Sell
Research and Tools
Parts & Service
- Auto Parts
- Service & Repair
- Quick Searches
- Auto Repair
- Oil Change
Water agencies planning in case of water cuts
By: GIG CONAUGHTON - Staff Writer | ∞
With statewide shortages looming, Southern California water agencies are scrambling to create a detailed plan of how much water they -- and each of us -- would get if supplies are cut.
The region could lose 30 percent of its Northern California water supplies next year because of a court ruling to cut use of the pumps that send Northern California rainfall and snowmelt south to the semi-arid southland.
The pumps, which provide much of the region's water, are killing an endangered fish, prompting the federal courts to step in.
A number of smaller water agencies in Southern California have historically fought over their rights to water during shortages, and old arguments over which communities should endure deeper cuts could resurface as officials work out shortage plans.
So far, the area's larger water providers are working together to make those plans and to stave off a shortage rather than fight about who should get more water should one occur, said Jim Bond, a board member of the San Diego County Water Authority and the Metropolitan Water District. Metropolitan is Southern California's main water supplier.
"It's not unlike a forest fire," Bond said. "You know, you don't see the foxes go after the chipmunks when there's a forest fire. They're all running to get away. Everyone is running together to solve this problem.
"Whether we'll all stay that way is hard to tell," he said.
Metropolitan officials said last week they are working on a shortage plan to bring to the district's board next month.
Metropolitan supplies water to nearly 18 million people represented by 26 cities and water agencies, including the Water Authority, in six counties.
Brandon Goshi, a Metropolitan manager who has been working on the plan, said the proposal would revolve around three basic ideas: limiting the harm that water supply cuts could have on retail consumers and the economy; recognizing the steps Metropolitan's member agencies have taken to develop their own water sources; and taking into account how much agencies relied upon Metropolitan for their water.
Difficult process?
Creating a plan to divvy up Southern California's water equitably if Metropolitan cuts supplies could be difficult because not all regions' water needs are equal.
Some areas' water agencies have their own partial water supplies, allowing them to rely less upon Metropolitan than other agencies. If Metropolitan were to cut water equally to all agencies, some areas would be affected more than others.
For example, the city of Los Angeles built its own aqueduct to Owens Valley early in the 20th century, creating a pipeline that delivers half of Los Angeles' water supplies every year. The city also has groundwater supplies of its own. Consequently, Los Angeles only buys 34 percent of its water supply from Metropolitan.
In contrast, San Diego County, which has few reservoirs and doesn't have the kind of porous rock needed for groundwater storage, buys 73 percent of its water for county residents from Metropolitan.
That means the San Diego area would lose a greater percentage of its overall water supply than Los Angeles would if Metropolitan issued an across-the-board cut.
Goshi said the formula that Metropolitan plans to propose to board members a system that would take that discrepancy into account and would increase rates for agencies who can't live within suggested water budgets.
Water rates already are on the rise in most of the county, where local agencies have begun passing on an expected fee hike of 5 percent to 10 percent from Metropolitan.
Many local growers face certain water cuts beginning in January under a program that lets farmers buy discounted water in exchange for being the first to cut back in dry times.
Some cry foul at equal cuts
Some water officials suggest imposing across the board cutbacks and making agencies bid on water for their customers could help the region deal with a shortage.
But forcing communities to pay even more for water when supplies dwindle is a dangerous option for nonwealthy communities and areas that have not created their own supplies, said Glenn Peterson, a board member from the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District, during a planning meeting with Metropolitan last month. That district covers parts of the Los Angeles area and has none of its own water supplies.
"I don't think we all want to compete with Beverly Hills," Peterson said. "I think we have to be above that."
But areas that have invested in their own supplies say uniform cuts would be fair to districts that have invested in finding and storing more of their own water.
Larry Dick is a board member from the Municipal Water District of Orange County, which gets half of its water from its own local supplies.
Dick suggested that Metropolitan could just issue 10 percent across-the-board cuts, then say "but we have more water. And you can bid for it."
Dick said he raised the idea to protect cities and agencies that had made "significant investments" to create their own water supplies and reduce their reliance on Metropolitan.
Transfer deal put SD County in better shape
Even though it still relies heavily upon Metropolitan, the San Diego County Water Authority is one of those agencies that spent a lot of money to find new supplies and cut its dependency on Metropolitan.
In 2003, the Water Authority completed a deal to buy up to 65 billion gallons of water a year from Imperial Valley farmers for about $50 million for 45 to 75 years. The deal ramps up slowly until it reaches the full 65 billion gallons a year in year 19, when it will provide about 22 percent of the county's total water supply.
The Water Authority worked for eight years to complete that deal, and started chasing it out of frustration after the last time Metropolitan had to issue mandatory water supply cuts -- during the state's last big drought in 1991.
