“Does The City REALLY Want To Solve The Water Supply Problem?”
April 2002
SLO Journal - February 2002
By Dave Romero, Former Council-member
To The Editor:
Every year the City Council sets as one of its top priorities the development of additional water supplies to meet buildout needs. They have directed staff to "pursue all sources of supply EXCEPT STATE WATER". Staff has diligently contracted for detailed engineering studies for:
- Use of reclaimed wastewater ($900/acft)
- Pipeline from Nacimiento Lake ($1300/acft)
- Increased yield by raising Salinas Dam ($1200/acft)
- A desal plant in Morro Bay connected to the Whale Rock pipeline ($1800/acft)
Each of these alternatives entails substantial cost, requires approvals and cooperation with other agencies. And some face major political opposition. To date the City and County have spent $4,500,000 in studies with no end in sight. Some of these projects are so fraught with problems that the may well not develop within our lifetimes, if ever.
With the expense and uncertainty of these projects, why has the City Council specifically prohibited staff from considering state water, which would have cost $800/acft for treated water if the City had signed on? A reason given is that in 1992 SLO voters turned down participation in the state water project (55%-45%) based on the following objections put forth by the opponents:
- Lack of water Quality
- Lack of availability when needed
- Excessive cost
- Lack of local control
- Environmental impacts to the Bay-Delta area
- Environmental impacts due to pipeline construction
- Growth inducement
Now that the state pipeline is completed and state water is used in nearby communities, we know that none of these arguments were valid. Does a vote in 1992 based on fallacious reasons restrict the City for all time? Or should the City Council direct staff to reinvestigate state water in light of current knowledge and conditions? There are many state water alternatives which could be explored. If a study shows a viable project it could then be resubmitted to the voters.
Not stated by the City Council, but are certain members restricting staff review of a state water option in an effort to restrict growth by CREATING a water shortage? It is true that development will slow down if water is in short supply or if water conditions on development are very onerous or expensive. But what is the price for all of us? SLO has
The highest water fees and some of the highest water rates in the area and is facing the possibility of shortages during the next major drought. Is the City properly taking care of our interests by setting high rates and deliberately risking shortages?
SLO future water needs could also be partially addressed by increasing its use of ground water. The Dalidio farming operation uses most of the groundwater in that nearby underground basin. The family has offered to make substantial amounts of water available to the City if Dalidio is permitted to convert portions of the farm to commercial and residential uses, both of which use less water than agriculture. Frustrated with the City, the Dalidio family is now attempting to develop in the Count, taking their water with them. Could part of the motivation in denying the Dalidio Project be to restrict water supplies?
California, and SLO in particular, are so desirable that people will want to come here to live despite all efforts to stem the tide. Restricting growth by creating a water shortage is particularly expensive and uncomfortable for us all. We could enjoy a higher quality of life and cheaper rates if water supply decisions were made based on engineering and fiscal criteria, rather than political considerations.
|
