Repost - Spillway News - Legacies of Monterey Agreement - Newhall Ranch

Spillway News Spring 2001

Legacies of the Monterey Agreement
Watering Newhall Ranch
on a wish and a prayer
By Lynne A. Plambeck

Southern California has a water problem. Government
and court decisions the past several years make clear that it
is time to re-examine how we view water and our water
resources:

• Courts forcing Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power (LADWP) to leave 15 percent of its water diversion
in the Owens Valley to wet down alkali dust in Owens Lake
bed and reduce particulate air pollution;

• Setting aside approval in June 2000 of the 21,000-unit
Newhall Ranch project in Los Angeles County, the largest
development project approved in California, for lack of an
identified water source;

• A Record of Decision in the six-year CalFED public
dialogue now facing several lawsuits, making the outcome of
CalFED’s labors uncertain, despite its protests of good faith
and equitable statewide water solutions;

• A court decision in Amador County in 1999 underlining
the need to address water in local general plans1;

• A Public Utilities Commission decision requiring
environmental review for Valencia Water Company’s water
management plan before further service area annexations are
allowed2; and

• A Sacramento appellate court setting aside the
Monterey Agreement environmental impact report (EIR) as
inadequate (particularly its project description, the Agreement
itself).

Southern California’s water problem is not just a problem
of supply. It is also a problem of concept.

Signs of Change

The Sacramento appellate court made this abundantly
clear last September when it opined that “paper water
[referring to undeliverable portions of state water project
entitlements] always was an illusion...‘Entitlements’ is a
misnomer, for contractors surely cannot be entitled to water
nature refuses to provide or the body politic refuses to
harvest, store and deliver. Paper water represents the
unfulfilled dreams of those who, steeped in the water culture
of the 1960s, created the expectation that 4.23 maf [million
acre-feet] of water could be delivered by the SWP built to capacity.”3 Now it cannot.

Are land use planners listening to the recent legal and
policy decisions and to public outcry to change things? Some
are. Although the City of Los Angeles has grown greatly in
population, water usage has remained almost steady.
LADWP deserves praise and credit for its great strides in
water conservation, a result of its efforts with community
groups to ensure that real conservation goals are achieved.

Even the Los Angeles County Department of Public
Works, that dinosaur of planning whose staff seems to glory
in concrete, has begun a shift of thought, possibly attributable
to its membership on local watershed councils. Commuity groups find its staff more open to solutions that will provide both flood control and remain natural waterways such as occurred in the Arroyo Seco and on a smaller scale in the Laing Homes development in the Santa Clarita Valley.

Local and Logical Planning

In the late 1970s, litigation gave Los Angeles (LA)
County a specific water planning tool called the Development
Monitoring System (DMS). DMS provides LA County
a means of analyzing infrastructure needs in light of previous
approvals and existing uses. If the DMS finds that fire
services, schools, roads, libraries, and water services are
inadequate, then a new development project must be
downsized, delayed or denied until such public services and
utilities exist to serve the development.4 Although the
decision was 10 years in the making, it forever changed LA
County’s planning process.

Of course, the reasoning within the DMS seems perfectly
logical to most everyone. Just ask the man on the street
“should you build housing tracts without a water supply?”
The response is inevitably a look of disbelief and an
emphatic, “No!, of course not.”

For many years land use planners, on the advice of water
agencies often controlled by developers, lived by the mantra
that “water supply is infinite, it is only a matter of how much
you are willing to pay for it; “water runs uphill to money”;
and, “build the houses and the water will come,” etc. More
recently, many general plans and many local, state, and federal
laws require an analysis of water supply for new
developments and protection of local aquifers, rivers,
tributaries and groundwater recharge areas.

In spite of such local (and logical) planning mandates,
agencies from the Army Corps of Engineers to city planning
departments allow important LA County watershed resources
to be converted to concrete channels, maximizing developer
profits at the expense of current and future community
needs.

Huge development projects, with Newhall Ranch in the
lead, were approved in LA County with little or no attention
to the adequacy of the water supply needed for new residents
or to the impact potentially massive reductions in existing
available water supply that would result to local businesses
and established communities.

Fundamental changes in viewpoint are yet to arrive.
Southern California will need to rely more heavily on our
local water resources than ever before, for example through
conjunctive use and living within our means. Have we taken
this message to heart? The Newhall Ranch Project is an
example of how far Southern California has come, but how
far it must go to bring development plans into line with water
realities.

Newhall Ranch

Newhall Ranch is a 21,600-unit project proposed for an
agricultural area along the Santa Clara River, LA County’s
last wild and unchannelized river in northwestern LA
County, in a watershed spanning two coastal counties
(including Ventura County), bounded on the south by the
Santa Susana Mountains. The project is not located within
any City boundary and is in an area previously zoned by the
LA County general plan for only 2,000 units. In one swoop,
the County increased its population projections by 70,000
people for the area and re-zoned the agricultural land to
allow the project’s urban uses.

Under developer pressure, the County refused to address
Newhall Ranch’s water or watershed issues in any meaningful
way.

For example, a regional planning commissioner stated at
a 1996 hearing that the developer, Newhall Land and
Farming Company’s proposed placement of 3,000 new
homes in a floodplain of the Santa Clara River obviously
created most of the opposition. River habitat, water, flooding
and viewshed concerns could all be resolved by merely
removing these homes and the proposed commercial uses
from this area.

There was silence in the room. Reduce a developer’s
proposal by 3,000 units?

Such a proposition was unheard-of in LA County, though
it was eminently logical, probably required by the general
plan, and would protect the River and its water supply.

The Commission seemed to support the idea though, and
the public held its breath.

But County planning staff returned a month later with the
proposal reduced to 300 units, and no loss of commercial
zoning. The Commissioner who had previously suggested 3,000 unit reduction, lauded this token change as an excellent compromise.

We all speculated that in the interim she apparently
received a stern lecture on the need for developer campaign
contributions.

One Commissioner bravely continued pushing for flood
plain protection. He was replaced before he could vote on the
project.5

LA County approved this massive project in March 1999
knowing that Newhall Ranch had no adequate water supply
and it ignored the General Plan’s mandate to protect the
Significant Ecological Area (SEA) status of the Santa Clara
River.

Still, a condition was attached to the County’s use permit
approval stating that tract maps would not be approved
unless and until a sufficient source of water was found for
each tract. This condition had the effect of delaying the
examination of adequate water supplies to the tract map
stage of the approval process. It also locked out the possibility
for local watershed protection that would aid water
supply by locking in inappropriate land uses granted with
approval of the Newhall Ranch specific plan.

Shell Game vs. Common Sense

The Newhall Ranch approval was in part the fault of the
area’s over-zealous growth-oriented water agencies. Controlled
by development interests, these agencies have
consistently overstated water supply by reporting access to
full State Water entitlement and relying on extensive
overdraft of local sources.6

Instead of reporting existing planned and available water
supplies, the local water districts’ state-required Urban Water
Management Plan lists aquifers that are currently unusable
due to ammonium perchlorate pollution. In addition, the
County’s water plan relies on water bank availability for
which they have no contracts. And it overstates State Water
Project entitlement availability.7

Water information supplied for the Newhall Ranch EIR
claimed availability of full state water entitlement, giving the
appearance of a large surplus of available water supply. This
was exactly the problem anticipated in the Monterey
Agreement EIR court decision, where Santa Barbara citizens
merely put forward “the common sense notion,” wrote the
court, “that land use decisions are appropriately predicated in
some large part on assumptions about available water supply.
There is certainly the possibility that local decision makers
are seduced by contractual entitlements and approve projects
dependent on water worth little more than a wish and a
prayer.”8

Further the Newhall Ranch Court was asked to take
judicial notice of a 41,000-acre-foot Monterey Agreement
transfer that was consummated just days after the approval of
the Newhall Ranch project.

The plaintiffs (of which I am a member) had no way of
arguing to the court the myriad infrastructure problems
associated with the acquisition of this transfer, the biggest of
which is storage. Castaic Lake Water Agency has no storage
facility, no spreading grounds, no means of accumulating
water locally to supply users in the event of a multi-year
drought. And yet this state water transfer would be the
primary, not the “supplemental” water source for thousands
of homes and businesses. With only a “pass-through” 4,000
acre-feet of storage in Castaic Lake, and a “flex” agreement
that allows only a modest increase in that amount that must
be repaid in a five-year period, there is no way of assuring
water to residents in a multi-year drought event.

We also had no means of bringing to light the shell game
that Newhall Land and the water agencies were foisting on
the public. This same Monterey Agreement water transfer
was promised to three different projects before three different
agencies.

Castaic Lake Water Agency first presented data indicating
that the transfer was needed for existing general plan
land use approvals.9

Then, Newhall Land and their subsidiary, Valencia Water
Company, obtained permission from the California Public
Utilities Commission to annex the Westridge project to their
water service territory based on this transfer.10

Finally, LA County Supervisor Antonovich clearly based
his approval of the Newhall Ranch project in part upon this
transfer.11

Even the Santa Clarita area water agencies’ recently
released Urban Water Management Plan lists aquifers that
are currently unusable due to ammonium perchlorate
pollution, water bank availability for which they have no
contracts and over-stated State Water Project entitlement
availability, instead of reporting existing planned and
available water supplies.12

How can local planners and commissioners be expected
to make good planning decisions with such inaccurate and
vague water information? It is time to put some teeth in the
urban water management law that requires more accurate
reporting if this tool is ever to be really useful to the communities
and planning agencies it is supposed to serve.

Wishing and Praying

During the approval process for the Newhall Ranch
project, Newhall Land and Farming argued that the houses
would be built over a 25-year period and that by then they
would find water.

