GrokSurf's San Diego

Local observations on water, environment, technology, law & politics

Posts Tagged ‘Water use restrictions’

City of San Diego issues reminder about outdoor watering restrictions

Posted by George J Janczyn on June 2, 2012

San Diego has been experiencing warmer weather already and summer isn’t even here yet. If you live on property that has landscaping, you’re probably going to use more water during the next few months.

So the City of San Diego released this timely news release to remind everyone that some of the water use restrictions in the city’s water use ordinance are permanent…drought or no drought.

One such permanent restriction dictates what time of day you may do outdoor watering.

The restricted hours vary a little depending on the season, but in a nutshell outdoor watering is permitted only in the early morning or late afternoon/evening. This law is intended to reduce water waste because a great deal of water is lost to evaporation when watering during the warmest hours of the day. Effective June 1, we’re now bound by the summer schedule specified in the ordinance.

I hope San Diego’s major news media will remind the city’s residents about this as well. Lately I’ve been seeing lawn sprinklers turned on at noon or even later during the warmest part of the afternoon. I’ve even seen lawns in city parks being watered during prohibited hours.

Some people seem to be unaware of the law prohibiting outdoor watering during the warmest time of the day (apparently including some employees at the Park and Recreation Dept.), or else they just don’t care.

Below is a copy of the official news release. If the text is too small for your eyes, you can expand the document to full-screen by clicking the rectangular button at the bottom right corner of the document window (don’t bother with the zoom [+] [-] tools, they won’t get you a full screen):


Posted in Environment, Landscaping, Water, Water conservation | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Times have changed for water use restrictions in San Diego

Posted by George J Janczyn on November 2, 2011

Beginning November 1 there’s a change in the water use restrictions for the City of San Diego: the times residents are permitted to water their landscape have changed to the winter schedule.

This may come as a surprise to many people who have assumed that the lifting of the drought alert meant that they could go back to watering the way they used to. Indeed I often see lawns being watered at noon or early afternoon — and not only at residences and businesses. I frequently see city park grass being watered mid-day during prohibited times! I see a fair amount of hosing down driveways and sidewalks too.

The city would do well to regularly remind residents about the permanent restrictions.

Reprinted here is a portion of the city policy as described in a Public Utilities Department news release:

  • The time of day when watering is allowed (before 10 a.m. and after 6 p.m. from June to October, and before 10 a.m. and after 4 p.m. from November to May) is a permanent restriction. This does not apply to irrigation as required by a landscape permit; for erosion control; for establishment, repair or renovation of public use fields; for landscape establishment following a disaster; for renovation or repair of an irrigation system; and for nursery and commercial growers using hand held containers, positive shut off nozzles, or drip/micro-spray systems. The City will review variance applications from customers who feel they cannot abide by this watering schedule.
  • City of San Diego water customers must prohibit excessive irrigation and must immediately correct leaks in their private water systems. The City’s regulations now state that customers “shall not allow water to leave their property due to drainage onto adjacent properties or public or private roadways or streets or gutters due to excessive irrigation and/or uncorrected leaks.”
  • Customers cannot use a running hose to wash down sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, tennis courts, patios or other paved areas, except to alleviate immediate safety or sanitation hazards, unless that hose is connected to a water efficient device such as a commercial water broom.
  • Overfilling of swimming pools and spas is strictly prohibited.
  • All decorative water fountains must use a recirculating pump.
  • Vehicles may only be washed at a commercial car wash or by using a hose with an automatic shutoff nozzle or with a hand-held water container.
  • The City will not provide new water service connections for customers using single pass-through cooling systems.
  • All new conveyer car wash and commercial laundry systems connections will be required to employ a recirculating water system.
  • Restaurants and other food establishments shall only serve and refill water for patrons upon request.
  • Guests in hotels, motels, and other commercial lodging establishments will be provided the option of not laundering towels and linens daily.

While not commonly granted, some customers may be eligible for a hardship variance (PDF) from these permanent restrictions.

For more information about water conservation and the water use restrictions see the city’s Waste No Water website.


Posted in Water | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Revised San Diego water use restrictions are effective June 1

Posted by George J Janczyn on June 1, 2011



Posted in Announcements, Water | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Water news from the Natural Resources & Culture Committee

Posted by George J Janczyn on February 1, 2011

The San Diego Public Utilities Department submitted the following reports for the Feb 2 meeting of the City Council Natural Resources & Culture Committee.


