Illustration by Leigh Douglas

A winter with less rain means a summer with less water.

On April 2, the Santa Cruz Water Commission recommended to Santa Cruz City Council that it enact a 5 percent city-wide water restriction to conserve limited supplies from May through September, the hottest portion of the year. The city council is set to make a decision on April 26.

Since Santa Cruz County is isolated from neighboring water networks and is hydrologically self-sufficient, the county draws water primarily from the San Lorenzo River, North Coast springs and Loch Lomond Reservoir, as well as smaller creeks and groundwater basins.

With far below average rainfall this winter in what are normally the wettest months of the year — December, January and February — a January report from the city’s Water Supply Outlook labeled 2012 “critically dry.” However, unusually high precipitation in March changed the latest report’s rating to “dry.”

“There should be awareness of the situation. This is us running up a flag to let people know that things are a little bit below normal,” said Toby Goddard, manager of the city’s Water Conservation Department. “[The restriction] will have a very slight impact because most people already do this, but it’s a reminder to the community that we are prone to shortages in below-normal water years.”

The Water Commission is only recommending minimal Stage 1 restrictions this summer, comparably lower than 2009’s 15 percent cutback. If the trend continues, however, there could be more severe water shortages in 2013.

“[The water reduction] is not a large cutback. It will create inconvenience, but not hurt the economy or threaten public health,” said UC Santa Cruz professor Brent Haddad, who specializes in urban water policy and heads the Center for Integrated Water Research on campus.

“People in charge of landscapes will have to do some things differently, such as reduce the amount of watering they do or switch to nighttime watering so there is less evaporation,” he said. “Businesses and homes should be able to find voluntary reductions that are inconvenient but feasible.”

UCSC is the largest water consumer in Santa Cruz, but UCSC spokesman Jim Burns said the latest restriction will not significantly impact campus operations, unlike the 15 percent water restriction three years ago.

After the 2009 reductions, the university took action to curb water usage, ultimately decreasing consumption by 32 percent.

“UCSC has surprised everyone by going well beyond what was thought possible for voluntary water conservation,” Haddad said. “The students have been a driving force and the administration has put money and staff time behind water conservation. UCSC should be able to absorb the restriction.”

Water capacity has come up repeatedly in the discussions between the university and city about future development. But Haddad said the water shortage was “typical” and “should have no impact on long-term development” at UCSC.

“UCSC already anticipates wet years and dry years, so they are prepared for a cutback like this,” he said.

Through continuing conservation efforts, UCSC will be able to grow without outstripping Santa Cruz’s water supply, Burns said.

Although Santa Cruz should be able to bear this dry winter, the city is not well equipped to deal with multiple drought years.

“This is a very modest situation…[but] our system is vulnerable when we get multiple years well below normal,” water conservation manager Goddard said.

If rainfall is limited one year, surface sources are not replenished to their normal levels and stored water in Loch Lomond must be used. If another dry winter follows, there is not as much water in storage available.

“We try to put ourselves in a position that in case it drags on for a year, we’re in better shape than if we did nothing,” Goddard said. “We have to be prepared in case there is another dry or critically dry year. That’s the real reason we are taking the action this year — so we can be in a better position next year.”

Santa Cruz mayor Don Lane explains the possibility of a desalination plant in Santa Cruz's future. The project is still in the planning phase, but it could solve the area's water shortage problem. Photo by Sal Ingram.

The Santa Cruz City Council approved the continuation of a contract with an environmental impact desalination consultant last week. Desalination has been in the works for decades now, and for Santa Cruz County it may serve as a feasible source of water in a city that just experienced its second driest December in history.

The plant is projected to produce 2.5 million gallons a day, and comes with a price tag of nearly $100 million. The cost will be split between Santa Cruz and Soquel County water districts, with Santa Cruz paying 59 percent of the bill. Cost aside, it will take some time for a desalination plant to become a reality in Santa Cruz, as controversies come with its construction.

The final decision on whether to construct the plant will likely be voters’. For now, the plant’s construction is still being negotiated by environmentalists and city council members.

“We’re in the development stage,” said Heidi Luckenbach, Santa Cruz desalination program coordinator.

This stage includes determining all the effects and consequences the plant will have on the community and the environment.

“Part of the process is thinking through how to make it the most environmentally sound project it can be,” said Santa Cruz mayor Don Lane.

Several environmental concerns arise out of the plant’s use.

“It would take a lot of energy to operate,” Lane said.

It is possible, however, the high use of energy can be offset by renewable energy, said Brent Haddad, UC Santa Cruz professor of environmental studies.

Other concerns include the pollution the desalination plant would produce and the negative effect it may have on marine life.

“Forcing water through tightly meshed membranes produces greenhouse gasses,” Haddad said. “There are also risks it will create a zone that it is hard for sea lions to live in.”

A test was conducted by the city of Santa Cruz several years ago in which a small-scale desalination plant was examined to test its effects on marine life.

“The test was enormously successful in eliminating any negative effects on marine life,” Lane said.

Due to the county’s drought, a new source of water — whether it be a desalination plant or an alternative to it — is something that deserves attention, Lane said.

“We have a water problem,” he said. “It seems pretty clear that we need an additional supply and this is the most obtainable and feasible supply opportunity that I’ve seen.”

If the drought were to continue, Santa Cruz would face some tough decisions about water use. Businesses would have a hard time operating at full capacity and the community may have to begin rationing water, Lane said.

“We’d have to start cutting back in severe ways,” he said. “That’s one of the main reasons desal is being considered. If this year continues to be as dry as it is, and next year is similarly dry, we could be in a world of trouble.”

