1. California Water Conservation
Alex Polonsky
EMP 350 Environmental Policy
Dr. George Busenberg
May 20, 2015

2. 1
Introduction
The past few years have been rather atypical given that 2014 and 2015 were the warmest
years in recorded history (California Water Science Center 2016). To put this in perspective,
2015 was the hottest year since the recording of climate patterns began in 1850. The reality of
climate change is all too present in the drought that is sweeping over California. Even though
the Golden State is no stranger to droughts, the current drought is on a different level being the
worst short-term drought California has experienced in over 1,200 years (Griffin and
Anchukaitis 2014). Therefore, it is important to look at key policies and strategies that influence
water conservation in order to distinguish the most effective from the least effective. To do that,
examining different types of policies that the California government uses to address water
scarcity is essential. Specifically, it is important to examine the effectiveness of water
conservation measures instituted by said policies. These policies include (but are not limited to)
voluntary water restrictions, mandatory water restrictions, market manipulation,
subsidies/rebates, and water purifying technology. This essay will take focus primarily in the
urban sphere as the agricultural standpoint is a much broader topic that necessitates separate
analysis.
The objective of this research paper is to first analyze the value of voluntary and
mandatory water restrictions, and second to compare the efficacy of market manipulation over
CAC water conservation (voluntary and mandatory water restrictions). In simpler terms, the first
section of the essay will examine non-price approaches to water conservation while the second
part will examine price approaches. The third section of this paper will assess the efficacy of the
California Subsidies and Rebate approach to water conservation while also discussing the
specific water conservation tools that the state government chooses to support. The last section

3. 2
of this essay will examine California’s long history of water purifying technology, such as
desalination and water recycling. This also will also examine the impact and viability of
groundwater as a water source in urban areas. By analyzing the costs of implementation and
maintenance, as well as the individual effectiveness of the purifying technologies and
groundwater, the significance and overall value of each purifying technology, in relation to each
other, will be made evident. Los Angeles is a great example to use in the area of water
conservation due to its extraordinarily high population and its worldwide recognition. Therefore,
LA’s policies on water conservation will be a primary focus of this essay. However, cities such
as San Diego and San Francisco will also be discussed.
Mandatory versus Voluntary Restrictions
Mandatory restrictions on water use prove to be superior to voluntary restrictions seeing
that mandatory restrictions espouse legal consequence while voluntary restrictions do not. In
2007, Los Angeles launched a massive city-wide media campaign to try to get the citizens of Los
Angeles to decrease their water usage. Unfortunately, since it was based on voluntary
participation, the campaign had little to no effect on water consumption in the city of Los
Angeles (Mini, Hogue, and Pincetl 2015). The drought that hounded Los Angeles in the years
2007 to 2010 was serious enough to prompt further action from the city when voluntary
restrictions had no effect. In 2008, the city of Los Angels implemented mandatory restrictions on
water usage that limited private residential irrigation, water waste and more, precipitating a
decrease in water consumption of close to 25% of the predicted usage (Mini, Hogue, and Pincetl
2014). It is important to note that half of urban water usage in urban areas is attributable to
landscape irrigation. In the American Southwest, estimates of landscape irrigation have been as

4. 3
high as 60 percent (EPA n.d). All the other ways in which water is used in the urban setting
when singled out individually, show little significance when compared to all the water used for
landscaping. The drought of 2007-2010 was not the only case in which mandatory restrictions
trumped voluntary ones. Twenty years’ earlier in California’s 1987-1992 drought, water
conservation of any significance only happened when mandatory rules were implemented. In
1991, Los Angeles realized that it needed to make water conservation mandatory, so it did; and
not surprisingly, there was a 25% decrease in municipal water use (Mini, Hogue, and Pincetl
2014). One of the most important advantages that mandatory restrictions have over voluntary
ones is time; or in other words, the speed at which water conservation occurs. It only took one
year of mandatory restrictions, in 1991, to make a huge impact on municipal water savings;
while on the contrary, 3 years of voluntary restrictions barely made a dent in municipal water
savings. The same thing happened around a decade earlier in the 1977 California drought in Los
Angeles and San Francisco. When mandatory restrictions were finally implemented, there was
16% municipal water reduction in Los Angeles and a 30% municipal water reduction in San
Francisco (Mini, Hogue, and Pincetl 2014).
The past impact of mandatory water restrictions has been massive, and that is not to say
that they cannot be even more effective. In all the previous examples, the mandatory restrictions
were not nearly as stringent as the ones implemented in today’s Los Angeles or San Francisco.
There is another great benefit to mandatory restrictions; they are exceedingly effective in
mitigating the water consumption of high water users. For instance, every time Los Angeles
implements mandatory restrictions on the time and rate outdoor watering, a higher percentage
decrease is indicated in high water users thereby translating into a major decrease in water use of
on arguably the most appropriate demographic (Mini, Hogue, and Pincetl 2010).

5. 4
In more recent years, California’s response to drought conditions has prompted a series of
CAC policies that have limited the water usage in California. In 2014, Governor Brown
announced a drought state of Emergency and immediately issued a set of voluntary water
conservation laws urging Californians to decrease water usage by 20% (Times Editorial Board
2014). Unfortunately, like the response to voluntary restrictions in years prior to the recent
drought, voluntary measures were found to be extremely ineffective. So ineffective, that in April
of 2015, Governor Brown mandated a 25% decrease in urban consumption of water statewide
through a series of regulations (Western, n.d). The restrictions were most prominent in terms of
urban irrigation; however, restaurants, hotels, and motels were subject to further restrictions such
as not serving water to customers unless asked and giving hotel patrons the option of not having
their towels washed (Rogers 2015). The value of these statewide restrictions are tremendous and
they continue to save water throughout California’s cities. This past November, conglomerate
data in San Diego and Los Angeles showed cumulative water savings of 13.1 % and 17.1%
respectively (SWRCB 2015). Even though mandatory restrictions were not the sole agents of
said water savings, the effect of introducing mandatory water restrictions is abundantly clear. In
only 7 months of mandatory statewide restrictions, the state of California has been able to
significantly reduce water usage.
Voluntary restrictions in California have been shown to be inferior to mandatory ones,
and it is all too clear that the only way to properly conserve water through CAC measures is
compulsory restrictions. In order to understand why mandatory restrictions, prevail over
voluntary restrictions, penalties for failing to follow mandatory restrictions become important
considerations. Repercussions for failing to adhere to mandatory water policies vary in different
counties mainly to the discretion of the municipal government. One of the strictest counties in

6. 5
California is San Diego. San Diego has a system of graduated sanctions in which a notice is
given for the first offense, an administrative citation ranging anywhere from $100 to $1000
dollars for the second, a referral to the city for prosecution for the third, and finally the complete
termination of water service (City of San Diego 2015). Each penalty in San Diego is more
compelling than the last thereby reinforcing the willingness to comply with the conservation
measures enacted. Just like San Diego, Los Angeles has extremely strict penalties in place for
those who do not abide by the water conservation laws. A fine of up to 500 dollars per day is the
current penalty in place issued to those who fail to adhere to the water usage standards set by the
city of Los Angeles (Boxall 2015). Although voluntary fines may be an easier and less
provocative method to conserve water, compulsory restrictions are the only strategy that makes
any significant dents in the water conservation effort. As of April 2016, California barely missed
the mark of Governor Brown’s goal to decrease urban water usage by 25% (California Drought
2016). Even though it is not a complete victory, the fact that California came so close to 25%
proves that the implementation of strict laws to prohibit water usage has made an important
impact for not only current urban water conservation, but as an example for California, and other
states, to use in future droughts. Mandatory restrictions in and of themselves have proven on
numerous occasions to be very effective. However, they have not proven to be the most efficient
way, in terms of cost and implementation.
Price Policy versus Non-Price Policy
The traditional way in which California reduces water usage is by implementing
command and control policy, often seen in pollution control, to water usage. For instance,
mandates, to stop watering lawns on certain days, to install low flow toilets or showers, are

