Santa Cruz Observer

Do you think the desalination debate is about water? For the opponents, it's not

By TOM HONIG

Those of us who think that Santa Cruz County has a water crisis are witnessing a frustrating political fight over a proposed desalination plant.

What's frustrating is that the two sides aren't fighting over the same thing. The pro-desal people see it this way: "We're worried that there won't be enough water and that when the next drought hits we'll be in a real fix."

But the anti-desal people would be happy not to have enough water. They won't say so, but it goes back to an old theory -- limit services and you limit growth.

All the things that a lack of water brings are growth limiting: things like building moratoriums, fewer water hookups, increased housing costs that limit an influx of new people. And that's what a number of people want. Take for example the huge cost of developing second units, unimproved lots or even the proposed Aptos Village development out in the Soquel Creek Water District.  If you don't want new people here, you say to yourself, "No new connections? Great!"

Anti-desal folks really don't want any new supply of water. Not that there's even one available -- except desal. Just try proposing a new reservoir. (In fact, doing so wouldn't even do much good; the problem Santa Cruz has is that most of its water comes from collected runoff -- and if and when there's a serious drought there won't be enoughwater no matter how many dams you build.)

Desal opponents have done nothing but attack an environmental impact report on the desal project since it came out. Wouldn't you think that at least one person might say something like: "Hmmm. Maybe the report makes sense."

It won't happen. Instead, they focus on more conservation (Santa Cruz already conserves more per capita than anywhere else around) -- and pit toilets, no lawns, fewer showers and -- yuck! -- recycling sewage runoff.

Meanwhile, Soquel Creek Water District, which unlike Santa Cruz utilizes groundwater, faces severe overdraft on its wells. Now. Today.

That's why the argument shouldn't be about growth. But that's where the anti-desal folks focus -- even though they're not saying so.

 

Change and Santa Cruz politics

By TOM HONIG

I was just putting the finishing touches on a post about the Santa Cruz Warriors deal and how it suggests a real change in Santa Cruz politics when more evidence of that came across the transom in the form of the Sentinel reporter Jason Hoppin's penetrating look at Santa Cruz politics: "In high-profile endorsement of county board race, a rift is exposed."

Hoppin's story is less about City Council votes than it is about former Assemblyman Fred Keeley and environmental activist Gary Patton --- and the Bruce McPherson-Eric Hammer race for county supervisor -- but he includes this significant description of the current state of the so-called "progressive" movement that has dominated local politics for more than a generation: 

"On one side is the current council majority: generally pro-business, open to compromise and, while pro-environment and cautious of growth, not purists about either issue. Generally, this side tends to be younger.

One the other side is the older guard, populated by hardcore conservationists and lefty true-believers. Though they established Santa Cruz' reputation for activism, their influence seems to be dwindling, with the balance of power on the council having shifted decidedly from the latter to the former."

Getting back to the Warriors' vote (6-0 to move ahead with the project), it appears as though the younger group's priorities here are starting to take hold. Just as they should.

Some 30 years ago, staunch anti-growthers took the reins of power here. Young rabble-rousers themselves, they balked at the pro-growth majority that had preceded them. It was a fool's bet to go against them, and slowly the anti-growth enviros took solid control of Santa Cruz.

Alas, time marches on and now up-and-comers see things differently. Three decades of anti-growth regulations have combined with inflated housing prices and a lack of good local jobs to encourage a new pro-business (and pro-environmental) ethic.

Don't bet against it. The mere existence of a new professional sports team in Santa Cruz reveals that things are changing. The younger ones assuming the mantle -- think Ryan Coonerty, think David Terrazas -- are open to change and open to bringing a youthful vigor to life in Santa Cruz.

Despite what some of the older naysayers living in their inflated million-dollar houses say, it's not a return to the old days. These days, younger leaders think they can protect the environment and have economic growth and lifestyle improvements all at the same time.

New center a huge addition for Santa Cruz and for the Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary

By TOM HONIG

When President George H.W. Bush designated a huge area of California coastal waters are the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary back in 1992, no one really knew exactly how the designation would impact life here.

Actually, one important impact was known immediately: a ban on offshoroe oil exploration here. At the time, opponents of drilling expressed surprise bordering on shock that Bush -- a longtime oil man -- would protect such a huge area, running from the waters off Marin County all the way south to San Luis Obispo county. (More on that later).

But this week -- 20 years after the sanctuary designation was announced -- the federal government and local officials completed a most important step in the evolution of the sanctuary: the opening of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Exploration Center. The facility -- at 35 Pacific Avenue, near the Municipal Wharf -- features 7,000 square feet of exhibits. It doesn't have fish or other "squishy"' things; it instead concentrates on exhibits on concentrating on biodiversity, geology and marine conservation.

The center does a couple important things for Santa Cruz:

1) It lends an educational element to the Beach Area. I've long thought that environmentalism is much more than just limiting growth; it's about educating people about science and the environment. Those out in the ocean -- sailors, surfers, divers and swimmers -- already know how special and important the marine world is. Now, with all the fascinating scientific displays in the center, the offshore world is being brought even to those visitors and residents who have never event gotten their feet wet.

2) It gets Santa Cruz noticed as being an important part of Monterey Bay. Those fascinated with the undersea world know about the Monterey Bay Aquarium at Cannery Row -- and maybe other facilities like the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories.  Now, Santa Cruz has its own major destination -- the Sanctuary Exploration Center. And, this new center can also increase the visibility of another important coastal-related destination -- Long Marine Lab's Seymour Center, a facility whose exhibits feature live animals on display and one that's a great complement to the new center. Visitors to the Exploration Center just might be motivated to add the Seymour Center to their itinerary. (Note to UCSC officials: How about funding a shuttle that would connect the two facilities?

The new center was dedicated this week with all the usual pomp and speeches from various city and federal officials. One nice note: in addition to the elected officials, the ceremony also featured Bonnie Lipscomb, shown at left, Santa Cruz's executive director of economic development, whose behind-the-scenes coordination with the federal government facilitated the entire project.

Also speaking was U.S. Rep Sam Farr, who gave considerable credit to those in Santa Cruz who have supported marine conservation over the years -- former U.S. Rep. Leon Panetta, former supervisor Gary Patton, longtime activist Dan Haifley and others. Still I was amused by his downplaying of key Republicans in the process -- former U.S. Sen. Pete Wilson for one, who played a role in stopping the sale of offshore oil leases and who also worked hard in support of the sanctuary. Likewise the man who designated the large sanctuary area -- former President George H.W. Bush; Farr intimated that Bush was kind of forced into the decision and that he did so only as an election-year ploy. (Of course, Democrats never stoop to that, right?)

I mentioned the dismissal of Republicans to a politically savvy friend, and he brought up an even better strategy for Farr and the Democrats -- point to the environmental record of "old-school" Republicans like Bush and Wilson and point out how far the current-day GOP has turned its back on the environmental movement.

Hey -- all that political talk detracts from the genuinely important development that's signified by the new Exploration Center. It's an important part of Santa Cruz, of the Monterey Bay Area and even the entire Marine Sanctuary system. Federal officials have already predicted that this Exploration Center will prove to be the most-visited such spot in the entire national system.

Good for business AND for the environment?

Second in a series

By TOM HONIG

One of the most frustrating aspects of life in Santa Cruz is how strident public discussions can become. I've always wondering why -- in a small and relatively homogenous community -- differing opinions can get some people so damn mad.

Maybe it's actually because it's a small community. Past political allies can show up in current debates on opposite sides -- and there's nothing like the scorn that  that engenders.

But beyond that, it's unclear to me why some of our political debate -- the desalination plan is a good example -- elicit accusations of cronyism and even corruption.

Nowhere is this conflict felt more strongly than in debates over environmental policy. The basic one pits business interests versus environmental protection. The age-old accusation in Santa Cruz holds that what's good for business is probably bad for the environment.

On the recent trip to San Luis Obispo by 69 local community leaders (see the earlier article), that issue stood out front and center. Or, as a representative of the San Luis Obispo Board of Economic Vitality put it, "We decided that we needed economic vitality, but we also need environmental protection." SLO County Supervisor Adam Hill said it this way: "There is a link. I ask people, 'Do you like the beautiful green hills and our greenbelt?' Well, they don't come free."

Most of the visiting Santa Cruzans -- across the spectrum of business, non-profits and government -- seemed to agree. Now the question becomes whether there's community agreement -- and political action --when specific issues come up.

