<b>LONG STRAW:</b> W. J. Whorf seals sections of new pipe to reach and pump from deeper points of Lake Cachuma.

Paul Wellman

LONG STRAW: W. J. Whorf seals sections of new pipe to reach and pump from deeper points of Lake Cachuma.

Santa Barbara Paying More for Less Water

State Agency Makes Big Error and Puts Central Coast on the Hook for $9.3 Million

Thursday, July 10, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

Three weeks ago, Ray Stokes of the Central Coast Water Agency (CCWA) was informed that his outfit had been undercharged anywhere from $4 million to $7 million by the Department of Water Resources for shipping negligible quantities of state water into Santa Barbara County this past year. This week, Stokes ​— ​now celebrating his first year at the helm of the county water agency responsible for distributing that dribble of state water to households from Santa Maria to Carpinteria ​— ​would discover how badly the Department of Water Resources had underestimated the error.

It turns out that Stokes and CCWA are on the hook for $9.3 million, half payable by the end of this year, the rest by next July. The Department of Resources apparently forgot to factor in the cost of pay raises and hiring an additional 125 new employees into the bills that CCWA just paid off. Statewide, the cost of this omission came to $183 million. It’s not lost on Stokes that this year ​— ​with California in the grip of one of the most ferocious droughts on record ​— ​CCWA has gotten less than 5 percent of the state water for which its customers are collectively charged $58 million a year.

Stokes is quick to point out he championed the pay raises and the new employees hired ​— ​they were necessary to make the system reliable ​— ​but he’s not convinced anyone’s getting the real story. Likewise, he remains flabbergasted so vast an enterprise as the Department of Water Resources would have no reserves to help cushion such eventualities.

To put this fiscal whoopee cushion in perspective, South Coast water agencies ​— ​primarily Montecito and Santa Barbara ​— ​have already spent or committed to spending $5.6 million to buy 6,900 acre-feet of supplemental water from outside water districts to get through this year and the next. With rueful humor, Stokes noted he’s currently negotiating with a water agency in the Mojave Desert for an additional 1,000 acre-feet.

With the entire state now a drought zone, the good news is that South Coast water customers sucked 700 acre-feet less water out of Lake Cachuma this June than they did the year before. That’s positive because Lake Cachuma ​— ​which supplies one-half the water needs of South Coast customers ​— ​has gotten low enough to trigger a 55 percent cutback in normal water deliveries.

Tom Fayram, water czar for Santa Barbara County, expressed some skepticism at how much of this savings was achieved through voluntary conservation efforts. Since February, South Coast customers have been exhorted to cut water consumption by 20 percent. Montecito has dramatically jacked up water rates for especially thirsty households and seen a dramatic drop in consumption. The City of Santa Barbara has yet to see any real conservation savings, but its new water rates ​— ​designed to punish water extravagance ​— ​just went into effect July 1.

At this rate, it’s only a matter of months before Lake Cachuma drops below the dam’s lowest intake portals. That means the water will have to be pumped up ​— ​at great cost, mechanical effort, and electrical energy ​— ​to get into the intake portals, through the tunnel, and into customers’ homes. This enterprise will cost roughly $6 million to build and operate, but according to Fayram, work is underway, and the system will be in place well before it’s absolutely needed.

Meanwhile, the City of Santa Barbara is pursuing plans to reactivate its long mothballed desalination plant if it doesn’t rain this winter. Although the city’s plant ​— ​operated briefly in 1991 ​— ​is decidedly old school where environmental protection for sea life is concerned, it does not appear likely the California Coastal Commission or the California Water Resources Control Board will object vigorously. Nor does it seem the state water board’s top-to-bottom review of desalination plants ​— ​just released last week in response to 15 proposed facilities along the coast ​— ​poses an insurmountable hurdle to reactivation.

According to state water board officials, Santa Barbara’s plant can probably win approval so long as it mitigates its deadly impacts on microscopic sea life by restoring wetlands or habitat elsewhere and comes equipped with the most restrictive mesh screening to keep tiny sea creatures from getting sucked into the expensive ​— ​$30 million to rebuild, another $5 million to operate annually ​— ​water-making machine. None of this will be necessary should this winter’s predicted El Niño deliver a heavy storm or two. As to the chances of that happening, CCWA’s Ray Stokes had only one word. “Hah!”


Independent Discussion Guidelines

As the water table keeps getting lower, does that mean we'll see more gritty, mineral filled glasses of water at the dinner table?

dou4now (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2014 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's mandate gray water systems and rain catching cisterns for all new construction and major remodels. Even if we get rain this winter, much of California is arid, and we need to accept that.

blackpoodles (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2014 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If I undercharge a client I'm supposed to eat the difference, so should the state agency.
Blackpoodles is absolutely correct about conservation. El Nino is only temporary relief, not the cure for which there is none for this arid region.
California got nicknamed the Golden State not because of gold (hence we're not the Gold State) but because of the gold/yellow colors that occur naturally and we are seeing now. We're used to seeing green only because of the complex (indeed brilliant) system of aqueducts which we've unfortunately taken for granted.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2014 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Nick, you, of all people, should recall that the March Miracle was in 1991 and the desal plant ran for 3 months in 1992. Let's keep the history of SB water accurate!

sbwater00 (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2014 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ditto on conservation. Water is only going to get more and more expensive. Let's learn to live within our means.

teriyakiguy (anonymous profile)
July 11, 2014 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Nick Welsh cites state water board officials' opinion that reactivation of our local desalination plant “would probably win approval so long as it mitigates its deadly impacts on microscopic sea life … [and] comes equipped with the most restrictive mesh screening to keep tiny sea creatures from being sucked into the expensive … water-making machine.”

The recent book “Stung! On Jellyfish Blooms and the Future of the Oceans,” by Lisa-ann Gershwin, has raised concern as to what may be an unstoppable worldwide proliferation of jellyfish; this being fed by sea waters' warming, increased acidification, and depleting oxygen (on which jellies thrive) as well as by the massive creation of floating home bases for jellies' offspring created by plastic bags and by the escalating disappearance of jellies' predators - sea turtles - via plastic bag ingestion.

Teisha Rowland, in a November 18, 2010 Independent article, wrote, in part “...increases in jellyfish numbers have … caused ...damage to desalination and nuclear power plants (by clogging pipes carrying water)”

Indeed, in 2006 the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan had to leave its Australian port because jellyfish were destroying the cooling of its nuclear plant by massively clogging its water intake pipes.

Is there a plan to avoid this possibility in a resurrected desalination plant, not only perhaps by jellyfish, but by other organisms that, though not sucked into the system, could massively clog its vents?

William Smithers

bilwil (anonymous profile)
July 12, 2014 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: