Despite the fact that water supplies are undeniably constrained and climate change is likely to constrain them even more, there is more than enough water to go around — and that includes enough water to maintain the environmental and biological integrity of our rivers, streams, estuaries and wetlands.
In November 2004, the Planning and Conservation League (PCL) published “An Investment Strategy for California Water”. This publication (available online at PCL.org) concluded that new demands for water associated with California’s projected growth could not only be met, but could be met economically and without damaging California’s environment. The following year, the state Department of Water Resources essentially confirmed PCL’s findings in The California Water Plan Update 2005, Bulletin 160-05.
More recently, Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute has argued what we have is a water management problem, not a water shortage problem. If we were to manage our water use more efficiently, our limited resource could provide for more people. It means we need to change the “me” paradigm into a “we” paradigm. We need to make some fundamental changes in our behavior and our assumptions.
Here’s two important questions for everyone: How much are you and your 4,000 neighbors willing to pay for water without restriction? The current plan approved by the Board Is the plan to limit the number of connections a defensible policy? Before you respond, just think about this: 4,650 customer are using water without restriction, but every other lot owner inside the CCSD’s service area is out of luck because they aren’t on a list that was closed in 1990 and ceased producing new connections in 2001. You and I can waste all the water we can pay for while hundreds of others are denied service. Please help me see how this isn’t going to present a problem.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=35c3d6c2-ac7d-4cc6-8baf-2613a573945d)
Last 5 posts by Amanda Rice
- CCSD Water Master Plan and Related Documents
- Cambria Community Healthcare District Board to Discuss Co-Location and Outsourcing
- Cambria CSD meeting Scheduled for February 1, 2010
- Cambria CSD Manager's Report for January 10, 2010
- Cambria Community Services District Agenda January 21, 2010
When statistics are quoted to show how little water Cambrians use compared to other places in California, does this take into account that a very high percent of Cambria homes are weekend only or vacation only homes. If every home in Cambria were occupied full time, would we still stack up so favorably. Are we that water saving or just lucky that half our homes are empty so much of the time. And what would our water situation be if everyone who owned a home in Cambria decided to live here full time?. Just curious, I have no idea how the data is calculated.Thanks.
Good question Cameron. I don’t know the answer, but I suspect the per capita consumption would be on the low side even if only counting actual residents.
What I do know is that some 45% of Cambria’s dry season water consumption is used outdoors. That comes from one of CCSD’s own internal studies. That would be enough water to serve all awaiting customers without building any new water project. If only people would take out their non-native ornamental plantings and stop irrigating and running water down the street.
So how fair is it that several hundred of us get to sit and watch the pine trees and native grasses grow on our vacant lots while those of you already there use up the available water in your yards on uses that are not essential for public health and safety, protecting the environment, agriculture, business, or any other essential use?
So one could argue quite effectively I think that rather than needing a desal plant to support growth, you need a desal plant to support your existing lawns and gardens. There is already enough local water to support the limited growth that will be allowed under the approved Local Coastal Plan.
For what it’s worth, I would be willing to forego any irrigation and design my house to state of the art water efficiency standards if I could just get a connection. I can assure you that my house design would be the most efficient water user in Cambria if I was allowed to build it.
Amanda, I cannot make you see how this is not going to present a problem. Right now, it presents a huge problem for me, and I have no plans to get tired and go away.
You bring up a valid concern with how the vacant homes (whether vacation rentals or second homes) might affect the averages. Empty homes do skew the average lower than if we figured the numbers another way. To compare without knowing the vacancy rate or person per household of the places we are being compared to can also cause trouble. Your point that actual full time Cambria residents use more water per household and aren’t conserving as much.
According to the 2000 census, 25% of Cambria’s homes are not occupied full time (about 20% are vacation homes or 2nd residence). The average household is 2.2 (or 1.6, depending on how you calculate).
The number most frequently cited by the district is 12 units per connection for two months. This number comes from the Kennedy/Jenks report “Assessment of Long Term Water Needs and Alternatives”. The revised final draft is from 2002, but most of the data the study was based on came from a USGS study of the Santa Rosa Creek and San Simeon Creek Basins. It is a composite number that takes into account the commercial connections. The average residential use is closer to 9 units every 2 months. (for a home with 2 people 9 units every 2 months = about 55 gallons per person per day. 12= about 75 gallons per person per day.)
Daryl,
It’s clear that there will be a problem with allowing me to use 18 units every two months and my neighbor cannot build because there’s not enough water. What is murkier is how this reality seems to have gotten overlooked by policy makers. Check out this post from a few months back http://aboutcambria.com/2008/07/27/using-more-than-six-units-a-month-is-sooo-20th-century/
If the same line of thinking was used to reduce automobile driving and fuel consumption, we would make a rule that if you already own a car you can keep driving all you want. You can even buy a new bigger car. But no cars can be sold to anyone who didn’t already own one. How well do you think that would go over? Wouldn’t people call it unconstitutional?