Effort to Link Growth, Water Sparks Battle

BAKERSFIELD — They are California’s suburban future and their names ring with the boldness of flush times ahead: Pacificana, Celebrity City, Liberty New Town, Diablo Grande, New Jerusalem.

Up and down the state--from cotton fields outside Bakersfield to pastures near Red Bluff to coastal sage land in Chula Vista--more than 110 “new towns” and large subdivisions are on the drawing board. They envision 2 million residents, 30,000 acres for commercial, industrial and office use, and at least 44 golf courses.

Their blueprints seemingly account for every detail but one: water. And it is a lot of water they anticipate using, nearly 600,000 acre-feet a year, or about 10% of what urban California uses today.

None of the developments, including 14 projects here in Kern County, will tap new sources of water. What the plans often avoid saying is that the new towns will siphon water from old sources already stretched thin by existing residents, farmers and manufacturers.

“It’s backward planning,” said Randele Kanouse, legislative manager of the East Bay Water District. “They’re saying, ‘Let us build these houses and golf courses and we’ll deal with the water later.’ That was fine when California had a water surplus. But we’re in water-scarce times now.”

Anticipating the next drought, a San Joaquin Valley legislator wants to make sure enough water is available before cities and counties approve more suburban sprawl.

Sen. Jim Costa (D-Fresno) has introduced a bill (SB 901) that would require local governments to consult with local water agencies about the source and availability of water for massive new developments. For the first time, the impact on existing water users would have to be weighed before builders could break ground on projects.

“It is ludicrous that water often is given little attention in the development approval process,” Costa said. “California clearly will continue to grow. This bill will ensure that water is planned for and developed to accommodate that growth.”

It would seem a sound practice, but the bill, which has already passed the state Senate, has sparked a ferocious fight between developers and an unusual coalition of farming, urban and rural interests.

The building industry fears that the measure will slow growth by giving outside water agencies a formal voice in land-use decisions--decisions that have rested solely with local planners and politicians.

“This bill gives water agencies political leverage over the local development process,” said Richard Lyon of the California Building Industry Assn. “In the wrong hands, that leverage could be used to frustrate and complicate land-use decisions in cities and counties.”

The measure has placed Gov. Pete Wilson in a tough position of having to choose between two of his political mainstays--wealthy builders and wealthy farmers. Not wanting to alienate either, his Administration has spoken with two voices on growth and water.

A state Department of Water Resources report warns of a 2.7-million acre-foot shortfall during the next drought years, the amount of water needed to support about 4.6 million homes. The report urges better coordination between local planners and water providers--the very heart of the Costa bill, supporters say.

But the governor’s Office of Planning and Research has labeled the Costa bill “frivolous,” saying it fails to create a single drop of new water. Wilson is said to be inclined to veto the measure if it passes the Assembly in its present form.

It may seem inconceivable to some, but this state--where three-fourths of the population lives in desert or near-desert climes--has always gotten by without a law linking growth and water. For more than half a century, Californians have operated on the premise that if you build a city the water will come.

Backers of the Costa measure--led by farmers who fear getting the short end of future water wars-- argue that today’s era of limits demands a more delicate balancing act. Virtually every drop of water in the state is now put to some beneficial use, whether residential, industrial, agricultural or environmental.

It is one thing to accommodate California’s growing population by implementing new and better ways to share the water, they argue. But it is another to erect new towns in the middle of the desert and divert the water from old houses and businesses to new swimming pools and fairways.

“When the next drought hits, how can we tell the resident or the farmer that he can only water once a week when we’re building a new town on the fringe,” said Mary Ann Warmerdam of the California Farm Bureau, a strong supporter of the bill. “It points out the inequities of the current situation.”

No county has quite embraced the new town mania like Kern County. The 14 projects approved or pending final approval here envision 256,000 people using 156,000 acre-feet of water, according to the Assembly Water Committee. (Riverside County’s 22 proposed projects are more modest by comparison.)

Politicians and bureaucrats, anxious to be seen as pro-growth, haven’t always done the best job separating speculators from visionaries. The developers of several new towns here, such as the Pacificana project that would erect a city of 55,000 residents on cotton and alfalfa land, have gone bankrupt, leaving the water district holding the bag on fees for assessments.

For the most part, the new towns here and elsewhere in the state were approved by boards of supervisors and city councils with minimal discussion about water and impacts on existing users. When asked to identify the source of water, most simply point to ground water or the Central Valley and State Water projects--sources already struggling to meet current demand.

“Water availability often takes a back seat to other considerations,” said Chantal Saipe, a San Diego County planner. “The assumption is, we’ll build it and find the water. And if push comes to shove, there’s always desalination and recycling and so on.”

The Costa bill seeks to place those considerations on the front end of a large project. It is a milder version of a bill introduced last year by Assemblyman Dominic L. Cortese (D-San Jose), which died under heavy lobbying by developers and local chambers of commerce.

The Costa bill would cover only projects with 500 or more dwelling units that require an amendment to a city’s or county’s growth plan. In such instances, local officials would have to contact the local water agency, which would determine if there was adequate water over the next 20 years to meet the projected demand.

If the water agency found a shortage, the city and county would determine if this shortage created a “significant environmental effect” under the California Environmental Quality Act. If it did constitute such an effect, local officials could still approve the project through a number of ways.

They could lessen the impact by finding a new water source or slowing down the rate of building. Or they could find that the need for new affordable housing outweighed the effects of a water shortage.

“This bill is a very modest and workable approach,” Kanouse said. “It ensures that cities and counties remain in control of land-use decisions. And it helps protect the water needs of existing customers.”

But opponents say the proposed law adds an unnecessary level of bureaucracy to the process--red tape that will only delay building projects. They argue that local governments already consult with water agencies on land-use matters. “Plenty of checks and balances already exist,” said Alan Zaremberg of the California Chamber of Commerce. “What we need to focus our energies on instead are ways to develop new water supplies.”

But others argue that the great water projects are a relic of California’s boom years, and that more modest and painful approaches are now needed.

“Supporting this bill was a tough decision for me,” said Assemblyman Charles S. Poochigian (R-Fresno), who chairs the appropriations committee, the next stop for the bill.

“I’m not a fan of more hoops and loops for the building industry. But we need to assure a more reliable water supply for everyone. And I think this bill does it.”