|
INTRODUCTION
This page is devoted to suggested solutions
to the declining lake level and the need to supply the Arrowhead Woods community with water. Essentially, managing the use
of water entails two simple truths: either provide alternative sources of water, or reduce the existing demand on the water
supply.
The next to the last section on this page includes a brief but comprehensive explanation of the various terminologies.
Recycled water is simply water extracted from sewage put to reuse. Depending on the level of filtration it is classified
as first, second, tertiary or quarternary (a level which aspires to drinkable reuse--eg: potable reuse). Often potable reuse,
however, refers to superrefined waste water that is then not used for drinkable purposes but is place on the ground, to be
later extracted by wells or blended in to a large body of moving water to be later syphoned off and rerefined for drinking
purposes. It is the later of these two methods that is being considered in Lake Arrowhead, using the lake.
A Brief
Historical Recap
In 1973 (5 years before LACSD took over the management of the water supply), there were approximately
3,500 connections drawing 600 acre feet per year. This was well within the lake's capacity of 1500 acre feet per year, both
in 1973 as well as throughout the previous 51 years that the lake had been in operation as a water supply reservoir. A few
years later (prior to the LACSD purchase of the utility company), the Development Company (later superceded by Boise Cascade)
was in financial trouble and refused to join the Crestline Lake Arrowhead Water Agency (CLAWA).
When LACSD purchased
the utility company in 1978 from Boise Cascade, water usage had increased from 600 acre feet in 1973 to 1,080 acre feet in
1978, and connections had increased from 3,500 to 4,500. There was no shortage of water... yet. Lake Arrowhead was in the
midst of a boom, the new dam was being constructed with new financing and the prospects were rosy. Either LACSD did not have
a 20-year Master Plan or the plan it had failed to project that the lake's safe yield of 1,500 acre feet per year was rapidly
being totally utilized. Nevertheless, construction permits abounded and new water connections were on a meteoric rise.
LACSD
entered into 12 years of unfettered growth in which the number of connections were increased without question and no limits
were placed on individual use. It would have been a relatively simple task for LACSD to have phased in conservation during
this period as well as to have begun to seek outside water sources. However, no efforts were made to compensate for the growth.
The result: by 1990 the lake was in an over-draft state. The growth problem arose from three avenues: (1) the growth of
commercial usage from the Village and Resort; (2) the usage by the country club; and (3) the trend towards upscale landscaping.
In
1995, Ralph Wagner (then president of LACSD) commissioned a study on refilling the lake with reclaimed water. Although the
idea failed, no other efforts were made either to obtain alternative supplemental water, then relatively cheap, from other
sources in an effort to affect its supply. Furthermore, LACSD took the easy and socially acceptable position that it could
not control water use other than through requests for voluntary conservation. It could have mandated conservation, water
limits and the use of water limiting devices through the authority of the California Water Code.
Although LACSD was
required by law to have a master plan for the preservation of its water supply, it apparently concluded that the supply was
unlimited. It has certainly concealed this fact from the public and apparently the water authorities such as the State Water
Resources Control Board and the State Health Department. Until as recently as December of 2002, LACSD maintained that the
local water shortage is merely a drought problem (see their original report attached in response to the Patriot Homes Application).
Maintaining
a silence and low profile on the over use of the lake's water was particularly easy during the mid 90's when the area was
subject to a water surplus as a result of very wet El Nino conditions. Nevertheless, Ralph Wagner (as a member of ALA) continued
to monitor the lake and inform the Mountain News and Crestline Courier of this pending disaster. No one listened and nothing
was published.
In essence, LACSD and ALA slept on this issue. No additional efforts were made to find another source
of water and no conservation measures were imposed, thus creating a travesty waiting to happen. And in 1998, it did: the
second drought of the 90's. The resulting disaster has become impossible to deny.
CONSERVATION
In 2003
LACSD enacted a "Mandatory Conservation" ordinance. In 2005 after the rains it removed it.
Nothing changed except
a full lake. The over draft continued.
