Water conservation success backfires on policy-makers

Water conservation success backfires on policy-makers

 

drought.caA longstanding truism when it comes to needed goods such as water systems, flood control or catastrophic earthquake insurance is that the public wants them but does not want to pay for them.

This was confirmed anew by a recent USC-L.A. Times poll, which found only 36 percent of those polled were in favor of raising taxes for statewide water system upgrades. A plurality of 46 percent indicated they would be willing to pay more to assure a more stable water supply.  However, 51 percent indicated that taxes should not be used to upgrade water storage and conveyance facilities.

As pollster Drew Lieberman of the Democratic polling firm of Greenberg, Quinlan and Rosner put it, “Support evaporates entirely when you put a price tag on it.”

The results of this poll may affect the $11.1 billion water bond on the Nov. 4 ballot that may or may not contain funding for any new water storage facilities. This bond will not fund the proposed new $15 billion twin tunnels to convey water under the Delta southward to farms and cities.

The water bond was pulled from the ballot in 2010 and 2012 for fear of voter rejection.

Voters like status quo’s stable cost

But there may be good reason beyond aversion to taxes as to why Californians don’t want to pay for added new taxes to build new water tunnels under the Delta and re-create a new Delta ecosystem for fish.

Consider the selling points for the bond. It would:

–Provide a fix for the Sacramento Delta for fish

–Upgrade flood levees

–Prevent a catastrophic loss of Delta water in an earthquake

–Provide more water storage for droughts

The idea that these projects are urgently needed at a cost of many billions of dollars is tough to sell to the public when they perceive the existing system to be working just fine, and when most urban areas have enough water to weather the drought. Many Californians probably feel they have already done their part — 87 percent of those polled indicated they have cut back their daily water usage. This leads most people to believe that conservation keeps the state water shortage manageable.

Voters favor more conservation

Water_moleculeThis viewpoint is borne out by the USC poll. All the highly favored policies were conservation-oriented: water recycling (92 percent), urban storm-water capture (91 percent), more underground water storage (83 percent), more personal cutbacks in water usage (81 percent) and desalination plants (75 percent).

Building new dams and reservoirs was only approved by 65 percent of those polled.

Water policy-makers have so successfully sold the public on water conservation that the public apparently does not believe in paying taxes for any new system-wide improvements because conservation is perceived as free.

From 2000 to 2006, Californians approved five water bonds totaling $18.7 billion. But that water bond funding mostly went for land acquisitions for wetlands or preserving existing mountain watersheds, landscaping for water retention, eliminating water-consuming invasive plant species, environmental studies, etc.  But not one drop of new system water storage was funded by those bonds.

Once again, voters will approve waterless water bonds that are conservation-oriented during economic boom times. But when it comes to funding hard water infrastructure projects in an economy still recovering from recession, the public believes that more conservation is the solution.

Those who opposed the proposed Peripheral Canal in 1982 in favor of conservation policies have been so successful that it is now difficult to get the public to favor any taxes for water projects — even in a crisis.

3 comments

Write a comment
  1. Bill Gore
    Bill Gore 17 June, 2014, 08:41

    Water conservation is a double-edged sword in terms of the utilities’ relationship with the ratepayers.
    Utilities say to ratepayers: “You must conserve. If you do not conserve we will hit you with heavily tiered rate structures to punish your consumption.”
    So ratepayers cut back and conserve to the point that utilities then come out and say “we must raise rates because conservation is slashing our revenues.”
    All of wich leaves ratepayers dumbfounded: if they conserve, they’re screwed. If they don’t conserve, they’re screwed.
    Adding to the horror is the total lack of restraint in the growth of compensation and benefits on the part of utility management and unionized rank and file. They pay themselves whatever they can, because they can. MWD has a very checkered reputation in this regard. Its upper management is literally southern california royalty, and the pay, benefits and job security are all very generous.

    Reply this comment
  2. Gary
    Gary 17 June, 2014, 13:06

    “Building new dams and reservoirs was only approved by 65 percent of those polled.”

    Ahhhh, So, only two thirds like this idea. ONLY two thirds.

    When did two thirds in support become “difficult to get the public to favor any taxes for water projects”?

    Reply this comment
  3. Alzbaba
    Alzbaba 18 June, 2014, 08:18

    Its silly to think that people do not want our water supply to be stable and sufficient; or think that they are not willing to pay for it! What the people are saying is they do not trust government to spend our money wisely or even smartly! Taker the Brown Express Bullet Train for example – what a waste – use that 100 Billion and take care of the water supply and our roads where we really need it!

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

Melendez: Cruz Overreacted Regarding Soft-Core Porn Actress

Asm. Melissa Melendez said Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz overreacted last week when he pulled an advertisement that unknowingly featured

Elections offer lessons for California GOP

  This post has been updated below. Yesterday, two states located thousands of miles from California elected new governors. And

UC cops mum on fraud scandal

MAY 21, 2010 K. LLOYD BILLINGSLEY In late 2009, UC Davis officials launched an investigation into misappropriation of funds on