Water Conservation/Planned Growth....

[Darian]

In doing research on another piece of legislation, I discovered another bill that doesn't address everything but is a very important beginning to solving water usage problems and undisciplined development in California. AB 2153 is a bill submitted by a couple of SoCal legislators. The preamble to the bill is self explanatory:

"AB 2153, as amended, Krekorian. Building standards: water
Water conservation.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a city or
county, if it determines that a project is subject to CEQA, to
identify any public water system that may supply water for the
project and to request those public water systems to prepare a
specific water supply assessment, except as otherwise specified. If
the city or county is unable to identify the water supply system, the
city or county is required to prepare the water supply assessment
after a prescribed consultation.
This bill would require a residential or commercial construction
project that is subject to CEQA and required by a lead agency to
prepare a mitigated negative declaration or an environmental impact
report to implement all feasible and cost-effective water efficiency
measures. The project would be required to mitigate its projected
annual water consumption, as specified. Affordable housing projects
would be exempted from this mitigation requirement. The mitigation
measures taken would be subject to review and approval by the lead
agency.
Because a lead agency, which includes a local agency, would be
required to review and approve those direct investments, this bill
would increase the level of services provided by a local agency,
thereby imposing a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement."

It'll be interesting to see if the developers let this one pass.

[Covelo]

I am surprised there is not something like this already in place. I would have expected it to be part of the overall CEQA review.

At some point, some agency has to be willing to say sorry but we do not have enough water for that new development. That seems unlikely but should be reality.

[Darian]

Hey Covelo,.... Good to see you're still around. I was surprised to see something like this bill myself. It does make sense that it should've been in place by now. Maybe the authors are trying to address the failure of local governments to plan.

In the Sacramento area, development plans are approved by local government and usually include an assessment of water requirements and usage promises (plus a lot of other stuff that increases demands on water). The rub comes in when those requirements are ignored or are not enforced. Also, almost every gated new development in North Natomas includes a pond or lake filled with water from the Sacramento River and Elk Grove seems to want to annex land adjacent to the Cosumnes River wildlife area. Development in that area also includes ponds or lakes behind gate communities.

The latest move by the locals is to defer or waive builders fees in order to stimulate that local economy by encouraging even further rampant development and increased water demands to the north and the south of Sacramento. The city is facing budget deficits but it's open for business.

Sorry for the rant.... Construction guys gotta make a living too.

[OceanSunfish]

Aren't Developers finding their way onto Board of Directors of newly formed water districts (Westlands Wannabees) in an effort to secure water for new developments?

It seems to me that if the developers can show that "Farmer Z" is going into contract to provide water to a 'new' city or county development, then they circumvent the requirements of this Bill. Or, does CEQA go all the way to the farmer and their water rights, which seems at times to be immune to any kind of regulations.

What do we have to do so that water rights are forfeited upon receipt of subsidies?

I'm sorry if I misread the bill. I try to keep up on these issues that are posted here for our convenience, but sometimes I get a bit too much on the desktop and I lose focus.

[Darian]

Hmmmm,.... Good questions. Since we're speculating here..... It seems to me that having developers in positions of authority could be a problem but they (boards, etc.) are still subject to rules/regs. After re-reading the bill summary (above), it appears that there are some types of developments that are not subject to CEQA. That subjectivity may be the crux of the problem (I'm not familiar with which type is subject and which isn't); or not.

Water rights of farmers/users (if that's who you're referring to) have been established by the courts as the same as property, now. Water is now treated/traded as a commodity. If the water required for a particular development is obtained thru a sale or trade from one of these private users and from surpluses, your point about circumvention may be valid. However, there are contractual time limits on these type transactions imposed on the buyers/re-sellers by the original sellers. Whereas municipal water suppliers offer at least the perception of permanence and maybe lower costs.

Considering the history of water rights abuse, outright chicanery and corporate subsidies in this state, I'm not optimistic about anything being done to cause forfeiture of rights for anything less than murder. Maybe not then....