Posted in Indirect potable reuse, Water, Water conservation, Water Purification Demonstration Project | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

San Diego Level 2 water use restrictions permanent? Not really.

Posted by George J Janczyn on November 10, 2010

The City Council voted Tuesday Nov 9 on modifications to the City of San Diego’s water conservation measures. As reported on Councilperson Donna Frye’s website:

The City of San Diego has updated its mandatory water conservation requirements, effective November 1, 2009, as part of a Level 2 Drought Alert Condition. These updated water conservation measures include two significant changes – the hours and length of time you can water. Specifically, between June 1 and October 31, on your watering days, you may only water before 10 a.m. or after 6 p.m. Landscape irrigation using sprinklers is limited to no more than ten minutes maximum per watering station per assigned day (does not apply to drip, micro-irrigation, stream rotor, rotary heads, hose end sprinklers with timers or valves operated by a weather-based irrigation controller).

* Limit the watering of lawns and landscapes to three days per week from November 1 through May 31. Those days are:
o Even numbered addresses: Sat., Mon., Wed.
o Odd numbered addresses: Sun., Tues., Thur.
o Apartments, Condos, Businesses: Mon., Wed., Fri.
o On your watering day, you may only water before 10 a.m. or after 6 p.m.

Although the press has widely reported that Drought Level 2 restrictions were made permanent, in fact they are not permanent.

San Diego’s Drought Level 2 water restrictions include two significant components: 1) landscape watering limited to early morning and late evening hours of the day, and 2) watering limited to three days per week for a specified number of minutes per day. Those restrictions are “permanent” only as long as the Drought Level 2 alert is in effect.

The Council’s original idea (actually Councilperson Donna Frye’s idea) was to make those restrictions permanent even when the Drought Level 2 alert is lifted. Opponents forced the plan to be scaled back, however, so the only permanent restriction after the Drought Level 2 alert is lifted is that watering must be done during early morning and late evening hours. The amount of watering will be unlimited. For more on that story please see my earlier blog post on this subject.

[Nov. 17: At least PUD issued a news release that avoids saying the Drought Level 2 restrictions are permanent and confirms what I’ve pointed out here and earlier — that only time of day is permanent:]

The Drought Level 2 declaration by the Council can be lifted at any time, and probably will be as soon as the County Water Authority lifts its Drought alert (the Metropolitan Water District, on which the decision will be partly based, will vote on lifting restrictions next month on Dec. 14.

Here are the somewhat misleading press reports I could find. I’ll add to the list if more appear later. As of this writing, neither the Union-Tribune nor the Voice of San Diego had published a report.

(click headlines to see sourced stories)

SD Council approves permanent water restrictions / KPBS : “Years of drought and water supply shortages led to “Level 2” restrictions last year, and today’s actions, approved 7-to-0, make the “Level 2” water restrictions permanent.”

Outdoor water restrictions now permanent in San Diego / KFMB Channel 8 : “Tuesday’s action, which was approved 7-0 without discussion, makes the “Level 2″ water restrictions permanent.”

City Council makes water restrictions permanent / 10News : “Tuesday’s action, which was approved 7-0 without discussion, makes the “Level 2″ water restrictions permanent.”

City adopts permanent water restrictions / KSWB : “The City Council voted Tuesday to make outdoor water use restrictions permanent in San Diego.”

Ourdoor [sic] watering rules now permanent in San Diego / MyLocalNews “Tuesday’s action, which was approved 7-0 without discussion, makes the “Level 2’’ water restrictions permanent.”

SD Council makes outdoor water restrictions permanent / San Diego News Room : “The City Council voted today to make outdoor water use restrictions permanent in San Diego.”


Posted in Regional water news roundups, Water | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

San Diego water use ordinance on City Council agenda

Posted by George J Janczyn on November 4, 2010

[Updated on November 9]

San Diego City Councilperson Donna Frye’s proposal to enact a tougher water use ordinance is on the consent agenda for the City Council meeting this coming Tuesday, November 9. This proposed ordinance is a weakened version of Frye’s original proposal which was to make the City’s Drought Level 2 restrictions permanent.

The key feature of the current Drought Level 2 rule limits both the time of day as well as which 3 days and how many minutes each week residents may water their landscaping. Frye’s original proposal would have made those restrictions standard operating procedure (permanent) for the City.

After being endorsed by the Independent Rates Oversight Committee, the proposal then encountered strong political opposition that forced Frye to water down the proposal before it went to the Natural Resources and Culture Committee. The result: the key three-days-per-week/minutes per day watering restriction will not apply when there’s no declared emergency. That restriction will be made only when a Drought Level 2 declaration is in effect. You can see how it changed by comparing both versions of the proposal in this report I wrote last September.

The weaker restriction, that watering won’t be permitted during the hottest times of the day, did not encounter as much opposition and remains in the default permanent rules section of the proposed ordinance.

The removal of the stronger permanent restriction is probably why the proposal made it to the consent agenda where the assumption is that it will pass with little or no debate. [Nov 9 update: sure enough, the Council passed the item without debate; Councilperson DeMaio called it necessary “behavior modification” and Emerald praised the Apt. Association for help in promoting it]

Unfortunately the introduction to the ordinance in Tuesday’s City Council Docket (item #58) doesn’t accurately describe the changed proposal. Apparently written for the original proposal, the intro still says “This ordinance makes Drought Response Level 2 water use restrictions which are currently temporary, permanent….” That’s likely just an editing oversight, but for the casual reader it will create the impression that the ordinance is stronger than it is. The fact is that under this ordinance the City Council can still vote to end the Level 2 emergency declaration, and they likely will when the County Water Authority eventually rolls back its drought alert

[Nov 9: The press is writing headlines based on the incorrect docket description and is reporting Level 2 restrictions as permanent. As for the eventual rollback of Level 2 restrictions, here’s the beginning of the process where MWD removes restrictions, then the County Water Authority removes the drought level alert, and finally the City removes the Level 2 alert]


Posted in Politics, Water | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Committee sends water use restrictions and a rate increase request to the San Diego City Council

Posted by George J Janczyn on September 9, 2010

A weakened water use ordinance and a request for a rate increase were among the items forwarded to the City Council yesterday by the Committee on Natural Resources and Culture (click here for agenda and supporting documentation). Councilmembers Donna Frye, Sherri Lightner, and Carl DeMaio were in attendance; Marti Emerald was absent.

Water Use Restrictions

When Councilmember Donna Frye originally proposed that the temporary Drought Response Level 2 measures imposed in June 2009 be made permanent, the idea was to acknowledge the increasingly uncertain reliability of imported Colorado River water due to drought, climate change, and excessive use as well as new challenges in obtaining water from the California Delta via the State Water Project. It was to send a message encouraging city residents to make a lifestyle of using water more conservatively, in accord with living in an arid region where reserves are limited and supply lines are extremely vulnerable to disruption or catastrophic cutoff.

For months Ms. Frye conducted speaking tours and stakeholder meetings to explain why those limitations should remain in place, and on July 19 the Independent Rates Oversight Committee endorsed the proposal. However, for yesterday’s committee meeting, something led Ms. Frye to remove the three-day-per-week watering restriction from the proposal. For one thing, Ms. Frye acknowledged that she was influenced by many stakeholder groups that strongly opposed the ordinance as being “onerous and burdensome.”

Opposition to the proposal also included local landscaping organizations. A letter from Jim Taylor and Glen Schmidt from the American Society of Landscape Architects, San Diego Chapter, argued that weather conditions in San Diego vary significantly between the coast and inland portions of the city and the 3-day per week schedule allows no flexibility for watering plants in San Diego’s varying climate zones.

“Hydro Zones” that permit watering amounts to vary according to the different temperature zones should be included in the ordinance, according to a letter from Sandra Grow and Diane Downey from the California Landscape Contractors Association. During public comment, Sandra also added that using technology (e.g., weather based irrigation controllers) combined with an intensive educational program could be enough to produce sufficient conservation savings.

Bruce Reznik from San Diego Coastkeeper was one of the public speakers in favor of the ordinance, although he expressed disappointment at the removal of the 3-day restriction. He said that conservation remains the best way to get more water in the system but unfortunately there’s not much left in the ordinance to encourage it. Saying “we live beyond our water means” Reznik observed that we suffer from “desert denial.” At some point, he suggested, we’ll have to face a choice between water for health and safety versus water for lawns.

The Committee voted unanimously to forward the scaled-back proposal to the City Council. It’s possible the Council may consider adding the “hydro zone” concept or other ways to make it more flexible, but as it now stands, the only permanent restriction for all times of the day is that landscape irrigation must be before 10:00 a.m. and after 6:00 p.m. during the months of June through October, and before 10:00 a.m. and after 4:00 p.m. during the months of November through May. With the real limitations on water use in “normal” times stripped out, that leaves the ordinance’s water conservation message largely symbolic.