7. 6
combined with a fine for not following regulations. Of course, in order to administer fines, there
must be someone to check for violations. Even though command and control works, it can be
inefficient. The other option would be to install water pricing that effectively curbs the demand
of a household to consume water. In a 2003 study conducted in 13 California cities, a low-flow
appliance mandate was compared to a water-tax in the overall price of implementing each
individually. The water tax was found to be much more cost-effective than the low-flow
appliance regulation (Olmstead and Stavins 2006). A water tax is ultimately more efficient in
lowering the cost of reducing water demand because the implementation requires additional
money to be spent on enforcement. With a water tax, enforcement is much simpler because the
only aspect under surveillance is billing. For command and control policy, enforcement is a high
necessity for the program to survive. In California, a drought occurred in the 1990’s prompting
regulatory measures from the government to decrease water usage. In a study examining the
water usage from over 85 utility companies in California, it was found that over half of all
households’ subject to restrictions were not compliant to the quantity limiting regulations as well
as type-use regulations (Olmstead and Stavins 2006). The type-use refers to regulations limiting
the water used in certain areas of the household, or for certain purposes. For example,
landscaping or washing ones’ car are often subject to the type-use restrictions. It is not very
difficult to impose fines for violating quantity regulations because of current monitoring
technology. In fact, quantity use restrictions are very similar to implementing higher water rates.
The main difference lies in the way the customer is fined. The challenges of non-price
mandatory conservation come in when one violates a type-use regulation such as landscaping too
frequently, or on a wrong day. That requires more manpower and time to constantly monitor
households subjugated to these type of regulations. The manpower and time consequently turn

8. 7
into a very large expenditure by either the utilities forced to meet certain standards by the
California government, or by the California municipality itself. In a 2006 study conducted for the
U.S and Canada, market-based pricing for water was found to be significantly cheaper than
mandates for reduced water usage in landscaping and car washing; there was estimated savings
of up to $81 dollars per household per summer drought (Olmstead and Stavins 2006). The costs
associated with regulation can be aggravating to those who already advocate for a smaller
government; however, the increased price of a commodity such as water can have a more
negative association in the political sphere.
One of the biggest aggravating factors to a price increase in water is the possible
promotion of income inequality. Price Approaches to water conservation generate a higher
reduction in water usage, compared to non-price approaches, in low-income households.
(Olmstead and Stavins 2006). The reason for this can be explained by the economic theory called
Price Elasticity of Demand. Price elasticity of demand is how much the demand for a given
good responds to a change in price. (Investopedia n.a). Fundamentally, it is almost impossible to
measure the exact amount of water use reduction compared to the associated price change.
However, it is possible to see how elastic the water usage can be to households with varying
levels of income. For instance, a household with a lower income might be more motivated to
take shorter showers if there was an increase in the price of water. Vice versa, a higher income
household should, in fact, be less motivated to decrease its shower times with a price increase. A
higher price in water will affect those, more-so, who cannot afford to use at the same rate they
have been, thereby forcing them into a situation that requires conservatory measures for water.
However, there are ways to lessen this problem, and it requires a water-tax bracket that increases
the cost of water after certain levels of expenditure. In 2009, California implemented price-

9. 8
conservation measures along with its already existing non-price programs in an effort to mitigate
the drought that was taking place at the time. The price conservation policy was unique because
it implemented a progressive water tax system that affected households that were at the tier 2 rate
of water usage; tier 2, being a range that most households with higher income levels are in, with
accordance to energy and water usage. Having implemented a price policy on tier 2 in the
summer months of 2009, California was able to affect households in the higher income range
more so than the rest (Mini, Hogues and Pincetl 2015). The study does come short in comparing
exactly how price approaches affected the reduction of water usage. Since there were additional
mandatory restrictions implemented at the same time as the price measures, it is hard to say
exactly how much of an effect the price policy had. Nonetheless, the study did definitively say
that the combination of pricing policies and mandates had a greater impact than the mandates
alone (Mini, Hogues and Pincetl 2015).
As mentioned previously, price policies are often used in conjunction with non-price
policies so it can be difficult to determine their individual contribution to water conservation. In
actuality, the individual contribution of non-price conservation is much easier to see because it
often stands on its own in policy. In 2008 in California, the effect of mandatory water
conservation policy was clearly seen because it was the sole contributor to the overall decrease.
In 2009 however, more mandatory policies were implemented along with price approaches
making it hard to see how much impact price policies had.

