Threat of Drought, Water Conservation Hard to Sell in Lush but Arid San Diego

Last summer, as parts of the state wilted under the second year of a drought, San Diegans were called on to do their part by voluntarily cutting water consumption by 10%.

They didn’t even come close.

Local consumers conserved only 4%. And, although the reduction from June to September saved about 3.7 billion gallons of imported water, worth $2.6 million, it was outdone by the 10% reduction achieved by Los Angeles residents in their voluntary program.

The reasons for the poor showing, say environmentalists and water officials, include the paradisiac life style of San Diego itself, where lush golf courses and green open spaces defy the fact that California’s second-largest city exists in a desert.

It also underscores a skepticism by San Diegans who, despite a $300,000 advertising campaign by the San Diego County Water Authority, couldn’t be convinced last summer that the drought in Northern California was a big enough crisis.

“I think most San Diegans are water conscious, they understand that our water supply comes 80% to 90% from out of county. Most of them know that water is a precious commodity,” said Paul Peterson, local land-use attorney and a member of the water authority board.

Message Falling on Deaf Ears

“The thing that they don’t understand yet is that it may be in short supply if we have a dry winter in the Sierra, the Colorado River and here in San Diego,” said Peterson, who added that he was “disappointed” by the 4% conservation effort.

However, getting that message across is difficult, especially because San Diego County residents pay relatively cheap rates for their imported water, said Jim Melton, the water authority’s director of public information.

“It’s a lot easier to waste it and not worry about it,” Melton said, adding that last year, San Diego County’s 2.1 million residents consumed more than 200 billion gallons of water, 85% of which was imported through the Metropolitan Water District.

Each San Diegan drank, washed and watered with an average of 197 gallons a day in 1987, statistics show. That is slightly higher than per capita consumption in other major California cities--188 gallons in Los Angeles, 107 in San Francisco, 110 in San Jose and 111 in Oakland.

The water authority imports the water from the Metropolitan Water District, which acts as the wholesale supplier for five Southern California counties. Acting as a middle man, the authority buys water from the MWD and then resells it to 24 municipal and independent water agencies in the county.

There are two sources for San Diego’s imported water, said Melton. The Colorado River supplies 60% of the county’s supply, with 40% coming from the state Water Project.

But those percentages will change. A 1964 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court will cut in half the amount of water flowing to California from the Colorado. Arizona, in turn, will be given the difference and that state will complete a large canal to take delivery of the water by the early 1990s.

That means that Southern California will have to draw more from the state Water Project, which derives its supply from the melting snows of the northern and eastern Sierra, said Melton.

Yet the Sierra is subject to drought--like the one that has gripped the region now for two years. After two years of light snowfall in the Sierra, a spate of recent storms has brought the snow pack back to normal for this time of year, state officials say.

But, these officials hasten to add, it’s far too early to declare the drought over, particularly given last year’s experience, when Sierra snow conditions were normal in December only to change dramatically because there were few storms the rest of the winter or in the spring.

Big Selling Job

That is why convincing San Diegans that the drought is real and will affect their water supply is the key to any conservation effort here, say water officials.

“The question is how do people who live in a drought all the time come to understand that a drought 500 miles away is their drought?” asked Melton. “With us relying on 90% of our water from hundreds of miles away, obviously if there is a drought at that point, it’s our drought.

“But how do you tell people about that? How do you make people understand it and take action to reduce water use?” he said.

More than 300 water agencies in the state were geared up for that very task this summer, say state officials, with voluntary conservation programs outnumbering mandatory water controls by 4 to 1.

“Typically, a volunteer program conserves about 10% and a mandatory program conserves about 25%,” said Bob Fingado of the state Department of Water Resources. He said the Metropolitan Water District’s conservation program saved 10% in a voluntary effort last summer.

Money Talks

In some Northern California communities, however, the answer to saving water has been hitting consumers where it counts--in the pocketbook.

One example is the East Bay Municipal Utility District, which serves 1.1 million people from Oakland and Berkeley east to San Ramon. The district was able to cut water consumption by 26% from May through September by instituting stiff price increases for its users. That saved 70 million to 80 million gallons a day that would have been otherwise drawn from the Mokelumne River in the parched Sierra.

Even talk about the increases drove water consumption down, said district spokesman Gayle Montgomery. Although the increases went into effect June 1, public hearings about the new prices generated enough publicity that the district’s users cut their consumption by 27% in May alone, he said.

Under the complicated water rate formula, an average household of three people pays the same rates for water as it did last year if it keeps consumption under 200 gallons a day. If the household uses more, the rates increase 33% to 50% for each 200-gallon increment.