Directives from both the state and federal government require less water be taken from local Santa Cruz rivers and streams in hopes of sustaining the salmon population. Reducing water levels is harmful to the salmon indigenous to the San Lorenzo River and surrounding local streams.

A large reservoir and the San Lorenzo River make up most of the water supply to Santa Cruz, and with the addition of a desalination plant, the depletion of both these sources would be about 25 to 33 percent lower.

“[The desalination plant] is supplemental to Santa Cruz,” Luckenbach said.

The reservoir and the streams will always be a source of water for Santa Cruz. Proponents of construction say the intent of the plant is not to provide for the total water supply, but to give the county a back-up plan in times of drought.

“Having a desal plant is like buying insurance,” Lane said. “It’s going to cost a lot of money to build the desal, but the question is, what is the cost if we don’t build it?”

Last month, the Santa Cruz City Council unanimously passed its Climate Change Adaptation Plan (CCAP) to address climate change. The plan is part of the five-year update to the city’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), which will help diminish dangers associated with climate change in Santa Cruz.

The CCAP will be used as a guideline for the city to plan for increased flooding, droughts, coastal storms, wildfires and eventual sea level rising due to global warming.

The city council said at least some impacts of climate change — like the increase in severe droughts and flooding, seen in the recent Capitola flooding — are already unavoidable. It is in the city’s best interest to “develop resiliency to impacts,” according to the City Council Agenda Report on the Draft Climate Adaptation Plan and Vulnerability Study from Oct. 4 of last year.

The CCAP, authored by public works project manager Cathlin Atchison, was based on research done by Gary Griggs, UC Santa Cruz Institute of Marine Sciences director, as well as Brent Haddad, founder and director of the Center for Integrated Water Research and environmental studies professor. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funded their 18 months of research with a $50,000 grant.

Dubbed the City of Santa Cruz City Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment, the research was completed and presented in January 2011. That assessment was used to create the CCAP, and will be used as an update to the city’s LHMP. This year the LHMP update will be reviewed by FEMA.

The CCAP will also be used as a part of Santa Cruz’s General Plan for 2030. Griggs said climate change issues and mitigation plans are starting to pop up in other coastal cities as the issue of climate change becomes more immediate and less contested.

“Climate change has become very politicized,” Griggs said. “It’s not a scientific question, but it is definitely a political issue. All carbon dioxide molecules trap heat — they don’t have political affiliations.”

Griggs said the majority of scientists agree climate change is happening, and humans have had a big impact on it.

“Unless we do something, or begin to do something, the consequences are going to be significant,” Griggs said. “This winter already people have begun talking about the climate change, no rain, sunny weather. There are huge implications.”

However, certain variables make predicting the risks of climate change difficult.

“Even when the potential threats are reasonably well understood, the somewhat distant timeframes involved in many climate change impacts can make it hard to formulate, approve and implement policies that affect activities taking place at the present … We can hope for the best, but should be preparing for the worst,” reads the Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment.

The city, however, wants to “take advantage of potential opportunities to protect our residents, infrastructure and economic well-being,” according to the CCAP.

“We have been working on this for several years,” said Ryan Coonerty, Santa Cruz City Council member. “The impacts of climate change are far-reaching and affect everything from our sewage system, our water system, our emergency response, our flood control. Starting to prepare in each area is incredibly important.”

The plan, however, has had varying degrees of support from the public.

“In general, the public is supportive of measures to protect our city and build resiliency into our programs and services,” said Robert Solick, public works principal management analyst and Emergency Operations Center manager.

But the public had some difficulties distinguishing between the city’s pre-existing Climate Action Plan, which is meant to address lowering Santa Cruz’s greenhouse gas emissions, and the new Climate Adaptation Plan. Some members of the public feel too much focus on adaptation planning may take away from lowering greenhouse gas emissions, Solick said.

The public may also be held responsible in the future for some funding of the CCAP if FEMA cannot or will not provide all of the financial support to sufficiently cover costs. However, Solick said the federal government, which is currently reviewing the plan, would hopefully provide the funding.

The United States is still around 85 percent dependent on fossil fuels, and it is now widely accepted by the state of California sea levels will rise around 16 inches by 2050, Griggs said. He said it is now necessary to address adaptation to these sorts of changes, in addition to fighting against their increased severity due to greenhouse gas emissions.

“We know the climate is changing,” Griggs said. “We need to start planning instead of saying, ‘I’m going to see how high the water gets before stacking sandbags and evacuating my house.’ We’re all going to retire someday, and we need to put money away. We plan every day, so we need to plan for this too, instead of looking back 20 years from now and wondering why we didn’t.”

The meeting also served to inform and update Santa Cruzans on the logistics of the integrated water plan. Mayor Ryan Coonerty emphasized that the meeting was intended to provide information for locals.

“Tonight we are just focusing on the water supply,” Coonerty said. “We are not taking any action tonight. We are not approving the desalinization plant. This is to give you a sense as to where we are in the process, what the issues are related to our water supply and then what our future timeline looks like.”

Linette Almond, the deputy water director and engineering manager for Santa Cruz, spoke about the technical issues regarding the plant’s modeling and engineering in her oral staff report, with the help of the Soquel Creek Water District. Almond updated the information provided to the public, along with background information on water supply, and a direct timeline as to when the desalinization program would take place.

A community member said conserving water is not enough, with the main issue facing the city being the lack of dependable supply in the first place.

