Creeping meters

It’s unconstitutional. It’s unthinkable. It just isn’t done.

Sacramento is one of a handful of California cities that has a history of refusing to meter the water use of its citizens.

But meters are probably inevitable for Sacramento, if the city and the region are ever to get a handle on the insatiable thirst for a limited water supply.

By the year 2030, the demand for water in the Sacramento region is expected to exceed 1 million acre-feet, up from the current 750,000 acre-feet we now use.

Under the Water Forum, the regional water agreement finished just a year ago, Sacramento is obligated to reduce its water use by 25 percent over the next three decades. That’s a reduction of 173,000 acre-feet per year, a daunting task given the region’s ever-booming population and breakneck pace of development.

The Forum suggests implementing an array of conservation practices to bring down water use: installing low-flow toilets, limiting water used for landscaping and promoting the voluntary use of water meters.

The emphasis is on the word voluntary. The likelihood of Sacramento imposing water meters any time soon is slim, although they are thought to be critical for future conservation efforts. Cities that meter water typically use far less per person than those that do not. Without metering, how can the average citizen conserve if he doesn’t know how much he is using?

“It’s like driving a car without a gas gauge,” said Charles Casey, with the environmental group Friends of the River.

To help ease people into the idea of metering, the city, with the help of a $150,000 grant from the state and federal governments, is beginning a voluntary pilot program in the River Park neighborhood.

Volunteers will have meters installed free of charge, but they will still be charged the same flat rate as everybody else. They will be asked to provide regular information about their water-use habits. The idea is that when residents see how much they are using, they will take it upon themselves to conserve.

City Department of Utilities spokesperson Liz Brenner said the data collected in River Park will provide the foundation for a future citywide program.

“We have to start somewhere,” said Brenner, noting that it will probably be several years before Sacramentans are asked to pay for what they use.

Water meters in the River City are actually constitutionally prohibited. The City Charter of 1920 doesn’t mince words: “No water meters shall ever be attached to residential water services pipes.”

Why the city was so adamantly opposed to meters isn’t entirely clear. Built between two rivers, the city has always enjoyed significant water rights. City officials at the time likely thought there would always be more than enough water. And by the 1920s, Sacramentans had developed a love of shade trees and gardens to combat the summer heat.

Only Fresno and Modesto have similar provisions in their city charters. The prohibition is so unusual in California that many new residents, who come from cities where metering is taken for granted, are surprised to learn about it.

Any attempt to change the provision of the City Charter would require a two-thirds vote of the people. No elected official is likely to advance any mandatory metering proposal.

State law does require the installation of meter casings and pipes on all new homes. But the law doesn’t require actual meters to be hooked up or read.

Casey thinks a local effort to change the charter won’t work because the issue is too politically charged. In part that’s because the meters themselves are expensive—-about $1,000, including installation—and because Sacramentans see unlimited water use as a sort of birthright.

“It really ruffles people’s feathers. People see them as some kind of unfair tax that they have to pay,” said Casey.

Previous attempts in the state legislature to force a change of the City Charter have been made, but failed. Sacramento’s unwillingness to meter has caused resentment among other communities downstream that need more water. The East Municipal Utility District, which for years has tried to divert water from the American River, has been able to make political hay out of what it calls poor management practices in Sacramento.

“Sacramento has been sticking out there like a sore thumb,” said Casey, noting that a legislative solution is probably inevitable.

In Sacramento, the average use is 272 gallons per resident per day. East Bay residents, who are metered, use about 180 gallons per day. In Placerville, it’s 108 gallons per day. And Los Angeles residents, long excoriated for stealing their water from the North, use just 143 gallons a day.

Some have criticized the program as not being nearly aggressive enough.

“Metering isn’t going to help,” said Dave Walker, an outspoken critic of the Water Forum and a former board member of the Fair Oaks Water District.

Walker said he favors meters generally and that he feels they work in other communities. But a voluntary program, he says, is a waste of money. Unless rates are raised high enough to discourage waste, rather than remaining at the current flat rate of around $13 a month, metering will have no effect, he said, adding that local governments would be better off simply imposing a moratorium on new development.

“If you don’t have the water, and we don’t, you can’t just keep on building at this breakneck pace.”

Without more aggressive, even politically unpopular measures, said Walker, meters are "about as useful as tits on a boar."