Nipomo News

Nipomo Recreation Center Fire Damage $1 Million

Guy Murray — Sat, 10 May 2008 17:29:06 +0000

The Santa Maria Times has reported that the damage to the Nipomo Recreation Center from the suspected arson fire is approximately $1 million:

Investigators are still looking for the cause of a suspicious fire last night that gutted the abandoned Nipomo Recreation Center.

Fire officials said the damage to the building and surrounding area is estimated at $1 million, though that number has yet to be confirmed.

Authorities also are on the hunt for four teenagers suspected of starting the fire.

Cal Fire/San Luis Obispo County Fire Department spokeswoman Es Berliner said a witness reported seeing four teens wearing hooded sweatshirts flee area shortly before the flames erupted about 7 p.m.

Berliner described them as between 14 and 17 years old.

All four wore hooded sweatshirts. Two were reportedly wearing black T-shirts, while the other two were wearing white T-shirts, the fire official said.

Nipomo Recreation Association leased the site in 1985 and operated the recreation center, built with community donations, for more than a decade until the County Office of Education sold the 5.3-acre property to cash in on the skyrocketing value of the land.

I have heard from Nipomo High School Students that two Nipomo High Students were arrested Friday, 5/9/08 at school as suspects in the blaze. I have no other confirming sources, and of course no names. If this is true, how unfortunate that these young folks have made such detrimental choices with drastic consequences.

The Recreation Center property’s future is in limbo:

Property developer and center owner Ed Shapiro purchased the site in 2004 for $2.3 million to develop Nipomo Commons, and the center was to be converted to a health club as part of that development.

But the future of the building was left uncertain when Shapiro and his project partner Rob Marinai in March agreed to eliminate the health club from their development proposal to reduce the amount of water the project would require.

That allowed the Nipomo Community Services District to transfer part of the Nipomo Commons water allocation to Marinai’s proposed hotel across Hill Street to keep that project moving through the county approval process.

Investigators are asking anyone with information about the fire to call the Cal Fire tip line at 543-9643.

KSBY reports confirm that the fire was an arson fire, and that the building is a total loss:

Thursday, May 8, 2008

Reported by: Stacy Daniel

NIPOMO

Investigators say Wednesday night’s fire in Nipomo that destroyed a city landmark may have been intentionally set.

The fire broke out at about 7:00 p.m. in the old Community Center located off 170 South Frontage Road in Nipomo.

Witnesses reported seeing several teenagers running from the building just before the fire broke out.

The building is a total loss. Despite that, fire investigators say the clues they need are here.

A charred stucco frame is all that remains of the 28-year-old building in the heart of Nipomo.

“It’s very sad. It’s very sad… This is part of Nipomo and what Nipomo is all about,” Nipomo resident Teresa Servais said.

In its prime, the building served as the city’s Recreation Center, hosting countless community events.

Nipomo Fire Captain Felix Camacho grew up in Nipomo, and said of the building, “We’ve been here for basketball events, plays - you name it, there’s been quite a bit of history at this location.”

“It’s been here for forever, and it’s almost like a monument,” said Servais.

When the Rec Center closed, the building served as a day care center until it was abandoned several years ago.

KSBY also had some good photos on their website.

Perhaps some good might come out of this in helping to determine a more definite use for the property in the near future. We shall see.

Nipomo Recreation Center Fire

Guy Murray — Thu, 08 May 2008 04:41:46 +0000

Photo by Camille MacClain–Nipomo High School Junior

More after photos at the end of this post.

The abandoned Nipomo Recreation Center caught fire this evening, 5/7/08. MSNBC Local San Luis Obispo County news carried the story:

Cal Fire reports that there is a commercial structure fire in the 200 block of South Frontage Road in Nipomo.

Cal Fire, San Luis Obispo County Fire, and the Nipomo Fire Department are on the scene, and the Santa Maria Fire Department is on its way.

The blaze is consuming the Nipomo Recreation Center. At this time, the fire is not contained, but Cal Fire reports that all resources possible are on the scene.

On site witnesses stated that fire responders from several San Luis Obispo County departments responded to the scene. More as news develops. It is unclear how extensive the damage was to the structure.

The Santa Maria Times has this short paragraph on its website:

Fire engulfed the former Nipomo Community Center about 7 p.m., drawing a response from multiple fire agencies who are trying to keep the flames from spreading to nearby buildings and dry grass.

The building, now vacant, is just south of Tefft Street on South Frontage Road west of Highway 101 near Little Jocko’s restaurant.

For a full account, see Thursday’s Santa Maria Times.

KCOY’s website has the following short paragraph:

05/07/2008

NIPOMO- Several fire departments responded to a working fire in Nipomo on Frontage Street at the Nipomo Recreation Center.

The fire broke out just before 7 Wednesday night.

Stay tuned to KCOY CBS 12/ FOX 11 News for the latest details on the developing story.

The San Luis Tribune also now has a short paragraph on its website:

Fire burns old rec center in Nipomo
Nipomo Fire

The Tribune

Multiple fire agencies responded to a fire at the Nipomo Recreation Center located on the 200 block of Frontage Road in Nipomo. Photo: Laura Dickinson 5-7-08

A two-alarm fire destroyed much of the former Nipomo Recreation Center off of Highway 101 Wednesday night.

The blaze burned in most of the front part of the building along South Frontage Road. It started just before 7 p.m., according to County/Cal Fire.

Nobody appeared to be in the building at the time, Cal Fire officials said.

But deputies were searching the surrounding area and the nearby Long’s Drugs shopping center for four men that firefighters reportedly saw ran away, according to Sheriff’s Department radio dispatches.

The blaze was under control by about 8 p.m., though firefighters were still working to put out the fire through the evening. The cause remained under investigation as of late Wednesday night.

The building was leased by the Nipomo Area Recreation Association until 2003, when the county Office of Education put the parcel up for sale.

An investor who hoping to build a hotel and retail stores on the 5 acre property bought it in 2004.

Since then the fate of the building and the land has been unclear, and the recreation center has been working out of modular buildings in Nipomo Community Park.

— Tribune staff report

Photo by Laura Dickinson

The Tribune report is the first I have read possibly linking some individuals with the fire. Most of the local media outlets have very minimal coverage thus far. The next best coverage will likely be on KSBY and KCOY during their 11:00 p.m. newscasts. I will polst followups as I find further information that is available.

11:03 p.m. KCOY had the better of the news coverage, between the local television stations. They had longer and more in depth coverage. KCOY also reported, as did the Tribune, that four young men were seen running away from the building about the time of the fire. The economic losses to the building remain unknown. KSBY reported that one firefighter was injured fighting the blaze and was taken to Arroyo Grande Hospital.

KCOY’s website has a video clip played on their 11:00 p.m. newscast. Click on the Recreation Center fire story.

It is almost unbelievable that people might have been involved in deliberately setting this fire. There has been no official determination, of course; however, arson investigators will be able to determine whether it was deliberately set. If it was, then I hope law enforcement and arson investigators will successfully track down the miscreants responsible and punish them accordingly.

Below are some photos I took this morning 5/8/08. They aren’t the best quality as I only had my phone camera. If anyone else has photos you would like posted, email me at guy.murray |at| gmail.com, and I will post them.

Nipomo Deserves A Hotel

Guy Murray — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:52:30 +0000

On Wednesday of last week, 2/27/08, The Nipomo Community Services District (NCSD) had an opportunity to move the business and commercial community forward by granting an intent to serve letter to a 71 room hotel. The directors punted, and delayed any decision until June. That was the wrong decision. The Tribune, has now weighed in with an editorial entitled Proposed Nipomo Hotel Deserves Water Service. The Tribune agreed with the NCSD decision, but cautioned that the board should recognize the need for a hotel in Nipomo. I agree with the Tribune that we do need a hotel in Nipomo; however, I disagree with the decision to delay, which I will explain below the jump.

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.

Is The NCSD Misleading The Public About Nipomo Water?

Guy Murray — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 08:55:10 +0000

One wonders, after reading the most recent public “press release” under Ms. Whitlow’s name, apparently released with the authority and blessing of the NCSD Board. Ms. Whitlow is listed on the NCSD website as a Conservation and Public Outreach Specialist, and is apparently a full time, salaried employee of the NCSD. Why the NCSD actually needs such a person, at rate payer expense, is the subject of an entirely different post.

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.

Mid-State Bank Gets Rabo’d

Guy Murray — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 01:30:08 +0000

On Friday, 8/31/07 our own local Nipomo Mid-State Bank got Rabo’d–Rabobank that is. The sign putter uppers arrived early in the morning before the bank even opened, and began the official change over. But the curious thing is that they put up the new Rabobank signs and then immediately covered them up with the old Mid-State Bank banner signs. I’m guessing that there’s an official unvailing at some future time. But, we all know what is under those mysterious Mid-State Bank banners! More photos after the jump

Seawater Intrusion And The Nipomo Aquifer–Or, Whither The Water Crisis II

Guy Murray — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 04:35:55 +0000

One of the popular pastimes these days in the local Nipomo water debate is discussing the health of the Nipomo Aquifer. One of the most common scare tactics used by those who argue that Nipomo is in the midst of a water crisis is to claim that the Nipomo aquifer is over drafted and is in imminent danger of sea water intrusion. Fortunately we can look at objective empirical data to help us answer the question about whether the Nipomo aquifer is over drafted and if it has experienced seawater intrusion, or whether we are in danger of seawater intrusion in the future.

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.

Opinions of NCSD Water Expert Robert Beeby, P.E. Or Whither The Water Crisis?

Guy Murray — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 23:06:16 +0000

During the course of the lengthy Santa Maria Basin complex water litigation, our locally elected Nipomo Community Services District retained, in conjunction with other water purveyors, an expert witness to testify at trial. The expert the NCSD retained was Robert G. Beeby, P.E. of the consulting company, SAIC. You can see Mr. Beeby’s qualifications here: Beeby CV . You can read about SAIC’s qualifications here. On their website they describe their company:

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.