Is growth over? California’s continuing water crisis may mean the end of the state as we have known it, says commentary
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 20, 2008 at 7:27 amFrom the Los Angeles Times, this commentary, written by Cary Lowe, a land-use lawyer and urban planning consultant:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s recent executive order certifying that California is in a drought and directing state agencies to start thinking about what to do about it is only the latest sign that a way of life built on cheap and readily available water is coming to a close. For much of the state, June was the driest month on record, according to the National Climatic Data Center. The continuing water crisis raises the question of whether we are approaching the limits of growth in California.
For the last century, it seemed there was no limit. More than any other state, California’s economy and population exploded, a growth spurt fueled in large part by abundant water supplies. Now we may be at a turning point, especially in Southern California.
The most obvious indicators certainly point in that direction. Snowmelt in the Sierras, which historically has filled the state’s major reservoirs and aqueducts, has been shrinking steadily. California’s rights to Colorado River water have been gradually scaled back by regional agreements and mounting claims by other states. Court orders in response to environmental lawsuits aimed at protecting endangered fish species have slashed water deliveries from the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta. And reduced rainfall throughout the region has made it increasingly difficult to replenish groundwater basins.
Initially, the public agencies responsible for ensuring water supplies were cautious in their response to the signs of a growing water crisis, perhaps fearing a political backlash from Californians who expect to be able to open a tap and let it flow, without limits, any time, anywhere, for any purpose. Adding a reservoir, drilling a few more wells or cutting deals with farmers to transfer some of their water to nearby cities helped soften, if not avoid, the effects of the state’s growing water shortage. Now, however, the situation is becoming sufficiently dire that the water agencies are beginning to give the public a taste of what lies ahead.
Earlier this year, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the largest water agency in the region and the principal supplier to the cities of Los Angeles, San Diego and numerous others in between, announced a 30% reduction in deliveries to agricultural customers, which means that farmers will have less water for their crops and to give to cities. And things could get worse. The agency also adopted a contingency plan that could result in similar cutbacks to urban consumers and rate hikes of up to 20%. Local water agencies, including the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, followed suit, beginning with voluntary conservation programs but warning of mandatory ones to come.
Such steps alone will probably not make enough of a difference to avert a water-supply crisis. There is a finite amount of water available in Southern California, and it has not increased since 1990. The MWD annually imports 2.1 million gallons of water to the region. Without a plan of action by state and local governments, coupled with across-the-board changes in how we consume, major sectors of the state’s economy such as agriculture and real estate development will soon face previously unimagined restrictions.
Read the rest of Cary Lowe’s commentary in the Los Angeles Times by clicking here.
Water: Is it drying up? Antelope Valley water boards say supply not enough for development
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 13, 2008 at 11:48 amFrom the Antelope Valley Press:
Antelope Valley is the last frontier for large-scale population growth in Los Angeles County with undeveloped land open for future residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural development. But can current and future water supplies sustain a region that is projected to house 1.2 million people by 2045?
Data outlined in a newly adopted regional water management plan for the Valley shows demand outstripping the supply. “We’re basically going to run out in 2008,” said Adam Ariki, assistant division chief for Los Angeles County Waterworks.
That doesn’t mean residents will turn on empty taps any time soon. But it does mean County Waterworks District 40, which serves much of Lancaster and west Palmdale, has stopped telling developers that water is available for new projects. Ariki said it would be irresponsible to promise water to new homes and businesses without first finding a new water supply. It’s a decision some Antelope Valley leaders find harsh.
“The moment word gets out that we’re somehow shut down for business, we’re in huge trouble and have got to fix that issue,” Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris said. “We’re going to respond with all of the resources we can muster,” said Parris, who is looking to Palmdale, sometimes an adversary, as a potential ally. “There are two major areas that the city of Palmdale and the city of Lancaster had better get married on, and that is crime and water,” Parris said. “And if we would do that, if we would come together and aggressively work together, because we are certainly going to die of thirst together, we could solve this tomorrow.”
Palmdale Mayor Jim Ledford said a regional water plan adopted by 11 agencies earlier this year will serve as “a launching pad where we can now work collectively and without stepping on each other’s toes, recognizing the fact that we all share in this responsibility.”