Cabrillo College President Brian King, the prime motivator of the trip, says he's optimistic. "I think it was very powerful to get a key group of leaders together for an extended period of time. A bit removed from home, everyone had an opportunity for extended conversations that can be so difficult to have with our busy lives. Hearing about successes in a similar community with challenges we serve was very encouraging. It's easy to think the hard problems are impossible to solve, and hearing solutions that have worked can be very empowering." 

Coming up: More reactions on business and environmental protection.

Middle class leaving the Golden State

When I first moved to Santa Cruz in 1971, it was one of those places described as home to the newly wed and the nearly dead. That's because the cost of living was (incredibly, as viewed in 2012) far less than other places in California.

It's different now. But Santa Cruz County is reflective of something that's happening aroound the state -- a disappearing middle class. Leave it to a demographer -- in this case, Joel Kotkin of Chapman College -- to analyze what's happening.

The Wall Street Journal published an important interview with Kotkin over the weekend. Here's what he has to say: "The state is run for the very rich, the very poor and public employees."

About 40 percent of Californians pay no income tax. A quarter are on Medicaid. High taxes are paid by the rich -- but also by the middle class. So the rich are staying and so are the poor. Those in the middle take a look at high taxes, a high cost of housing and they're relocating. They have other places to go, says Kotkin, because employers more and more are going out of state. Twitter, Adobe, eBay and Oracle have moved staff to Salt Lake City. Apple, Facebook and eBay are building operations in Austin.

Take 10 minutes and read the interview right here.

On a recent night in Santa Cruz, it was two groups fighting for the same thing

EDITOR'S NOTE: Is the word "compromise" in the local activist's dictionary? Apparently not, judging from this post by Robert Singleton of Santa Cruz, who attended the recent City Council hearing on a multi-use trail through Pogonip. This fight -- enviro vs. enviro -- features old-time activists and a new breed of progressives.

By ROBERT SINGLETON 

It’s a Tuesday night and it’s sprinkling outside, much to my dismay, as I head over to City Hall to witness what is expected to be a long and onerous council meeting. As I near the chambers it becomes obvious that a large swath of people have already begun to pour out onto the patio outside of the meeting hall, surely a sign of things to come. The issue being debated tonight is whether or not to accept a proposal by the city’s Parks and Recreation department to create an additional multi-use trail in the Pogonip, a large and scenic area on the north side of the city.

Santa Cruz is one of those cities where even the most mundane of issues can become a hot, and very much heated, topic of debate. Tonight was no exception. It would pit the old school progressives, who largely oppose anything that they feel at all resembles growth, versus the new school, the much younger and pragmatic, yet still extremely conscience progressives. I know, what would seem to any outsiders as virtually the same type of people, fiercely opposing one another and mobilizing their respective constituencies for what eventually concluded a 4 hour long city council meeting.

What can be seen as even more strange is the fact that both groups claim to fighting for the same thing, the preservation of public land for public use and sustainability. They just differ on what they believe to be appropriate public use and their diagnosis of what was preventing that use.

On one side you have the Friends of Pogonip, the old guard, who claim that the land should be preserved by utilizing existing trails, rather than building another. They claim to already be having problems with mountain bikers using the existing trails illegally, which they claim makes it difficult to hike in the traditional sense because of the constant worry of encountering “vehicles,” (mountain bikes). Those in support of the trail, many of who are openly avid mountain bikers, claim to need another trail to avoid having to share the highway with cars and to fight against the crime that has persisted in the area for some time. They  also claim to not have enough trails to practice as it is, a somewhat weaker claim because of Santa Cruz’s notoriety as a wonderful place to go mountain biking.

Regardless of their respective positions, both of which resonate with me to some degree, the real issue at hand is how this community wants to collectively resolve its differences. As it stood on this particular night, both sides presented their side of the story, complete with petitions from supporters and mobilized volunteers. However, the one thing that was noticeably absent, from what I would otherwise call an extremely active and robust civic process, was any notion of compromise. In fact, it appeared to me as if neither side had even considered, let alone tried, to reach out to the other. The mayor even began the meeting with a general call for civility because apparently both sides had been sending nasty and defamatory e-mails to him, and each other, for days leading up to this meeting.

Now as much as I appreciate the general level of participation, I do not appreciate this polarization, which only manifests itself to an even higher degree on the state and national levels.

Is it even possible to claim the middle ground anymore? If we can’t even agree on the placement and use of a 4-foot wide patch of dirt than how can we expect to solve some of the most pressing and perilous problems of our day? And to be honest, I really don’t have an answer.

