River Watch Header Image

Discussion on State Conservation of Water Rates

To All,

I would like to clarify Brenda’s comments about contractors thinking 10% was too high –

I was in the room and I would say that not all contractors said that. But we did express verbally that in general those of us who have really tried to cut back on water use per capita in our area, and have heavily relied on recycled water (Windsor hooking up 478 homes for both front and back yards for example) are frustrated with those in other areas of the state (like Sacramento county) who use almost 3 times what our water customers currently use per month. I specifically said that even though Windsor was frustrated, we would continue to cut back because our own watershed is not healthy. I found out today Windsor’s per capita average is 110 gallons/per person/day, as opposed to Sacto County’s (Roseville) almost 300 gallons/per person/day. In 1996 our average was 130 gallons/day. In my mind, with the lawns, and with older irrigation systems that are not weather sensitive, there is still plenty of room to cut more.

Debora Fudge
Hi everyone:

Here’s a copy of Pam Jeane’s presentation (SCWA) at WAC on Monday and State Board on Tuesday. I know it’s hard to read; you might want to contact Pam for a clean copy.

The big discussion on both Monday and Tuesday was the governor’s new call for 20% conservation over current levels (It appears there is some proposed legislation calling for it as well.). Contractors are calling foul because they are suffering from "demand hardening". In other words, they already did far more conservation than others in the State and they shouldn’t be held to such a high standard. Contractors think 10% is too high; State Board was talking about 15%. It’s going to get interesting.Dis

Brenda