Tide Rises to Impose Water Meters on Last Holdouts : Drought: Dry regions are angered by the lack of monitoring devices in the Sacramento area.

For Southern California residents who are tired of counting every drop of water they use, the capital city has become something of a symbol.

It is here, along the banks of the Sacramento and American rivers, that homes do not have water meters. While residents in other parts of the state lug buckets of water from their showers to their gardens, the water police have no way of knowing what kind of waste goes on inside Sacramento homes.

The idea that Sacramentans are free from water meters astounds and angers residents of Southern California and the San Francisco Bay Area, who in some cases have faced water rationing this year.

The inequity has prompted legislators from water-poor parts of the state to propose legislation in recent years requiring the installation of water meters on homes in Sacramento and about 40 smaller communities that are without meters.

Now, with the fifth consecutive year of drought, supporters of the proposal are having more success.

“The reality is, Americans are very wasteful with water,” said Assemblyman Steve Peace, a Democrat from the dry city of La Mesa who has long pushed for meters on every home in California. “You can’t implement any kind of water conservation without meters.”

Sacramentans, naturally, take a different view of the matter.

Sacramento Assemblyman Lloyd G. Connelly contends that when he flushes his toilet, he is not wasting water; he is recycling.

The Democratic legislator points out that his waste water--along with that of the county’s 1 million residents--is treated and dumped back into the Sacramento River, where it heads south to be used again.

Diluted in the state’s vast water system, much of the capital’s effluent becomes irrigation water on the giant farms of the San Joaquin Valley. A small portion even ends up as drinking water in Southern California.

“When we use water here, it runs down our storm drains, through our treatment plant and right back into the river,” said Connelly, a staunch opponent of meters. “We’re at the confluence of two major rivers, so the history of Sacramento has not been a shortage of water. It’s been an excessive amount of water.”

Residents in areas without meters generally pay a flat rate for water. In the city of Sacramento, officials said the rate is based on the number of rooms in each residence and ranges from $6.96 a month for a three-room apartment to $11.38 a month for a 15-room house. Businesses pay a metered rate.

Efforts to impose water meters have been blocked in the Legislature, largely because of the strong fight mounted by the unmetered communities.

Earlier this month, the Senate Agriculture and Water Resources Committee approved a measure that would require the installation of water meters on all new homes and commercial buildings built in the state.

Compared with unsuccessful water meter legislation proposed in previous years, the bill by Sen. Daniel E. Boatwright (D-Concord) has been, well, watered down.

For one, meters would not be required for existing homes. In addition, once the meters are installed, there is no requirement that they be used. In a concession to agricultural interests, wells used by a single residence would be exempt from the meter requirement.

The legislation is mild enough that even the city of Sacramento does not oppose it.

“I think this bill will be signed,” said Ken Emanuels, the city’s lobbyist. “I don’t see anything slowing it up.”

Emanuels said the ban on water meters in Sacramento’s residential neighborhoods was placed in the City Charter about the time of World War I. McClatchy Newspapers, owners of the Sacramento Bee, campaigned heavily for the meter ban, arguing that there should be plentiful, inexpensive water for trees and lawns.

Now, overcoming the ban on water meters in Sacramento would require either a charter amendment approved by the city’s voters or a bill passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor.

Nearly all of the state’s 40 communities without meters are in the state’s rich farm region, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley. They include Bakersfield, Modesto, Lodi, Merced, Visalia and most of the communities surrounding Sacramento. Also, Port Hueneme does not have water meters, and neither do two Bay Area towns, Portola and Rohnert Park, according to Boatwright’s office.

Sacramentans suspect that, at the heart of the water meter proposal, is an attempt by other regions of the state to take more water from their area. The East Bay Municipal Utility District--which overlaps Boatwright’s Senate district--has been trying for years to divert water from the American River above Sacramento.

Like many people in Northern California, residents of Sacramento view the water that rains on their city and flows down from the Sierra Nevada as their own. In fact, most of the water delivered by the state and federal systems in California flows past the city.

“Some of my constituents argue: ‘We live on a river. Why should we go through giant commotions so someone can build another golf course in Palm Springs?’ ” said Assemblyman Phillip Isenberg (D-Sacramento), who also opposes requiring meters on existing homes.

Because of its location, the capital city has usually had more water than it can use. Early in the city’s history, downtown Sacramento was built up 11 feet to escape seasonal flooding. Later, huge levees were constructed along the Sacramento and American rivers to keep water out.

With the drought, Sacramento has implemented a conservation program, under which residents can water outside only three days a week and never in the afternoon. Nevertheless, the city’s water usage remains high compared to some cities that have meters.

In 1990, after the city’s conservation measures had taken effect, Sacramento used an average 308 gallons per day per person, state figures show. By contrast, the per capita usage was 120 gallons in San Francisco, 171 gallons in Los Angeles, 180 gallons in San Diego and 332 gallons in Beverly Hills.

“If you look at voluntary cutbacks, it just hasn’t worked,” said Barry Brokaw, an aide to Boatwright. “There hasn’t been voluntary conservation. The usage has gone up.”

Other cities without meters also had high usage, including 321 gallons in Bakersfield and 282 gallons in Fresno, which has just begun requiring the installation of meters in new homes.

Opponents of water meters note that 44% of the water used by Sacramentans ends up back in the Sacramento River--most by way of the sewage treatment plant and some as a result of percolation through the ground.

According to a study conducted by Sacramento County, residents thus recycled an average of 135.5 gallons per person each day--reducing the daily net usage to 172.5 gallons--roughly the same as Los Angeles.

Sacramento legislators argue that installing meters on existing homes is not a cost-effective way to save water. The estimated $150-million expenditure could be used to finance much more efficient conservation programs, they say.

Connelly and Isenberg say that Sacramento could reduce its water use just as effectively without meters.

“To the maximum extent possible we ought to conserve,” Connelly said. “You tell us how much water we can have as a community and then you let us develop the conservation program. We’ll do it in a much more cost-efficient way than requiring meters.”