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

Unfunded mandate: Lots in Krekorian bill – except enough money, says editorial

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on May 29, 2008 at 5:41 am

From the San Diego Union-Tribune:

Localities have come to expect mandates imposed by the Legislature, with no money attached to pay for them. Cities and counties often pay for these state mandates with local taxes disguised as fees. That way, legislators avoid adding to the state’s deficit or raising taxes directly. So it is with the “Water Efficiency and Security Act” introduced by Paul Krekorian, D-Burbank.

In this instance, legislators also would sidestep the state’s main water problem, which is insufficient supply. Instead, they would dump much of the burden of conservation on developers.

In the name of water conservation, Krekorian’s bill would require new residential and commercial projects to “implement all feasible and cost-effective water efficiency measures,” inside and outside. If, however, such measures don’t keep a new project’s estimated water use from rising above the previous level, the developers would have to spend up to 1 percent of the total price of the project to “mitigate” that additional water consumption “within the same hydrologic region.”

The editorial points out that the bill does not solve the root problem, which is increasing water supply. Conservation is great, the editorial says, but:

… California can’t save enough water to supply its anticipated 60 million residents by 2050. Building reservoirs, recycling non-potable water for irrigation, purifying brackish water and desalting ocean water into potable water – all can increase supply and jobs. Krekorian’s bill would stop projects that create jobs. Just one more reason the Legislature should stop it.

Read the full text of this editorial from the San Diego Union-Tribune by clicking here.

May 29, 2008 · Filed Under Conservation, Water Legislation

Comments

Leave a Reply