“Santa Cruz is a community of conservationists,” she said. “We’re conscious about saving water, but that’s really not enough. We need a dependable supply of water. Fresh clean water, for our neighborhoods and businesses, schools and hospitals. We also need water for our trees.”

Mandatory 40 percent water rationing. Hotel closures. Water lines shut off when consumption exceeds the limit. Businesses reliant on tourism struggling to make it through the summer months — their most lucrative time.

The City of Santa Cruz Water Department (SCWD) foresees this future if no alternative water source is integrated to forestall what it characterizes as “catasrophic” potential impacts of compounded drought years.

“The consequences of doing nothing are dire. I don’t think people understand how bad it could be,” said SCWD water director Bill Kocher.

The SCWD has spent two decades examining how to mitigate the impact of compounded drought years. After determining roughly 30 various projects to be insufficient or nonviable, SCWD concluded that bringing a desalination plant to Santa Cruz to cover the gap during drought years was the only way to prevent dramatic consequences of critical droughts.

“Desalination is the best alternative,” said public outreach coordinator Melanie Schumacher. “We have been looking at alternatives, but they have to meet the water needs of the community.”

Four-minute showers. City government invests in providing lawn replacement for Santa Cruz homes and equipping them with rain catchment devices. Instruments to support greywater reclamation — the process of recycling wastewater generated from laundry, dishwashing and bathing for landscaping and irrigation usage — become a popular feature in Santa Cruz homes.

Proponents of desalination alternatives envision this future for Santa Cruz — a future where no new water source is needed, due to a capitalization on further conservation measures.

“Money is just a tool, and we could use this tool to conserve and live within our means rather than bringing in the desalination plant,” said Ellen Murtha, co-chair of the Santa Cruz branch of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), which is pro-conservation.

Numerous individuals in the Santa Cruz community are mobilizing against the potential introduction of the plant, saying that such a drastic step to ensure water provision is unnecessary, because conservation and curtailment efforts could be expanded, and the potential unknown ramifications of bringing in such a facility.

“There are some major environmental impacts,” said Rick Longinotti, cofounder of Desalination Alternatives. “It uses a lot of energy … it is a guess as to the impact on the ocean, it is just not clear how much of an impact it will have.”

This has been the bone of contention between the two fronts, as proponents argue that desalination is the only alternative and it is environmentally sound, and opponents argue that conservation efforts have not been capitalized on and the plant would bring negative environmental implications.

This contentious engagement was typified at last week’s debate forum, hosted by the League of Women Voters at the First Congregational Church on April 14, where the opponents and proponents of the desalination plant were able to engage in direct dialogue in front of the people of Santa Cruz for the first time.

The debate forum included two individuals each from the Santa Cruz and Soquel Creek Water District and Santa Cruz Desal Alternatives, representing the opponent and proponent sides to the issue, respectively.

Longinotti, co-founder of Desal Alternatives, and James Bentley, retired city water production manager, represented the opposing side. Mike Rotkin, former mayor and city council member, and Toby Goddard, SCWD water conservation manager, represented the proponents of desalination. More than 100 members of the community attended last Thursday’s meeting to express their investment in the future of Santa Cruz’s water supply.

“It is important for the community to understand the need for desalination,” Schumacher said. “It creates a level of transparency. I think that the agencies are being responsible in the way that they are pursuing the desalination plant and I hope that we are presenting that to the public — that this is not a silver bullet solution [and] we are continuing to evaluate and address concerns about the short and long term water supply.”

Illustration by Louise Leong.

The Logistics of Water Storage

SCWD serves a population of 98,000 people. The city’s source of water consists mainly of the San Lorenzo River, various North Coast diversions, a few wells and Loch Lomond Reservoir. Currently, Santa Cruz’s water supply consists of 95 percent surface water and only 5 percent groundwater, making Santa Cruz particularly susceptible to periods of drought.

Due to low annual runoff, during periods of drought Loch Lomond Lake Reservoir becomes Santa Cruz’s only source of fresh drinking water, which poses a problem — it isn’t enough.

“We can’t bring water from anywhere else,” Kocher said. “When we run out, we run out.”

The city has been grappling with this looming threat for two decades. The Santa Cruz City Council began evaluating alternative new water source options specifically for provision in periods of drought back in 1997.

In order to ensure that Santa Cruz will have the infrastructure to withstand compounded years of drought, SCWD has undertaken the more than two decade-long project of identifying possible new sources of water. After determining new source after new source nonviable, desalination eventually became the only remaining possible new source for water left on the district’s drawing board.

“I’m convinced that we need some kind of additional supply, and as one project after another fell by the wayside, this is what we have left,” said Terry McKinney, SCWD superintendent of water production.

The desalination process involves converting seawater to potable water, or drinking water. Sodium is removed through a process of reverse osmosis, whereby the water is separated into two parts: the freshwater and the high-sodium concentrate, brine.

WILPF co-chair Murtha said that this two-decade-long investment by the city may be more of a motivation for the SCWD pushing forward with the desalination plant than the plant’s necessity.

“A lot of it is this investment they have — it is very hard to slow that down,” Murtha said. “There must be something very exciting about making a plant.”

In 2005, the city of Santa Cruz Integrated Water Plan (IWP) was developed and utilized. The IWP took into account background evaluations on water demand, conservation, curtailment and alternative water supplies, assessed from 1997 up to the plan’s inception. The plan included a background on the status of water demand, consumption and provision, and looked toward new sources of water supply. The IWP recorded the two decade-long process of examining the viability of various potential resources.

