This is just one post in the Development & Water Category

The other side of “No water, no development”

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on April 13, 2008 at 11:08 pm

Laer over at the Cheat Seeking Missiles Blog has a lengthy reply to the editorial, “No water, no development”, by the LA Times last week. Laer discloses that “my business handles public affairs assignments for land developers and water districts”, and so accordingly, he takes a different view.

For instance, the LA Times editorial says, “It is time for development in California to follow the water”, to which Laer replies:

“Follow the water” is an utterly ridiculous concept also because we have the capacity and infrastructure to move water. Any development that is near existing water infrastructure — say the city of LA in its semi-arid desert environment — is as well situated, if not better situated, than one along a natural water source.

Calling for an end to suburban development to fix our water problems is no more a solution than would be a call to have the clouds drop more rain. Neither is realistic.

The LAT then goes through a three-paragraph exercise in diminishing the consequence of environmental and anti-growth laws it lobbied hard for itself. Thanks in part to the LAT’s support, we now have laws in CA that require new development to prove that there is a 20-year supply of water sufficient to meet the community’s dry weather demand.

Laer also disputes the insinuation that developers are able to buy influence:

If developers are so powerful, how come the homebuilding industry is the most heavily regulated in the country? When I speak on the subject, I usually start with the line, “Did you know it’s easier in California to get permission to cut open someone’s chest and stick a new heart in there than it is to get permission to build a house?”

Builders’ whims are summarily crushed by the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the environmental quality acts of the federal government and various state governments, and regulations that require no runoff to leave construction sites, no grading during bird nesting season, no construction noise near nesting birds, strict building limits in fire zones, and that they fund roads, parks and schools.

Clearly, the idea that developers buy influence has plenty of proof against it and precious little for it.

Much more from the Cheat Seeking Missiles Blog by clicking here.

April 13, 2008 · Filed Under Development & Water

Comments

One Response to “The other side of “No water, no development””

Laer on April 14th, 2008 11:04 pm

Thanks, ABM. My firm works for four water districts and one sanitation district (and hoping for more!), and for our developer clients we’ve worked on projects that have resulted in the approvals of over 300,000 homes and a couple hundred million square feet of commercial.

Water is one of the most difficult issues for our developer clients to work through so I sit in meetings regularly where we’re working through recycled water programs, sophisticated water purchases and even, lately, graywater capture and filter systems. And of course our water district clients are making big investments in conservation and recycling.

Those who opposed development and growth think no one is confronting the problems they think are overwhelming us, but I routinely see water and development experts applying their skills to innovative solutions.

Leave a Reply