Here’s a fascinating contrast of how to handle a drought — comparing socialist California (specifically Los Angeles) with severely drought-stricken San Antonio, Texas.
Texas allows, even encourages public-private partnerships (a.k.a. privatization). California now prohibits such water projects.
So San Antonio has taken a much more innovative, effective approach than Los Angeles. The bottom line is that by 2035 San Antonio will increase its water supply by 1,212 gallons/household/day vs. a paltry 41 gallons per day in Los Angeles.
Here’s the full article:
http://calwatchdog.com/2014/09/05/in-fighting-drought-san-antonio-leaves-l-a-in-the-dust/
In fighting drought, San Antonio leaves L.A. in the dust
Could cities such as drought-vulnerable Los Angeles come to regret that a “privatization” provision in the old $11.1 billion state water bond was removed?
Back in 2009, there was an outcry against language in the original version of a proposed state water bond that would have allowed private companies to own, operate and profit from water projects partly funded by taxpayers dollars. Critics said it opened a door to dangerous privatization.
But the bill merely contained a provision for joint ventures with nongovernment partners. Nevertheless, it eventually was stricken from the bill, and the new $7.5 billion water bond bill on the November ballot omits it as well.
What’s going on in San Antonio — which has been dealing with a harsh drought for years – suggests that was a major mistake.
According to a new study by The Environmental Hydrology Laboratory at the University of Florida, both San Antonio and Los Angeles are extremely drought-vulnerable cities. San Antonio came in dead last among the 225 ranked cities, with L.A. was ranked 220th. High-ranking cities are near very large lakes or rivers while low-ranking cities are in arid areas and have low local storage capacities.
Innovation vs. ineffective status quo
Both cities have adopted successful conservation policies to deal with droughts. San Antonio’s per capita water use is 127 gallons per day as of 2013. Per capita usage in Los Angeles was 123 gallons per day as of 2011.
But San Antonio has recently embraced public-private partnerships as a way to survive prolonged droughts, while L.A. sticks to the standard California playbook.
Los Angeles’ five-year water resource plan — adopted in June 2012 — mainly depends on a set of recycled water projects. In addition, L.A.’s plan will depend on the drought ending and an end to the current curtailments of imported state water. Two new state reservoirs that would be funded by the state water bond wouldn’t be available until about 2023 and would only add about 1 percent to state reservoir supplies.
L.A. is in the process of recharging groundwater supplies with purified recycled water — “toilet-to-tap” water — that would produce up to 15,000 acre-feet of new water by 2022 and 30,000 acre-feet to 2035 to offset the future loss of imported water.
All told, L.A. is planning to produce 59,000 acre-feet of recycled water by 2035. That would equate to about 13.4 gallons of water added per household per day by 2035. But this would be water to backfill projected future losses of water from shortages of state imported water.
L.A. has no water storage or desalination plants on the planning board over the next five years and remains dependent on a long-term solution in Sacramento.
San Antonio officials not waiting for others to act
Unlike Los Angeles, the San Antonio Water System is not depending on the state or Congress to solve problems posed by its prolonged drought. San Antonio is moving toward importing 50,000 acre-feet of water from Burleson County by partnering with the Abengoa Water Corp. and Blue Water Systems of Austin, Tex., for purchase of water through a new 142-mile pipeline to be completed by 2019. This is called the Vista Ridge Plan.
In the plan, 3,400 water rights holders in Burleson County will be paid an annual fee for their water. Thus, no condemnation of land for water wells would be needed, although pipeline rights of ways would have to be acquired.
Abengoa is a private, international water and energy infrastructure corporation based in Seville, Spain.
San Antonio water officials selected a proposal from Abengoa to buy water from the Vista Ridge Pipeline Project through a competitive proposal process from nine other proposals to provide a solution for San Antonio’s future water demands. While Southern California has been trying to obtain political approvals for its Peripheral Canal or other big projects since 1982, San Antonio is moving ahead for a contract to buy water from Abengoa in five years. The pipeline would be financed, built and operated by Abengoa.
Additionally, San Antonio’s water agency is renting available capacity in an existing pipeline to bring about 25,000 acre-feet of water from the Carrizo Aquifer in Gonzales County by 2015.
By 2016, San Antonio’s water agency also plans to have completed a desalination plant that will produce about 33,000 acre-feet of water per year by desalting local groundwater at a cost of $1,138 per acre-foot of water.
Overall, San Antonio is planning on adding 108,000 acre-feet of new water over the next five years. That equates to adding 35.2 billion gallons of water or 1,212 gallons of new water per year per existing household per day. San Antonio plans to sell any unused portion of its water supplies from the Vista Ridge Pipeline to other cities to reduce water rates to its customers.
At an Aug. 12 symposium at the University of Texas at San Antonio on the Vista Ridge Pipeline Project, one topic was the difference between California and Texas as to finding solutions to drought (see bottom of page here). San Antonio leaders attributed the difference to a “culture” of “free enterprise and capitalism.” They specifically called out Sacramento as a city, which, in the past, has not even had water meters as part of the problem.
Smaller San Antonio to add far more water than L.A.
Ecowatch.com ran an article titled “Which City Will Run Out of Water First?” on Sept. 3 reporting the new drought vulnerability rankings for 225 large cities in the U.S.
San Antonio may have the worst ranking but has embraced allowing the private sector to propose a drought solution for the city. San Antonio does not have to go to voters to approve a water bond. The new added water will increase water rates 16 percent.
In comparison, Los Angeles’ wholesale imported water rates rose 15 percent in 2009, water deliveries were cut and customers had to cut usage by 20 percent.
The chart below tells the story crisply: San Antonio, one-third the size of Los Angeles, is on track to add vastly more water resources in coming years and decades. L.A.’s government-first approach simply can’t match the results produced by San Antonio’s innovation.
