A lazyweb question for any of the Calfornia water geeks in the audience….
My old employer, the Pasadena Star-News, had an editorial over the weekend that raised the question of groundwater recharge in the following backhanded way:
During a recent dust-up over city of Pasadena water rates, two of the conservation skeptics wrote an essay for our Perspectives page with an entirely new twist on the anti-conservation point of view. When homeowners and businesses with large plots of landscaping don’t water very much, they argue, there’s a lot less water going back into the underground aquifers from which many cities and water companies still get plenty of well water. In other words, conserving could be counter-productive.
Is this right? I know that the answer to the question here in Albuquerque is a complex function of where the lawn is located, so there’s probably no easy answer to this. But in general, in Southern California, how much recharge from municipal watering occurs?