voiceofsandiego.org: Cafesandiego... Our Precious Resources

Now, let's move to the issue of conservation. I can't emphasize enough that if we hope to meet the state's water needs, it must include water conservation. It reduces energy consumption, and may be more necessary than ever in a growing California.

In July, the state Department of Finance projected that California's population will grow from its current 38 million people to 60 million by mid-century. That type of growth is staggering and even more significant because 19 million of those current residents live in dry, desert like areas common in Southern California. How we bring water to people in those areas is the million dollar question. Better yet, it's the billion dollar question.

Transporting water across the state through canals and pipelines is terribly expensive and requires large amounts of energy. By relying more on water conservation, we reduce the amount of energy otherwise needed to move that water from Northern California and the Colorado River. This in turn lowers the greenhouse gas emissions that pollute California's air. That's a plus for all state residents.

Other measures must also be considered. Long Beach implemented water conservation measures in September that prohibit residents from watering lawns and gardens more than three times a week -- and even then, only between 6 p.m. and 7 a.m. It's the first city in California to do so and likely won't be the last in the coming months.

Perhaps the best part about water conservation is that San Diegans understand the need for it. According to a recent poll conducted by the San Diego Institute for Policy Research, 66 percent of county residents believe water supply is a very serious issue. And almost 60 percent were trying to conserve water -- most by reducing outdoor watering and shortening showers.

Fortunately, San Diegans responded well to the last drought which hit our region from 1986 to 1992. People installed low-flush toilets and low-flow shower heads in their homes. And they installed drip irrigation systems in their outdoor gardens. These and many other practices -- like water metering -- helped drop water usage in our region 11 percent between 1990 and 2004 despite a 19 percent population increase in San Diego County during that same period.

We also seriously need to discuss the issue of recycled water. When it's described as "toilet to tap" it naturally turns people off. Any word combination with "toilet" is bound to hurt perceptions. A poll conducted last month by the San Diego Institute for Policy Research found that 49 percent of county respondents are opposed to "toilet to tap."

But when the discussion reminds residents that they're already drinking treated wastewater via the Colorado River, the debate changes. When poll respondents were told that 400 million gallons of treated wastewater is currently discharged into the Colorado River, support for recycled water jumped to 61 percent.

I know the water challenges facing Southern California -- and San Diego County specifically -- are longstanding but I'm optimistic that we'll find a solution that helps businesses, agriculture, and homeowners meet their water needs.

-- CHRISTINE KEHOE

Well Senator, you just did exactly as I suspected you would do—open one can of worms only to drop the ball and move on and open another can of worms! Same thing you did last time you appeared here on the voice. Write a “drive-by” piece, write it off and do it again. A Power question? Let’s get off the damn dime and build clean new technology nuclear plants—nothing like the current plants that use 30, 40 year technology, let’s try the newer plant designs that consume much of their own waste. Suddenly, the power question is solved. Water has and will be a very serious issue for a long time to come, as a matter of fact it’s been with us for decades—and WHAT have you done about it? I suspect absolutely nothing—it just wasn’t politically expedient at the time. As I said before, I think it’s about time for you people in Sacramento to get off the dime and due what you were elected to do—find solutions to complex problems and quite referring the problems back to your employer, the voters. Based on your collective performances during this special session of the legislature none of you deserve to be re-elected or spoof the electorate by putting on the ballot a proposition that by voting yes you really mean no and by voting no you really mean yes—the proposition to extend the term limits law, none of you deserve to stay any longer than necessary!

Posted by Howiek | reply to this comment
October 15, 2007 12:58 pm

Here we go again, Cafe. Local politician goes blah, blah, blah in full self-serving mode and fails to respond to comments. When will it end???

Posted by TY | reply to this comment
October 15, 2007 1:10 pm

A solution would be to drop the "PARTY Lines" and work for the good of all the residents of the State. The Republicans want to build more storage, the Democrats want to make us use less and conserve, most think we should do both. We are going to grow by 10,000,000-20,000,00 more people in the years coming. That is going to require more storage and smart use. The "Parties" could not agree on solar for housing, the argument was on union or non union workers putting up solar panels, so now we have a program run by the PUC which doesn't seem to be working. Instead of thousands of solar roofs going up, not much is happening. Water is the next great commodity, If we want the economy to survive we need conservation, desalinization(proba storage, run off storage, better use of recycled water. Ignore the special interests

Posted by lee | reply to this comment
October 15, 2007 1:34 pm

I think that's what I was getting at TY!

Posted by Howiek | reply to this comment
October 15, 2007 1:58 pm

Read the Senator's comments a little closer before firing off. She clearly believes our imported water supply system is unreliable, energy-intensive and likely to implode at any momement. She's advocating a balanced portfolio of water conservation, reclycling and seawater desalination as the answer. Thank you Senator for taking a reasoned approach.