“The IWP first of all looked at conservation, then looked at how much more could be curtailed, then came up with supply plans that could make up the difference,” Kocher said.

Before the 1990s, SCWD knew surface water was always going to be the district’s primary source of water. In 1989, Luhdorff & Scalmanini, an environmental consulting firm employed by SCWD, concluded that groundwater sources were scant at best. The firm investigated potential groundwater sources, including wells at both Harvey West Park and Thurber Lane, and assessed that they could yield only 550 acre-feet of water annually, an inadequate amount considering SCWD annual water production hovers around four billion gallons a year.

In the early 1990s, the Brackish Groundwater Wells Project was considered the most viable groundwater option, but residents in the site area were concerned that the pumping could eventually negatively impact their wells. As a result, the city abandoned the project.

Waterman Gap Reservoir, Kings Creek Reservoir, Yellow Bank Creek Reservoir and Loch Lomond enlargement were four surface storage projects on the table, but the city determined these alternatives were not viable due to the fact that an immediate source of water is needed and such projects would be too lengthy an undertaking.

By 1997, only two projects remained on the drawing board: Reclamation/Coast Groundwater Exchange and Desalination.

Reclamation/Coast Groundwater Exchange would have been a two-part construction undertaking. One part of the project would have been a four-to-five million gallon per day wastewater treatment plant, located either on the existing wastewater treatment plant site or another location. Treated water would be delivered to area farmers for irrigation, and the city would have access to farmers’ current groundwater supplies. The second part of the project would therefore involve the wells and associated facilities necessary to extract this groundwater.

This alternative also faced obstacles. In a 2009 letter to SCWD water director Kocher that was cited in the IWP, Jonathan Steinberg of Route 1 Farms said using reclaimed water and turning over his well were not an option.

“Our customers expect the very best, very purest produce — I cannot in good faith give them produce grown in wastewater,” Steinberg wrote. “I also have concerns regarding giving up the autonomy of my water supply … I am in no way shape or form, interested in reclaimed wastewater being used in my farming operation nor am I interested in signing over my well to the city.”

Larry Jacobs, CEO of Jacobs Farm, echoed similar sentiments in a 2002 letter to Kocher, also cited in the IWP. Jacobs said he supports using reclaimed water, just not its use in growing food.

“We are in favor of recycling reclaimed water on golf courses, car washing, commercial landscaping, and home landscaping,” Jacobs said, “but not on plants grown for food, and especially [not] on plants that are eaten uncooked.”

Illustration by Louise Leong.

What Could Be

According to the evaluations of water demand in Santa Cruz listed in the IWP, SCWD said that Santa Cruz’s current demand for water “exceeds the estimated available yield from its existing sources during drought conditions, even with mandatory curtailment requirements.”

The city conducted the Water Curtailment Study (WCS) in 2001, which is cited in the IWP, to better understand how customers would reach usage restrictions and how such actions would impact agriculture, business and resident customers.

The WCS analyzed six levels of water shortage severity, ranging from 10 to 60 percent shortages, and assessed the impacts of necessary curtailment on the three prioritized types of usage, health and safety, business and irrigation.

According to the results of the study, households issued a 40 percent system shortage would have “serious” implications “with important lifestyle changes.” Catastrophic shortages, however, where households would be issued 50 to 60 percent system shortages, would result in residents’ concern for daily water usage reaching “an unparalleled level.” The IWP stated that this level of shortage “would also impose major and burdensome lifestyle changes, some of which could well affect basic health and safety.”

A 50 percent systemwide shortage would result in 30 percent annual revenue shortages, which would be “catastrophic,” with hotel and motel closures. In the business sector during an extreme drought where residents would have to cut water usage by 42 percent, businesses would have to cut usage by 50 percent and irrigation would be eliminated.

“The economy in Santa Cruz that depends on water would shut down, and the tourist industry would all be out of business,” said SCWD water director Kocher.

Chirag Mehda, general manager of the Comfort Inn on Plymouth Street, corroborated the conclusions in the IWP, saying that for his inn, 40 percent rationing would impede business.

“It definitely would affect the business, because customers need to shower and use the pool and spa. They might not stay,” Mehda said. “I would fear that I would go out of business. The economy is already not good, [so] if that happened it would make it worse.”

Desalination

In both operating and constructing the desalination plant, the SCWD has proposed and moved forward with partnering with Soquel Creek Water District (SqCWD). The city will be partnering with Soquel to lessen the fiscal burden of undertaking such a project, and to maximize each entity’s attributes.

“It would be good to have a money partner. We have tried to partner with Soquel to have a way to exchange with each other,” said Terry Tompkins, deputy director/operations manager of Graham Hill Road Treatment Plant. “It would be good to have a partner that has ground water supply, and vice versa.”

According to the IWP figures drafted in June 2003, desalination funded by the city would be a $77 million undertaking. At that point, if responsibility of funding the plant falls on residents, it would be $7.32 per month. If SCWD partners with Soquel Creek, the project would be a $40 million undertaking and cost $3.84 per customer per month. However new estimates place the cost of the desalination plant over $100 million.

For opponents of desalination, these million dollar figures are cause for alarm.

“The potential cost is going to be a burden, not just for us, but for generations to come,” said WILPF co-chair Murtha. “This is a city that does not have a lot of money.”

The construction cost would be split between agencies. Santa Cruz Water Department would pay 59 percent of the construction cost, and Soquel Creek Water District would pay 41 percent. Operational costs would be split 50-50.

Where the funding for the desalination plant will come from is still to be determined. Both SCWD and Soquel Water District are pursuing grants, but the project will likely become a bond measure reliant on rate increases.

