The District wants to reduce its pumping by 28% from 2011 levels for the next 20 years, just to let groundwater recover to safe levels. Once that recovery is accomplished, the District could theoretically resume pumping at 2011 levels.

If customers curtail their water use by 15%, that would get the District half way to the pumping reduction goal. Then why would the District propose that the curtailment last only until October 31^st?

District officials explain that customers experience “conservation fatigue”. According to this theory, people get tired of conserving. They can’t really be expected to turn their conservation efforts into a way of life. That’s why in 2009 the District Board implemented a highly successful 15% voluntary curtailment, but ended the program in the Fall of that year.

Ironically, District customers have proven that they aren’t so fatigued. In 2010 and 2011 customers matched the low water use of 2009 in spite of the fact that the restrictions were lifted.

The District is pursuing the path of desalination as its first choice, having made the assumption that customers don’t want to permanently reduce their water use. I don’t share this opinion of the public’s ability to respond to the real threat of salt water intrusion.

If the public is to respond, people need to know how serious the problem is and how they can conserve. The District is preparing to spend a considerable sum on public education. However, instead of educating people on how they can reduce their water consumption, the educational program is designed to lead people to the conclusion that desalination is the answer. The City of Santa Cruz is also preparing to spend considerable funds on education about desalination.

Another resource could help address the District’s overdraft problem. According to County Water Resources Director, John Ricker, the District could receive 660-800 acre-ft of water per year from the San Lorenzo River in winter months, using Santa  Cruz infrastructure. Combined with a permanent 15% drop in consumption, this would more than accomplish the District’s pumping reduction goals. That sure beats the environmental impact and cost of desalination!

CLEAR AND FREE melody from This Land is Your Land by W. Guthrie

lyrics by R. Brutsché, A. Vance, M. Conable, G. Swain, M. Spear, D. Kai

This rain is our rain, this sea is our sea, the San Lorenzo, the Branciforte

And from Loch Lomond down to the ocean, we’ll keep the water flowin’ clear and free

1. This is my home, this bay called Monterey, all that I ask is that it stay this way

All we can own is what we leave behind, if we care to save this place then now’s the time.

2. We hear them saying our situation justifies desalination

Wiser far is conservation, to keep the water flowin’ clear and free

This rain is our rain, this sea is our sea, the San Lorenzo, the Branciforte

And from Loch Lomond down to the ocean, we’ll keep the water flowin’ clear and free

3. As I was watchin’ that river rollin’, thought of all the people livin’ upstream

And all us creatures livin’ downstream, we’ll keep the water flowin’ clear and free

4. As I go walking along the coastline, I see below me kelp and sea lions

I hear above me the clouds calling: this rain is here for you and me

5. And when that rain falls, we won’t ignore it, in our rain barrels, we will store it

And when the drought comes, we will pour it, pour out our water clear and free

This rain is our rain, this sea is our sea, the San Lorenzo, the Branciforte

And from Loch Lomond down to the ocean, we’ll keep the water flowin’ clear and free

6. As I was painting, down by the levee, phantom footsteps, I heard behind me

Spirits dancing, the Ohlone, they’ll keep the water flowin’ clear and free

7. Our sons and daughters play in the water that was swum in by their grandmother

Sisters and brothers, let’s help each other, to keep the water flowin’ clear and free

8. This is my home, beneath these redwood trees—a thousand years they’ve made music with the breeze

Standin’ guard, down through history—let’s keep that water flowin’ clear and free

This rain is our rain, this sea is our sea, the San Lorenzo, the Branciforte

And from Loch Lomond down to the ocean, we’ll keep the water flowin’ clear and free

Thank you for the opportunity for input on the Draft General Plan. I would like to recommend some revisions in the Draft in order to better protect the existing customers of the City of Santa Cruz Water Department from the increased severity of drought curtailment that will result from growth in water demand. My main argument is that the City has not proposed effective mitigations to offset the existing harm to fish species let alone mitigations to offset growth anticipated by the 2030 General Plan.

Santa Cruz could implement mitigation measures similar to the Soquel Creek Water District, which has had a water demand offset program since 2003 that fully achieves water neutral growth. The Soquel Creek Water District is moving beyond water-neutral growth. Their Urban Water Management Plan aims for a reduction in water demand between 2015 and 2030 of 11%. In contrast the City plans to allow annual growth in water demand of  up to 500 million gallons by 2030, or 14% more than current water demand.

In contrast to the General Plan’s allowance of 14% growth in water demand, the City’s Final Climate Action Plan calls for reduction in total water use: “Continue to reduce per capita and total water use within the Santa Cruz service area”. The General Plan needs to be made consistent with the Climate Action Plan.

