Two separate water districts vie for control over the right to
permit new wells in Tres Pinos
Longer than California has been a state, the high-stakes battles
over water have played out in myriad locales, intensities and
outcomes
– the latest of which is bubbling up in the tiny San Benito
County town of Tres Pinos.
Two separate water districts vie for control over the right to permit new wells in Tres Pinos
Longer than California has been a state, the high-stakes battles over water have played out in myriad locales, intensities and outcomes – the latest of which is bubbling up in the tiny San Benito County town of Tres Pinos.
A tempest is gaining momentum between two competing water districts – the massive San Benito County Water District that controls access to much of the water in the far reaches of the semi-arid, cattle-grazing regions of the county, and the Tres Pinos County Water District that provides most of the water to the 500 residents of the historic ranching town.
Think of the two districts’ relationship as a bullseye – a small dot in the middle of the target is the Tres Pinos district, surrounded on all sides for hundreds of square miles in the sparsely populated ranching region of central and southern San Benito County by the county water district.
The San Benito County Water District also is the administrator of the San Felipe Water Project, which channels huge amounts of water from the federal Central Valley Water Project through the mountains east of Hollister and into the Hollister and San Juan valleys.
As is common in most water disputes, development is sparking increasingly bitter clashes between those who support a planned 44-room hotel in Tres Pinos and those who are fighting to retain the quaint residential ambiance of the town. John Eade, the patriarch of several generations of ranchers in the region and the developer of the hotel, has begun drilling on the site of his planned destination hotel.
That has generated outrage from Robert Frusetta, or “Bobby,” as many in thetown call him, a third-generation rancher who lives next door to the Eade property.
But when John Gregg, the district manager of the San Benito County district, sent a letter to Eade on May 10 providing approval to drill wells on the property – superceding a Tres Pinos district ordinance prohibiting new wells in the district – the chips hit the fan.
“John Gregg thinks it’s OK to approve these wells without so much as a phone call, a letter or anything else to the Tres Pinos district,” said Pamela Alvarado, the manager and president of the Tres Pinos district. She cited TPWD Ordinance 48 that prohibits new well drilling within the confines of the district, which would apply to the Eade property.
Gregg insists that his district’s attorneys did notify the Tres Pinos district’s attorneys in a letter, and that the Tres Pinos attorney “wrote back that he was not disputing our authority.”
But Frusetta, who has launched a pitched crusade against the hotel, is not convinced of the legality of the well permitting and is far less diplomatic in his assessment of the big water district’s move.
“Tres Pinos Water District has an ordinance against drilling wells in Tres Pinos, which make the two wells [on the Eade property] illegal,” he said. “San Benito County Water District has issued these permits and has stripped us of our ability to control our own water resources.”
But when you talk to Gregg, another perspective begins to emerge, one of a small district incapable of serving the water users of Tres Pinos.
“Tres Pinos may be a story of a failed district,” Gregg said. “It does not have the technical, managerial or financial resources to operate efficiently.”
Alvarado argues that it does, and that it is “close to putting together a financial package” that will provide $1.2 million for an additional water tank for fire suppression, a second well to meet additional demand, and a host of infrastructure upgrades and repairs. She said it was premature to discuss the specific type of financing vehicle the district would employ for the project.
Deputy County Counsel Shirley Murphy has received several inquiries about the legal status of the drilling, and this week was researching the issue along with the county Environmental Health Department. Murphy said she was somewhat perplexed by Gregg’s letter to Eade that cited County Ordinance 779, which governs well standards.
“I’m not sure why [Gregg] is citing a county ordinance,” Murphy said. “Neither district is part of the county – they are independent entities.”
Gregg explained that the SB County Water District, the county Planning Commission and the county Planning Department were granted various authority roles in administering the county’s water needs. The water district was expressly given the authority by the county Board of Supervisors as the enforcing agency under the “Well Standards” ordinance, making it the lead agency in approving well drilling, Gregg said, adding that the district sought the advice of its attorneys before issuing the permit to Eade.
“But we permitted a hole, not a hotel,” Gregg said, clarifying that the permit only allows for establishing a well and does not permit hookups to the well. That would come under the jurisdiction of the county Planning Department, the county Environmental Health Department and the state Department of Health Services.
Regardless, Murphy noted that since the districts are separate jurisdictions from the county, County Counsel’s office would not be in a position to intervene and render an opinion. If the issue is not resolved, it would most likely take the path of all the water disputes that preceded this one – seeking an opinion in a court of law.