Already, Antelope Valley and Southern California rely heavily on water that comes from Northern California through the California Aqueduct. But global warming and environmental problems are making imported water increasingly unreliable, which is changing the face of water supply and delivery. The changes mean that wheeling and dealing between water buyers and sellers is increasing outside traditional practices. Recycled water has become the “new” water, and water users may have to adjust to higher costs for a commodity that has been historically cheap.
Developers, who are hunting for their own sources of water, may have to resort to trade-offs such as retrofitting older homes with low flush toilets and low-flow shower heads to free up water for their proposed developments. New residents may have to give up their attachments to lush green lawns in favor of drought-tolerant landscaping and cut back on outdoor water usage. Existing residents may find developers willing to pay for their lawns to be ripped out and replaced with xeriscaping. And all residents will be asked to step up conservation efforts.
“The public needs to understand we have a significant challenge in managing our water resources,” Ledford said. “We don’t want them to panic, because that’s not necessary. But we do need them to help us by changing some of their behaviors and be partners in bringing solutions to this crisis.”
While this year has been tough, next year is a big concern:
Los Angeles County supervisors announced this month that if the drought continues into next year, Antelope Valley and other parts of the county may have to start rationing water. The Public Works Department says Waterworks District 40, which serves the Antelope Valley, would be one of the hardest hit water agencies if the State Water Project continues to cut supplies. The aqueduct supplies 80% of the water used by waterworks district customers.
Local water suppliers believe they can get through this year, but are worried about 2009.
The Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency, which supplies aqueduct water to smaller water districts, will fall short of meeting its customers’ demands this year, but “the really, really serious situation is ‘09,” AVEK General Manager Russ Fuller said. He expects the state Department of Water Resources to allocate only 5% to 15% of normal State Water Project supplies next year, due to a very dry spring this year. And what happens elsewhere in the state directly affects how much imported water will be available in Antelope Valley.
Read more on this story from the Antelope Valley Press by clicking here.
Watering the West: growth stops when the water runs out
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on June 18, 2008 at 6:15 amFrom AlterNet.org:
A recent issue of National Geographic featured a compelling story on the double-barreled threat facing western states: rapid population growth and climate change. “The American West was won by water management,” proclaims the article. “What happens when there’s no water left to manage?”
This question vexes more than water managers. It may seem absurd to approve development without reliable water supplies, but that is exactly what has happened in many communities — leaving homeowners and other taxpayers holding the bill when extravagant measures become necessary to gain access to water.
Just as homeowners demand, and building codes require, safe wiring and solid foundations for their dwellings, they also deserve to know that their drinking water taps will deliver clean, reliable water for decades to come. Moreover, states are currently reckoning with the question of what happens when there is little water left to manage — two weeks ago, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a statewide drought.
Historically, land-use decisions and water planning have been treated as entirely separate issues. Water is allocated by state agencies, and land-use planning falls under the authority of local officials. Water resource managers juggle many competing demands within a watershed, and they tend to focus on facilitating economic development. In turn, local land-use authorities have safely assumed that water would be available to satisfy continued growth.
Increasingly, however, local land-use decisions run headlong into water supply concerns. Planning for growth is important in all communities, and planning for sustainable water supplies to support that growth should be an integral part of that planning process. Although water itself seldom provides a hard barrier to growth, the failure to connect land-use and water planning may have far-reaching and increasingly unacceptable consequences.
Read more from AlterNet.org by clicking here.
Lois Henry column: Unchecked growth a strain on water
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on June 14, 2008 at 6:09 amFrom the Bakersfield Californian, this column by Lois Henry, who begins by pointing out that amid all the talk and focus on water issues, the one word you never hear is “building moratorium”:
We absolutely must stop or drastically slow development in this state so we can get a handle on our true water supplies, how to make the most of them and how to develop more, if possible. Otherwise, we’re going to race to the end of our finite water string and then what? Armed conflict? Hey, thirsty people are angry people.
I’ve been told that no, no, no, we don’t have a supply problem, we have a regulatory and distribution problem. Maybe so. But that still adds up to a supply problem.