Water Rate Increase

The City of San Diego purchases between 85-90% of its water from the San Diego County Water Authority (CWA). CWA, in turn, purchases its water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD).

On April 13, MWD imposed rate increases effective January 1, 2011. On June 24, CWA responded with its own rate increase, “passing through” the MWD increases to its member water agencies in San Diego County, including the City of San Diego.

Now, the San Diego Public Utilities Department is requesting a rate increase to cover the price hike for wholesale water purchased from CWA. Alex Ruiz, interim director of the department, said that the rate increase covers only the higher price from CWA and that none of the increase would go to pay for other departmental expenses.

The picture then gets messy. CWA filed a lawsuit against MWD charging that it used improper methods to calculate its rate increase. MWD will apparently retaliate by refusing to pay an incentive/subsidy agreed to earlier that would have enabled the Poseidon Desalination Plant to sell water at an affordable price (thus putting the county water agencies with contracts to purchase desalinated water in a financial bind, so as a bailout CWA is now in the process of taking over the contracts and agreeing to purchase all water produced at the desalination plant. It will then spread the desal expense to be shared among all county water agencies).

Meanwhile, several county water agencies are complaining that CWA itself is improperly padding its rate increase with internal expenses and that it’s not a true “pass through” rate increase.

Opposing the City’s rate request, Carl DeMaio disputed that the water rate increase will only go to offset the increase in the price of wholesale water that the city purchases from the County Water Authority. He gave a PowerPoint presentation to highlight some of his assertions, saying the increase also will go to pay for increased labor costs, pension costs, bonuses, and salary increases. A little off the point, he also invoked the complaint about water users reducing consumption and then being rewarded with a price increase.

DeMaio recently appeared on two TV stations in advance of today’s meeting to press his campaign against the increase:

Although the Independent Rates Oversight Committee (IROC) previously endorsed the rate request, they did have concerns about MWD’s pricing structure, supported CWA’s lawsuit against it, and thought San Diego should be more involved. Andrew Hollingworth presented a letter indicating that he could support the rate increase only if the City would address that issue as follows:

  1. The Mayor and City Council work with San Diego County state legislators to seek a mandate for an outside review of MWD’s rates and cost structure
  2. The Mayor and City Council review resulting recommendations and sponsor state legislation mandating implementation of the recommendations
  3. The Mayor and City Council formally support CWA’s negotiations and lawsuit against MWD regarding the improper cost allocations

Sherri Lightner made the motion to forward the request to the City Council without a recommendation. That was possibly to help DeMaio avoid voting against the Council being able to consider the item, but he voted no anyway. Only two votes were needed, however, so with Frye voting yes the item goes to the City Council.

Water Budget Based Billing

This item ties in somewhat with the water rate issue. Alex Ruiz spoke briefly about a pilot study launched by Mayor Sanders and Donna Frye that is looking at the feasibility of designing water budgets for households that would allocate and price water in such a way as to encourage conservation without penalizing those who already use water efficiently (and presumably penalize waste).

The designers of the pilot studied the Irvine Ranch Water District which has been successfully using a water budget for years. Much work remains before a full report can be prepared, but you can read an overview in this letter to the City Council from Mayor Sanders and Councilmember Frye.

Local reports about yesterday’s meeting:


Posted in Water, Water rates | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

San Diego’s permanent water use restrictions watered down?

Posted by George J Janczyn on September 7, 2010

Councilperson Donna Frye’s proposal to make San Diego’s drought restrictions ordinance permanent is on the Wednesday Sep 8 agenda of the City Council Natural Resources & Culture Committee. The proposed revision was intended to reinforce the idea of water shortages in San Diego being a permanent state of affairs and not a temporary condition due to unusual circumstances.

A draft of the revised ordinance was endorsed by the Independent Rates Oversight Committee (IROC) on July 19.

It appears, however, that the key provision in the draft endorsed by IROC has been removed from the draft being presented to the NR&C Committee. Specifically, the permanent requirement that landscape irrigation be limited to three days per week for limited time periods no longer appears. The only permanent restriction is that watering be done only during certain hours of the day:

  • before 10:00 a.m. and after 6:00 p.m. during the months of June through October
  • before 10:00 a.m. and after 4:00 p.m. during the months of November through May.

You can see the omission by comparing these two drafts (note item “j” in particular):

Restrictions on days and times appear only as a Drought Level 2 response in the latest draft.