 I am just tired of the way things work, and would love hear suggestions on how to deal with this entrenched mentality of “my way or the highway”, because in a world of policy winners and losers, the real victim becomes our democracy.

Robert Singleton is a co-founder of Civinomics, a startup that  helps communities develop solutions to local issues through a collaborative online platform and direct iPad polling.

The subject is water -- not just desal

By TOM HONIG

You have to feel some sympathy for anyone trying to follow the debate over a proposed desalination plant in Santa Cruz.

It's like trying to watch a sports event in which one team is playing hockey and the other is playing basketball.

City leaders -- as they have for the past 30 years or so -- are trying to figure out how to provide an adequate supply of water. And, the neighbors to the south in the Soquel Creek Water District are trying to stop an overdraft of their water supply. (Santa Cruz relies mostly on surface water while Soquel relies on wells. That's important to keep in mind.)

Meanwhile, opponents of desal aren't really focused on water concerns. They're fighting against desal and then secondarily addressing what to do about a lack of water. (They're seriously concocting a scheme in which the two thirsty districts would somehow share water and that would solve the problem.)

Shifting the topic of conversation is an old political trick. Opponents are making desal the topic. They're not focused on the real problem -- not enough water. Actually, it's a bit more complex than that. Santa Cruz's water supply is dependent on rainfall. Rain water in winter can be stored in facilities like Loch Lomond and then used all summer during the dry period. But in years (like this one) when there's little rain, the water supply dwindles. A couple years of that, and you can't water your garden or even flush your toilet very often.

But some on the opposition say that a desal project is actually about allowing growth -- at UC Santa Cruz in particular. And that's where another false debate is raging. One can argue about whether UCSC should grow, but trying to limit growth by withholding services really doesn't make much sense.

As for the Soquel Creek district's needs -- they differ from Santa Cruz's. Soquel Creek wants the desal program because in normal, wetter years, the water could be shipped off to Mid-County, where it can recharge the groundwater supply. 

Again, desal foes don't want to see that. 

The problem is that they continue fighting about the desal project and tend to ignore the pressing need for a more secure water supply. In fact, they even characterize the desal project as being "rushed through," even though it has been a topic of study for three decades. Even now, while an environmental impact report and other studies are proceeding, desal is being carefully and slowly considered. 

The question of whether to build a desal plant is one worth studying. Any actual project is still months away and is still subject to a lot of discussion.

But here's' what that discussion should be about: the water supply. That's the subject at hand, even if one group has made it all about the construction of a desal plant.

 

 

 

Desal and UCSC growth -- a student environmentalist's perspective

EDITOR'S NOTE: Recent posts have focused on growth at UCSC and the attitudes of some longtime residents. The following piece is written by a current student at the university -- a self-described environmentalist who has a unique and worthwhile take on an important issue -- water, UCSC growth and how local politics should function.

By ROBERT SINGLETON

I am first and foremost an environmentalist. Before I came to Santa Cruz to attend UCSC, I had worked for a progressive, slow growth, non-profit in my own hometown of Santa Rosa. During that time I fought against development of all types. I helped to pass Urban Growth Boundaries, enact slow growth measures, fought against ridge top development and even helped elect a slow growth majority to the city council. All of this I firmly believed in, and still do for the most part.

However, I have always attempted to be practical when dealing with local politics, and I would say that I am one of the few. I have definitely had long conversations with people I see eye to eye with 97% of the time, only to fight about something minor like prospective green building standards, or the phrasing in a campaign leaflet. To me these encounters are all part of the process, a process that albeit painstaking, is absolutely necessary for the proper adoption of policy.

In Santa Cruz this decision making process is very similar, there are those who stick to their ideological guns give hell or high water and then there are those like myself, who continually question, sometimes to the dismay of my peers, the stances of everyone involved. This has been my continual stance throughout the local debate concerning desalination. I have met the leaders of both camps, heard their perspectives and questioned their beliefs and assumptions, with rigor. In fact, I have felt more like an outsider looking in than I should given my previous work, but I can’t help but play devil’s advocate.

Given this experience, I have come to the following conclusions, some of them localized and unique to Santa Cruz, others transcendent and to some extent universal.

