In a Los Angeles Times article in early September came this non-sequitur of a sentence, “The proposed regulation, dubbed “Making Conservation a California Way of Life,” would establish tailored goals for each urban retail water supplier in the state, providing them with more flexibility to account for local conditions, according to the State Water Resources Control Board.”
Regulations remove choice; they do not provide flexibility. Every regulation is a demand for someone to do something the person does not want to do, a demand not do the thing the person does want to do, or a demand to pay for something the person does not want to pay for, and each demand is backed up by agents with guns.
Every regulation is a demand for someone to do something the person does not want to do, a demand not do the thing the person does want to do, or a demand to pay for something the person does not want to pay for, and each demand is backed up by agents with guns.
According to the State Water Resource’s Control Board, “Making Conservation a California Way of Life is a new regulatory framework proposed by State Water Board staff that establishes individualized efficiency goals for each Urban Retail Water Supplier. These goals are based on the unique characteristics of the supplier’s service area and give suppliers the flexibility to implement locally appropriate solutions. Once implemented, these goals are expected to reduce urban water use by more than 400-thousand-acre feet by 2030, helping California adapt to the water supply impacts brought on by climate change.” If you read on further, they tell you “Urban Retail Water Suppliers are publicly and privately run agencies that deliver water to 95% of Californians.” So basically, everyone who pays a water bill will be affected.
“Once implemented, these goals are expected to reduce urban water use by more than 400-thousand-acre feet by 2030.”*
*Making Conservation a California Way of Life Fact Sheet https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/conservation/regs/docs/conservation-a-way-of-life.pdf
While the “more than 400-thousand-acre feet1” sounds impressive, it is merely a drop in the river. California’s urban water usage, according to the Public Policy Institute of California “On average, communities use 10%, agriculture uses 40% of water statewide, and the environment uses 50%.”2 That’s right, 90% goes to agriculture or the ocean, in essence. “The proportions vary depending on the region and whether the year is wet or dry.” Community (or “Urban Retail Water Supplier” in Water Board speak) water use is 7.44-8.24 million-acre feet per year, this is between 8 and 12 percent of water usage in the state.
If urban use is 7.44-8.24 million-acre feet per year and we only need to cut use by 400-thousand-acre feet, what’s the big deal? The big deal is we have hit the point of diminishing returns. The easy to do things have been done. In fact, now more efficiency in one realm means less efficiency or more waste in another.
And they keep ratcheting down the cuts. As the LA Times article observes, “In 2035, 18% of urban water users would live in areas required to reduce by 30% or more. By that time, suppliers serving more than half of urban water users would need to cut back by at least 10%. Suppliers could face fines of up to $1,000 a day for failing to meet targets, or as much as $10,000 a day during drought emergencies, according to the board.”
If you wish to tell the Water Board what you think of this idea, you can email them at commentletters@waterboards.ca.gov. Put “Comment Letter—Proposed Making Conservation a California Way of Life Regulation” in the subject line to facilitate timely identification and review of the comment.
- One acre foot is one foot of water that would cover one acre. It is 325,851.4 US gallons ↩︎
- Water Use in California https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california ↩︎
Nullius in Verba 