Growth’s Impact on Drought Security

The City Water Department has long acknowledged that growth in water demand has an negative effect on existing customers. A 2004 Water Department report titled, Adequacy of Water Supplies to Support New Development states, “Continuing to provide water to new customers upon request, as is the current practice, may do harm to existing customers by making the potential water shortage situation worse than it would otherwise be.” That report goes on to say, “It might be all right to accept a higher level of [drought] risk if the desalination project remains pretty much on schedule and if the outlook for success remains optimistic.” Logically, it would not be “all right to accept the higher drought risk” if the outlook for the desalination project is not optimistic. Yet that is what this General Plan would allow.

Growth Would Equal Desal Output

The growth in water demand that would result from this General Plan of 500 million gallons, is slightly more than the output of the proposed desalination plant, 455 million gallons, under the planned operation during a drought year for six months at 2.5 million gallons per day. So growth in water demand will cancel out the increased water supply of a desalination plant. Thus, the desalination plant will not improve the City’s drought security—that is, unless the plant is expanded beyond its initial capacity by 2030.

The General Plan should explain that a principal purpose of the current proposal for a 2.5 mgd desalination plant is to satisfy the increased water demand due to growth. The current draft of the General Plan indicates that the only purpose of desalination is for drought protection, “Develop a desalination plant of 2.5 mgd for drought protection [emphasis added], with the potential for incremental expansion to 4.5 mgd, if it is environmentally acceptable and financially feasible.” The City’s Integrated Water Plan that named desalination as the “preferred alternative” is more candid on the purpose of the desalination plant, “The purpose of the City of Santa Cruz Integrated Water Plan is to respond to the current drought-related crisis and plan for future growth.” The City’s 2005 Urban Water Management Plan also acknowledges that the desalination plant is proposed to accommodate growth:

In addition, it is acknowledged that it may become necessary in the future to operate the desalination facility at part of its original 2.5 mgd capacity on a year-in, year-out basis to supplement existing supplies.  The timing and need for future increments will depend largely on policies regarding land use, housing,  and economic development that take shape under the City’s next General Plan revision.

The growth-satisfying purpose of the desalination plant is a significant impact in itself, and should be treated as such in the EIR.

Fish Habitat

The EIR for the General Plan is based on assumptions that are inconsistent with available data. The assumption of the City’s current Urban Water Management Plan is that the City will not be required to provide stream bypass flows greater than Tier 2. The fisheries agencies are emphatic that this assumption is inadequate. The National Marine Fisheries Service writes:

“NMFS does not agree with the current conservation flows proposed by the City. We believe they are inadequate to both conserve and recover these species.”

The State Department of Fish and Game (DFG) responded to the City’s proposal, saying,

“As written, the Conservation Strategy does not ensure adequate protection, but rather allows for future expansion without requiring that new water resources or water conservation measures be implemented. The Conservation Strategy should be revised to first minimize the impacts of current operations to the greatest extent feasible, then to evaluate how much water is available for further build out without additional sources…and finally to ensure that expansion does not occur without conservation measures or development of additional sources to maintain sufficient water for listed species habitat.”

The Department of  Fish and Game response to the City’s Conservation Strategy is dated December 5, 2011. The final EIR should reflect the DFG call for limiting future expansion until the City’s violation of the Endangered Species Act is redressed. Without acknowledging the fisheries agencies’ stipulations, the final EIR’s claim that it has made “reasonable assumptions based on the best available data” is not persuasive.

More important than it’s legal obligation to make the EIR as accurate as possible is the City’s responsibility to its citizens to report that the assumptions of the Urban Water Management Plan are dramatically different than the flow requirements proposed by the fisheries agencies. The fisheries agencies point out that City government is poised to approve expansion of its water demand at a time when its water supply could be seriously diminished. Under-reporting of the seriousness of the impending water supply reduction is harmful to existing water users since they will bear the burden of increased drought curtailments and/or new water supply projects.

Finally, the City’s Guiding Principles for drafting the General Plan update includes “the sustainable use of our precious natural resources”. The reliance on assumptions that have been discredited by fisheries agencies is inconsistent with this principle.

Mitigations

Measures to reduce existing harm to listed species need to be implemented before mitigations are proposed to offset growth. According to the DFG, “The Conservation Strategy should be revised to first minimize the impacts of current operations” before any mitigations to offset growth. The following measures to reduce existing water demand should be proposed in the General Plan. These measures are enforceable and feasible:

1.   Mandatory replacement of non-efficient toilets in all existing buildings at the City’s expense. (Free toilet replacement programs are operating in places like Soquel Creek District, Santa Rosa, etc.)

2.   The City current water rate structure should be revised to discourage waste in landscape watering. Currently, dedicated landscape accounts and golf courses are charged at the low Tier 2 water rates. Such accounts should be given a water budget, enforced by water pricing, such as exists in many cities throughout the West.

3.   Water transfers with neighboring districts that would allow Santa Cruz to receive well water during drought years from its neighbors, enabling increased bypass flows for fish. The General Plan EIR makes the following statement about water tranfers that is at odds with information from the Soquel Creek Water District and the County Water Resources Department:

“It may be possible, though not certain, that sometime in the future if and when the basin is restored, the Soquel Creek Water District might be able to send some amount of water back to the City in drought conditions (City of Santa Cruz Water Department,  December 2011)”.

In October of 2011, the Board of the Soquel Creek Water District wrote a letter to Santa Cruz which states,

“We are familiar with the City’s water shortage during drought, and we propose adding a reciprocity component into the water transfer concept. SqCWD is willing to negotiate transferring some quantity of the yield we would receive from winter surplus from the San Lorenzo River back to the City during drought periods.”

This letter contains no assertion that groundwater basin should first be restored before the District would send water back to Santa Cruz. Restoration of the groundwater basin could take 20 years or more, according to Soquel Creek District planning.

Santa Cruz County director of Water Resources, John Ricker, writes in the “Work Plan” for inter-district water transfers:

As feasible, provide water back to Santa Cruz during drought periods, subject to specific conditions, on an immediate limited basis, [emphasis added] with an increased potential as groundwater levels recover.

Allegations that the basin must first be restored before Santa Cruz receives any water during drought years do a disservice to this very promising strategy of collaboration between water agencies.

4.  Optimize Existing Resources

This mitigation strategy was recommended by Carollo Engineers in their Alternative Water Supply Study 2000) Carollo estimated that this series of measures would result in 600 million gallons of additional supply in drought years.

The EIR for the General Plan claims that the “former estimate of 600 mgy as a potential separate alternative is no longer accurate”. However, neither the EIR nor any other City document presents any evidence to support this conclusion. If the Water Department seeks to dismiss the conclusion of Carollo Engineers, they need to justify their action.

5.  Prioritize reservoir use for drought protection The City’s current policy attempts to keep water deliveries high during a first drought year, resulting in a low reservoir level at the end of the dry season. This strategy results in unacceptable levels of curtailment in a second dry year. According to the current Urban Water Management Plan only 210 million gallons of reservoir water would be available in a second critically dry year. Adopting water demand reduction goals in normal and first dry years that result in an end-of-dry-season reservoir level of 80% would allow another 450 million gallons of reservoir water to be available in the event of a second dry year.

Mitigations to offset growth

Once the above mitigations are put in place to reduce existing harm to fish species, the DFG advises the City to “then evaluate how much water is available for further build out without additional sources” and “finally ensure that expansion does not occur without conservation measures”.  These conservation options can be financed through fees on new development, with the effect of making increased water demand from new development “water neutral”.

The EIR should compare the estimated future drought curtailments of the growth scenario with that of a water-neutral growth scenario, and also with a scenario that aims for reduction in water demand.

Overriding Consideration

In order for the City to make a claim of overriding consideration, there must be substantial evidence in the record that the benefits outweigh the potential impacts. The impact of growth in water demand on drought year curtailment is described in the EIR, but the economic impacts of that curtailment on existing businesses, especially hotels and restaurants, is not described. If there is to be evidence for economic benefits of overriding consideration, it must be compared to the economic impact of growth in water demand enabled by the General Plan.

The City’s preferred remedy for the water shortage exacerbated by this General Plan is desalination, which will have economic, social and environmental impacts. These impacts also need to be considered in the discussion of overriding consideration, the EIR, and the General Plan.

In summary, I urge the City Council to delay consideration of this General Plan until the City will commit to the following:

1. Implement measures to reduce water demand to levels that restore fish habitat without eroding present levels of drought security.
2. Make an assessment of the water supply that is consistent with fish habitat constraints and availability of additional conservation measures to offset growth.
3. Enact conservation measures that fully offset anticipated growth.

Thanks for considering,

Rick Longinotti

Part 1: Soquel Creek Water District

The History of the Soquel Creek Water District, by Sandy Lydon, published by the District in 1989, details the decisions that led to an overdraft of the District’s water supplies. If recovery from unsustainable use of resources is like recovery from addiction, then the current Board of the Soquel Creek Water District have pierced the bubble of denial about the nature of their problem. The bubble lasted for twenty years.

The first District estimate of the sustainable yield of their groundwater was performed by the US Geological Survey (USGS) in 1967. According to that study the sustainable yield was 7700 acre feet per year.

In 1979, the USGS, led by a geologist named Muir, revised the estimate downward, to 4000 af/y. This shocking estimate prompted the District to enact a moratorium on new water hook-ups. The moratorium on construction came at the end of a decade that saw the County population grow by 56%. Needless to say, a moratorium on growth was a controversial step for the District. Simultaneously, the District sought a second opinion on sustainable yield, hiring consultants, Luhdorff and Scalmanini. That consultant came up with an estimated yield that was three times the Muir estimate.

The District lifted the moratorium and opted to retain Luhdorff and Scalmanini as their consultant for the next two decades. When rising salinity levels in District test wells could no longer be ignored, and new board members were elected, the District switched consultants. The District’s current consultant, Hydrometrics, estimates a sustainable yield of 4200 af/y, equivalent to what Muir estimated in 1979.

The current board members of Soquel Creek Water District are trying to deal with a aquifer system that was degraded by the decisions of their predecessors. The District must first allow the aquifers to recover from low water levels before the sustainable yield estimate of 4200af/y can be safely tapped. To allow the aquifers to recover, the District aims to reduce its annual pumping from the current 4000 acre-ft. to 2900 acre-ft, a drop of 1100 acre-ft.  The District’s plan has been to achieve the pumping reduction primarily through using desalinated water.

Transfers of San Lorenzo River water during plentiful flows, a concept under development by the County Water Resources Director, John Ricker, has potential to meet a large portion of Soquel Creek’s pumping reduction goal. Ricker describes one of the scenarios under investigation, “If water rights were increased and pumping capacity was upgraded… Soquel Creek District [would receive]an average of 810 af/yr”.

A little co-operation from Santa Cruz in the form of a transfer agreement would give a huge boost to their recovery. The District has formally asked Santa Cruz to apply to the state for a water rights amendment that would permit a transfer. The ball is in Santa Cruz’s court.
- Rick Longinotti

Next week: How We Got in this Mess, Part 2: Santa Cruz

When we got together afterwards, Bentley explained that in 2000, the City’s consultant, Carollo Engineers, recommended a plan whereby Santa Cruz would supply water to Soquel Creek Water District during normal winters. The District would transfer water back to Santa Cruz in the summer of critical drought years. Bentley told me that the reason the City did not pursue this strategy was that it involved applying to the State for water rights revisions, potentially opening up a Pandora’s Box of water rights troubles. Since 1998 the City’s water diversion from Laguna Creek on the North Coast had attracted the attention of National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the agency charged with enforcing the Endangered Species Act. The City regularly dried up Laguna Creek in the summer months, making it unsuitable for fish habitat.

Since that time Pandora’s Box has opened wide, but not because Santa Cruz pursued the water transfer strategy. NMFS and California Department of Fish and Game are asking Santa Cruz for large reductions in summer diversion from the North Coast streams and San Lorenzo River. Santa Cruz’s water rights are being re-written. So now’s the time to re-write them in a way that allows beneficial regional collaboration.

Win-Win-Win

The road to drought security for Santa Cruz runs through its neighbors’ back yards—or more precisely, through the underground aquifers it shares with its neighbors: the Santa Margarita Aquifer (beneath the San Lorenzo River Watershed) and the Purisima Aquifer (beneath Live Oak, Capitola, Soquel/Aptos). According to a 2011 Kennedy/Jenks study on regional water transfers commissioned by Santa Cruz County, the City could “bank” water in the aquifers during normal winters by sending river water  to neighboring districts. This winter water would recharge the aquifer  through percolation ponds and/or injection wells. It also would supply water customers in those districts with City water during winter months so that the districts could reduce groundwater pumping. According to Kennedy/Jenks, “Santa Cruz should be able to purchase the banked water during periods of drought”.

Water transfer is very appealing for Soquel Creek Water District, which is 100% dependent on well water from aquifers that are over-pumped to such a great extent that salt water from the ocean is moving inland. Water transfer is a win for Scotts Valley, since that district has also overdrafted its groundwater—by as much as 200 feet in some places. And it is a win for the fish, since when groundwater is restored to higher levels, more water moves into the streams during summertime when juvenile fish need ample water flow.

County Water Resources Director, John Ricker, is currently running a study to determine the potential yield of the water transfer program, including how much water Santa Cruz could get back from the neighboring districts during times of drought. The potential for aquifer recharge appears highly promising, according to river flow records of the past 74 years.  The median flow in the San Lorenzo River from mid-January through mid-April runs over 100 cubic feet per second. Santa Cruz currently diverts less than 5% of the flow during those months. This means that enough additional water could be diverted without harm to fish migration to supply all of Scotts Valley and Soquel Creek Water District needs for several winter months and in addition to water for direct recharge of the aquifer. (Migrating fish need flows of 100 cubic feet per second to swim up the river’s gorge between Santa Cruz and Felton. Since the Santa Cruz diversion is downstream of the gorge, diversion at that point does not impact winter migration.)

