Water Authority Deluged by Wave of Complaints

The San Diego County Water Authority board, poised to impose the first-ever mandatory water use prohibitions in the county’s history, got an earful Thursday from industries that said they have the most to lose.

At a standing-room-only meeting that authority staffers said was its most crowded ever, turf farmers and landscapers jostled with nursery and golf course owners, coin laundry operators and swimming pool salesman to oppose a proposed Emergency Drought Response Program that would limit more strictly than ever outdoor watering and other water use deemed unnecessary.

Each of the more than 30 speakers who opposed the plan called for county residents to be allowed to find their own methods of cutting their water use in half, as is being required by the Metropolitan Water District, the region’s water wholesaler that provides more than 90% of San Diego’s water.

As well as their businesses, they said, something more was at stake: individual property rights and freedom of choice.

But several members of the authority board said that, in this fifth year of drought, some of those important privileges will have to be sacrificed.

“Flexibility? Voluntary? They sound good--they’re totally in line with our principles of democracy and freedom in this country. Except in times like this,” said director Linda Brannon, who represents the city of Poway.

Faced with a 50% cutback that begins in April, the water authority staff drafted the unprecedented measures that were discussed Thursday--the first time in the agency’s history that it has considered exercising jurisdictional control over its 23 member agencies.

The measures, which the board will vote on next week, would levy hefty surcharges upon--and, if necessary, restrict water deliveries to--member agencies that do not adopt certain conservation measures.

Those measures include prohibiting most outdoor sprinkling systems, banning most carwashing except in commercial carwashes and limiting new development by disallowing the issuance of most new water meters.

The authority has also proposed banning the filling of new swimming pools and ornamental fountains and limiting irrigation with a hand-held hose to certain hours. Under most circumstances, no outdoor watering would be allowed between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.

Byron M. Buck, the authority’s director of water resources planning, said that if the authority were to let each member agency come up with its own pricing strategies to encourage conservation, it could take months to see a result.

“We cannot afford that,” he said. “We need to reduce demand immediately.”

But one landscape contractor who sat in the audience Thursday said that, if the strict proposals are adopted, his industry would be made to pay for the water authority’s incompetence.

“The whole reason we’re here today is because that staff didn’t do their job six months ago,” said the man, who refused to give his name.

He said that, if the authority had started earlier, it could have developed ways of monitoring and restricting more individual use. “The staff man (Buck) said the problem is they don’t have time. Well, six months ago, they had the time.”

Among those who weighed in against the specific restrictions Thursday was San Diego Mayor Maureen O’Connor, whose city is the county’s biggest water customer and the only member agency that has steadfastly refused to adopt any mandatory savings measures.

“What we need out of you is flexibility. When you give me that 50%, I don’t want you to restrict me in how I can use it,” said O’Connor, who noted that during the first few days in March, Los Angeles’ mandatory water conservation program has averaged about 26% savings. The city of San Diego, she said, had saved 35%--though she acknowledged that it had been an uncharacteristically wet week.

“I just love being mayor of San Diego,” she said, dismissing the suggestion that her insistence on voluntary programs has made the county appear not to be taking the drought seriously.

“When are people going to start noticing that San Diego is doing their share? We are the second-largest city in this state. What do they want us to do? Let San Diego burn? I hope not.”

O’Connor’s comments drew applause from several in the packed crowd. But representatives of some of the other water districts appeared to chafe at her proudly stubborn stance.

Mark W. Watton, a representative of the Otay Water District, came closest to criticizing O’Connor directly.

“The mayor said today it’s just a choice of words,” he said, referring to O’Connor’s comment that voluntary or mandatory didn’t matter, as long as savings were achieved. “But we’ve had some tremendous damage done to us in the state arena and particularly in the Los Angeles arena. Mike Gage (president of the Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners) calls our policy ‘fairly obnoxious disregard’ for the problem.”

“Not that I want L.A. or anyone else to push us into a mandatory program, but I think it’s the right thing to do,” he said.

Dale Mason, who represents the Vallecitos Water District, agreed.

“If we could somehow be guaranteed (voluntary) success, we would all love it. . . . But I’m convinced that we are going to have to bite the bullet in this room because we cannot afford to fail,” he said.

Several board members said they were moved by the heartfelt pleas that came from industry spokesmen such as Laura Martin, whose family owns a small landscaping maintenance business. Martin told the board Thursday that, if the proposed regulations are adopted, the personal consequences are clear: “My family will go completely out of business.”

Floyd Worthland, who operates a turf farm with his father, made a similar prediction. When his father, who was called up to serve in Operation Desert Storm, comes home from Saudi Arabia, he said, “there won’t be a business to come home to, if this goes into effect. You will wipe out the turf industry overnight.”

Two board members--Nat L. Eggert, of the Helix Water District, and William D. Taylor, who represents the Bueno Colorado Water District in the Vista area--said they support the conservation measures, but vehemently oppose the authority’s plan to levy fines on member agencies that don’t comply.