County Counsel Thomas Guarino prefaced the discussion by stating that the advisory committees allowable under the ordinance would not have any regulatory authority, a concern expressed at previous meetings. He noted that in order to create regulatory authority, the board would have to create an ordinance solely for that purpose.

Nearly all of the commenters at the meeting still expressed concerns about the county adopting the ordinance, with a number of speakers from the group Protect Our Waters (POW) speaking in opposition.

POW member Dal Ecklund pointed out the hats and T-shirts bearing the group’s logo, also asking for definitions of “manage” and “coordination” within the ordinance. Guarino stated later that the words apply to normal authorities exercised by the board, informed through the committees created by resolution under the ordinance.

One commenter compared farmers and ranchers in the Scott Valley, where the first committee would likely be formed, to frogs slowly being brought to a boil. Other themes ran throughout the comments, with some stating that they do not want “another layer of beauracracy” and others claiming that the creation of advisory committees would lead to a loss of Constitutional rights.

Other commenters, like POW Vice President Mark Baird, expounded on his opposition by stating that he fears that the “enemies to rural life” will use information gathered by the advisory committees to eradicate farming and ranching. He also said, “If you enact this, you will have lost my vote and as many votes as I can influence.”

The supervisors, who have thus far supported moving forward with the ordinance, defended their stance by stating that they believe it is a proactive approach to keeping groundwater control at the local level.

Current California water law states, “Any local agency which is authorized by law to provide water services may, by ordinance, or by resolution if the local agency is not authorized to act by ordinance, establish programs for the management of groundwater resources.”

Members of the board said that they believe that the state government is trying to bring management of groundwater to the state level, with Guarino explaining that the county is currently involved in court cases that he believes have the potential to greatly alter water resources management.

One case in particular, brought by the Environmental Law Foundation, asks the court to find that counties or the state have a duty to regulate groundwater under the Public Trust Doctrine.

District 1 Supervisor Jim Cook told the audience and the rest of the board that he sees an imminent need for greater understanding of the groundwater system in the Tulelake area in his district, explaining that agricultural water users have recently come under scrutiny with municipal water supplies drying up.

Defending his position – seeing the ordinance as a protective measure against state control – District 3 Supervisor Michael Kobseff said that he would vote no on moving the ordinance forward if those in attendance would be willing to sign a petition holding the board of supervisors harmless if the state came in and took over groundwater regulation.

“If we ignore it, it can come back and bite us,” Kobseff said.

Baird interjected at that point, stating that if the state or federal governments wanted to do something the group feels is unconstitutional, they would fight them in the courts.

However, the motion was made to approve the first reading of the ordinance, with a unanimous vote moving it forward for a second hearing on Oct. 12 at 10 a.m.