Water Shortages May Close Tap on Growth : Drought: Decision-makers must balance unfettered development with a lag in finding new supplies.

In Lake Elsinore, a place proud to be known as one of California’s fastest-growing cities, construction has skidded to a standstill, paralyzed by a moratorium on hookups to the local water district.

Fifty miles to the south, San Diegans bitter about being asked to conserve water during a building boom are displaying a new slogan on their bumpers: “Flush Twice, Stop Growth.”

And in Sacramento, state lawmakers will wrestle in the coming months with a bill that would require developers to identify a “long-term, reliable supply of water” before receiving project approval from local governments.

The message in these drought-inspired omens is clear: The unfettered growth that has characterized California in years past is now colliding with an unstable water supply and a jealous populace not eager to share its portion with newcomers.

Long taken for granted by decision-makers, water for the first time is joining air pollution, traffic and other entries on a list of pressing problems that are mandating scrutiny of the state’s relentless growth.

“In the past, the relationship between water supply and growth decisions has been nonexistent, simply nonexistent,” said Assemblyman Phillip Isenberg (D-Sacramento), one of the Legislature’s leading water experts. “There was just this assumption that the water would be there. Clearly, that cannot continue. . . . This drought has demonstrated we can’t ignore the link anymore.”

Running short of water to slake an expanding thirst is a familiar dilemma for the state. Throughout history, Californians have confronted the challenge of finding more and more water to supply farms and blossoming cities--and have repeatedly met it.

Huge dams and reservoirs have been built. A river 260 miles from Los Angeles--the Colorado--was tapped. Long, concrete arteries were laid across formidable mountain passes, funneling water from areas blessed with a bountiful supply to those cursed with a lack of it.

But this is a different era.

While the state’s population has continued its dizzying climb, development of new water supplies in recent decades has lagged far behind--and access to some existing sources of Southland water is now restricted by court rulings. By 2010, projections show that Southern California will be home to 20 million people and will have simply outgrown its water supply, creating a shortfall of 1.2 million acre-feet--almost half the amount that the giant Metropolitan Water District delivered to its customers last year.

Meanwhile, the last major dam built in California was completed 12 years ago. And given today’s environmental concerns and financial constraints, the addition of significant new facilities appears questionable at best.

As a result, officials acknowledge, yesterday’s routine response to mounting needs--an ambitious, usually expensive engineering solution--is not a realistic remedy today.

Instead, with demand already exceeding reliable water supplies in some regions of the state, many Californians are clamoring for policies that would restrict the pace and pattern of growth according to water availability.

“Our planning process has totally ignored the water problem and, because of that, existing residents are being punished with Draconian cutbacks and huge increases in water rates,” said Peter Navarro, a professor of economics at UC Irvine and a leader of San Diego’s slow-growth movement. “That is a travesty. . . . It’s time to pay attention to this issue, or else the developers will simply continue fueling the growth machine.”

Others, however, say water need not be a reason to put the brakes on growth. The state, these experts note, would have ample water for a population twice the existing size if just 10% of agriculture’s huge share was freed up for urban use.

“We are not a state deficient in this resource,” said Carl Boronkay, general manager of the Metropolitan Water District. “The fact is, the lion’s share of the water is on the farm. And with the cities continuing to grow, and great interest in protecting the environmental features of the state, the farm is where the water has to come from.”

But skeptics warn that achieving any substantial reallocation of water from agriculture would require a Herculean effort that could impoverish farm-dependent local economies and spark long and costly court fights over agrarian water rights.

“It’s unrealistic to think that agriculture is somehow going to disappear and the cities are going to get their water,” said Ventura County Supervisor John Flynn, who serves on Gov. Pete Wilson’s drought task force. “If you go to the Central Valley and sit down with some of the farmers there, you quickly realize that’s just not going to happen.”

Some environmentalists, meanwhile, aren’t so sure they want such a shift to happen: Squeezing agriculture for more water, they warn, might create an abundance that could then open the door for more explosive urban growth.

“It’s a double-edged sword like crazy, because if you push and then you get the water, you essentially take away what could be viewed as a constraint on growth,” said Larry Orman, executive director of the San Francisco-based Greenbelt Alliance. “The whole thing makes environmental people very uneasy.”

As the debate over long-term water policy escalates, the immediate effects of the shortage are clearly evident in this fifth year of drought.

In Southern California, four water purveyors--the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District in the western San Fernando Valley, the Casitas Municipal Water District in Ventura County, Riverside County’s Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and Burbank--have stopped accepting new customers because of limited supplies. The Metropolitan Water District, meanwhile, which has been forced to make unprecedented cuts in water deliveries to 27 member agencies spread from Ventura County to the Mexican border, has temporarily suspended the annexation of new territory to its service area.

Elsewhere, Marin County shut the door on new water connections two years ago when its seven reservoirs began to fall treacherously low. Similar prohibitions have been in effect in many small towns reliant on dwindling local supplies and along the Central Coast, a region suffering greatly until the March rains brought some relief.

In areas where the drought’s pinch has been less painful, officials are adopting or considering landmark measures that permit new service connections but require developers to offset any demand they add onto the water system. Under these programs, which are on the table in San Diego and Los Angeles, among many other places, developers might compensate for their projects’ drain on the system by retrofitting older buildings with water-saving devices or paying into a city-managed fund for such purposes.

