I have no illusion of persuading you that you are wrong; however, your misrepresentations and the misinformation you and your unidentified group at the No WIP website, are feeding the public are so blatant, so out of step with reality and the facts of the court’s judgement and the stipulation of the settling parties I am compelled to dispel them.

1. The judge’s decision is final pending any appellate court overturning that decision. No court has issued a stay of the trial court’s decision. Therefore it remains in full force and effect, right now, today 03/22/12. This is obvious by the actions of the stipulating parties and the various management groups created under the judgement and the petition. Given the type of complex litigation this was, the fact it was a court trial, based on my experience as a trial litigator for over 25 years I find it is highly unlikely any appellate court will overturn the trial court here. They give great deference to trial courts in their findings and rulings. Be prepared to lose any appeal you and your group may have filed.

2. The judge did make findings that the Nipomo Mesa area, and various others need management. Paragraph 5 of the judgment, provides that the groundwater monitoring provisions (which includes the Nipomo Mesa group) contained in the Settlement Stipulation are independently adopted by the Court as necessary to Basin management and apply to all parties, including the non-stipulating parties who are required to monitor and maintain records of their water production and make that data available to the Court or its designee. You can read the exact language here in Paragraph 5.

http://nipomonews.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/judgement-1-25-20082.pdf

Clearly there are areas on the Nipomo Mesa which need water management, which the court has recognized. Whether they are depressions or some other need, or whether they’re described in the language you prefer, is irrelevant. The judgement and stipulation (which stipulation is incorporated in its totality by the court’s judgment) clearly outlined the need for water management on the mesa. That is a fact. The NMMA is created in this paragraph 5.

3. The NMMA is created in this paragraph 5. Whether it was originally created by the parties via stipulation or a judgment of the court no longer matters as the stipulation is incorporated into the court’s judgment. The NMMA exists, and it is performing its functions under the Judgment/Settlement Agreement.

4. It is a fact that the court has ordered the NCSD to comply in the management of the Nipomo Mesa area by bringing the the area at least 2500 acre feet of water to the Mesa. Now, whether that be via pipeline, or some other means, the stipulation/order is silent; however, it is crystal clear the NCSD must comply and bring the supplemental water to the Mesa. This language is found beginning with part VI of the Stipulation which you can read here.

http://nipomonews.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/stipulation-6-30-2005-stip.pdf

It begins on page 21. In essence this part of the stipulation/Order provides the following:

1. Supplement Water in the amount of 2,500 acre feet per year is to be brought to the Mesa per
the M.O.U. between NCSD and the City of Santa Maria.

2. The costs of the Supplemental Water are to be borne by NCSD (66.68%), Woodlands (16.66%), Golden State Water Company (8.33%) and Rural Water company (8.33%). all other Mesa water producers bear no costs for the supplemental water program.

3. The 2,500 acre feet per year requirement may be adjusted up or down by the NMMA Technical Group.

4. The potential enforcement of Part VI requirements are dependent upon the full implementation
of the supplemental Water Project.

5. If a potentially severe or severe water shortage condition ensues before implementation of the
Project, NCSD, Rural, Golden State, and Woodlands are required to develop a well management program acceptable to NMMA Technical Group which may include conservation measures,developing a different source of supplemental water or a moratorium on “will serve” letters.

6. Any Stipulating Party may move the Court to modify the Judgment based upon the fact that the Supplemental Water Program is not being implemented.

Finally,it would even have been better had Nipomo bought into state water in the 1990′s but it didn’t. We’re faced with what we have, and must deal with it now. Ignoring the facts doesn’t seem to be a very reasonable solution, particularly since the basic facts which I have set out here are all contained in the court’s judgment and stipulation of the parties. People can read the relevant parts of the documents I have linked to and make up their own minds. This is what the court ruled after all the evidence was presented. It is what the stipulating parties must deal with.

Now, it’s understandable that you as a non-settling party would want to do everything in your power to obfuscate the issues, the court’s orders, and obstruct the NCSD every step of the way, which you have done and continue to do. Of course, if you were a stipulating party your conduct would most likely subject you and your entire group–whoever they are to sanctions under the order.

Again, I have no illusions of persuading you to change your opinions. My only purpose in responding is to point out that you have and continue to misrepresent what the court order and stipulation say.