But most proponents of good watershed management
believe that destroying Northern fisheries to feed sprawl in
Southern California is no longer an acceptable option. The 27
few years ago to get clear and plain analysis of water issues
into the planning process. No, the water agencies shouldn’t
be in control of planning (who would want such a headache?),
but they must provide planning agencies with
accurate information and planning agencies, for the benefit
of their communities must act on this information.

We must also strengthen California’s urban water
management planning law. At the moment, water agencies
are determined to support the development industry to the
detriment of existing communities and local businesses.

They may mislead local planning agencies that depend on
information presented in Urban Water Management Plans,
freely and without fear of repercussion.

There must be some means to ensure accuracy of
reported water supplies and verifiable methods of balancing
demand with real supplies. Some public or agency oversight
is needed to discourage overstating of State Water Project
supplies, require clear disclosure of polluted basin water
supplies, and timelines and financing mechanisms for
bringing on capital projects needed to support any future
supplies.

Southern California politics, particularly in the Santa
Clarita Valley, is still controlled by the development industry.

With huge sums of money at stake, it is difficult to make
even very reasonable public concerns such as adequate water
supply a meaningful and enforceable part of the public
planning process.

To continue supplying even our present
population with good potable water, we must have political
leaders willing to speak out and act to protect our local
watersheds. This is just good common sense.

NOTES

1. County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency, No.
C027948, 99 C.D.O.S 9544 filed Nov. 3, 1999, certified for
publication Dec. 3, 1999.

2. Application 99-12-025, filed December 17, 1999, Ruling
JLN/BDP/abw 12/21/2000. Other aspects of the application
are still pending.

3. Planning and Conservation League v. Department of Water
Resources, Case no. C024576, Court of Appeal, 3rd District,
decision filed 15 September 2000, footnote #7.

4. Coalition for Los Angeles County Planning in the Public
Interest v. Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles,
C366464, entered April 30, 1986, Judge Norman Epstein.

5. Commissioner Richard Wulliger.

6. PCL v. DWR, op. cit., note 3, above.

7. See Table 1-4 pg. 1-19, 2000 Urban Water Management
Plan prepared for Castaic Lake Water Agency, Newhall
County Water District, Santa Clarita Water Company,
Valencia Water Co. by SA Associates, Reiter Lowry Consultants,
Black and Veitch available on the CLWA web site at
www.clwa.org.

8. Cal Reptr 2d 2000WL 1342138 Cal. App 3 Dist, page 11.

9. Castaic Lake Water Agency, Draft Integrated Water
Resource Plan, February 1998, see Table 2-3, p. 2-6.

10. See California Public Utilities Commission Resolution
W-4154, 5 August 1999.

11. “...The Castaic Lake Water Agency believes that it will be
able to provide the needed supplies on schedule through
County line. Final LA County approval stated that future
tracts would not be approved if supplying them with water
would result in an overdraft of the local aquifers. But how
could Ventura County believe such a statement knowing that
water supplies were overstated and overdraft was already
occurring?13
In April 1999, shortly after the approval by LA County,
11 downstream public agencies (including 4 cities, flood
control and air pollution districts), a downstream water
district, three environmental organizations, and a low-income
housing group filed suit in Superior Court in Ventura County.
After a short skirmish over venue, the case was heard in the
neutral venue of Kern County by Judge Roger D. Randle.
Volumes of briefings and several days of oral testimony led
to a historic decision to set aside the Newhall Ranch approval
“until Newhall Land could demonstrate that adequate
water sources will be available for buildout of the project.”14
The August 2000 decision suspends “all specific Project
activity or activities that could result in an adverse change or
alteration to the physical environment unless and until they
comply with the provisions of the LA County General Plan
related to the development monitoring system as it relates to
water supplies and the General Plan policies of Los Angeles
County requiring protection of natural resources in SEAs as
they relate to [the Santa Clara River].”15
Momentous Water and Land Use Issues
How can we resolve such momentous issues before they
arrive at the doorstep of the courts? Local watershed councils
will help a great deal in this area. Although broad-based
coalitions may not reach consensus, they do provide a forum
for education and understanding of the wide array of impacts
brought about by poor watershed conservation.
We need to strengthen Senator Costa’s SB 901 effort of a future acquisitions.” Motion to approve the Newhall Ranch
Project, LA County Board of Supervisors, 28 February 1999,
and more specifically in correspondence to Karen Pearson
dated 11 February 1999: “Finally, with respect to the issue of
water, the Castaic Lake Water Agency has advised us of its
intent to acquire 41,000 acre-feet of water from outside the
Valley.”

12. Castaic Lake Water Agency, Newhall County Water
District, Santa Clarita Water Company, and Valencia Water
Company, 2000 Urban Water Management Plan, prepared by
SA Associates, Reiter Lowry Consultants, and Black and
Veitch, 2000, Table 1-4, p. 1-19.

13. See comments and testimony by Ventura County and
United Water Conservation District, Newhall Ranch Final
Environmental Impact Report, 1999.

14. Kern County Case # 239324-RDR consolidated. Judgment
entered August 3, 2000, p. 35.

15. Ibid.