Drought, pump shutdowns have water officials worried about 2008 and beyond
By: GIG CONAUGHTON - Staff Writer | ∞
NORTH COUNTY ---- It's still a polite request, and not a demand. But the historically quiet call for people to find ways to use less water is about to get a little noisier.
Last week, Southern California's main water supplier, the Los Angeles-based Metropolitan Water District, voted to quadruple its spending and mount a $6.3 million campaign to urge people to, among other things: take shorter showers, stop overwatering lawns and gardens, install sprinkler controllers, fix leaky irrigation systems, and replace lawns with low-water-using plants.
And, while regional water officials say the region has plenty of water to get through this summer, Metropolitan is not alone in its call.
Long Beach officials last week issued an urgent call for its residents to cut water use; people in the San Francisco Bay Area are already conserving; and San Diego County Water Authority officials said they're planning a campaign to ask people to cut their use by 20 gallons a day.
The reason for the conservation call is simple. Southern California's main water supplies this summer appear to be starting to dry up.
The region in general, and the Los Angeles area in particular, is suffering through a severe single-year drought. The Colorado River, one of Southern California's two main sources of imported water, is in its eighth year of drought. And state water and Fish and Game officials stunned regional water leaders May 31 by abruptly shutting down the pumps that deliver Southern California's other imported water ---- rain and snowmelt sent from Northern California through the State Water Project ---- to protect an endangered fish, the delta smelt.
Friday afternoon, state officials announced they planned to ramp back up to full pumping to Southern California by today.
Jeff Kightlinger, Metropolitan's general manager, said the agency still believed that it would get all of the State Water Project water Southern California was slated to receive before the shutdown.
But officials say they're still worried that another dry year, or more shutdowns, could wreak havoc next year and beyond.
Voluntary or mandatory?
Water leaders said last week that despite the threats to regional water supplies, they weren't inclined to push for mandatory cuts for several reasons.
Most importantly, they said, the region has a lot of stored water that can sustain it for the immediate future. Kightlinger said last week that in 1991 ---- the height of California's last major multiyear drought ---- the agency had only about 250,000 acre-feet of backup water storage.
"Now we have a little over 2.5 million acre-feet," he said.
An acre-foot of water is roughly 325,900 gallons, enough to sustain two households for a year.
Other water leaders said that implementing mandatory water rationing could have a chilling effect on businesses, and the economy that relies upon a stable water supply.
"You don't want to create an economic panic if there's no need for it," Greg Quist, a longtime North County water official, said.
Kightlinger and others also said that implementing mandatory cuts while there were still backup supplies could impose needless sacrifice. After all, Mother Nature could still bail the region out.
"For all we know, it could be a wet year next year," Kightlinger said, referring to the fact that despite seemingly lengthening droughts and uncertainty, the heavens could open up and drench Southern California with rain and the Sierra Mountains with snow that could make most of the current water problems disappear next year.
For example, in 1991, in San Diego County, water leaders were poised to implement 50 percent cutbacks when the sky suddenly opened after five years of drought, pouring down more than 6 inches of rain in what was dubbed "Miracle March."
Other officials said the public would be less than happy if they endured mandatory cutbacks while there was ample storage, only to have the rain and snow finally reappear before supplies ran out. The public could blame water leaders for mismanaging the system.
Even worse, they could lose their trust in the water system, one official said.
George Loveland, who spent six years on the San Diego County Water Authority board before retiring 2 1/2 years ago, said if water agencies implement mandatory cuts too soon, the public could think that water officials "were crying wolf" ---- and then ignore future calls for voluntary conservation.
Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club have pushed water agencies for years to increase calls for conservation, and continue to do so, whenever water leaders ask to build new dams and reservoirs that would increase backup storage.
But even it said last week that it did not find fault with water leaders' decision to make their conservation calls voluntary, rather than mandatory, in the current situation.
"I think we need to trust our water purveyors," said Bill Allayaud, the California Sierra Club's legislative director.
Looming
Still, the system seems to be cracking, and water officials appear more worried about the region's water supply future than they have for years.
That is due in part to the state's recent shutdown of the pumps that send water from Northern California south.