10. 9
Figure 1. Predicted and observed rates of Water Usage in Los Angeles from July/August
2007 to May/June 2010
Above is a figure that depicts the predicted monthly usage of water along with the actual
rate observed. In the year 2008, when only mandatory restrictions were implemented, a more
precise rate of prediction occurred underlying the effectiveness of predicting how non-price
conservation will affect overall water usage. Looking at 2009, the rate of predicted water use to
observed water use varies far more than 2008. Not only does it vary, the predicted rate greatly
underestimates the effect that the new policies have. Even though more mandatory policies were
implemented in the summer months analyzed in 2009, the big difference was the price policies
that affected the tier 2 rates for water users. When using only mandatory and voluntary
restrictions, the predicted and observed rates were very close to each other without much
variance between the predicted in observed rates. The small variance in the years before 2009
indicates that there are methods in which the municipality uses to measure the effect of each

11. 10
regulation, and this can be done quite easily by regulating the quantity, making it possible to
accurately measure the decrease in water use. On the contrary, price policy is a lot more difficult
to translate into an overall quantity reduction. As seen in the graph for the years after 2008, in
which price-policy was used, a more erratic trend was created. This erraticism is in part due to
the measures used in predicting the effects price policy will have on reducing water usage.
Using economic theories of price elasticity of demand and a myriad of other things in tandem,
numbers are estimated and plugged into an equation that is not nearly as accurate as determining
the effect of non-price policies on water conservation. In the area of predictability, non-price
measures seem to have an upper hand in a real situation. Theoretically, non-price and price
policies should have seemingly similar predictability rates (Olmstead and Stavins 2006);
nevertheless, as depicted by the figure 1, it is often not the case. Even though predictability
presents its self to be an issue in the area of demand side or price conservation, the widespread
effect it has on decreasing water usage is also represented in figure 1. (Mini, Hogues and Pincetl
2015).
Since both price policies and non-price policies have shown to be effective measures to
conserve water, it is necessary to examine the cost efficiency, predictability, and political sway
of both policies in order to determine which will be more successful in the long run. In the area
of cost efficiency, price policy has shown time and time again to be triumphant over non-price
policies mostly due to non-price policy’s low cost of enforcement and water-reducing
infrastructure. Nevertheless, price policies have continually shown to be more unfavorable in the
policy sphere because of its indefinite distributional effects and the overall unpopularity of
raising prices (Hughes 2012). Even though the distributional effects may be mitigated by a tax
bracket system, there is no certainty it will solve the problem of fair distribution. That being

12. 11
said, the command and control framework is far more predictable in its effectiveness because of
the attention to detail it requires making it more positive in the realm of public policy. Non-price
policies in landscape irrigation have also been very progressive in reducing water usage
inequality by imposing the highest costs among high-income households (Olmstead and Stavins
2009). To conclude, even though price policy is more cost effective, it is not as predictable or
politically favorable as non-price policies. Thus, future water conservation policy will likely put
an emphasis on non-price policy regulation.
Consequences of Turf Removal and Replacement
Non-price policy in the form of strict landscaping regulation has prompted many
Californian’s to replace water-intensive plants with either synthetic turf, gravel or drought-
resistant foliage making it an indirect consequence of mandatory water regulation. Both options
are tremendous water savers because synthetic turf and gravel completely eliminate the need for
irrigation while xeriscaping greatly reduces it. Governor Brown has been adamant in providing
subsidies for turf replacement programs allocating over 350 million dollars to the program after
the call to reduce water usage by 25%. The program provides up to 25,000 dollars for
commercial properties and up to 6,000 dollars for residential properties to replace water-
intensive plants with either drought-resistant plants, gravel or astroturf (a form of synthetic turf).
(NBC LA 2015). The unique property of turf removal programs in urban California is that they
effectively employ an indirect combination of non-price and price policies to influence greater
water conservation. Implementing mandatory water regulations indirectly encourage residential
households and businesses to replace water consuming greenery; at the same time, California is
reducing the price of replacing turf, positively curbing its demand. The turf removal programs