“In effect, what these cities are doing is creating a new kind of growth fee,” said Robert Gottlieb, a professor of urban planning at UCLA and former member of the MWD board. “It’s really unprecedented, and only two or three years ago would have been rejected out of hand.”

Halting new connections to water systems during a drought is a strategy welcomed by residents, who resent being asked to let their gardens wither while new subdivisions continue to sprout. A Times Poll taken in January showed that four in 10 Californians blame excessive growth for the water emergency and believe government should take steps to slow the building boom. Roger Strull, a Granada Hills resident, put it this way: “Why should I take a 30-second shower and have to paint my lawn green so that (developers) can build million-dollar houses with views?”

But victims of the bans say their economic consequences can be dramatic. Officials in Lake Elsinore, a city of 20,000 growing by about 15% annually, said the moratorium imposed by the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District forced them to lay off 10 employees last month--on top of six who were let go earlier because of the recession. Moreover, the absence of developer fees caused by the building shutdown will cost the city close to $1.2 million this year--more than 12% of the general fund budget--and officials worry that qualms about water might permanently dampen development interest in the budding community.

“The moratorium was a real blow to us economically, and a lot of people are mad as hell about it,” Lake Elsinore Mayor Gary Washburn fumed.

Among the angriest are the developers. Studies by the Building Industry Assn. of Southern California predict that connection bans will cause a 10% reduction in construction activity in the Southland this year, resulting in losses of $1.8 billion and eliminating 60,000 jobs.

Builders see still more menacing signals flashing on the horizon, among them legislation by Assemblyman Dominic Cortese (D-San Jose) that would prohibit cities and counties from approving projects unless the applicant can identify a long-term, reliable supply of water. The legislation is bitterly opposed by developers, and undoubtedly will face tough sledding in Sacramento.

Leaders of the construction industry--which in the past has mostly been a behind-the-scenes backer of expanding state water facilities--say such events have persuaded them to take a more aggressive posture on water issues. Last month, the Building Industry Assn. board of directors approved an industry “plan of action” that calls for, among other things, increased use of water reclamation, promotion of a water conservation ethic among members, support for completion of the State Water Project, and a statewide program to replumb existing structures with water-efficient fixtures.

“This drought has been a turning point for the industry in that it is changing the collective attitude toward water,” said Ken Willis, executive vice president of the Building Industry Assn. “There are problems with the reliability of the water supply and, with continuing population growth, we all understand these drought cycles will only get worse.”

One intriguing example of the lengths to which developers may ultimately have to go to build projects in a water-tight environment can be found today on Santa Catalina Island. There, a limited water supply exacerbated by the drought forced the builder of 330 luxury condominiums to construct a $3-million desalination plant to serve its home buyers.

“It’s a creative solution,” said James Oates, president of Pasadena-based Whitehawk Partnership, developer of the Hamilton Cove condominiums. “It’s likely that (builders) will be doing more of this sort of innovative thing in the future.”

Traditionally, questions about water availability have rarely been addressed at the local government level. Developers seeking project approval typically present a pledge of service issued by a water district, and the city council relies on that document as proof that an ample supply for new customers exists.

“The local governments have essentially abdicated responsibility in this area by . . . allowing these water agencies or water departments to function autonomously and in almost total anonymity,” said UCLA’s Gottlieb, who has written an upcoming book titled “Thirst for Growth: Water Agencies as Hidden Government in California.”

Christine Reed, an MWD board member and former mayor of Santa Monica, called that lack of involvement in water decisions understandable, if inappropriate: “The city councils and the boards of supervisors have an endless number of problems on their plate, and . . . water was just something they did not want to have to worry about.”

Historically, there appeared little reason for them to do so. Water seemed plentiful, and Southern California’s wholesale supplier, the Metropolitan Water District, had declared flatly in its administrative charter that it was prepared to deliver all the water that its customers would ever need.

But the drought has exposed the vulnerability of the state’s water supply system and brought water issues to the door of city hall. Rationing programs have made life uncomfortable in many communities, and elected officials have been put on the hot seat by angry constituents demanding to know how things got so bad.

As a result, many political leaders now believe that water will be factored into the debate over land-use planning. Already, the Southern California Assn. of Governments is considering using water supply as an element of its important growth forecasts, a change that SCAG executive director Mark Pisano called a fundamental departure.

And still another spotlight on the issue could come from the regional governments proposed in legislation that Assembly Speaker Willie Brown plans to push this year.

“If you were to go to a city council meeting five years ago, I doubt that you would have heard one person asking where the water for a certain project was coming from,” said Ventura County Supervisor Flynn. “I think that question will be asked from now on, and that’s a good thing.”

Still, although many experts say the drought underscores a long-simmering need to integrate water into the debate over growth, Assemblyman Isenberg believes that the odds that such a step will influence the pace and distribution of future development are slim.

“The drought is just another signal that we need to take growth management seriously,” Isenberg said. “But the entire California power structure resists a change of behavior and the mystique about this state cuts in the direction of doing nothing. This is the golden land of opportunity, after all. Everybody should come here and everything will be OK once you get here.

“How do you deal with that?”