“This thing is for the public and will be owned by the public,” Kocher said. “We shouldn’t be doing stuff the public is concerned about if we don’t have good answers. This has to be paid for by the people — if the voters want to put it on the ballot and shoot it down, sometimes they get it right and sometimes they get it wrong. I am advocating for continuing to research ­— it is my duty and job — but it is not my job to convince voters.”

There are four main concerns both agencies must mitigate with desalination — impingement on the intakes, proper disposal of the brine leftover, city population growth and the amount of energy desalination requires.

Kocher said that by managing the intake velocity to compliment the natural velocity of the surrounding waves and utilizing a small screen size, the threat of impingement is all but eliminated.

The treatment process — separating saline water into treated fresh water and a high saline concentrate (brine) though reverse osmosis — requires a significant amount of energy. Where current methods of water production require 2-4 kilowatt hours per thousand gallons of water, desalination requires 12-16 kilowatt hours per thousand gallons.

Even in years of drought, the plant would only be used 180 to 200 days out of the year. Kocher said the infrequency of use alleviates the issue of energy consumption.

The concentrate left over from the process will be sent back to the ocean after being mixed with the treated wastewater, effluent, from the water treatment plant. Currently, Santa Cruz’s effluent is sent back to the ocean. The treated wastewater sent back to the ocean is essentially freshwater, so mixing the effluent with the brine is closer to the natural salinity levels in the ocean.

“The freshwater and brine mixture would actually be an enhancement,” Kocher said. “Everything is a trade, but I think it can be mitigated better in the ocean than in our current usage. This one seems to have the best chance to meet our needs in an environmentally responsible way.”

For some in the Santa Cruz community, despite the SCWD’s statements that the environmental impacts can be successfully mitigated, the integration of a plant that would require triple the energy to produce the same quantity of water and would tamper with the marine sanctuary would be an affront to the values of the community.

“I think [the SCWD] is not giving us enough credit,” Murtha said. “We are a community that really cares about the environment. This desal plant would make us hypocrites. I mean, if I ride my bike to work, I am still contributing to the desal plant.”

Environmental concerns continue to be a sticking point with community members. At the debate forum last week, this sentiment was echoed by the opponents of desalination and audience members alike when cheers erupted after speakers brought up the potential environmental impacts of the desalination plant.

Opponents of desalination have also consistently argued the SCWD has not capitalized on conservation efforts, and this point was not omitted from the debate. The opponents said the city, rather than investing millions into the desalination plant, should allocate those funds to further conservation efforts, among them composting toilets.

Upon the proponents of desalination’s response that such conservation efforts would not come to fruition, audience members shouted simultaneously: “I’ll take one!”

Longinotti pointed out that until the SCWD exhausts all conservation efforts, their assertion that desalination is not “a silver bullet” solution but the only remaining alternative is contradictory.

“If you value desalination as a last resort, please have your spending priorities reflect that,” Longinotti said.

Mike Rotkin, former mayor and city council member, countered that to depend on conservation as a method of water supply insurance is “irresponsible planning.”

“Conservation [alone] cannot do it,” Rotkin said. “Emotionally I am opposed to desalination, but we have reached a point where we don’t have any other alternatives.”

Contributing to skepticism of conservation as a solution is the degree to which Santa Cruzans already conserve. City residents use 66 gallons of water per person per day — compared to the 150 gallons used per person per day statewide — the lowest per capita use in California.

Bentley and Longinotti, representatives in the April 14 debate of those opposed to desalination, commended the district for their efforts to engage with the public and their conservation efforts up to the present. Bentley asserted that despite dissent and skepticism mounting around the desalination plant in particular, he still believes “the city will take care of us.”

Opponents of desalination argued that the environmental implications of the desalination plant outweigh the difficulties that would come from relying on conservation efforts to solve a water shortage crisis.

“Nature has its limits, and we are going to have to live within them,” Longinotti said during the debate forum. “If it is a tradeoff between our needs of today and our grandchildren, then it is no contest.”

Illustration by Rachel Edelstein.

Day after day, students are reminded of how little money the University of California has. It stings a little when it is revealed that the UC has spent almost $2 million in the past few years on bottled water for the San Francisco and Berkeley campuses.

In light of recent cuts to student resources, this number is a slap in the face to those who have camped out in libraries and led chants in defense of their education. It brings up the question of whether Bay Area tap water is so intolerable that the population of these universities cannot be brought to drink it. This is not so, according to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, which claims that the region’s water is some of the purest in the world. So why has the UC deemed the purchase of these Arrowhead brand water jugs so essential? The New York Times asked this very question. A representative from UC San Francisco offered a couple half-hearted justifications, one of which he then invalidated upon further questioning. Thus, what we can determine here is that the UC has spent millions, for no apparent reason, on a commodity that is provided free of charge by the city.

To put this number into perspective, let’s look at UC Santa Cruz’s ballot Measure 42. If passed, the measure will require an additional $6.50 a quarter from each of UCSC’s 15,000 students, roughly $390,000 a year, which will fund an additional 400 library hours each quarter. According to numbers released by UCSF and UC Berkeley, the UC spends well over $400,000 each year in bottled water for the two campuses. In short, the UC has prioritized fresh bottled water over our access to our library, a resource we should not have to fight for.

And it isn’t just UC students who are paying the price for bottled water. Though most make a valiant effort, few people recycle their plastic bottles as often as they should. So the millions of tons of plastic used to package bottled water end up in landfills with piles of trash. Keep in mind also the millions of barrels of oil that are used to produce the bottles.