13. 12
have been extremely effective, prompting and increase in turf removal of 150% since
2013(WMD n.d). The amount of resources being allocated toward subsidies for lawn
replacement is tremendous indicating that this type of water conservation is very favorable to
California policy makers. Their reasoning is founded given that 50% of water use in the southern
California urban sphere is attributed to landscape irrigation (Rose and Katz 2010). By directly
removing the cause of consumption, overall water usage is bound to decrease rapidly; especially
when local municipalities directly replace public greenery. Given that massive amounts of the
landscape is controlled by the public, replacing it will have an immediate impact on its own.
Nevertheless, there are unintended consequences such as the unequal distribution of subsidies.
In one case, a golf course in Rancho Santa Fe replaced over 870,00 square feet of turf receiving a
rebate check of 1.62 million dollars; the cost of replacing the turf was significantly lower at 1.2
million dollars. Situations similar to these occurred ten times until a new clause prohibiting the
rebate check maximum to the cost of the project was installed. (LA Times 2015). The clear
misappropriation of government funds brings up the question of whether the government can be
trusted to appropriately subsidize water conservation. Still, the turf program was effective in
curbing water usage so for that purpose, it succeeded. With a combination of various water
conservation policies backing a decrease in water-intensive greenery, it is important to examine
possible consequences of such actions.
When removing green space, especially on a community level, loss of social capital from
green spaces causes a variety of health issues that stem from decreased activity, mental health
problems, and reduced social interaction. Reduced green space has been shown to diminish
outdoor activity leading to obesity, and heart disease, being a massive health concern to the
American public. So for that reason, conserving water through the removal of green space will

14. 13
further exacerbate the issue. Along, with the physical detriment the comes with removing green
space, people with mental health issues tend to suffer more greatly without the presence of
foliage. In addition, green spaces are common meeting points of social interaction thereby
decreasing its value as a social propagator. The overall decrease of green spaces is especially
harmful in elderly populations, intensifying chronic illness. Luckily, a water-friendly solution to
a lack of green space presents itself in xeriscaping. (Sokolow, Godwin and Cole 2016).
Xeriscaping has been the choice of many who value an environment surrounded with
plant life but feel that non-native plants consume too much water. Drought resistant alternatives
are a great way to maintain an aesthetically pleasing environment while conserving water. A
downside, which is often overlooked by many policymakers, is that the drought-resistant plants
store a significantly smaller amount of water than non-drought resistant plants reducing the
amount of evaporation that takes place. The reduced evaporation intensifies a process known as
the urban island heat effect in which a lack of evaporation from plants increases the overall
temperature of the area. The evaporation from plants, also known as evapotranspiration, is what
produces lower temperatures in forests. A study in Arizona found that the drought-resistant
plants had a soil temperature 8 degrees higher than normal turf meaning that when water
intensive greenery is replaced with drought resistant plants, the temperature of the urban area is
likely to increase. (Sokolow, Godwin and Cole 2016). This does not mean, however, that
drought resistant plants intensify the urban island heat effect in areas without existing greenery.
In drought-ridden areas that lack green space, xeriscaping can be used as a mitigation tool to cool
the surrounding area (Chow and Brazel 2012). Non-drought plants are not harmful in and of
themselves but propagate temperature rise when replaced with more water intensive greenery.
Nevertheless, the water-saving benefits of non-drought plants may be more important than the

15. 14
resulting temperature rise. Especially, in cities where a massive amount of water is required to
maintain non-native plants. A second method that can be utilized to simulate an appearance of
green space is synthetic turf.
Many golf courses find synthetic turf to be an especially convenient way to replace the
vast amounts of grass necessary to receive proper subsidies. (LA times 2015). Unfortunately,
replacing greenery with synthetic turf intensifies the urban heat island effect far more than
replacing it with drought-resistant greenery. Since synthetic turf is made from rubber (often from
recycled tires), the material can get extremely hot reaching up to 160 degrees Celsius in summer
months. In a study that compared the temperature of normal grass to synthetic grass, the grass
field that was receiving direct sunlight heated up to 85 degrees fahrenheit while the bordering
Synthetic turf heated up to 145 degrees fahrenheit. Often times, over-heated turf must be watered
down until it cools off leading to a contamination of nearby sewer systems due to the lack of
natural filtration from plant life. Because of the vast amount of water required to cool synthetic
turf, it is often left un-cooled propagating an astronomical surface temperature that greatly
increases the temperature of the surrounding area. While xeriscaping’s water saving abilities may
outweigh its resulting temperature increase, synthetic turf does not. To demonstrate this, drought
resistant plants see an increase of 8 degrees celsius over normal water-intensive turf while
synthetic turf sees an increase of up to 60 degrees celsius. (Claudio 2008). Synthetic turf poses
too great a threat for society to be a viable option for future water conservation considering its
counterpart is far less contributive to overall temperature increase. Since synthetic turf and the
removal of water-intensive plants are becoming a very common practice throughout urban
California, the consequences of urban temperature increase should be examined.

16. 15
Firstly, an increase in urban temperature hikes up the average household energy bill
creating a financial burden to individuals experiencing the urban island heat effect. The urban
island effect also exacerbates existing greenhouse gas emissions within a given city. Amongst an
increase in overall temperature and greenhouse gas emissions, negative health consequences
such as respiratory diseases and heat stroke become more prevalent; heat stroke being primarily
the result of extreme heat events which are more common in areas of reduced green space.
Additionally, the urban island effect is much more extreme in poor areas due to the lack of
existing landscape. Because many low-income households cannot afford to maintain any sort of
garden or greenery outside their homes, they often rely on the municipalities to provide green
space. When greenery is removed or replaced with synthetic turf, the community is left with little
to no vegetation to mitigate the undesirable outcomes of the urban island heat effect (Sokolow,
Godwin and Cole 2016). In addition to being a symbol of environmental injustice, removing or
replacing turf with an artificial counterpart contradicts itself as an environmentally friendly
option for water conservation. Conserving water has been a primary focus of California policy
makers since severe drought conditions were announced; nevertheless, the way in which water is
conserved can lead to a myriad of problems. In addition to xeriscaping, increasing the supply of
water may become a more widely used solution in addressing drought conditions. The main
ways in which California’s cities can further supplement their water supply is through
groundwater extraction, desalination, and water recycling; two of which are only possible in
urban areas.
Groundwater, Desalination & Water Recycling
Groundwater extraction has indubitably been the most popular method for supplementing
California’s water supply. Being home to one of the world’s most industrious agricultural

17. 16
regions in the world, California’s drought has led many farmers to vigorously drain the supply of
groundwater to make up for the lack of rainfall. In the Central Valley, 497 wells indicated a
reduction of the overall groundwater supply revealing a serious problem with groundwater as a
sustainable source (Wang, Lin, Gillies, and Hakala 2016). Unfortunately, farmers are not given a
choice when using groundwater because any other method would be impossible or too expensive
to consider. In California, the agricultural use of water is four times higher than all urban use
combined, and with such heavy reliance on groundwater, the agricultural sphere inhibits its
viability in the urban context. (Washington Post 2015). For cities like Los Angeles or San Diego
to adopt a heavier reliance on groundwater would be nonsensical and dangerous. The biggest
threat facing urban areas supposing that they increase the utilization of groundwater is source
contamination. Because there is a lack of water to refill the basins during a drought, the
contaminates will become more concentrated leading to a rise in gastrointestinal complications
and cancer (Sokolow, Godwin and Cole 2016). The negative health implications will only get
worse as more water is depleted, and it is impossible for urban areas to control depletion because
of such high agricultural demand. All of these factors prove to show that groundwater may be
viable now, but it will not be in the future making it a poor long-term solution. For California,
finding a source for more water must mean long-term viability and groundwater undoubtedly
fails that test. Even though groundwater maybe cost and energy efficient, because of the few
steps required in its acquisition, these two factors are not enough to justify the increased use of
groundwater in urban areas. After all, reducing demand for water by limiting irrigation is also
cost and energy efficient. The next option to consider as a source for more water is desalination.
Desalination is a method of filtration used to separate the salt content from water in order
to make it potable for water consumption. Unlike groundwater, the amount of water in the ocean

18. 17
is vast making it a seemingly obvious choice when looking at the overall supply. Regrettably,
there are a few barriers associated with desalination that make it very difficult to implement in
cities. For California’s agriculture, desalination is not being considered as an option because of
the sheer magnitude of the project that would need to be undertaken to fulfill agricultural water
demand. The main limitation in the agricultural setting is cost and that is true of the urban sphere
as well. The price of building and operating desalination plants is not a big issue for California
considering Israel, an economy half the size of California, has successfully used desalination as a
way to increase water supply for both agriculture and urban use.
Fig 2. Energy intensity of various water suppliers.
Unlike Israel, California imposes severe fines for excessive emissions, and as a huge energy
consumer, desalination is the most polluting way to increase the water supply. The above figure

