My wife and I are retired and full-time RVers, meaning we spend our entire time living in a movable home on wheels. Our stays in one place range from a week to several months. It is a great life.
We own no physical real estate, no stick house, no place we are tied to, but we do maintain a base camp at a membership RV Resort park in southern California in the high desert of the "Inland Empire" where we spend most of the fall-winter-spring months.
Even though we are transients, our lifestyle offers all the aspects of a community, especially when staying at our base camp. There are another 280 or so family members, and we are required by law to work under the rules of a Community Association with by-laws and standing rules, a general manager and staff. We pay monthly dues for maintenance of the common area and staff salaries. Much of the work in the park is done by member-volunteers -- and that keeps the maintenance costs down.
Part of my volunteer effort is to be a member of the Long-Range Planning Committee, working on several Risk Aversion Studies for the park. These are used by other long range projects to help in the planning process. Our risks differ from other communities in our area.
Our water supply is a good example. Our park has two water wells that tap into an abundant aquifer of excellent quality water. There are few farms and homes around us to draw on that aquifer, and people are very water conscious in the desert. No one has large plots of grass, so we see our water supply as sustainable. But we monitor it very closely, watching for any disturbing trends.
Fifteen miles west of us are two cities, each of 150,000 population, that have seen tremendous growth over the past ten years. Their water comes from a rain-fed reservoir and links to the great California Water system supplied by the Colorado River and Northern California. For the most part the citizens of those cities seem almost oblivious to the risk of non-sustainability to their water supply.
An associated risk to our water comes from another risk: earthquakes. The fact that our park is 9, 13, and 35 miles from the three most active seismic faults in southern California does not inspire confidence. The USGS says it is highly probable that some kind of big shaker is going to occur in the not too distant future, close enough to cause us considerable damage.Our RV sites are situated on granite and decomposed granite hills which limits damage, but our infrastructure could suffer.
Our city neighbors are at more risk from the shaking. Situated on mostly alluvial soil, they sit astride one of the faults that is capable of producing a magnitude 7.0 temblor. They would suffer much more damage to both structures and infrastructure than our park.
However, our park's water system makes us particularly vulnerable if we cannot get water. We have no second source. Both our small community and our city neighbors are at risk for sudden interruption of our water supplies should the electric power fail for some reason. We would both be hard-pressed to pump water to the place where it is needed. This area has lost power for up to a day during wildfires, but in a large earthquake, one of the more vulnarable pieces of infrastructure is the power grid. Power could be lost for weeks, and it would be restored first to our city neighbors. Our little park would be on the bottom of the restore list.
If our park is suddenly without water for an extended length of time, our only choice would be to lock the doors and leave. At least with RVs that is possible. That is one method of Risk Aversion.
Risk Aversion also means finding alternatives that reduce the risk. I have proposed that our park could build a solar PV farm to at least generate enough power to turn the water pumps. Then in the event of a loss of power, we have a chance to maintain our water supply. We have a possible plan. Now, all it takes is money and effort and a driving force.
