It might be the regulatory version of “Are we there yet?”
Even as local water officials are telling customers to use less water during California’s worst drought in more than 1,000 years, they are also asking state regulators when they can
It might be the regulatory version of “Are we there yet?”
Even as local water officials are telling customers to use less water during California’s worst drought in more than 1,000 years, they are also asking state regulators when they can stop telling people to save so much water.
The concerns are spelled out in a Sept. 18 letter to members of the State Water Resources Control Board that was signed by 10 local water agencies, including the city of San Diego and the San Diego County Water Authority.
The current emergency restrictions were imposed at the behest of Gov. Jerry Brown. He called for urban water users to reduce their demand by an average of 25 percent. The fight now is over what happens after those regulations expire in February.
Local water agencies are keen to know if Californians can quit saving so much water if “more normal” rainfall and snowfall return. The problem is that rain and snow may become more erratic because of climate change. In other words, the drastic conditions might be more normal than anomaly.
“While the evidence strongly suggests changing climate conditions, that shouldn’t mean current statewide emergency conditions are the new normal by which policy is set,” said Mike Lee, a spokesman for the County Water Authority.
We Stand Up for You. Will You Stand Up for Us?
Is it the worst drought in more than 1000 years? That is an interesting statement. Do you realize that is 10 centuries? That is the first time I have heard that statement about the current situation.
Is this an editorial or a news article? The author needs to retract the opening statement. There isn't enough recorded rainfall history to know whether this is the worst drought in more than 1000 years. Also the phrase, "More than 1000 years" isn't even definitive. That phrasing has no meaning.
Australia installed ten desalination plants of which eight have been shut down and the two remaining are slated to be shut down. Their view "Big waste of money that is not cost effective. Follow the money you will find the corruption!
@Kathy S Not for this story, however, here is a story we did in June about that very project: http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/science-environment/toilet-to-tap-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think/
There are no surprises to those watching the reactions of the SDCWA and local water district boards. Their agendas are attached at the hip to growth. Water agencies remain the single largest growth-inducing factor in San Diego, surpassing even SDG&E. Has any development ever experienced a refusal for a "will service" letter? Not in my experience or research.
There's an easy, market-based solution: when water levels fall, raise the price of water, and when water levels rise, lower the price of water. Because people use less water when it's expensive and more when it's cheap, this would stabilize water levels in the same way that adjusting interest rates stabilizes the economy.
I'm not sure that approach would work given the disparity of wealth in San Diego. It seems like the biggest water uses with big lawns and big budgets may be immune to price increases unless they are quite extreme. And those who use little water and have little budgets would not be able to afford even a small price increase.
@SherryS If the price of the first tier (maybe the first two tiers) remained the same, then those who use little water would not be affected.
Make sure everyone opposes the Proposed rate increase you just received in the mail. It says "Notice for Public Hearing for Proposed Water Rate Increases". On the back of that booklet, there's a form to mail in. Let your voice be heard!
The headline fails to differentiate between San Diego water agencies a