Water Authority Adopts Toughest San Diego Plan

County Water Authority directors voted unanimously Thursday to impose San Diego County’s first-ever mandatory water use prohibitions, rejecting two less stringent proposals because, as several directors said, “We can’t afford to fail.”

The prohibitions, which ban most sprinkler use and outlaw nearly all other types of outdoor watering, will go into effect April 1, two weeks earlier than originally proposed.

Directors said San Diego County must send a much-needed message to the rest of the state that it is willing to conserve. To do that, they said, it must impose restrictions on its 23 member agencies on the same date the Metropolitan Water District, the region’s wholesaler, begins halving its deliveries to all of Southern California.

“There are two purposes to this ordinance,” said Director Joseph Parker, who represents the city of San Diego, the authority’s largest consumer. “One is to cut water use 50%. The other is to send a message to the rest of the state of California that we’re willing to take some pain in San Diego. That message hasn’t reached the rest of California, and we need to send it.”

County Supervisor Susan Golding, who represents the county on the water authority board, agreed, noting that if San Diego is perceived to be arrogant in its appropriation of water, it may not be included in plans to create and tap a state water bank.

“If San Diego does not . . . adopt a 50% mandatory plan, I don’t believe San Diego will have access to that water bank, because the water will go to communities that have cut back,” she said. “I’ve been told that very clearly.”

The water authority’s action, which imposes the county’s first uniform conservation plan, will render moot its member agencies’ individual plans, including that of the city of San Diego. To ensure compliance, the Emergency Drought Response ordinance imposes severe penalties on--and, if necessary, restricts water deliveries to--member agencies that do not adopt the required conservation measures.

San Diego Mayor Maureen O’Connor “was obviously not pleased with” the decision, said Paul Downey, O’Connor’s spokesman. The mayor has steadfastly opposed mandatory measures in favor of her own voluntary program, prompting harsh criticism from water officials in Los Angeles.

“She called it a slap in the face for San Diegans who have worked very hard to conserve,” Downey said, noting that O’Connor plans to take advantage of an appeals process also approved by the water authority. “She intends to be down there on April 1 on behalf of the city, appealing on the basis of the voluntary program and the fact that we have the Navy in our water allocation.”

Furthermore, if the water authority wants the city’s Water Utilities Department to also create an appeals process, as the board indicated Thursday, Downey said, O’Connor wants the authority to foot the bill.

“The city doesn’t have the money,” Downey said. “If the water authority wants the city of San Diego to set up an appeals process, they’re going to have to pay for it.” The directors’ vote came at the end of a nearly seven-hour public hearing during which the board heard from nearly 40 representatives of particularly water-dependent industries, as well as from a few individual county residents. Every one of the construction, landscaping, golf course and swimming pool industry representatives who stepped from the standing-room-only crowd to speak their minds said they support a 50% cutback, but oppose the authority’s method of imposing it. They said that, in order to stay in business, they need more flexibility.

Outside the authority, two nursery owners held picket signs. “Freedom of Use Keeps Our Jobs!” said one. “Poor Management Caused This. What NOW?” asked another.

Repeatedly, board members were forced to face the potential effects of their actions, as turf farmers predicted certain layoffs and golf course managers foretold a huge loss of tourism revenue if the strictest plan was approved.

Those warnings elicited often-emotional responses from the board. Midway through the meeting, Michael D. Madigan, board chairman and a city of San Diego representative, began questioning each speaker about how he or she proposed to protect all the special interests in the room and still meet the 50% goal.

“I’m wondering where it is that people are going to do more (to conserve) in this county so that (all of you) who want to do less may do that,” he said.

Linda Brannon, who represents the city of Poway, said: “The public has been in denial for four years. They’re still in denial today. I don’t want to see one job lost. I think it’s a terrible thing. But now we’re in a crisis. We need to save that water--as in tomorrow.”

Just when the board seemed unable to hear any more criticism, a Solana Beach resident stepped to the microphone and told them not to falter in their efforts--that the public will support them.

Marcia Smerican told the board how her family coped 15 years ago, when they lived in San Francisco and a serious drought forced extreme household cutbacks--including military-type showers and a single toilet flushing each day. People rose to the occasion, she said.

“We knew what our priorities were--and it wasn’t playing golf,” Smerican said, calling on the board to impose mandatory restrictions in order “to prevent such drastic shortages. People were willing then, and they’re willing now.”

Later, outside the meeting room, Smerican said she addressed the board in an attempt to balance the intense pressure being exerted by industries.

“They’re hearing from a very one-sided, self-interested group of people, and I didn’t want it to be that way,” she said. “I didn’t want them to feel that we’re going to hate them.”

Just before the vote, as a light rain began to fall on the street outside the water authority building on 5th Avenue, several directors said they felt they simply had no choice.

“I liken this to landing an airplane with the engines out--you’ve got one shot,” said Mark W. Watton, who represents the Otay Water District on the board. “If we don’t make the required cutbacks, we can’t go back and recapture the water. It’s gone.”

Lawrence E. Carlson of Camp Pendleton expanded on the metaphor.

“When you’re taking off, and you take off half-throttle, you’re not going to get off the ground,” he said.

“Well, I think I’m getting a little airsick,” said James F. Turner, the city of Oceanside’s representative, who originally supported a slightly less strict conservation program that would have allowed watering of lawns every two weeks. After hearing how dire the drought has become, however, he too voted to impose the most stringent measures.

The unprecedented measures adopted Thursday ban most watering of lawns and most carwashing except in commercial carwashes. They limit new development by disallowing the issuance of new water meters unless a builder comes up with a “conservation offset” strategy that would allow the project to be built without any new net water demand.

The board agreed to apply the same offset program to the landscaping industry, as long as the member agency where the project is situated is already meeting its 50% cutback goal.

The prohibitions also ban the filling of swimming pools and ornamental fountains, and require restaurants to serve water only upon request.

Times staff writer Leonard Bernstein contributed to this story.