The decision to purchase such large amounts of bottled water is not economically responsible. When it comes down to it, the UC is flushing money down the drain, money that students fight for every day. They need to invest in a water filter, turn on the tap, and stop recklessly spending our money.

Illustration by Louise Leong.

Those excited about the amount of rainfall Santa Cruz experienced this season may have set their expectations too low.

The amount of water received this year, although significantly better than recent years, is actually what should be expected from an average winter.

“Everybody’s calling this year wet. But it isn’t wet ­— it’s normal,” Bill Kocher, director of the Santa Cruz City Water Commission said.

According to Kocher, Santa Cruz’s watershed, which includes bodies of water like Loch Lomond Resevoir in the Santa Cruz Mountains, currently holds about 54.95 inches of water. That is a significant improvement over last year’s 36.8 inches, and 2008’s 35.5.

“In a normal year, [54.95 inches] is about what we get. In the previous three years, it’s been about half that,” Kocher said. “Overall this year it’s been above average. But not by a lot.”

This year’s amount of rain, although a positive thing, will not completely solve the drought situation in Santa Cruz.

“It doesn’t offset the long-term decline that we’ve been experiencing,” Mike Cloud, a hydrologist for Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Services said.

Cloud went on to explain that “about 80 percent of the county’s water supply is groundwater … if you look at the last 25 years, groundwater levels have dropped some places [in the county] by almost 200 feet.”

But the Water Commission’s Web site states that “for the first time since 2006, water conditions in Santa Cruz are healthy again,” and as a result, there are definite changes that come along with that statement.

The main advantage from this year’s amount of rain is that there will not be extreme water use restrictions this summer, like in 2009, when restrictions prohibited people from filling their pools or watering their lawns on certain days of the week. Those restrictions also forced restaurants to be frugal when bringing their customers water, asked hotels to encourage their patrons to reuse towels, and fined those whose water usage surpassed a specified amount.

“There will not be restrictions this summer,” Kocher said. “That’s the benefit of the rain we’ve gotten. … That’s really the most important thing.”

Although businesses will now have more water at their disposal, some restaurants in Santa Cruz prefer to conserve regardless of what the Water Commission requires them to do.

“At the Saturn Café, we’re really dedicated to the environment, so our plan is to just stick with [the restrictions],” Saturn Café manager Dan Devorkin said.

The Water Commission also implores that individual Santa Cruz residents continue to make wise decisions regarding water usage. A statement on their Web site states: “as always, we ask all customers to continue to use water wisely and remind the public to carefully check their irrigation systems for proper operation at the beginning of the irrigation season to avoid water waste.”

Despite his concerns about the drought, Environmental Health Services’ Cloud is optimistic about the short-term situation.

“Santa Cruz should be in pretty good shape right now,” he said.

Courtesy of Doug Deitch.

Douglas Deitch is a candidate in the current race for the Third District Supervisor seat in Santa Cruz against incumbent Neal Coonerty.  He has made a platform based on the city’s unsustainable water usage and increased crime.  He hopes to win his first race this year, although he has been a candidate for the position since 1995.

~~~~~~

CHP: How many times have you run for Third District Supervisor?

Douglas Deitch: This is actually the fifth time that I’ve run for the supervisorial seat in this county … since 1995. I’ve run for this position in large part to educate the public and make people aware of what’s going on with our water resources. That relates, however, to basically every other economic and naturalist system in this whole region. So, that’s why I keep doing this.

CHP: Can you talk a little bit more about the actual situation with our water resources?

DD: Entirely unique in the world, the Monterey Bay area is entirely dependent on its own groundwater. We have two main agriculture areas here. The Salinas Valley produces about $4 billion in produce a year, and the Pajaro Valley produces about $500 billion of produce. Those two activities basically use about 90 percent of our water resources. We’re using three times the sustainable yield, and 90 percent of that is used for the produce that is grown by transnational corporate conglomerates that rent this land. So they’re using 90 percent of the water to grow exported produce. The overuse of this water causes the level of groundwater to lower below sea level, and the seawater to come into our groundwater. What we’ve done in both of these cases is pump them down so they’re below sea level now, both of them.

CHP: Do you advocate for more localized agriculture?

DD: Every place has a sustainable carrying capacity. If you’re overusing the groundwater and mining it, just like how we treat oil as a renewable resource, then you are basically just exporting that groundwater. That would be fine except we have not established a base sustainable carrying capacity. Agriculture is a very good thing but not when it is destroying every socially economic and natural system. We can be a model, but we are not doing that. So what I plan is to have people become aware of how seriously bad our water problem is and figure out how much agriculture we can sustain without affecting the water use.

CHP: What are other things that you advocate for in this supervisor race?

DD: Another one of my positions here is this model of agricultural production requires cheap labor and the only kind of cheap labor who they say want to do this are people who come from Latin America and Mexico. Santa Cruz is the second-smallest county in the state with 250,000 people, but it is reported that we have 30,000 undocumented people living in Santa Cruz and roughly that many farm workers. So not only are we overusing our water, but we also have an economy here that requires us to export the water. I support the University of California, the biggest business in the county, and the growth of the university as well. I’d like to see them grow in Watsonville to provide the compensatory economic developments there when agriculture production is lessened so we have sustainable water use.

CHP: What will you change if elected?

DD: Gary Patton, a former supervisor, passed a law in this district in 1987 that all of the past supervisors for the past 30 years have intentionally and purposely ignored. It was called the County Well Ordinance that required under the law that they declare a groundwater emergency in 1988. They didn’t. All they have done since 1988 is to change the law last March, which would give them discretion where they have a ministerial duty. It is very key that the person who is sitting in this supervisorial seat here follows the law.

CHP: How do you feel about the city of Santa Cruz becoming a sanctuary city, or one that protects illegal immigrants?

DD: I oppose the city of Santa Cruz’s sanctuary policy. I oppose it in the city of Santa Cruz, but not in the city of Watsonville for these reasons: in Watsonville they use something close to 30,000 farm workers, and most are undocumented. I don’t see that there is any big interest group that is necessary to the Santa Cruz community that justifies the city to have a sanctuary policy like Watsonville, because what I think happens is [that] gangs, crime, trafficking, and illegal undocumented immigration are related. I think it’s the first obligation of the person who takes the supervisorial seat here in the third district to basically take care of the safety of the community.

CHP: What makes you qualified over other candidates?

DD: People are playing politics. What we need are people who understand how this area works, how it’s farmed, and where the water comes from. I’ve been working on this for 40 years. I have a whole plan. The two main issues are the desalination plant and the water policy, along with community safety. I think my positions are very sensible, rational, and counter to the current supervisor, Neal Coonerty.

