Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us.
Digg!
furl
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Facebook
Yahoo!The history of the Goleta Valley is written in water. As a rural farming community, it relied on creeks and wells. With the advent of the Cachuma project in 1955, a spate of new water came through the mountains, spurring the replacement of orchards with houses and underwriting the growth of UCSB and the industrial and commercial sector. By early 1970, demand for water outstripped supply and the groundwater table was going down. The “water wars” ensued, with the Goleta Water Board becoming the main enforcer of a moratorium on growth. It was only in 1991, after a prolonged drought, that the voters finally approved bringing in state water to supplement local sources.
Margaret Connell
Now water is once again looming large in the Goleta Valley. While the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan found that water supply could meet expected demand through 2030, this was based on known projected development. It did not include the upcoming demands from the proposed expansion of UCSB or the potential development of agricultural lands. Still to come is the East Goleta Valley Community Plan study, about to get underway.
The water district is currently developing a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the City of Goleta. While supplies look adequate based on the current zoning, a number of water board watchers are questioning the reliability of some sources, particularly state water. The report acknowledges possible reductions due to changes required for endangered fish species in the Delta and the impacts of global warming on rainfall and earlier melting of the snow pack. Cachuma Lake, while pretty full right now, can go way down after a series of drought years. It is also slowly silting up, with an extra dose this year from the Zaca fire.
Eventually development is going to run up against a shortage of water. Who then decides who will be served? The WSA is quite clear on this. The water district’s responsibility is the provision of water. The county’s and the city’s responsibility is for land use planning within their respective jurisdictions. The WSA can “inform land use decision making,” but the county Board of Supervisors and the Goleta City Council respectively make the final determinations on development. Should decisions be made on a first-come, first-served basis as projects cross the planning department counter, or should criteria be set for allocation of future water supplies? Priorities could be set for affordable housing, revenue generators such as hotels, or even new big-box stores. Some water should be set aside for agriculture to support locally grown produce. The time to do this is now, before the crisis hits.
The history of water in Goleta is that when the supply begins to be limited, a new supply—Cachuma Lake, state water, or recycling—has been added. (Recycled water is non-potable and is used in Goleta for irrigation of landscaping, golf courses, and some crops.)
Orange County has gone a step further however. It has constructed a modern reclamation plant that can turn 70 million gallons of treated sewage a day into drinking water. The treated water does not go directly into the water supply but is injected into the ground water basin as a supplement to the county’s drinking water supply and a barrier to salt water intrusion. Additionally, it significantly reduces the amount of treated sewage discharged into the ocean. It did not come cheap: $490 million according to an article in the L.A. Times. This is a big plant and it is not clear if it could be built more cheaply on a smaller scale. It would almost certainly have to be a south coast regional enterprise if it were economically feasible here.
Desalination is also a potential source of new water, again expensive, and more environmentally damaging. The City of Santa Barbara prepared for this, but abandoned its plant with the advent of state water.
Could reclamation or desalination be the next water infusion on the South Coast? Do we want it if it opens the door to more development? Whatever we wish for, we should plan for it now across the region before drought and growth have us fighting for this scarce resource.
Goleta Grapevine appears every Monday morning online at independent.com/goleta.
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.
Previous Month
Comments
Discussion Guidelines
Interesting that you identify Desal and Reclamation as our potential next sources. Both are energy intensive and therefor expensive now and in our future. Both are basically "just add money" solutions. You identify the cost of further treatment of recycled water, that could be used for Ag but at an astronomical cost that urban users would have to pay because Ag could never afford water at that cost. Desal is even more expensive. Both would require pumping from the beach to the users, another significant cost. With the investment in the State Water Project that we will be paying for many years in our future, and over $20 million invested in upgrading treatment facilities lately, the Goleta Water District has no cash reserves and no apparent political will to impose the much higher water rates that would be required to pay for even more water production facilities. These questions you ask are about to be framed by the UCSB Long Range Development Plan that does in fact propose to use all the potable water left in Goleta. In fact they propose using even more than that and attempting to acquire their own State Water allotment, .....somewhere? This Thursday the Goleta Water District Board is going to consider the Water Supply Assessment for the City of Goleta General Plan. There are some assumptions in there that may be questioned by the Board's critics. Even if this one gets through, it is clearly the last slug of water supply available for new development before it becomes beyond question that we have no more. Then what? Between the City election with 2 seats and the Water Board with 3 this November it may again become a political question. It should be interesting.
sbreader (anonymous profile)
May 19, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh Boy! Drinking sewage water! What will Orange County think of next. Well, I guess all those fish in Cachuma relieve themselves right in the reservoir.
Is urban agriculture that needs irrigation sustainable? Hard one for me to figure... the Chumash really sustained themselves on mariculture and non-irrigation ag, like, planting oak groves and using the acorns.
I like Fairview Gardens and other urban ag as much as the next guy, but it is worth asking the hard question... shouldn't they consider focusing on desert-type ag? Cactus, date palms, etc? Too bad we don't eat acorn meal anymore.
Then there is that dirty little phenonenon of phony ag by big estates that lowers their water costs, encouraging them to waste water.
sevendolphins (anonymous profile)
May 19, 2008 at 5:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oaks and acorns are a good idea...
.. but there is another plant that grows with very little water, no fertilizer, pesticides or herbicides needed. It is a complete protein, and in fact you can survive off of it. It used to grow all over this country naturally until it was made illegal early in the 20th century.
No, I'm obviously not talking about agriculturally-intensive soy, I'm talking about hemp.
It's time to wake up.
Right now it is expensive because we import it from other countries, but it grows like a weed and it is not a narcotic. It would help solve our water problems, and we could replace a lot of our soy foods with environmentally friendly hemp instead.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
May 21, 2008 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment