Dear Deeply Readers,

Welcome to the archives of Water Deeply. While we paused regular publication of the site on November 1, 2018, we are happy to serve as an ongoing public resource on water resilience. We hope you’ll enjoy the reporting and analysis that was produced by our dedicated community of editors and contributors.

We continue to produce events and special projects while we explore where the on-site journalism goes next. If you’d like to reach us with feedback or ideas for collaboration you can do so at [email protected].

What if People Could Give Their Saved Water to Wildlife?

Knowing the water you saved went to help birds, fish or other wildlife during drought could be a powerful conservation incentive.

Written by Isabelle Groc Published on Read time Approx. 2 minutes

People who save water like to know their conserving is doing some good, such as sustaining economic growth, building municipal reserves for longer droughts or supporting the environment.

But many urban residents are concerned their water savings will go to uses they value less – such as supplying more wasteful customers, new urban development or agriculture – rather than meeting the needs of fish, waterbirds and other wildlife, which they value more. In fact, most household water conservation does free up water for other local users or eases State Water Project and Central Valley Project supplies for other thirsty cities or farms, rather than go directly to environmental protection.

For households interested in conserving water for environmental purposes, a bargain might be struck. The table below lays out how people might be motivated to use less water knowing that much of their savings would be dedicated to a favored environmental cause, such as supporting wildlife refuges.

Wildlife refuges seem the most suitable place to begin such voluntary environmental water transactions. Water management for refuges is generally more structured and precise than for fish and have more developed assessments of how their water use affects wildlife. Refuges also are better tied into the water supply system, making it easier to move water to wetlands most in need.

Urban water savings would make major, measurable improvements at refuges, where a little goes a long way.

Central Valley refuges use about 600,000 acre-feet a year for waterbirds and other critters, compared with a statewide net urban water use of about 6.6 million acre-feet a year – about half for landscape irrigation. So a 10 percent saving in urban water use, or a 20 percent reduction in landscape watering, could roughly double water for wildlife refuges.

Such a program would better define and publicize the ties between local water use and the health of California’s ecosystems. Once urban water customers see their conservation efforts making a difference, they will likely be motivated to make further savings.

If successful for wildlife refuges, it could be expanded to fish and other environmental purposes, creating wildlife and recreational assets and empowering environmental water management. We could make water conservation for the birds, and for the fish.

This article originally appeared on the California WaterBlog.

Top image: Gray Lodge Wildlife Area in the Sacramento Valley. (Calif. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife)

Suggest your story or issue.


Share Your Story.

Have a story idea? Interested in adding your voice to our growing community?

Learn more
× Dismiss
We have updated our Privacy Policy with a few important changes specific to General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) and our use of cookies. If you continue to use this site, you consent to our use of cookies. Read our full Privacy Policy here.