19. 18
reflects the vast amount of energy that desalination uses in comparison to five other water
sources. At the bottom is the Los Angeles Aqueduct with lowest overall energy consumption. At
the top is Ocean Desalination with the most energy consumption out of all the water sources with
a maximum of over 5800 kWh/ Acre-Foot in energy consumption. To put this in perspective,
desalination consumes more energy than a project designed to import water from hundreds of
miles away. The multitude of health concerns from pollution, associated with desalination plants,
has spurred political concern stalling the use of desalination as a primary source of water for
urban areas like San Diego and Los Angeles. With 17 desalination plants in California, there is
already an infrastructure in place. Nonetheless, financial, environmental, and political barriers,
have caused all of the plants to be un-operational for the time being. However, it is likely in the
future that technology will be developed to rid desalination of all the barriers that it is currently
facing. A popular alternative to both groundwater and desalination is water recycling. (Sokolow,
Godwin and Cole 2016)
Compared to desalination, water recycling is far more energy efficient. Looking at figure
2 on page 17, recycled water triumphs over groundwater’s best characteristic, its energy
efficiency. By this contrast, it is already easy to favor water recycling over groundwater usage. In
fact, there are ways in which recycled water can be used to recharge water basins potentially
mitigating the contamination effect of groundwater depletion. In urban landscaping, water
recycling presents a viable solution to maintaining greenery without having to resort to the
harmful side-effects that synthetic turf and removal of green space present. Recycled water also
has huge potential to mitigate climate change if it replaces even some of the current water
importation system arranged by the State Water Project. Estimates suggest that if 10% of
imported water was substituted with recycled water, carbon emissions would be reduced by

20. 19
42,000 metric tons a year. Unlike, desalination and groundwater, recycled water has significant
potential to improve the quality of life making it the most viable choice out of three options
presented. In spite of all the favorable qualities of with water recycling, public perception
towards it has been predictably negative. Many associate recycled water as “unclean” even
though the filtration system makes it more drinkable then the federal standards require. Still,
public perception is a hard thing to change and proper data-driven science is not always
sufficient in mollifying public concerns. A clever approach that Singapore took when facing the
same problem was to mix the fresh water supply with the recycled water effectively eliminating
the perception of “toilet to tap”. It is possible that if California further utilizes water recycling for
its urban areas, the same method could be implemented. Another potential barrier that faces
water recycling is the initial investment to build up infrastructure. Unlike desalination, water
recycling has not had billions of dollars poured into it by the government making it necessary to
invest a substantial amount for the initial construction of the infrastructure. Luckily, California
recently invested 725 million dollars into water recycling making it a more feasible competitor to
imported and groundwater. While the main type of recycled water is non-potable for things like
landscape irrigation, further demand from drought conditions will likely create more demand
water recycling. With all that said, the obstacles that face water recycling are not very
problematic making it the most practical solution for increasing urban water supply (Sokolow,
Godwin and Cole 2016), (EPA n.d).
Conclusion
In California, there are many methods in which either demand or supply for water can be
adjusted to meet the quantity needed to sustain life in urban areas. In cities like Los Angeles and
San Diego, a popular method to conserve water incorporates a mix between, voluntary,

21. 20
mandatory and price regulations that all curve demand through price and non-price policies.
Through careful examination, the most effective non-price policies are mandatory having the
greatest contribution to water conservation through urban landscaping. Price policies are more
unpredictable in their overall effectiveness, but are more cost-efficient and show to decrease
water usage in cities around California. Even though price policies have worked in tandem with
non-price policies, their lack of popularity in California makes it unlikely that price-policy will
mature in future water conservation policy. Mandatory non-price policy, on the other hand, has
popular opinion on its side due to a proven track record of success in water conservation
Interestingly, a combination of indirect non-price and price policy, through regulations and
subsidies, influence a reduction in water-intensive plants resulting in an increase in turf removal,
xeriscaping, and synthetic turf. While xeriscaping’s water saving capacity may make up for its
contribution to the urban island heat effect, synthetic turf is far to bad a perpetrator of
temperature increase to be considered beneficial. Because of the decrease of green space and the
rise of synthetic turf, the urban heat island effect continues to grow posing many environmental
and health threats. Thus, a change to increase the supply of water may be a better route to take in
order to address California’s drought. Out of the three main ways to increase water supply in
California (groundwater extraction, desalination, and water recycling), water recycling emerges
victorious due to its high energy efficiency, long -term cost efficiency, viability, and finally its
potential to mitigate groundwater depletion and climate change. To not include the viability of
demand-side water conservation policy would be negligent because there exists room to improve
in areas such as xeriscaping and efficiency of water usage in urban landscaping and other water
consuming activates. In all, increasing supply-side policy should be more of a focus for adapting