Drastic cuts were avoided during that scare when what officials called "Miracle March" rains broke all around Southern California, ending the drought.
Some say L.A. could grab local water supplies
In the discussion of how Metropolitan might divvy up Southern California's water supplies, there is a potential joker in the deck -- an arcane Metropolitan water-allocation system the agency says it would never use, called "preferential rights."
The Water Authority railed against that system for years, and even sued unsuccessfully to have it changed, saying it was a threat that could let other agencies "steal" water from San Diego County residents.
The system was created as part of Metropolitan's charter when the state Legislature created the agency in 1928.
It guarantees Metropolitan's member agencies a right to the agency's water based upon how much each agency contributed to Metropolitan in property taxes.
Under the system, San Diego County residents "own" about 16 percent of Metropolitan's water even though they annually buy about 28 percent of the agency's supplies.
By contrast, Los Angeles owns more than 22 percent even though it typically buys about 7 percent.
Water Authority officials have said Los Angeles could make a telephone call and Metropolitan would divert water that San Diego County residents use to Los Angeles.
Could preferential rights be invoked if shortages appear and Metropolitan hasn't adopted an allocation plan?
Metropolitan managers say they would never invoke the system. Others say it wouldn't be up to Metropolitan.
Goshi, meanwhile, said he was confident the board would adopt a plan -- even if though it hasn't before.
"Here's the difference, we have a threat," he said. "This is different than trying to develop a theoretical plan."
Contact staff writer Gig Conaughton at (760) 739-6696 or gconaughton@nctimes.com.
visitor wrote on Oct 13, 2007 11:08 PM:Stop building!
Alf wrote on Oct 14, 2007 5:20 AM:I second the motion of "visitor", stop issuing new building permits and stop permitting new water meter hookups. Regards, Alf.
Mother Earth wrote on Oct 14, 2007 6:47 AM:I can think of roughly 20-30 million ways to conserve.
resident wrote on Oct 14, 2007 7:17 AM:Stop issuing new building permits until you supply more water, by desalination. Vote out all incumbents that vote for new developoment.
San Marcos resident wrote on Oct 14, 2007 7:47 AM:Yes, stop building! Until (and if) we can secure water availability for our agriculture, which should be protected above all else, industry, and current residents, no more water permits! That this is not yet being seriously discussed is testimony to the fact that developers OWN Southern California. And increasing the water cost a few dollars a month won't work. Those who have tropical landscaping will pay what they need to pay. Compare a typical water bill that is a fraction of the utility bill. The only thing that will work if this weather pattern continues, is toilet to tap, pipelines from the Northwest, and desalinazation. Until then, it will be mandatory water rationing for all of us, and get ready for the building to continue! We will look like Las Vegas.
Howiek wrote on Oct 14, 2007 7:55 AM:Oh Please visitor, that is only part of the problem. It’s really a sophomoric remark at best. In case you hadn’t noticed the housing industry is kinda flat and it won’t recover for at the very least for several years. And you can’t just stop building on a dime! Besides, what do you plan on doing with all the out of work construction people? The fact is there just isn’t enough water for all of California. The Sacramento/Bay Delta is only and earthquake away from being totally useless for water that can be filtered and passed off as potable water—all it is, is treated sewer water. The Colorado is in a drought and there is no hope in sight for the drought to end—Lake Powell and Lake Mead are at 50% of capacity (at best) and drying up. Desalination? Well I’m not sure the Poseidon deal will make it past the Coastal Commission—more water would mean more urban sprawl and they don’t like that. Recycled water? San Diego needs to get past the “yuck” factor. I see water rationing next year and not a very bright economic future.
There is wrote on Oct 14, 2007 8:41 AM:No water shortage.
Waterwatcher wrote on Oct 14, 2007 9:31 AM:We would be wisest to plan based on a worst case scenario, in case MWD and Los Angeles invoke their legal rights to cut us back to only what we have legal water rights to. That means we have about one year to change how we use water down here. Developers need to know that if they want to avoid building moratoriums, they have to move toward zero water and energy system impact development, and existing residents have to realize we live in a desert and start acting accordingly. The alternative is taps that don't run when you turn them on, starting toward Fall of 2008
Absurd wrote on Oct 14, 2007 10:38 AM:Stopping the consrtuction is a ludicrous notion. People still have kids and people will continue to move to the area. You think we have it bad now, try stopping the construction of homes and you will not believe the terrible economic conditions that will exist. Short-sighted thinking, such as stopping construction, is not the soluion, rather it is a shallow knee-jerk reaction to the problem. There is enoughwater to go around, it just needs to be managed and we need to stop the radical environmentalists from shutting off the water.
