Water

Stan Forbes (April 2009)

It is common knowledge that California is in the grips of a drought. For three years, rain and snow have been significantly below average. The result is that our reservoirs are very low. Recent storms have increased the Sierra snow pack to 90% of normal. Nevertheless, water allocation for western San Joaquin valley agriculture continues at zero and other recipients remain well below normal. Overall, the Central Valley Project anticipates being able to deliver only 20% of requested water, the lowest in state history.

We can't make it rain, but we can conserve what water we do have. Davis prides itself on an environmental reputation. The question is—is it deserved? How are we doing with water conservation and how can we do better? It turns out, not so well. Los Angeles, that permanent whipping-boy of water wastage, uses 138 gallons per day per person. Davis by comparison uses 189 gallons per person per day, or about 30% more per person per day than does Los Angeles. Last year, the Governor asked that we reduce our water usage by 20%. One might expect that Davis would have made an effort to reduce its water consumption at least during the drought, but that hasn't been the case. Per capita water consumption today is essentially the same as it was three years ago.

Why hasn't Davis been more effective in conserving water? There are two possibilities that need to be considered. One is the Davis General Plan and the other is the lack of an aggressive city plan to conserve water.

Davis' water conservation policies are currently set in the General Plan. In summary, it directs the city to install water meters and expects that that alone will result in adequate water savings. Indeed the inclusion of water meters and charging for water did result in reduced water usage. Pre-metered water usage was about 230 gallons per person per day. With today's average of about 190 gallons, Davis reduced consumption by something less than 20%. However, that's been it. And while the General Plan can take credit for that reduction, it can also take some of the blame that it hasn't been more.

Water usage is elastic. This means that as the price goes up usage goes down. However, for pricing to communicate the value of water to the consumer, its price has to be large enough to get people's attention. And therein lies the problem with the General Plan. It states that water is to be priced in a manner that will be cost neutral to the then average water user. As a result, all water conservation that results from price must be derived from those using greater than an average amount of water. If we are to get city-wide conservation by using price as the mechanism, the city has to have the ability to price water in a manner that will encourage the “average” user to use less water. This in turn will require a modest base rate and a sharply rising tier structure that will clearly convey the message that the more you use, the more per gallon you will pay.

A second way the city can affect its water usage is to actively encourage greater conservation. To date, its primary tool has been suggestions on its web site and limited retrofit requirements at time of sale. A web site is a poor tool to act as a cheerleader encouraging conservation. If the city wants to get serious about water conservation, its leaders need to use a full court press of op-eds in the paper, tables at the Farmer's Market and regular presentations and comments at Council meetings, as well as working with the schools to encourage water conservation. The city could also subsidize a variety of conservation measures such as offering rebates for toilet retrofits or water saving washing machines. It could offer to “buy” people's lawns and aid in re-landscaping for those that give up their lawns; it could reduce the amounts of turfed greenbelts. For every 1000 square feet of turf removed, the city would reduce its water usage by 24,000 gallons a year. In other words, taking out a patch of lawn just 25 by 40 feet would save enough water to provide a person's current usage for nearly four months, and this is a recurring savings.

These conservation steps do cost money and in this economy, how can the city afford it? How can it not. The city is considering spending tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars to bring Sacramento River water to Davis. (More on this next issue.) Before it goes down that path, it should take a serious look at meeting its needs through conservation rather than following traditional water policy of “let me get mine first”.
The drought is serious. A seven year drought has devastated Australia. These thoughts on conservation apply to Davis, but each community needs to develop and implement ways that will make conservation the center piece of their water policy. With global warming, we need to recognize that the world has changed and we can't continue our profligate water ways.