1. The Soquel Creek water district is in dire straights and must act quickly to develop a supplemental supply because conservation alone will not be enough to curb their current usage.
   1. Private well owners cannot be expected to reduce their consumption without some extreme coordination, and currently many refuse to even put meters on their wells, let alone take steps for major reductions.
2. The city of Santa Cruz is better off, but is operating on the same supply that it had during the 76-77 drought, despite its population having doubled. This has left the city particularly vulnerable to future droughts, even without considering the mandatory reductions needed to preserve fish habitat.
3. UCSC is going to expand, no matter how much local resistance it faces. It has a state mandate, an underlying agreement with the city for resources and the strong support of many a passionate and pragmatic individuals. Get over it.
4. People must be willing to overcome their hard-line stances on growth and be willing to compromise. It is a sad day when local progressives become the obstructionist conservatives they so typically despise.
5. If people on both sides are really serious about having a genuine political discussion than both must be willing to acknowledge one another’s opinion and more importantly, a common set of agreed upon facts. If factual disagreements remain, than a proper explanation must be given, with both sides championing a common explanation for the disagreement.

Academic freedom and UCSC growth

SECOND IN A SERIES

By TOM HONIG

There are a lot of harsh words for UC Santa Cruz and its plan to expand city services to a portion of campus. What gets under the skin of some critics is that the university doesn't legally need the permission of local agencies to expand -- the university is a state agency with an equal legal standing to local agencies like the Santa Cruz City Council or the  Local Agency Formation Commission.

UC went before LAFCO this week and received approval of its growth plan -- even though technically it didn't need to do so.

That standing gets under the skin of some critics. But there are a couple of reasons why, and the explanation is worth keeping in mind.

1. UC's legal standing has to do with academic freedom. For example, imagine a fictional local jurisdiction that takes offense to, say, the teaching of evolution. That local agency could withhold zoning approval until the university changed its curriculum. That's the principle behind establishing UC as a state agency with a legal standing equal to any other.

2. Any campus of UC serves a public much wider than just a local town or city. True, UCSC exists in Santa Cruz, but it serves a statewide clientele. And what's good for local neighbors isn't necessarily the same as what's good for prospective students from Silicon Valley, the Bay Area and even Southern California.

This week, the university went before LAFCO to win approval of its plan to build housing and provide services for up to 2,000 new students. Opponents testified that there's not enough water to adequately allow for the expansion.

Legally, UC didn't even have to go before LAFCO, but officials did as part of an earlier agreement with the city. In fact, UCSC Chancellor George Blumenthal reminded people of that fact prior to the meeting. In a letter to LAFCO, Blumenthal said: that if the agency slapped unacceptable conditions on the plan "the university will seriously consider withdrawing its application or judicially challenging the approval."

That comment got under the skin of opponents. One letter-writer to the Sentinel remarked: "The chancellor's saber rattling about new lawsuits is unfortunate and a sad reminder of UCSC's historical arrogant attitude that no one, citizens or other government entites, has any business trying to interfere."

Strong words, but the evidence is otherwise. The university doesn't legally have to cooperate at all. And Blumenthal's willingness to negotiate with the city and with LAFCO shows that at least he's sensitive to the local community.

That's' not to say that UCSC officials are always right. But it's worth remembering that they have a wider public than just Santa Cruz and they also have constitutional rights that require protecting. 

NEXT: The growth argument.

Blaming the 1 percent isn't enough

By TOM HONIG

The Occupy Wall Street movement has spread across the world -- including right here in Santa Cruz. More than anything, the movement was born out of frustration going back to the 2008 economic collapse, with the resulting ripples still washing over the economy.

There are more questions than answers about the movement, but in my latest column for the Santa Cruz Good Times, I describe it all as a "righteous display of anger." I find the "Occupy" movement a reasonable reaction to some outrageous selfishness.

Of course, after I wrote it I had a few additional thoughts. A friend of mine who works in Silicon Valley reminded me that even in this time of harsh unemployment, companies there continue to go outside the country to find computer engineers because there aren't enough qualified American citizens. Who's to blame for that?

As the self-described "99 percent" continue to focus on the wealthy and privileged "1 percent," it's easy to forget that we all have responsibilities to improve ourselves. Greed and self-interest are not limited to 1 percent of the population.

For example, are interest groups  in Santa Cruz willing to bend even a little on issues like improving the local economy? How about providing opportunity for more young people at a growing UC Santa Cruz? Or to provide a better supply of water for future generations? Or support development that could bring in jobs?

Those issues should be part of the local dialogue every bit as much as expressing anger over what happened on Wall Street.