The agencies are big and important (San Francisco, Los Angeles, East Bay MUD, City of San Diego), and the authors find stuff that we'd expect:
- Mandatory restrictions reduce use more than voluntary ones.
- Higher prices reduce demand.
- The demand response is stronger in summer months.
Income elasticity is 0.25, which implies that a 10 percent increase in income increases water demand by 2.5 percent. That's an increase in demand for what I call "lifestyle" water.
Lot size elasticity is 0.27, meaning that a 10 percent increase in lot size translates into a 2.7 percent increase in demand.
Interestingly, the authors did not find any effect of rebates (e.g., for low flow toilets) on demand. Since 7 of 8 agencies use rebates, this result is "interesting." It may reflect bad data, zero actual effect, or a rebound effect ("I'm saving water on flushing, so I'll take a longer shower.") that offsets toilet water consumption. OTOH, it seems that rebates have been helpful in lowering per capita demand, but that's just theory. (It may have fallen due to less outdoor irrigation...)
My final observation is on Table II, which shows agencies' prices and price structures over time. Three agencies (San Francisco, Contra Costa, and San Bernadino) has uniform block rates throughout the study; two agencies (Los Angeles and EBMUD) went from uniform block to increasing block back to uniform rates; three (Santa Barbara, Marin MWD and San Diego) had or went to increasing rates and stayed there. I know that water manager prefer the simplicity of uniform rates, and it seems like they return to them as soon as the "crisis" is over. That's a bad sign as far as long-term conservation signals.
Oh, and they ask for a better understanding of residential demographics. I wonder if ANY of these agencies has -- since then -- got an idea of how many people live at each meter?
Bottom Line: There are many ways to promote (or ignore) conservation, but some are more effective than others.