I have a garden which I water with S D City water. I wouldn't call it a "large plot of lush La Jolla land", but it is green and it is in La Jolla. I look forward when I get home from work tonight to picking salad greens for our dinner. But what your article has stimulated me to do as well is check my own water bill to compare with the city counselors. You could help by reporting what the city per capita or per meter average consumption is, particularly if you give the water quantities according to home type -- apartment, single-family residence, etc. (If that info is in the Voice I missed it.)

Posted by Dan Allen | reply to this comment
July 22, 2008 9:10 am

It is far easier for someone who wastes 1 million gallons a month to cut back a third of his usage than it is for someone like me who was conserving before the announcement came to cut back even more on water usage (my landscape is drying up, thank you, Mr. Peters, so don't moan to me about keeping your lush greenery). Peters seems to think because he lives in La Jolla that he is all so special but my little lot in Normal Heights means as much to me as his megabucks dwelling does to him (more, because I don't have a moneyed spouse to fund my way). I'm not impressed by his savings, his effort to conserve, or his leadership. It is too little too late to change my mind about Mr. Peters.

Posted by Leanne1 | reply to this comment
July 22, 2008 9:25 am

Well said, Leanne.

Posted by Larry | reply to this comment
July 22, 2008 10:06 am

I killed my turf off over the last 2 years. I replanted with native plants and succulents. My water bill dropped in half! And before you ask, it's in the very lowest tier and my bill is much smaller too. I don't run the tap when I brush my teeth and since I don't have instant hot water, I save that warming up water and use it for my dog's watering dishes or for my yard. We can all do more. But I'd appreciate it if the decision makers would stop allowing new developments that don't recycle their own water for landscaping, etc. And I'd appreciate it if they would on a large scale start a recycling water program ASAP.

Posted by Coast Watcher | reply to this comment
July 22, 2008 10:59 am

Many of the people living in our City council district can just afford their current water bills and are already using as little water as they can. I wonder how the people who work for a living and the poor will deal with projected water rate increases. In addition, what about the elderly and those many thousands of people on fixed incomes - what will they do? Are our city leaders making plans on how to service those citizens? Perhaps we can all get jobs with the City of San Diego - so we can make enough money to buy our expensive imported water?

Posted by Gregory | reply to this comment
July 22, 2008 11:01 am

That's right, Gregory. Retire from a "job" with the city and live on easy street off a Cadillac pension. The only thing better is being a city councilman. The biggest example of water waste is, of course, Million Gallon Peters, but -- PLEASE! -- let's not forget Jim Madaffer who simply went the route of refusing to pay his water bill. When that didn't work out for him, what did he do? Of course! We now all know the famous story of Madaffer's disconnecting the water lock. Nothing like some free water -- until you get caught. "Let 'em sue us!"

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
July 22, 2008 11:22 am

Scott Lewis and Gregory: Here's an idea: Although "Million Gallons" Peters has cut back on his water usage, his past behavior demonstrates that he is willing to pay any amount for "lushness" at his estate. Why doesn't he take the money he is now saving by using less water, put it into some kind of philanthropic fund to help less well-off homeowners in S.D. who are struggling to pay their water bills, and everyone will be happy? After all, he won't really miss the money that he was going to spend anyway until he was caught as a hypocrite. Also, something like this is the least he could do as one of the "Negligent 5", whose pension debacle we will be paying down for years to come. What a set of legacies Peters will be leaving: Water waste and taxpayer dollar waste!!!

Posted by Robert E. Lee | reply to this comment
July 22, 2008 11:26 am

I wish I lived downhill from Scott - I'd NEVER have to water. His wife is really rich - so I guess he/she can afford it. Signed, Really Thirsty

Posted by mattyAzure | reply to this comment
July 22, 2008 11:26 am

"Perhaps we can all get jobs with the City of San Diego - so we can make enough money to buy our expensive imported water?" Or, just marry someone rich.

Posted by Larry | reply to this comment
July 22, 2008 11:41 am

Scott Lewis' commentary seems more about jealousy than anything else. If what you have to do to run for City Council is move into a condo or apartment with no landscaping to make everyone feel better, than why would anyone do the job? I think you should give Mr. Peters more credit for actually investing in ways to conserve. Also, the remarks about the Councilman's wife are totally inappropriate. Grow up everyone. There are people with various means in the world, and the City Council reflects that diversity. I wonder if Scott Lewis would make similar remarks about a less affluent member of the Council by saying, "He deserves kudos the way the uber-unfashionable on the show "What not to wear" do. Pat him on the back and then make him update that Wal-Mart wardrobe.

