Earlier this year, The New York Times wrote an article entitled “California Drought Tests History of Endless Growth”, which garnered significant media attention. The article prominently featured a picture of a large house with a green lawn in the middle of the desert, with a large suburban subdivision in the background. In fact, the picture was taken in Rancho Mirage, a city in the Coachella Valley near Palm Springs. Further research determined that the subdivision is a gated community named “Versailles”, and the houses are built near the famed Sunnylands compound, which has hosted among others, eight US Presidents, Queen Elizabeth and one of Frank Sinatra’s weddings. Sunnylands is a 200-acre estate with a 9-hole golf course, 11 man-made lakes and a pool.

The Times picture embodied the author’s “poster child” for the challenges that California will face in the future: suburban developments in deserts or areas with limited water supplies, and little concern for environmental planning or long-term water sustainability. Indeed, there has been much more scrutiny over the long-term sustainability of new construction. Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club point out that allowing development to occur unchecked in a time of severe drought is not a prudent planning policy, and that it causes further stress on water supplies that are currently stretched to the limit. On the other hand, trade associations such as the California Building Industry Association have addressed the topic, arguing that newly-designed homes use significantly less water than homes built even 15-20 years ago, and that stopping development because of the drought would have significant economic consequences. Does it make sense to allow development during times of drought? Are cities and water districts doing enough to provide sustainable water supplies going forward? I will address these issues in this post in the context of the Urban Water Management Plan update cycle which is happening over approximately the next year in water districts across California.

California’s Urban Water Management Plans: The Planning Documents to Address Future Growth

When landowners propose a new development in California, they must go through the permitting and entitlement process to receive building permits. Planning water supplies is a critical component for any new development. The planning document that assesses the reliability of water supplies in a planning area is called the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Any water district that has over 3,000 connections or provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually must create an Urban Water Management Plan. The districts must also report on its progress to reduce water usage by 20% by 2020 in accordance with the 2009 Water Conservation Bill SBX 7-7 (Steinberg). Each water district must update this plan every five years, and California is in the midst of this update cycle. All plans are due to the State Department of Water Resources by July 1, 2016.

So what does an Urban Water Management Plan look like? The UWMP must assess both projected water supply and demand over a 20-year planning horizon to assess whether there are adequate water supplies to accommodate new development for the area. While each UWMP has different assumptions and conclusions, most plans follow the same general outline. (Here is the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’s (LA DWP) Urban Water Management Plan as an example.) At its core, an Urban Water Management Plan is a supply and demand projection for water. First, the UWMP assesses water demands from its current and future user base. The district looks at historical trends to determine per capita water use. To project water demand in the future, the district estimates population growth over the planning horizon as well as the potential regulatory and water use changes that may affect water use habits in the future. For example, the Department of Water Resources estimates that about half of urban water use goes towards landscaping. However, legislation such as the AB 1881 Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance aims to reduce outdoor landscaping water use by 20%. The Urban Water Management Plan may factor the effects of these regulatory changes into their conservation projections.

Next, the water district looks at the supplies to which it has access. In the case of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, their water supplies come from a variety of sources. LA DWP gets imported water from both the Los Angeles Aqueduct as well as from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). MWD receives water both from the State Water Project as well as the Colorado River. LA DWP also has supplies from recycled water as well as a host of groundwater rights throughout its service area. The plan also looks at potential new sources of water such as increased stormwater capture and desalination. These water supplies are projected out over the planning horizon and put into the plan. Much like demand projections can change, supply projections can change in the planning horizon as well. From fiscal year 2006 to 2010, LA DWP received 52% of its water supply from the Metropolitan Water District and 36% of its supply from the LA Aqueduct. (Full supply details are on page 19 of the Urban Water Management Plan linked above.) By fiscal year 2035, the UWMP projects that the amount of water MWD will provide will drop from 52% to 24%. Meanwhile, recycled water will increase its supply from 1% to 8% of LA DWP’s total water needs.

The point of the supply and demand assessment is to determine whether there is enough water to supply both existing and new potential customers over the lifetime of the projections. However, in times of drought such as this, the UWMP can have deeper economic and political implications.

Takeaways

I believe that there are a few important takeaways as water districts across California update their UWMPs. First, the UWMP has no authority to make land use decisions. It remains up to the cities and counties that have land use authority to determine whether a new development project makes sense for a community or not. The UWMP should be a tool used in that decision making calculus. However, it is not the final decision maker as to whether a project should move forward or not.

Second, I believe it is important to distinguish between short and long-term water supply planning. In the midst of one of the worst droughts in recorded history, it is easy to lose sight of the difference. In the last five years, many water districts have drawn down groundwater supplies to make up for a lack of surface water availability. At the end of May, for example, the Castaic Lake Water Agency confirmed that 84.5% of the water supply it used since the beginning of 2015 was from banked water supplies. Clearly, we cannot rely on banked water supplies forever. It is like relying on a savings account without replenishing the funds. However, if we take advantage of the opportunity to store banked water, increase conservation and find innovative new water supplies (stormwater capture, increased water recycling, desalination), we can take advantage of the times when we have excess water and store them for times of drought such as this. It is a fine balancing act between making sure that we have enough water to accommodate growth and to make sure that economic development that depends on reliable water supplies continues to occur. It is up to our elected officials to find that right balancing point.