I think you covered some of the basic points that NCSD has misrepresented and I strongly disagree with.

Can you point into record exactly the words you think confirm NCSD’s claims?

As you know I attended the trials and continue to go up to the hearing including the one last month.

You list the NCSD take on the trial and it’s results that are not actually backed up by the record.

Comments after each claim:

1. After an extremely lengthy complex trial with thousands of pages of exhibits, many, many experts who were examined and cross examined under oath, a very capable trial judge made various findings about our basin;
I agree with the statement in general, I disagree with the NCSD interpretation of the documents or the “findings”
I also disagree with the implication that the trial Judge decision is final, so any opinion may or may not be correct at this time.
The case is still in appeal and the outcome could end up considerably different that what the trial Judge did.
2. One of them was that there are areas of depression on the Nipomo Mesa resulting from pumping around certain wells;
The judge did not make such a finding.
The NCSD claim that the Judge made a finding, or “recognized” of pumping depressions is false.
In what document and where are you reading the NCSD claimed “finding”?
There is only one spot that I know of (and I was at the whole thing and have the complete record ) where the Judge uses the word “depression” and that is in the phase 3 trail decision.
See http://www.nonewwiptax.com/Pages/Groundwater_Litigation.html for documents, Phase 3 Statement of decision
Phase 3 statement of decision page 13 line 14:
“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.
Furthermore, as noted above, Landowners also presented credible evidences of a water budget-confirmed independent change in storage calculation that showed a modest surplus in supply over a reasonable base period. The court therefore concludes based on all the evidence that the Basin is not, and has not been, in overdraft.”
Given the context of what NCSD was trying to prove that there was an overdraft (pumping exceeded the supply) on the Nipomo Mesa in such a way that there was pumping that was harmful to the basin and unlawful, and should be reduced.
The judge found that there was not a problem basin wide or on the Mesa, and clearly made no factual finding that there were pumping depressions because he used the word “may” and “or other cause”
There is no court finding of a connection between the claimed lowering and a problem.
There is no court finding of which wells would be the “certain wells”
There is no court finding of a connection between the claimed lowering and a pumping depressions.
There is no court finding of a connection between the claimed lowering and a pumping and a need to reduce pumping.
There is no court finding of a supply number for the “Nipomo Mesa”.
There is no court finding of a maximum pumping number for the “Nipomo Mesa”.
There is no court finding of a date of “existing shortage” for the “Nipomo Mesa”.
There is no court finding of a “Nipomo Mesa area”.
There is no court finding of a connection between the claimed lowering and a future problem with seawater intrusion.
Also note that there is no mention of “depressions” in the appealed “final judgment” after the words “are hereby adjudged and decreed” that would “lock in” the phase the
There is no court finding that NCSD can not just move the wells they placed to close together, further apart.
3. To monitor and make certain the basin, particularly on the Mesa remains healthy, the court created a technical monitoring group, NMMA to report periodically on the basin’s health;
I think that is a clear misrepresentation of what happened
The court did not “created a technical monitoring group” the settling parties did.
That group only exists as long as the settling parties agree to, the court can not force them to meet or report.
The court does not even read the NMMA TG reports, they are just filled as part of the settlement.
The agreed to report on the basin’s health is in the settling parties own standard not to a court approved standard that would be required to be the legal standard.
And the settlement clearly states that the reports on page 31 line 9 that “The actions or decisions of any Party, the Monitoring Parties, the TMA, or the Management Area Engineer shall have no heightened evidentiary weight in any proceedings before the Court.”
Which means to me that any thing the NMMA TG is not a final decision and is not approved by the court, and the court could at anytime in the future make a contrary decision.
See Exhibit 1: 8mb
June 30, 2005 Stipulation and the following exhibits thereto:
4. The court has ordered, as part of a final judgment and stipulation that the NCSD import up to 2500 acre feet of water per year. In compliance with that order the NCSD and Santa Maria are working toward a pipeline to bring supplemental Santa Maria Water to Nipomo;
That is not a fact.
The court did not order the pipeline, the settling parties agreed to it under certain conditions, one of which clearly has not been meet, that the PUC approve the funding for the water.
And more importantly there is no court order or finding of fact that there is a “existing problem” of 2500 AF that “existing customers” have to pay for, that is something NCSD made up.
If there is where in the court record does a finding of an “existing problem” exist?
http://www.nonewwiptax.com/Pages/Half_Truth_1.html
5. Bringing this supplemental water to Nipomo will greatly enhance the basin’s overall health and will provide Nipomo with an additional source of water, other than just the ground water aquifer.
It would be great if Nipomo had an additional source of water if it is affordable and reliable.
The pipeline might have been affordable when future development was going to pay for it.
It is not when people on fixed incomes are dragged back in to cover the costs future development have now decided is too expensive, based on an unfounded claim of an “existing problem” of 2500 AF or the groundwater is falling from over pumping.
I think the Santa Maria water has a profit built in that we should not pay for, the water is not reliable and will result in increased development which in the future will create more of a water problem then we currently have.
If there is water in Santa Maria valley it can be pumped for free to support existing uses for way less then this plan.
We should all Vote “No” today, wait for the appeal to be completed, NCSD to dig up the missing monitoring wells, the technical group to make an actual report on how much water can be pumped, so the exact amount “existing” customers need to pay can be determined.
Also it so unfair to not have the cost of the water made public, is it $50 per month or $8 per month. Where is the transparency?

