Time for Mandatory Conservation : O’Connor’s reliance on voluntary water cutbacks is wishful thinking

Starting next month, San Diegans will be asked to cut their water use 30%. Figuring out how to implement the cuts falls on local water districts, most of whom have established a series of mandatory conservation steps. Except, that is, the city of San Diego, where the City Council continues to go along with Mayor Maureen O’Connor’s wishful thinking that residents will cut back voluntarily.

To support her viewpoint, O’Connor proudly points to the 10% voluntary cutbacks the city accomplished during four months last summer.

But the success of that endeavor was temporary. By year’s end, conservation efforts had dropped to a seven-month average of 7.4%.

So we are skeptical that four times that level of conservation can be achieved voluntarily.

Of course, we all should decrease our water consumption 30% voluntarily--for the common good. And some people are. But how long will they put up with a brown lawn when the grass is green on their neighbor’s side of the fence?

Incentives or penalties are usually necessary to produce a lot of change quickly. And that is what is required now. Even though people have been hearing about the drought and conservation for years, the messages were muted and sometimes contradictory.

This time the message is clear. When the San Diego County Water Authority starts talking about restricting development and prohibiting sprinklers, and the governor warns of possible 50% cutbacks, O’Connor’s ideal of voluntary conservation sounds naive.

Replacing lawns and sprinkler systems and not refilling the swimming pool, two of the biggest residential users of water, is expecting a lot without incentives or penalties.

Besides the question of whether voluntary programs are effective, there is also the question of fairness: between those in the city who conserve voluntarily and those who don’t, and between city residents who have fewer restrictions than residents in the rest of the county.

O’Connor may be worried about mandatory rationing harming neighborly relations, but a voluntary plan could produce even more animosity.

Fortunately, the County Water Authority has come up with conservation plans, including penalties and incentives, that should make the city’s mandatory vs. voluntary issue moot. On April 1, the County Water Authority will be charged triple the cost for any water used in excess of its limit. This penalty will be passed along to water districts, at which time the city will probably be forced to penalize consumers.

But why wait? Now is the time for the city to come up with a fair, but mandatory, conservation plan.