22. 21
to drought conditions, but it should not be the only type of policy used to address water scarcity
in Urban California.
References
Boxall, Bettina. 2014 "California Approves Big Fines for Wasting Water during Drought." Los
Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com
"California Drought.". 2016. California Water Science Center.
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/data/drought/.
Claudio, Luz. 2008. "Synthetic Turf: Health Debate Takes Root." Environmental Health
Perspectives 116(3): 2-7
Chow, Winston T.l., and Anthony J. Brazel. 2012. "Assessing Xeriscaping as a Sustainable Heat
Island Mitigation Approach for a Desert City." Building and Environment 47:170-81.
Griffin, Daniel, and Kevin J. Anchukaitis. 2014. "How Unusual Is the 2012-2014 California
Drought?"Geophys. Res. Lett. Geophysical Research Letters 41(24): 9017-023.
Mini, C., T.s. Hogue, and S. Pincetl. 2015. "The Effectiveness of Water Conservation Measures
on Summer Residential Water Use in Los Angeles, California." Resources, Conservation
and Recycling 94, 136-45.
Mini, C., T.S Hogue, and S. Pincetl. 2015. City average observed and predicted water use (in
m3/SFR customer) for the City of Los Angeles for the summer bimonthly periods from
July/August 2007 to May/June 2010. Raw data. Los Angeles
Hughes, Sara. 2012."Voluntary Environmental Programs in the Public Sector: Evaluating an
Urban Water Conservation Program in California." Policy Studies Journal 40(4):650-73.
"Outdoor Water Use in the United States." US Outdoor Water Use. Accessed April 23, 2016.
https://www3.epa.gov/watersense/pubs/outdoor.html.
Olmstead, Sheila M., and Robert N. Stavins. 2009. "Comparing Price and Nonprice Approaches
to Urban Water Conservation." Water Resources Research Water Resour. Res. 45(4):1-
10.
Olmstead, Sheila M., and Robert N. Stavins. 2006."Managing Water Demand: Price vs. Non-
Price Conservation Programs." Managing Water Demand: Price vs. Non-Price
Conservation Programs, 1-42.
"Price Elasticity of Demand Definition | Investopedia." Investopedia. 2003. Accessed April 23,
2016. http://www.investopedia.com

23. 22
Niland, Olivia. "Funding for Lawn Replacement Program Runs Dry." NBC Southern California.
Accessed May 17, 2016. http://www.nbclosangeles.com
"November 2015 Water Conservation Report by Supplier." 2015. State Water Resources Control
Board. www.waterboards.ca.gov.
Rogers, Paul. 2015. "California: New Mandatory Water Conservation Rules for Lawns, Hotels,
Restaurants." - San Jose Mercury News. http://www.mercurynews.com.
Rose, Bill, and Sara Katz. 2010. “Conservation: A Way of Life in San Diego County”, 70-73.
Stevens, Matt, and Javier Panzar. 2015. "Businesses Get Fat Rebate Checks for Water-saving
Turf Replacement." Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com
Sokolow, Sharona, Hilary Godwin, and Brian L. Cole. 2016. "Impacts of Urban Water
Conservation Strategies on Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Health: Southern
California as a Case Study." Am J Public Health American Journal of Public Health
106(5)
Sokolow, Sharona, Hilary Godwin, and Brian L. Cole. 2016. Energy Intensity, kWh/Acre-Foot
of Various Water Suppliers. Raw data.
"US Environmental Protection Agency." EPA. Accessed May 17, 2016. https://www.epa.gov/.
"Water: A Branch of Public Utilities." Enforcement and Penalties. 2015.
http://www.sandiego.gov/water/conservation/drought/enforcement.shtml.
Times Editorial Board. 2014. "Water Conservation in California Can No Longer Be
Voluntary." 2014. LA Times. http://www.latimes.com
Wang, S.-Y. Simon, Yen-Heng Lin, Robert R. Gillies, and Kirsti Hakala. 2016. "Indications for
Protracted Groundwater Depletion after Drought over the Central Valley of California*,."
J. Hydrometeor Journal of Hydrometeorology 17(3) 947-55.
"Water Use Regulations & Restrictions | Western Municipal Water District, CA." Water Use
Regulations & Restrictions | Western Municipal Water District, CA. Accessed May 17,
2016. http://www.wmwd.com/208/Water-Use-Regulations-Restrictions.