Water Education Foundation
This is just one post in the General Water Issues Category
Click here to view all posts

Will Water move uphill to money?

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 16, 2007 at 6:43 am

Here is a commentary written by Lynne Plambeck, local activist and member of the Newhall County Water District board, which appeared in the Santa Clarita Signal this weekend:

They say water moves uphill to money, so we don’t have to worry about whether there is really enough water for the thousands of new units approved by the City and County. The water will come to the money. But where is that money coming from and just exactly how much is there?

Well, haven’t you noticed all the water rates in the Valley going up? Valencia raised theirs last year without even a public hearing. Santa Clarita Water Co. rates will rise 37% in spite of the 1000 people that protested either by letter or through their homeowner’s associations and Newhall County Water District will hold hearings in July on yet another rate increase. Residents angry over rising rates somehow don’t seem to connect their increasing bills to the cost of reaching further and further to find water from ever diminishing finite sources.

Now we can no longer rely on our own ground water sources because of the increase in population. The amount of water we can safely pump from the Santa Clara River is fully utilized by existing residents, golf courses and other uses. According to the most recent water agency report, the safe yield is 35,000 AF (up from the estimated safe yield of 32,000AF in 1988 and 25,000AF in 1972. It seems the experts increase the amount of their estimates according to the local housing booms). That same report states that the water agencies pumped 43,000 AF from the river last year.

Our deeper, Saugus aquifer, is still polluted with ammonium perchlorate, a by-product of rocket fuel that affects the thyroid gland, as well as with several other pollutants that no one has even talked about yet. Recently the water agencies signed a settlement agreement to fund the clean-up, but the actual construction of clean-up facilities has not begun and is not scheduled to be completed until next year. This schedule has already slipped four years in a row, so I don’t have a lot of confidence about the 2008 date.

This means acquisition of water from the California Delta and elsewhere is imperative for every new housing unit that is approved. The additional water acquired in 1999 cost $1 million per 1000AF of water, plus the additional yearly charge by the Dept. of Water Resources for the water, its transportation costs and the energy costs for the pumps to get it down here over mountains and through 400 miles of concrete canals. Then there are the millions of dollars spent on storage fees to store back-up supplies in the ground in Kern County in case of drought. The recent acquisition of water from the Kern River was equally expensive.

Who pays for all this additional water? You and me, of course. Castaic Lake Water Agency has funded all their acquisitions and the additional distribution facilities by issuing debt in the form of Certificates of Participation, a bond for which you and I are not allowed to vote. The Agency is now carrying over $340 million in debt that we all must pay for in our water rates and taxes. (Newhall County Water District breaks out the costs of CLWA water from Northern California on its bills so that its ratepayers can see the cost). So water rates go up and will continue to rise with all the additional housing approvals.

Now we come to the question of whether, in spite of all our money, water will really run uphill to us. As the worst drought year on record continues, that is the question on everyone’s mind. Castaic Lake Water Agency’s recent announcement that they will not consider four proposed annexations involving some 6000 units at this time is one answer to the question. Fish population crashes in the Sacramento Delta, rivers that no longer have surface flow due to all the pumping, and declining water levels in reservoirs and aquifers throughout the state is another. Could it be that water is really a finite resource after all, no matter how much money we’re willing to pay for it?

July 16, 2007 · Filed Under Commentary, General Water Issues

Comments

Leave a Reply