In fact, our surface water has been quantified by the state board that oversees California’s water permits and it is not good. The State Water Resources Control Board found that “current permitted water appropriations, amount to about five times California’s average annual surface water supply,” according to its strategic plan released in January. That means we are beyond maxed out.
So far, the only options being batted around the Legislature, including the Governor’s latest attempt to get a bond ($11 billion this time) onto the November ballot, have looked at some conservation methods, new dams and the politically radioactive peripheral canal, which would skirt water around the ailing San Joaquin/Sacramento delta.
Some believe the governor’s official drought announcement recently and his emergency water declaration for nine valley counties, including Kern, are ploys to boost support for his bond measure. Probably. But I’m more interested in what his, and others’, list of solutions leave out. What about development?
Apparently, that’s even more politically radioactive than the ol’ p-canal.
Read the rest of this column by Lois Henry in the Bakersfield Californian by clicking here.
How serious is our water shortage? Enough to suspend new water connections?
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on June 12, 2008 at 7:46 amFrom the North County Times, this commentary by Gerald Watson, president of Bonsall Area for a Rural Community, which starts out by recapping recent events: Governor declares shortage and Metropolitan urges conservation. Then:
Why conserve? What are the pieces of the water puzzle?
First, agriculture users represent only 6 percent of Metropolitan’s demand. Interim Agriculture Water Program users represent only about 30 percent of that 6 percent demand. They represent less than 2 percent of Metropolitan’s demand, proving its demand is overwhelmingly due to residential consumption.
Water agencies are asking the public to save 20 gallons a day, per person. Since the average home uses about 748 gallons a day, this represents a savings of 7 percent. However, compliance will probably not exceed 50 percent, resulting in a savings of less than 3.5 percent.
Since housing development has been growing at around 1.5 percent per year since 1995, this represents an increased water demand —- and where is all this “new water” coming from to support new developments?
Consequently, your conservation savings are going to support new development.
Clearly, residential users will never voluntarily reduce their water usage when they see that these savings are being passed on to developers. They will only conserve water when they perceive that these savings are beneficial to them.
How can Metropolitan and the County Water Authority justify new water connections for new developments in a “water emergency” when they are imposing water restrictions on existing users? They need to assert their “emergency authority” and mandate that new-water connections be suspended during water emergencies.
We either have adequate water and there is no need to conserve, or we have a “water emergency” and we need to conserve, which requires suspending new-water connections.
Read more from the North County Times by clicking here.
Water-Starved California slows development
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on June 7, 2008 at 10:30 amFrom the New York Times:
As California faces one of its worst droughts in two decades, building projects are being curtailed for the first time under state law by the inability of developers to find long-term water supplies.
Water authorities and other government agencies scattered throughout the state, including here in sprawling Riverside County, east of Los Angeles, have begun denying, delaying or challenging authorization for dozens of housing tracts and other developments under a state law that requires a 20-year water supply as a condition for building. California officials suggested that the actions were only the beginning, and they worry about the impact on a state that has grown into an economic powerhouse over the last several decades.
The state law was enacted in 2001, but until statewide water shortages, it had not been invoked to hold up projects. While previous droughts and supply problems have led to severe water cutbacks and rationing, water officials said the outright refusal to sign off on projects over water scarcity had until now been virtually unheard of on a statewide scale.
“Businesses are telling us that they can’t get things done because of water,” Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said in a telephone interview.
On Wednesday, Mr. Schwarzenegger declared an official statewide drought, the first such designation since 1991. As the governor was making his drought announcement, the Eastern Municipal Water District in Riverside County — one of the fastest-growing counties in the state in recent years — gave a provisional nod to nine projects that it had held up for months because of water concerns. The approval came with the caveat that the water district could revisit its decision, and only after adjustments had been made to the plans to reduce water demand. “The statement that we’re making is that this isn’t business as usual,” said Randy A. Record, a water district board member, at the meeting here in Perris.
Development has been put on hold in Riverside & San Luis Obispo counties due to water concerns, and in Kern County, three developers scrapped plans over water worries.
“The water in our state is not sufficient to add more demand,” said Lester Snow, the director of the California Department of Water Resources. “And that now means that some large development can’t go forward. If we don’t make changes with water, we are going to have a major economic problem in this state.”
Read the full text of this article from the New York Times by clicking here.