I can’t help thinking this draft must be in error. If permanent water use restrictions are removed, what’s the point of revising the ordinance in the first place?

Other topics to be addressed at the NR&C meeting include: the proposed water rate increase to pass-through the price increase on imported water purchased from SDCWA/MWD (also reviewed recently by IROC); a proposed storm water quality monitoring agreement; an IPR Project update (Water Purification Demonstration Project); and an intriguing item with no explanatory details called “Water Budget Based Billing Pilot Program.”


Posted in Water | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

San Diego Rates Oversight Committee endorses continued water use restrictions

Posted by George J Janczyn on July 19, 2010

The San Diego Independent Rates Oversight Committee (IROC) today voted to express support and encouragement for City Councilmember Donna Frye’s proposal to make the city’s drought-level water use restrictions permanent. The restrictions were mandated last year due to the city’s precarious water supply situation exacerbated by California’s extended drought.

Several committee members pointed out that local or regional drought has little to do with the city’s tight water supply, because our supply is not greatly affected by local conditions but because of conditions (and not only drought-related) in the entire western region that we import from. So, while expressing support for the proposal, they suggested that it would be better to avoid using the word “drought” when considering the restrictions and recognize that the need to more strictly conserve is an ongoing fact of life.

Frye agreed, saying that San Diego should permanently change its water consumption behavior to reflect the reality of the water supply situation, not conserve only under certain circumstances. Water conservation, she pointed out, is the single most cost-effective way for the city to deal with the problem.

Other points made during the discussion:

  • Alex Ruiz, SD Water Dept. director, said that about 60% of the city’s water use goes toward outdoor irrigation.
  • Donna Frye said she will continue to encourage dialogues, hold workshops, and engage citizen groups to further study the issue. She expects to put the proposed ordinance before the City Council by October.
  • Committee member Don Billings wondered if the restrictions should apply to customers using reclaimed water. The consensus was that they should. He also said cost and enforcement issues should be examined, and that tiered pricing to promote conservation is desirable.
  • Committee member Todd Webster said he didn’t like the technique of specifically mandating specific times and days that watering is permitted.
  • Committee member Jack Kubota expressed dismay that recycled water customers seem to think they should be able to use as much as they want, commenting how incongruous it is to visit Palm Springs and see lush lawns, gardens, and fountain displays everywhere. He also noted that residents who live in areas that overlap with other water districts might chafe with different rules for nearby neighbors (Olivenhain, for example, is rescinding its water use restrictions).
  • Chairman Jim Peugh wondered if the permanent restrictions might make it more difficult for the city to impose further restrictions in the future if things get tighter again.

In other news from the committee:

  • The contract for the advanced treatment facility for the Water Purification Demonstration Project (IPR Project) will be on the City Council Docket for October 27th.
  • Alex Ruiz speculated that San Diego’s 5% increase in water use for the month of June 2010 vs. June 2009 might be because June 2009 was the first month for the drought restrictions and people were inundated with publicity about it.
  • The city has had 126 water main breaks in the 2010 calendar year, 9 since June 9, at an average cost of $15,900 per break. There was some discussion about how events are studied post-mortem to improve future preventive measures.
  • There were 21 sewer spills so far this calendar year, and most were grease- and root-related. The majority of grease-related spills occur in residential neighborhoods, not in restaurant-heavy zones, which suggests a need for better residential outreach about grease down the kitchen sink drain.
  • Ex-officio member Ken Williams (San Diego County Water Authority) noted the upcoming SDCWA meeting on Thursday will consider the possible purchase of Poseidon’s desalinated water. He pointed out that the vote on Thursday is on the question to move forward with the idea. A following meeting would vote on a contract. The oversight committee agreed that this proposal should be watched and would like to invite SDCWA to make a presentation to the committee in the near future. One area of interest was how the treated desal water would be mixed with untreated SDCWA supplies, and what effect the purchase would have on City of San Diego ratepayers. Several expressed surprise that the Mayor and City Council have not spoken about the issue.

Water Conservation Data for San Diego FY 2010 Results

Customer Group FY 2010 vs. FY 2009
Residential -10.7%
— Single Family -13.6%
— Multi Family -5.3%
Commercial/Industrial -7.5%
Irrigation -20.4%
City Government -10.9%
Overall Citywide -11.0%


Single-month conservation comparing June 2010 vs. June 2009

Citywide +5.1%
Residential +2.9%
— Single Family -2.1%
— Multi Family +14.7%
Commercial/Industrial +6.1%
Irrigation only +10.3%
City Govt +11.3%


Posted in Politics, Water, Water conservation | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Is San Diego’s drought permanent?

