more articles like this

State Water Project
updated: Jul 14, 2012, 3:11 PM

By Edhat Subscriber

While appreciating the greenery of Santa Barbara today, I thought about the local buy in to the State Water project. What is the story behind that? Will we have State Water in time of need? Who benefited from that proposal and tie in?

Comments in order of when they were received | (reverse order)

COMMENT 297628	2012-07-14 03:33 PM
State Water equals $$$$$ paid for by water customers equals a boon to developers equals density beyond what our area infrastructure can handle. Voters were duped.
COMMENT 297681	2012-07-14 06:41 PM
We're tied in and getting it. We're not as dependent on it as other agencies so the cost so far hasn't been formidable but it hasn't been cheap either. Who benefits? The anti-Zero Growthers. Water is no longer a limiting factor to local development.... not in the way it was prior to SW.
COMMENT 297686	2012-07-14 06:59 PM
Given that our contracts for state water are filled only after all preceding contracts are filled, in a severe, protracted drought we will not get a drop. We will once again depend on our local water with all the added meters to serve.... Desal and state water were/are a lie, and nature has limits. We were built out years ago.
COMMENT 297700P	2012-07-14 08:01 PM
I believe Bob Kallman was responsible for the push that got State Water enacted. It would be interesting to hear his take on the results of this.
COMMENT 297703P	2012-07-14 08:08 PM
Probably those that pushed for State Water are living within a "mental" moat around them, removed from the the worst effects of everyone having to pay for the mirage of State Water.
COMMENT 297716P	2012-07-14 08:29 PM
Remember when you drove up the 101 past Buellton and all you saw was cattle grazing? Then the homeowners of Santa Barbara South Coast paid to bring in state water and suddenly all you saw was boutique and industrial vineyards for as far as the eye could see. The fear of having to take a shower with a bucket, not wash your car, and have a brown lawn was responsible for the industrial-agricultural development that you see all the way up the 101 to San Jose. We're watching a repeat of this same pattern with the California bullet train. Developers all along the route are licking their lips over new sprawl to be developed alongside the route's stations, and once again, you're paying for it.
COMMENT 297717	2012-07-14 08:30 PM
The usual state money grab...our"good hearted“local leaders are defenseless in the face of true corruption.
COMMENT 297738P	2012-07-14 10:48 PM
Almost all of Santa Barbara County bought the state water Kool-Aid, all except Lompoc. The push followed on a severe drought, broken by the "March Miracle" rains but by that point the lies had been disseminated and the voters bought into the doomsday frenzy. Foremost was the News-Press (pre Wendy McCaw) editorializing over and over again that the sky was falling and would fall definitely if we did not vote for State Water. About the stupidest was Solvang which bought a huge amount of water that it is struggling to pay for (and doesn't need.) The Grand Jury did an extensive report back in the 90's. Moral of the story is the old cliche: you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time; unfortunately, the "some of the people" were the majority of voters. As a prior commenter noted: if we ever are in a serious drought situation, so will be everyone else and we will not get what we paid for. ...The Santa Barbara greenery predates State Water and has deep roots, planted as it was many years ago. The backyard gardens are something else again.
COMMENT 297746	2012-07-15 06:34 AM
It's better to have, and need not, than to need and have not.
COMMENT 297747	2012-07-15 06:45 AM
In the next protracted drought we will need and have naught. Thanks to over-growth predicated on water lies.
COMMENT 297754P	2012-07-15 07:31 AM
746, except than when we need we won't have. It's not better to pay for have and not get. State water is intermingled now with Cachuma water, but whether it is needed and worth the huge cost is debatable. Developers say as you say, better to have: where there's water there will be houses and density ... and a need for more infrastructure and public employees to service that density.
COMMENT 297762	2012-07-15 07:58 AM
I do not buy in to that question.
COMMENT 297769P	2012-07-15 08:18 AM
Interesting to read these comments connecting state water access to increased development. In the 80's and 90's the State determined that every county had to plan to build "X" amount of new housing units to meet the demands of an expanding population, or risk losing state funds for many programs. So plan the counties did, allocating areas within their boundaries where growth could/would likely occur. In SLO County, the relatively cheap, open, flat (and also arid) Nipomo Mesa was determined to be "the sacrificial lamb" for much of the development. The coastal plain has only a few small reservoirs and limited ground water to serve an increasing population, but the plan to bring State water over the mountains from the central valley was put forward and became 'the answer' to the water supply problem. Nipomo had already begun to grow in the mid 90's (at about 7% yearly) when the residents twice turned down the opportunity to hook up to the water line which runs through town, fearing an increased building frenzy. Just recently residents again voted down the local water district's project to bring a 30" line north across the Santa Maria river. The district claimed it would add enough water (State water mixed with ground water) to keep from depleting the ground water supply, our sole source of water. Growth is now stopped dead, no new hookups will be serviced. It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out.
FLICKA	2012-07-15 09:15 AM
I had to laugh when, before the vote, bumper stickers said, "We want state water". I thought they ought to go to a state that has water. We voted it down 2xs but it came up again during an 8 yr drought. Fools bought into the idea and developers made out like bandits.
COMMENT 297815	2012-07-15 10:07 AM
Paper water is all we have. I have visited friends, who have stayed at some of the local resorts, and witnessed the large bath facilities. The water use for one bath exceeds the amount of water four of my family members use in three days. Lodging facilities for tourists should need to be made aware of our water limitations. New growth should need to be both water wise and solar. Follow the money.
COMMENT 297867	2012-07-15 02:44 PM
Sooner or later, the money will lead you to Swiss banks and the Cayman Islands.
ZENYATTA19	2012-07-15 08:47 PM
Wow I have a new found respect for Nipomo!
COMMENT 297961	2012-07-16 08:18 AM
1. Years of extreme drought hit Santa Barbara - all water usage was curtailed, fewer showers, fewer bathroom flushes, lawns were sprayed with green dye, Cachuma was down to levels previously unseen revealing old roads and bridges, wealthy in Montecito had water trucked in to keep their landscaping alive, and there was serious talk about hauling icebergs down from Alaska. 2. Realtors backed state water; environmentalists put desal on the same ballot. 3. Both won and both got built. Desal got mothballed and state water remains problematic for reliability. 4. March Miracle rains came after the vote in the prior November refilled Cachuma practically on one storm. 5. We live in a desert. Water is precious. Conserve and protect it always.

44% of comments on this page were made by Edhat Community Members.