Incentives encourage conservation
Alex Breitler
Recordnet
11/18/2009
California's broad new water policy isn't just about building new dams or canals. For the first time, urban water conservation is mandated by state law.
That law "requires" a 20-percent savings in the amount of urban water used per person by the year 2020.
But critics argue that:
» The law does not require a reduction in the total amount of water used.
» The legislation does not really "require" conservation at all. If water districts fail to comply, they risk losing eligibility for state grants or loans; no direct fines or penalties are proposed.
» Agriculture, which uses as much as 80 percent of the water consumed by Californians, would face no numeric conservation target. Farmers must convert to efficient water practices.
» And finally, critics ask: 20 percent compared with what? There are several ways a city could determine its baseline water usage. A high baseline means some strategies already put in place may count toward cities' 20 percent, decreasing the amount of savings needed to comply. Conversely, counties that aggressively conserved water during the drought worry their efforts will not be included in the baseline and, ultimately, they must conserve more than 20 percent.
Peter Gleick, head of the Oakland-based Pacific Institute think tank, called the regulation "weak"; his organization has found that one-third of the state's urban water could be saved using existing conservation technology.
Gleick called the lack of targets for agriculture "outrageous."
Supporters, however, say the law has teeth.
Local water agencies have relied on or are eligible for millions in state money for new drinking water plants and groundwater replenishment, among other things.
"Losing access to state grants and loans is a huge incentive to conserve," said Doug Obegi, a staff attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council in San Francisco, which supported the package of bills.
