Californians want immediate action from their government
The citizens of California will not take the drought seriously until they see that their government is taking the drought seriously. Until government at all levels – from the state to the smallest township – shows Californians that it is enacting measures to immediately deal with the drought – now in its 4th year – people in this state won’t face up to the drought themselves.
And until government enacts these 5 measures – at a minimum – , government is not taking the drought seriously:
1. Ban All Fracking
California must ban all fracking immediately – the process by which oil companies use to extract oil. As Adam Scow, California Campaign Director of of Food and Water Watch, states: “Fracking is a triple threat to California’s water. Not only does it exacerbate the climate crisis, it requires mixing vast amounts of water with harmful chemicals, and it puts our vital aquifers at risk of contamination for generations.” Big Oil uses more than 2 million gallons of fresh water a day in California for fracking, acidizing, and steam injections. Estimates for 2014 include only 70 million gallons of water was used fracking in California to more than 700 million gallons. Scow has also called for a moratorium on fracking.
2. Moratorium on Housing Construction
How can Californians reasonably think that our region can sustain the thousands of residents that current housing construction projects are preparing for? Just in Mission Valley in the heart of San Diego, developers are planning enough condos, apartments and townhouses for 15,000 to 20,000 new residents – to double or triple Mission Valley’s current population. How can San Diego handle these new thousands when there’s not enough water for its current residents? We must have a moratorium on all housing construction.
3. Restrict Water-Intensive Crops
Agriculture accounts for 80% of California’s water usage. Large amounts of water by agribusiness are being used by water-intensive crops, such as almonds and rice. California’s almond orchards use about 3.5 million acre feet of water, nearly 9 percent of the state’s agricultural water supply, enough to supply the domestic needs of the Los Angeles Basin and metropolitan San Diego combined – about 75% of the state’s population, according to Carolee Krieger, Executive Director of the California Water Impact Network. Almond growers are expanding because they have a lucrative overseas market. If government in the Mid-West can pay farmers not to plant certain crops, then government in California can figure out methods to restrict those crops that use too much water in the desert where we live.
4. No More Green Fields.
California can no longer sustain the green fields of golf courses, cemeteries, playing fields, and landscaping. Governor Brown warning individual home-owners that they can no longer have their little green yards, but we can no longer have these huge fields of green grass kept fresh by our drinking water. Some places do use reclaimed water. But most do not. Until we no longer see sprinklers watering the green fields with clean water, we won’t take the drought seriously.
5. Capture Rain Water.
Every level of government and every household which can need to do much more to capture rain water – when it does rain. Currently, nothing is done to collect the water that drains from the heavens – except the little that is collected over the reservoirs. There are some individuals who do collect it, but much, much more can be done. And until we as a society and as individuals do more to recapture this precious resource, we won’t be taking the drought seriously.
Latest posts by Frank Gormlie (see all)
- Mayor’s Office Confirms Sale of Liberty Station Leases by McMillin – But Questions Remain - December 5, 2018
- Why Would Anyone Want to Flee Beautiful Honduras? - November 29, 2018
- A Progressive Looks at the San Diego Mid-Terms – OB Rag Interview With Doug Porter - November 21, 2018
I take strong exception to the moratorium on housing construction idea.
First of all, it would not stand up to a legal challenge. When California’s developers got through with that court case, their lawyers would probably pave the way for even more egregious projects.
Secondly, the housing shortage in California hurts working people and poor people the hardest. What message do you have for the thousands of people who’ve been waiting for years to get section 8? What hope do you offer to immigrant families doubled up in City heights apartments?
I’m not saying that we don’t need to limit construction. We just need to be smart about it.
I don’t usually disagree with you Doug, but I do in this matter. Bob and I lived in San Simeon in the early 1980’s. Cambria, the next town over, allowed construction of new homes but did only issued 45 water permits a year because of lack of water. If you sold your house the water rights did not go with it to the new owners. Their names were placed on a list and as permits became available they might get their permit. Sure. A lot of people were unhappy; but as I understand it that rule still exists. Taken from their own website is the following: “What does a waiting list position mean?
It entitles you to a new hookup for water and sewer service when your position number is eligible for issuance”.
Mission Valley doesn’t need 6000+more units; The working people and/or poor people are not going to be able to afford living there, nor are they going to be able to afford Paseo One. More building with less water isn’t the answer. What is the answer? I don’t know, but until we have many desalination plants in operation perhaps the monies should go toward their production rather than more units.
Desalination, Amen.
I most assuredly did NOT call for nor do i support the kind of willy nilly construction going on in Mission Valley.
I take issue with his statement that there would be NO housing construction allowed.
Well, maybe it seems you agree with the 4 measures then. What’s your number 5 (or 6 or 7 for that matter)?
Continuing to build housing when there’s no water to sustain the 1000’s of planned residential units in places like Civita in Mission Valley, or One Paseo and other projects that haven’t been built yet is a type of insanity. I’ve been out to some of these projects – and the first question that jumps out is “where’s the water for all of this coming from?”
And that’s the challenge, finding answers to our problems involving the most key natural resource in this part of the world.
No matter what happens, it’s going to be a challenge for working and poor people to afford the prices of the over 90% of the new units being built in Civita. Sure, okay there’s 10% affordable.
But you know what, a drastic water shortage where the working and poor people are being pressured to cut back on their domestic use (only 20% of total water consumption) and where the large oil and agri-business giants are not pressured to cut back more hurts working people and poor people.
One Paseo was sold as “smart growth” despite not having public transportation.
The other half that wasn’t written is we must have a moratorium on NEW housing construction until we figure out fair and equitable solution on the water issue or deal with the drought in significant ways. Moratoriums by definition have an ending. I’m saying we have to really limit construction now so we can figure out have to make it (can’t say “smart” so how’s) “naturally-smart”.
