CENTRAL SACRAMENTO COUNTY GROUNDWATER FORUM
Agricultural/Residential
Groundwater Users
Issues and Interests
Statement
Areas
designated agricultural and agricultural-residential are just that. They are
characterized by a patchwork quilt of parcels of various sizes --- from small
one and two acre lots, to large farms and ranches of hundreds of acres. These
lands support productive agricultural practices, small-scale economic units,
hobby ranching and rural agricultural practices. These areas are characterized
by a sense of community, of family and friends, of the timeless cycles of
nature and of agricultural practices developed over generations of families
tied to the land. Some of these areas are economically productive. All provide
valuable open space, a place for urban dwellers to relieve stress. They protect
sensitive natural and cultural resources and are home to thousands of people
who are willing to sacrifice the comforts and ease of urban services for the
intimacy and fulfillment of small-town life.
Among all of the things that agricultural and agricultural-residential areas are, there are a number of things that these areas are not. They are not a mitigation bank for environmentally destructive practices elsewhere. They are not areas to be exploited and left barren for having had their resources extracted. They are not a chip to be bet or bartered. They provide open space as a by-product; not as a guarantee. They are not just suburbs-in-waiting, a land bank for future development.
Growth and development is not a right, not a pre-ordained inevitability. Demand is simply demand and pressure is simply pressure. Acquiescence to demand and pressure is not guaranteed. Other cities, counties and communities have accepted physical or social limits on their ability and desire to grow. Such acceptance can occur here as well. Growth in agricultural-residential areas, consistent with zoning in and around those areas, is appropriate in order to afford others the same opportunity to enjoy the rewards of living in such desirable areas. However, to the extent that growth does occur, it must be tempered by the overriding objective of maintaining the physical and social carrying capacity of the area so that it can continue to exist in a sustainable manner as an area unmistakably defined as agricultural-residential.
There
is value in the current character of agricultural-residential (ag/res)
communities that is worth retaining.
This is an essential interest for all ag/res groundwater users as it is for all the other interests groups represented in the Groundwater Forum. Without access to such a supply, our collective quality of life will be degraded and together we face a grim future.
3. Future uses of groundwater should be based on conservative estimates of a limited resource.
The supply and availability of water exists as a range depending on a variety of natural and human-influenced factors, including rainfall (when and where it falls), water conservation, new surface water sources, etc. When viewed over a prolonged period, the volume of groundwater is decreasing and the depths at which groundwater must be accessed is deepening. Future uses of the groundwater resource, above current levels, must be based on the most conservative estimates so as not to further imperil existing uses.
4. Any actions taken to ensure a safe and reliable supply must respect the groundwater rights which accrue to overlying property owners.
Water is a property right. Respect for property rights is a fundamental component of our society. Any threat to such rights will provoke immediate alarm and strong resistance. There has to be a clear recognition that current residents have needs and rights that are just as important and legitimate as the needs and rights of future residents.
5.
Future development should not create negative impacts
on the ag/res groundwater user, either in the near-term or the long-term.
The ag/res groundwater users should not be expected to subsidize the cost of new development, either directly by having to pay some form of pump tax or indirectly by having to deepen existing wells or pay higher pumping costs because of declining water levels.
6.
We should recognize that negative impacts on ag/res
groundwater users could be avoided or at least mitigated if we are willing to
consider innovative measures to address groundwater concerns. We need to be
creative!
Negative impacts on ag/res groundwater users could be mitigated (and the entire community could benefit as well) if we will take steps that move beyond the status quo and promote new ways of utilizing water resources. Examples:
· The County could require that whenever zoning is changed to allow for “sub-division” development, the development must be plumbed for the delivery of water from a central source to each house, must create such a central source (e.g., a mutual water company) and must utilize any available surface water first before drilling any new well(s).
· A vigorous program to promote conservation of groundwater among ag/res users could be undertaken focusing on such simple but beneficial actions as irrigating in the early morning and early evening so as to reduce evaporation of water before it hits the ground.
Innovative options to enhance the groundwater resource should be encouraged. At the same time, we must proceed carefully. When pursuing innovative measures, until there is documented evidence of sustained availability with no adverse effects in specific physical areas, such measures should be considered experimental and viewed as a means to supplement rather than supplant the normal groundwater resource.
7.
If negative impacts do occur, the responsible public
agency (agencies) must be prepared to take whatever actions are necessary to
protect the interests of the ag/res user and these actions should be at no cost
to the ag/res user.
Negative impacts could be the consequence of uncontrolled development, accelerated migration of plumes of contamination, etc. Responsible public agencies must be prepared beforehand to act to protect ag/res users if such impacts were to occur. Further, the ag/res users should not be penalized for the mistakes/miscalculations of other parties or be required to pay for such mistakes.
8. Groundwater pollution is an especially serious threat to the ag/res user and action to monitor, contain and mitigate contamination in areas that could potentially be affected is crucial.
The ag/res groundwater user is in essence a one-person water company and that water company has no alternative source of supply. The overwhelming majority of ag/res cannot connect to an existing source and, if a whole area is polluted, it will not be possible to solve the problem by digging a new well.
9.
Any cost to ag/res users must be related to some
demonstrable benefit.
Any cost has to be the result of a clear benefit to the ag/res users and then must be in proportion to the benefit received by other segments of the community: in other words, he who benefits the most, should pay the most.
What the ag/res
groundwater users need from the Groundwater Forum.
With regard to the use of water resources, agricultural/residential groundwater users are particularly vulnerable. First, if anything happens to our wells, the potential cost impacts are far greater and far more immediate than those faced by the residential water user who is served by an existing purveyor. Second, we lack any organized power to protect our interests with regard to water. There is no single agency, organization or political jurisdiction which can act on our behalf. Third, the essential character of the agricultural/residential areas in which we live is at the mercy of the cumulative impacts of accelerating development. Therefore, we have a vital interest in the success of the Groundwater Forum.
What we need from the
Forum process is simple: recognition that we have a collective responsibility
to protect the quality of life for all segments of the community in
which we live.