 |
     |
Ignoring Limits
of Water Use
Where Will the Water Come From?
By the year 2020 California's
population is projected to increase by 15.5 million, according to the California
Water Plan Update, Bulletin 160-98. The shortfall in water supplies is expected
to be as high as 7 million acre-feet in dry years—one-acre foot meets the
annual needs of two families of four. Even under normal rainfall conditions the
deficit is projected to be 2.9 million acre-feet—water enough for 23.2
million people.
The bulletin goes on to state that "Californians
cannot afford to sustain future water shortages of this magnitude." The
shortages, "...demonstrates the urgency of taking action."The state will have to take
conservation and water development actions to meet the growing need. It is
clear, however, that water development is the greater challenge. Fewer and fewer
sources are available.In the face of such a challenge many of
those who must make decisions over population growth are ignoring the facts. As
the problem of quenching the thirst of the current California population grinds
on, developers draw plans to abet the population increase and the thirst. A
project that has particularly stirred opposition is the Newhall Ranch
development.
New Demand The proposed community of 70,000 would
occupy land in Los Angeles County near the Six Flags Magic Mountain Park, partly
on the Santa Clara River flood plain. How water will be supplied to this
community is a question still to be answered satisfactorily. The completed
project will need about 19,000 acre-feet of water annually with about 7,600
acre-feet of that amount reclaimed from its sewer plant. Over 11,000 acre-feet
will have to come from other sources. Surplus water from Castaic Dam could
cover about 70 percent of that amount in wet years but would fall to 50 percent
or less during years of average rainfall—with a still greater shortfall in
dry years.A second possible source is the
Valencia Water Company, but much of its claimed availability has not been
developed.The iffy nature of local and imported
water supplies—and some rosy assumptions—are likely to force the use
of ground water to make up the difference, though the developer disagrees.
Newhall Ranch's downstream neighbors will certainly take exception to their
groundwater supplies—used to recharge their aquifers—being siphoned
off. Ventura County Senior Planner, Scott
Ellison, reports that a natural underground dam would halt the groundwater
supplies to Ventura if the water table level is reduced by 20 feet.Officials of the Newhall Land and
Farming Company have been quoted asserting confidence that they will find the
needed water but have not suggested where that might be.
Other Problems The project has a number of additional
flaws also relating to water. In particular, this 19-square-mile development
will forever affect the characteristics of stormwater runoff in the Santa Clara
River channel, which passes through Santa Paula, Oxnard and Ventura, on its way
to the Pacific. Heavy storm runoff—as occurred with the El Niño
storms this year—will be increased with each additional roof, driveway and
street that sheds water. The open land that could absorb much of the runoff will
be paved over with water shunted through stormdrains. Heavy weather itself poses
a danger to the Newhall Ranch residents some of whose homes will be in the
100-year flood plain.In either case—altering the
river's flow interrupts normal sediment transport that is needed to replenish
ocean beaches with sand. Environmentalists point out the plan
allows for no buffer around the riparian zone and wildlife corridors, including
tributary streams, are either eliminated or restricted.The area is seismically alive with a
network of active and inactive earthquake faults. Once an oil field, the area is
studded with abandoned gas and oil wells, oil sumps and buried pipelines, which
present pollution hazard potentials.There will be increased traffic and air
pollution from not only the new residents but from planned commercial and
industrial activities.
The Politics The Newhall project is within Los
Angeles County but its location, just upstream of the Ventura County line, means
much of the negative effect—particularly as it relates to water—will
be felt by Ventura County. The Los Angeles Regional Planning Commission has
shown little interest in out-of-county protests and, on December 17, 1997,
unanimously recommended the project to its county supervisors. On May 26, 1998 the LA County Board of
Supervisors held its first hearing on the development. Opposition to the plan
was heavy from both Ventura and Los Angeles County residents. Attendance
included Ventura County Supervisors, manager of the United Water Conservation
District, A representative of State Senator Tom Hayden, school officials,
farmers, members of Friends of Santa Clara River, Environmental Defense Center,
Audubon Society, League of Women Voters and the Sierra Club.The project, which was supported at the
hearing by the developer alone, has Ventura and Los Angeles counties at odds. In
1992 Ventura County Supervisors had approved the 3,000-home Ahmanson Ranch
development elsewhere on the Ventura-LA county line—over LA County
objections—an ill-conceived move in light of the current dispute. LA County
Supervisor, Zev Yaroslavsky, pointed out the hypocrisy of Ventura's position.
So goes politics. Whether the battle
hinges on political prerogatives and tit-for-tat rivalries—or a reasoned
examination—remains to be revealed. One can only hope that sanity reigns.In the July-August '98 issue of the
LEAF-let we continue our examination of California's water woes—how
salinity is ruining our land. Seeding | LEAF-let Newsletter | Bioregions | Catalog & Orders | Albright Info