I recently read an article in the June 8th edition of The Los Angeles Business Journal entitled “Consumed by State’s Conservation Plan.” In the article, co-authors Wayne Lusvardi and David Powell respond to the current trend of mandatory water use reductions enacted all over California. According to Lusvardi and Powell, reduction of water use on lawns means less water in the soil, essentially costing more money to maintain in the long run.
They go on to say that mandatory reductions could essentially rise too high if current drought trends continue, forcing people to give up nice lawns and swimming pools immediately, in order to meet the demands. The long term effects of less groundwater are evident; we will become more dependent on water from outside sources, which is much more expensive than water from irrigation runoff.
The article describes the apperent hypocrisy of the cities’ “go green” mentality in their lack of planning. They say the cities with proposed water reductions fail to file environmental impact reports with the California Environmental Quality Act.
Their proposal: All cities charging higher rates to their water customers should use that extra cash flow to create more water stations that utilize groundwater recycled from landscapes. The authors suggest that the water cuts were rash decisions made in emergency mode and short sighted. They think the cities that proposed these plans need to think of the long-term ramifications before implementing water rate increases and use reductions.
What do you think about this article? Do you agree with Lusvardi and Powell’s suggestions? I would very much like to hear your thoughts on this article.