The major provision in the mandatory conservation was a penalty system that
required a 25% cutback relative to 2002 usage. (That year was picked because it was the high point in usage for the community
and it was felt that this cut back would have the least impact if that year were picked). Although a weak statute, it must
been seen relative to a LACSD that never conserved anything.
A BRIEF LOOK AT LAKE ARROWHEAD VS. THE REST OF THE COUNTRY
According
to national statistics, a typical household of 4 persons uses between 592 and 651 gallons per day of water, split between
indoor use (296 gallons) and outdoor use (296 to 355 gallons). In contrast, 92% of the Arrowhead Woods connections use 357
gallons per day of water, which is between 40% to 45% less than the national average. Unfortunately, the remaining 8% of
Arrowhead Woods connections use 2,400 gallons per day, which is between 368% and 405% greater than the national average.
This domestic use includes normal household purposes such as drinking, food preparation, bathing, washing clothes, flushing
toilets, watering lawns and gardens.
LACSD in facing conservation is faced with the reality tht in order to bring
the present 7,600 connections within the lake's capacity of 1,500 acre feet per year, it is necessary to cut usage of each
connection to 285 gallons per day per household.
For 92% of the connections, this represents a 20% reduction in use.
For the remaining 8%, however, it means an 88% reduction in use.
LACSD's Authority to Demand and Enforce Conservation
The
LACSD general manager is fond of stating (the true word is "mistating" that LACSD has no authority to enforce conservation
and that its lawyers are looking into it.
Best, Best and Krieger for $250,000 should read the law on the subject as
drafted in the Water Code and start from there.
However, the truth is, and is, that Sections 350 to 359 of the
California Water Code clearly gives LACSD this authority to require the installation of any water saving device it demands.
Any. Section 375 provides:
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, any public entity which supplies water
at retail or wholesale for the benefit of persons within the service area or area of jurisdiction of the public entity may,
by ordinance or resolution adopted by a majority of the members of the governing body after holding a public hearing upon
notice and making appropriate findings of necessity for the adoption of a water conservation program, adopt and enforce a
water conservation program to reduce the quantity of water used by those persons for the purpose of conserving the water supplies
of the public entity.
(b) With regard to water delivered for other than agricultural uses, the ordinance or resolution
may specifically require the installation of water-saving devices which are designed to reduce water consumption. The ordinance
or resolution may also encourage water conservation through rate structure design.
(c) For the purposes of this section,
"public entity" means a city, whether general law or chartered, county, city and county, special district, agency, authority,
any other municipal public corporation or district, or any other political subdivision of the state......."
Section
377 provides further:
From and after the publication or posting of any ordinance or resolution pursuant to Section
376, violation of a requirement of a water conservation program adopted pursuant to Section 376 is a misdemeanor. Upon conviction
thereof such person shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 30 days, or by fine not exceeding
one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both.
Given that LACSD has always possessed power to enact mandatory conservation,
its claim that it cannot control water usage except through rate hikes is utterly false. But can the water deficit problem
be solved through conservation alone? If the top 600 gross users reduce their usage by 88% and the balance of the 6,900 users
reduce their consumption by 20%, usage would fall within the lake's capacity. But this will not fill the lake and, therefore,
won't solve the problem by itself.
The Likely Effect of Conservation
Whether the cut is proportional or
across the board, the result must be an overall 55% reduction in consumption. In 2002, the consumption of the lake reached
an all time high of 3,347 acre feet per year, more than twice the lake's safe yield of 1,500 acre feet per year. Incidentally,
the country club topped the list for water consumption: it used 640,000 gallons per day during the summer peak.
Remember,
however, that the 55% reduction is not an "emergency" restriction, i.e., temporarily imposed until the lake returns to normal.
Rather, it is the usage necessary to keep the lake from falling further below its present level of 17 to 18 feet below full
capacity. These cuts do not allow for any build up of water to refill the lake; only further and deeper cuts can, by themselves,
begin to re-fill the lake.
If LACSD had imposed conservation in the mid-1980's when the lake's consumption was within
its safe yield of 1,500 acre feet a year, no one would have felt the pain of cutting back. But years of unfettered growth
combined with an increased penchant for landscaping have taken consumption to levels that are twice the capacity of the lake.