The principal challenge to regional water transfers is securing the needed water rights revisions. That means that the state and federal fisheries agencies need to be involved in shaping the water transfer strategy. The gain for fish is obvious, since the more well water Santa Cruz can receive from its neighbors during drought years, the less it will draw from streams where juvenile fish need the flows. The question is whether the City of Santa Cruz will perceive that its own water security is tied up with that of its neighbors. The Soquel Creek Water District recently asked Santa Cruz to apply for an emergency water rights permit to begin transferring water immediately. We hope the City will respond affirmatively.

Although regional collaborations offers the promise of drought relief to Santa Cruz, there is one thing that it doesn’t offer the City: water for growth. The County’s purpose in facilitating inter-district transfers is to restore overdrafted aquifers and streams, not provide water for growth. The County’s work plan assumes that “future demands in the targeted service areas will not increase.” That means in order to participate in water transfers, the City Council will need to pass a water-neutral development policy, something they have begun to formulate for the UCSC campus.

Desalination, on the other hand, has always been intended as a water source that can supply City growth. According to the 2003 City document that named desalination as the preferred option, “The purpose of the City of Santa Cruz Integrated Water Plan is to respond to the current drought-related crisis and plan for future growth.”  This may explain the enthusiasm of some people who back desalination in spite of its energy intensity and price tag that has quadrupled since City approval in 2005.

I recommend going to your locally-owned bookstore and getting a copy of The Death and Life of Monterey Bay. The book traces the history of wildlife exploitation in the Bay, starting with the hunting of sea otters for their fur pelts. Otter fur coats were a fashion statement among the elite in eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century China. As a result of the hunt by English, Spanish, and Russian traders, otters south of Alaska were thought to be extinct. It was only in the 1930’s that a small otter population in Big Sur was re-discovered. Since that time, otters have proliferated in Monterey Bay, although they have still not re-populated coastal areas north of Año Nuevo.

The book’s title expresses a hopeful statement. In each story of economic exploitation –of otters, whales, abalone, sardines — there is a story of recovery. The slow dawning of awareness about the impact of human activity on these creatures resulted in government regulations to protect those creatures. (Yes, the “r-word”)

The stories of exploitation in The Death and Life of Monterey Bay have a common trajectory. In each case an economic interest treated a natural resource from a short-term profitability point of view — with nearly disastrous results. In the case of the sardine canning, the business busted less than ten years from the peak of the boom. Ed (Doc) Ricketts, friend of John Steinbeck and Joseph Campbell, wrote to Campbell in 1946, “For years the canners…and the fishermen have been warned they are taking too much fish. They refused to listen, selected their evidence…[and] always got their way.”

Stories like the sardine boom and bust demolish the notion that there is an inherent conflict between our society’s economic well-being and the vitality of the natural environment. There is no such conflict, since our livelihood depends on nature’s bounty. The only real conflict — and we see this conflict wherever we look, from the call to “Drill Baby Drill” in offshore waters to attacks on the Endangered Species Act — is the one driven by short-run profiteering at the expense of present and future generations.

Our market economy is particularly good at rewarding exploitation of nature and particularly bad at protecting the goose laying the golden eggs. But the greed of a few only partly explains our predicament. Human economic activity that results in extermination of species is due in large measure to the insecurity that the market economy inflicts on the vast majority of society. The shadow story in The Death and Life of Monterey Bay is the desperation of people just trying to feed their families, and in the process inadvertently wiping out populations of abalone or sardines.

A future edition of The Death and Life of Monterey Bay could include a chapter on coho and steelhead salmon, with dramatic accounts of economic interests pitted against society’s desire to prevent extinctions. On the Santa Cruz stage at this moment in the drama is the County LAFCO, which is considering approval of water service for UCSC expansion at a time when the National Marine Fisheries Service says, “It does not appear that current water supplies are sufficient to meet current demand and protect listed salmonids, let alone allow for increased demands resulting from expansion of the City’s service area”.

Because water for UCSC growth has been found to have a significant environmental impact, the only way LAFCO can approve water for UCSC growth is with a statement of overriding consideration. Such a statement is a claim that in spite of the environmental impact, the project can proceed because of its overriding value to society. According to LAFCO’s draft statement of overriding consideration, the first reason for overriding the environmental impact is, “The University of California’s Santa Cruz campus is a major employer in Santa Cruz County”. There it is in print:  a perceived conflict between our economic interest and the risk of species extinction.

When we find ourselves mired in an apparent choice between two evils, a degraded natural environment or a degraded livelihood, we need to pause to remember that the supposed conflict is a figment of our lack of imagination. We need to harness our collective genius to find solutions to our livelihood challenges that do not degrade the environment for future generations. Such solutions do not rely on the impossibility of endless growth. They rely instead on our ability to organize our economic life so that it meets the needs of all in a sustainable way.

