San Diego Water Board Cuts Conservation Target

SAN DIEGO —  In a reversal of policy that one board member compared to the action of a yo-yo, the San Diego County Water Authority board Thursday scaled back its minimum conservation target from 30% to 20%, effective immediately, and abandoned strict water use prohibitions that would have gone into effect Monday.

The board also unanimously adopted an ordinance under which its 23 member agencies will be punished--with flow restrictions, mandatory rules and hefty surcharges--if they do not voluntarily cut their water use 20% from fiscal year 1989-90.

But as long as the agencies achieve the 20% goal, the water authority will not mandate how they achieve the cutbacks.

Landscapers, nurserymen and a construction industry spokesman applauded the action, which they said will give county residents the freedom to use their water to best meet their needs.

But some board members warned that the panel was easing off too soon and leaving the county vulnerable if the drought continues. Some water authority staff members admitted that they fear their credibility with the public may be damaged by the flip-flop.

“I think we may be rushing too rapidly to reduce the short-term economic pain,” said director Michael Parrish, who represents the city of San Diego on the board. “We’re sort of like a yo-yo. . . . We seem to be changing the signals very quickly.”

The board’s action, taken largely in response to the state’s heavy March rain and snowfall, echoed a similarly optimistic decision made earlier this week by the Metropolitan Water District, which sells San Diego County 95% of its water. On Tuesday, the MWD reduced its expected 50% cut to 31%.

Water authority General Manager Lester A. Snow said he sought the 20% cutback to strike a balance between conserving water and avoiding extreme economic hardship. To make up the additional savings required by the MWD, Snow said, the authority will purchase water from the State Water Bank and draw on local storage.

Jim Melton, a spokesman for the authority, said he hoped San Diego residents understand that a 20% cutback will still require sacrifices.

“Twenty percent doesn’t mean the drought’s over,” he said. “It’s twice as much as the 10% we asked for last summer, and we had trouble getting that.”

Under a regimen developed by the authority this year, the 20% savings goal puts the county at Stage 4, under which there are specific recommendations, including suggestions that residents water their lawns no more than twice a week, and only during early morning and evening hours.

Citizens are also urged to capture their shower water in buckets to use to flush toilets. Member agencies are asked to reduce the number of new connections allowed by 20%, unless builders can provide a conservation offset to make up for the increased demand on the system.

But all of this is optional, water officials stressed. Each member agency may devise its own methods of getting to 20% reduction, as long as it is successful.

The crackdown begins May 15, when any member agency that is saving less than 15% will receive a warning from the authority’s general manager that will also offer suggestions to remedy the deficit.

On June 1, the general manager may restrict water flow to any offending agency to ensure that it meets its 20% goal. Further, that agency will be required to adopt mandatory restrictions similar to the Stage 4 suggestions. If it does not adopt such measures within 30 days, surcharges will be added that will nearly double the cost of water the agency buys.

Parrish was not the only director who voiced worries about Thursday’s action. Director Philip R. Pryde of San Diego said the ordinance did not appear “to allow for any slack,” and he unsuccessfully attempted to increase the conservation goal to 25%. Director John Leach was similarly cautious, saying he would prefer to wait before scaling back.

“If we’re going to err . . . I’d personally be more comfortable with a 30% cut until we see what happens after the snow melts,” Leach said.

But Director Christine Frahm of San Diego scolded her colleagues for second-guessing the authority’s staff.

“We need to be mindful of the fact that every percentage point that we mandate is going to have an effect--whether on lifestyles or economics,” she said.