John Snyder
P.S.
The WIP is a half baked solution:
Given NCSD own numbers that there is a 6000 AF overpumping, we will end up in the same spot with a 2000 AF solution for 10 years as a 0 AF solution for 7 years
For a 6000 AF per year shortage with a 2000 AF per year solution:
That would be 6000 AF * 10 years or 60,000 AF shortage minus 2000 AF * 10 years = 40,000 AF shortage at the end of 10 years
For a 6000 AF per year shortage with a 0 AF per year solution:
That would be 6000 AF * 7 years or 42,000 AF shortage minus 0 AF * 10 years = 42,000 AF shortage at the end of 7 years

You and I are in separate realities on this. To accept your arguments you have to ignore some very basic blatant facts:

1. After an extremely lengthy complex trial with thousands of pages of exhibits, many, many experts who were examined and cross examined under oath, a very capable trial judge made various findings about our basin;

2. One of them was that there are areas of depression on the Nipomo Mesa resulting from pumping around certain wells;

3. To monitor and make certain the basin, particularly on the Mesa remains healthy, the court created a technical monitoring group, NMMA to report periodically on the basin’s health;

4. The court has ordered, as part of a final judgment and stipulation that the NCSD import up to 2500 acre feet of water per year. In compliance with that order the NCSD and Santa Maria are working toward a pipeline to bring Santa Maria Water to Nipomo;

5. Bringing this supplemental water to Nipomo will greatly enhance the basin’s overall health and will provide Nipomo with an additional source of water, other than just the ground water aquifer.

It is common sense to approve this pipeline and bring this water to Nipomo as quickly as possible. In the 90′s Nipomo residents were mislead about State Water and they rejected it. Had the voted to approve State Water back then, it’s unlikely we would be where we are today.

I support and will vote for the pipeline bringing supplemental water to Nipomo.

The water table has dropped in the last 10 years because of rainfall.
There is no indication it is caused by “overpumping”.
The water levels and cumulative rainfall from the fire station match for the last 35 years.

http://www.nonewwiptax.com/Pages/Half_Truth_12.html

Pumping for future development is completely different problem then supplying water for current uses.

I don’t think there is a connection to charge current users so much. This project is about supporting future development. Just because the price went from the 6 million the future development could afford to 29 million they can’t is not an excuse to raise the cost for current homeowners.

I also think that NCSD’s claim that it will only cost $8 more per month can not be supported and that is why NCSD has not produced any backup for their change from a cost of $33.33 to $54.54 per month. $654 per year is a lot money that needs to be considered with full knowledge of the facts. Which can’t be done with out NCSD releasing how they came up with $8.

See the documents at:
http://www.nonewwiptax.com/Pages/Half_Truth_10.html

And lastly I think there is a terrible inconsistency in believe every study you read and not also believing all the studies that show the Santa Maria Valley is short of water.

If you recall one of the claims in the lawsuit was that the Santa Maria Valley was massively overdrafted because every study said so. (upto the Santa Barbara 2008 water report). If you believe every report then the City of Santa Maria can’t be a “reliable” source of water.

You can see those reports at:
http://www.nonewwiptax.com/Pages/Half_Truth_4.html

here is not