Last month, the District ignited controversy by refusing to give approval to funding for the Double Barrel pipeline until there was more delineation between the Cachuma Operations and Maintenance Board, and the Cachuma Conservation and Release Board.
Part of what the District asked for was a halting of a project to remove abandoned culverts from the Santa Ynez River. The Cachuma Operations Board had sent a biologist to the site and was in the process of securing grants from the Department of Fish and Game.
Now a map detailing the District’s area of service shows the culverts are not located within the districts bounds. But the District says the Santa Ynez River, while not in their area of service, is their territory.
Kate Rees, the General Manager of the Cachuma Boards disagreed: “The project is not within ID1’s service area. Their well field is more than a half mile downstream.” Rees said the project was meant as a goodwill gesture and was under the guidelines of the Santa Ynez River Fish Management Plan.
The District has been criticized by the South Coast for stalling a crucial project over something “trivial.” The pipeline, when finished would supply a backup to the Tecolote Tunnel that keeps water flowing from Lake Cachuma to the South Coast. “This thing has gotten out of control,” said Mike Hadley, the person who originally asked for the culverts to be removed. “I think it’s immoral what they are doing. What’s the benefit from this? If you weight the benefit and detriment, it’s ridiculous. It’s bullying, and bullying is what the district is famous for.”
But the District seemed unfazed by the new allegations. “Regardless of whether or not the project is within the ID No.1 boundary, the issue was that COMB … was undertaking a project on behalf of private property owners,” said Dahlstrom. “There was an additional concern in that there was no agreement for reimbursement of costs, should the project exceed the grant fund amount. Should the project exceed the grant funds, the costs would have been borne by the public agencies.
“The point is that a gift of public funds is not just limited to public money for a private benefit, but it also includes use of personnel and property even if it is temporary.”
Who owns the river?
Does the District have the right to the Santa Ynez River? That depends on how rights are defined and who is asked the question. The culverts currently rest in a portion of stream bottom owned by a private ranch. According to California law the streambed is private property, and the owner of the property has riparian rights associated with the streambed.
However, the District has rights to the downstream flow from Bradbury Dam. What’s more, ID1 has a parent district. The Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District is the agency charged with protecting water rights for people living along the river. Another argument in the District’s favor is the project could have damaged their river wells by changing the stream flow.
Dahlstrom said, “Because this project may have affected and involved ID1’s water rights of its river alluvium wells, COMB staff should not have undertaken this project. In fact, COMB has not performed or conducted any projects or programs in the Santa Ynez River Mainstem below Bradbury Dam and should remain out of the Santa Ynez River …”
Both the Cachuma Board and Hadley disagreed the project would adversely affect the wells. While the culverts are on private property the District, or at least their parent District has historically been charged with protecting the water rights of the Santa Ynez River. “Because ID1 has appropriative rights in the Santa Ynez River held in both permits and license issued by the State Water Resources Control Board, ID1 also has the responsibility to protect its water rights,” said Dahlstrom.
Hadley took issue with the District’s actions. “I have water rights in the river, too. But I don’t have control over the other stuff in the streambed. Just because (Dahlstrom) has rights to the water doesn’t mean he can stop the project.” The argument boils down to defining water rights. If the project to remove the culverts affects the District’s water rights, then they have a duty to protect them. If the project doesn’t affect water rights, the District may be out of bounds.
In Dec. the Cachuma Board’s legal counsel issued a memo stating that fish projects were not water rights related. Ever since the District contested the memo, saying they had been excluded from the process. The District has called for a rewrite with its input.
Rees defended the counsel decision to keep water rights and fish projects separate: “We are only clearing up impediments; it’s simply a passage for fish. Once you’re done, the water can flow the same as before. We are not taking water or giving water to anyone.”
This definition is the crux of the bad blood between the District and the Cachuma boards. Beyond decaling fish projects and water rights unrelated, the memo also allowed the Cachuma Operations Board to carry those projects out. This is the very thing the District has been trying to prevent and the reason, the District said, it cannot support the Double Barrel project.
Moot point?
At last month’s meeting of the Cachuma Operations and Maintenance Board, President Das Williams asked the District to withdraw a letter. The correspondence sent by the District outlined changes that needed to be met for it to vote for a bond to fund the Double Barrel project.
The letter specifically mentioned the culverts and referred to them as “the straw that broke the camel’s back.” It said the culverts were a specific example of the Board reaching into the District’s territory.
The reason Williams asked the board to withdraw the letter is because the project had not actually gone through. The project had been scraped at a staff meeting earlier in January. “ID1 jumped the gun and indicated (the project) had been approved by staff. The grants (for the project) were only secured in case the board approved it,” said Rees.
Going forward
The standoff between the District and the Board remained tense. The culvert project is dead in the water for now, and the letter to the Boards remained in place. At the Feb. 22 meeting of the Cachuma Board, a vote to remove the District will be held. The chances of Board successfully severing from ID1 seem slim because of the District’s veto power.
For more information on this issue, visit www.syvjournal.com and click on the story entitled “Water Leaders.” There you can find a list of related stories and resources. Tools to help you understand the issues include a history of water events in the Valley and a map of the water agencies on the Central Coast.