CON: Building moratorium must be based on facts, not politics or emotions

We, like most Arroyo Grande citizens, are deeply concerned about future water availability and equity between current and future water users. Residents’ response to the current drought situation has been truly phenomenal. They deserve to know when and what additional actions may be necessary.

Last Tuesday’s vote on a building moratorium should not be the end of the discussion. Our 3-2 decision that there was not a public health crisis sufficient to justify a moratorium does not mean that one will not be considered in the future.

The entire water savings from a building moratorium of 35 acre-feet would equal 1.6 percent savings, or 2 gallons a day, by current water users. That’s not enough to change current water demand significantly. It will take more than indefinitely delaying 100 percent of future development, big and small, to solve a real health and safety crisis when and if we face one in the future.

Arroyo Grande faces a real challenge to deliver water to existing and future water users. Imposing a building moratorium and other emergency measures should be a clear process that is both transparent and fact-based, not emotionally or politically driven.

Identifying specific “trigger points” where action like imposing a moratorium will take place are key to providing clear direction about when they should be implemented and, just as important, when they should be lifted.

We will be asking staff to bring back a proposal with specific trigger points that identify actions to be considered, including a building moratorium, additional water conservation measures and other potential emergency and temporary actions at our next council meeting.

This story was originally published August 31, 2016 at 7:33 PM with the headline "CON: Building moratorium must be based on facts, not politics or emotions."