Link to connected article wrote on Oct 14, 2007 11:38 AM:Gil, Absolutely great article, as was your previous one ! NCT please allow link to Gil's previous article as they both are so connected. Here it is:http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/10/13/news/top_stories/20_11_5310_12_07.txt#blogcomments I hope you allow the link. Our water shortage should be at the top of everyone's list.
No more water meters until... wrote on Oct 14, 2007 12:38 PM:Nobody wants to STOP construction, just put a short break in the runaway pattern of issuing water permits to anyone who wants them, no matter hw much water they will use up. It is those who are issuing the Letters of Availability and Water Meters that are really in charge here. The problem seems to be that they make money by selling water meters, quick money, regardless of the supply. That is insane. Let us, as citizens, contact our water departments and tell them that we will do our part AFTER they stop giving out additional permits. Call it what you want. We have just so much water, and it is not far to those who make a living growing things that we EAT to be penalized the most. Stop issuing meters and initiatiate grey water systems immediately. Somebody told me that they already have the pipe for just that purpose, and it is purple ! Let's go. Lets not have no water. Irrigate with reclaimed greywater.
We need to start now wrote on Oct 14, 2007 1:14 PM:If stopping of homes is ludicrous, then what about requiring all of those new homes, new water meters to be allowed only where dual systems are utilized so that waste goes to the sewer and non-waste water (bath, shower, washing machines, etc) gets tied into the drainage from landscaping and gutters - which will all be re-run through the irrigation systems. If not, there is no way that water can be found from nowhere and it will come from out of all of us. We need to start now.
To: Absurd wrote on Oct 14, 2007 1:48 PM:If there is enough water to go around, then why the manditory cutback for farmers (who, by the way, grow the food we eat), and cut-backs for all of us ? Locally in the San Marcos, Vista, Bonsal area there is a "lovely" project that will bring us 10,000 more people. That is one-eighth the entire population of San Marcos, which has reached build-out. Those 10,000 people have homes and will use approximately 1/8 of the water that Vallecitos Water District is using now. That, friends, is a 12 % increase. Their Letter of Availability was written years ago, and I doubt would be written today. The deadline for comments on the EIR is tomorrow, but that doesn't mean that we cannot all comment later, especially about the water situation. It is not fair to all of us from San Marcos and Lake San Marcos that are in the Vallecitos Water District already. Moratorium - maybe not. Just no water.
Right wrote on Oct 14, 2007 3:45 PM:If you don't have enough water for current residents, you make the problem worse by continueing to add more water dependant people. The S.CA desert is overpollutated and should loss a few million people. In the end the economy will be must better without his endless ramped development. If we contain our selfs and only have 2 children ,we wont need to build to such excess. Stop issuing building permits! Vote out the incumbants next election.
Reality hurts wrote on Oct 14, 2007 4:59 PM:We should be rationing water, we live in a desert and we have no endless local water supply. Lots of people have to do it across the U.S. and just because we paid a ton of dollars to live here doesn't mean we're "special". There are tons of houses for sale and for rent right now so the uneducated money hungry developers should go somewhere else or take a breather.
JayDee wrote on Oct 14, 2007 5:44 PM:Wake up people it is all about selling another water permit for 8 to 10 thousand dollars.. When the citys stop selling water permits then and only then will I start saving water........ Its all about money..
anotherview wrote on Oct 14, 2007 5:59 PM:Why not target present overuse of water by farmers statewide? Please know, dear readers, that farming activity now consumes most of the available state water supply -- up to 90 percent of it. Households consume about 5 percent. The rest goes to other users, like industrial and commercial. An analysis with simple math reveals that 5 percent of 90 percent equals 4.5 percent of the whole 100 percent. Hence, forcing farmers statewide to introduce efficient crop irrigation to reduce their water consumption by only 5 percent would nearly match the existing household water use. Via political pressure, however, farmers resist improving their farm irrigation practices. In short, the Golden State has plenty of water available, but the distribution of this water does not happen rationally. Farmers grab most of the water. So any fair and sound solution to the water supply problem must require farmers statewide to stop using so much water. Then others will have enough water.
To JayDee: wrote on Oct 14, 2007 6:17 PM:Amen. You said it. You hit the proverbial nail right on the head. The Water Districts must stop issuing those permits when we don't have enough water. And it is all about money. It always is. It is not about the people. Maybe we should show up en-masse at every Water Board meeting and every City Council meeting. That is just what it is going to take.
Ask wrote on Oct 14, 2007 8:50 PM:Its not all about new building. We dont have enough water for the homes we have. Conservation is the key. To keep your lawn green year round, it takes an equivalent of 80 inches of rain. Take that into thought.
Whatayadoing wrote on Oct 15, 2007 8:55 AM:Construction will dry up, pun intended, some day anyway; land is finite. Were it not for enviros, conservatives would have us live in a sterile, concrete, resource depleted world. Think people in 200 years would think highly of that?-
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.
Today's Stories
Advertisement