Kightlinger and others said the most worrisome part of the State Water Project shutdown was that it was not because of a natural drought, but because of a "regulatory" drought ---- created to save the fragile Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta ecosystem. He said real and regulatory droughts may not hurt Southern California this summer. But if they reoccurred, they could lead to mandatory water rationing next year.
Kightlinger said that Metropolitan had already stopped using its current water supplies to restock its storage. It also expected to withdraw between 200,000 and 600,000 acre-feet from its backup supplies to sustain the summer demand.
Indoor, outdoor
Meanwhile, regional and local water officials said that even though Californians had actually done a lot since the 1991 drought to conserve ---- there is still plenty of room for people to cut back even more.
San Diego County Water Authority officials said that during the last 16 years, Californians had cut indoor water use drastically by installing low-flow shower heads, improved toilets and other devices.
However, officials said, as much as 60 percent of residential water use is outdoors ---- and that now the push will be for people to cut that by planting low-water-using plants, improving irrigation systems and the like. Metropolitan and the Water Authority have already had Web sites for a number of years offering people tips on how to save water ---- indoors and outside.
Metropolitan officials said the current calls for conservation were a gentle reminder that water in the West is a precious resource.
But Ken Weinberg, water resources manager for the Water Authority, said that people in the region needed to "rethink our lifestyles."
"The major message in long-term conservation is that we don't live in an area that can support the kind of landscapes that we have," he said. "We are talking about lifestyle changes. We're not saying it all has to be rocks and cactus, but we have to be making smarter, more efficient choices."
Contact staff writer Gig Conaughton at (760) 739-6696 or gconaughton@nctimes.com. Comment at nctimes.com.
People who would like to learn about how they can cut their water use can go to:
www.bewaterwise.com.
www.sdcwa.com.
www.thegarden.org.
www.laspilitas.com.
www.treeoflifenursery.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
H2o wrote on Jun 18, 2007 6:15 AM:We've been through this water thing before and knew it would happen again eventually. What I don't get is this....why has the city of Escondido allowed the construction of hundreds and hundreds of new homes when we've all known water was in short supply in the first place? Extremely short sighted :(
GFN wrote on Jun 18, 2007 7:26 AM:The ones who conserve now are the ones who will sufffer the most later when mandatory cut backs are implemented. Here's how it works: The water authority asks people to conserve, some do; some don't. A year later, a ten percent cutback is mandated...those who had conserved now are suffering; those who did not conserve are the ones who have the right to more water. In 1991, my neighbor, who had 5 children and a husband who was a low income marine, was very water conscious for economical as well as community reasons. My family was careful, but not quite like our neighbor. We went on vacation for a week and I, like an idiot of immense proportions, left the water running, forgetting to turn it off after watering the outside plants. The bill was staggering, but we had the resources to pay. The next year, mandatory ten percent cut-backs were initiated. My neighbors were crushed; they were already using as little as they possibly could, however, my family could use as much as we wanted, and more, because the cut-back was based on what we used the year before! All predictions are for less rain and hotter, longer summers. The lack of water will become a massive problem, especially with the population growth and resulting increased demand of water from Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico. I will cut back my water use only when all agencies stop spending money to encourage people to move to, or visit, Southern California. Basically, we are "water-full" and don't need any more people; growth will come from within. To continue to encourage more people to come here would be irresponsible and a blow to the quality of life of current residents, especially to those who are low income. Moritorium, until the water problem is solved, anything less would be callous.
city building more wrote on Jun 18, 2007 7:49 AM:The city of Encinitas is continuing to build with emphasis on high density buildings. More buildings and people equals the need for more water. Recycling water isn't the cure all for lack of water. The mayor of Encinitas is also the chair of the SD water authority, but he hasn't called for a halt in building because of the drought.
Hmmm... Desalinization? wrote on Jun 18, 2007 8:42 AM:Where is the investment in desalinization?
Ongoing education needed wrote on Jun 18, 2007 8:45 AM:We all need to be constantly reminded of our low water situation. I'd also like to see a greater effort to use grey water, and easier legalization of its use for homeowners. It's absurd for 60% of our potable water to be used for landscaping purposes. This is an expense that we all pay for in terms of building and upgrading water treatment facilities.
