Blog

According to the February 2010 report issued by the State Department of Water Resources, the baseline water use value for California as a whole is 192 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The value for the Central Coast Region, which encompasses the geographic area from Santa Cruz to Santa Barbara, is 154 gpcd.

Here in Santa Cruz, our per capita water use has fluctuated over the last decade between 120 and 100 gpcd, and is among the lowest statewide. While we might deserve a good pat on the back to not using as much water as our dry neighbors in Southern California, we should also know that there is another place, another country that beats our figures for low water use – Australia.

Rainhogs collect rainwater run-off throughout Australia

Australia is the Earth’s driest inhabited continent and is at the forefront of a global crisis. Its adaptations and maladaptations to dwindling supplies of freshwater offer useful lessons to many parts of the world. While we in Santa Cruz our proud of our 100 gpcd conservation efforts, households in Australia use on average 35 gallons per day.

California’s water is not far from becoming similar to Australia’s. Scientists predict the snowpack in the Sierra Nevada could shrink by as much as 90 percent by century’s end. And the U.S.’s most populous state is no stranger to wildfires or the pressures of an agricultural economy—80 percent of the Golden State’s water is used for irrigation.

Check out Allterra’s water saving systems for your home or business. Its one thing to read about climate change trends, its another to act upon the tools you have today.

Facts are fun. A fact is knowledge you can trust because it is from experts and tested. Overall facts move us ahead as a society. Fiction entertains us along the way. Know what is entertaining? The notion that Smart Grid technology is a, “plot from the government to spy on rural America”, “big brother coming down on taxpayers”, or “radio frequency emissions from the meters harming humans.”

Since smart meters have mostly been in the news for the concerns the harm they could do, lets review the three major fears: RF (radio frequency) emissions, privacy, and meter accuracy.

Fact or Fiction: RF (radio frequency) emissions

PG&E spokesperson Paul Moreno has stated repeatedly that smart meters do not pose a health risk as the emitted radio signals are well within limits established by the Federal Communications Commission. “The meters emit a signal once every four hours for a fraction of a second, and at very low power,” Moreno said. “These levels are far below what you would find in many common household appliances.

Fact or Fiction: Privacy

Current meters report all energy usage in homes. Smart meters will allow utilities and customers to reduce energy use and save money. Customers will save money by being able to track their electricity usage in near-real time and then making lifestyle choices and appliance-buying decisions to lower their monthly utility bill. Customers will also be able to switch to a time-of-use (TOU) rate structure that allows them to take advantage of very low rates during non-peak hours by choosing to run appliances like washers and dryers at night, rather than during peak demand periods. New appliances and thermostats will interface with the new smart meters to run during non-peak hours or to reduce their usage during peak hours

Fact or Fiction: Meter Accuracy

On April 1, 2010, the CPUC contracted with The Structure Group to conduct an independent evaluation of PG&E’s Smart Meters in response to concern expressed by consumers over high energy bills that occurred around the same time PG&E installed Smart Meters in the San Joaquin Valley area. Structure independently tested more than 750 Smart Meters and 147 electromechanical meters. In laboratory testing, field meter testing, and end-to-end system testing, Structure determined that all of the tested Smart Meters and systems were working accurately and that customer billing matched the expected results.

Now that we have some better idea of the fact and fiction around Smart Meters, we can look into why they are so special. Our nation’s power grid is an antique. If Thomas Edison were to arise again and look at our power grid he would be amused and concerned that little has been updated since he was around, in the 1900s. As we look at solar and wind power to power our nation’s energy needs, we will need a better grid system to attach it to.  According to a DOE study, if the power grid were 5 percent more efficient the reduction in carbon emissions would be equal to removing 53 million cars from the roads permanently. Implementing a system as large as Smart Grid will take time and prove to have some ups and downs. But just because the Wright Brothers first few planes crashed, doesn’t mean we, as a nation, should remain stuck on a 1900s Grid.

Many times this is the first start to see how your lifestyle impacts climate change.

Your “carbon footprint” is a measure of your impact on the environment, in terms of the carbon dioxide emitted as a result of your daily activity.

Use this calculator to estimate your carbon footprint from the energy you use and the vehicle you drive.

Spend our taxes and water rate increases on jobs, not electricity

There seems to be a misconception that building and operating a desal plant would create more jobs than implementing water conservation strategies.  Yes, the designing, permitting, constructing, and maintaing a desalination plant would create some jobs; however, the majority of the jobs will go to large multinational engineering firms that have experience in the field.  These firms have little interest in supporting the Santa Cruz community and the millions we spend to build the plant will be extracted from our city ($300,000 is already going to a SF firm for soliciting plant designs).  Furthermore, it is well documented that energy use accounts for half the cost of desalinating water, so after the plant is built the exorbitant costs would just begin (keep in mind that California energy prices have increase 6.7% per year since 1970).

Photo from Santa Cruz Sentinel

An alternative strategy would be to implement an aggressive City sponsored water conservation strategy that spent half the forecasted desal money on subsidizing water conservation retrofits, such as rainwater catchment, grey water systems, and water smart gardens, for local homes and buildings.

A simple poll of Santa Cruzans would show that they would love to have a rainwater catchment and grey water system that zeroed out their landscape irrigation water usage, but feel it is too expensive to implement.  The solution is to subsidize water conservation as aggressively as the proposed Desal Plant subsidy.

Santa Cruz has hundreds of local contractors and landscapers that already have the skills, tools, and manpower to implement water conservation retrofits.  Jobs would be created in manufacturing materials and equipment, design and installation, and lifetime operation and maintenance.  Rather than pay an out of town engineering firm $30,000,000+ to build a desal plant then go away, why not spend $15,000,000 on local contractors?

There are tens of thousands of homes and buildings that need retrofits, and the resulting cumulative water conservation effect will likely exceed desal water production (40% of typical household water use is for landscaping; a 75% reduction in landscape water though conservation retrofits = 30% reduction in overall water use).