Jay Lund, Dr. Water at UC Davis, asks a provocative question that gets to this gnarly question of the status of water saved by conservation measures – what if municipal water users could direct how the savings from their conservation efforts are used?
Albuquerque has done extraordinarily well in the last two decades. Per capita water use is on track to be half of what it was in 1995, and total municipal water use (even after population growth) is the lowest it’s been since the 1980s. But never has there been a conversation here about what the savings are to be used for. It’s simply presumed that the savings will continue to be used in the municipal water system. For some, this chafes. Here’s Lund:
People who save water like to know their conserving is doing some good, such as sustaining economic growth, building municipal reserves for longer droughts or supporting the environment.
But many urban residents are concerned their water savings will go to uses they value less — such as supplying more wasteful customers, new urban development or agriculture — rather than meeting the needs of fish, waterbirds and other wildlife, which they value more.
What might a policy mechanism that broadens the options look like?
With the way that water rights work in this instance, I’m trying to wrap my head around how someone might have any say in what is done with water that they don’t really own.
Possibly, a municipality like ABQ could issue a “micro-right” to residents that could be for a standard amount, but that can be traded in smaller increments. The thought is that folks would trade their water to uses that they value more highly.
“But many urban residents are concerned their water savings will go to uses they value less — such as supplying more wasteful customers, new urban development or agriculture — rather than meeting the needs of fish, waterbirds and other wildlife, which they value more.” John, so Dr. Lund doesn’t think agriculture is a valuable use of water? Pray tell how he plans to eat in the future?
very funny as i wrote my comment to the paracommons post earlier in the morning… 🙂
“Save” is a tricky word in this context. If I am regularly spending more than I’m earning, then reduce my expenditures to bring them into balance, you might say that I’m saving money. But most people wouldn’t; after all the bank account still reads zero. Or, in the case of a lot of California, negative but no longer heading in the wrong direction. Until the various reservoirs that feed water down to (for example) the City of Los Angeles are a lot more full than they are today, we haven’t saved any water. We’ve just stopped our overspending.
Nevertheless, If the City of LA wants to create a user-driven savings account, then set a per-household baseline that’s low but manageable (and which, if cumulated across all the residential users of LA water, results in a total demand that is noticeably less than anticipated supply for that year). If you use less than your baseline, then MWD gives you a water credit that you can allocate on a quarterly basis. Go to your online account and check the appropriate box. It’s probably even legal, although you would need to have a really good staff report to support the adoption of that program.