Blogging the Drought
As I’m sure that everyone here know, there’s a drought on! The East Bay Municipal Utility Disctrict (EBMUD) has set a goal for a decrease of 15% in water usage in the district (19% for Single Family Residences) and has banned the following, effective as of May:
- using water for decorative ponds, lakes and fountains except those that recycle the water
- washing vehicles with hoses that do not contain shutoff nozzles
- washing sidewalks, patios and similar hard surfaces
- irrigating outdoors on consecutive days or more than three days a week (EBMUD recommends watering in the evening or before dawn)
- lawn or garden watering that results in excessive runoff
- sewer and hydrant flushing and washing streets with potable (drinking)water supplied by EBMUD except for essential purposes
- the use of potable water for construction if alternatives are available
- the use of potable water for soil compaction and dust control when another source is available
And coming in two weeks (July 8th), the EBMUD Board will be voting on pricing to help encourage the better use of water. The proposed pricing, raises all water rates by 10%. It also sets a goal of reducing water usage by 10% compared to the three-year average of each individual household. Failure to meet this 10% reduction will result in a $2 per unit (a unit is 748 gallons) penalty.
Does that strike you as fair? No matter what past usage is, you’ll be penalized if you don’t reduce your household’s water usage by 10%? This isn’t a personal problem, sd&r’s household recently made some decisions that has significantly reduced our water use, but it was only about 18 months ago, and therefore our three year average is high enough that we’d have to start leaving a sprinkler running all night to be penalized. So this isn’t a rant about my not wanting to pay a penalty.
According to the SF Chronicle, residences West of the hills in EBMUD’s district use 221 gallons of water per day while residences East of the hills use 500. It’s unclear these numbers include multifamily units which use a lot less water per unit because of the shared common spaces, (I’m not arguing for/against multifamily, just pointing out a lack of clarity in the numbers). Don’t these numbers seem to jump out at you? East of the Hills, households use nearly 2.5 times as much water. Which means that those households who use a lot more water will be able to avoid penalties much easier than households that are currently saving water.
There are still numbers to be crunched, but I’m still wondering why the pricing is set up to actually favor households that have wasted water for the last three years, and penalize households who have kept their usage under the average for their area? Yes, households that use less than 100 gallons of water a day will see no increase in rates (this is encouraging.
A household that hosed down their sidewalk everyday and ran their sprinklers on their lawn every day will be able to cut down on their usage easily (while maintaining their lawn, etc) in order to avoid the penalty. A household that installed a drought resistant garden and was mindful of their water usage will have to actually effect real change in their lifestyle in order to avoid these prices.
One argument in support of the EBMUD proposal is that the penalties are small and therefore not meaningful to these low-water households. But then what’s the point? And why even send out the message that past performance and decision-making counts for nothing when push comes to shove (Ant and the Grasshopper anyone?).
The argument, made by some board members, against treating all households the same is that households come in all shapes and sizes, therefore it wouldn’t be fair to compare a single person household to one with eight people. And yet, the exemption for 100 gallon a day households does just that, sets an arbitrary number and exempts any households that meet it. I’m unclear who this is fair in one instance, but not in another.
There are many viewpoints to be heard around this issue, which could become a West vs. East issue, there are two weeks left to have the discussion.
Let your voice be heard, you can use EBMUD.Directors@gmail.com to contact all of the directors or visit EBMUD.com and send emails to each director individually. Doug Linney is the elected Director for Alameda. (DLinney@ebmud.com)
Mark Irons
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:55 am
John,
Thanks for raising the issue. I hate to bring it up, but just as with all the flaws with the recent parcel tax Measure H, it’s a blunt instrument chosen because it’s so hard to fine tune it.
If I conserve water already, 10% of my usage is less than my neighbor, but I am still at an unfair disadvantage over somebody who has been a hog for the last three years.
The disparity between sides of the east bay hills is a bigger deal, especially when you are talking more than double the usage on one side. It’s hotter over there but many homes also have large lots and … well we all know it’s about landscaping isn’t it? Do gold courses in the desert make sense? not to me.