Posted by CBW | reply to this comment
July 22, 2008 12:31 pm

Dan Allen - you won't find that information in the Voice articles. Why? Because that info minimizes the impact of the story. I wrote to Rob Davis when this story first came out that he needed to show the math about the real usage. When you figure out Peters' use based on the average plot size of the remaining council members, mayor and city atty, he actually uses less than quite a few of them. "Let_him_who_is_with So Toni Atkins should be idolized because she lives in an apt and Peters should be stoned because he is fortunate enough to be blessed with a large house and a large plot of land? I should be so blessed and would not apologize either (or return Voice's about my large land. This is still America right? Besides, San Diego is one of the only cities in America where an acre_and_a_half_of_l is considered_big.

Posted by Silly Story | reply to this comment
July 22, 2008 12:32 pm

I would have no problem with Scott Peters wasting an unlimited resource. If he wants to buy all the Chargers and Padres tickets for next season, no jealousy from me. But water is a limited resource...and we have been asked to conserve. The fact that Peters can afford to pay for his overusage of water is not the point...it is that the water he uses is not available to anyone else...I would rather have orchards and vegetables watered than Peters' landscaping. He talks a great game but, as usual, it is mostly talk and his actions come late and slow. He's just not a leader, and never has been, and why he kept getting the Council president job only shows the sad quality of people we have representing us.

Posted by Leanne1 | reply to this comment
July 22, 2008 1:12 pm

A bigger issue than the individual City Councilor's water usage is that this Council keeps approving large development projects without seriously considering where all the water will come from in the future. When Mike Aguirre first raised the problems for the Monte Verde development in University City stemming from the curtailment of San Diego's share of the Sacramento delta's water, he was derided by Mr. Maddafer and others on the Council as an obstructionist. Aguirre was presciently responding to a court decision that has serious implications for San Diego's future. Water availability is now a serious constraint on local development. The focus on individual water usage may resonate with the public, and may even provide a glimpse of a pol's real values, but it seems to me like obsessing about Al Capone's tax evasion. Our future water supply is the real issue.

Posted by clp | reply to this comment
July 22, 2008 1:15 pm

Seems to me there should be a metric involving lot size, FAR, or lot coverage to normalize consumption statistics of the Councilmembers. Imagine if one of them owned a farm. Would it then be appropriate to compare excessive use against an apartment dweller? While total gross use is important, that's what rate structures are for. In this case, as a political matter, there needs to be a baseline that makes sense.

Posted by 2cent Jack | reply to this comment
July 22, 2008 2:05 pm

"City Planning in Zero Water Environments" Perhaps packing more and more people into this coastal desert is the best thing our City Council people can do to build a durable and sustainable environment for their constituents? I expect better from our elected public servants, but after so many years of disappointments – it seems many of us are just happy to have an excuse for supporting the act of conspicuous consumption.

Posted by Gregory | reply to this comment
July 22, 2008 2:29 pm

CBW, how dare you chastise people for remarking on the vast wealth of Scott Peters, when that is precisely a large chunk of the problem. Her wealth has allowed him to play at politics, following a very sketchy and undistinguished, but short, law career. It allowed him to shoehorn himself first into a position as city councilman, for which he was not prepared (okay, so neither are most of the others; two wrongs do not a right make). Second, he was able to leapfrog to the position of council president. Thank heaven that's where it stopped. No telling how much damage he could have done as City Attorney. Could it have exceeded his billion and a half dollar blunder on city Cadillac pensions? Probably. It's a great relief we will never have to find out.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
July 22, 2008 4:08 pm

It is relevant when a politician tells the "little people" to conserve while wasting all that water. Why have a sliding scale based on lot size? I have a two acre lot and my water bill runs about $50 a month. That's because I conserve water and plant only things that belong in a desert. Get rid of those lawns, or cut them way back! And why let them keep packing in dwellings when water is increasingly scare? Should they keep asking you to conserve so more houses can go in?

