Disparate Policies on Water Raise Issue of Fairness

In Los Angeles, residents have begun shutting their sprinklers and taking shorter showers to comply with mandatory water rationing that took effect last week.

But in neighboring communities such as Beverly Hills, Pasadena and Culver City, rationing proposals are still on the drawing boards, despite longtime warnings of the looming crisis.

In water-poor San Diego, the mayor has stubbornly rejected mandatory measures. In water-rich Palm Springs, where each household daily consumes twice as much as in Los Angeles, no rationing restrictions are even being considered.

Wildly disparate political decisions, water supplies and geographical quirks have resulted in a multitude of approaches by the hundreds of Southern California communities forced to deal with the harrowing drought.

The massive Metropolitan Water District on Monday voted to cut its water deliveries by 50% to agencies serving 15 million people. As consumers begin facing mandatory restrictions, some experts are concerned that troubling questions of fairness could emerge. Among them:

* Do tiered pricing systems allow affluent individuals to buy their way out of the shortage?

* Will water be hoarded by communities--including those in north Orange County--blessed with large ground water supplies or the financial resources to exceed their allotments?

* How can officials satisfactorily resolve built-in inequities in rationing plans that could penalize apartment dwellers and large families?

* How can the interests of water-gulping farmers and politically powerful city dwellers best be balanced?

* Will consumers do their part to save water once they learn of differences among conservation measures imposed in neighboring communities?

“If people are looking for fairness and equality in the distribution of water resources, it’s simply not there,” said Jay Malinowski, assistant chief of operations for MWD. “The system is inequitable on the face of it because some areas are blessed with local ground water and some are not.”

Water agencies contend that uniform water allotments for all households across the state would fail to provide the flexibility needed for varying family sizes and climatic conditions. At a recent state hearing, the agencies blasted a proposal to limit daily domestic water use to 300 gallons per household.

“It’s very difficult to lay down one figure that can reasonably apply to everyone,” said Lisa Lien, spokeswoman for the 400-member Assn. of California Water Agencies.

“Where it’s hotter and drier, households use more water. . . . (And) you look at (a city) that solely relies on surface water available within its boundaries and compare it to Los Angeles, which has relied on the State Water Project, the Colorado River, Mono Lake, the Owens Valley as well as ground water. Those kind of things have to be added into the equation.”

The contrasts in the Southland are no more striking than in two fashionable playgrounds for the affluent--Santa Barbara and Palm Springs.

In Santa Barbara, voters have traditionally sought to limit water supplies to control development. With no aqueducts to the outside world, the coastal community has had to rely on two local reservoirs, one of which went dry last year. Now, heavy water users are socked with surcharges that can exceed 1,400% and lawn sprinkling is prohibited--resulting in some ultra-aesthetic residents taking to painting their front yards green.

Meanwhile, in Palm Springs, which boasts three times as many golf courses as churches, an abundant underground water supply and an aqueduct link to Colorado River water are expected to keep the desert community well-stocked into the 21st Century.

The northern half of Orange County also has an ample ground-water basin that has been carefully tended for 50 years and supplies most of the water needs of 2 million people.

But many of the cities served by that basin aren’t being complacent because they don’t want to unnecessarily deplete the valuable underground supply.

Some north Orange County cities have only asked--not ordered--that residents cut back on water use. Others have gotten tougher. For example, Santa Ana, which gets 70% of its water from the ground, initiated the county’s first water restrictions back in January, and they are more stringent than many Orange County cities that are totally reliant on scarce imported water.

Since January, residents and businesses in Santa Ana are banned from washing down pavement, watering their lawns during the day or filling ornamental fountains or ponds.

“We are in a fifth year of drought and even our ground-water supply is not inexhaustible,” said Ray Burk, a water engineer with the city of Santa Ana.

“I don’t know why some other cities are being so complacent. Many just intend to increase use of ground water. But we believe if we are in a serious enough situation (that) every agency should have a conservation program whether they’re using ground water or not.”

In several bone-dry Northern California communities, residents have been allocated a fixed number of gallons--in portions of Marin County, a Spartan 50-gallons-a-day limit is in effect.

Most Southern California communities that have imposed mandatory restrictions in recent weeks are relying on percentage allotments or monetary incentives.

In Los Angeles, each household must reduce water consumption by 10%--with an additional 5% cutback scheduled for May 1. The restrictions, the toughest in city history but likely to increase to at least 25% because of the latest MWD action, are based on 1986 city water usage levels.

James M. Derry, customer services director for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, said the percentage formula worked effectively in 1977, when city residents were ordered to reduce water use by 10% and delivered a 19% savings.

DWP officials acknowledge that 100,000 appeals are expected from its 650,000 customers. In a highly mobile city, household sizes can change quickly. Some families reside in houses that were occupied by fewer residents in 1986. Apartment house landlords who pass along financial penalties have no way of separating tenants who conserve water from those who do not.

Derry said that computer models based on family and property size will ensure that Los Angeles homeowners who save water will not be charged penalties--which begin at $3 per billing unit (748 gallons) and can lead to the installation of flow restrictors on customers’ water mains.

But skepticism persists.

Larry Gross, head of Coalition for Economic Survival, is concerned about the lack of appeals for conservation-minded apartment dwellers--who could face fines passed along by landlords as a result of poor plumbing or the gluttony of fellow tenants.

Gross contends that large-scale consumers such as Hugh Hefner, whose Playboy Mansion groundskeepers use 25,000 gallons daily, should be forced to bear the brunt.

“Those who are not using the water for basic necessities . . . should be the ones who are cut first,” Gross said. “Water might look good to those people who can watch their fountains while sitting back on their verandas. . . . But if this is such an emergency, let’s see some rational response.”

William Bruvold, head of the behavioral sciences program at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health, said a study of the 1977 drought demonstrated that “people felt per capita allotments were more fair and equitable.”

“Basing it on past use, it was felt, really gave an unfair advantage to people who hadn’t been conserving already.”

In cities such as Newport Beach, where residents using excessive amounts are charged a maximum $1.82 surcharge per billing unit, critics complain that well-to-do homeowners can simply buy their way out of the shortage.

Newport Beach Utilities Department Director Bob Dixon emphasized that stronger financial penalties will be imposed in the next four months. Eventually, he said, the penalties will help raise consumer awareness.

“It won’t be socially conscionable to have a lot of lush green landscaping. People will take the heat from their neighbors,” said Dixon.

The MWD’s decision to cut overall deliveries by 50% specifies a 90% reduction of water for agriculture and a 30% reduction for residential and industrial use.

Farmers traditionally receive 85% of the state’s water and draw from multiple sources. The MWD action could harm hundreds of small Southland growers who rely almost solely on the agency, according to Ventura County Farm Bureau President Donald Reeder.

“They’re going to definitely end up with their businesses in ruins,” said Reeder. “I ask for fairness.”

Conversely, growers in the Imperial Valley who receive their water from the Colorado River are not subject to cutbacks. A federal official received mixed reaction this week after he flew to El Centro to ask growers to voluntarily reduce water use by 7% to help relieve urban shortages.

Despite the long-term signs of an impending crisis, dozens of Southland communities have yet to impose mandatory cutbacks.

“A lot of cities were really nonchalant . . . and only now are starting to put some ordinances into place,” said former MWD director Robert Gottlieb, an urban planning professor at UCLA. “(They’ve avoided it) so that they do not get sharp feedback from customers.”

The Southern California Water Co., which pumps MWD water to customers in such communities as Culver City, Gardena, Claremont and Bell Gardens, last week issued a letter requesting consumers to conserve voluntarily. The firm plans to begin a rationing program in May.

Beverly Hills city officials are to vote on rationing in mid-March and Pasadena has a May target date.

Last week, the MWD announced that it will assess $11 million in penalties against customers who intentionally exceeded their allotments in February--including Pasadena, which in February used 122% more water than alloted.

Denying that the city is hoarding, Pasadena officials said they will buy less water than allotted by the MWD this summer by drawing from the city’s underground supply.

Other communities have yet to begin even mild conservation efforts.

In unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County, such as Malibu and Marina del Rey, county officials are just beginning to consider ordinances to limit lawn watering.

Like Sacramento to the north, a handful of Southland communities do not even have water meters. In Brawley, residents are charged a flat rate for water use of up to $17.95 a month.

In San Diego, Mayor Maureen O’Connor has refused to support rationing measures.

“We don’t want to send a recession into a depression over a water shortage,” said O’Connor spokesman Paul Downey.

But pressure is building. On the heels of the MWD cutback, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors adopted a measure Tuesday that lawyers say could force mandatory cutbacks on the city.

O’Connor said she will go along with rationing if water users do not voluntarily reduce consumption by 30% this month.

“The mayor has been the strongest advocate for voluntary conservation,” said Downey. “But she’s also made it clear that if we are not succeeding . . . we’ll have to implement a mandatory program.”

Times staff writer Marla Cone contributed to this report.