Directories
Quick Searches
Find a Job
Quick Search
For Employers
Yahoo! HotJobs Local Search
Water officials mull meter restrictions
By: DARRYN BENNETT - Staff Writer
Customers say they'll conserve when building stops | ∞
NORTH COUNTY -- At least two water officials said this month that they may consider ways to restrict construction in their districts next year in response to mounting pressure from disgruntled water customers who say they won't conserve water until new development is curbed.
"There has been a fairly common response to the calls for voluntary conservation, and that has essentially been: 'Why should we conserve just so you can sell water meters so developers can build new homes?' " Valley Center Municipal Water District's general manager, Gary Arant, said in a Dec. 17 report to the board of directors.
So far, angry customers haven't banded together in opposition, but Arant and Rainbow Municipal Water District Manager Dave Seymour said this week that their agencies have been bombarded with calls from individuals arguing that it was unfair for districts to issue new meters during drought conditions.
Together, the rural water districts encompass nearly 115,000 unincorporated acres in Valley Center, Bonsall, Rainbow and parts of Fallbrook.
Agricultural use accounts for nearly 80 percent of the districts' total water use.
In addition to the mandatory 30 percent cutback in water to agricultural customers beginning Jan. 1, all North County water districts have asked ratepayers to reduce their water use by at least 10 percent voluntarily, meaning shorter showers and limited sprinkler use.
Seymour said the most frequent response he hears from ratepayers being asked to conserve "is along the lines of, 'Yeah, I'll start conserving water when you stop issuing new meters.' And there's a lot of validity in that statement, but every month you hear about some new large development being approved."
Still, Seymour said he's not in favor of halting all development projects.
"Development and building is a huge part of our local economy as well, so we don't want to destroy that, either. Reasonable and responsible growth would be a good place to start," he said.
Under the Interim Agricultural Water Program administered by the Metropolitan Water District, the main water supplier for the region, growers are the first to receive mandated cutbacks because they receive discounted water in exchange for interruptible service during drought situations.
Water agency officials have repeatedly said they would transfer stored water to residential and commercial customers to avoid mandatory cuts next year, but Arant has warned that there is a possibility those customers will also be subject to cuts in future years.
"We've avoided that for 2008, but in 2009, well, we'll see," he said last month.
Meanwhile, there have been no calls from Metropolitan or the San Diego County Water Authority, the county's regional wholesaler, for a moratorium on new meter sales for developments. In the December report, Arant said the agencies are counting on "significant levels of voluntary conservation to avoid mandatory rationing."
Officials from the Valley Center and Rainbow districts said that they appreciate water customers' objections to development, but that as local water districts, they are limited in what they can do to manage growth because they lack land-planning authority.
Consequently, many of the restraints that Seymour said he would like to see placed on new development during water shortages -- such as regulations on landscaping and irrigation --- fall outside of his jurisdiction.
Furthermore, local districts would have a difficult time imposing restrictive growth policies, including a moratorium on meter sales, without support from Metropolitan and the Water Authority, Arant said.
But water agencies might not see as much demand for new service next year because of a slump in the housing market that has slowed development.
County home prices tumbled more in October than those in any major metropolitan area in the nation, according to the Standard & Poor's Case-Shiller Home Price Indices report released last week, and most real estate agents and analysts have said they expect the decline to continue well into 2008.
For now, district officials said they are taking modest steps to try to slow new development in the face of dwindling water supplies, such as not acquiring new service areas and telling developers that while they are free to move forward with projects, local water supplies may not be available in the future.
"I don't have all the answers, but if we don't see an end to this current drought, we are all going to have to find out what the answers are pretty quick," Seymour said.
Contact staff writer Darryn Bennett at (760) 740-5420 or dmbennett@nctimes.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
Alf wrote on Dec 29, 2007 6:51 AM:IF the total flow of water to this region is to be reduced, then there is no question, no doubt, that we can not keep adding new water meters. Having the current customers cut back while adding new customers does not accomplish this, it really is that simple. EITHER WE HAVE A WATER SHORTAGE OR WE DO NOT! Adding new CONSUMERS may be good for the ever increasing lust for money of local government, but IT DOES NOT REDUCE THE OVERALL CONSUMPTION OF WATER! If we have a real need to reduce total water use, then no more new water meters at all can or should be issued. Regards, Alf.
