New Housing: Be Water-Wise

Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl’s bill, AB 1219, was about as simple as they get. “I just want to see some rational planning so the water is there when people turn on the tap,” Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) told the Assembly Local Government Committee recently. In California, that should be beyond argument. Alas, no water issue is ever simple.

At its core, AB 1219 forbids a local government to approve a new tract of 200 or more houses unless local water agencies can meet resulting water needs, even in a drought. The bill ran into a buzz saw of opposition, chiefly from local government and the building industry.

Cities argued that the measure would undermine long-term planning. The builders said it was up to the state to assure an adequate water supply for everyone. Opponents also objected to the reference to drought, although water experts often point out that their obligation is to plan to meet needs in dry years, not just normal ones. A water agency that can meet customer demands even when supply is tight is likely to have more water than it needs in wet years.

Kuehl rewrote the bill, removing the drought language, to get approval from the Local Government Committee, which eventually voted 5 to 1 in favor. The Assembly Appropriations Committee approved the measure Wednesday, conditioned on taking a second look if it is amended substantially. Negotiations will continue in an effort to gain a compromise.

Kuehl said she is determined that the drought language be restored. This is important because the greater the drain on the water supply, the more likely that all customers will suffer in dry years. Kuehl should stick with the basic premise of her bill. It is unwise for cities and counties to approve construction of huge new subdivisions without an adequate supply.

If the water will be there in good years or lean, let the tracts go forward. If there’s no “reasonable assurance” of water, as the bill says, the houses should wait.

Opponents are muddying the issue by trying to make it a matter of increasing supplies statewide. Even if California had all the water it wanted, that would do no good for a large new tract in a district with little water to spare.

Whenever development threatened to outrun water availability in the past, the water moguls went out and built another big water project. That’s no longer possible, and developers should know better than to risk their customers’ futures on a gamble against drought. Kuehl’s bill is good sense.