So if you want to build housing for another million people, then I want to see somewhere in there that you've expanded water and power resources for an additional million people. And if it isn't on line... NOW... then I'm not zoning land for use by another million people.
It's already a California state law; on the books for decades.
SB 610 - The Water Supply Assessment Law
In 1995, the California Legislature enacted SB 901 (later codified in Water Code sections 10910-10915) to ensure that cities and counties would assess the adequacy of available water supplies to meet projected water demand prior to approving significant new land development projects. In 2001, perceived shortcomings in SB 901 compliance led the California Legislature to enact two further lawsâ"SB 610 and SB 221â"to tighten the linkage between water supply availability and land-use planning decisions. SB 610 focused on improving the Water Supply Assessment, or WSA, procedure previously established by SB 901. Among other things, SB 610 expanded the scope of development projects triggering the WSA procedure and expanded the informational requirements of the procedure, particularly with respect to groundwater supplies.
The WSA law requires that before cities or counties approve certain classes of projects (e.g., residential developments over 500 units) as lead agencies under CEQA, they must request preparation of a WSA by the public water supplier identified to serve the proposed development project. The public water supplier has 90 days to prepare and approve a WSA after receiving a request from a city or county land-use agency. The WSA must assess the supplier's projected water availability and the projected water demand in its service area over a 20-year horizon, including supply and demand projections in normal water years, dry water years and multiple-dry water years (i.e., in droughts). The public water supplier's WSA must conclude whether projected supplies will be adequate to serve existing demand, demand from the proposed development project, and demand from planned future uses.
After the water supplier's governing body (i.e., board of directors) approves the WSA, it must be submitted to the city or county land-use agency (i.e., the lead agency) for physical incorporation into the CEQA document being prepared for the proposed development project. The WSA law provides for the lead agency's CEQA document (i.e., an environmental impact report ["EIR"] or negative declaration) to evaluate the water supply and demand information in the WSA. Ultimately, the WSA law requires the lead agency to make a determination "based on the entire record, whether projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future uses." (Water Code Â 10911(c).)
This is why we get brown outs, over crowded schools, over worked police departments, water shortages, and hellacious traffic.
Brown-outs and rolling blackouts were caused by stupid laws (deregulation) and fraud (Enron). Since those years, power outages have been quite rare. California has been investing huge amounts of money in renewable grid-connected wind and solar power sources. Name a huge solar power project, and it probably happened in California.
Over-crowded schools happened mostly from a change in tax laws, that cut-out cities/counties and instead requires them to beg the state for some of their own tax revenue back.
I have yet to see a water shortage. I turn-on the tap and water comes out. Golf courses remain bright green. etc. And California isn't remotely alone in handling water stress:
Traffic is a very complicated topical all it's own.
Now here someone is going to say something profoundly stupid like "well where are they going to go!?"... well... anywhere. Arizona, Texas, Montana... it doesn't really matter.
Doesn't work that way. It's a well-known problem. Restrict new housing development and people just will crowd into existing properties, driving them over their planned occupancy (ie. they use a lot more water, electricity, etc.), which creates just as much or more stress on the infrastructure than new housing development would. If the already-astronomical housing prices in many urban areas of California can't convince people to go away, neither will a reduction in building-permits.
And the public mostly is just too stupid to know what is going on.
In your case, I must agree. Nothing like somebody who thinks they know everything about how the 7th largest economy in the world should be run, despite being utterly wrong on some basic decades-old facts, just because they played "Sim City back in the day".