Goleta Water Board Showdown

My comment here is to express my disappointment that the Indy has allowed George Relles to change the Goleta Grapevine from the informative and informed article it was when written by Margaret Connel, to a political, misleading hit piece. Local water issues are so difficult to get across to the general public and it is such a disservice for the Indy to allow its valuable space, expecially in light of the debacle at the News-Press, to mislead the public on such an important subject. Just to show that this is not simply political, I support Lauren Hanson and hope she is elected. I respect Bill Rosen for his willingness to serve and it appears with the News-Press and the Indy endorsing him he will also likley win a seat. I would prefer a local in this important position, not someone who spent their entire adult life in New York, but hopefuly he will be able to do the job.

On the substance of the article, Mr. Relles suggests that groundwater levels in Goleta are a political issue. He fails to inform your readers that the Board majority's position is based on the expert opinion of Dan Wendell, an acknowledged expert on the subject. Those opposed to his findings have provded no expert professional and they are the ones injecting politics into the discussion. Jack Ruskey and Bert Bertrando have no professional background in groundwater. The fact is that the Goleta groundwater basin is in the best shape it has been since Cachuma was built because it basically has not been used much since the "March Miracle" of 1991.

The entire paragraph that starts, "The GWD appears to have concluded ..." is misleading. The District's Urban Water Management Plan has not assessed Bishop Ranch, Glen Annie Golf Course nor the UCSB Plans because they have not been apporved and therefor not yet considered by the Water District. There clearly is not enough water for all that new development but we do not have to mislead the public to establish those facts.

Scientific study does not support the claim that the Zaca fire is causing any significant impact on Cachuma. The impact is at Gibraltar. I share Mr. Relles' concern about our water supply. I find it unfortunate that he is published by the Indy as a news article when he has instead clearly written a political advocacy piece that should be published as such. We do not need to mislead and attempt to scare the public to get information about local water across to our residents. The Indy plays such an important role on this issue and in the future I hope the editors publish Mr. Relles where he belongs, as political commentary, and not suggest he is writing factual information, when he is not. Yes I miss Margaret Connel but she is striving to a higher calliing.

In 1972 farmers and other landowners sued the Goleta Water District for purportedly taking more than their share from the ground water basin beneath the Goleta Valley. Seventeen years later a court judgment resulted in setting a limit that the GWD could pump from its wells. It was this legal restriction that created the impetus for voters to approve Goleta’s participation in the State Water Project. However, voters were understandably concerned that this new source of water needed to be used to meet the needs of existing customers before new entitlements could be made to new customers. This led to the passage of the SAFE Water Ordinance in 1991 (with an amendment in 1994 that increased the amount of State Water), a contract between the voters and the GWD that was intended to ensure that future growth and water demand would not exceed reliable supplies. SAFE is a complicated ordinance that is apparently interpreted differently according to whom you ask. In essence, the SAFE Water Ordinance said that the GWD could not resume pumping water from the groundwater basin until it could be established that the groundwater basin had filled back up to its 1972 levels.

Based on a hydrological report from its consultant, the current majority on the GWD Board of Directors has taken the position that the groundwater basin has been replenished to 1972 levels, thus groundwater pumping can resume. Based on this interpretation, the GWD appears to have concluded that the provision of water is not an impediment to new growth in the Goleta Valley. However, the report from the consultant only says that the 1972 levels have “generally” been met. It is important to note that nowhere in the hydrologist’s report is it stated that the 1972 levels had been met 100%, which is the requirement in the SAFE Ordinance.

It might be prudent for the Directors of the Goleta Water District to look more closely at the intent of the voters who passed the SAFE Water Ordinance.

I would like to read more about the conflicts of interest in the current Goleta Water Board legal counsel.

As I understand it, the Board retained a guy who represents both the water sellers and customers, as well as competitors of the water seller (i.e., other local water districts that also wrangle for their share of the Cachuma system water supply).

As the adage goes, SBREADER, if you cannot argue the facts or the law, then shoot the messenger, George Relles.