David over at Westchester Parents says that before Los Angeles city officials keep approving development projects, the need to ask themselves some tough questions:
- Can the projects currently envisioned by the city today be assured of an adequate and reliable water supply for the next 20 years as required by state law?
- Have developers been able to assure the city that they have an adequate 20 year supply?
- Can the city assure them that they have reliable 20 year supply?
Clearly the answer is they cannot. They cannot assure it and they need to come to grips with this new reality. I know this puts the city in the uncomfortable position of having to say No to these grand housing plans and thousands more like them, but the members of our city council and the mayor cannot continue to stick their collective heads in the sand and ignore today’s reality. To do so imperils the very existence of LA’s struggling yet vibrant population.
Read the full text of this post from Westchester Parents by clicking here.
Moratorium urged; Official urges building be halted for drought
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on June 6, 2008 at 7:17 amFrom San Bernardino Sun (hat tip to David over at Westchester Parents for the link):
The impending water shortage facing California this summer has prompted one elected official to suggest a moratorium on development.
R.M. “Cook” Barela, president of the Jurupa Community Services District board in Mira Loma, has suggested a halt on development in the Jurupa Valley while the water shortage exists. “We ought to put all development on halt until we have a plan,” he said.
The board will discuss the issue on Tuesday at its water committee meeting, said Eldon Horst, general manger of the district, which provides water, sewer and street-light service in 48 square miles of unincorporated west Riverside County.
Barela says he would like to see a 2-year hold on issuing letters of water availability, but not all agree:
“I really don’t think we need to be at the moratorium point of decision. If people are responsive to the governor’s call, if people conserve, we won’t need to be at that point,” said Celeste Cantu, general manager of the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, which oversees the Santa Ana River watershed.
Other avenues can be taken other than stopping development altogether, said Richard Atwater, general manager of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency. “We need new development, new jobs,” Atwater said. “Let’s make sure it mitigates the water supplies.”
Read the full text of this article from the San Bernardino Sun by clicking here.
Eastern Municipal Water District gives go-ahead to 9 industrial & residential projects
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on June 5, 2008 at 1:43 pmFrom today’s Riverside Press-Enterprise:
An Inland water agency said it could serve nine major industrial and residential projects in the southwest Riverside County area, the first assessments it has approved since determining that conservation measures and other resources would provide enough water for the long-term future.
The Eastern Municipal Water District board of directors decided Wednesday to issue water supply assessments for the nine projects, confirming that it believes the district can provide water to the developments for at least 20 years based on current conditions.
The district temporarily stopped certifying new projects in October, because of concerns over long-term water supplies, including the ongoing drought and a court-ordered reduction in water deliveries from the Sacramento River Delta to protect a fish species threatened with extinction.
Read the full text of this article from Riverside’s Press-Enterprise by clicking here.
Tainted water still counts for land developers; Amendment to count only clean water struck down in Sacramento
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on June 4, 2008 at 6:33 amFrom the Santa Clarita Signal:
Local water activists are saddened today now that a proposed law promising to slow development through tougher conditions set on groundwater assessment has been struck down in Sacramento.
Assembly Bill AB2046 requires water suppliers such as the Castaic Lake Water Agency to submit to the state the quantity and quality of groundwater being assessed in relation to supplying that water ultimately to an identified group, such as a 500-unit housing development. If a water supply is contaminated, the suppliers are required to detail for their local governments how they would treat the contamination. Once those conditions are met, the supplier can count the water in its plans. Proposed amendments to the bill would have precluded water suppliers from relying on groundwater in calculating their water supplies.
Specifically, the amended AB2046 would have precluded the supplier from relying on groundwater as a supply earmarked for any proposed development project (such as a 500-unit housing development) if the groundwater did not meet applicable state standards - such as the standard set for safe drinking water - on the date the water supply assessment is prepared.
On Thursday, members of the Assembly’s Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee voted five to two in favor of amending two sections of the state Water Code, thereby removing the proposal to stop counting untreated groundwater.
Read the rest of this story from the Santa Clarita Signal by clicking here.
Krekorian’s AB 2153 legislation would require developers to prove their projects have no net gain water use or pay water impact fees
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on May 28, 2008 at 6:15 amFrom the San Diego Union-Tribune:
The Assembly plans to take up legislation that would force developers to pay to offset increased water use at new projects, much like school impact fees.
The legislation, believed to be unprecedented nationally, comes as water supplies are shrinking, Californians are questioning potential rationing while new homes continue to spring up and lawmakers are in gridlock over building more reservoirs. “The idea is to create a framework by which California can continue to accommodate the need for growth while staying within the inherent limits of our water supply,” said Assemblyman Paul Krekorian, D-Burbank, who is carrying the measure.
An intense lobbying campaign is under way leading up to the floor vote, with builders and business interests marshalling forces to block the bill and environmentalists mounting an aggressive campaign to push the measure along to the Senate. Water agencies are divided. “It’s going to be tough – very tough,” Krekorian said.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on the bill.
It would definitely signal a shift in the way we think about water, but not everyone is on board:
Krekorian’s measure would require developers to prove their projects have no net gain in water use or pay into a fund to finance conservation projects elsewhere, such as fixing leaky pipes, cleaning up groundwater and recycling. The fee would be capped at 1 percent of the cost of a house, roughly $3,000 on a $300,000 home, or less than $10 a month over the life of a 30-year mortgage, supporters counter.
To Krekorian, that’s a small price to guarantee water for homes. Without the bill, he said, projects could be blocked under existing law that allows water agencies to declare that there is not enough supply to meet the increase in demand. Or ratepayers and taxpayers would continue to subsidize growth, he said.
Builders say that more fees would be another drag on their slumping industry. The California Chamber of Commerce is pitching in to help kill the legislation. “AB 2153 further exacerbates a suffering economy and dismal housing market by imposing an untold tax on new home buyers,” opponents wrote. Business interests argue that new homes and buildings are water-efficient.
Read more from the San Diego Union-Tribune by clicking here.
Builders facing water pressure; new developments urged, or required, to offset impact
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on May 22, 2008 at 6:32 amFrom the San Diego Union-Tribune:
California officials have long assumed that there always will be enough water to serve the state’s growing population, which is now more than 38 million people. But that’s no longer a safe bet because of drought, environmental rules restricting water supplies, greater demand from nearby states and the escalating cost of the increasingly precious commodity.
In response, water agencies across California are starting to make a dramatic shift in how they review applications for new developments. Some are demanding that future housing tracts and shopping centers will have little or no impact on a region’s water supply. Builders are being asked or forced to prove that they can offset their impact to existing users by using reclaimed wastewater, conserving water or creating new sources of it.
In San Diego County, water officials are scrutinizing a proposal for enlarging the Westfield UTC mall in La Jolla, analyzing plans to construct a community of more than 700 houses near Escondido and considering whether to make developers pay a fee to fund water service for their projects.
“Our traditional water supply concepts are being challenged and the future water supply is uncertain. . . . We better make sure that we have water to meet the growth plans” and existing demand, said Mitch Dion, general manager of the Rincon del Diablo Municipal Water District in Escondido.
The article discusses at length development & the need for water, and how attitudes are changing. “We can’t just say if you build it, there will be water,” said Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica. And new legislation might be on the way:
One of the most closely watched water bills in Sacramento is AB 2153, which would require developers to prove no net gain in water use. Mitigation could include investments in recycling and fixing leaky pipes within the water district’s service area. It’s unclear how such demands would mesh with growth plans prepared by cities and counties.
“This is probably the issue of the day – whether you can limit growth by shutting off water supply or making it more difficult to build a home,” said Tim Coyle, a top official at the California Building Industry Association. Coyle said that there’s only so much lawmakers can force developers to do as they try to meet housing demands. He said the state will continue to attract newcomers, “all with straws in their mouth.”
Get the full story from the San Diego Union-Tribune by clicking here.
If you want to build in San Diego, save some water
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on May 20, 2008 at 7:37 amFrom Voice of San Diego:
For the first time, the city of San Diego is requiring a developer of a large project to offset its water demand, a step designed to address concerns that new development will exacerbate the city’s strained water supply.
The city’s Water Department is requiring Westfield, the developers of the $900 million University Towne Center mall expansion, to keep the project’s water demand neutral, a step that will require the developer to save between 21 million and 43 million gallons of water annually.
In the UTC project, new stores and residences will use more water, which the developers will offset by using reclaimed water — non-drinkable treated sewage — for irrigation. The company will also pay for other existing developments to do the same, enabling those using drinking water for irrigation to switch to reclaimed, non-potable water. That would boost the amount of drinking water in the city’s system, neutralizing the expansion’s increased demand.
For now, the policy is informal, hasn’t received City Council support and has no violation penalty. “This is all relatively new stuff, and it’s clearly being driven by an increased awareness of what the water supply conditions for Southern California are,” said Jim Barrett, the city’s director of public utilities. “I think we’re taking a much more proactive approach than we have in the past.”
Barrett said he looks to offsets as a way to address a state law requiring an assessment of large developments’ water supplies. The 6-year-old law, designed to ensure that supplies keep pace with growth, mandates that cities provide what is termed a “water supply assessment” for large developments: Subdivisions with more than 500 homes, hotels with more than 500 rooms, offices serving 1,000 or more people or shopping centers with more than a half-million square feet. The assessment must verify the city has a sufficient supply planned to accommodate the growth.
Most projects in the city would not rise to that level. Few are large enough to trigger the assessment. A Westfield spokeswoman declined comment.
Read the full text of this report from the Voice of San Diego by clicking here.
Join the fight against MWD tyranny - drought is not the problem, says commentary; the problem is unemcumbered growth
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on April 28, 2008 at 6:34 amFrom the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, this commentary:
As California’s centuries-old water war threatens to once-again engulf the entire state, op-ed writers are already rolling out that old saw usually attributed to Mark Twain: “In the West, whiskey is for drinkin’, water is for fightin’.” Not only does the current water fightin’ pit North against South, but communities in Southern California are now engaged in a civil war.
The problem is not drought. The culprit is unencumbered growth.
One need only consult the rainfall chart published annually in the local newspaper to see that we still enjoy a humid climate in the Los Angeles basin. Since the 1870s rainfall has fluctuated cyclically but the average has hardly changed. What has changed is the proliferating and unquenchable demand we have placed on that finite amount of liquid.
To keep up with our seemingly insatiable and ever-growing thirst, we first drained the artesian supply that once abounded on the plain. We built an aqueduct, than a second, to the Eastern Sierra. We diverted the Colorado River. Finally, we tapped the water of Northern California.
But even that wasn’t enough. And now concern for the Delta Smelt has temporarily curtailed a significant portion of that supply.
So now we are about to fight among ourselves for what remains. This fight pits Lynwood against Beverly Hills, Covina against San Diego, in fact all the smaller and in many cases less affluent communities against the big, powerful and expanding ones. And the little guys aren’t about to quit.
Read the rest of this commentary from the San Gabriel Valley Tribune by clicking here.
The other side of “No water, no development”
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on April 13, 2008 at 11:08 pmLaer 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.
Antelope Valley construction halted by water concerns
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on April 13, 2008 at 8:25 amFrom the San Fernando Business Journal:
Construction has been halted in some parts of the Antelope Valley over the inability to provide new homes, and industrial and commercial developments with an adequate supply of water.
Since November, the Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 40 has refused to issue “will serve” letters guaranteeing water service. The district serves much of the Valley, including the city of Lancaster and parts of the City of Palmdale. That refusal stalled the construction of 1,000 new single-family homes in two projects in Lancaster and has developers thinking twice about starting new projects.
While not at a crisis stage yet, the water shortage is a priority of the cities, developers and agencies responsible for the water supply. “There are currently a number of groups working together or individual agencies looking for additional sources of water whether it’s here in Southern California, through Northern California acquisition or even potentially outside the state if there is water on the market,” said Gretchen Gutierrez, executive director of the Building Industry Association chapter for the Antelope Valley.
Water finds its way to the valley from melting snow in the Sierra Nevada Mountains transported south through the Los Angeles aqueduct. Lower snowfalls have produced less water in years past. Additionally, a December court order restricts water flow by slowing pumping from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to protect the endangered delta smelt, an indigenous species of fish.
As that order affects water delivery to all areas south of Stockton, the Antelope Valley has found itself in competition for other sources. Since the waterworks district and individual developers cannot negotiate for water on their own, it is up to the Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency and two other state water project contractors serving the area to do that.
