Should
everyone pay a premium for food because Californians want to waste water?
By
California’s harsh new measure to deal with long-term drought is
making waves. Residents caught wasting by washing sidewalks with their garden
hose and committing similar reckless acts are incurring fines of up to $500.
Is that fair? Or will the fine be perceived as governmental
overreach, like former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s ill-fated attempt to
limit soda sizes to 16 ounces.
As California struggles through its third year of drought, the
government first called for a voluntary 20 percent reduction in water use.
Instead, it got a 1 percent increase. After all, when it
doesn’t rain, folks who won’t let go of their ideal of a lush, green lawn will
run the sprinkler more often.
To the Golden State’s own residents, our failure to conserve
voluntarily comes as no surprise. Who here hasn’t seen automatic sprinkler
systems running during a rainstorm, or a home on a steep slope attempting to
irrigate its green lawn as the gallons of water meant for the grass run into
the sewer?
A few weeks ago, I saw my neighbor’s sprinklers going in the
middle of the afternoon (the least efficient time to water). The water was
flowing straight into the gutter. The yard didn’t even have grass. As far as I
could tell, the intended recipient of the water was a cactus.
Do you live outside of California and wonder, “Why should I
care?”
California’s water dilemma brings up a central question that
divides liberals and conservatives across the nation: Are we all in this
together or is it everyone for themselves?
When we as a society decide to use our finite water resources so
that homeowners in arid climates can have lawns, golf courses, and swimming
pools, it squeezes other water users — including farmers. Then prices go up for
everyone.
Of course, nobody is being asked to give up golf courses and
swimming pools. The failed voluntary conservation measures could be summed up
as “Don’t do wasteful things you shouldn’t do anyway.”
Aside from voluntary conservation, the government could minimize
or avoid altogether using the stick by offering more carrots.
How about offering free rain barrels and classes in
water-efficient irrigation? Or giving away drought-tolerant plants that require
little water or maintenance to thrive? Couldn’t the state homeowners who
purchase water-efficient toilets tax credits?
If it has the funds and the right priorities, California could
transition all government property to drought-tolerant landscaping and shift
from growing water-hogging Eucalyptus to water-sipping native plants along all
freeways. As the price of water goes up, that might cut spending on
maintenance.
At some point, we need to ask whether the rest of the country
should put up with higher prices on fruit because Californians want to do
things like hose down their driveways and sidewalks instead of sweeping them.
In that context, it seems pretty fair to fine those who persist
in the most egregiously wasteful uses of water. Maybe after giving them a
warning first, before levying that new $500 fine.
The same principle applies to other big environmental issues,
like the climate crisis and air pollution. Reducing emissions is going to
require effort from all of us, and it might be a tad inconvenient for some.
But, alas, we all share our air and water, and there’s no getting around that.
We’re all in this together, and if we can’t come up with enough
tax incentives or other voluntary approaches to fixing our problems, we’ll all
need to follow some new rules.
OtherWords columnist
Jill Richardson is the author of Recipe for America: Why Our Food
System Is Broken and What We Can Do to Fix It. OtherWords.org