No wonder the lake was by 2004 down over 17 feet; it simply could not sustain that demand.
To encourage reasonable
conservation, major users and their purpose for using water must be identified. A plan should be implemented to supply these
major users with reclaimed water for landscaping. See the analysis below entitled "Reclaimed WaterE If these users need
potable water, then LACSD should create a special rate structure to encourage conservation.
Furthermore, LACSD needs
to mandate, not simply encourage, water conservation devices in all businesses and homes.
These devices need to be
made available through LACSD controlled sources at low prices. Proof of installation should be required with LACSD on or before
a set date or fines will be levied. Like the tree removal ordinances, this should be a mandate.
Finally, significant
rate increases should be imposed evenly across the board on all users (excepting the hospital) who exceed 700 gallons per
day. These increases should be designed to penalize excessive use. Rather than using advertisements in the paper, an educational
program must be produced and mailed to customers outlining the value of water saving devices. The use of water saving devices
can reduce usage by 40 gallons per day. Since 92% of connections in Arrowhead Woods use 357 gallons per day, these devices
would cut this consumption by 11%, or more than half of the 20% goal for these connections.
ALTERNATIVE WATER
SUPPLIES
Various theories have evolved on how to increase the water supply.
Some say that a pipeline must
be built from Lake Silverwood to Lake Arrowhead. This water must further be processed before being put into either the LACSD
distribution system or directly into the lake. The problems associated with this solution are (1) obtaining the right to
draw water from Lake Silverwood and (2) building the pipeline between the 2 lakes.
Using CLAWA's Water from Lake
Silverwood
At the present time our access to the water in Lake Silverwood is available only through piping through
by CLAWA. Since LACSD and its predecessors elected not to join CLAWA 30 years ago and much ill-will has developed over the
years.
We now are paying a premium to pipe water through CLAWA's system.
Purchasing Outside Water from
Other Sources
Our current solution to supply a small portion of our annual deficit (about 40%) is by purchasing water
from San Bernardion and piping through CLAWA's pipes. This is simply a scalper's deal since we will pay about $350 for water
and then tack another $2400 on top of it for piping costs.
Building our own pipe system, which has never been seriously
considered, would avoid the $2000 mark up, but cost around $35,000,000.
This entire plan does not affect the country
club. It will continue to draw water from wells and or the lake at a 92% discount, unless and until its use is either limited
or converted to reclaimed water for landscaping. This final ingredient in the revised water program is discussed below under
"Reclaimed Water" and applies not only to the country club but also to other heavy users who landscape.
RECLAIMED
WATER
LACSD is quietly developing plans to put reclaimed water to be put into Papoose Lake,or directly into
Lake Arrowhead. It is foolishly doing this without gaining public approval first.
The theory is that it would either
sit in Papoose Lake for a for a minimum of one year before being transferred into Lake Arrowhead or it would simply be slowly
introduced into the Lake at the far east end of the lake.
Since LACSD's drinking water extraction point is on the
west end of the lake, it is presumed that it would take from 5 to 10 years for the reclaimed water to reach this point.
There
is an enormous byproduct disposal problem attendant to this plan. No provisions have been made to handle the resultant salt
or brine disposal which is the natural result of the reverse osmosis process.
It either has to be piped as sludge or
could possibly be done by conveying the brine to sealed drying beds at LACSD's existing effluent disposal site and trucking
the dried salt away.
Reverse osmosis of low total dissolved solids water (200 to 250 parts per million) is fairly
simple and could be as low as $400 per acre-foot for operation and maintenance costs.
However, the capital facilities
would be expensive (originally estimated at $6 million for the reverse osmosis and ultra filtration units, estimate is more
likely to be $50 million).
The problem with IPR into Lake Arrowhead is simple. It is a relatively inactive manmade
lake that will gradually collect more and more non removed pathogens and pharmaceuticals.
Furthermore, there is
a major legal hurdle to LACSD's putting anything in the lake, since LACSD's rights, at best, extend only to taking limited
amounts of water out of the lake.