We need to overcome the perception that we are divided by irreconcilable differences. Those differences are based on an illusion that my welfare is not bound up with yours, and that our collective welfare is not bound up with that of the salmon. Keeping sight of our common needs is the only way we’ll resolve our problems.

I.  Common Ground

Santa Cruz needs a reliable and sustainable water supply, adequate to meet the needs of our community.

In order to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, Santa Cruz must reduce its water diversion from area streams, which will result in a significant, but still undetermined reduction in its water supply.

New water supply options (and new conservation measures) are an important way to address our water supply challenges in the context of fish habitat constraints. The priority for new water supply projects and conservation measures should be to provide an adequate water supply during drought given that’s when fish habitat constraints will be experienced most acutely. Only when our drought security is achieved, should the City consider allowing new water supply or conservation measures to be allocated to growth.

Water supply options should be evaluated on the basis of cost, environmental impact and feasibility. Feasible options that have lower cost and environmental impact are a priority.

II.  Needed Information

A.  Evaluating Our Current Water Supply and Drought Risk

1.     The unresolved fish habitat issue makes it impossible to arrive at a solid estimate for our water supply in normal and drought conditions.

Needed process: The City needs an agreement with fisheries agencies on the amount of bypass flow necessary for fish habitat in order to evaluate the amount of water supply we have, and hence the shortfall between demand and supply.

2.     Current modeling of our water shortfall includes an assumption that the City draws down Loch Lomond at the maximum legal limit of 1040 million gallons in normal years. In actual practice, that never happens.

Needed information: The modeling should include the option that draw-down of the lake in normal and single dry years should never exceed the amount that would leave less than 80% capacity in the lake on October 1.

3.     Current modeling of our water shortfall assumes growth in water demand at UCSC and in the rest of the service area, when LAFCO has required that UCSC growth be water neutral.

Needed information: The modeling should include the option of zero growth in water demand at UCSC, and also the option of zero growth elsewhere in the system.

4.     Santa Cruz currently has a policy that summer curtailment in a worst-case drought should never exceed 15%.

Needed information: The modeling should include the option that the City Council would decide to tolerate a greater degree of curtailment during a worst-case drought. Modeling 25% and 35% curtailment would inform the decision on desalination and alternatives by showing how often a supplemental water supply would be needed under those scenarios.

B.  Evaluating Water Supply Options & Conservation Opportunities

1.     The ten year time frame of the City’s Water Conservation Plan (2000) has expired.

Needed information: A new plan for water conservation needs to be prepared, including estimates for water saved through a variety of conservation measures. In order to better understand who is using what amount of water, the plan should include a breakdown of each user category by how many users fall into each tier of water use.

2.     The most promising strategy for additional water storage is “groundwater banking”, the replenishment of local aquifers so that the City can use additional groundwater in drought years. This strategy involves transferring surface water to neighboring districts during winter months and receiving water back from these districts during drought. The Water Department has claimed various water rights obstacles impede this strategy. The Water Department has also expressed doubts as to the ability of Soquel Creek Water District to send water to Santa Cruz during droughts.

Needed process: The City needs to hold a public meeting with representatives from Scotts Valley, San Lorenzo Valley and Soquel Creek Water Districts, as well as fisheries agency representatives in order to clarify these issues.

3.  In addition to strategies studied by Kennedy/Jenks in the Conjunctive Use and Aquifer Recharge Project, Phase 1 (2011), the City needs to update the cost and feasibility estimates for direct groundwater recharge at Beltz wells using treated water during winter months (last studied in 1999 by Fugro), and the “Optimizing Use of Existing Resources” option that was recommended by Carollo Engineers in 2000.

C. Evaluating Costs

1.  Needed information: A full explanation of the costs of desalination: pre-construction, construction, financing, and operation, including per gallon cost, and how those costs would be born by ratepayers.

2. Needed information: Equivalent cost information for alternatives to desalination, including conservation and groundwater banking strategies. Also needed is a comparative analysis of spending on desalination versus these alternatives in terms of dollars circulated locally versus dollars leaving the area.

III.  Needed Action

(These strategies can be implemented immediately, as no further study is required for their implementation.)

1.     Because the City’s current tiered pricing system provides insufficient incentive for conservation in landscape irrigation, a revision in the tiered rates is needed. This would  include increasing the differential between Block 2 (residential indoor) and Block 3 (outdoor use), and putting golf courses and dedicated landscape accounts from the current Block 2 to a higher tier. Dedicated landscape accounts should be given water budgets that have financial consequences for exceeding them. Landscape ordinance needs to be updated to further require drought tolerant landscaping in new commercial buildings.