Posted by Janet | reply to this comment
July 22, 2008 4:15 pm

It is relevant when a politician tells the "little people" to conserve while wasting all that water. Why have a sliding scale based on lot size? I have a two acre lot and my water bill runs about $50 a month. That's because I conserve water and plant only things that belong in a desert. Get rid of those lawns, or cut them way back! And why let them keep packing in dwellings when water is increasingly scare? Should they keep asking you to conserve so more houses can go in?

Posted by Janet | reply to this comment
July 22, 2008 4:15 pm

I am no fan of the City Council President, but too many of you people are too mean about Scott Peters and his rich wife. I thought Sam Hodgson's picture of him (another voice story) with a glass of water was pretty funny. Why I'm really writing is: did no one notice that City Attorney Mike AGUIRRE HAD THE LOWEST WATGER USAGE on the water usage chart of public officials? I think he even did better than Donna Frye. Let's Aguirre him credit!

Posted by Fed Up | reply to this comment
July 22, 2008 4:32 pm

Well, CLP, tell that to the federal judge who decided the fate of the Delta smelt was more important than that of 25 million people living in the Southland. Without his brilliant judicial reasoning, we would not be facing a water crisis. But, by all means save the fishies. And, of course, the bigger issue is, as you say, not Mr. Peters's water usage, but the availability of water for San Diego and other end of the line counties in the South. Nevertheless, his let them eat cake attitude is symptomatic of his and many other public officials' Marie Antoinette attitude toward the plebes that pay the tax bills. We all know what happened to Marie. She got so carried away with herself, she lost her head. Mr. Peters needs to return to his plantation on lead the life of a gentleman farmer on his wife's money.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
July 22, 2008 6:43 pm

Judge our council by their actions. Which one ever said NO to development because there is not enough water for those that live here? Hmmmm, tell me? If there was truly a concern about water, then there would be a halt on expansion until other resources for water were found or built. That ain't happening and our roads are crumbling, pipes are breaking, wires aren't going underground, landfills are filling up,the city workers are still collecting nice big pension checks, and the insiders at city hall are getting the good deals...thankfully the dirty laundry on SEDC is finally coming to the surface. Now Sander needs to dig into the rest of the non-profits and I bet you'll find the same shenanigans. When the council starts saying NO, I'll be happy to change my attitude.

Posted by Norman | reply to this comment
July 22, 2008 7:57 pm

It would be interesting to know if Peters water usage is about normal for those in his "class." If so, then we should just get the upper class to cut their usage in half and the rest of us can use the little water we already do. Aside from that, I think it is a crime that we don't install gray water recycling type units in every house. Why shouldn't the relatively clean water that goes down my sink be used to water my yard? Also, there must be a better way to dispose of waste than to mix perfectly clean water with waste in a toilet to flush it. Now that's a waste of clean water.

Posted by Ann | reply to this comment
July 22, 2008 9:34 pm

I love Peters. He's the only guy I liked for City Attorney. Have you ever seen video of Aguirre when he's mad? He gets all sweaty and high pitched over the smallest things. Aguirre reminds me of my high school assistant vice principal who got arrested for punching this kid in the throat after he refused to take off his hat. TO Leanne1 and Edgar: You two should lay off Peters' wife. What's wrong with marrying someone who has been successful? NOTHING. I take issue with Edgar calling Peters' legal career into question. He took his JD from NYU and practiced environmental law at one the most prestigious law firms in the country. You two are probably accountants at a box factory.

Posted by #1 | reply to this comment
July 22, 2008 10:00 pm

And what's up with Madaffer's water use? He comes in second, well ahead of the rest of the pack. Would be nice to see a phto of his infamous water meter, and a picture of his yard,... or is he a shower-hog? Aquire, as always, comes out smelling like roses.

Posted by MtGoat | reply to this comment
July 23, 2008 5:48 am

Why do people still have lawns in San Diego? We practically live i the desert! I have converted my front yard into a nice courtyard with sitting areas and potted plants with drip irrigation. I enjoy having more outdoor living space. I grow vegetables in the backyard with drip irrigation, and I get to enjoy my harvest of delicious vegetables and fruits. I still see people's sprinkler systems watering their lawns for so long that water runs off all over the street! HELP!

Posted by Judy | reply to this comment
July 23, 2008 5:57 am

Ex parte Garland....

