by Carolyn Hinshaw –
Why has no city leader, councilperson, or commissioner made this his cause, or taken any action on it? Are we to believe that Davis is immune to the water shortages the rest of the state is experiencing?
The page used to say that a trained technician could help you reduce your water consumption by coming to your home and doing a water use analysis free of charge, but even that feature seems to have disappeared from the water conservation page. Now all it says is Public Works will come out and check for leaks. I finally found the free water use analysis offer under the Public Works “Governor Proclaims Drought and How You Can Help” link. Who would have guessed? I doubt that many residents have availed themselves of this free service since it is so difficult to find.
Nor has the city’s Natural Resources Commission tackled this subject, although they are the most obvious group to lead on this issue, water being a natural resource. Last year they discussed the water conservation recommendations in the Woodland/Davis Surface Water Project EIR, but that project is years away. I can’t help wondering why this commission doesn’t think water conservation is an important issue
Let’s compare enlightened and progressive Davis to other California cities.
The City of Roseville offers a Cash for Grass Program for residents who replace their turf with low-water plants and materials. The program offers $1.00 for every square foot of turf removed, up to $1,000. Due to the program’s popularity applicants are waitlisted until the city receives more grant funds in July.
San Diego County offers the 20 Gallon Challenge. They provide downloadable door hangers to residents, plus water-saving tips and rebates. The door hangers can be used to alert neighbors to broken and leaky sprinklers or overwatering practices.
Among the many programs the City of Folsom offers residents are Water Wise House Calls (right there on the homepage of the city website), commercial water audits, community presentations and a variety of rebates.
Sonoma County’s Energy Independence Program is one of the first in the state to offer an opportunity for property owners to finance water efficiency, energy efficiency, and renewable energy improvements through a voluntary assessment paid back through property taxes.
I could list more but I think it is obvious that, compared to a lot of other cities, Davis has fallen behind in the effort to encourage its citizens to conserve water.
So, here’s a suggestion: Instead of just putting information on the city’s website, where virtually no one reads it,the city should hire a water efficiency intern, give that intern a city electric vehicle (maybe one of those surplus GEM cars they were trying to get rid of) and have him/her travel the city looking for examples of water waste (broken sprinklers, gutter flooding, watering at inappropriate times, etc.). The intern could offer to help residents program their irrigation timers (or direct them to local irrigation businesses that could), assess irrigation efficiency, and determine the proper watering schedule. The intern could give residents water conservation information, provide information on residential water surveys, and let residents know that the city is willing to help them reduce their water use and their water bills.
That’s just one suggestion, but it would be good PR for the City – help arriving, in person, on your door step.
Davis citizens are probably better informed than most and would be willing recipients of a water saving message, but, by not delivering this message, the city is not leading. I believe that Davis needs to get more creative in communicating and addressing the water crisis.
Thank you for a very informative article. Does anyone know if the city does energy audits for homes? I don’t even know how to find/evaluate a private service for that.
Good point, but Davis is somewhat removed from the state water issues for the time being. Davis uses very deep wells. Eventually, they could be depleted, but it is likely many generations in the future. Most of California does not have this luxury, and are instead dependent on snow melt to fill rivers and reservoirs. Those water users must adapt their usage annually as the water supply varies. Water conservation efforts in Davis would be a sensible component of our eco-friendly community, but perhaps mostly for maintaining Davis’s image than actually impacting the state water crisis.
Very good points raised.
I think that the primary focus for city water planning should be the development of a “purple pipe” system bringing back tertiary treated waste water to the city for landscape watering. This reduces or eliminates the need for the new water treatment facility demanded by the state (we would not be dumping water into the causeway but reusing it) and would lessen our need to draw water from the Sacramento River.
Excellent article, Carolyn. “Papabear” commented that the conservation imperative does not apply to Davis because we have wells. It has been a while since I have seen anything about the overall demand on the lower aquifer that Davis uses- agricultural draws, particularly- and the latest research as to the sources of the aquifer and effects of drought and climate change on these sources.
You want water conservation? You don’t need an intern. You don’t need better web pages or water experts telling people what to do. You don’t even need to pay people to take out lawns and replace them with desert plants. All you need to do is raise the price. The big water-wasters in our area are the alfalfa and rice farmers. They pay half as much per water-foot as residential users. If you charge the farmers the same price for their water, they wouldn’t plant rice or alfalfa; they’d switch to crops like safflower ([url]http://www.cfbf.com/agalert/AgAlertStory.cfm?ID=1041&ck=D736BB10D83A904AEFC1D6CE93DC54B8[/url]), which require less irrigation.
It’s time to have a public “water summit” in Davis, so the community can ask questions and get some answers from the City Council and Public Works Department on the wastewater treatment plant and the water pipeline. We need to explore the issues of land use/development and water supply and all possible incentives and measures for water conservation. We need to develop a set of agreed to principles as a basis for sound public policy on water use and management.