Read the rest of this story from the San Fernando Business Journal by clicking here.
Population growth: how can California accomodate it’s growing population and assure adequate water supplies? Snow and McIntyre debate …
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on April 10, 2008 at 7:47 am
From the Los Angeles Times, the latest installment of the debate between Lester Snow, head of the Department of Water Resources, and Mandy McIntyre of the Planning & Conservation League:
Can California continue to grow given its endangered water resources? Should we be trying harder to limit or control growth, and if so, how? Lester Snow and Mindy McIntyre debate.
Lester Snow goes first (excerpt):
The decisions we are making now — how efficiently we use water and where we build our new communities — dictate how much flexibility we will have in the future and what the quality of life will be for the next generation of Californians.
Most land- and water-use decisions in California are made at the local and regional levels, though rarely is such decision-making integrated. For example, land-use planning that encourages low-density development greatly increases per-capita water demand. Such development patterns also inevitably lead to more dependence on automobiles, which are the largest source of climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions in California. The resulting climate changes will make it more difficult to maintain reliable water supplies.
Low-density development imposes other costs as well — it is generally more costly and difficult to provide flood protection for sprawling suburbs, and this growth reduces the availability of agricultural land. In all, such land uses threaten our water-supply reliability and are costly in many other ways. Land use and water planning must be better integrated to ensure that we make informed resource management decisions.
The bottom line: Good land-use planning and water management can help secure our future.
Mandy McIntyre responds:
Californians recently experienced the fallout of placing too much demand on limited energy resources. Our water supplies are affected in the same way. More demand on the system can mean less water-supply reliability. As with energy, when water supplies are over-tapped, disadvantaged communities that have the oldest and least efficient infrastructure are the hardest hit when rates go up and shortages occur. Water efficiency and new technologies, including water recycling and groundwater remediation, can restore reliability if they are implemented when growth occurs.
The good news is that pending legislation, AB 2153 by Assemblyman Paul Krekorian (D-Burbank), would keep the economy going while protecting water reliability. It would accomplish this by tapping into the enormous potential of water efficiency and other locally based supplies. AB 2153 would require developers to incorporate all feasible water efficiencies into their projects. Developers would then have to fully mitigate whatever remaining demand their projects create.
Mitigation would be accomplished through implementation of efficiencies in existing housing or by producing proven and highly reliable local water supplies. AB 2153, endorsed by the Planning and Conservation League and the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, would ensure that disadvantaged communities are not left behind, directing a portion of the mitigation to upgrades and replacement of leaky pipes in such communities.
Read the full text of this article from the Los Angeles Times by clicking here.
“Water seam” photo by flickr photographer Bukutgirl.
Recommended reading: No water, no development - editorial from the LA Times
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on April 7, 2008 at 6:47 am
From the Los Angeles Times, this editorial:
During the 20th century in Southern California, city founders made a religion out of building bounteous — and sometimes boundless — suburbs in the most unlikely locations. They assumed that the water their new communities needed to thrive would somehow flow to them.
For the most part, if they made their claim early enough, they were right. Because the state and federal governments poured billions of dollars into dam and canal systems that carried water over vast distances, past far-flung burgs, engineers could almost always find a way to get a little more of it to thirsty towns. In tract after tract, water followed development, rather than the other way around.
In the 21st century, this ethos of expansion must come to an end. California’s water supply is finite, but its population is growing. Forecasters believe that the state, which has 38 million residents today, will have 48 million by 2030. In many places, formerly dependable groundwater is now polluted or depleted. Prolonged drought on the Colorado River — combined with increased demand for its water from growing states such as Nevada and Arizona — almost certainly will reduce water deliveries from the east. Diminished snowpacks in the Sierra and environmental restrictions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta almost certainly will reduce water deliveries from the north. And it’s unclear how climate change will affect California’s water supplies.
It’s a matter of common sense: It is time for development in California to follow the water. Even as our state continues to grow, sprawl can no longer be our birthright. Hydrologically remote regions cannot depend on new sources of imported water for human needs, much less for verdant lawns.
Read the rest of this editorial from the Los Angeles Times by clicking here.
