
The historic—and horrific—fires that have decimated Los Angeles-area neighborhoods have been attributed to obvious causes, not the least of which include the two recent “wet years” that increased vegetation growth on hillsides and in backyards, followed by the last twelve months of drought that turned the added foliage into highly combustible fire fuel. Many experts have pointed to climate change as the reason behind the rainfall variation and weather extremes, such as the hurricane-force Santa Ana winds that rapidly spread the fires.
Fire abatement readiness has also come under attack, with cuts in fire department budgets contributing to fire hydrants losing water pressure and running dry as firefighters fought desperately to save homes and lives. Consider another unheralded but aggravating cause of the fire damage, the area’s low water rates.
In a 2022 study, John McKenzie (at the time with a major water-pipe manufacturer) and I reported that LA-area residents, who live in a near-desert climate, pay lower water rates than people in states with four or more times SoCal’s annual rainfall. At the time, in Irvine, I paid less for a hundred cubic feet of water than the price of a large Snickers bar, which is one reason I and many Irvine residents maintain overgrown backyard plantings.
Of course, low water rates have had several effects, including increasing the recent fire damage. The lower rates have induced people to use more water in a variety of ways, which has been a factor in draining the area’s reservoirs and making aerial water drops more difficult. They have encouraged individual homeowners to develop tropical backyards. In doing so, they will be imposing greater fire risks (or costs) because this added foliage eases the spread of flames across neighborhoods (an outcome that has all the markings of a tragedy of the commons, similar to pollution, or an outcome few could have wanted). Those added fire risks can become real costs with the recent confluence of months of drought and the advent of fierce Santa Ana winds.
This means that the conflagrations in Pacific Palisades, Altadena, and Malibu can be partially attributed to politically set low water rates, not just to “acts of God” and governmental incompetence, as critics have emphasized.
But there is more: The city of LA loses more than a billion gallons of water annually from known water pipe leaks. Of course, it doesn’t know how many more billions of gallons are lost to unknown pipe leaks. Water authorities sometimes delay repairs until the pipes erupt into thirty-foot geysers, imposing serious property damage and injuries.
Why aren’t leaking pipes repaired when discovered? The economic answer is well worn: Costs exceed benefits, which in LA’s case means that the cost of repairing pipes is greater than the saleable value of the recovered water—at low water rates!
Unknown leaks could be detected with available surface detection technology but SoCal cities, not just LA, sometimes avoid searching for repairable leaks for economic reasons. First, detecting leaks can cost hundreds of dollars per mile. Second, if more leaks were detected, water authorities would be pressed to cover the costs, which, because of low rates, can’t be recovered. The additional repair costs can force curbs in other water-infrastructure projects needed.
Higher water rates can be “rainmakers,” of a sort. Higher water rates can cause water conservation through less water “waste” and replacement of tropical foliage with more drought-tolerant landscaping. The greater water revenues can governments with the means to repair out-of-commission fire trucks. Homeowners will also have an added incentive to find and repair leaks. The resulting higher water levels in reservoirs can make aerial firefighting more effective.
Higher water rates can fire damage, deaths, and injuries—as well lowering coming fire insurance hikes (and maybe even the overall costs of living in paradise).
Richard McKenzie is an economics professor, emeritus, in the Merage School of Business at the University of California, Irvine and author, most recently of Reality Is Tricky: Contrarian Takes on Contested Economic Issues. He is co-authored with John McKenzie of “California Leaking: People, Pipes, and Prices.”
READER COMMENTS
David Zetland
Feb 11 2025 at 12:09pm
Totally agree.
Besides the ongoing “opportunity cost” of too cheap water (environmental degradation) we can now add burned homes.
And these costs are only rising as climate chaos intensifies fires, drought and heat stress.
Finally, don’t forget that the “profits” from higher prices can be used to help the poor, restore ecosystems and contribute to other quality of life improvements.
steve
Feb 11 2025 at 12:46pm
How high would prices have to be to affect what people put in their backyard gardens? Average water use for a home is about 300 gallons a day. A small 4×8 garden is going to use about 3 gallons/day. A larger 10×20 garden will use about 20 gallons/day. If you xeriscape you would use much less, which is what I would actually expect or maybe slightly smaller gardens.
Steve
Brad
Feb 11 2025 at 4:41pm
I agree that water rates should probably be higher. But as Steve points out, that may not do much to decrease water demand for backyard gardens. And, given the severity of the fires and how far the embers were flying, it is questionable how much of an impact this had.
There was enough water available in general, the problems of local water delivery came from a spike in water use causing lack of water pressure. Higher rates wouldn’t have stopped desperate people from trying to water down their homes.
Jon Murphy
Feb 12 2025 at 6:32am
It’ll depend on the marginal value of the gardens. When prices rise, people reduce the quantity demanded of the good/service. They do not reduce the quantity demanded by size of expenditure, but rather the marginal value. They cut the used that are of relatively low marginal value first. So, if a person has a tropical garden that they enjoy, but isn’t the highest priority for them, a higher water price will reduce their usage of water for the garden, even if it’s a relatively small amount in total.
Furthermore, there’s a distinction between the short run and the long run. In the short run, an increase in prices may not reduce quantity demanded much, especially if people think the increase is temporary. In the long run, people will find ways to reduce their water usage, either by cutting back or finding/developing substitutes.
Alan Goldhammer
Feb 12 2025 at 8:16am
Water has been subsidized in California for decades. Farmers grow water intensive crops in the desert because of cheap water. When my parents were visiting from San Diego some years ago, I pointed out that they were paying less for water than we were here in Bethesda, MD. One of the reasons for the discrepancy was the Clean Water Act and discharge into the Potomac River. 2/3 of our water bill was went towards control of effluent from the house compared to delivery (this was circa 1990 and I don’t know what the ratio is today).
Brad
Feb 12 2025 at 10:59am
Farmers grow water intensive crops in the desert because of cheap water.
This statement is not correct. The desert is an extremely productive place to grow crops because of a number of factors including long growing seasons, good drainage, and cool overnight temperatures. You just need to add water.
Alan Goldhammer
Feb 12 2025 at 3:58pm
My statement is entirely correct. Farmers have planted water intensive crops such as nut trees, alfalfa, and cotton because of cheap water. If CA charged true market rates for water these crops would not be grown. The only true desert crop that does not require exogenous water is the date palm.
Thomas L Hutcheson
Feb 13 2025 at 6:58pm
No disagreement that urban water is mispriced in CA, but agricultural water is even more so. Both cri out for reform.
However the link from secularly less use to lower reservoir levels is not clear.
Comments are closed.