California's water supply is not endless

By: GERALD R. WALSON - Commentary | Saturday, August 18, 2007 7:14 PM PDT ∞

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger touts his $5.9 billion water plan in front of the dam at the Sweetwater Resevoir in Spring Valley on July 24.
North County Times File Photo
Order a copy of this photo
Visit our Photo Gallery

California's Water Plan, prepared by the state Department of Water Resources and currently being updated, always seems to imply that our supply of water to support development is endless. Clearly, all of our water problems are exacerbated by development. But the California Water Plan never addresses the crucial questions of what are the limits on our supply of water and what is the ultimate population that can be supported.

Current law says the state must prepare a Regional Housing Needs Assessment that requires local governments to provide their "fair share" of housing of various types to accommodate the state's population projections. Unfortunately, our water purveyors always seem to step up blindly and say they can supply the necessary water. If this is true, then why is there a growing cry for conservation and current threats of water cutbacks?

If there is not an endless supply of water, at some point there will not be enough water to support additional development. For example, note the agriculture water cutback now projected for 2008. Inevitably, we really will run out of water, and the state's policy on endless housing to support further population growth will have to be redefined. At some point, "the inn" will be full!

The California Water Plan needs to address this crucial issue now. We need a "water carrying-capacity analysis" to determine what our limiting water supply really is. Then we can analyze the impacts on housing and population. This will enable us to properly plan for the future of our state. Population growth is not an immutable fact of life.

What is our water availability?

Southern California gets its water from three sources: the Colorado River, Northern California and local groundwater (percolated rain/snow/runoff).

Our share of Colorado River water has already been greatly reduced and probably will be cut more in the future. Water from the north is constantly impacted by lawsuits, environmental requirements and the weather, as is the amount of water we get from the ground. All of these sources produce finite amounts of water.

"New sources of water" are often promoted as the answer, but in fact they are only a redistribution of existing water sources. Conservation is always good but limited in amount. Recycling and desalinization offer the promise of additional water but currently are more expensive than other sources, particularly desalinization. Taking water away from agriculture and/or the environment for urban uses is also possible but reduces our agricultural output and will damage our environment. How much of our agriculture and environment are we willing to destroy?

Some people say that the answer is simple: Just build more reservoirs and store the water that runs to the ocean from our streams and rivers. However, they fail to acknowledge that this water is mandated by law for environmental protection. So where will we (reliably) get the new water to put in the new reservoirs?

Since California's population is projected to increase 30 percent by 2025, where is the 30 percent increase in our water supply coming from?

Also, the reality of global warming is that droughts will be more frequent and of longer duration. How are we going to get a sustainable supply of water to support endless development?

We need to plan!

Obviously, our supply of water is limited. So the crucial questions remain: What is our limiting supply of water, how will it be allocated and how much population can it support?

Our planners need to address this critical issue. If our planners choose to ignore this issue, then who is looking out for the future of California and for all of us who live here?

Bonsall resident Gerald R. Walson is president of Bonsall Area for a Rural Community, a local group. In March, he was elected as Division 1 director for the Rainbow Municipal Water District, which has more than 7,200 customers in Rainbow, Bonsall and parts of Fallbrook.

3 comment(s)[-]Go to Top

Costmatters wrote on Aug 20, 2007 8:21 AM:It seems that most planners assume that the water will be available, the question is "at what cost?" Space travel wasn't possible until the government took away the cost barrier and spent whatever was needed to put a man on the moon. We will continue to have water in Southern California as long as we are willing to pay to get it here. If the public utilities started charging the same amount for water from your tap as the bottled water companies charge for water, they would have plenty of money to get the water here and the barriers would go away. Of course, so would agriculture and most other activities that use a lot of water. A farmer whose current water bill is $15,000 per month would start paying almost $60 million per month with the bottled water rate. That would increase the cost of food quite a bit, wouldn't it?

Celeste wrote on Aug 20, 2007 12:22 PM:Regardign the statement, "Unfortunately, our water purveyors always seem to step up blindly and say they can supply the necessary water. If this is true, then why is there a growing cry for conservation and current threats of water cutbacks?," the following is submitted. It is not always the water supplier who is at fault. In our area, the building permits and land-use ordinances occur at the County level, and it is up to the community services districts who supply water to find the means to meet the water demands of new growth. In our County's case, the draft affordable housing plan calls for 80% of high-density multi-family residences to be built in our town, despite the fact that there are few jobs here (the majority of jobs are in the County seat city) which undercuts one of the basic designs of affordable-housing growth, and despite the fact that the County declared our area to be at Severity III for water resources, our aquifer (where we get 100% of our water supplies) is overdrawn, and our wastewater treatment facility is at maximum capacity.

David Coffin wrote on Sep 23, 2007 12:02 PM:In Southern California we are beginning to ask the same questions. The California Department of Finance is now predicting a doubling of the population in Southen California to 30 million, and the same for the entire state at 60 million. We will need an additional 2.5 MILLION ACRE FEET of water in Southern California alone to accomplish that. Statewide, water agencies will need 5.2 MILLION acre feet to supply the estimated 60 million people. This does not even factor in additional commercial water needs. More water? It ain�t there folks!/

First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, email addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. 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.

Submit Comment[-]

(optional)
   

Advertisement

Videos