Comments 12
Richard,
I have no doubt that San Antonio is probably doing many things better than Los Angeles. However, I still am having trouble understanding the statistics posted in the article:
“San Antonio’s per capita water use is 127 gallons per day as of 2013.”
“Overall, San Antonio is planning on adding 108,000 acre-feet of new water over the next five years. That equates to adding 35.2 billion gallons of water or 1,212 gallons of new water per year per existing household per day.”
Even if the average household in San Antonio has four people, this would mean that for each of the next five years, San Antonio be adding almost 2 1/2 times as much water as they currently use. Over 5 years, they will increase their water supply by approximately 1100%.
Is this really true? If it is, why would they even need that much water?
Hypocrisy,
“If it is, why would they even need that much water?”
Have you ever heard of the concept, 2 is 1, 1 is none?
Government’s first role is to protect and defend my Liberty and its main method of doing such should be to foster competition in the Free Markets as much as possible. In situations where the transaction costs are too high and a market does not exist, in my view, it is ok for the Government to step in and create that market. These instances where Government intervention is less costly then Free Market competition are very rare and in most cases, the Free Market approach with properly secured property rights, backed by empirical evidence, is the most efficient way to go.
The Free Markets in California are held hostage by an ever encroaching Socialist Government with intense hatred for competition and a fondness for forced outcomes. Human behavior over time will never allow for a forced outcome, just ask those who suffered in the former Soviet Union.
Author
HQ, water is needed for many purposes. Unlike California, Texas actually COURTS manufacturers — often heavy water users. To attract more businesses, it’s wise to have an adequate water supply — both today and in the future.
The metric of just household use is, of course, wrong — but serves well as a relative comparison of water supply.
I guess LA doesn’t have as pressing a need for water, given that it’s trying to drive AWAY businesses (especially manufacturing businesses that provide good paying, middle class, blue collar jobs — and people seeking the lost jobs) — it’s the California version of water conservation!
Feel free to post rebuttal facts about the San Antonio water project plans.
Richard,
No rebuttal facts; I have no reason to doubt that San Antonio’s plans are excellent. I was simply asking a question because I didn’t understand the numbers and I am not sure that either your or Daniel’s response helped clarify.
I still can’t figure out why a municipality would need to increase its water supply by 1100%. I do understand that attracting more business will lead to a need for more water, but more than 10 times as much?
Author
HQ — reasons come to mind — one minor, one major:
1. Unlike LA, San Antonio is growing — and a much higher percent are homeowners who use more water.
2. The cited water usage in the article (I failed to add this chart on SD ROSTRA, I’ll correct) is quite low — 127 gallons per household per day — doubtless reflecting the drought. I’m sure many S.A. households would like to raise their water usage dramatically.
My household water bill is triple the San Antonio average — with a small “California” yard and after major cutbacks (down from almost 5 times higher than San Antonio last year). How much water do YOU use per month?
HQ, I can’t edit my post (not sure why), but here’s the chart, though formatting is all screwed up:
Los Angeles San Antonio
Population 3,852,782 1,327,554
Gallons of Water Used Per Household Per Day
123 gallons (2011) 127 gallons (2013)
Drought Vulnerability Rank (225 = worst) 220 225
Normalized Availability of Water 0.05 0.04
Drought Vulnerability High High
New Recycled Water Supplies 5
9,000 acre-feet by 2035 75,000 acre-feet by 2019
New Imported Water Supplies in 5 Years
0 acre-feet 28,000 acre-feet by 2019
Total Water Added in Acre-Feet
59,000 acre-feet by 2035 108,000 acre-feet by 2019
New Water Supplies Per Household
41 gallons per day by 2035 1,212 gallons per day by 2019
– See more at: http://calwatchdog.com/2014/09/05/in-fighting-drought-san-antonio-leaves-l-a-in-the-dust/#sthash.k5ZabStU.dpuf
Richard,
I guess I just can’t seem to wrap my head around an 11-fold increase. It just doesn’t pass the smell test for me.
As for my own usage, unfortunately I do not keep my water bills, but I can tell you that the last one cost me $193. I will check the next time I receive a bill.
San Antonio seems to be planning ahead. I think the reason San Antonio is planning to increase the water supply so much is to make money off of it. “San Antonio plans to sell any unused portion of its water supplies from the Vista Ridge Pipeline to other cities to reduce water rates to its customers.” I think San Antonio’s usage of 127 per gallons per day is per capita not per household.
HQ — I stand corrected. While the article LATER discusses the “per household” rates, the early part referencing the 127 gallons/day is indeed (as Dave Rankin) points out the “PER CAPITA” usage rate. I think that adjustment better explains the amount of the increase water planned.
Richard,
Re-read my comment of September 7th. I already factored in the fact that this was a per capita usage rate. The key paragraph of my comment:
“Even if the average household in San Antonio has four people, this would mean that for each of the next five years, San Antonio (would) be adding almost 2 1/2 times as much water as they currently use. Over 5 years, they will increase their water supply by approximately 1100%.”
Author
HQ, I read it differently. Rather than increasing the water that amount “per year,” that’s the TOTAL increase after 5 years. Assuming 4/household, their current water usage would be about 500 gal per day.
If they increase the water supply 1,212 gallons, that is over tripling their current potential supply — not 1100%. That seems a reasonable plan for a growing area.
Of course, that assumes all water is for existing households — none for new homes or expanded commercial usage. MOST important, they plan to sell off any extra water to neighboring water districts to keep San Antonio water rates low.
Richard,
If your read is correct, and I can see it that way as well, then the increase is certainly within the realm of reasonable. Credit where credit is due: Well done, San Antonio.