California Water Law Testing AB 325 Landscape Architects are at the end of a long line of water users in the state of California. Long before landscapes get even a drop of water, the precious commodity has been divied up by the U.S. Department of the Interior, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Water Resources, the California Protection Agency, the Central Valley farming community, and finally, the various metropolitan water districts which battle over their share of approximately 7.5 million acre-feet of water that is used for drinking, showering, manufacturing and irrigating. By the time this water is used to replenish sunblasted lawns and dehydrated trees, it has been bought, sold, hedged, and run through nearly every bureaucratic and political agency in the state. And yet, when it comes to trimming the water budget, it's the Landscape Architects, oddly enough, the one's with the least impact on water resources, that fall under some of the greatest scrutiny. The Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, otherwise known by its legislative designation as AB 325, placed an increased responsibility for measured water use on Landscape Architects. The model was adopted by about half of the cities and counties in the state of California and requires LA's to submit documentation showing the maximum applied water allowance for each new landscape that is constructed. Larry Rohlfes, CLCA, who has been observing water law and its consequences for Landscape Contractors, questions whether the legislation is going to work. "You need an incentive to maintain the landscape in a water efficient manner. There is no penalty in AB 325." said Rohlfes. The true test of the law may come with the next drought. California hasn't experienced a serious drought since 1989. Even though water districts are not currently enforcing the Ordinance, water districts are capable of invoking extraordinary powers during shortages. The ordinance may form a basis for action that has far reaching consequences for the profession of Landscape Architecture. One of the successful water conservation programs that has been adopted by the OTAI water district employs tiered rates that are tied to the maximum applied water allowance. The crucial difference between this method of regulation and the Model Efficient Water Landscape Ordinance is that you can have any kind of landscape you want, so long as you're willing to pay the consequences. The focus is placed on reducing the amount of water waste. Fees for water used in excess of the 100% allowance are passed on to the rate payers. The 1998 Best Management Practice water legislation similarly requires water districts to inform payers how much they are using above the 100% ET. The recent CALFED Bay-Delta Program proposes a series of water conservation and restoration plans that include fish ladders, fish screens, and wetland restoration, mostly in the area of the Delta and its tributaries. Noticeably absent from the report, however, is a recommendation for creating and preserving "built landscapes" of the kind that most California residents enjoy and appreciate. The implication is that built landscapes are not as valuable as swamps and wetland areas, and thus are not as deserving of the state's water resources. Critics suggest that this arcane vision of the environment pits cultivated landscapes against pristine wilderness. The notion is that nature which has been touched or altered through human intervention somehow becomes invalid. Ironically, the lush valley floor of Yosemite Park, which is the symbol of the National Park System, was actually the result of controlled burns carried out by the native Indian populations that once lived in the shadow of half dome. Critics of the deliberations also point to the fact that a half-million acre-feet of fresh water was pumped out of the San Luis Reservoir to save Delta smelt. This is more than twice the annual water expenditure of the city of San Diego. For now the CalFed process deliberations have arrived at a compromise. Unable to agree unanimously on a bypass canal that would bring more water to Southern California, they have decided to revisit the issue in a few years.