HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-28-2014 ac- schmidtph1Goodwin, Heather
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: Water Delivery Outside City
council water wheeling.doc
RECEIVED
JAN, 2 S 2014
:IT SLO _.1 t:R
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: rschmidt @rain.org [mailto:rschmidt @rain.org]
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2014 3:54 PM
To: Marx, Jan; dcarpen @slocity.orR; Ashbaugh, John; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn
Cc: Mejia, Anthony
Subject: Water Delivery Outside City
Dear Council Members,
Attached is a letter on the subject of changing the General Plan to permit utility sales outside the city limits.
This is a very very bad idea, a very very RADICAL idea.
AGENDA
Please don't do it. CORRESPONDENCE
My reasons are in the letter. Date.101,& Item*
II, )i- 1 I?
Richard Schmidt
Jan. 25, 2014
RE: Utility Service Outside City Limits
To the City Council:
I am shocked to learn a majority of the council are ready to toss out about 40
years of city policy and law prohibiting the sale of city water outside city limits.
This is just so WRONG!
When the city adopted an ordinance prohibiting extension of all city utility service
outside the city limits in 1983, it was supported unanimously by Council LIBERALS and
CONSERVATIVES. It was something they all agreed on because they were smart
forward- looking people.'
The issues have not basically changed since then: extension of city services to outlying
areas is SPRAWL- INDUCING and SHORTCHANGES RESIDENTS WHO HAVE
FUNDED THESE UTILITIES.
You may say, "It's only non - potable water," but that water induces sprawl just as surely
as any other kind of water, for it enables developers to stretch potable water by an
eight -to -one or greater ratio. Most urban uses don't require potable water: we can
flush toilets as well as irrigate landscaping and perform industrial processes with non -
potable recycled water. In fact, toilet flushing with recycled water is a chief strategy
recommended in architectural circles for managing water sustainably. (Does it make
any sense to use drinking water for diluting poop ?)
• You'd do much better promoting toilet flushing, etc., with this water in new business
and institutional settings where a dual plumbing system would be feasible.
• You'd also do much better thinking long -term about the city's possible future need
for this water for potable purposes in the future.
Although the "policy" became "law" in its current form in 1983, 1 recall earlier policy
formulations going back to at least 1970 which prohibited extending city utility service
from that date. Some of you may be aware that I came to SLO in 1970 to be a
government reporter for the daily newspaper, which in those days was a NEWSpaper,
not the Chamber newsletter it is today. During my time covering SLO City Hall I recall
several council discussions of requests to extend services beyond the city limits, and
they resulted in a resounding NO, for the commonsense reasons enumerated in this
letter. FOR YOU TO OVERTURN THIS POLICY WOULD TRULY BE A RADICAL
COUNTER - GOOD - GOVERNMENT MOVE ON YOUR PART WITHOUT ANY
PLANNING PRECEDENT IN THIS CITY'S HISTORY. It would move us back to a 1950s
planning regime policy -wise.
Back in the 1970s, City Engineer Dave Romero proposed just such a long -view
scheme: spread treated water on the ground (we only had secondary treatment in that
day, not the near - drinkable tertiary effluent of today), let it percolate down to the aquifer,
then use windmills to pump it back out for domestic use. Percolating into the ground
provides the final purification step in making this semi - purified water drinkable. (This is
done on a large scale, minus the windmills, in conservative Orange County; are you
aware of this ?)
The city's current smugness about its bountiful water supply is without merit. Year
before last was the driest on record in California. Last year was even drier. And this
year — the way it's going -- could be still drier. How long till our reservoirs reach crisis
point if this drought is the "new normal" rather than the assumptions on which reservoir
capacities were calculated (using, we now know from historical tree ring studies, the
wettest period in a millennium of California history on which to base those capacity
assumptions)?
Our recycled water is our most reliable water source. Why? The last thing we cut
short, long after SLO's landscape looks like Barstow or Boron, is our domestic water
use. Thus the recycled water will be there. When push comes to shove, we'll have to
use it. Now, of all times, in the face of such climate uncertainty and its effects on surface
water, is the least intelligent time in history to even talk about allocating any of
our recycled water to others.
As for fairness to city ratepayers, letting those who haven't contributed to our utility
infrastructure benefit from our "waste" water just isn't right. They will have a "sure"
source, while our dried -out reservoirs leave ratepayers in trouble. We've paid for it. It
rightfully belongs to us, not to developers on the outskirts. It's just plain unfair to
those who've footed the bill to create this water source to deprive them of it.
I cannot believe that you actually think you can do this sort of thing, and then go to the
voters asking for renewal of Measure Y.
Please drop this very bad idea and get it out of the LUCE considerations.
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt