How Much Water Does California Really Have?
By Tom Chandler on Aug 21, 2007 in Water Wars
Via the always interesting Aquafornia blog comes an article that asks the question I’ve been asking myself for years: How many people can California’s water supply really support?
California’s Water Plan, prepared by the state Department of Water Resources and currently being updated, always seems to imply that our supply of water to support development is endless. Clearly, all of our water problems are exacerbated by development. But the California Water Plan never addresses the crucial questions of what are the limits on our supply of water and what is the ultimate population that can be supported.
Current law says the state must prepare a Regional Housing Needs Assessment that requires local governments to provide their “fair share” of housing of various types to accommodate the state’s population projections. Unfortunately, our water purveyors always seem to step up blindly and say they can supply the necessary water. If this is true, then why is there a growing cry for conservation and current threats of water cutbacks?
If there is not an endless supply of water, at some point there will not be enough water to support additional development. For example, note the agriculture water cutback now projected for 2008. Inevitably, we really will run out of water, and the state’s policy on endless housing to support further population growth will have to be redefined. At some point, “the inn” will be full!
Of course, if we’re willing to lean on agriculture and sacrifice environmental quality, we can probably support the 30% population growth that’s forecast, but then we’d be largely living in hell.
And frankly, I’m not willing to sacrifice what’s left of our rivers so everyone in the state can exercise their god-given right to a swimming pool and bluegrass lawn — not to mention cheap, government subsidized vegetables.
So how about it, Undergrounders; how and when does California say “no mas” to more development? Or will it simply never happen?
Technorati Tags: california water wars, nor county times, water
San Mateo Joe | Aug 22, 2007 | Reply
It will get much worse before it gets better. There are too many groups who benefit from development, such as the developers (obviously), the unions, construction workers, the cities, counties, and the state. There’s just too much money involved.
For years most communities have been actively courting developers, hoping that the next big project will land within their tax jurisdiction. The thinking goes, “If I don’t get it, some other city will, along with all of that tax revenue.” A few residents might raise complaints about increased traffic on the local streets, but they’re usually pushed aside or politely ignored. Most city councils tend to focus instead on the benefits: additional sales taxes, additional property taxes, more jobs, and more money for police, fire, parks, etc. You’ve seen this in McCloud. I’m no economist, but until you take away the incentive at the local level, not much is going to change. Unfortunately, such a drastic change would have to be put in place by those in Sacramento. I’m not optimistic.
Tom Chandler | Aug 22, 2007 | Reply
It seems unlikely that the cities are going to suddenly embrace reality in the form of controls, which leaves it to the state, and we all know they’re not subject to manipulation by special interests.
I would guess the real question is one of will; how much damage is the state willing to do to the environment (and how much can they get away with) to keep the water flowing south?
Over the next 30 years, population growth is going to run right smack into the finite nature of the universe. It’s not going to be pretty when it happens.
San Mateo Joe | Aug 23, 2007 | Reply
You’re absolutely right. It’s a question of will, and it’s not going to be pretty, especially since population decline in places where it’s actually occurring (Europe and Japan) is often viewed as being a bad thing.
Because most western style economies rely on an ample supply of young workers to toil away in offices, shops, factories, etc. – as well as to fill out the ranks of the armed forces - a growing population is valued as an economic necessity and a matter of national security. These youngsters also support the bulk of the social infrastructure through the taxes they pay, and that usually includes benefits for retirees. If the demographics flip, and you start seeing greater numbers of longer living retirees (because of better health care), and less workers (because of a decline in the birth rate and limits on immigration), the model falls apart. On the other hand “…Over the next 30 years, population growth is going to run right smack into the finite nature of the universe.” Unfortunately, there are few in Sacramento or Washington who have the will to even discuss how we’re going to deal with either/both scenarios.
It’s also possible that nature will eventually step in and give us a sharp slap in the face. Not too many people give much thought to the fact that less than ninety years ago, an estimated 50 to 100 million people died during the 1918 flu pandemic. This was before we had thousands of those huge, highly efficient bug-spreading machines known as commercial airliners coming and going from every corner of the world every hour of every day. There’s no reason to think something like that couldn’t happen again.
Tom Chandler | Aug 24, 2007 | Reply
Good thread. Let’s hope sanity suddenly takes hold, though I fear for the remaining sources of water.
Mark Ostrom | Oct 22, 2007 | Reply
OWENS VALLEY. OWENS VALLEY. OWENS VALLEY.
Those who refuse to heed history are doomed to repeat it.
See PEPSI and COKE trip over eachother for the rights to the
water in “them thar hills”.
See the myopic people give those
rights away (just like timber) from under their, and OUR
feet for pennies on the C note. Water will become the OIL of
the 2030’s and H2O terrorism will abound. Believe it.
It already costs, by the bottle, more than
gasoline. (!)
Tom Chandler | Oct 22, 2007 | Reply
“See the myopic people give those rights away (just like timber) from under their, and OUR
feet for pennies on the C note.”
The McCloud Service District’s water giveaway to Nestle comes in at 8.7 cents for 100,000 gallons of water — water they’ll ultimate sell at a buck a bottle.
And all for a handful of $10/hour jobs. McCloud’s selling its soul, and sadly, doing so very cheaply.