Posted by Chris is Right | reply to this comment
October 15, 2007 2:05 pm

Chris: We need to be a little skeptical when looking at future population projections, whether they come from SANDAG, the governor's Dept. of Finance or any other source. Too often the people who are doing the projections fall victim to lobbyists from the development industry, who urge them to shoot high on their projections, in order to get more state and local subsidies in the form of taxpayer infrastructure needed to support their new housing subdivision and shopping malls. Recently it became apparent that SANDAG failed to predict the recent exodus out of San Diego county in the face of skyhigh housing prices and our degrading environment. Although SANDAG has admitted it missed this trend, it has done nothing to correct the problem to date.

Posted by watcher | reply to this comment
October 15, 2007 2:22 pm

Chris: Thanks for taking the time to host Cafe San Diego and allow for a reasoned dialogue on ways to address the San Dieo region's growing water woes. We really need to be thinking about more things we can do locally to save more water and moving toward a future where new growth would create no new demand on our water system. One way to address this would be for local governments to adopt upgraded green building ordinances that would require new buildings to be designed to use less water and energy, another would be for local water agencies to revisit their service connection fees to collect revenues that would be used to install water conservation measures in existing buildings.

Posted by Don Wood | reply to this comment
October 15, 2007 2:22 pm

Part 2: I also agree that we need to get more serious about potable water reclamation, repurification and reuse. For too long our local politicians have remained stuck in analysis paralysis and fear due to totally inaccurate and unreasonable negative marketing slogans coined by opponents of recyclng. Instead of participating in hysteria, our local elected officials need to pay closer attention to the solid science behind water repurification, and get moving on it before the water stops coming out when we turn on our taps. Think of the political firestorm they would face when that happened?

Posted by Don Wood | reply to this comment
October 15, 2007 2:26 pm

Local water districts and elected officials are getting blasted whenever they ask the public to save water. Local residents are furious that they are being asked to save water while local governments continue to approve new housing developments like the atrocity above Santee where the developer is cutting off hilltops and bulldozing them into gullies to create new housing pads. Those new sprawl developments are going to use much more water than existing residents can save. If they are serious about reducing the regions water demand, local elected officials need to stop approving thirsty new developments, or make the developers design green building that will use less water and make up the difference by paying for installation of water conservation measures in existing homes and offices.

Posted by WasteWatcher | reply to this comment
October 15, 2007 2:41 pm

Conservation starts with reducing consumption. How about reducing consumption to pre-WWII levels? You get some water, milk, vegetables, grains and a couple servings of meat weekly. You don't hardly ever drive, and the amount of electricity used is for a few lights, a radio and the rare appliance. The amount of 'stuff' in the home included decent furniture meant to last decades, bedding, reasonable clothing to wear for the season, a few toys for the children, a gas or wood fired cook stove, and/ or a simple heater. Homes had 2-3 bedrooms and were of modest size, unlike the sprawl homes built in the last 40 years.// All of this required much less energy (oil) and water, people were happy, well educated and fed -- they didn't live life just to consume as people do now, and they were able to win WWII.

Posted by Christopher Hall | reply to this comment
October 15, 2007 2:52 pm

Senator Kehoe, You are right that we must come to terms with our water consumption in the desert. Southern Californians have lived well at the expense of other natural water systems for a century. We are now on an interesting collision course that merges our wasteful water habits with global warming. You know, but the readers may not, that 40% of our state's electricity is devoted to moving water around the state! We and several western states are in a drought. In the past, we have consumed more than our allotted of water from the Colorado River, but that has come to an end. Our state projects drastic losses of snowpack due to global warming which, in turn, spells major reductions in future water supplies from the Bay/Delta. The county says population growth is from 3 to 4 million in the next 25 years! Conservation and wastewater reuse must occur.

Posted by John Reaves | reply to this comment
October 15, 2007 2:57 pm

Part 2: Southern Cal got itself into the water shortage problem by building in a semi-arid/desert climate without adapting to the natural conditions. We need to immediately stop allowing the same old style new development to follow the same failed, wasteful standards. Green buildings, water capture (cisterns, etc), wastewater reuse (both onsite and from our sewage systems) are the only way to survive in the future and should start now. Lawns should be a thing of the past except for parks. Voluntary cutbacks won't get us where we need to be. I'd rather save water through mandatory cuts and give the savings to the farmers who face mandatory cuts at the end of this year. I'd like our businesses to be assured they will have enough, too - in the future. Wastewater is a very valuable resource in our situation and should be tapped now. John Reaves

Posted by John Reaves | reply to this comment
October 15, 2007 3:11 pm

cont'd--- But consumerism is the American way, you say! Well, it didn't use to be, it only really kicked in gear in the last 50 years, and we now are the waste capital of the world, throwing away all the junk that's been bought. And all that waste needed so much water to be made. I believe the only solution to drying up water sources and increased population growth is a step backward to a time when American values were family-community oriented, cemented together by hard work and concern for those in need of help. Our current culture is all about making money to buy as much stuff as possible to ingratiate ourselves. This has to change or your children will get stuck in a world they cannot afford to live in: water, oil, land and food will just be too expensive for most.

