The very confused Guv is demanding we cut our water use by 25-35%. Yet he allows, even promotes the waste of millions of acre feet of water to go into the ocean, in an effort to protect some fish. While he is telling you NOT to flush your toilet, he refuses to spend money voters approved for new dams. As our lawns turn the color of his last name, he refuses to waive environmental laws to allow the emergency building of desalinization plants.
Of course Californians are angry. They know we have a drought, but understand the water shortage is due to government policies—not the drought.
““There is not a lot of amenity in Alpaugh. We have no golf courses (and few or no golf players) and precious few swimming pools. Imposing a 25% reduction of residential water usage on Alpaugh residents would have a significant adverse effect on the quality of life for those residents, without any measurable water conservation benefit. The same could be said, I think, for many or most of the small rural communities in the Valley,” says Mr. Burchard.”
Californians howling at proposed water cuts
Central Valley Business Times, 4/15/15
- Communities questioning basis for orders
- “The first thing to notice here is perhaps the enormous disparity between urban and rural water use patterns”
From small towns in the Central Valley to the posh environs of Beverly Hills, orders by the State Water Resources Control Board to slash water use by as much as 35 percent are prompting protest.
Gov. Edmund Brown Jr. has demanded urban water users slash use of drinkable water because of the drought. His edict does not include agriculture, which uses the bulk of water in the state.
Even so, towns that depend on agriculture for their economy are not happy.
“The first thing to notice here is perhaps the enormous disparity between urban and rural water use patterns,” write John Burchard of the Alpaugh Community Services District in a protest letter to the water board, charged with implementing the order from their boss.
“Statewide, it is said that agriculture accounts for 80% of total water consumption. The remaining 20% is labeled “domestic” but actually includes industrial and commercial as well as residential uses. In our small “domestic water” district, for example, 14% of our annual water production is consumed by one large customer – a fertilizer factory,” Mr. Burchard’s letter says. “14% of “domestic” water in this district is therefore actually used for agriculture, to make liquid fertilizer and pesticide products.”
He points out that water consumption by Alpaugh’s residents has no measurable impact on its source of local ground water.
“There is not a lot of amenity in Alpaugh. We have no golf courses (and few or no golf players) and precious few swimming pools. Imposing a 25% reduction of residential water usage on Alpaugh residents would have a significant adverse effect on the quality of life for those residents, without any measurable water conservation benefit. The same could be said, I think, for many or most of the small rural communities in the Valley,” says Mr. Burchard.
Where there is plenty of amenity is Beverly Hills, but they’re no happier there.
Interim City Manager Mahdi Aluzri questions the foundation of the water board’s grouping of urban users into tiers to cut use, ranging from 10percent to 35 percent. He says in his city’s case, it’s simple arithmetic: The population is 42,157. But because of offices and other businesses, that swells to 250,000 during the day.
For Beverly Hills, he contends, that’s led to use cuts that are based on the wrong numbers.
“Urban water suppliers could not have known in October 2014 that their monthly reporting data would be used as the sole basis for determining an unforeseen mandatory conservation standard,” he writes. “Self reporting on R-GPCD [reported gallons per capita day] was intended to be an estimate of monthly water consumption, which could be subject to inaccuracies or discrepancies that should be subject to further review and clarification,” he writes.
“[T]the Water Board should delay any formal enforcement actions until water suppliers have been given an opportunity to develop and fully implement new conservation measures. This is particularly important when non-compliance can potentially lead to Administrative Civil Liabilities of up to $10,000 per day,” he says.
In a third example, the city of Clovis notes that like the diligent ant that socked away supplies for the winter while the grasshopper played, it has spent $10 million investing in water bank storage for use in times of drought. But, says Luke Serpa, public utilities director, the water board is treating all water the same.
“Clovis respectfully suggests that the consumption of any water that was banked expressly for drought resilience be excluded from the urban water usage figures that will be used to determine compliance with the mandatory reductions. If this banked water is treated the same as normal sources, then it results in a financial disincentive for communities to invest in these kinds of long-term solutions,” Mr. Serpa writes. “Conversely, if the banked water is considered as a conservation measure and excluded from these figures, it sends a strong message supporting investment in measures that could make the next drought much less of a crisis.”
Ken Moore, public works director for the city of Kerman, says it’s unfair for the Water Board to demand more cuts in the hot Central Valley than it does for cities on the cool and comparatively more moist coastal areas.
“It is hard to accept the state board’s use of the term ‘equitable’ in the proposed requirements. Of course those communities in the Bay Area and along the coast use less water, they do not have to water landscape to maintain a nice yard and the temperature is far cooler,” Mr. Moore says. “Would they like for everyone in the valley and drier areas to relocate to these areas? Different climates require different amounts of water use. Thirty-five percent seems unreasonable without impacting Kerman’s overall appeal and economy.”
And he, too, notes what he sees as a disparity by looking out the window: “Our community is completely surrounded by agriculture and how is it equitable for the city to drastically reduce its use of water while the adjacent farmers are allowed to pump for 24 hours per day?”
In all, some 200 letters have been received by the board. It is unclear is they’ll make any difference.
Drilldown
» To read all the letters, please click here: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/drought/comments041315/index.shtml
About Stephen Frank
Speak Your Mind