In the world of water, as in the realm of school boards and political districts, where you are means everything. That holds as true on the South Coast of Santa Barbara County as anywhere, and no one knows that better, perhaps, than water customers in Montecito and Carpinteria. While residential water rates in Carpinteria are known for being relatively high, agricultural customers there face a different reality. So much so that a number of property owners near the eastern edge of the Montecito Water District’s boundary have petitioned the Local Agency Formation Commission to leave the Montecito Water District in order to sidle up to Carpinteria’s less expensive agricultural rates.

The Carpinteria Valley Water District’s board of directors agreed on Wednesday for staff to begin the process of drafting a resolution in support of the property owners’ petition to LAFCO.

Dubbed the Edgewood Nine, the 155-acre collection of nine large properties extends north into the foothills where Padaro Lane crosses Highway 101. The properties are major water users, consisting of a few orchards, some equestrian and sod farming facilities, and the Santa Barbara Polo & Racquet Club.

What makes Carpinteria a more attractive option is its broader definition of what constitutes agriculture. Landowners such as Pat Nesbitt, who owns the polo fields and considers his animal husbandry and sod farming operations as legitimate an agricultural enterprise as someone growing avocados, are ready to walk from Montecito, which won’t grant an agricultural designation unless crops are being grown for human consumption or as floriclture.

Historically, Montecito water use had been nearly all agricultural, but over the years, the area’s demographic shifted to mostly residential — the semi-rural cottages and palatial mansions known today. Nesbitt lost his agricultural moniker in 2007, receiving a recreational designation from the district.

“What’s interesting to me is that at one point, both districts were into this,” LAFCO Executive Officer Bob Braitman told Carpinteria’s board on Wednesday, adding that Montecito has been decidedly less interested in supporting the annexation as of late.

Up until about a year and a half ago, Montecito was faced with a dwindling water supply and burgeoning demand that appeared to be caused by a handful of customers with expansive and very thirsty landscaping. Around the same time, anger among Carpinteria’s customers reached fever pitch when the district announced that it would have to raise already high rates to help cover the cost of keeping its water distribution system on par with federal clean drinking water standards.

Montecito’s problems appeared centered on demographics, while Carpinteria’s dilemma stemmed from its purchase of too much State Water in 1991 — a time when the South Coast had just emerged from a severe multiyear drought and had projected more development than ever actually occurred in the Carpinteria Valley.

Between Montecito not having enough water and Carpinteria having too much with too few to pay for it, there appeared to be an opportunity for a mutually beneficial agreement. Montecito would be able to unload a few high demand customers and save its dwindling supply, and Carpinteria could eagerly scoop up a few extra users to help shoulder a heavy financial burden.

“Last year, we had the enthusiastic support of everyone,” Nesbitt said, expressing his displeasure about having his agricultural designation stripped by the Montecito Water District a few years ago. “Carp Valley was going to get more customers to help pay for their excess water, and the Montecito Water District could get rid of us. It looked like a win-win.”

But having instituted a tiered rate structure — a system of charging customers that essentially penalizes heavy users with higher rates — and enjoying a wet winter season this year, the Montecito Water District found that now it had plenty of water, but not quite enough revenue. This year, the district and its board of directors hasn’t seemed interested in letting the nine parcels go, as the detachment would further eat into revenues.

“All nine property owners were shocked that [Montecito Water District General Manager Tom] Mosby had reversed his position,” Nesbitt said. “We let him know that we were going ahead with the reorganization with or without his support.”

That they have done, but there may be other reasons Montecito hasn’t been inclined to relinquish the block of customers to Carpinteria — chief among them a stipulation by the nine property owners that before the annexation takes place, Montecito carry out its scheduled $450,000 replacement of a length of 8-inch pipeline that has fed the properties since 1927.

Carpinteria Valley Water District General Manager Charles Hamilton said transitioning the nine parcels from the neighboring district to his would be perfectly natural since Carpinteria already has such a huge agricultural community.

“If this goes through and LAFCO approves it, it would grease the skids for other property owners in a similar situation who might wish to join [the Carpinteria Valley Water District],” he said, adding that there are a few agricultural properties to the east of the Edgewood Nine that are still within Montecito’s jurisdiction.

Hamilton did add the caveat, however, that if Nesbitt and others end up signing on with Carpinteria, their agricultural rates will not apply to residential structures on their properties.

The issue isn’t likely to go before LAFCO’s board until sometime this autumn.

— Noozhawk staff writer Ben Preston can be reached at bpreston@noozhawk.com.