AJ: “You don’t even need to pay people to take out lawns and replace them with desert plants. All you need to do is raise the price. The big water-wasters in our area are the alfalfa and rice farmers. They pay half as much per water-foot as residential users. If you charge the farmers the same price for their water, they wouldn’t plant rice or alfalfa; they’d switch to crops like safflower, which require less irrigation.”
It is my understanding that farmers use 95% of the water. Residential use represents only 5%. Even if residents were to stop using water altogether, which is not a viable option, the most we could conserve is 5%. So why is water conservation not a requirement for the users of the greatest amount of water – farmers? Why have they been left out of the conservation equation? Why do residents have to give up grass for a lawn, so farmers can dump millions of gallons of water into uncovered irrigation ditches that just evaporates in the summer heat?
And what does our esteemed Mayor of Davis say about all this? Asmundson says to remember to take the water used to cook rice and reuse it for soup. Councilmember Souza insists we reuse the water vegetables were cooked in to water our lawn. Could these politicians be any more clueless?
ag 80%
industry 15%
residences 5%
350: source?
According to an article from 1990, water use in Yolo County was 3.9% municipal and industrial, and 96.1% irrigated agriculture. That includes both ground water and surface water supplies. Surface water provided about 55%, ground water about 45%. There is no direct connection between agricultural uses and municipal water supplies; there is presently no way to connect surface water into the Davis municipal system, which is entirely from wells. Irrigation of farmland with surface water supplies does help recharge the ground water.
Excellent commentary, Carolyn. I did find the article on the city web site by looking for “water conservation” in the search box on the city home page. Here are some articles from my web site that folks might find helpful. Nursery professionals, landscape designers, landscape architects, and master gardeners can be useful local resources.
Here’s the link: Here are some articles
Third time’s a charm? Here are some articles ([url]”http://redwoodbarn.com/waterconservation.html”[/url])
Once more ([url]http://redwoodbarn.com/waterconservation.html[/url])
Carolyn, nobody wants to talk about where and who is really using all the water. The farmers have free and full access to use as much water as they want. Companies like Nestle and coca cola pump hundreds of millions of gallons for free from springs around the country. Why is it that residents in cities have to pay for water, but farmers and these multi national bottling companies don’t have to pay a cent. The fact of the matter is is that 70% of the water usage goes to farms. The farms don’t have to pay, therefore they use the worst and most wasteful type of irrigation. There’s no incentive to save water, and on top of that, they don’t care about saving water. What they care about is maximizing profits and using as little money as possible to maximize their operations. Free water means free reign. These companies must be held accountable. Putting the onus on small time property owners shifts the blame to residential usage and doesn’t focus on where the real waste is happening. Farmers and multi national bottling companies are to blame. They are the ones that should be paying. We are using nothing compared to these guys.
Let’s not forget that the wells are polluted with agricultural pollutants in Davis. The superfund site on 2nd street is being “flushed” out and the contaminated water is moving towards town. Where is the outrage. I agree with Nancy, we need a water summit asap.!!!!
“but farmers … don’t have to pay a cent. The fact of the matter is is that 70% of the water usage goes to farms. The farms don’t have to pay….”
What on earth makes you think farmers don’t pay for water?
Re the superfund site. The site is not being “flushed out”. The plume of contaminated groundwater is being mostly contained and treated. Contaminated water is pumped out, sent through a treatment system that removes the contaminants and is then sent to the city’s WWTP. The groundwater in that area moves mostly toward the north, not toward town.
I’m not really understanding all of the animosity directed toward farmers here. What do you all expect to eat? Are you going to grow your own food?
I think you need to distinguish between Big Ag (who are likely getting subsidized water), and the smaller farmers that do not necessarily get this help (of which I think we have quite a few around here).
At the end of February, the owner of the CSA to which I subscribe (a -small- local farmer) let her customers know that at the time of her writing, she and others like her were allocated exactly 0% of irrigation water from Shasta Dam. She said private water was available for $300 per acre-foot. Fortunately, she would only need about 30 acre-feet to keep her operation going, but another orchard-owner in the area would need approximately 1,000 for his almond orchard. She spoke in terms if impending water crisis for some of the farmers around here–and in the Northern California region more broadly.
So I don’t think farmers getting water is as easy and cost-free as posters above have made out.
I haven’t received an update from her–so I’m not sure what the status is.
There are three ways I can irrigate my farm in Solano County. I can pay for Solano Irrigation District water. I can pay PG&E for the electricity to pump groundwater from my well. Or I can use a generator that runs on diesel fuel to pump groundwater from my well. If I didn’t already have a well, it would be pretty expensive to drill one. The pump for ag use has to be heavy duty, so it’s expensive. I can flood the property, use sprinklers, or use drip irrigation. Each of the latter two options has materials costs. There is no cost-free water.
I am a landscape architect and certified water auditor. We have the U.C.D. Arboretem “All Star 100” climate-adapted plant program right here under our noses, and many other landscape plants that require almost no water. We also have emerging, affordable “smart” irrigation controllers available, so there is little technical reason everyone can’t save 20-25% of landscape water use almost immediately, even with lawns…