Posted by Christopher Hall | reply to this comment
October 15, 2007 3:11 pm

Senator Kehoe, thank you so much for speaking out on issues that face us all. Up here in North County, not your district, there is a HUGE project that has as its deadline for comments today, October 15th. The project is too large and fraught with too many aspects to comment on in the short time required. One of the largest aspects, which was ignored, is the lack of available water to serve the 10,000 new residents plus this is the project with the "Shelter in Place that the local fire protection district abhors, especially with response times being much longer than computed. We need to get our Water Districts to stop handing out permits until the projects can conserve and recycle water. When the non-waste water is recycled or reclaimed the water use will be dramatically reduced. Building departments need to allow it!

Posted by San Marcos says, | reply to this comment
October 15, 2007 3:50 pm

Umm... John Reaves? Where did you get that 40% figure for energy? Last I heard, about 2 weeks ago, was 19%. Bit of a jump wouldn't you say!

Posted by Howiek | reply to this comment
October 15, 2007 3:56 pm

About a month ago I was watching Councilman Jim Madaffer’s Land Use and Housing committee. There was a gentleman representing the aggregate industry giving a report on the availability of sand and gravel in the San Diego region. The gist of his report was that within ten years we will run out, and sand and gravel are too heavy to transport in. So if the lack of water is not enough to put the brakes on runaway urban development, what about the lack of building materials? If our region’s growth continues in the future as it has in the past, the question will be if we should use our precious water for drinking, or for making adobe bricks. (If you would like to help do something to prevent excessive urban development, check out link

Posted by Brian T. Peterson, DVM | reply to this comment
October 15, 2007 4:52 pm

Senator Kehoe, Again I wish to say thank you for taking your time to speak out. How can we get an inspection as a joint effort between the U.S. Agency for Toxic Disease Substances Registry and the State Department of Health on an area with very serious groundwater contamination - most recent 6,000 PPB of benzene and other toxic chemicals. How do we get in touch with the correct personnel at the 'Agency for Toxic Disease Substances ? Thank you again. Never give up your stand on the environment, regardless of those that do not understand or do not care.

Posted by San Marcos says II | reply to this comment
October 15, 2007 5:00 pm

The League of Women Voters of San Diego County commends Senator Kehoe for encouraging the public to focus on water conservation. We are more wasteful than many European countries in the percentage of water used in outdoor irrigation. This is one large area where we could save big by encouraging the use of xeriscape and native plants in residential gardens as well as in city landscapes. We have only to look at the Water Conservation Garden at Cuyamaca College for a shining example of what can be done to enhance our environment with beautiful plants that are tailored to our desert region. Let's excel at being what we are: a warm desert climate that delights in a long list of plants, shrubs and ornamental vines that can contribute a banquet for butterflies and feast for the eyes.

Posted by Nancy McCleary | reply to this comment
October 15, 2007 10:44 pm

I will concur in the comments of Nancy McCleary relating specifically to the great job that the folks out at Cuyamaca College are doing. I recently took some classes out there, and was impressed and encouraged at the very practical research they are engaged in relating to xeriscaping and the use of native, low-water plants and vegetation for use at our homes, businesses, parks, roadsides, city property, etc. As we face a serious water crunch going into the future, we have much to learn from this kind of work.

Posted by www.robert-lee.org | reply to this comment
October 16, 2007 8:07 am

Would someone please explain why we have more golf courses per capita than practically any other place and NO ONE EVER suggests that they should be cut back on their usage before the general consumer? I believe they actually get preferential rates for the atrocious amount of water they WASTE each year to provide enhancements for luxury developers! Wake up, San Diego!

Posted by desertdwellerinsandiego | reply to this comment
October 16, 2007 2:27 pm

We should pay the true value of the water we use. If there's not enough to go around, then the price should go up. Raising the price of water will immediately reduce consumption. Raise the price, and payers will figure out the most cost effective ways to conserve. Establish a consumption baseline priced at a moderate rate. Go above the limit, the price gets exponentially higher. End of story. Consumption will decrease under that scheme. Or, threaten a fat tax to pay for storage projects. Which is more politically feasible? Limit population growth? If you're not snipped yourself, you're a hypocrite. People make babies; they have to live somewhere. We're wasteful. We should cut back before going the China route.

Posted by Jason | reply to this comment
October 17, 2007 10:04 am

Our Precious Resources

Published: Monday, October 15, 2007 4:52 PM PDT