so as to manifest overdraft conditions. The court is satisfied both from the law and the evidence that overdraft can be determined, for purposes of resolving the Appropriators’ prescriptive-right claims, by evidence of observed physical conditions in the Basin, such as declining underground water levels, seawater intrusion, declining water quality, or land subsidence over time and by the testimony of expert witnesses who have testified as to the conditions within the basin.

The court is persuaded that evidence of such undesirable results, or in this case the entire absence of such undesirable results, along with credible evidence of stable or surplus conditions, is sufficient to establish that the Basin is not in overdraft. With regard to the nature of the evidence offered at trial, none of the several hydrogeology experts who testified disputed that physical conditions such as those noted above are the type of “undesirable results” of excessive extractions from a groundwater supply that indicate a condition of overdraft. In fact, each expert, whatever his or her party affiliation, devoted a substantial amount of testimony to the asserted presence or absence of just such conditions. It is clear from the evidence that experts in the field of hydrogeology can and routinely do base their conclusions concerning groundwater basins, including the presence or absence of overdraft, on physical evidence of long-term lowering of groundwater levels, seawater intrusion, land subsidence and the like.

Moreover, there is no evidence that recent changes in use in the Basin have so altered the patterns of recharge and water use that the Basin has recently become in a state of overdraft but that and that the undesirable results of this condition have not yet manifested themselves. Experts for the appropriators have testified that in their opinions the basin has been in overdraft for most of the last half century based solely on estimates of extraction and recharge of water. That opinion is not supported by the physical evidence. If the Basin had been in overdraft for the last fifty-three years, one would expect to see evidence of the consequences of such overdraft of such a long duration. In these circumstances, evidence of the Basin’s physical condition is sufficient to resolve whether or not the long-term historical condition of the Basin supports the Appropriators’ claims of overdraft. (Court’s Decision pages 6 to 7).

Landowners’ Expert Evidence

The court is persuaded by a preponderance of the evidence presented by Landowners that, based on all sources of ground water recharge, the Basin is not presently in a state of overdraft, nor has it been historically. Evidence presented by the Landowners is that well levels are at near or above historical highs following precipitation. None of the indicators of overdraft are present.

Water levels in the aquifer have fluctuated greatly since recorded rainfall and well data have been kept. But there has been no permanent loss of storage in the aquifer and the water levels in the Basin as a whole, while falling during dry periods, rebound during wet periods. A normal cycle in the Valley consists of extended periods of dry years followed by an abundance of precipitation that brings water levels back to historically high levels. Water levels, quite naturally, fluctuate among the various areas within the Valley as does precipitation and pumping.

If the Basin had been in overdraft for the last fifty-three years, one would expect to see evidence of the consequences of such overdraft of such a long duration. All the physical evidence is to the contrary. Monitoring wells reflect no serious depletion or lowering of water levels, other wells in the Valley are at normal levels, water quality remains good, and there is no evidence of subsidence. No evidence of seawater intrusion, land subsidence, or water quality deterioration that would be evidence of overdraft has been presented. Some wells in the Nipomo Mesa area do show lowering of water levels that may result from a pumping depression or other cause, and there may be some effects in that portion of the Basin that are not shared Basin-wide, but that is not sufficient in any event to demonstrate Basin-wide overdraft.” (Court’s Decision page 13).

Now, this language was taken from the court’s earlier statement of decision after it had ruled on the over draft issue. It may have changed somewhat; but, not in its primary focus. I certainly welcome anyone to point out any modifications to this part of the court’s opinion or statement of decision, if in fact there are any such changes. Statement of Decision Phase 3

Finally, let me again explain why I give more weight to the evidence presented to and relied upon by the court during the litigation. First, the judge relied on complete expert reports of the entire Santa Maria water basin. The parties to this litigation have retained the top water experts in California, all of whom were as qualified, or more so than the authors of other reports relied upon by others.

These experts conducted extensive studies of the entire Santa Maria water basin. The various experts of the parties were subjected to depositions where the attorneys for each side had an opportunity to examine the experts, their reports, conclusions and analysis under oath. Finally, the leading experts presented their opinions at trial, under oath, and subject to cross examination by the most talented water litigators in California. None of the other reports, opinions, conclusions, analysis that we read about in the media was subjected to this same scrutiny. In fact, standing alone, the other reports are hearsay documents that would never have been admitted into evidence at trial.

I welcome other opinions. I welcome other data. I am happy to post other information as it becomes available. Feel free to leave a comment or email me directly at guy (dot) murray (at) gmail (dot) com.