FORUM: How serious is our water shortage?
By Gerald Walson ---- president of the Bonsall Area for a Rural Community | ∞
Water agencies have been beating the drum lately urging users to reduce consumption in light of the water shortage we are experiencing.
Recently, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ordered agriculture users that have signed onto the Interim Agriculture Water Program to reduce water use by 30 percent used in the last two years.
Noncompliance will result in considerable penalties that could triple the cost of their water allocation.
The Metropolitan Water District recently considered imposing water rationing on residential users, but rejected it for 2008.
Should this occur in the future, interim program users could face further reductions that can range as high as 90 percent. Interim Agriculture Water Program users have received discounted water in return for agreeing to reduce water use during declared water shortages.
In San Diego, water districts receive most of their water from the County Water Authority, which receives 84 percent of its water from Metropolitan. While the authority can impose reductions, further water reductions will most likely come from Metropolitan.
Why conserve? What are the pieces of the water puzzle?
First, agriculture users represent only 6 percent of Metropolitan's demand. Interim Agriculture Water Program users represent only about 30 percent of that 6 percent demand. They represent less than 2 percent of Metropolitan's demand, proving its demand is overwhelmingly due to residential consumption.
Water agencies are asking the public to save 20 gallons a day, per person.
Since the average home uses about 748 gallons a day, this represents a savings of 7 percent. However, compliance will probably not exceed 50 percent, resulting in a savings of less than 3.5 percent.
Since housing development has been growing at around 1.5 percent per year since 1995, this represents an increased water demand ---- and where is all this "new water" coming from to support new developments?
Consequently, your conservation savings are going to support new development.
Clearly, residential users will never voluntarily reduce their water usage when they see that these savings are being passed on to developers. They will only conserve water when they perceive that these savings are beneficial to them.
How can Metropolitan and the County Water Authority justify new water connections for new developments in a "water emergency" when they are imposing water restrictions on existing users?
They need to assert their "emergency authority" and mandate that new-water connections be suspended during water emergencies.
We either have adequate water and there is no need to conserve, or we have a "water emergency" and we need to conserve, which requires suspending new-water connections.
They have failed to demonstrate how the consumer will benefit from conservation when water connections to new development continue in the face of a water shortage.
Who's benefiting from your conservation? Obviously, the developers!
Gerald Walson is president of the Bonsall Area for a Rural Community and director Div. 1 Rainbow Municipal Water District.
More Stories
Advertisement
Local wrote on Jun 12, 2008 4:08 AM:Many of us remember the energy shortage(smirk). We will know that there is a true shortage (energy or water) when there is a moritorium on new development. Intelligent planners do not support new when they can't provide for the old. Crying wolf doesn't work anymore. Try a little honesty.
Skeptic wrote on Jun 12, 2008 7:24 AM:Notice how silent local politicians are about this issue. The most one gets out of them is that the economy is so bad now that builders aren't building, which ducks the question of why no moratorium. Could it be that political campaigns are so expensive the only winners are those who get financed by the rich developers? Next time you vote, take a look at who's footing the bills for the candidates with the biggest road signs and showiest newspaper ads.
Trained Observer wrote on Jun 12, 2008 1:00 PM:Check the facts. The "growth" is from living longer and having children. I for one would like my kids to have a chance to afford a home in San Diego, if they so desire. Why conserve? Given we import 90% of our water, doesn't conservation benefit the source of our water, whether it's the Delta, Colorado, or Owens River Valley? The argument that residential users won't conserve because the benefit is passed on to others is the same logic to nothing about global warming because India and China won't reduce emissions. It's hard for me to have sympathy for the agricultural users' now that their water is being cut - that is the deal they agreed to for a discount on their water. I hope this is not an attempt to get out of their agreement now that we do have a drought.
bd wrote on Jun 12, 2008 2:37 PM:Interesting idea, but probably not realistic. Development is easy to attack, but even in a slow economy, 1.5% growth rate is healthy and reasonably paced. In order to maintain a prosperous region, we need to demonstrate some sanity; and shutting off all new connections doesn't do much for us.
Glenn wrote on Jun 12, 2008 2:45 PM:It is wrong to imply growth is mandated regardless of water supply. It is wrong to ask us to conserve water due to shortages, then use it to serve new development. It is wrong to coerce conservation with increased rates to create water for development. It is wrong to charge existing customers for costs of supplying water to new development. It is wrong for one water management plan to say that growth will be accommodated "in such a manner that it will compliment and not sacrifice our agriculturally oriented community" but have this contradicted in an overriding plan that projects agriculture will be reduced by roughly 42 percent in the next 20 years due to conversion to housing.
It is wrong that some farmers will go out of business due to water cutbacks while new development continues ��“��“ unchecked. It is wrong that San Diego spent millions on wastewater treatment systems designed to reduce water demands of new development, yet did not enforce regulations for its use. It is right that the Water Authority is now studying a proposal for new development to fund its own water supply.
Amen wrote on Jun 12, 2008 6:27 PM:Yes, stop the new development and get off agricluture's back. They have cut enough. Make the people with overwatered lawns cut back. Make the golf courses find recycled water! And start putting your money where your mouth is and start educating the children about how to conserve.
Roberto wrote on Jun 13, 2008 12:34 AM:Reverse Osmosis (sea water to drinking water) is roughly double the cost of other sources...I think water is a bargain and time for the farmer to leave the the ecosystems alone.
To the No-Growther wrote on Jun 13, 2008 8:34 AM:A certain amount of growth is inevitable. Our population will grow (faster than our mortality rate). Are we going to tell our kids they have to leave town when they turn 18? Smart-growth is ok, but these bloggers that just want to slam the gates shut on all new development seem short-sighted and unrealistic. Do you really think that's feasible? Get real.
Waterwatcher wrote on Jun 13, 2008 1:45 PM:Did you know that while residential water customers pay tiered rates, where you pay more if you use too much water; local water districts only charge large commercial, governmental and agricultural customers flat rates for their water? That means that no matter how much water they use, they'll still pay the same for every gallon used. How can we trust water agencies when they're giving big customers a free ride at our expense?
Deron wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:42 PM:Just let the market for water fix everything. It works every time it's tried.
As the price of water goes up, people will be more conservative on how they use their water, more water will be put into the system...
A market driven system is not all that complicated and works.
Deron.
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