Yes wrote on Jun 18, 2007 8:55 AM:They should have stopped building houses for people right after they finished your.
Nuts wrote on Jun 18, 2007 8:58 AM:Yeah, we'll all turn our lives upside down and do without water to protect the delta smelt. Right. The state's Fish & Game dept. should not have been so short-sighted in turning off water pumps without consultating other interested groups. What a dumb decision. What ticks me off is that Fish & Game can act unilaterally and be acountable to no one.
Cal Livin wrote on Jun 18, 2007 9:14 AM:It is time to stop running water down the gutter while over irrigating plants, repair irrigation leaks and seriously consider more reclaim and desal projects. California can not keep praying for a "March Miracle" and needs to begin to protect and preserve the precious water they receive every year. If you like to live in Southern California, do your part to protect your lifestyle before there is a real crisis.
foursquare wrote on Jun 18, 2007 10:09 AM:California has enough water. But the distribution of this water presents a problem. The sources of the water lie far from the point of use. Hence, a distribution system must carry the water to its users. Further, the users of water vary greatly in their use. Experts estimate that households use about 5 percent of total state water supply, while agricultural uses between 80 and 90 percent. Industrial and commercial activity use the rest. In a rational water conservation program, the most water savings will occur from the largest user, in this case agricultural. Experts also estimate that agricultural wastes about 30 percent of the water it consumes. Hence, the state must first look to water conservation in agriculture use to generate water savings. For example, if agriculture saved only 10 percent of its water use, and assuming 85 percent use, then the water savings would equal 8.5 percent of the total state water supply. This reasonable savings would amount to 170 percent of existing household use. The major burden of water conservation must fall on agriculture, the major user of water.
Peggy1442 wrote on Jun 18, 2007 10:44 AM:Can I get a rebate for installing fake grass? If I could, I would definitely consider putting it in. I know I don't like paying my water bill but I have to keep my grass green or my neighbors will get ticked off.....it will bring down house values!!! No win situation!!!!
Alf wrote on Jun 18, 2007 10:44 AM:Although your scenario, "GFN", is not typical YET, it points out the problem with a simple percentage cut-back requirement. The same idea applies to electric or gas or anything, those who are already conserving to the max are the hardest hit by an across the board mandatory cut. A tiered system for cutbacks much like the rate structure which SDGE uses for rates (having a certain "baseline" rate, etc), though flawed, would not punish those who are already conserving. Any ideas on how to implement such a thing? Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.
joe wrote on Jun 18, 2007 11:20 AM:Where's the desalination? Come on, get the Carlsbad plant going!!!
signs of the time wrote on Jun 18, 2007 12:56 PM:Every new home should have a retention tank for grey water for lawn watering and landscaping. I know is works we have done so for 50+ years. Solar is back . If you own a house you should take advantage of the tax credits given for conservation up grades.I guess manditory is the only way to get folks attention. Everyone are you listening!!!!If you had to go pick up your water supply in a bottles daily or go without that then? without water we would parish. Lots of sickness ,disease. waste not, want not.
GFN wrote on Jun 18, 2007 1:15 PM:Alf, I think the water authority could do a tier system, if they don't do it already. The problem is that there is no perfect solution. A tiered system, while it will help the low-income folks, if it takes into account the number of people in a home, allows the more wealthy to escape any rationing because they can afford the higher price at the top tier. Kind of like a, "It's good to be King" thing. I just wish the water administration would be more honest with us about the seriousness of the situation. Of course, they are afraid that businesses and residents wouldn't come here if they did tell the truth, but it seems to me that the water authority would be responsible for the losses these people would incur because they weren't told the truth if there is a severe drought in the next 4-10 years. I believe this is a real mess NOW, and everyone in water authority is either keeping their fingers crossed or finding religion. I kind of get the impression that So Cal is the train in the movie "Silver Streak" and the train is very close to Chicago. All predictions agree: The weather will be hotter, dryer, with less rain and snowpack for the foreseeable future.
