October 2001 Issues Online June 2007 April 2007 February 2007 December 2006 October 2006 August 2006 June 2006 April 2006 February 2006 December 2005 October 2005 August 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 December 2004 October 2004 August 2004 June 2004 April 2004 February 2004 December 2003 October 2003 August 2003 June 2003 April 2003 February 2003 December 2002 October 2002 August 2002 June 2002 April 2002 February 2002 December 2001 October 2001 August 2001 June 2001 April 2001 February 2001 December 2000 October 2000 August 2000 June 2000 April 2000 February 2000 December 1999 October 1999 August 1999 June 1999 April 1999 February 1999 December 1998 October 1998 August 1998 June 1998 April 1998 February 1998 December 1997 October 1997 August 1997 June 1997 April 1997 February 1997 December 1996 October 1996 August 1996 June 1996 April 1996 February 1996 December 1995 October 1995 August 1995 June 1995 April 1995 February 1995 December 1994 October 1994 August 1994 June 1994 April 1994 February 1994 December 1993 October 1993 August 1993 Select any issue from the menu in this bar.

Show Me the Water

Randy Kanouse's eleven-year quest reached its end this October. Since 1991, Kanouse, East Bay MUD's Sacramento lobbyist, has been pushing for a law requiring developers to secure water for their projects before building them. This year, for the first time, the legislation passed in both the State Senate and Assembly and was signed by the governor on October 9.

SB 221, authored by Santa Monica Democrat Sheila Kuehl, requires developers of 500 or more housing units to identify a source of water before building permits are issued, and to show that their projects won't endanger the water supply of a district's existing customers. A complementary bill, SB 610, authored by Jim Costa, (D-Fresno), requires water assessments early in the development process, but the results aren't binding on land-use agencies. Kanouse calls SB 221 "a safety net" in relation to SB 610.

The original 1991 bill was a model of brevity. "No lead agency shall approve a development project unless the applicant identifies a long-term, reliable supply of water to serve the proposed project." At the time an environmentalist - supported majority was running the EBMUD board, and developers and more traditional water managers protested vehemently. The bill died quickly. A few years later, a more development-friendly majority was running the board, and to many people's surprise, continued supporting "water before development" bills. In 1995, what Kanouse calls "a modest version" of the current legislation was passed. "It didn't have many teeth to it," he says, adding that a recent study looked at 119 projects covered by the law. Only two had actually complied. Stronger legislation was introduced every year, but rarely made it out of committee.

Earlier this year it looked like the legislation would again go down to defeat. "Another dry year looms for water policy," ran an August headline in the Sacramento Bee. But then opponents from the development faction began to back off, and declared themselves neutral on SB 221. Just before the legislature adjourned, the bills passed both houses handily and moved on to the governor. In the final weeks, some opposition remained, most notably from the Association of California Water Agencies, which says SB 221 "does not include the reforms necessary to ensure water supply availability for new development." Kanouse says that water managers have long been hesitant to become involved in land-use policy, but he points out that several agencies, including Yolo County, Sacramento, and the Northern California Water Association supported the bills. So did a variety of interests - The Natural Resources Defense Council, Clean Water Action and the Sierra Club spoke out for the bill, as did the state's Farm Bureau Association and the Western Growers Association. "There aren't that many water issues where you see the Farm Bureau and the Sierra Club working arm-in-arm," he says. "It was a very interesting coalition."

Agriculture signed on because farmers are worried about losing their already-scarce water to new housing development, and industry is becoming increasingly concerned about the possibility of water being subject to "rolling blackouts," or strict rationing in the future. SB 221 requires a determination that the additional water used by a development won't be taken away from either farmers or factories. The sponsors did make important concessions in order to win wider support, including a relaxation of rules governing the use of groundwater. But Kanouse says that the developers' decision to remain neutral on the issue probably stemmed from fears that a multi-year drought could result in the enactment of even more stringent legislation. "Delaying this would not make the issue go away. Even with the compromises, it's still a strong bill," he adds. Kanouse thinks that EBMUD's often contentious politics may have played a positive role in getting the bill passed. When the environmentalists on the board endorsed the first bill, the board was embroiled in a huge battle over the 11,000 unit Dougherty Ranch housing project, and the opposition could write the bill off as more evidence of EBMUD's "no growth" philosophy. Even after the enviros lost their majority, however, the legislation was endorsed every year by a seven-to- nothing vote, which made that argument much harder to sustain.

Kanouse thinks that the simple logic of putting the water before the house is the real reason for the legislation finally getting passed. "It isn't communism. It isn't going to stop housing from being built in California," he says. "It's just common sense."

Contact: EBMUD (510)835-3000

«To @@(newsletter_title)@@ Index

[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]

Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project