First Water, Then Houses

If you plow and plant the land, the water will come. That was the belief, encouraged by unscrupulous advertisers, of a lot of would-be Great Plains farmers in the 19th century. They went broke in a hurry, their fields swallowed by dust, yet the lesson remains unlearned today.

California manufacturers and developers claim it is anti-business to require that water supplies be assured before new housing developments are approved. But what business executive would build a plant or a large store without being assured of sufficient water? Or electric power, for that matter? That wouldn’t make good business sense.

That’s why the state Assembly should approve SB 212, by Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica). It has already passed the Senate, 21 to 12. The bill prohibits a city or county from approving a subdivision of 200 units or more unless it has evidence from the local water provider that the tract will have an adequate supply for at least 20 years, including during droughts.

The Kuehl bill, which died last year on its first introduction, faces a critical hearing Tuesday in the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee.

If it survives, other committees and floor votes await, each one an opportunity for business groups and other opponents, including the Assn. of California Water Agencies and the state associations of California cities and counties. Opponents acknowledge that the goal of the bill is a good one, but they attack specifics such as the definition of “a sufficient reliable water supply.”

What that term means shouldn’t be too hard to figure out. The bill spells out several methods for determining the projected water supply. One of those is to consult the local area’s urban water management plan, which water agencies now compile under state law.

Foes also argue that the best way to assure adequate water is to increase supply, presumably by building new reservoirs. California does need to boost its supply, but reliance on new reservoirs is a risky business. Storage projects are on the agenda of state and federal officials, but they have been delayed time and again because of financing problems and clashes with environmental groups.

It will be years before there can be any significant increase in reservoir capacity. Developments should not be approved today on the basis of a wish list of water projects that might never be built tomorrow.

Finally, a major complaint is that the legislation shifts authority over land use from cities and counties to water distribution agencies. But this is not a slow-growth or no-growth bill. The water agencies provide the information, and cities and counties will still decide whether to approve new subdivisions, as they always have.

There’s much talk around Sacramento these days about smart growth. That’s what SB 221 is, a smart-growth bill. To kill it again would be not so smart.