Does water conservation swim with the fishes?

In a recent town hall meeting, a Colorado Front Range official gave a presentation regarding water conservation.  He stunned the audience with this revelation:  Water conservation costs more than water supply.  He gave the example of a typical 20 year old home with bluegrass lawns and 3.5 gallon toilets.  The cost to change a toilet alone is on the order of $400, and at a charged water rate of $0.008 per gallon, the amount of water it will save results in a payback period of more than 15 years.  Then consider the cost to remove and replace a bluegrass yard with a more sensible xeriscape yard.  At the total cost of $20,000, the resulting water savings trickles in at a 22 year pay back.  Since most US home owners stay in their homes an average of 6 years, the water wise owner is unlikely to get a return on their investment.

Could the city offer more subsidies for water conservation?   Of course, but the city needs to charge higher water rates to fund subsidies therefore the city risks charging higher rates than other nearby cities.  It is not a question of how to obtain water for a town, it is more a matter of how to treat and deliver it at the lowest possible cost.  If the raw water is at a high elevation and relatively pure, the cost is much lower.   Most Colorado Front Range water is optimal due to our proximity to the Rocky Mountains, so our water is very affordable and of high quality.  Consequently, if one Colorado town decides to raise rates to encourage conservation they risk losing population.  Without a state mandate for conservation each municipality is controlled by competition.

Contrary to popular belief, indoor water conservation is only marginally effective.  Western Resource Advocates reports, “On the indoor side, water conservation efforts have very little impact on the consumptive use of water because the vast majority of water that enters a home transfers to the wastewater collection system and is then discharged back to the stream.”  Comparatively speaking a cut in irrigation water is far more effective.  Interestingly, developers are required to provide landscaping or groundcover over every inch of site in order to control dust and weeds.  Unfortunately water thirsty Kentucky Blue turf grass is generally the least costly and most pleasing solution.  So in an effort to beautify our local environment we make matters worse.  If we are to truly conserve water we must redefine what landscaping looks like, particularly in arid climates.  Many of these solutions are similar to those recommended by landscape author Jim Knopf. 

In truth, water is retained and used, but never truly depleted, expended, or destroyed.  Fresh water is a constantly self recycling, indestructible resource.  So why conserve?  Because, as the human population continues to grow, we will need to tap and impound more and more water, thus irreversibly destroying riparian habitats forever.  So, remember that your greatest conservation advantage is outside of the home.  A 100 square foot patch of bluegrass requires the same amount of water per year as a 12” caliper tree, and the tree has a much higher likelihood of saving energy and water by providing shade.  If your lawn needs attention, remove it and replace with a water saving option.  Then plant a tree.  Because when it comes down to a choice between the lawns and the fishes, the lawns should lose.

Tony F.