top
Santa Cruz IMC
Santa Cruz IMC
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Drought Demands New Water Policy in Santa Cruz

by Steve Pleich (spleich [at] gmail.com)
Water Supply Security Needs More that Baseline Options
Everyone knows that California is experiencing one of the worst droughts in its history. And while we in Santa Cruz may be enjoying another day in Paradise, our city has not otherwise escaped the straightjacket of the ongoing water shortage. Because of this heightened awareness about the questionable future of our water supply, the word conservation is on the minds of every resident and on the lips of every elected official and city staffer. But what, precisely, do we mean when we consider conservation measures as a viable approach to water sustainability? Civic leaders have suggested simply using less water and have created very modest programs to make low flow toilets and fixtures available to residents. Conservationists recommend the policies of water transfer and water neutral development. But these are not realistic “endgame” solutions. Indeed, what has been advocated thus far has, in my view, established only a baseline policy and assiduously avoids asking the difficult questions that may actually lead to water supply security. So let’s consider a couple.

We should be asking why a policy or program has not been developed that would offer financial incentives to every homeowner willing to install grey water re-catchment or “laundry to landscape” systems that could easily and safely reuse existing household water. We should be asking why a similar policy has not been developed that would offer incentives to every homeowner who would be willing and able to install rainwater catchment systems large enough to make the effort worthwhile. The city program which offers 65 gallon barrels to residential water users doesn't even qualify as a “baseline” program. Rather, we should be looking at inexpensive and space practical catchment barrels of 250 gallons or more that could have a significant impact on potable water use in the near term.

And here's a question that hasn't been asked much less answered as we assess our community's future water supply: Why hasn’t the City of Santa Cruz, which has such a well established and reasonably well implemented Storm Water Management System, invested at least some time and energy into thoroughly investigating the creation of a Storm Water Recapture and Reuse System? Is even one drop of the storm water that washes into our sewers and drains recaptured for any use? That's a question every resident of Santa Cruz should be asking; and they should be asking it to their elected officials and their Water Department today and every day until they get a satisfactory answer.

The future sustainability of our water supply is perhaps the single most challenging issue that faces our community today. Tomorrow may bring new thoughts and new beginnings and we can look with great hope to waste water recycling which may be as few as five years away and would create many millions of gallons of new, potable water. But for today, we need to ask the important questions in order to meaningfully push the “baseline” of water security models past the present limited thinking. On an issue of this importance, our reach must surely exceed our grasp.
Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)
by Michael A. Lewis, PhD
The present water supply situation demands more than a new "water" policy. City government must come to grips with the reality of population and economic growth in a world of finite resources.

The water supply for the City of Santa Cruz and the Live Oak unincorporated County is finite and variable. City water consumers must be able to get by during the worst drought years, and not increase water usage during years of higher precipitation. Per capita conservation can only go so far, and in a growing population and economy, total consumption very quickly overwhelms per capita conservation.

What is needed is an objective assessment of water availability in drought years, for humans and all life, and a calculation of the optimum human population that can be supported within that restriction. That should be the limit of population in the Santa Cruz water district. Any attempt to increase the water supply, such as ocean water desalination, is dependent on energy sources that are also limited and increasingly expensive.

This is difficult for a politician to say in public. Population growth is a verboten political topic. And yet, it is the most important realization we must grapple with for our species' future.

A realistic assessment of water demand is part of working toward a steady state economy, in which resources are consumed no faster than they are naturally replenished, and wastes are produced no faster than they are naturally assimilated. A steady state economy is the only sustainable form of human economy.
by Steve Pleich (spleich [at] gmail.com)
As you know, I have long advocated for a policy of living within our natural world and the finite resources within that world. A KUSP First Person Singular piece from last year illustrates my point:

“A man’s got to know his limitations” This is one of the more enduring contributions made to our popular culture by that well-known resident of the Monterey Bay area, Clint Eastwood. And although Clint was not addressing anything but the nearest bad guy, I like to think this maxim of modern life has a broader application.

Lately I have been thinking about what it means to live within the limitations of our natural world. Interestingly, I have found that consideration of this issue raises the additional questions of how we define our natural world and how we measure our consumption. Imponderable though they may be to both Clint and me, I will nevertheless “take a shot” at elucidation.

Some say that living within the limitations of our natural world involves merely consuming only as much as we produce, a concept often called our “ecological footprint”, but surely this is a far too simplistic a metric to be of any use or enlightenment. Rather we must come to the common understanding that we live in a world of finite resources and we must conserve what exists today and generate what we can for tomorrow in an effort to balance the natural book. This approach is sensible and responsible yet a consensus of thought and action in support of this principle remains mysteriously elusive to our elected officials.

So maybe Clint’s right and we must all admit that limitations do, in fact, exist. Both of us think that’s a good start.
anybody that move here since then should leave, and that includes me.
A really good question that should be on SC ppl's minds is, as we are running out of water, why does our city leaders keep approving the building of more hotels for water to go to water wasting tourists?

Are the tourist going to be allowed to flush only after number 2?

Are they going to be allotted such a small amount of water like residents in SC so they can't take too many showers or only flush after pooping?

Why are we still wasting water to have green glass on golf courses such as publicly subsidized DeLavega public Golf Course?
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$170.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network