Despite public opposition, council votes 4-1 to establish Paso Robles Area Groundwater Authority
PASO ROBLES — City Council in Paso Robles made the decision to opt into a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) to administer the Paso Robles Groundwater Sub-Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan and then later create the Paso Robles Area Groundwater Authority. During the Tuesday, March 4, meeting, Paso Robles and neighboring residents came out to express mostly their disapproval of joining the JPA.
After nearly two hours of public comment, council ultimately decided with a 4-1 vote (Councilmember Chris Bausch opposed) to authorize the city manager to sign either one of the two versions of the Joint Powers Agreement for Administration of the Paso Robles Groundwater Sub-Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan and creating the Paso Robles Area Groundwater Authority, with the understanding that staff and counsel may make non-substantive and/or technical edits to the agreement as necessary.
During the meeting Tuesday night, council convened the Paso Robles Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) Board to discuss establishing the Paso Robles Area Groundwater Authority. This step follows the approval of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) in June 2023, which outlined projects and management actions to ensure sustainable groundwater use.
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), enacted in 2014, required local agencies to manage groundwater. Five local agencies — the City of Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo County, San Miguel Community Services District (SMCSD), Shandon-San Juan Water District, and Estrella-El Pomar-Creston Water District — formed GSAs and collaborated under a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to develop the GSP.
With the GSP now approved, a long-term governance structure is needed to implement it effectively. The proposed JPA would establish a legal entity, the Paso Robles Area Groundwater Authority, to oversee and fund GSP implementation. The authority would have powers to regulate and manage groundwater use but would not replace the individual GSAs.
Two versions of the JPA Agreement exist: a Five-Party Agreement, including all GSAs, and a Four-Party Agreement, excluding SMCSD, which has shown reluctance to participate. Both versions define governance, voting rights, funding mechanisms, and responsibilities. The authority would be funded primarily through groundwater extraction fees, though initial costs would be covered by contributions from the GSAs.
The decision on which agreement to enter relies on what San Miguel ultimately decides. If San Miguel decides not to join the JPA, it would, in turn, affect the ultimate cost of fees to the remaining members. Bausch disagreed with joining the JPA and rather favored for the city to enter into its own authority. He added that there are too many unknowns to enter into the proposed joint agreement.
Similar to many residents, Bausch felt the JPA would essentially act in bad faith toward smaller farms and property owners. “Let those who pump the most water, those who are causing the alleged problem in the first place, those that bear the responsibility and therefore the cost of managing their alleged overdraft of the basin pay for it. Let’s leave the little guy alone,” he said.
Bausch felt that there were more options that the GSA could look into if the basin was indeed in overdraft.
He asked, “How about starting to capture stormwater runoff? How about requiring the 50 to 60 large pond owners to cover their ponds? How about eliminating the 2013 so-called water moratorium that only and selectively targets the minimalist users but lets big growers plant over a thousand acres of irrigated grapes in what now appears to be surplus vines? How about encouraging grape growers to cut back by 10%?”
Rather than moving forward with the agreement, Bausch motioned to table it, but it ended up failing. Instead, Councilmember Fred Strong motioned to approve the recommendation to move forward with the JPA — though he agreed that Bausch and other residents presented some “good ideas.”
“At this point in time, under current state law … I feel that the JPA is the way to go right now, and if anything changes, then hopefully, we can either figure the change if it is a negative one or work with it if it a better one,” said Strong. “That’s why I don’t see any other alternatives tonight really than to go and at least look at this stuff and see what we can do and what it is going to cost.”
Councilman Steve Gregory and Mayor John Hamon both agreed that they felt the city’s options were limited.
“I don’t think we have much choice in which way to go … I dont want water exported out of our county,” Gregory said. “I don’t want to ever hear about it or see it, and I think this would protect that, and I think it really important; our job as a City Council is to protect our citizens, their safety, their water, their sewer, ad I think it would help diminish users also.”
With a 4-1 vote (Bausch opposed) to authorize Interim City Manager Chris Huot to enter into one of the two versions of the JPAs. His decision on which agreement to enter will depend on San Miguel’s decision, which is expected to happen sometime this month.
Paso Robles Press is working to delve deeper into this story and what residents can expect to happen next. Please look for a follow-up article in an upcoming issue of Paso Robles Press.
The next Paso Robles City Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 18, at 6 p.m.
