California鈥檚 legislative advisors lambasted the state鈥檚 ambitious proposal to regulate urban water conservation, calling the measures costly and difficult to achieve, 鈥渋n many cases without compelling justifications.鈥�
The proposed rules, , call for more than 400 cities and other water suppliers serving about 95% of Californians to meet conservation targets beginning in 2025.
The state Legislative Analyst鈥檚 Office the State Water Resources Control Board鈥檚 proposal, warning that the regulations would set 鈥渟uch stringent standards for outdoor use that suppliers will not have much 鈥榳iggle room鈥� in complying.鈥� They also warn that the added costs will ultimately be borne by customers.
鈥淲hether the benefits of the new rules ultimately will outweigh the costs is unclear,鈥� the report says. 鈥淭hese doubts are particularly worrisome given we find that suppliers will face notable challenges complying with these requirements.鈥�
The report recommended that lawmakers direct state regulators to 鈥渕ake several of the proposed requirements less stringent (such as the residential outdoor standard), consider how to target state funding to assist lower鈥慽ncome customers, and extend some of the deadlines for suppliers to ensure they can actually achieve the framework鈥檚 goals.鈥�
Water board officials didn鈥檛 comment on the criticism or recommendations, but spokesperson Edward Ortiz said the report, along with other feedback received from industry and the public, will be considered. He said a new draft of the rules will be released this spring.
鈥淲ith changing weather conditions threatening to reduce the state鈥檚 water supply 10% by 2040, California is advancing an all-of-the-above strategy to bolster water supplies throughout the state, including conservation,鈥� Ortiz said.
Heather Cooley, director of research at the Pacific Institute, a global water think tank, said conservation and efficiency are the cheapest, fastest ways to meet California鈥檚 water needs as climate change renders supplies more variable and uncertain.
鈥淲e have to take real action to ensure we can provide safe, clean, reliable water for California communities,鈥� she said. 鈥淩etrofitting and taking out old devices, transforming our landscapes, all of those things have a cost. But it鈥檚 far less than developing new sources of supply.鈥�
Mandated by a package of 2018 laws, the intent of the rules is to make conservation 鈥渁 way of life鈥� in California. The rules, which are two years behind schedule, are expected to be adopted by the water board this summer before taking effect in October.
The rules don鈥檛 target individuals or businesses, instead setting individualized conservation targets for urban water agencies across the state based on goals for indoor and outdoor water use, leaks and other factors.
By 2035, water providers will collectively need to reduce water use by 14% . The savings would be enough to supply about 1.2 million homes every year, or about 1% of the state鈥檚 total water use.
The report called this amount 鈥渕odest,鈥� noting that 鈥渢he agricultural sector uses about four times as much water as the urban sector.鈥�
state regulators last fall that complying would be costly 鈥� roughly $13.5 billion from 2025 to 2040 for rebates and other efforts to cut residential use. The benefits are anticipated to reach about $15.6 billion, in large part because suppliers and customers will buy less water.
The Legislative Analyst鈥檚 report noted that an assessment by a consulting firm commissioned by a water supplier raised questions about those calculations. They noted that customers 鈥� particularly low-income households 鈥� would likely bear the brunt of rates increased to cover the costs.
鈥淓ven if benefits outweigh costs in the long run, whether they merit the amount of work and costs to implement the requirements as currently proposed is uncertain,鈥� the report said.
Jay Lund, vice-director of the Center for Watershed Sciences at the University of California, Davis, called the report 鈥渁n unusually frank assessment.鈥�
鈥淎lthough there is good room for further conservation, this additional State effort seems like it is probably not needed, or at least, need not be as stringent and complicated as it seems. It has been asked, 鈥業s this juice worth the squeeze?鈥欌�� he told CalMatters in an email.
During the last three-year severe drought, , the Newsom administration set voluntary conservation goals that were largely ineffective. Californians used less water from July 2021 through the end of last year compared to 2020, far less than Gov. Gavin Newsom鈥檚 15% goal.
Some areas, especially in hot, inland areas of the state, will require more stringent conservation than others under the proposed rules. Inland and eastern California will be required to cut back the most, with the biggest cuts, up to 34%, needed in desert areas, followed by the Tulare Lake region.
Even in the North Coast area, which as a whole is not expected to need to cut back at all to meet the 2035 targets, two large suppliers serving more than 1.6 million customers will nevertheless need to reduce their water use by a quarter.
But increasing conservation in the places that need it most will seem a bargain when inevitable longer and drier droughts occur, said , former chair of the water board and now a visiting fellow at Stanford University鈥檚 Water in the West Program.
鈥淭he goal is both to make each locality more resilient to the nightmare curveballs climate change is throwing at us, and to do it in a way that integrates efficiency first and foremost as the most cost and carbon effective measure in the long run,鈥� Marcus said.
Sonja Petek, the principal fiscal and policy analyst who authored the report, said the office isn鈥檛 saying to abandon the conservation regulations, it鈥檚 just recommending changes to make them more feasible.
鈥淲ater conservation is one of the important components of the state鈥檚 overall water management strategy,鈥� she said, citing more severe and prolonged droughts and the need to reduce reliance on overdrafted groundwater basins. 鈥淥ur concern is that if these regulations were adopted as written, it could lead to a scenario where compliance is not feasible for some water suppliers, so the state might not achieve its ultimate goals.
Assemblymember Laura Friedman, a Democrat from Burbank and an author of the original legislation, said the report 鈥渞aises some valid concerns with the rulemaking process thus far, however, I have faith in the water board to do its due diligence in implementing the standards that were passed.鈥�
is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.