Spreck Rosekrans is an Economic Analyst at EDF.

Last week the Governor unveiled a 7-point water plan in his letter to Senators Steinberg, Machado and Perata [PDF].

Let's start with a look at the new plan to reduce per capita use by 20 percent by 2020 (we will opine later on the storage, conveyance and other proposals).

Making reductions in urban consumption is an attainable and commendable goal, particularly as we strive to balance the needs of our growing population while providing sufficient water to the fish in our rivers and the birds in our wetlands.

Let’s remember, however, that only about one-fifth of the water consumed in California goes to cities – the rest goes to irrigated agriculture. More water goes to alfalfa and irrigated pasture alone than to the 38,000,000 people in all of California’s cities. Here is a breakdown of how water in our state is used [PDF].

The potential for conservation in agriculture is not mentioned in the Governor’s plan. It is an omission that should be rectified.

Back to the reduction in per capita urban use of 20 percent by 2020. This would be neutralized about six years later, when population is supposed to increase by 25 percent above today’s levels. (That is right; a 20 percent reduction in per capita use would be neutralized by a 25 percent increase in demand. Ask a seventh grader to explain the math to you.)

Reducing per capita urban use raises interesting questions. For residential use it means going from a statewide average of 143 gallons per capita per day to 115 gpcpd. But do we treat Alameda County (97 gpcpd) differently from Riverside County (260 gpcpd)? Click here to see what people in your county use [PDF]. Should there be a statewide target? Do we make accommodations for geography? Do we mess with water rates to get there?

Hmmm. Let’s get serious about conservation goals as we address the proposals to build new dams and the Peripheral Canal.