PD Editorial: Santa Rosa leading the way on conservation

We’ve hectored readers on more than one occasion to conserve water.

So it’s only fitting that we take a moment to commend you for letting your lawn turn brown or whatever water-saving strategies you’re employing during this persistent drought.

North Bay communities have gotten pretty good marks since calls for voluntary conservation began in 2013, and the latest figures from the state Water Resources Control Board are no exception.

Santa Rosa residents, for instance, already are exceeding the state’s conservation mandate. So are Guerneville-area residents. In Ukiah, Windsor and the Sweetwater Springs Water District, reductions are just shy of the state’s mandated reductions.

So treat yourself to a long shower.

Sorry, just kidding.

With California in its fourth drought year, the state has decreed a 25 percent reduction in water use as compared to 2013. After accounting for past conservation efforts, which vary widely across the state, the board issued preliminary targets a week ago. They range from as little as 8 percent in some communities and as much as 36 percent in others.

Santa Rosa’s target is 16?percent, and residents saved 18 percent during the seven-month period ending Feb. 15. The city’s request: Keep it up.

It’s a much bigger challenge in Susanville, where residents used 7 percent more water during those same seven months and are now under a state mandate to cut their use by 36 percent. Beverly Hills also is in the 36 percent category after saving 3 percent.

Until now, conservation has been mostly voluntary.

Just as the state is moving to impose mandatory conservation, one of the most effective tools - pricing - may be off the table.

An appellate court in Southern California affirmed a challenge from San Juan Capistrano homeowners, who said Proposition 218, a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 1996, bars public agencies from charging more than the cost of delivering services.

Unless it can be shown that it cost more to deliver the last gallon than the first gallon, the court said, tiered rates are unconstitutional. Given the huge upfront expense of setting up a water delivery system, it seems unlikely that delivering more drives up the cost. Considering economies of scale, the opposite seems more likely.

If the decision stands, it’s likely to prevent most cities and water agencies - but not private water companies - from simply raising rates until the law of supply and demand delivers the desired result.

However, the ruling doesn’t mean that water hogs are off the hook.

It still would be permissible to assess fines for using too much. Beverly Hills, for example, is considering $1,000-a-day fines for excessive use.

By then, of course, the water already has been used.

If there’s any left, we’ll raise a glass - make it half a glass - to those who are saving without the threat of sanctions.