It’s not only about water for the One Paseo project. Have you ever tried to travel from North County to San Diego on the freeways? It’s rush hour, stop and go traffic practically 24/7 despite all the new freeway additions that have gone in. No wonder people are rebelling against more people, more cars on the road. Qualcomm recently got pissed off over traffic when approached by the city for support for a new football stadium. The traffic is horrendous. There are numerous reasons to limit growth in San Diego County. Water and traffic are two of them. The same thing applies to Mission Valley development.
Yes, it is a form of insanity. Approving permits for projects to build 1,000 to 7,000 units with restaurants and bars inserted like all the MBAs and marketing grads were taught to do is a form of insanity. Doing that during a prolonged drought is a form of crime.
Agree- can’t limit/stop new growth/consruction (and the powers that be in San Diego would kill all efforts to do so)- but we can adapt to a clearly changed climate.
We definitely can- and should- subsidize the retrofit of existing housing, and require mandatory graywater and rainwater harvesting systems be installed with all new housing- as in Australia, where drought has been a constant for many years. This would be similar to retrofitting houses for energy conservation- it will also create jobs for people who install the gutters, rainbarrels, graywater fittings etc. etc.
Examples from: http://www.rainwaterharvesting.org/policy/legislation_international.htm
“State Governments in the following states in Australia have taken active steps to ensure that the newly constructed houses are designed and built with the latest energy and water efficient designs and products. This initiative is supported by legislation.
“1. Victoria
Since July 2005, new houses and apartments in Victoria must be built to meet the energy efficiency and water management requirements of the 5 Star standard.
“The 5 Star standard requires:
5 Star energy efficiency rating for the building fabric;
Water efficient taps and fittings; plus either a rainwater tank for toilet flushing, or a solar hot water system.
“2. South Australia
“In SA, new homes will be required to have a rainwater tank plumbed into the house.
“3. Sydney and New South Wales
“In Syndey and New South Wales, the BASIX (Building And Sustainability Index) building regulations call for a 40% reduction in mains water usage. A typical single dwelling design will meet the BASIX target for water conservation if it includes:…”
We should do all that, of course. We should pray for rain, too, because rain barrels don’t mean a thing without it.
I can’t understand why we’re not talking desalination. Saudi Arabia does it. So
does Israel. And while I agree strongly with on-site solar and big solar farms the subject is WATER. We can live with reduced energy supplies but we can’t live without water.
Taking desalination a bit further… Tie all new development permits to a water assessment on developers that would fund the desal plants. If there’s a water emergency for residents there should be one for new construction. Do the same with an increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax on existing hotels. Tourists use a lot of water.
Capturing rain water is going to become more important as time goes on. What’s happening with global warming is that, where it does rain, it rains voluminously and the water runs off in floods – useless for drinking water. If there is to be little or no snowpack in the mountains, then capturing that flood water becomes even more important.
The latest SANDAG and City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for the 11 year period from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2020 and the City’s Housing Element of our General Plan requires the City of San Diego to build 88,096 housing units over 11 years or an average of 8,009 Housing Units per year. The breakdown is:
http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/pdf/2012/heu1handout120309.pdf
http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/genplan/heu/pdf/agenda/2012/wkshop120726.pdf
Very Low Income Total 21,997 or 2,000 Average Housing Units per year.
Low Income Total 16,703 or 1,518 Average Housing Units per year.
Moderate Income Total 15,462 or 1,406 Average Housing Units per year.
Above Moderate Income 33,954 or 3,087 Average Housing Units per year.
The Housing Element of the City’s General Plan Progress Reports exist for FY-2009 to FY-2013. Therefore only 3 years (FY-2011 to FY-2013) of the 11 year (FY-2011 to FY-2020) of evidence exists online. The results are as follows.
http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/genplan/documents/index.shtml
A Total of 16,192 Actual Housing Units were built over 3 Year (FY-2011 to FY-2014).
Very Low Income Total 754 Actual of 5,999 RHNA Goal = 12.6%.
Low Income Total 996 Actual of 4,555 RHNA Goal = 22%.
Moderate Income Total 0 Actual of 4,217 RHNA Goal = 0%
Above Moderate Income 14,442 Actual of 9,260 RHNA Goal = 156%
That sure tells the story, thanks for the details .
You forgot “GREY WATER” which I consider a critical element in any climate action plan, and IS in the city’s plan thank goodness..
Green natural turf playing fields for our schools could be maintained with innovative filtered run-off grey water systems from the school ‘s daily water use… Instead of toxic fake green artificial turf fields that slowly poison our children, and the environment… Municipal landscaping too could benefit from collective grey water systems
I like to get at least two uses out of water that I buy. In my house, laundry rinse water runs into my yard, saves me lots of money and the lives of my trees, also rigged up a nice outdoor shower for after beach, saves the sand from clogging the drains too!…same with hand washing dishes in a tub, which I sometimes throw out in the yard too…makes me feel in touch with the ancestors… It is a satisfying personal challenge to economize water and energy in your life… But VERY frustrating to watch developers waste tons of water on desert hillsides to fake buyers into the delusion this is some “green zone”…
Agriculture accounts for 80% of California water usage?
This publication says Water in California is shared across three main sectors:
50% environmental; 40% Agricultural and 10% urban
Maybe you should read a little further where it says:
Agricultural water use is holding steady even while the economic value of farm production is growing.
Approximately nine million acres of farmland in California are irrigated, representing roughly 80% of all human water use.
Oh I did. Actually, the author might have added that small detail right after
“Agriculture accounts for 80% of California’s water usage”