February came in like a lion and left like a wimp.
The next month didn't bring a drop of precipitation to Sacramento until March 29.
April? Almost bone dry. And May? Don't waste your time doing a rain dance. It almost never rains in May. The water year is effectively over – and it's a worrisome year indeed.
According to the Department of Water Resources, the average snowpack statewide is now about two-thirds of normal. That's better than last year at this time, when the snowpack was at 27 percent. But two years of subpar precipitation means that people and water districts must get serious about how they use and abuse H20. Every gallon they conserve this year will mean more in groundwater basins and reservoirs next year – when we may need it. If California experiences a third year of lousy snowpack, state officials will be using the dreaded D-word – drought.
It's been 15 years since California last experienced a drought, and during that time, the state has grown by 6 million people. Some regions have gotten smart about water usage, stretching available supplies without costly infrastructure investments. Others have skated by.
Sacramento is among the skaters. There are no water meters in the older parts of our town. Residents pay a flat rate for water. That's one reason that Sacramento tends to be lackadaisical – one of our favorite pastimes is watering the sidewalk. As a result, Sacramentans use 270 gallons of water per person daily, about twice as much as people in Los Angeles.
That's going to change, although slowly – perhaps too slowly. Because of a 2004 law, Sacramento and other nonmetered cities must meter all homes and businesses by 2025. The city's utility department is preparing to spend roughly $150 million on this endeavor but, as of last year, fewer than 4,000 of 120,000 households had been retrofitted with meters.
For decades, Sacramento leaders have justified the city's extravagant practices by noting that at least half of the water consumed in Sacramento is returned to the river in groundwater, stormwater or treated wastewater. Thus, their argument goes, our wasteful practices are not as detrimental to the state's overall supply as wasteful water usage in coastal regions.
That's true, but Sacramento's elected leaders – even the ones who talk frequently about "sustainability" – never note the downside of the city's excess water consumption. A huge amount of energy is needed to withdraw the water and treat it to drinking quality. Energy is also expended treating the resulting wastewater. How much energy? No one knows. The city hasn't analyzed the potential savings.
Scientists are projecting that global climate change will reduce the state's snowpack by trillions of gallons each year. That means less water for cities, farms, fish and landscaping.
Roseville – a lawn-friendly city that consumes about 300 gallons per person daily – issued a drought alert this week, which was a prudent thing to do. Other cities are also warning about mandatory rationing, and many farmers are bracing for a rough growing season.
Yet here in Sacramento, we have yet to hear an elected leader – or a candidate for mayor – make a plea for conservation. Some habits are hard to change. This one will have to.
