Facing a future of shortages, California is entering a new phase of water conservation: Cities and towns must meet new mandates ramping down use over the next 15 years — and some will be hit harder than others.
Approved two weeks ago, the new state rules require 405 cities and other urban suppliers serving 95% of Californians to meet individualized water budgets.
Suppliers serving roughly a third of Californians won’t need to cut water use to meet the 2040 mandates. Coastal California is expected to escape relatively unscathed with its cool climate, while hot, inland communities will face far steeper conservation requirements.
Of a dozen water systems projected to face cuts of 40% or more over the next 15 years, seven are located in the Central Valley, where many suppliers already struggle with water availability and quality, according to preliminary state data.
“We’re the closest to where the rubber meets the road. But older districts like ours just aren’t as capable,” said Brian Davis, general manager of the Linda County Water District in Yuba County north of Sacramento, which will have to cut an estimated 43% by 2040.
“It puts us in the seat of having to be the bad guy for what may be a minuscule amount of savings. So that’s an unpalatable place to be,” he said.
The rules target urban water agencies, not residents. Suppliers will have to develop rebates, fee structures and other ways to provide incentives for people to use less water.
Many large urban agencies near the coast are already well-positioned to weather the cuts because their water use is projected to fall near or below their targets.
Fog-shrouded San Francisco, with its dense housing, small yards and a $6 million conservation program — is expected to meet its 2040 mandate without any additional reductions.
San Francisco’s roughly 880,000 residents use on average 42 gallons of water per person per day, conservation manager Julie Ortiz said. That’s roughly half of the state average last year, according to water board data.
San Diego, Irvine, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Monterey are among the others that won’t have to cut water use to meet their state mandates.
The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the nation’s second largest municipal water utility, serving about 4 million people, will have to reduce use by a modest 9% by 2040.
That, however, “seems like a lot when you look at the history of our conservation effort,” said Delon Kwan, assistant director of water resources. Over the past 15 years, Angelenos have cut their water use by 33%, dropping to 101 gallons per person per day by June 2023.
Now the utility, which spends $25 to $30 million every year on conservation, is working on getting a full-service lawn replacement program up and running for underserved communities with a $14 million state grant.
“The low-hanging fruit — we’ve done a lot of those early on,” Kwan said, adding that the utility already offers rebates for “just about every type of indoor and outdoor water-consuming plumbing fixture.”
The South Coast region, mostly spanning coastal parts of San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles and Ventura counties, will cut water use by only 10% by 2040. With more than half the state’s population, that region’s relatively modest cuts will account for roughly half of water savings from the state’s new measures.
Regions facing the steepest cuts, averaging between 17 and 30%, include the Sierra Nevada and mountain communities in Southern California, the deserts, much of the Inland Empire, stretches of the Central Valley and the remote, sparsely populated areas of the northeast.
Water suppliers must stay within water budgets calculated from targets for residential indoor and outdoor use, certain business landscapes and losses in the system, such as leaks. Local climate, population and landscaped area also factor into the equations, as do livestock, recycled water, swamp coolers and other factors.
If they serve areas with lower incomes, agencies that face cuts of 20% can opt for alternatives that extend their deadlines. Other agencies with bigger cuts also can opt for the alternatives as long as they reduce use by at least 2% per year and meet other requirements, regardless of local incomes.
Statewide, urban water use per person is expected to drop by 21.8% between 2022 and 2050 with the proposed regulation, compared to 17.9% without it. The measures are projected to save an estimated 1.7 million acre-feet of water through 2040 — enough to supply almost half the state’s population for a year, substantially less than the state’s earlier proposals would have cut. Total savings through 2050 could reach 3.9 million acre-feet.
Most residents won’t see higher bills
State regulators watered down the rules after facing an onslaught of criticism from suppliers and state analysts about the high costs of their earlier proposal.
The costs of the regulations, largely expected to be passed onto customers, are estimated to reach $4.7 billion through 2050. But state analysts expect the benefits for customers and water suppliers, largely from purchasing less water, will outweigh the costs of funding conservation programs by about $1.4 billion.