Posted by Gregory | reply to this comment
July 23, 2008 6:24 am

Edgar, how dare you make this issue so personal! for that matter, How dare the City require street trees that consume water in our right of ways. How dare those rich golfers golf on that water sucking turf. How dare the polo club on El Camino Real get to water their acres of turf for their ponies. How dare those kids for playing in the sprinklers on a hot weekend. How dare the City for maintaining Balboa Park and watering those vast amounts of turf. How dare those kids sports teams for needing water sucking turfed areas to play. Get a life. It is important that we conserve water, and generate new supply through things like desal and potable reuse. We need to focus on the larger policy issues involved here, not a single person. We all contribute to this problem.

Posted by CBW | reply to this comment
July 23, 2008 7:27 am

I'm really amazed at how many of you who are commenting on here have basically bought into the attitude that so many politicians display, i.e., "Just shut up and do as I say, not as I do!" Remember, many months ago, it was Peters who came out and admonished the citizenry of S.D. to cut back on their water use and conserve. Yet he goes in the opposite direction, swilling in gross water overusage, like a pig in mud. Unlike some other things that our "leaders" may indulge in, water is a finite resource, and getting more precious by the year, even if in this case it's because of a judge, not from San Diego, worshiping at the altar of a frickin' fish! We are really losing our common sense in this country, along with the crumbling ethics and integrity on the part of so many of our government officials.

Posted by Robert E. Lee | reply to this comment
July 23, 2008 8:52 am

I stick by what I said, #1, except that I made an obvious typo (omission) in referring to Mrs. Peters. Sharp legal mind that you are, you figured it out, anyhow. If I am an accountant at a box factory, you are the little fellow who glues the little bottom flaps together.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
July 23, 2008 9:32 am

CBW, my house sits on a golf course. I like it. Too bad for you. Go tell it to the Delta smelt.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
July 23, 2008 9:37 am

As a NATIVE San Diegan, and old as dirt, I know it has always been a struggle to get enough water for this city. Unless we stop the developement of more and more homes we will eventually be forced to dry up and blow away. I remember a desalinization plant on Pt. Loma that we sent to Guantanimo when Castro shut off their water. The government promised a replacement. Lets call in our marker. Makes sense.

Posted by granny | reply to this comment
July 23, 2008 12:11 pm

Lot's o'luck on that one, Gran. I believe that DESALINATION plant is now sitting in one of the Arab emirates. Maybe they can use it to turn water into oil, which they can then sell to us at Hugo Chavez-promised prices (i.e., $300/bl).

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
July 23, 2008 4:11 pm

The point - we do not have local water for even existing populations. We import our water, many (if not all) cities in the southwest import their water as well, and we all want more water. Even if we cut water to the farmers - we do not have enough water, and the city seems hell-bent on knowingly compounding the problem by increasing density every chance they get. I believe you will find that a grand jury was held (in San Diego) back in 1998, and they came (in my opinion) to much the same conclusion. So, will any one on our city council, or will our mayor, or will water department personnel be held accountable to the public for not doing their jobs? It seems building into a Non-Zero Water Environment is just silly if not reckless, but what do I know.

Posted by Gregory | reply to this comment
July 23, 2008 5:47 pm

It seems "DESALINATION" water is five time our current imported water costs. You think gas went up fast - wait until your water costs go up to a level five times as much as they are today. Moreover, it will take many years to build the "DESALINATION" plants (needed to supply our population) - EVEN IF WE HAD THE MONEY TO DO SO.

Posted by btw | reply to this comment
July 23, 2008 6:01 pm

All the huffing and puffing going on about water seems to leave two important points out of the discussion. 1) If the price of water goes to astronomical heights, then it will self-deflate, as people, disgusted with the situation and knowing that there is a simple response, begin to leave our area in droves. Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Utah and many, really many, other states have an abundance of water and lots of open space. If a quarter or a third or half our population leaves, down goes consumption and, with it, rates. 2) The people running things in this city and county (and that includes personages on both side of every issue, i.e., people are throwing rocks at them from every direction) are using the water charges to bolster the general fund. If they continue to do so, throw the bums out!

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
July 23, 2008 8:49 pm

"Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Utah" have you read the hydrology reports for any of those states? Water tables dropping across the board on this side of the Rocky Mountains. There only 'two side' there are to the water issue: Fact and Reason on one side, and opinion and dreams on the other.

Posted by Gregory | reply to this comment
July 24, 2008 9:03 am

• Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
• Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
• Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.