San Diego Union-Tribune, Insight Section

Sunday, February 24, 2008

When the well goes dry

Southern California's water crisis
By Cary Lowe We'll never know the worth of water until the well goes dry. Scottish proverb. The announcement by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California that it soon may need to slash water deliveries to dozens of local water agencies and their 18 million residential customers took many by surprise. It shouldn't have. This is only the latest in a series of warnings of an impending crisis in our region's water supply. The agency previously announced a 30 percent cutback in agricultural water deliveries and indicated that mandatory urban water rationing soon may be required. It was not always so. For nearly a century, readily available, low-cost water brought to us over long distances through a massive system of canals, pipelines and pumps has been the fuel that powered the engine of growth in Southern California. That is changing, and rapidly. Even as population and demand for water continue to increase, the supply is being constrained on several fronts. California's share of Colorado River water already has been slashed, as other states have asserted their rights under a 1922 treaty. At the same time, river flows throughout the region are being reduced drastically by long-term drought and diminished mountain snow pack, at least partially attributable to global warming. Moreover, water available from the Sacramento River Delta, the source for the big state and federal aqueducts bringing water south, is expected to be reduced by as much as a third beginning this year under a court order aimed at protecting an endangered fish species, and the state Department of Water Resources forecasts declining supply every year for the next two decades. As a result of all these trends, reservoirs throughout the state are at dangerously low levels. Occasional rainy periods create an illusion that the crisis has passed, but the overall trend is disastrous. Not only is there less water available, but the cost of building new facilities and the cost of energy to move water from its distant sources both are increasingly dramatically. With Southern California dependent on outside sources for more than half of its water, the picture is bleak overall. It is particularly bleak for San Diego, which still relies on imported water to meet about three-fourths of its needs. Political conflicts stand in the way of any large-scale remedies. The governor and the Legislature have been unable to agree on priorities for a major state bond issue to fund new water facilities. The Democratic leadership wants greater emphasis on conservation and local groundwater storage, while the Republicans favor new dams and state-level reservoirs. Both groups now are pursuing statewide initiatives, but there is no assurance the voters will authorize any new borrowing by the state. When the pie is shrinking, not all appetites will be satisfied. In the absence of decisive action, conflict will increase between the northern and southern parts of the state, between urban

and rural communities, and between residential and agricultural water users. Already, uncertainty over long-term water supply is being used by environmental groups as a basis for challenging new development approvals. The state Supreme Court recently affirmed such a challenge to a new planned community in Northern California. There also is an international dimension to this competition, as Mexico is protesting both the minuscule Colorado River flows that it receives and actions by local water agencies in California to reduce leakage from canals along the border. It is not necessary to wait for a comprehensive, state-level solution. There is much that can be done immediately at the local level: Agriculture still consumes far more water than all other uses combined, and has the greatest opportunity for savings, through more efficient irrigation systems and a movement away from lower-value, water-intensive crops such as alfalfa and cotton. In some areas, agricultural water suppliers have rights far in excess of what they need, and can sell surplus water for urban use, as in the arrangement between the Imperial Irrigation District and the San Diego County Water Authority. Farmers also can be paid to take land out of production where water use is excessive, as MWD has done in some desert areas. There are huge savings possible in domestic water use, especially with half of that currently going merely to irrigate landscaping. Shifting to drought-tolerant landscaping, using more efficient irrigation systems and mandating low-flow plumbing fixtures and appliances could reduce consumption by as much as one-third very quickly. Such measures would need to be mandated, as voluntary programs in Los Angeles, San Diego and other cities have not garnered significant public cooperation. Storage needs to be increased to capture available runoff. MWD and local agencies have built up appreciable reserves, but those will be consumed rapidly if drought conditions persist. Meanwhile, most rain and snowmelt still run into the ocean. Without waiting for construction of new reservoirs, local water agencies can significantly boost their use of groundwater storage. Used water needs to be recycled. Despite the controversy it has generated in San Diego and some other jurisdictions, treated wastewater is the most readily available source of additional supply, as agencies such as the Orange County Water District already are demonstrating. Opponents should remember that much of the current water supply previously passed through sinks, toilets and storm drains in other regions before being transported here and treated for domestic use. At the very least, recycled water can replace potable water now being used on landscaping. Desalinization and other new technologies need to be explored. They remain controversial, due to both environmental and cost concerns, but it is hard to imagine solving the current dilemma without including this option. New development needs to be tied more closely to local availability of water. There already are some state requirements in that regard, but local water agencies will have to be more restrained in providing the required certifications of available long-term supply for large new projects. All of this will require a significant change in consciousness on the part of the public. State and local officials know what needs to be done, but fear a political backlash from telling voters they can't have what they are accustomed to getting, or that it will cost more. This is a historic opportunity for the governor, the Legislature and a myriad of other officials to demonstrate

real leadership and come to an accommodation on a comprehensive program of water conservation, supply and infrastructure. At long last, it is time to reverse Mark Twain's famous dictum, that Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting over.
Lowe is a San Diego-based lawyer and land-use consultant.