~~~~~~

For more information, visit http://www.Dougforsupervisor.com

Photo by Morgan Grana.

Gallons of precious water are wasted each day as they swirl down countless sinks and drains. Due to the heavy winter rainfall in Santa Cruz, it may be easy to take water for granted. In actuality, showers and faucets at UC Santa Cruz dorms and apartments make up 40.5 percent of the campus’ total water usage.

Sarah Finder, a second-year global economics major from College Nine, is transforming her passion and concern for the environment into action as she dives into a campus project documenting water usage.

“The goal of the project is to try to raise the awareness that we [as a campus] care about how we act in the community,” she said.

As a University Relations Good Neighbor intern, Finder aims to foster good relationships between the campus and the city of Santa Cruz.

Finder’s project, debuting this week, involves the distribution of mock water bills to students living in Crown and Merrill apartments.

The bills will be distributed three times during the quarter, displaying water usage for February, March and April. This billing will allow students to learn how much water they utilize per month and how much money they would realistically pay if they lived off-campus.

UCSC uses about 200 million gallons of water per year. According to the 2007 UCSC Water Efficiency Survey, the campus consumes 5 percent of the total Santa Cruz Water Department demand.

“I take water for granted. If I were told how much I use, I could cut down,” said Tyler Hunt, second-year economics major and resident of the Merrill apartments.

There is a great need to conserve water to keep housing fees from rising and to reduce the strain on the city water supply. Finder hopes increasing awareness about campus water use will help to create a more sustainable campus.

She created the mock water bills herself, taking the mean water readings of the 14 buildings and 92 apartments located in Crown and Merrill to calculate hypothetical costs.

Ian McDonald, the UCSC Energy Analyst, supplies Finder with information regarding water usage on campus. She has concluded that every cubic foot of water used costs approximately 10 cents.

Finder received initial help getting the word out about her project from Silas Snyder, the Safety, Training and Resource Conservation Coordinator. Snyder helped Finder to connect with Gabriela Alaniz, the Coordinator for Residential Education (CRE) for Merrill.

Alaniz asked Residential Advisors in Crown and Merrill to do the footwork of distributing the bills, creating an opportunity for the apartment residents to learn about their water consumption.

“I want to help out and share this information. In Santa Cruz, you see stickers in the bathroom telling you to conserve. Having enough water is a serious problem here,” Finder said.

Growing up in Nashville, Tennessee, Finder noticed that many residents did not focus on environmental awareness and saw little encouragement of conservation.

“I learned to be very conscious about water usage and recycling from my parents,” Finder said. “After talking to many of my peers, it was clear that not everyone knew about the importance [of these things]. I remember people would ask if we had to recycle, and I would say ‘Yeah! We have to!’ I was very surprised.”

Finder anticipates that many students will be persuaded to conserve when they receive the bills.

“I would like this to eventually reach all corners of campus, maybe even in the dorms,” Finder said. “I am envisioning this to be a regular thing.”

Finder is hoping to find other committees or interest groups focusing on sustainability and water conservation, such as the Green Campus Program (GCP), to help the distribution of mock water bills become a standard practice on campus.

So far, Alaniz said, Finder has been successful in achieving her goals. “Sarah has been doing an impressive job. Getting something done takes perseverance. I feel like this is a different way of educating students instead of just giving out tips,” Alaniz said. “It teaches that water is an important source in the country and it allows students who live on campus to see what it is like to be responsible for a bill and collecting money.”

Finder has high hopes for the project.

“Nothing is impossible,” she said. “People want to help students out. If you have a good idea, start talking.”

Illustration by Kenny Srivijittakar.

The Santa Cruz Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) is preparing to make an important decision as to whether or not UC Santa Cruz should be allowed to expand into the undeveloped area known as North Campus.

In a 2008 comprehensive settlement agreement, the university agreed to apply to LAFCO, a local boundary commission, to expand water and sewer services to North Campus. This agreement is seen as a promising start to improving campus-community relations, because it has settled many lawsuits — brought by the city and community groups — regarding the expansion proposed in UCSC’s Long-Range Development Plan.

The 2008 deal stipulates that in return for expansion of these services to North Campus, the university is obligated to house 67 percent of the anticipated additional 4,500 students on campus. However, if LAFCO delays approval or denies the university’s application, UCSC is no longer required to house the promised amount of students.

