Our View: We’ll be glad to sell our grass to the city or state
The state of California is getting tough on water wasters. The new regulations the State Water Resources Control Board was expected to approve Tuesday night will codify requirements to cut 25 or even 35 percent of our water use. Cities that don’t meet the goal will face penalities.
After learning that Californians only reduced their water use 3.6 percent over March of last year, the state is getting serious.
We get it. This drought is historic and everyone has to help so that all of us can make it through. But we think the state – and, by extension, the counties, cities and water districts – should make it worth our while. Yes, we’re talking cash for grass.
Anyone with the Internet or even a radio knows that urban and suburban dwellers put more than half of the 100 to 150 gallons of water they use each day on lawns, gardens and flowers. It’s called ornamental landscaping, and we’re supposed to be ashamed of keeping it green. We should, instead, be pulling up turf and replacing it with crushed stone, cacti or native grasses.
We won’t argue the necessity or the aesthetics. If we must make a choice, we’d rather see our neighbors on farms get the water. After all, we might be worried about one little tree but they’re desperate to keep a thousand trees alive. And we have a stake in it, too. What farmers do helps keep our local economy vibrant and, truthfully, puts food on a lot of tables.
Still, this is the fourth year of drought. A lot of suburbanites have already pulled out shrubs and trees fearing another dry year. How are they supposed cut deeper without incurring significant cost? They can’t.
That’s why many cities already offer incentives for homeowners to transform their yards. Paying people to save water is cheaper than buying it. But rebates vary wildly. In Los Angeles, residents get $3.75 per square foot. In Sacramento, 50 cents. In most cities, residents get nothing.
As the state waits, others are acting. Metropolitan Water District – an agency many Northern Californians reflexsively distrust – has committed $100 million to matching money spent by cities to buy turf.
Who benefits? All of us.
Every city in the Valley draws water from aquifers. Those same aquifers are shared by nearby farmers. If city dwellers use less, there’s more for crops. Since such a program helps growers, irrigation districts have a vested interest in supporting programs like Met’s – or at least pushing the state to do more.
While many cities have been waiting to see what the state will do, we’ve been hearing about that tax windfall expected to dump cash – our cash – into state coffers. The state should be more than willing to spend some of that money on resolving this crisis.
This would be a one-time investment, no ongoing costs like raises to public employees. It would help all Californians meet a goal we’re clearly having trouble attaining. And the dividends would accrue beyond this year. More water-efficient homes positions the state if drought turns out to be the new normal.
Until it starts raining, Californians must get used to living without lush green lawns. It would be easier with a little more green in our pockets.
This story was originally published May 5, 2015 at 5:06 PM with the headline "Our View: We’ll be glad to sell our grass to the city or state."