Don wrote on Jun 18, 2007 1:46 PM:There is no excuse for shutting down the plans for the desalinization plant in Carlsbad. Everyone involved in shutting it down should be fired for their stupidity and shortsightedness. That is the problem with government bureaucrats, they are too stupid to be making decisions for the future of the city.
Heady wrote on Jun 18, 2007 2:17 PM:Hind sight is 20 20. Why wasn't it applied?
Alf wrote on Jun 18, 2007 2:45 PM:Actually, "GFN", I was suggesting a tiered system for cut-back requirements such that people already conserving had little or no cut-back and water-hogs had the maximum cut-back. Every water and utility bill that we get has at least a comparison to last year and whether water or SDGE they know who the people are that are wasting. So far this year every bill reflects less usage than last year. We still have room to shrink, as it were, in part because my wife calls me "the energy police". Since we are on septic I'm much more careful about what and how much goes down our drains, no 45 minute showers, no leaky faucets, etc. Water does not get to the street unless something is broken. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.
Robert24 wrote on Jun 18, 2007 3:31 PM:George Loveland, who spent six years on the San Diego County Water Authority board before retiring 2 1/2 years ago, said if water agencies implement mandatory cuts too soon, the public could think that water officials "were crying wolf". Nah, just make up some half baked excuse like the oil companies do every year. We'll all just bend over like we do for them.....
waterbaby wrote on Jun 18, 2007 4:03 PM:Stop looking for more resources to waste and learn to live sustainably in the semi-desert environment we're in! That will take some serious education and action.
electrifying wrote on Jun 18, 2007 4:06 PM:We didn't seem to learn anything from Enron 2000 debachle. The single largest bill for the state of California is for pumping water. Desalinization will probably be next big bill for waste!
GFN wrote on Jun 18, 2007 4:09 PM:Yes...I missed that Alf...and I must say yours is the most equitable solution...so far. This is why I love these blogs; I learn so much without having to idenitfy my ignorance as an individual. Thank you my friend, I truly believe we are all learning to a better solution. Unabashedly, me?
I am Arthur, King of the Britons.... wrote on Jun 18, 2007 4:13 PM:Why can't we rely on normal market forces to set water rates? Humans don't respond well to nagging, but they respond really well to changes in price. If the price of water were allowed to increase in times of relative water scarcity, consumers would conserve, and suppliers would endeavor to take advantage of the higher price. It's only where we over-regulate and attempt to legislate price by fiat do we get talk of rationing. No one ever says that we need to "ration" this summer's supply of hot dogs, watermelons, or gasoline.
Grandma wrote on Jun 18, 2007 4:15 PM:Last time we had to cut back the homeowners had it the worse. "If it's brown flush it down, if it's yellow just be mellow." I had friends that lived in apartments that didn't care as they were not penalized. They flushed every time and took long showers. We cut back big time and then they wanted us to cut down on our previous years consumption. It isn't fair, maybe I should of used more last year. There has to be a way so it is fair across the board.
Concerned-1 wrote on Jun 18, 2007 4:34 PM:Good thoughts by GFN, Alf and others. Keep the ideas flowing and keep the communications high. I may have some more input later in the week as I am attending a water conference and will be hearing from the Met guys. Water in Southern California is, and always has been, a major concern.
Phil wrote on Jun 18, 2007 4:53 PM:Okay, then. Let's stop watering the golf courses, the playthings of those with lots of time on their hands. I do not think that will happen, do you?
john wrote on Jun 18, 2007 6:13 PM:The only answer to this is de-salinization. Of course this involves building plants near the ocean. People will die of thirst before a plant is built. Typical California government priorities. Let people die of thirst to insure that water plants will not spoil the view!
Alf wrote on Jun 19, 2007 5:17 AM:Many golf courses already use reclaimed water, not fit for drinking, for their turf, "Phil". Unfortunately, "I am Arthur, King of the Britons....", your suggestion has a built-in bias because the more affluent might gripe but can afford it, those who aren't as well off are between a rock and a hard place. Still an unashamed Libertarian, Alf.
Skip wrote on Jun 24, 2007 10:00 AM:Meanwhile another 6,000 Illegal Aliens snuck into this country last night, and they will need to drink too.
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.
Today's Stories
Advertisement