2.     The Council should pass an ordinance requiring low-flush toilets and low-flow showerheads in all commercial and residential buildings, with the Water Dept funding the cost of fixture and installation. (Free toilet installation is available in Soquel Creek Water District)

3.     Explore building code revisions to facilitate rainwater to toilet, graywater irrigation, and composting toilets. Provide significant rebates for graywater, rainwater harvesting, and composting toilet systems.

4.     A water demand offset program for the entire service area  (conservation measures funded by development fees).

5.     In October, 2011, the Soquel Creek Water District requested that the City negotiate water transfers between agencies. The City should respond by scheduling such negotiations , so that water transfer using existing infrastructure can begin as soon as environmental review is complete. Santa Cruz should commit to sharing the cost of environmental review with Soquel Creek District.

6.     Include an estimated cost for optimizing inter-district water transfers on the Capital Improvement Plan.

7.    Pending the implementation of the water transfer strategy, make it City policy  that in normal and single dry years the level of Loch Lomond at the end of the dry season (Oct 1) should be maintained at 80% capacity.

coho swimming upstream to spawn

Santa Cruz City Council Meeting Considers Water for UCSC Expansion: Feb 28, 3pm, City Hall
LAFCO Meeting on UCSC Water Service Expansion: March 7, 9:30am, County Building, 5th floor

Santa Cruz has bumped into its water limits. No, that’s not right. We passed our water limits some time ago. That’s what the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) and California Dept. of Fish and Game (DFG) tell us. A decade has passed since NOAA Fisheries first threatened legal action against the City for its “take” of endangered Coho Salmon, and threatened Steelhead Salmon on Laguna Creek, on the coast north of town. The City has held water rights to Laguna Creek since the 19^th century. In those days the State granted the City rights to divert 100% of the water in the creek. And dry up the creek the City did—until quite recently. A 2004 City report states, “During September below the diversion, the average monthly flow is 0.2 cubic feet per second.[1]” That’s little more than a trickle. Since the diversion dam on Laguna Creek is over 4 miles inland, such a rate of diversion is mortal for juvenile Steelhead and Coho salmon downstream. (To view a 20 minute video of fisheries biologist, Don Alley, describing the habitat needs of native fish in the San Lorenzo Watershed, click here)

NOAA Fisheries put their 2002 legal action against the City in abeyance so long as the City would come up with a Habitat Conservation Plan as part of an application for a permit to “take” endangered species. The City agreed to draft such a plan in what Water Department Director, Bill Kocher, calls “voluntary” compliance with NOAA Fisheries.

In August the City released its draft Habitat Conservation Strategy. And the recent fisheries agencies’ response is sobering. The DFG writes: “As written, the Conservation Strategy does not ensure adequate protection but rather allows for future expansion without requiring that new water resources or water conservation measures be implemented.”[2]

The DFG letter is not focused solely on water expansion to UCSC. The City policy is to allow water demand to grow by 500 million gallons by 2030. Approximately 40% of that growth is estimated to occur at UCSC.[3]

The DFG letter spells out that the City’s first priority should be to achieve stream flows that sustain fish, then assess whether there is water available for growth. “The Conservation Strategy should be revised to first minimize the impacts of current operations to the greatest extent feasible, then to evaluate how much water is available for further build out without additional sources while providing flows for all life history stages [of fish], and finally ensure that expansion does not occur without conservation measures or development of additional sources to maintain sufficient water for listed species habitat.”

The agencies are calling for the City to leave enough water in the streams to maintain “80% of the unimpaired Wetted Usable Area” for summer rearing of juvenile fish. This would be a dramatic change from the usual practice of drying up the streams during July-October. The fisheries agencies also call for zero diversion from the San Lorenzo River during the summer months when the sandbar at the mouth of the river closes off its passage to the ocean.[4]

The City can try to negotiate with the fisheries agencies to ease these restrictions. If the City fails to achieve less stringent restrictions, it could try to fight the legal action that the federal government would take.  However, at this point it would seem prudent for the City to ramp up conservation, prevent growth in water demand, and put the strategy of water transfers with neighboring districts on high priority.

The fisheries agencies are dubious about the City’s plans for a desalination plant to address summer water needs, first because it may never happen, “The City is proposing to meet the Tier 3 flows with a desalination plant that may or may not be constructed”.[5] Secondly, the City’s plan to allow growth in water demand by 500 million gallons/year by 2030 cancels out any gain from a desalination plant (450 million gallons). The desalination plant would have to be expanded just to keep up with growth.

LAFCO Will Decide

The fisheries agencies’ stance, that the City must first minimize its impact on streams before considering expansion, should influence our county LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission) when it meets on March 7^th. The Commission has already adopted a condition on UCSC growth that “The City of Santa Cruz will commit to reducing stream and river diversions to a level authorized by the federal and state resource agencies.”[6] Will LAFCO require that this condition must be met before UCSC gets any water for its expansion? That would mean that the City must settle its dispute with the fisheries agencies before UCSC could get water. SC Desal Alternatives considers this the prudent path. How can you offer more water to UCSC until you know how much water there is to offer—if any?