JSten wrote on Dec 29, 2007 9:06 AM:I visited Pacific Beach a couple of years ago and the message there was to builders and developers: YOU have to show where the water can be made available before we will allow you to build. I think the unhappy people in this area may be right-
We need to either impose strict restrictions on use-or over use and use that created surplus to serve new customers, to cut off all new development altogether, unless new sources of water are found.
chuck wrote on Dec 29, 2007 12:18 PM:the answer is simple, but it seems like everyone (officials) are starting to point the finger elsewhere and using the line,,, they don't have responsibility. how STUPID do they think we are? and the "local districts would have a difficult time imposing restrictive growth policies",, well I guess that just sums it all up. I really wonder if they actually read what they have said. It's like when an accident happens and an incident report has to be completed on how the accident happened, preventative measures that were in place,etc. Reading the write up is like reading one of those accidents, you just can't help but say,,, "what idiots" they don't really want to solve the problem, they just want the little people to take the hit, while they sell more meters and raise rates. This has just got to end. Don't get me wrong, I conserve, so much that my kids have some "names" for me, I pay $40/ month regardless if I use no water at all,, tell me that they don't want to make more money selling more meters. It's a real simple question- do you think it's right to ask for cutbacks in water usage while you pop more meters out there,, uncontrolled? the answer is simply,,, no. if the answer from you is yes,,, well then I believe there is another name for you.
george wrote on Dec 29, 2007 12:31 PM:until the districts and water water companies quit talking and take "action" and demonstrate that they actually are serious, how can we? limitations need to be in future demands, displaying strong management skills in control,,, so far, not impressive, weak, not caring, pathetic- predictable to say the least
dan wrote on Dec 29, 2007 12:39 PM:I have little fate that the districts or the water companies will EVER step up to the plate and deal with this issue proactively. no one will take the leadership, it's common in the business world, no one will want to be the first to take the proper steps because it will cut into the "money" ends of things, and will have to be forced by someone who does not have the money falling into their hands- wonder where that is?
Deadline Dan wrote on Dec 29, 2007 12:40 PM:New development has run out of water. Time is up for the sprawling growth model that has fed the economy and sucked the land dry. I'm glad the brakes are finally kicking in.
Reardon wrote on Dec 29, 2007 2:33 PM:If private enterprise was running the water delivery system, they would be looking for new sources of water to deliver! Unlike government, which continues to get paid even if they deliver NO product, private enterprise must deliver or lose their jobs. When was the last time General Motors et al advertised, “Please use less of our product!”
jimmy wrote on Dec 29, 2007 5:54 PM:readon, you kill me!,deadline and dan,,,, god ,,the truth hurts,,and chuck- too in-your-face! these people really don't care what happens to us once all over here,,, they REALLY don't care,, that much is obvious.
Moratorium needed NOW . wrote on Dec 31, 2007 6:28 AM:We all have a big problem. If we restrict our water use NOW and then they impose stiffer restrictions on us, or if we have already made our water use minimal, we will just make it better for new development. Unless the Water Districts know that the people, en masse, mean business, and that they WILL restrict their water use AFTER the water districts impose a moratorium on meters for new construction. We should keep up the pressure on the water districts. It is totally within their power to restrict the issuance of meters. We need to insist that we will do our parts AFTER they do what is right.
Celeste wrote on Jan 2, 2008 1:19 PM:I agree that allowing more growth during times of water shortage is not the wisest path to take.
However, as is the case in almost all cities/districts which are facing water shortages, the problems they currently face in water supply is due to the region's current residents.
If not one more person was allowed to move into most water-short areas, and not one more water meter was allowed to be set, there would still be a water shortage.
It is the current residents, not the future residents, who have created the problem.
Also, the concept of "growth" needs to be clarified. What about people who bought parcels of land years ago with the idea of moving and building in the future. Do the rights to develop their homesite fit into the "no-growth" stipulation?
I realize these are philosophical questions, and have many answers...
Celeste wrote on Jan 2, 2008 1:24 PM:Here's an idea I'm trying to develop for the water district where I work: not allowing water conserved by current residents to be used for allocating for future growth.
This can be done by designating the amount of water conserved as an "emergency water shortage contingency buffer," to be "kept on the books" (or in the reservoir, etc.).
I am sure there are other ways to accomplish this, as well.
- ESCONDIDO: Man shot dead at Fourth of July party (9869)
- TEMECULA: Protesters line intersection (6024)
- ESCONDIDO: 3 DUI arrests, 46 impounds at checkpoint (4858)
- ESCONDIDO: City's dreams of an 'upscale' downtown may be dying (4565)
- ESCONDIDO: Victim's roommate recalls July 4 shooting, friends gather for vigil (4343)
Advertisement