For roughly two-thirds of Californians, the regulations won’t change average monthly water and wastewater bills from 2025 through 2050, according to the water board’s analysis. The rules could increase costs for about 5 million people, including 1.7 million with increases of more than 10 cents per month. But 8 million could see their bills drop, mostly by more than 10 cents per month.
“It’s always going to be more efficient to help reduce demand than it is to develop alternative water supplies,” San Francisco’s Ortiz said. “Conservation is our number one supply management strategy.”
Several smaller suppliers facing massive reductions told CalMatters that they expected their projected cuts to shrink as they collect more information about water use in their communities.
Some said they will apply for variances — such as for air conditioning systems that require water, known as swamp coolers — or opt for alternative pathways available to lower-income communities and suppliers facing especially large cuts. The state’s projections for regions and individual suppliers don’t yet incorporate such carveouts, and water budgets may yet change with new data about landscape areas.
The unincorporated, low-income community of Linda in Yuba County faces one of the steepest reductions — 43% to meet the 2040 mandate. In the heart of the agricultural Sacramento Valley and near the Beale Air Force Base, many locals are renters and retirees on fixed incomes, said Davis, the general manager.
“They’re hard to convince to invest money in their older homes for water conservation,” Davis said. “We’re kind of scratching our heads.”
The average monthly bill there is about $35 per month, rising to about $55 in the summer, Davis said. “We know that it is low, and we work to keep it low in a disadvantaged community.”
With a budget of only $2.8 million, the water agency anticipates having to raise money for outreach consultants to support engineers with an entirely new role: educating people about saving water.
“Maybe the community rises and really gets a water conservation mind, and we’re seen as the heroes. But it’s a more rural, older community. That’s an unlikely outcome,” Davis said.
It’s the same problem that the relatively affluent city of Glendora in eastern Los Angeles County, at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains, is grappling with as well. Like Linda, the city is facing 43% reductions by 2040.
Glendora recently raised water rates to an average of $95 per month to help tackle $350 million in projects needed to upgrade the water system and shore up leaky pipes and reservoirs.
Conserving will reduce the city’s need for pricey imported supplies, which supplement local groundwater. But changing behaviors, City Manager Adam Raymond said, can be challenging in a suburban community of long-time homeowners, where much of the water is used for lawns and yards.
Though the city offers rebates for tearing out lawns in partnership with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, it can take 15 to 20 years to see substantial water savings as a result, Raymond said.
“Therein lies the biggest challenge. Because last I checked, we can’t force someone to rip out their yard,” he said.
Big water cuts in inland California cities, deserts
Others facing especially steep cuts include the Central Valley community of Atwater in Merced County, which will need to reduce water use by 58%, according to preliminary data — among the largest cuts expected in the state.
But Justin Vinson, the city’s director of public works, says he suspects these massive cuts reflect inaccurate calculations of leaks in the system, because half the city isn’t metered yet. Once meters are installed by the end of the year and residents are charged for their usage instead of a flat fee, “we should be able to show we can make the cuts.”
In Merced County’s Los Banos, Public Works Director Charles Bergson said there is room to conserve. He’s concerned about future water supply and capacity for the city, which the state projects must cut back 38% by 2040.
Between the hot climate and large lots, household use there is higher than the state average, he said. The city also struggles with contaminants in the groundwater it depends on, such as hexavalent chromium — made infamous by the movie Erin Brockovich.
“Tightening the water usage will help us in the long run,” he said. “I don’t see that much downside. A dead lawn or two, I don’t think that’s going to hurt anybody. I am looking for sources of water, and this is obviously a big one.”
In the desert city of Twentynine Palms in San Bernardino County, at the gateway to Joshua Tree National Park, squeezing an additional 14% in savings by 2040 out of their low-income customers will be “an incredibly large lift and will not be easy,” said water district spokesperson Yasmeen Nubani.
The desert community has little to no outdoor landscaping, Nubani said, which means conservation must come indoors. Setting up a rebate program offering $160 in incentives to about 20% of their customers would cost around $300,000 — about half of what they’d need to meaningfully cut water use.
And even with a rebate program, she said, she’s not optimistic about participation because of the costs that customers would still need to bear to upgrade toilets and washing machines.
“All of our customers are going to be hit hard by this, considering that the vast majority are low-income,” Nubani said.
