On sites scattered from the East Bay to the hot foothills near Red Bluff to the dry outback of San Diego County, California developers see new towns-dozens of them-where now only grass grows and wind blows.
The plans for 33 giant developments up and down the state are a graphic illustration that California’s population boom, stalled during the recession of the past few years, is about to resume.
They also highlight a harsh fact that has receded from view during California’s wet winter of 1994-95: The state’s 32 million people, the millions of new residents expected in the coming decades and its lucrative and powerful agricultural interests are about to enter a new era of competition for water.
That’s the thirsty reality that is driving an attempt by a Central Valley legislator to ensure that sufficient water is available before massive new developments are approved.
None of the 33 new towns on the drawing board have yet secured a water supply for the legions of new residents and businesses they expect to attract.
New towns are more than just swaths of subdivisions thrown across the landscape. They are envisioned as developments combining complementary residential and commercial components along with all the infrastructure they need to make them fully functioning cities.
Some of the new towns now being proposed border on the fanciful, such as Celebrity City in Tehama County, just north of the Sacramento Valley city of Red Bluff.
The developer contemplates a large-scale country-western entertainment center and 1,600 acres of residential development on the 3,278-acre site, but not a shovelful of dirt has been turned for it so far.
Others, like Mountain House, a 4,800-acre development in San Joaquin County near the Alameda County line, are inching toward construction. Mountain House, first proposed in 1989, has received approval for the first three of 12 planned villages that are envisioned as having a total population of 44,000. But groundbreaking is still three years away.
Among the 33 new towns studied recently by legislative consultants, 10 are counting on water from the State Water Project, which barely delivers enough water to supply its contractors in wet years, or the Central Valley Project, whose supply is fully committed.
They include Diablo Grande, a 29,500-acre project in southwestern Stanislaus County on the east side of the Coast Range, where developers propose to build five villages consisting of 5,000 dwelling units, 84 acres of commercial uses and six golf courses.
The water requirement bill, by State Sen. Jim Costa (D-Fresno), has touched off a ferocious battle in Sacramento between builders on one side and farm interests on the other.
Costa’s bill recently passed the Senate, with seven Republicans joining Central Valley Democrats to provide the winning margin.
The California Building Industry Association is trying to kill the measure, arguing that it will limit growth and hurt business by giving water agencies life-or-death power over development decisions. Gov. Pete Wilson’s administration also opposes the bill.
Under the Costa bill, a water agency finding of inadequate water for new development would constitute a “significant effect” on the environment.
Such a finding would require cities and counties to make water analysis part of their long-term development plans, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act, to mitigate adverse environmental impacts.
The California Farm Bureau Federation and the state’s water agencies, the bill’s leading supporters, say that approving development without a sure water supply will bring trouble to a state whose water resources are chronically stressed.
“This is not a no-growth approach. We prefer to think of it as a pro-business proposal,” said farm bureau spokeswoman Mary Ann Warmerdam.
“It protects existing users and gives them some level of assurance that a water supply is there for their expansion needs.”
The issue framed in Costa’s bill was raised in a lengthy dispute between Contra Costa County and the East Bay Municipal Utility District.
While county supervisors accelerated approval of Dougherty Valley-a new town near San Ramon for which 11,000 dwelling units are planned on about 5,000 acres-the water district’s directors resisted expanding service to include the area.
The district sued, contending that it did not have the assured water supply to serve Dougherty Valley, and prevailed in court.
No homes have been built, as a settlement is being negotiated.
The Stanislaus Natural History Project took the county’s Board of Supervisors to court for approving a high-end resort development, after farm bureau complaints that it would deplete agriculture’s groundwater supply.
Environmentalists argued that the county did not adequately analyze the issue of permanent water supply in its environmental impact report.
The trial court ruled in favor of the county, and that ruling is being appealed.
Agriculture, which uses 85 percent of California’s developed water, feels a sense of urgency about the Costa bill because growth will inevitably threaten farmers’ water supplies.
The farm bureau sees the bill as an important tool in turning around city and suburban dwellers’ attitudes on water questions.
Bureau spokeswoman Warmerdam said that information on the amount of water needed in the state may help move most Californians to support agriculture.
