Three Who Agree Statement on Adjudication

By Lyle A. Brecht

A brief statement regarding our thoughts on adjudication to counter much misinformation being circulated about the process.

As potential board members, we are neither for nor against the process of adjudication. But because there is much misinformation being circulated about the process, we thought it best to address the matter directly. Some believe that if the Valley's basin where adjudicated it would create all the above trauma to our community. Destroying a community is not the purpose of adjudication. It is only a tool used to establish and enforce a plan to resolve an overdraft.

According to a brochure on adjudication by the California Department of Water Resources, adjudication is merely "one method of regulating groundwater extraction and allocating costs of replenishment." The basin must be in overdraft for an adjudication to occur. The purpose is to develop a plan that addresses the overdraft, such as importing water from another basin, not to set draconian withdrawal limits on pumpers. Destroying a community is not the purpose of adjudication. What will destroy a community is continuing to overdraft the groundwater basin.

Typically, the means to establish rights and obligations among the parties involved in a small basin such as ours is through a "a court-approved negotiated settlement" among water users themselves, "called a stipulated settlement." What the courts do is stipulate that the negotiated agreement arrived at by the pumpers in the Valley is the plan they intend to pursue to resolve the overdraft. If the pumpers want the court to make the decisions, it will do so. But arriving at what is acceptable can be entirely up to the pumpers of the basin. This process also does not have to be expensive, nor lengthly.

For example, the Beaumont Basin recently went through an adjudication where five water districts and twenty large land owners reached a negotiated agreement in eighteen months at a cost of less than $700,000. Half of that cost was to establish that there was an overdraft and its extent, something we have already done here in Borrego. In our case, we know we are pumping about 20,000 acre-feet/year (af/y); the annual recharge is almost 4,000 af/y. Thus, we have an overdraft of about 16,000 af/y. At this rate, the USGS says only about 50-years of water remain.

The courts do not administer the stipulated agreement. The courts assign a Watermaster to do this. In a stipulated negotiated agreement, the Watermaster, is chosen by all the pumpers of the basin, not by the courts, nor just by the Borrego Water District. This may be the most direct way to maintain local control. Adjudication does not need to result in a loss of local control.

If in the future a pipeline brings water to Borrego to establish a replenishment basin, the Valley's pumpers will be required to go through a process of fairly allocating pumping fees for each pumper. Adjudication, asking the courts to stipulate a negotiated agreement arrived at by the pumpers of water in the basin, is one process for deciding these fees in a cooperative and equitable manner. In that scenario, the Watermaster would establish and collect fees, not the water district. It is time to pursue all options for an affordable plan that addresses our overdraft.