CONTROLLING GROWTH
Like most Cambrians, I chose to live here because of the uniqueness of our small village, nestled in the pines, beside the sea. Most of us have escaped from urban congestion, and do not want Cambria’s beauty and lifestyle to deteriorate from overpopulation.
In the past, lack of water has been the means to regulate, or stop growth. Many Cambrians thought that by denying new water sources, they could prevent increased density. However, during the past 20 years we have grown to the point of straining our water resources, just to provide for those already here. To control future growth, we must place legislative and administrative limits on growth potential, and reduce the land available for growth.
Starting in 2006, we have put into motion the controls that will limit growth directly, rather than using a secondary issue like water as the growth limiting method. Cambrians approved Measure P-06 to limit the ability of the CCSD to provide water to customers outside the current service area. The Water Master Plan has designated 4,650 homes as the maximum. That would be an increase of about 700 homes, built over approximately 22 years, at a rate of no more than 1% per year. An aggressive program of lot consolidation and retirement is under way, and will ultimately reduce the number of buildable lots to match the maximum number of homes allowed. These measures mean that, although a small amount of growth will be allowed over several years, Cambria will always remain “Cambria – Pines by the Sea.”
I support this effort to retain Cambria as a charming village in the pines, with ocean views. As a CCSD Director, I will do my best not to allow Cambria to become like many coastal communities, which have removed all vegetation toward densely stacked homes with windows facing the ocean.
SECURING ADDITIONAL WATER SOURCES
For 30 years, Cambrians have battled over how to provide more water to the community. For most of those years, the issue was actually stopping or controlling growth. Now that a plan for controlling, and ultimately limiting growth has begun, developing a sufficient and reliable water source should be a CCSD priority.
These additional water sources have been proposed:
- Increased conservation
- Increased well production, or additional wells
- Wastewater recycling
- Surface storage reservoir
- Water importation
- Desalination of seawater
Here are the realities of each alternative:
Increased conservation: Conservation is the most cost effective means of finding additional water, as it requires only small investments in retrofits, and since reducing usage costs nothing. However, for Cambria, an insignificant amount of additional water is possible here. The average Cambrian already uses less than half the water that other Californians use. Most homes have been retrofitted or built with low-flow plumbing fixtures. Additionally, a large proportion of homeowners have installed drought tolerant landscaping. Businesses have also taken measures to reduce their water usage. Certainly, continued conservation is vital for maintaining Cambrians’ low usage, but increased conservation can no longer provide sufficient additional water to meet our needs. Most important, conservation cannot meet our needs during an extended drought.
Increased well production, or additional wells: The CCSD does not have superior rights to the ground water from the San Simeon Creek, or Santa Rosa Creek well fields. We are thus limited in the amount of water that can be taken from these wells. Additionally, the San Simeon wells must always contain sufficient water to prevent seawater intrusion. Landowners upstream from CCSD wells have superior rights to the water, and could take legal action against us if we overdraft it. These restrictions mean that little source of additional water is available from these well fields. Furthermore, the wells are subject to reduced production through drought, and have historically been shut down by MTBE pollution.
Recycled Water: Water recycling should be expanded to the extent possible. It is also the best immediate, short-term source of additional water while a permanent source is developed. However, water recycling has some inherent restrictions, and the amount of new water that can be delivered is ultimately limited by the amount of water used in the recharge basin. It could also be limited by a reduction in overall usage of potable water during a severe drought. Implementing an area wide recycling program would require a complete, second pipeline delivery service to all areas of the community. I perceive that the cost of this extensive system could not be justified based on the amount of water available. Recycled water can be mandated to certain high volume users, and voluntary user programs can be established. I would support early implementation of this technology (without constructing a second pipeline delivery service), as it faces fewer environmental and regulatory problems inherent in other options.
Surface storage – reservoir: Surface water storage was probably a viable option several years ago, when an offer was made to provide land for a reservoir. Today, with land and construction costs at an all time high, and with regulations for developing a large, multi-acre facility near the coast so restrictive, completing a project in any foreseeable future would be difficult. Even if such a project could be completed, the amount of water available for storage would be subject to the forces of nature. This year, we have seen many reservoirs, nationwide, dry up. Furthermore, all water placed in the reservoir would be subtracted from the natural flow that recharges our wells, and prevents saltwater intrusion.
Water importation: This is an available source of additional water; however, unlike all the above sources, we would be relying on contracts with other water providers. These may sell water available today, but tomorrow’s water could become unavailable when we most need it, for several reasons. Again, natural forces like drought can affect the total amount available, and thus reduce supplies. Obviously, relying on importation removes our primary control over the water. Importation also means both construction and maintenance costs of pipelines, pumping stations and right-of way-purchases that could be make this a very expensive alternative with unpredictable supplies over time.
Desalination: This presents the best long-term solution for a dependable water source. The Pacific Ocean is an unlimited water source not subject to natural forces like drought. It is close at hand, and does not require extensive pipelines, or right-of-way expenses. Although pollution is possible, it is highly unlikely to disable the system at length, as was the case in the Santa Rosa well field pollution. As system owners, we would have complete independence from outside forces controlling any imported water. The allocated Federal grant makes plant construction more than competitive with the other alternatives, and new ideas in solar and wind power generation may greatly reduce the operational energy costs.
Summary:
We must use a comprehensive strategy to meet both our current and future water needs. To do that, we must build on the success of our collective conservation efforts, and expand all possible uses of recycled water, while planning for the long-term solution – desalination.
REESTABLISHING TRUST
The recent 218 votes centered on a theme of mistrust of board actions, especially in the financial management area. The protesters questioned:
- The advisability of borrowing funds for improvement projects.
- The salary and benefits programs provided to district personnel.
- The lack of published monthly or quarterly accounting reports on both general and enterprise funds.
The CCSD Board countered with the belief that the protesters misunderstood the Board’s actions, and that all the material requested by the protesters was readily visible and available. Currently, I see the issue to be not who is right, but more importantly, the need to reestablish a connection between all Cambrians and the Board. I also perceive that it is the Board’s responsibility to lead in the effort toward reestablishing trust between all parties. This does not mean we must all agree on all points, which is highly unlikely. We should, however, honor each other’s viewpoints by recognizing that they are sincere positions.
I believe trust can be re-established in the CCSD by:
- Providing clear and frequent financial reports.
- Clearly detailing the needs for any project, including its funding details.
- Issuing frequent progress reports on all projects.
- Establishing liaisons or advisory groups on large projects, and on continuing issues within the community. These include growth management, additional water sources, and personnel policies.
- Providing the public with access opportunities to Board members and staff, plus easy access to question and answer forums, perhaps online.
Since my appointment in March 2008, I have endeavored to:
- Attend as many formal and informal community group meetings as possible, including those held to protest rate increases.
- Answer all questions asked of me, even when I knew my response would be met with disfavor.
- Demand clearer financial reporting.
While these are positive steps, they represent only a good start. If elected, I will work diligently to implement all feasible ideas for an improved CCSD. I feel that the current Board, plus any new Board members, must now go the extra mile to create a trusting, transparent relationship with all constituents.
-Muril Clift