Nowhere in any grant, charter or contract does LACSD have the right to put anything
into the lake, be it sewage, reclaimed water or Mums Cordon Rouge.
This is a simple fact that has not evidently occurred
to any of the LACSD legal team.
The only entity that potentially has the right to put something in the lake is ALA
who should, in my opinion, block any such movement by LACSD.
FINANCING AND THE ARGUMENT FOR CITYHOOD
In
my opinion, any financing of these alternatives (supplemental water, reclaimed water, etc.) should be very long-term and act
as an encumbrance on the Lake. It would be tragic for Arrowheasd Woods owners to bear the costs of the improvements, only
to lose them ten years later to a cityhood movement. Instead, the improvements should be an encumbrance to be assumed by
any city which attempts a takeover.
Any solution to the lake problems must take into account that there is currently
a significant movement to make either the Arrowhead Woods or a larger area into a city. A principal proponent of this movement
is AWIN, a group that wishes to incorporate only Arrowhead Woods. You can contact Mary Snaer, one of the advocates of the
group, at marysnaer@earthlink.net.
ALA and LACSD, through their continued failure to act together for the general
benefit of the resort community, are leaving the local population no alternative other than to consider incorporation. A
newly incorporated city would have the legal and/or political power to acquire, by eminent domain, the lake and property held
by ALA and possibly the water rights held by LACSD. At that point, the existence of neither ALA nor LACSD would be necessary
for anything. Sadly, LACSD's arrogance and ALA's ambivalence could lead to their ultimate demise, all because they are not
protecting the homeowners.
If incorporation is the only way to return to the golden years with a single entity making
its overriding objective the well-being of the lake, then I am for the concept of incorporating only Arrowhead Woods. However,
I oppose incorporating a greater area since such a move runs the risk of losing the lake as a meaningful resort. It would
be "jumping from the frying pan into the fire".
A new larger city, consisting of all those who previously had no access
to the private lake, would then have the power to take the lake, the water and any portion of the surrounding areas, beaches
and clubs by eminent domain. And although the new larger city has the obligation to pay a reasonable price, that is little
consolation for turning the lake into a public park. Once made a public park, the lake would be subject to all the rights
and restrictions which all public parks endure.
In addition, if LACSD or a successor utility draws water from the
lake, it would not take much effort to extend the "certified" district to include the entire city. This would add thousands
of gallons of additional drain on an already drained lake. Putting waste water, reclaimed water, or any other treated form
of "sewage" into the lake would, by necessity, become a major means for supplementing the demand. At that moment, "Lake Arrowhead",
as a source of natural water, will become a thing of the past.
The way to avoid this occurrence, or at least postpone
it, is to realize our lake's utility now, while there is still time.
IMMEDIATE POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS
If
you think these are good ideas, you must e-mail ALA, LACSD and even the Mountain News. Lobby for a more intelligent, responsive,
responsible and effective LACSD board of directors. Eliminate conflicts of interest, such as board members being members
of preferred customer organizations.
Mention this site if you want; but unless all of us begin to put pressure on the
entities that potentially control this situation, nothing of merit is going to happen.
Let your voice be heard at
ALA. There has been plenty of talk and discussion; the time has come for ALA to get up and lead the community. Tell ALA
that you, as a citizen and/or a payor of dues, are requesting that ALA:
(1) Work with LACSD to update and clarify
the 1964 Agreement and, if LACSD refuses, litigate the rights of the parties before a court;
(2) Approach the news
organizations and pressure them to responsibly report the entire story in order to make the public aware of the true plight
of the lake;
(3) Put pressure on our political organizations; and
(4) Stop "considering" and, instead,
take strong action. Suggest that they establish a "Lake Level Committee" that actually studies recycled water for landscaping,
indirect potable reuse, inexpensive outside water purchases and conservation.
If you are for any or all of my ideas,
or have additional ideas of your own, now is the time to block and copy them into e-mails and send them to LACSD, ALA and
any or all of the organizations listed below. It won't take long and your voice will be heard.
|
