This week I was quoted in a July 2nd Argonaut newspaper article on the water supply impact on coastal development.
Along with my remarks were also remarks from Melinda Barrett, the water conservation manager for the Los Angeles County WaterWorks and Joseph Reichenberger, a director and professor of civil engineering at Loyola Marymount University. Both attempted to sooth our concerns about how water and development is impacting our quality of life.
Regarding Barrett’s comments:
Barrett is -not- correct when she said that “if the county goes to a higher level than the current Phase II of the county water conservation ordinance, the district would not be able to issue what are called “will serve” letters for new projects.”
Having reviewed the county’s Phased Water Conservation Plan myself, I found that there is no language in it at all that allows the county to deny “will serve” letters. In fact, every phase from Phase III to Phase IX of the county’s plan states that “Water service (”Will Serve”) letters will be issued.”
It does say that “that permanent metered service to any newly created lot will be prohibited” though I am concerned with that language and whether it applies to “existing lots” that were newly re-zoned to allow tens, hundreds or even thousands of new multi-unit housing.
The county does offer some additional teeth in their rules as opposed to the City of L.A.’s Emergency Water Conservation ordinance because it does deny meters for construction water starting at Phase III. It also states that meters for construction water shall be removed at Phase VII. But again, does this apply to projects such as those going up in Marina del Rey?
Regarding Reichenberger’s comments:
Sheila Kuehl’s SB610 does require a water assessment but it has a HUGE LOOPHOLE in it by not insisting on a timely assessment that is focused on each projects as they come along.
SB610 is not an effective tool in L.A. because it allows developers to cite a water agency’s Urban Water Management Plan that is usually published once every five years.
I originally thought like Reichenberger did when I suggested to the council office that SB610 requires that the Hughes Center include water in its EIR. However when I asked the Hughes Center planners that they needed a water assessment as noted by SB610, they said that the LADWP 2005 UWMP was their assessment and that the UWMP stated that it has sufficient water supplies to meet growth through 2020!
After re-reading SB610 I had to conclude that they were right. SB610 calls for an ‘assessment’ and the UWMP is an assessment. It is essentially a blanket approval for all development in Los Angeles throughout the life of the document. This renders SB610 as toothless.
So here we are, four years later, in the middle of Phase III of Los Angeles’s Emergency Water Conservation Ordinance and anyone can come along and cite a four year old, fatally flawed UWMP that says we have sufficient water supplies through 2020!
Unfortunately.., water agencies will not objectively assess and report that they do not have the water resources necessary to meet population targets. They will not tell planners and local leaders that their plans are not sustainable. Water managers are “yes” men.
Water agencies are given a target in the form of a Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) and are expected to make the report work by painting up some ridiculously rosy scenarios that they will be able to meet the demand for those population assessments. These scenarios include large increases in water deliveries by SWP, LA Aqueduct, ground water, conservation and water recycling. Outside of conservation, none of the others have come close to meeting those goals as we continue to build new housing (mostly vertical) which is why we are in trouble today.
Let’s take L.A.’s 2005 UWMP. It suggested that we would have enough water to meet RHNA’s housing targets through 2020 with these wildly outrageous projections:
| YEAR |
2010 |
2015 |
2020 |
Projected
Supply |
683,000 AF |
705,000 AF |
731,000 AF |
(ref; 2005 LADWP UWMP)
The reality is we have only been able to supply a yearly average of 658,184 AF since 2000. Only once since 1970 have we been able to manage more than 700,000 AF and that was in 1987. UWMP projections cannot be trusted because they are proven to be historically inaccurate.
So while we are routinely being conned by past and present urban water managment plans that there is enough water to meet RHNA goals, they clearly have been wrong! There is not enough water to meet today’s urban needs.
West Basin which supplies Marina del Rey had a similarly rosy UWMP. Relying on the MWD 2005 Regional UWMP which claimed that they have sufficient supplies through the 2030, West Basin projected in their own 2005 UWMP that they will have ’surpluses’ through 2025!
Tags: GENERAL // Add Comment »