Until our water authorities base their new commitments on an actual -- legally sound -- surplus we will continue to subsidize new development while we experience rationing, reduced use forced by rate increases, cost-prohibitive landscaping and a gradual decline in agriculture.-- Glenn Carroll, North County Times, Sept. 11, 2006
9/11/07
North County Times
Guest Column: Is conserved water fueling overgrowth?...Glenn Carroll, Fallbrook resident
Glenn Carroll was a director for the Tuolumne Utilities District for four years
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/09/11/opinion/commentary/22_18_199_10_07.txt
Water authorities tell us to conserve due to shortages while they continue making commitments to serve new development. Some agricultural users face 30 percent cutbacks in January, yet growth marches on. Water derived from cutbacks is apparently considered "surplus" for growth. If additional supplies are not developed, each new house added increases the point at which we will face future cutbacks.
Growers are already impacted by heavy price competition from foreign imports, like avocados from Mexico. It is no wonder the San Diego County Water Authority's water management plan projects a 42 percent reduction in agriculture by 2030 "primarily due to conversion to housing."
Reservoirs were supposedly built to provide emergency backup for existing customers during droughts, plus some capacity for growth. But during shortages the question arises how they separate the backup water from that designated for development.
Theoretically, existing customers should not have to cut back in dry years -- unless their water is used for new customers.
Why not ration new development along with everyone else? Some water officials respond that denying new hookups at this time would be unfair to the plans of developers since the present shortage is considered temporary. Indications are, however, the opposite is true: The Colorado River is in its eighth year of drought. The Sierra snowpack is only 40 percent of normal and has been diminishing for years. Environmental problems plague our northern delivery system. Climate change is now taken seriously. This area is experiencing a historic drought. Another water official says, "This could be the beginning of a long-term shift" in water resources.
Plans to develop additional water like desalination are uncertain and far in the future. A proposed new canal from the north to increase supplies would take more than 20 years to complete -- if the bond passes (it was defeated once). Same story for new reservoirs.
Metropolitan Water District -- our major supplier -- was hit in 2003 with a 50 percent cutback in its Colorado River allotment due to states upriver exercising seniority rights. California's share was reduced from 1,212,000 acre-feet per year to 606,000 acre-feet per year. The San Diego County Water Authority signed subsequent contracts for an additional 277,700 acre-feet per year, but California still ends up 328,300 acre-feet per year short of its original allotment. (An acre-foot serves two homes/eight people.)
Metropolitan also receives water from the State Water Project. However, our San Diego County Water Authority has been routinely overdrawing its 15.8 percent legal entitlement from this source (25 percent in 2004), but since there are districts in the Los Angeles area that have not yet reached full build-out, this has not been an issue. It's something for future generations to deal with.
Until our water authorities base their new commitments on an actual -- legally sound -- surplus we will continue to subsidize new development while we experience rationing, reduced use forced by rate increases, cost-prohibitive landscaping and a gradual decline in agriculture.
Growth clearly has priority over existing residents.