The rate increases were accompanied by “gloom and doom” advertising, said Montgomery. In one billboard, the view west from the Bay Bridge depicted the San Francisco Bay as parched and cracked earth.

Montgomery said the district decided to adopt a harder approach to the drought after a 1987 voluntary conservation program similar to San Diego’s failed to stir much enthusiasm among water users. East Bay MUD customers achieved only a 5% savings, despite a $500,000 low-key advertising campaign aiming for a 12% cutback, he said.

Making Crisis Real

“I think that does tell you about the limits of relying strictly on volunteer work and advertising,” said Montgomery. “I really think that, until the people believe there is an emergency, that it is very difficult to get any major cutbacks.

“They start believing when you have public hearings and you are going to make it very expensive to use water,” said Montgomery. “That is the moment that it becomes real.”

In San Diego County last summer, water officials waged a $303,500 advertising campaign to push the voluntary conservation effort. In all, said Melton, the county water authority ran 693 radio spots and 110 newspaper ads, and distributed 16,000 decals and posters to businesses.

The district also handed out 33,000 restaurant table tents, informing patrons that they would have to ask for the customary glass of water. And it gave out 60,000 “water conservation kits,” designed to help homeowners cut the volume of water used in toilets and showers.

The four-month program got off to a slow start in June, with local residents saving only 1.6%. It peaked in July, with a 9.6% savings but then fell again to where San Diego County residences and businesses were actually using 2.5% more than expected in September, when a heat wave hit around Labor Day.

All told, the county conserved only 4.1% of its water.

Need Plant Education

Environmentalist Emily Durbin blames the type of landscaping in the county for the reluctance by local residents to cut back on water consumption.

“Most San Diegans have come here from some place else, where it rained a lot,” said Durbin. “They are simply not attuned to the kind of landscaping that is suited for this semi-arid, Mediterranean climate. They want petunias, they want ferns . . . they want things that take a lot of water, which they are used to growing in other places.

“And they are aided and abetted by a landscape industry which has been unwilling to learn about the value and the beauty of plants that have evolved to live here,” said Durbin, whose home is landscaped with drought-resistant native vegetation. “The industry finds it easier to install landscaping that uses a lot of water--grass, shrubs and other water-loving species.”

Durbin also attributed the lack of water conservation to the many golf courses in the county. At last count, there were more than 75 courses, with others planned as part of “upscale” country club developments.

“As long as the Board of Supervisors, and maybe the City Council as well, is willing to approve developments that are centered around golf courses, it is going to be difficult to get serious about water conservation,” she said.

Psychological Deterrents

Norma Sullivan, a Sierra Club representative from University City, said the presence of golf courses is a psychological deterrent to San Diegans who would otherwise try to restrict their use of water. So, too, is the frequent watering of highway medians and public parks, she said.

“Citizens see these big agencies watering away in parks and along the freeways and they don’t take the water situation seriously,” said Sullivan. “They say, ‘If big institutions can water like that, then why should I turn off the water when I brush my teeth?’ ”

Peterson, a land-use attorney who represents developers before local government, agreed with the observation by environmentalists that the landscape industry relies on water-intensive plants.

“I agree that there is not any great effort or great drive . . . to go to drought-resistant materials,” said Peterson. “And that is because that is how they (developers) perceive what the market wants.

“If you drive through an industrial subdivision in Mira Mesa, what is it that makes it attractive?” he said. “It is the rolling, grassy areas, the manicured look. There is a lot of sizzle to those kind of presentations.”

Effort to Change Attitude

Peterson said that changing this attitude will take a concerted education effort about the desirability of native, drought-resistant plants--as well as water conservation itself.

“I believe that the public doesn’t understand that we may be facing a serious water shortage, and this is going to take a lot more communication and public relations effort to convince the public that there could be a very serious problem,” said Peterson.

Melton, the water authority spokesman, said the relatively low water rates also contribute to the lack of enthusiasm for local water conservation. The average monthly bill for a typical residence in the city of San Diego is $16, said a city water department analyst.

“The fact is that water still is relatively cheap,” said Melton. “It’s not as big an item in a person’s home budget as energy is, for example.

“We all saw what happened during the energy crisis, how much energy costs went up, and we all became extremely energy conscious as a result of that,” said Melton. “Well, water has not become that big an item in the budget, so it’s like energy used to be. . . .

“Most people will cut way, way back to save their pocketbooks,” he said.

Although the amount saved during the summer was significant, Melton said water officials were “disappointed” that water users fell so short of the 10% goal.

In the end, said Peterson, it may take something drastic to change local attitudes about water.

“I think it will take a severe shortage,” he said.