John Mott-Smith is a member of the Cool Davis Initiative Core Group and writes a fortnightly column on environmental issues for the Davis Enterprise that we will feature here.

With all the talk and controversy over proposed water rate increases, I expected more of a turnout for the Oct. 21 city of Davis water conservation workshop on “How to Reduce Your Water Use Without Impacting Lifestyle.” But there were twice as many empty chairs as there were people attending.

I went for two reasons. First, because I use too much water. Second, because water use is directly related to energy use.

First, because I use too much water. It’s a weakness. I’m a crummy dishwasher, letting the water run the whole time I’m soaping and rinsing the dishes. This habit is harder to break than getting started flossing my teeth.

My showers are longer than they need to be. Worst of all, I sometimes hose off the front patio and driveway to clear off the debris.

I console myself on this last one with several excuses: I first sweep the entire surface so that the waste of water is minimized, most of the water goes into planted areas, we have allergy issues in our house and brooms don’t do the job with allergens, and we have one of those messy hackberry trees in the front yard that deposits sticky stuff that can’t be removed by a broom.

Still, I’m clearly a water waster.

Second, because water use is directly related to energy use. The state estimates that 20 percent of the electricity consumed in California is used to pump water from rivers or wells, transport it to where it can be used (e.g., from Shasta Dam over the Grapevine into the Los Angeles basin), treat it and pressurize it so that it comes out of the faucet where I brush my teeth and the hose I use to clean the patio, and then clean it up before discharging it (in our case, out into the bypass).

As an aside, I was once in the Davis Public Works Department on Fifth Street looking at a diagram of all the pipes and pumps and wells and other infrastructure that bring water to our homes and take it away after we’re done using it. Not to mention the storm water system that keeps us from flooding during rain storms. It’s nothing short of amazing.

This color-coded chart’s complexity is an astonishing testimonial to the engineers who put this all together, one piece at a time as each neighborhood was built, and now take care of it and make sure it works.

All our “water works” actually do work quite efficiently. All those round holes in our streets — not the potholes, the ones with manhole covers — are entry points to an extensive labyrinth of pipes that we only really notice when, for some reason or other, the street needs to be dug up.

Maybe I speak too generally: Perhaps others notice the infrastructure we depend on, but, at least in my case, when I flush the toilet, or turn on the tap or water the yard, I almost never think about where the water comes from or where it goes; all I know is it’s there every time I want it.

All you city engineers and others who make this system work — thank you very much.

Back to the point. It takes energy to make water available for our daily needs, and, until that future day when all electricity is produced from renewable energy sources, making energy produces greenhouse gas emissions. Conserving water reduces these emissions: It’s a strategy, much like the cap-and-trade system now being implemented in California, to respond to global warming.

People like me who have changed out light bulbs, regularly inflate car tires and have done other easy stuff — and who are searching for possible next steps — can look at water conservation as a fertile field for individual action to lower our carbon emissions.

Cap-and-trade, though, is (using a water metaphor) an “upstream” strategy. It doesn’t ask the average person to do anything. Much like improving mileage standards for cars, or requiring utilities to generate electricity using a higher percentage of renewables rather than greenhouse gas-producing fossil fuels, cap-and-trade will directly affect only a small number of those businesses and industries that produce huge amounts of GHGs.

People like me who have changed out light bulbs, regularly inflate car tires and have done other easy stuff — and who are searching for possible next steps — can look at water conservation as a fertile field for individual action to lower our carbon emissions.

Which is why it was a little bit startling to see such low attendance at this city-sponsored event. There we were, about 15 people at the height of attendance (only nine when the meeting started), to talk about water conservation.

Sitting behind a table were five city employees, representing the city’s collective (and impressive) expertise on water and water conservation, and offering an amazing opportunity to ask any question about water in Davis and have it answered; from the engineering perspective to what plants do well with less water, to strategies for using water most efficiently both odors and outdoors.

And, it should be mentioned, the audience was not without its own experts, and several topics benefited from additional perspective and comment from these water consultants and professionals.

The bottom line of the presentation was that saving water is not that hard and can save lots of money. More on this in the next column.

— John Mott-Smith has been wasting water in Davis for more than 30 years. Send comments and suggestions to johnmottsmith@comcast.net