Vice Mayor Ryan Coonerty, who is also a UCSC legal studies professor, explained the importance of LAFCO’s approval to the future of campus-community relations.

“If LAFCO doesn’t approve of the deal it would be bad for both sides,” Coonerty said. “For the city, housing students on campus is a very big deal because it not only takes the pressure off of housing for the city, it also means that there is less traffic to the university.”

LAFCO’s executive officer Pat McCormick said that the housing provision of the agreement, which depends on the commission’s approval, would not influence its decision.

“LAFCO will make its decision based on its mission and its responsibilities under state law,” McCormick said. “But we are certainly aware of the way the agreement is structured.”

McCormick said that LAFCO must take a finalized Environmental Impact Report (EIR) into account before making any decisions. The comment period on the first draft of the EIR, which enabled groups and individuals to suggest changes or additions to the report, ended on Jan. 19. A finalized EIR will be released after all of these concerns are taken into account.

The EIR reveals that while the expansion of water and sewer services can be accommodated during normal conditions, water is short during the dry summer months and in drought conditions. McCormick said that LAFCO had read the draft EIR and suggested, among other things, that the final EIR adequately address the potential burden that the additional consumption would place on water resources.

“LAFCO is asking for the EIR to have additional drought mitigations,” McCormick said. “What more can the city and the university do to reduce additional demand during drought periods if that occurs?”

Bill Kocher, the Santa Cruz water director, explained that there is enough water to meet the needs of UCSC expansion, and that this increase has been expected and prepared for since the 2008 agreement was reached.

“The truth is that an amount of water exists in the system,” Kocher said. “We’ve already anticipated their need for that water in our planning. It has already been admitted to them, in a sense.”

Coonerty explained that the 2008 deal actually encourages UCSC’s conservation efforts, since the university must pay a premium for any additional water consumed. UCSC also agreed to abide by water rationing during times of drought. He used these examples to demonstrate improved cooperation between the university and the city.

“The city and the university are working together like they never worked together before,” Coonerty said. “We’re doing collaborative planning, UCSC is putting in new water-saving conservation efforts — really working together.”

However, Coonerty warned that the period of improved cooperation brought about by the 2008 settlement agreement could come to an end if LAFCO denies approval, causing the housing provision of the deal to fall through.

“One of my other fears is if this breaks down, we’ll go back to the days where we didn’t talk to them and they didn’t talk to us,” Coonerty said. “We can get a lot more done to improve the quality of life for everybody through cooperation.”

Drastically low rainfall levels over the last three years caused City Councilmembers to implement citywide water restrictions at an April 28 meeting. Photo by Catie Havstad.

“You otter save water!” was the slogan of choice for the Santa Cruz Water Department in a recent effort to persuade Santa Cruz officials to approve limitations on water use for both businesses and individuals in the county.  

On April 28, the Santa Cruz City Council voted in favor of the Stage Two Water Shortage Warning, effective May 1 until the end of October 2009. The decision came in response to drastically low levels of rainfall and runoff for three consecutive years.

Vice Mayor Mike Rotkin explained that future restrictions will depend on water levels in the San Lorenzo River and in the Loch Lomond Reservoir.

“We approved a plan for restrictions that is permanently in place,” Rotkin said. “But which of the five increasingly strict forms of reduction we select depends upon conditions in any given year around May 1.” 

The department is focusing on mainly outdoor water use. Watering outdoors will be limited to a maximum of two days a week and only for certain hours. Watering down paved surfaces and filling swimming pools will also be prohibited. The goal is to cut back 15 percent of the department’s water use and to preserve more water in the Loch Lomond Reservoir.

“If people reduce their water use, it will prolong when we need to start drawing water out of the Loch Lomond Reservoir,” Rotkin said.

The reservoir, which has limited capacity, will be Santa Cruz’s only source of water after the San Lorenzo River and north coast streams dry up, Rotkin said.

The new restrictions affect all 90,000 city residents and Santa Cruz Water Department customers. From the north coast to Capitola, this includes UC Santa Cruz, restaurants, hotels and other businesses in the local area.

Leah Jue, a second-year who has lived off campus for a year, does not see the water restrictions as a burden. Jue said she looks forward to what she and her housemates can do for the community.

“We usually don’t water very much outside, so the water restrictions won’t really affect us, and I don’t see the need for anyone to get upset about them,” Jue said. “I think the water restrictions are very necessary.”

Among the restrictions is the prohibition of restaurants from serving drinking water to any person who does not specifically request it.

Before the vote was decided, some restaurants began placing notifications on tables to let diners know to request water.

Violators of the new restrictions will receive a warning on their first offense and then be fined $100, $250 and $500 in the event of second, third and fourth offenses, respectively. Additionally, on the fourth offense, the city will install flow restrictors that limit water supply by 90 percent, at the customer’s expense. Consumers that use over 1 million gallons annually will be fined triple the amount and face possible termination of water service.

Toby Goddard, the department’s water conservation manager, informed the council on Tuesday that notifications will be issued to all customers. The department will be using newly developed equipment to enforce the restrictions.

“We have developed a new piece of software to help us manage reoccurring cases of water abuse,” Goddard said. “And we set up a telephone line for people to inform us about leaks or maintenance issues at 420-LEAK.”

Vice Mayor Rotkin pointed out that Santa Cruz has had a history of  environmental awareness, and the new restrictions will help water levels remain constant.

“The people of Santa Cruz already are the most water conservation-aware group in the state,” Rotkin said. “We use half the average per customers statewide.”