California’s growth will lead to more development conflicts, says editorial
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on April 6, 2008 at 8:42 amFrom Dan Walters at the Sacramento Bee:
California’s housing meltdown is wreaking economic and personal havoc, but it won’t last forever.
The state’s ever-growing population will soak up the now-vacant housing units in a year or two, and home building will resume, driven by the inexorable demand. Generally speaking, California needs about 200,000 units of new housing – single-family homes, apartments, condos or mobile homes – each year.
During the development lull, however, there’s a great debate under way in a variety of venues, from the Capitol to local city councils to academic conferences, over what kind of housing it should be.
Will it be a resumption of the horizontal development that California has traditionally embraced, with new single-family subdivisions creeping outward from core cities and reached by automobile? Or will it be higher-density vertical development like that of Eastern cities (and San Francisco), served by mass transit?
The debate is not new but has gained volume because the advocates of vertical development – what Attorney General Jerry Brown describes as “elegant density” – have a new political lever in global warming.
The state’s growing population and how best to house it is the subject of much debate. At the root of it:
The conflict lies at the heart of debates over how transportation funds should be allocated, including whether California should build a high-speed “bullet train,” and whether the state should develop new water supplies or rely on conservation. Simply put, should we supply more water to irrigate more suburban lawns?
Read the rest of this column from Dan Walters at the Sacramento Bee by clicking here.
Proposed Colorado bill would let housing developments collect own water with cisterns, but could have unintended consequences
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on April 6, 2008 at 7:09 amThis story was submitted to Aquafornia by regular reader & commenter Ray Wright, a retired water rights analyst. From the Daily Camera:
New housing developments could get to test out an old-fashioned way of conserving water.
On Friday the [Colorado State] Senate backed a bill that would let up to 10 new developments apply for permission to install cisterns to collect rainwater that drains off rooftops. The water would have to be used on lawns and gardens or to fight potential wildfires.
Democratic Sen. Chris Romer’s proposal would let the developments try out the idea over the next three years. The aim is to measure whether the cisterns prevent a lot of water from flowing into rivers and streams or whether most of it would have been soaked up by the ground anyway.
Ray adds this:
Here is a good example of “have-nots trying to steal from haves”….those who have the water because of a hundred and fifty years of priority ownership are expected to relinquish ownership, control and use because new people have just arrived who need water in the dessert southwest.
If this legislation is approved….it opens the doors to those with parking lots, commercial roofs and even large acreages to suddenly claim the water that falls on their property….this concept would destroy the 150 year prior appropriation water law in the west !
Are there limits to growth? Malthusian fears resurface, as spread of prosperity brings supply concerns
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on March 24, 2008 at 5:51 amFrom the Wall Street Journal:
Now and then across the centuries, powerful voices have warned that human activity would overwhelm the earth’s resources. The Cassandras always proved wrong. Each time, there were new resources to discover, new technologies to propel growth.
Today the old fears are back.
Although a Malthusian catastrophe is not at hand, the resource constraints foreseen by the Club of Rome are more evident today than at any time since the 1972 publication of the think tank’s famous book, “The Limits of Growth.” Steady increases in the prices for oil, wheat, copper and other commodities — some of which have set record highs this month — are signs of a lasting shift in demand as yet unmatched by rising supply.
As the world grows more populous — the United Nations projects eight billion people by 2025, up from 6.6 billion today — it also is growing more prosperous. The average person is consuming more food, water, metal and power. Growing numbers of China’s 1.3 billion people and India’s 1.1 billion are stepping up to the middle class, adopting the high-protein diets, gasoline-fueled transport and electric gadgets that developed nations enjoy. The result is that demand for resources has soared. If supplies don’t keep pace, prices are likely to climb further, economic growth in rich and poor nations alike could suffer, and some fear violent conflicts could ensue.
Some of the resources now in great demand have no substitutes. In the 18th century, England responded to dwindling timber supplies by shifting to abundant coal. But there can be no such replacement for arable land and fresh water.
Read the rest of this story from the Wall Street Journal by clicking here. (Note: sometimes, when taking a link to a Wall Street Journal story, you can’t see the whole story, and it is asking you to buy a subscription. If you just want to read the one article without doing that, then click here and take the first article on the list.)