Drought motivates change

Wringing every drop of liquid out of the system and storing what is not used to get through the driest periods is San Antonio's game plan to meet expanding water needs in a resource-poor environment. As in Clayton County, city leaders decided to diversify the water supply after a drought, says Karen Guz, director of conservation for the San Antonio Water System (SAWS). “The city decided that the primary source would be water conservation and built it right into the rate structure,” she says.

Unlike other cities that rely on reservoirs, lakes and rivers, San Antonio sits on top of its water, the Edwards Aquifer. Water runs down from the hill country and replenishes the aquifer.

In the 1990s, the area suffered from a severe drought, and city leaders revised the rate structure with dedicated funds that would be used for water conservation. The difference between the conservation programs in other communities and San Antonio's is the reliable source of dollars, not subject to whims from changing administrations. “We have the results to show for it,” Guz says.

Established in 1993, the program anticipated a per person water use reduction goal of 12 percent by 2008. By 2001, the city reached its goal — seven years early. By 2003, usage was reduced by 20 percent. During the same period, the SAWS service population increased by about 28 percent while total water demand remained the same. The city estimates its total savings at 175.5 billion gallons since the program began, based on the comparison of current consumption to the predicted consumption trends that existed in the 1970s when no conservation program existed.

Considering that the system estimates that new resource supplies cost $3,130 per 1 million gallons, the city says that the 175.5 billion gallons conserved may have saved the community $549 million, based on current costs if water had to be developed at today's prices. In 2005, San Antonio spent $3,572,832 on direct programming that saved an estimated 2.7 billion gallons.

The utility estimates that one-third of its 300,000 accounts representing 1.2 million people have taken advantage of its programs. Many nearby smaller communities have adopted conservation ordinances that mimic SAWS. Some also have contracted with SAWS for a variety of conservation services and have participated with them in joint purchasing agreements for conservation equipment like shower heads and super efficient toilets.

Money for San Antonio's conservation programs comes from its biggest water users who pay at the highest end of the rate scale. Ironically, as the high-end users become more efficient, the original source of funding diminishes. For the first time, the city is considering a rate increase at the top tier to maintain the conservation funding, Guz says.

She admits that it may be more difficult to continue to maintain the water consumption savings at the same pace as in the last decade through conservation programs like fixing water leaks and giving away efficient toilets. “But we keeping finding new ways, and there's always new technology that comes down the line. We don't see the end in sight as long as the funding is there.”