Doug Linney
July 7th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
These comments are well taken - the proposed drought rates are a bit of a blunt instrument. Trying to do audits of every household and setting water budgets based on number of household members, climate, etc. would be tremendously challenging. Instead EBMUD is opting to provide incentives to those who have the most to save (and help in the drought the most) and ask that everyone find a way to conserve at least 10% and not be penalized. Those who are already rigorous conservers (low flush toilets, low flow showerheads, native plants) will either be automatically exempted (if they use less than 100 gallons a day) or can apply to be exempted in what staff has promised to be a simple application.
We are favoring the carrot over the stick in our approach. The goal here is to find a way to achieve a 19% reduction in residential water use (as well as conservation in other sectors). Those who are wasting the most will have the most to gain in savings. Those who are already saving are unlikely to be penalized as I’ve outlined above.
My biggest concern is that there isn’t enough “incentive” or “penalty” however you want to put it, to make the big “wasters” conserve. A 10% rate increase in order to use as much water on your lawn as you always have and not let it die or turn brown? Seems like a good deal to me. I pushed for a higher incremental rate increase on big water users when we debated this in May, but couldn’t get a board majority. I’m quite worried about whether we’re going to hit our conservation targets. Ironically, EBMUD may be using our drought fund, intended to soften the blow of water shortages that cause revenue shortages, to make it too easy for big water users, primarily in the east of hills, to continue their business as usual.
Right now, we’re well behind our target conservation rates, but we’ll know more when public education campaign starts in earnest later this month.
Mark Irons
July 8th, 2008 at 7:50 am
Obviously I meant golf courses, not “gold” courses, but that’s an ironic mistake.
Doug or anyone, is it possible to recognize the number of persons in a home, or as I’ve suggested, is that simply too complex? I’m assuming your 100 gallon figure is per household. This may be total nonsense or something I have fabricated out of false memory, but I thought that in the seventies I recall living through a period where there was a 250 gallon per day limit on households. Sharing a house with one other bachelor we could have had a fountain in our yard with our excess allotment .
Lena Tam, Vice-Mayor
July 8th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Here’s an article from the East Bay Express that describes some of the history of implementing “tiered rates” or penalizing surcharges.
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/news/the_water_wars/Content?oid=780931.
For reference and comparison, here are some average water use for some part os Alameda based on EBMUD’s customer query database:
Oak Street/Alameda — 136 gallons per day (gpd)
Central Avenue/Alameda — 155 gpd
Bayport/Alameda — 215 gpd
Bayview/Alameda — 239 gpd
Harbor Bay/Alameda — 446 gpd
Most of the use east-of-the-hills (Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda, Blackhawk et al.) average over 700 gpd with a high of 1,600 gpd last year.
Mark Irons
July 8th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Thanks Lena. I am on Oak Street. Interesting.
Mark Irons
July 10th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
After the fact that the biggest water users/wasters also provide the largest amount of income to EBMUD thus allowing them an unfair leverage, the following was most salient part of the article:
“At the moment, EBMUD has limited options for going after water-bill scofflaws. For example, it doesn’t have the legal right to place financial liens on delinquent property owners, although Assemblywoman Loni Hancock is sponsoring a bill that would change that. However, the agency does have some powerful weapons in its arsenal. For example, it could install water-flow restrictors on the homes that waste the most water, or it could shut off the water completely when homeowners refuse to pay their bills.”
The article is discouraging, it makes one consider public protest on the other side of the tunnel. What are the options for getting a little justice?
Stop, Drop and Roll » Lawn of the dead
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:17 am
[...] Everybody knows that there’s a drought on. Or maybe they don’t based on the fact that so far, water usage in the EBMUD water district has achieved 1/3 the savings goal since May when requirements for households and business to reduce their water usage were inacted. [...]
Stop, Drop and Roll » Duck Season!
July 31st, 2008 at 5:41 am
[...] you know, EBMUD’s drought “policies” are a bit of a prickly point for me. I don’t think the agency’s [...]