Posted by George J Janczyn on June 22, 2010

[update: Frye hopes to have this item on the City Council Docket by October]

San Diego City Councilperson Donna Frye has proposed an ordinance that would make the city’s drought-level water use restrictions permanent. The measure is currently before the Community Planners Committee which is gathering stakeholders’ input before it goes to the full Council.

One of those stakeholders, Navajo Community Planners, a city neighborhood advisory group, met in Del Cerro yesterday where board members were asked to vote their position on the proposed ordinance. Disappointingly, a large majority voted to oppose it. Discussion lasted just a few minutes with only a couple of members briefly expressing support for the ordinance.

The vote appeared to be based mostly on personal interest, not on the facts behind San Diego’s water supply. Most everyone was ready to vote in opposition without comment, although one member said she’s been using water sparingly long enough and she doesn’t want to continue using water “as if we’re in a drought.” Another member declared that the drought is over, nothing to worry about now. So that was that.

Perhaps part of the problem with the proposed ordinance is its basis in what is perceived as a temporary drought condition. But California’s years-long drought isn’t the main reason for San Diego’s water insufficiency and there will be future droughts, perhaps worse, and other significant considerations also govern the amount of water San Diego can import.

The City of San Diego imports about 90% of its water from hundreds of miles away under incredibly complex legal agreements. San Diego (indeed, all of Southern California) is struggling to cope with permanent cutbacks in the amount of water it can import from the Colorado River, having taken more than its share for many years when Nevada and Arizona were not yet taking their full allocation of water. We still haven’t gotten used to that.

Then there are the cutbacks in water from Northern California. Drought conditions certainly contributed to the cutbacks, but legal restrictions on pumping from the Delta because of environmental requirements are an equally significant cause of reduced water deliveries to the south.

The fact is that laws, contracts, and agreements can supply San Diego with plentiful water; and laws, contracts, and agreements can be changed to limit our supply of water. This will always be the case; there are no permanent guarantees.

Another consideration is the scale of extremely complicated infrastructure required to make delivery of water possible over such long distances. Any number of things can go wrong that could cut supplies quickly and dramatically. The recent magnitude 7.2 earthquake near Calexico caused considerable damage to canals and pipelines in that region, cutting water supplies to many. That could easily happen closer to home with a real possibility that canals and pipelines supplying our water could be seriously damaged. Or a major earthquake farther north could damage or destroy levees in the Delta and flood the entire area with seawater, in which case a cutoff of water to Southern California would certainly be long-term. With a cutoff of imported water, what do we do?

Cutoffs to our imported water supply would require us to rely entirely on our local reservoirs. Over the years our water managers have struggled to expand reservoir capacity in an attempt to create enough storage to give us a six-month emergency supply, but especially in the case of a Delta catastrophe, a cutoff could last much longer than that.

When we find ourselves relying on our emergency reserves, we’ll be under more severe water use restrictions than we’ve had so far, and it will be much harder on us if we are accustomed to habitually using water “as if there’s no drought.”

There’s yet another factor we’re all aware of but seem to push to the back of our minds: increasing demand due to population growth and development. That is a condition that does not change quickly and it slowly and surely reduces our available supply.

All of the points I’ve raised above are good reasons for us to permanently adjust our water use. The drought restrictions we’ve been under for the last year have been pretty easy to handle and the water conserved translates into more water in the reservoirs in case of emergency. It was easy to do because we cut back on unnecessary or wasteful use. Normal life hasn’t really been disrupted.

We could refer to the proposed ordinance as a “permanent drought restriction ordinance” or we could call it something like “living within our means ordinance” or “scarce water supply ordinance” but to the question “is San Diego’s drought permanent?” the answer is, for all practical purposes, yes.

So it’s best we continue the modest conservation we’ve been doing, and further, we should more actively support the development of new water resources like the Indirect Potable Reuse/Reservoir Augmentation Demonstration Project.

[update: I just received word from the Public Utilities Department that they are renaming the project to Water Purification Demonstration Project for publicity purposes. The original name will still be used for city council business.]

There shouldn’t be any question about how to vote on Frye’s proposed ordinance. Why in the world would anyone support a return to wasteful water use?


Posted in Water, Water Purification Demonstration Project | Tagged: , , , | 10 Comments »