Bonds not only water solution
By: North County Times Opinion staff - | ∞
Our view: We do have a water crisis, but borrowing must be preceded by conservation
Next month we'll find out if San Diego County will have enough water over the next year to avoid mandatory cuts. That's when a judge will decide if temporary remedies should be put in place to protect the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. It's just one of the reasons Gov. Schwarzenegger is touring the state, including a stop here in San Diego County, to win support for his water proposals.
While we do need to boost our ability to store water during drought conditions like this year's, California's big problem with water isn't supply so much as allocation. We desperately need improved conservation and market-based approaches to rationing.
In May, the pumps that transfer water to Southern California from the delta were shut down to protect the endangered delta smelt. Since then, our water woes have only gotten worse.
Just last week, the governor declared a state of emergency in Riverside County because of extreme drought conditions there. The Metropolitan Water District, which provides most of San Diego County's water, warned recently that a state plan to remedy environmental problems in the delta, offered in response to a lawsuit, could reduce its supply of water by a quarter over the next year . If that were to happen, North County water users could face mandatory cuts.
Much as we have pushed our fiscal reckoning into the future, Californians have avoided long-term solutions for our perennial water shortage. Way back in 1982, state voters rejected a proposal to build a peripheral canal that would have bypassed the delta, and we must revisit that opportunity to secure the delta's health and our water supply.
But, as with the budget, it appears only a crisis will force us to action. Gov. Schwarzenegger visited the half-full Sweetwater Reservoir on Tuesday to promote a $5.9 billion bond proposal that would partially fund the building of two dams and the peripheral canal.
For their part, Democrats, led by Senate President Pro Tempore Don Perata, D-Oakland, are offering a similarly priced bond that would give funds directly to local water agencies to use for their own conservation priorities.
We lean toward local control, but are wary about the bipartisan urge to borrow that is Sacramento's default position. Lawmakers promise another big water bond that could go onto a ballot next year. If this feels like deja vu, it's because voters approved $5 billion in water bonds just last fall. That money is already locked up in new levees, flood control and water quality improvements.
Before we add to our tremendous debt burden, we should insist on water meters throughout the state. We should insist that state and local governments get serious about conservation by planting native plants and using recycled water.
Besides, even if we approve this new round of borrowing, we won't drink the benefits for decades. Long before that, we can use the water we have much more wisely -- with the help of price signals and conservation incentives that reflect the actual scarcity of water in arid Southern California.
Advertisement
no bonds needed yet wrote on Jul 25, 2007 9:56 PM:If So Cal would stop planting turf and high water golf courses, charge higher tier users the full rate to encourage conservation, promote native planting and xeriscape, keep giving vouchers for low flush toilets, etc. we could largely put off bonding at the moment and really analyze a future plan that makes sense for all of us.
Statewide meters are needed wrote on Jul 26, 2007 8:13 AM:I'm always stunned to visit relatives up in the Sacramento area where they have no water meters and pay a flat monthly fee. Before everyone in the state is saddled with paying for bonds, we do need to have some common sense conervation efforts, and certainly making users pay for what they use is a good first step.
Howiek wrote on Jul 26, 2007 8:39 AM:C’mon people! This is an issue that has been known for decades. The southwest is in a drought that in all likelihood will continue for any number of years. What to do about it? Conservation is a term that is tossed out with increasing regularity but what about those of us who have tried for years to conserve? An family can only conserve just so much before it reaches a dead end—are we to conserve ourselves into a third world state? Recycling our water is one of the first things that must be done but very few of us are willing to endorse—water is water people! Increased storage is another option that some won’t look at—might endanger something. But returning the southwest into a barren desert is not much of an option either—no water, no jobs, therefore no society, the region will not sustain itself on every bodies retirement funds. Local control is just another term to delay and put off for years any meaningful resolution to the issue.
Ron wrote on Jul 26, 2007 9:24 AM:"We do have a water crisis, but... a judge will decide..." This idea alone should scare the be-jesus out of you. We have gotten to the point where judges are in the position of deciding what is so obviously "the People's business." Protecting smelt, and placing restrictions on humans to protect fish... should just tell you, we have "jumped-the-Shark", or smelt, which ever you prefer. Second, How much money have we spent in this State to conserve, build, repair, re-develop, re-invent, or in price increases have we already spent towards "developing" our water supplies? Billions? And yet today, we are lectured by the Times about a single bond measure in 1982 scolding us as to how "we blew it." It's absolutely disgusting! Don't we elect, and then they appoint "experts" to help plan for the future? And haven't all of us rate payers paid more than our fair share in, not only price increases of water, but the newly enacted sewer fees? And bonds.... galore! I gotta ask the Times... how many times have our leaders blown it? At a time when tax receipts are at an all time high, and swimming in bond money... were is the plan? Oh, the plan? Well, we've already spent that money... on saving fish. On top of that, we have this thing about saving fish, very, very expensive. It's time to start taking action against this State's leadership, they obviously can not do the job we have sent them there to do. Let's begin by throwing them out, and starting fresh. Still have a 6 billion structural deficit, with no end in sight, going on how many years now? Clearly, dysfunctional.
Floyd wrote on Jul 26, 2007 10:30 AM:Rationing doesn't increase the amount of water available, it just causes increasing pain. Increasing the water supply by encouraging more desalination projects would be a good step forward.
Howiek wrote on Jul 26, 2007 11:04 AM:Floyd, just in case you aren’t following the story, the Coastal Commission is not in any hurry to approve any desalination project, just look at all the stupid questions they continue to come up with in regards to the Poseidon project.
stupid! wrote on Jul 26, 2007 2:27 PM:People we live in an arrid desert area..duh...water is a limited resource and you guys still don't believe in weather pattern changes, or ahem..global warming? wake up!
jack wrote on Jul 28, 2007 5:13 PM:Excellent advice. Another suggestion. Levee 1 cent/gallon on all imported water to pay for needed infrastructure impovements. This would raise over $6.5 Billion/year and not place the debt on future users. It might even foster conservation at a cost far below bottled water prices voluntarily paid by consumers!
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