Water conservation: Is there a need to conserve? Who benefits?

Water agencies have been beating the drum lately, urging all water users to reduce water consumption in light of the water shortage we are experiencing. Recently, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET) has ordered agriculture users that have signed onto the Interim Agriculture Water Program (IAWP) to reduce their water use by 30% relative to their 2006/2007 use, effective 1 January 2008. Noncompliance will result in considerable cost penalties --- on the order of tripling the cost of water that exceeds their allocation.

MET recently considered imposing water rationing on residential users but rejected it for 2008. Should this occur in the future, IAWP users could face further reductions that can range as high as 90%. IAWP users have received discounted water in return for agreeing to reduce their water use during declared water shortages.

In San Diego, water districts receive most of their water from the County Water Authority (SDCWA), which in turn receives most of its water (84%) from MET. While SDCWA has the authority to impose reductions, further water reductions will most likely come from MET.

WHY CONSERVE ???

What are the pieces of the water puzzle? While agriculture users represent only 6% of MET’s demand, IAWP users represent only about 30% of that 6% demand. Therefore, IAWP users represent less than 2% of MET’s demand. MET’s demand is overwhelmingly due to residential consumption.

DEVELOPMENT

Water agencies are asking the public to save 20 gallons a day/per person. Since the average home uses about 748 gallons a day, this represents a savings of 7%. However, compliance will probably not exceed 50% resulting in a savings of less than 3.5%. Since housing development has been growing at a rate around 1.5 % per year since 1995:this

represents an increased water demand of 4%(2.7 people per household). Where is all this “new water” coming from to support these new developments?

Consequently, your conservation savings is going to support new development.

Clearly residential users will never voluntarily reduce their water usage when they see that these savings are just passed on to developers. They will only conserve water when they perceive that these savings are beneficial to them. How can MET and SDCWA justify new water connections for new development in a “water emergency” when they are imposing water restrictions on existing users?

MET and/or SDCWA need to assert their “emergency authority” and mandate that new water connections be suspended during water emergencies. Local water districts cannot legally suspend new water connections while MET and SDCWA continue to say there is plenty of water to support new development. We either have adequate water and there is no need to conserve or we have a “water emergency” and we need to conserve, which requires suspending new water connections.

MET and SDCWA have failed to demonstrated how the consumer will benefit from conservation when water connections to new development continue in the face of a water shortage. Who’s benefiting from your conservation ... obviously the developers!

Gerald Walson

President (BARC) Bonsall Area for a Rural Community

Director Div.1 Rainbow Municipal Water District