IMPORTED WATER TO SO CAL CITIES COULD BE SHUT OFF SOON IF THEY HAVE THE WRONG LANDSCAPING

by Wayne Lusvardi - Pasadena Sub Rosa

An anonymous apparent insider to the backstage dealings of California's water crisis has alerted this blog to the real possibility that imported water could be shut off soon to Southern California's cities if the cities have the wrong type of landscaping (i.e., water thirsty home gardens).  This shut off scenario could hit Southern California cities out of nowhere much like the world-wide financial meltdown appeared nearly overnight.  And like the financial meltdown, it would be wise to listen to those who are furtively trying to give us an early warning signal of this emerging situation.  

On February 8 on this blog this writer posted a column * - *Is Water Conservation a Preservation and Cultural Issue in Pasadena?*
http://pasadenasubrosa.typepad.com/pasadena_sub_rosa/2009/02/is-water-conservation-a-preservation-cultural-issue-in-pasadena.html
The above cited column was written in response to recent public comments by a representative of the local Sierra Club in Pasadena who advocated that Pasadena adopt cactus and rock garden landscaping standards similar to those in Tucson, Arizona and tiered water rates similar to those already in place in Irvine, California for water conservation. In response, an anonymous person left the following comment:

Funny take on this, although I hope nobody takes your post seriously. There is very little that can be done legally to challenge required rationing based on the environmental clearance process. As iconic as Pasadena lawns are, there is an underlying challenge to those lawns that is waiting in the wings based on the California Constitution requirement that water use be reasonable. So, is it reasonable to use water for lawns during drought conditions when other similarly situated water districts (such as Irvine) use considerably less water? I think any sane judge would tell you to put rock over that dry, brown patch formerly known as a lawn ;) J/K, there are drought tolerant grasses I've seen used throughout the Pasadena area so I'd expect that we will see more of them in the near future. -- :

The above comment was naturally mistaken by this writer as emanating from the local chapter of the Sierra Club which has continually advocated the tiered water rate structure in the City of Irvine for adoption by the City of Pasadena.  This writer thus wrote a subsequent blog post entitled *Anonymous Commenter Alludes to Regulating Home Landscaping by Lawsuit* (Feb. 16), which erroneously named the Pasadena Sierra Club as the likely source of the email.

I further pointed out that Pasadena is not *similarly situated* as the City of Irvine, as Irvine manages the irrigation and selection of its residential landscaping through Homeowner Associations in the 40 master planned subdivisions in that city. Pasadena is an older community which was not developed according to a master plan and does not have homeowner's associations governing each neighborhood.  
In further response, this blog has now received a second email from the same anonymous person which eliminates the Sierra Club as the sender, corrects some of this writer's misconceptions, and clarifies the impending situation Southern California's cities may soon be facing: 

I have no relation to the Sierra Club and am not a member or contributor to any environmental organizations. I may have commented anonymously but I did use my real email address when I left my comment.

I came to your blog through the Aquafornia blog and otherwise would not have visited or commented.

By similarly situated, I meant that Pasadena and Irvine are both large cities with a healthy mix of water users (single family homes, high density residential, universities, commercial buildings, industrial, etc.), in the same geographic area with essentially the same weather, and similarly reliant upon water imports from elsewhere.

Whether HOAs rule your lives or not does not matter when it comes to whether a particular water use is reasonable.

Embedded in the California Constitution is a requirement that all water use be beneficial and reasonable. In fact, water rights can be stripped from water users if they do not meet both requirements. In addition, whether a use is reasonable or beneficial changes with the times and are not static concepts preserved for all time. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) determines whether a use is reasonable and has the power to modify or terminate existing water rights to reflect those acceptable uses.

I've been closely following the debate over pumping water from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta for export south to farmers in the San Joaquin Valley and to the MWD. Lately, farmers and their elected representatives have been whining over decreased deliveries while cities get water for lawns and swimming pools. Some of the largest and richest farmers will get no deliveries this year. Those same large, rich farmers have been very active in state and federal courts over water. Their existence requires that they sue, sue, sue.

I expect that in short time, if it hasn't already been done, the farm lobby will ask the SWRCB to determine that landscaping is an unreasonable water use. Landscaping uses 12% of all water consumed in California. I doubt the SWRCB will go that far but should come back with rules that require water districts to create rules similar to Irvine and perhaps even more restrictive. With that, your local water district will need to turn off the tap if you use water for the wrong landscaping.

In an after note the anonymous person further clarified how Southern California's cities are bound to water contracts which may nearly instantly affect our water supply:

I almost forgot to mention that we, as end consumers of water, do not directly hold a water right. Our receipt of water depends mostly on contract. Your uses of water can also be controlled through those contracts. The State Water Project sells water to the MWD by contract which then resells to the local water agencies which then resell to actual water users (us). I'm sure that the terms of those contracts (I haven't actually read any) contain clauses that provide for changes to delivery due to drought or changes to state/federal law, and limits for liability for decreased deliveries.  

The website Exchanges: Blogging About New York Stock Exchange-EuroNext Markets recently made a case that a blog could have better alerted investors to the Ponzi scheme of Bernard Madoff than the bureaucratic regulatory actions of the Security and Exchange Commission (SCE) - read here:
http://exchanges.nyse.com/archives/2009/02/madoffblog.php  

Could something like this be operating here where state bureaucratic agencies loaded with public relations officers spinning only positive news for politicians and apparatchik agency heads are avoiding telling us of the very real possibility of any such impending total shut off of imported water to Southern California cities specifically targeted to the wrong residential landscaping?  A blog may be the only communication channel available for an anonymous insider to warn Southern California's cities, and the public, of the importance of this brewing situation.

The estimated cost to plant a California native drought tolerant garden is $16,700 per home. http://pasadenasubrosa.typepad.com/pasadena_sub_rosa/2009/02/california-native-garden-cost-16700.html .  The adoption of tiered water rates by cities could add as much as $75, or greater, to the water bill of a typical homeowner in Southern California in the hot month of July.    

My contacts in the water industry indicate that the above described imported water shut off scenario is credible and plausible and not likely agenda driven.

We're living in a period of *future shocks* where there is little public awareness of impending rapid and devastating financial and social change.  Our new president ran on a platform of *change.*  We're only now becoming aware of what that means with imported water in Southern California. The imported water bubble that Southern California has been living in for decades may be about to burst due in part to environmental court rulings as much as a periodic drought.  Water thirsty landscaping may become a luxury item that even historical preservation cities such as Pasadena can little afford. The home of the Rose Parade may be unable to sustain many residential rose gardens if the scenario described above comes about.       

Comments

[used digger trucks]

everyone is having a water crisis

[boom trucks]

we all need to be a little more conscience about the environment. save water.. do not waste it.

[digger derricks]

People do not take into account the amount of water it takes to water their lawns. Some people have very high maintainance grasses that need a lot of water in order to survive. It is always smarter to purchase thinner grasses to help save water.

[Forestry Equipment]

Interesting article! Thanks for sharing!

[john roberts]

I noticed here in Austin TX there is less xeriscaping then there used to be. It seems like the trend would be the other way.