Is it time to hit reset on conservation policy?

California is preparing to tackle its fourth straight year of drought. You would be forgiven if you mistook the current plan for the one from 1976: reduce surface water allocations; incentivize the purchase of water-efficient devices; implore residents to “save water.” This approach has served the state reasonably well, but the very success of past conservation programs spells disaster for the coming years. It’s time to hit reset and consider alternative approaches to water management.

Our homes are fitted with water-efficient toilets, faucet aerators, and WaterSense certified showerheads. Our lawns are brown and our flowers droopy. Our front-loading washing machines use half the water that the top-loaders of the 1970s did. Many of us use rain barrels and have started to divert some of our grey water to our plants. We’ve been asked to invest in water efficiency and we have responded.

But with groundwater resources strained, and “painless” conservation options running low, water officials are now set to inflict pain. Rationing is likely to occur this summer. Water “wasters” will be hit with fines or various forms of humiliation. Rate increases are coming — ironically attributed to the success of conservation programs. “Use less, pay more” seems to be the message.

The enormity of the challenge facing us in the years ahead appears in greater relief when you chat with Californians at the farmers markets and on the trails of local parks. They are simultaneously distressed and convinced that someone else is to blame for the situation. “I’m doing my part, why aren’t the farmers required to use less water?” “Our farms are 30% more water efficient than they were 10 years ago!” “Why isn’t bottled water more regulated?”

This reaction is due to the fact that conservation is seen as a sacrifice rather than as an economically valuable activity. Shared sacrifices routinely result in finger pointing and blame casting. “You didn’t do enough!”

We could avoid this problem if California recognized the economic value of conservation. Conservation is the most cost-effective source of supply. It’s massively cheaper than new dams or desalination facilities. Instead of penalizing residents for conserving by raising rates, what if we rewarded them for doing their part?

In order for California to survive the drought, residents will have to believe that their sacrifices are being shared throughout the community as well as across communities. The best way to do this is to put a value on conservation and reward those volunteers who reduce their usage. Using carrots instead of sticks, we can address our water supply needs and leave residents feeling satisfied with the process.

The complexity of California water policy puts Rube Goldberg to shame. But conservation can be an elegantly simple way to change the direction of the state’s water future.