LAFCO has adopted another condition on UCSC expansion, requiring that UCSC growth be water-neutral. LAFCO asked the City of Santa Cruz how it plans to comply with this requirement that any new water demand on campus be offset somewhere in the City’s water service area. At the Tuesday, February 28, 3pm City Council Meeting, the City staff will present its draft plan. The plan contains a large loophole that allows UCSC’s water demand to grow to its historic peak (1997) before the University pays for conservation measures to offset growth in water demand. That means water demand on campus will grow by 39% above 2011 levels before University begins any payment.

If the City enacts a water-neutral policy for its entire service area, as the fisheries agencies want, it should not treat UCSC differently than other development. You can’t charge developers in town to offset their new water demand, while allowing UCSC a 39% grace period.

The fisheries agencies are demanding dramatic cutbacks in summer water diversions—cutbacks that will impact water customers. The City Council has not yet responded to the gravity of this challenge through new conservation measures, water neutral growth, and collaboration with neighboring districts–strategies recommended in a July 2011 report whose authors included Sherry Bryan from Ecology Action, Sarah Damron of Surfrider Foundation, and James Bentley, former City Superintendent of Water Production. While the City Council did adopt a resolution to explore water transfers with neighboring districts, it did not respond to an October 19, 2011 letter from the Soquel Creek Water District offering to “negotiate transferring some quantity of the yield we would receive from winter surplus from the San Lorenzo River back to the City during drought periods.”

At the February 28^th City Council meeting, SC Desal Alternatives will propose an alternative to the staff’s draft strategy for offsetting growth in water demand at UCSC. Our proposal would ensure that the City’s first priority for its conservation programs is to afford drought protection for existing customers given the new fish habitat constraints. Once we are assured that our conservation programs can reduce our water consumption to the level that supports both fish and humans, we can consider conservation programs to offset growth. We believe we speak for the 80% of Santa Cruz voters who in 2006 approved Measure J,  that required a vote of the people before water service could be extended to UCSC. (UCSC successfully sued to invalidate Measure J on a technicality: the Council didn’t publish their meeting agenda in the newspaper in the proper time period.)

[1] Entrix Environmental Consultants, City of Santa Cruz Section 10 Program, Appendix A

[2] DFG letter to Bill Kocher, Dec 5, 2011

[3] In 2011 campus demand was 151 million gals. The projected campus demand in 2030 is 348 million gallons—Erler & Kalinowski, Water Supply Assessment for 2030 General Plan (2011)

[4] Calif Dept of Fish & Game, letter to Santa Cruz County LAFCO, Feb 9, 2012

[5] National Marine Fisheries Service, letter to Santa Cruz County LAFCO, Feb 10, 2012

[6] LAFCO meeting, Dec 7, 2012

We don’t know how much money has been committed under contract on desalination studies—probably close to $20 million. (We know that $12.5 million has already been spent.)  It’s apparently not enough, says the Water Department.  We need to spend more money to start the permitting process “to help insure a robust EIR”. As Council member Lane puts it, “Without this early permitting work, there is a real probability that the EIR would have to be re-worked later to respond to permitters’ need for specific information. We can either do a weak EIR without the permitting advisor work and spend even more money later or we can do the EIR right the first time.”

There is already a $1.7 million contract with the URS Corporation to perform the Environmental Impact Report.  In its contract with the City signed in 2010, URS stated “Most permit approvals or reviewing agencies will require that key special resource studies or technical analyses be prepared to support a permit application…Some of these studies and/or analyses will be completed as part of the EIR, while others are not needed until the permitting stage of the project.” The way I read this contract, it doesn’t suggest a “weak” EIR.

Another explanation for the Water Department’s desire to contract with a permitting consultant before the EIR is complete is explained in the Integrated Water Plan, approved by Council in 2005. In order to meet a goal that the plant be “online in late 2009 or early 2010″, “the project level EIR and permitting would occur concurrently.” Doing the permitting concurrently with the EIR saves time.

Please email CityCouncil@cityofsantacruz.com, or come to the City Council meeting tomorrow (Nov 22) at 7pm and let the Council that you think “enough” has been reached.
And while you’re there, tell them that we  have enough water to satisfy our needs without turning to the fossil fuel solution, because we know how to conserve and how to share (with neighboring water districts).
- Rick Longinotti

PS.  If the Council votes to continue spending, let’s get together to gather signatures for a ballot initiative that would put the decision on desalination in the hands of the voters. Want to help? Write me back.