Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us.
Digg!
furl
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Facebook
Yahoo!Those of us who enjoy the natural beauty of the Goleta Valley — a k a “the Good Land” — should be alarmed by the movement underway that is destroying our valley. The Good Land is under assault because of what the valley has to offer: its wonderful climate, its majestic vistas, and its open spaces. These characteristics are the main reasons most of us have chosen to live here. However these same characteristics are the factors that are leading to the rapid demise of the valley. This assault is being driven by the greed of a few powerful developers, who, in the pursuit of profits, have plans to transform the valley into something most of us do not want.
For more than 18 years, I have been the owner of an exotic fruit farm in the foothills above the Sandpiper Golf Course. During this time, I have witnessed the continuing loss of farms and open space.
In addition to being a farmer, I am an advisory partner with a major international law firm. I am a litigator and have handled a great number of major disputes involving real estate developers. As a group, developers are very focused in their missions and excel at long-range planning. They are ruthless in the execution of their plans. The lifeblood for all developers is acquiring what they call “inventory,” which is undeveloped land located in desirable locations, and then having it rezoned. Without inventory and rezoning, they are out of business. The Good Land is the biggest honey pot in the country for developers. Any local vacant land they can acquire, rezone, and build on guarantees profits for them.
The past and current actions of the staff of the Goleta Water District have been a major contributor to the opening of farmlands for developers and to the facilitation of zoning changes based upon incomplete state-mandated reports on the availability of water from the district. For the past several years, I have attended almost every board meeting of the district and have devoted a substantial amount of time and effort to resisting the various proposals made by the staff of the district to ration and greatly increase the cost of water to farmers. Through these efforts, I have come to know a great deal about the district’s operations. In spite of my efforts, the number of farms has dramatically decreased and has become the new inventory for the developers.
I recently discovered the existence of the voter-approved Safe Water Supplies Ordinance adopted in 1991.The ordinance is a binding law for the district and can be modified only by action of the electorate. The ordinance puts firm restrictions on the amount of water available each year that can be used for development, requires a mandatory “drought buffer” of water — stored in the aquifer — which can never be used by new customers, and absolutely prohibits the issuance of new water meters in times of water shortages. These provisions act as barriers to runaway development.
So what is the problem about the operation of the ordinance as related to the county and City of Goleta rezoning open space for development? Everything, because of the conduct of the district in failing to mention the provisions of the ordinance in the state-required Urban Water Management Plan, which is to be prepared and filed every five years. The UWMP is the document that both the county and City of Goleta are to rely upon in developing their general plans and when considering requests for rezoning. The district’s 2005 UWMP makes an analysis — without any mention of the existence of the 1991 ordinance — concerning the availability of water for new development over the next 20 years. This defective UWMP gives the developers the tools to persuade the county and City of Goleta to have open space rezoned without any questions about the availability of water. This causes bad decisions to be made on rezoning.
I have repeatedly raised the above issues with the board of the Goleta Water District, and to date, nothing has been done to cure the defective 2005 UWMP. A letter on the above matter is being sent to the Board of Directors of the district demanding immediate action. The full text of this letter, plus a prior letter on the terms of the Safe Water Supplies Ordinance, is available at goletawater.org.
All concerned citizens should demand corrective action by the Goleta Water District so that the funeral for the Good Land can be cancelled.
Previous Month
Comments
Discussion Guidelines
District financials make it perfectly obvious that residential water rates need to increase to subsidize lower rates and increasing use for agricultural interests. This works-out pretty-well with environmental, no-growth interests as well as neighborhood groups, who want want to prevent agricultural conversion to urban uses anyway. Hence, the District will return to torquing allocation strategies, shifting costs, and amping the politics.
As the comments make clear, a fine approach so long as residential ratepayers remain confused, upset, or a sleep. Which one are you?
wingnut (anonymous profile)
September 28, 2007 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear Jack,
The Board of Directors will likely ignore your letter. They may give you lip-service, but I wouldn't expect them to change their ways of "business as usual".
Because the voters passed the "Safe Water Supplies Ordinance" the District is required by law to do what they are not doing.
The only realistic way, in my humble opinion, to make a difference, is to take legal action. Legal action will give the City of Goleta and the County an excuse not to vote for more over-development in the name of the poor.
Legal action will delay the whole process even if the District ends up winning years later. By that time hopefully there will be new protections for agriculturally zoned land and limits on the current state of run-away over-development.
Legal action will also be supported by neighborhood and environmental groups. With your background in law I hope you seriously consider leading the legal charge against the District and its plan for more over-development.
Georgy (anonymous profile)
September 28, 2007 at 5:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment