There is a new water conservation law, signed a few days ago by Governor Jerry Brown, that "mandates for water districts and municipalities, and water agencies can be fined if they fail to meet conservation goals (but not until 2027)."
"There is nothing in this bill to target households or companies. Water use objectives are on territory-level of a water agency. There is nothing regulating the time a person may shower or when they may or may not do laundry."Don't spread fake news. Maybe you don't like this law or rankle at too much government regulation, but what do you propose for a heavily populous state with chronic water shortage problems? Here's a suggestion for a conservative answer: Let the democratic processes within California determine what to do about a California problem.
Posts
236 comments:
1 – 200 of 236 Newer› Newest»Raise the price for using water.
Forget about liberalism and conservatism here. Pragmatism is the only answer.
California is growing. It can’t continue to grow towards prosperity if there are water use “objectives.” Objectives are just a subterfuge for laws. Laws that can’t be passed.
The only prudent thing to do in CA is to build big water projects like Hetch Hetchy. But the Left doesn’t like the “destruction” of nature and building aqueducts.
California is ungovernable,
IIRC at about the same time California launch its never-to-be-completed high speed rail (boondoggle) project, Israel started work on a major project to build desalination plants, which are now producing millions of gallons a day of fresh water.
It's all about priorities.
Heard about this the other day, couldn't be bothered to research its truthfulness. Thanks for doing that. I live in MA and don't care what Californians do about stuff that happens or is happening in their state. So long as they don't try to tell me what to do I won't have an opinion about their choices.
-sw
I don’t find Snopes a credible source any more than I would trust the Washington Post to be credible about Trump. Whenever I see “mostly” in any of their findings related to politics in any way, I assume that they got there by spin. In this case? IDK. I don’t care either way about California’s water problems, but. I suspect after they get enough illegal immigrants as “citizens” that their worship of environmental purity is going to fade fast.
I prefer this: let the marketplace of water work full swing. If suddenly a lot of illegals making less than minimum wage have to pay full freight for the water they use, they may leave.
Maybe the Lefties need to feel the true costs of their environmental policies as well as their idiotic energy programs and ridiculously expensive social programs.
So let Colorado or whomever charge what the market will bear sans any subsidies. That should be Trump's next objective.
It is easy to be rich when one imports cheap labor illegally and everyone gives you free shit because 'glamour!'
California is the 'kept woman' of America: all she does is have Juanita clean up, and get free clothes, shoes, jewelry and spends her time sunning herself. And since she has so much free time, she can have any number of goofy ideas which she doesn't have to pay for.
Stop importing illegal aliens.
I don’t find Snopes a credible source
Too partisan. They often deserve four Pinocchios.
Unknown sw
But California does tell you what to do in MA. Right now CA imposes its own air pollution and fuel standards on cars. So the car manufacturers need to make two sets of cars (California and the other 49 states) or one set that satisfies California’s stricter standards.
Move to where its wetter.
Yes, let Californians deal with their own water problem, but when they eventually turn to the federal government to bail them out, will the rest of us end up paying for decades of their unwise policy decisions?
Yes, and I've got a well formed opinion about that which is best delivered live with my ridiculous Boston accent!
-sw
Let the democratic processes within California determine what to do about a California problem.
It appears the current political solution is to replace longtime water-hogging residents with people used to a more arid climate.
If you don't like Snopes, put up a link to a story that shows what's wrong with this one. I heard the rumor and it triggered my fake news suspicion. Is anyone here trying to say that the rumor is more true that Snopes would have it? How about getting specific? Suspicion with no follow up isn't very helpful to anyone here. How about building on my post rather than sitting back and bellyaching about liberal websites?
The way to avoid water problems is to not live in a desert in the first place.
Snopes used to be better, but it was never as good as it used to be.
If you don’t like Snopes, put up a link to a story that shows what's wrong with this one.
Just saying that Snopes is remarkably incurious when it comes to Democratic misdeeds and endlessly creative and energetic when it comes to slamming Republicans for this or that. I never said the story was wrong, but citing Snopes is like citing Wikipedia. If there is any possible partisan controversy involved, they will take sides if at all possible. It’s just experience with them.
I had a whole riff on how Shopes “proves” that claims of fraud in districts in Philadelphia in districts where the Democrat got one hundred percent of the vote were “false" because every time the Inquirer went to the address of a registered Republican, either nobody had heard of them or it was a false address. A curious person might go the next step and say, “Maybe we are finding a lot of fraudulent registrations here?” and maybe whoever is doing them was worried that if they were 100% Democrats, it would look suspicious...” The obvious next step that nobody took would have been to check to see if those people voted, Snopes is partisan claptrap.
It is curious that Ms. Althouse loudly and proudly puts out Stephen Colbert's puff piece, calls it a biased puff piece, excoriates said puff piece...and then when it is pointed out that another left leaning publication 'asserts something', that is out of bounds to question their integrity.
Well, here.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websites-political-fact-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/
Not about the water 'law', but certainly about Snopes as an 'objective' publication.
Cali went off on the wrong track the first time Jerry (Moonbeam) Brown was governor. They killed a water reclamation program that would have prepared them for the future. Now the future is here. They have 39.5 million residents and a water infrastructure for 25 million. They can fix this, but it will take time, money, and a new attitude more like the old post-war "land of tomorrow" boosterism.
Does that sound like the kind of leadership Gavin Newsome promises? He sure is handsome, though. He and Trudeau can can form a "good looks" coalition to wage war against the US.
Sad.
Here’s an experiment you can do to test Snopes' partisanship, search on Juanita Broaddrick.
No worries. Gavin Newsom is going to be the next Gubner of Cali. He's also an owner (partner) in a number of restaurants and a couple of wineries in NorCal. He won't have a water problem for those properties, I can assure you. Live near his properties. It's the only answer I've got left for California.
I don't need a fact-checking piece written by somebody else to refute what Snopes says, because common sense tells us that mandates enforced against water authorities at the local "wholesale" level will be passed through to the "retail" consumers of that water. How else could the local water authority reduce consumption, under pain of fines, other than to pass that pain down the line?
Pretending this will not affect consumers is just misleading, regardless of the actual text of the law.
Regarding indoor residential use, the new laws set a standard of 55 gallons per-person, per-day through Jan. 1, 2025. After that date, the amount will be incrementally reduced over time. For the development of outdoor residential use standards, the bills require DWR to conduct studies of landscaping and climate throughout the State by 2021. DWR will then provide the resulting data to SWRCB and local water suppliers for development of urban water use objectives.
This is regarding Assembly Bill 1668.
A township or entity has a limit of 55 gallons of water, per person, per day. As noted by a blogger, an 8 minute shower uses 17 gallons (Having two daughters, the idea a shower of less than 8 minutes is laughable on it's face). A load of laundry uses 40 gallons.
So...while there will not be 'water police' breaking down the door of a resident, if every person did the simple act of washing themselves and their clothes, their township will be penalized.
How much? I hope it's a LOT!
So the assertion certainly has more going for it than the easy dismissal of Snopes. The Socialist Party of California can't monitor INDIVIDUAL uses easily...but are more than happy to punish entire communities. if they use more than that 55 gallons per person per day...and by the way, that amount of water will DECREASE every year after that.
I am wondering how much of this is thirst for more fines and revenue than it is for public water policy.
Lesson: If you want your thread hijacked, writing I wanted to know if it was it was true so I went to Snopes... is a good way to do it.
Prof, did you Read the Snopes piece?
The law limits water consumption to 55 gal/day, from the snopes piece:
Given that the average shower uses about 17.2 gallons of water, while most high-efficiency clothes washers use only 15 to 30 gallons of water per load, most California residents (depending upon their personal habits and the efficiency ...)
shouldn’t find it too difficult to accommodate a daily shower and a daily laundry load while staying within the 55 gallons per person per day guideline..
so, YES you'll be limited to 55 gal/day, but; as long as
there's only one person in the house 17.2gal
a HIGH EFFICIENCY clothes washer 30 gal
you'll be at 47.2 gal! Now, if you don't
flush your toilet
use water for cooking
brush your teeth
You'll be Fine! As long as:
You have a high efficiency washer, and take a short shower
(again, according to snoopes)
But either way, nothing in either legislative bill specifically levies fines against customers who do laundry and shower on the same day
There won't be fines, you just won't get the water' because they'll SHUT YOU OFF
"but what do you propose for a heavily populous state with chronic water shortage problems? Here's a suggestion for a conservative answer: Let the democratic processes within California determine what to do about a California problem."
Cali is a huge producer of the nations fruits and vegetables. Guess what those needs lots of. So it's not a Cali problem. And it will remain a problem as long as their politics lean as far left as they do. And we will eventually have to bail them out.
"I don’t care either way about California’s water problems...."
You should, as all of us will be facing those problems in the future.
"A township or entity has a limit of 55 gallons of water, per person, per day. As noted by a blogger, an 8 minute shower uses 17 gallons (Having two daughters, the idea a shower of less than 8 minutes is laughable on it's face). A load of laundry uses 40 gallons."
So in a 4 person family, your goal (enforced only at the "territory level") would be not to exceed 220. If everyone takes an 8 minute shower, you still have 152 gallons of water a day to use for purposes other than showers. You could do 2 loads of laundry every day and still have 72 more gallons.
Basically, the Professor is picking on Zero Hedge and others for offering up "fake news," but I am still confused. We know that
"The bill, until January 1, 2025, would establish 55 gallons per capita daily as the standard for indoor residential water use, beginning January 1, 2025, would establish the greater of 52.5 gallons per capita daily or a standard recommended by the department and the board as the standard for indoor residential water use, and beginning January 1, 2030, would establish the greater of 50 gallons per capita daily or a standard recommended by the department and the board as the standard for indoor residential water use. The bill would impose civil liability for a violation of an order or regulation issued pursuant to these provisions, as specified."
We also know that
"An 8-minute shower uses about 17 gallons of water
A load of laundry uses about 40 gallons of water
A bathtub holds 80 to 100 gallons of water
A dishwasher uses 6 gallons of water"
...and that is only a sample of the various sources of water usage in a person's daily life. Just look at the CA legislature's response: “There is nothing in this bill to target households or companies. Water use objectives are on territory-level of a water agency. There is nothing regulating the time a person may shower or when they may or may not do laundry.” It's not regulating the time, but it is regulating the amount. You will have to forgive Zero Hedge, et al. for their poetic license, but they did the math and it doesn't add up. Say a single mother wakes up, takes a shower, and runs a bath for her baby. Later in the day she does a load of laundry. She had now used between 137 and 157 gallons, smashing through the limit before she's even watered her herbs, boiled some pasta, gone to the bathroom, &c.
So it seems pretty glib that Snopes would casually write that:
"Given that the average shower uses about 17.2 gallons of water, while most high-efficiency clothes washers use only 15 to 30 gallons of water per load, most California residents (depending upon their personal habits and the efficiency of their home appliances and water fixtures) shouldn’t find it too difficult to accommodate a daily shower and a daily laundry load while staying within the 55 gallons per person per day guideline."
And this isn't even getting into the civil penalties:
"(1) If the violation occurs in a critically dry year immediately preceded by two or more consecutive below normal, dry, or critically dry years or during a period for which the Governor has issued a proclamation of a state of emergency under the California Emergency Services Act (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 8550) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code) based on drought conditions, ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each day in which the violation occurs.
(2) For all violations other than those described in paragraph (1), one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each day in which the violation occurs."
Oh, that's right, the fines are targeted at "urban retail water suppliers." They would never pass the fines along to the actual offender, or just cut off/ration people's water to prevent that fine, right?
"Just saying that Snopes is remarkably incurious when it comes to Democratic misdeeds...."
Why do you assume water shortages in California are a result of "Democratic misdeeds?" Oh...yes, because you're one of those partisan fanatics for whom all problems are purely political, and all ascribable to the Democrats.
The entire globe faces shortages of drinkable water. I remember as long ago as the early 90s seeing someone on television predicting that in the 21st Century, nations will fight wars over water as they did then fought over oil (and still do).
FIDO said...
A township or entity has a limit of 55 gallons of water, per person, per day. As noted by a blogger, an 8 minute shower uses 17 gallons (Having two daughters, the idea a shower of less than 8 minutes is laughable on it's face). A load of laundry uses 40 gallons.
So...while there will not be 'water police' breaking down the door of a resident, if every person did the simple act of washing themselves and their clothes, their township will be penalized.
The 55 gallons, per person, per day, is an average, not an upper limit.
This is only a problem if you are doing a full load of laundry per person per day. If you have two people, and do a load of laundry per day, you are fine. If you have one person, and do laundry every other day, you are fine.
So Snopes is being generous, the claim is entirely false.
You should, as all of us will be facing those problems in the future
Climate models say so! In Buffalo, Cleveland, Toronto, and Green Bay are all going to be so fucked when the Great Lakes dry up due to climate change! One of the craziest things about Marxism is the irrational belief that scientists are somehow immune to politics.
So in a 4 person family, You are worse than Snopes! What about people living alone? You are up to 47 gallons already!
"I prefer this: let the marketplace of water work full swing. If suddenly a lot of illegals making less than minimum wage have to pay full freight for the water they use, they may leave."
If the marketplace takes over, we'll all be paying full freight plus for all the water we use. (The "plus" is for the markup.)
"Maybe the Lefties need to feel the true costs of their environmental policies as well as their idiotic energy programs and ridiculously expensive social programs."
You left out our nation's obscenely expensive war programs of murder and destruction.
"so, YES you'll be limited to 55 gal/day, but; as long as
there's only one person in the house 17.2gal
a HIGH EFFICIENCY clothes washer 30 gal
you'll be at 47.2 gal! Now, if you don't
flush your toilet"
If you live alone, how often do you use the washing machine? I'm guessing twice a week and that you set it for a small (rather than medium or large) load. If you average out the days, the clothes-washing amount is nowhere near as high as you're making it sound.
Do you do the laundry at your place? Are you aware that you set the load size and if you're only one person and therefore have few things to wash that you'd do the wash only once or twice a week and use the small load setting?
If you're living in a state with a dire water shortage, you need to get up to speed and do your part.
On average though, and I live alone lately, I do laundry maybe twice a week. And don’t run the dishwasher that often either. Where I would get into trouble would be lawn sprinkling, the hot tub, and the pool.
"Most HE top-loaders tested score very good in water efficiency, using about 13.5 to 17.5 gallons to do our 8-pound load. The top-scoring Samsung WA48H7400AP, $900, scored excellent and used about 12 gallons of water but the Frigidaire Affinity FAHE1011MW, $550, scored poor, using about 26 gallons.... The top-rated Whirlpool WTW4850BW, $580, scored excellent in water efficiency and used about 13 gallons to wash our 8-pound load and was impressive at cleaning. Washers at the bottom of our washing machine Ratings scored poor in water efficiency, including the $400 Amana NTW4651BQ. It used about 27 gallons."
Consumer Reports (talking about a full load, not a small load).
https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2015/04/washing-machines-that-save-water-and-money/index.htm
Personally, I would be happy to let the lawn go, but the neighbors would get upset.
I don't understand why people use dishwashers. It's easier and quicker just to wash dishes by hand in the sink. It's a "need" that no one really needs.
Then there's this from 2015: City Journal
i live in iowa; so it's all academic to me; and i do a large load of laundry about once a week. If they charged more for water; i'd be inclined to get a high efficiency washer.
"Say a single mother wakes up, takes a shower, and runs a bath for her baby. Later in the day she does a load of laundry. She had now used between 137 and 157 gallons..."
Ha ha ha. There's somebody who has never given a baby a bath! Hilarious.
I bet this is the "free market" solution we will see:
The water districts will hire consulting firms to bring in "residents" during census years, and/or slip some money to census takers, to bump up the numbers. More residents ( on paper ) == higher cap on water usage.
"Never fill the bath more than waist-high (in a sitting position) for older babies and children."
https://www.babycentre.co.uk/a40/bathing-your-baby-safely
A load of laundry uses about 40 gallons of water
How the hell are you people washing your clothes?
I recently discovered the average household wastes 180 gallons of water a week on water leaks.
Pro tip: If you run a Pool Service company in California, move east young man, move east.
Robert Cook said...
I don't understand why people use dishwashers. It's easier and quicker just to wash dishes by hand in the sink. It's a "need" that no one really needs.
Modern dishwashers use less water than hand washing.
Those of you arguing for a free market solution here sound crazy to me. You're advertising you dogmatic rigidity.
"Never fill the bath more than waist-high (in a sitting position) for older babies and children."
For newborns, fill up the tub, drop them in, swish them around on the bottom a bit, and bingo! Clean baby.
Modern dishwashers use less water than hand washing
Yes. We just got a new one and the instructions scold you for pre rinsing dishes before setting them in the dishwasher.
There can't be a shortage of anything without price controls.
>>what do you propose for a heavily populous state with chronic water shortage problems
Billions for desalinization plants, and not high speed boondoggle trains.
Or is that too much like your pleonastic "dogmatic rigidity"?
"I don't understand why people use dishwashers. It's easier and quicker just to wash dishes by hand in the sink. It’s a “need" that no one really needs."
I grew up in a large family, and mom and dad bought a dishwasher even though it was a real stretch because when one kid would get sick, everybody would get sick. Might have been due to having the kids wash the dishes, but anything else is child abuse, IMHO.
This isn't difficult, just wear your clothes when you shower.
Those of you arguing for a free market solution here sound crazy to me. You're advertising you dogmatic rigidity.
And those advocating a solution to California's water problem from a one-party government who believe trains to nowhere come with "free" federal money are advertising something else about themselves.
Give Elon Musk the authority to solve this problem and he'll Tweet out pictures of a working prototype by lunch.
Pee into a milk jug, like truck drivers. Empty it on the lawn someplace that needs nitrogen.
"Ha ha ha. There's somebody who has never given a baby a bath! Hilarious."
Fair enough. Change it to "toddler" or "preschooler" and "half full" and you still are near or over the limit, right, before you've used any water whatsoever elsewhere?
In any event, desalinization plants seem like so obvious an answer that it is odd that anything else is being discussed.
he water districts will hire consulting firms to bring in "residents" during census years, and/or slip some money to census takers, to bump up the numbers. More residents ( on paper ) == higher cap on water usage.
Ha, speaking of Global Warming! In Siberia under communism, economics was “scientific.” Therefore, if you said it was 40 below, you got a larger shipment of oil than if you said it was 30 below. These records of course were made with a pencil. Now “scientists” point to the fact that it used to be so much colder in Siberia during the communist era as proof of global warming.
California's water problems are easy to solve. Split the state into two (or more) states, with the water all coming from the northeast part. The rich coast will find a solution - desalinization plants, or paying through the nose, or whatever - once they no longer get the water for free.
Mike Sylwester said...
Raise the price for using water.
That's a given. What happens when the 'working class' can't afford housing, water, electricity? 3rd world shitholes. Shanty towns with sewage in the streets.
Can't happen in America? I watched entire neighborhoods in Detroit go from lived in, kept up houses to looking like they've been abandoned for a generation within 2 years. Plenty of Youtube videos document this.
Yes, I think Los Angeles can become Tijuana rather quickly.
One past candidate for California Gov was Neel Kashkari who talked about getting the water issues in Califirnia under control. Remember when California was in a major drought? He talked about building new reservoirs for the day when another drought will happen. He talked about building desalinization plants since this is a state on the ocean (for those who are unsure of geography). A man who had a vision of what issues California would be needing to deal with. He got defeated soundly.
Hmm, per capita, huh? So based on the number of people counted in a particular water district. Good thing there aren't millions of people in California avoiding being counted.
Here's a non free market solution. Have the government build more dams and reservoirs.
Reservoirs are good for increased property values and property taxes.
Or build some nuclear power plants because water desalination take a lot of energy.
Why should we live like third world countries.
"Fair enough. Change it to "toddler" or "preschooler" and "half full" and you still are near or over the limit, right, before you've used any water whatsoever elsewhere?"
Half full is still way too much. Waist high on a little kid is not a half full bathtub. And by the time they are any bigger, they can accept a shower. You're living in a place with a bad water shortage, so showers need to be understood as the norm.
And you can learn to take a quick shower. 8 minutes really is too long. You can learn to turn off the water while you soap up and turn it back on to rinse. Learn to be efficient when using a scarce and shared resource.
Teach responsibility to your children and model it for them.
By the way, cut their hair short so it's faster to rinse. Crew cuts in summer for the boys and pixie cuts for girls.
Althouse wanted proof of something so she consulted Snopes.com? WTF? I've lost 15 IQ points reading this.
Here's a piece with links to the bills: You can decide for yourselves.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-03/its-now-against-law-california-shower-and-do-laundry-same-day
Those of you arguing for a free market solution here sound crazy to me. You're advertising you dogmatic rigidity.
Yeah, imagine using markets to allocate scarce resources. What a "dogmatic" idea.
As I understand it, Water for agricultural use gets subsidized, which contributes heavily to the scarcity for households. So this is in part a government-made problem, surprise, surprise.
But yes, turning water (or anything else) into a common property resource, as opposed to one that individuals pay for, is precisely the opposite of what should be done. Unbelievable that this case still has to be made decades after the failure of Communism.
Last I looked most of Southern California's water comes from The Colorado. The Water Master, allocator of entitlements among the states through which it flows, is Ryan Zinke, Secretary of Interior. California has frequently used more than its share. Haven't water rights historically been contentious? Didn't reallocation in California itself a few years ago spur almond orchards. One gallon of water yields one almond. Is today's magic food worth it? No, I don't think it's just the California citizen's concern.
And in case you're wondering, here's a piece from Scientific American subtitled "ProPublica examination shows that the scarcity of water is as much a man-made crisis as a natural one"
Federal Dollars Are Financing the Water Crisis in the West
AA says: ost HE top-loaders tested score very good in water efficiency, using about 13.5 to 17.5 gallons to do our 8-pound load. The top-scoring Samsung WA48H7400AP, $900, scored excellent and used about 12 gallons of water but the Frigidaire Affinity FAHE1011MW, $550, scored poor, using about 26 gallons.... The top-rated Whirlpool WTW4850BW, $580, scored excellent in water efficiency and used about 13 gallons to wash our 8-pound load and was impressive at cleaning. Washers at the bottom of our washing machine Ratings scored poor in water efficiency, including the $400 Amana NTW4651BQ. It used about 27 gallons."
Says the woman who has the dough to spend on a $1000 bike and a $400 hairdryer. Those poor illegal immigrant families are only going to be able to afford the cheap washer that uses a lot of water. Or you think the landlord that has a laundry room in an apartment building is going to buy a bunch of the expensive washers? I think not. Those units get used and abused. Ever been in a laundromat? You always have to be careful what you put in the pose washers.
"Here's a piece with links to the bills: You can decide for yourselves."
Thanks a lot. That's exactly the piece Snopes is responding to!
I guess you really meant it when you said you lost 15 IQ points. How will you get them back?
California should take the money for the "bullet train" and put it into desalination facilities. That a coastal area suffers from chronic water shortages is immensely short sighted, and downright ridiculous.
Jersey Field beat me to it, but I concur.
This.
"Whether you do it yourself or hire a contractor, the Southern Nevada Water Authority will rebate $3 per square foot of grass removed and replaced with desert landscaping up to the first 10,000 square feet converted per property, per year. Beyond the first 10,000 feet, the Water Authority will provide a rebate of $1.50 per square foot.
The maximum award for any property in a fiscal year is $300,000. Certain restrictions apply to well owners. For more information, including terms and requirements, view the program conditions."
Desalination is a "last resort" solution.
James K said...
Federal Dollars Are Financing the Water Crisis in the West
First of all, if you like your water, you can retain your water.
Long hot showers is one of life's greatest pleasures.
How creepy would it be if all Californians sheared off their hair to comply with water preservation "recommendations"? Will people be hair-shamed in the streets?
Althouse, "If you're living in a state with a dire water shortage, you need to get up to speed and do your part."
California has a dire water storage because of the liberal government's inaction. The Dems created the problem. It's not the fault of the residents; legal and illegal.
The government needs the fix the problem it created. And drop that stupid train thing.
If everyone wore shorts, rather than long pants, the volume of laundry would decrease.
California is a large state rich in natural resources but poor in the application of common sense in its policies.
The comments in this thread seem to be looking at the micro-managing of household water use. The real issue is that California has been mismanaging the state's water infrastructure for several decades and has refused to increase it for their population growth. It isn't really a shortage of water, but how to get it to the California consumer. The water is not naturally available in the desert coastal areas, but in the mountains to the east. The Wall St. Journal has had a plethora of articles on this mismanagement of water delivery resources by the state over the years.
>>"Here's a piece with links to the bills: You can decide for yourselves."
Why would a retired law professor use Snopes on a matter of law???
Go read the statute yourself, Ann:
The bill, until January 1, 2025, would establish 55 gallons per capita daily as the standard for indoor residential water use.... The bill would impose civil liability for a violation of an order or regulation issued pursuant to these provisions, as specified
OK, so you CAN take a bath and do laundry in the same day, but only if you don't exceed that 55 gallons!
A bit disappointed in the quality of the replies, or may be its because no one in California has replied yet. It’s 6:15 am here.
California has built no major infrastructure for water since Jerry Browns first term in the 1970’s, and the Ca population has doubled.
Plus diversions of water to save a bait fish.
It’s devastating inland farm areas, which are becoming third world like, in contrast to the beautiful people coasts.
Good article:
An Engineered Drought
Shortsighted coastal elites bear most of the blame for California’s water woes.
Victor Davis Hanson
April 2, 2015
https://www.city-journal.org/html/engineered-drought-11548.html
Let the democratic processes within California determine what to do about a California problem.
There aren't many of those left.
What to do about the water problem in California? I suggest that the first thing the ignorant, stupid liberal Dems do is to read a six generation Californian Victor David Hanson.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/03/californias-ineffective-government-progressive-ideals-conflict-reality/
http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/why-californias-drought-was-completely-preventable/
Let the democratic processes within California determine what to do about a California problem.
But the Democrats want the Democratic processes to be determinant.
To 'Snope' Snopes here, calling California's drought historic is likely incorrect. It's more likely the last 100 years in California have been unusually wet and California is now returning to historic norms for rainfall.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/science/californias-history-of-drought-repeats.html
As water shortages increase, we will all have to start rationing our use of water, or simply accede to drinking and bathing with lead-poisoned water, such as is happening in Flint, Michigan and many other places in America.
Actually, this is probably not an "either/or" situation: we'll all probably face water shortages and the water resources we will have will become poisoned with lead and other toxic by-products of our industrial activities.
Per two washer machine technicians I have spoken with, the new washers do a terrible job of washing clothes.
On Speed Queen top loaders (top line washer company for commercial used in Laundrymats and apartments, there is a water saving cycle selection. I was told don’t use it. Or even put a piece of black tape over it.
Donald Trump spoke about how the water savings shower heads don’t work well. It takes a lot longer to wash your hair.
https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-says-epa-regulations-are-ruining-his-hair-1882129929.html
For perspective, I think I remember from Water Supply class many years ago to use 400 gal./day when estimating required capacity of water transmission lines. This was probably because the future growth of the community is always under estimated, and the water lines prove inadequate if based on the actual usage experience.
Albuquerque at present is aiming for 135 gal./day per citizen, I think, and have gotten down to 137, but that may rise again due to the present extreme drought in the Southwest.
"The comments in this thread seem to be looking at the micro-managing of household water use."
This is because the California legislature is more comfortably doing just that than addressing the problems stated above (diversion, lack of infrastructure, subsidies, and so on).
I am reminded of Obama era CAFE standards which simply declared, more in hope than expectation, that by 2025 cars and trucks would all magically get 54.5 mpg.
People are predictably getting hung up on unattainable standards because they are unattainable. Yes, you could get fabulously expensive new appliances, rarely do laundry, rip out your dishwasher, cut your hair short(!), bathe your kid in two inches of water, and maybe squeak in under the limit -- maybe. Or you could, gee, I don't know, build a reservoir at some point in the last four decades, or follow the Israeli example, &c. &c.
Prices not policemen.
It's a bit remarkable you don’t even think of the price, just what laws we should pass, and how.
"Lead poisoned water" is B.S.
Lead in the drinking water comes from lead service taps and/or lead fittings in the building plumbing systems, and have nothing to do with the water supply.
Replacing lead water taps in the street ROW is a municipal responsibility and replacing lead fittings on private property is the property owners' responsibility.
California recently experienced a near record rainfall and snowfall but because the arrogant, stupid liberal Dems failed to build new reservoirs as per a half-century old water master plan, new reservoirs that would have collected that runoff water instead it flowed into ocean.
Stupid, arrogant and ultimately selfish liberals!
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/03/californias-ineffective-government-progressive-ideals-conflict-reality/
Thank you Ray and dreams, for reminding me of the other source of my knowledgeinformation of the historical mismanagement of California's water resource, Victor Davis Hanson.
You hissed, and spit when I called you ignorant of evolutionary theory. You are ignorant of economics and the theory of commodity markets. Prices are important precisely *because* there are trade offs to be made.
Victor Davis Hanson, a California resident and farmer, is an expert on CA water. He has written frequently on the topic.
lost my /
Half full bathtub to give a young child a bath? Seriously? More like 20-25% full.
Althouse, this has been an unusually enjoyable comments thread to read.
I've done, on your comments pages, what you just did in this post. I utilized a Snopes link; not because Snopes is such a great investigative journalism source, but rather because on some matters of clear, objective, indisputable mythbusting, Snopes does a good job of writing clear refutations.
Naturally, I was attacked for linking to Snopes. And attacked in ways much harsher than what you've gotten today. (Courtesy to the proprietor, I guess.)
So as I came onto this post this morning, my first reaction without reading any of the comments was to think, "Uh oh; Althouse might get attacked just as I was, for linking to Snopes! Better give her a warning!" Too late, obviously.
And for the record, my response to Snopes attacks is the same as what you have suggested today; exactly what part of this story did Snopes get wrong? I sure as hell don't work fro Snopes and I am not their counsel; if they messed up a fact here or there, let's be clear about that. It would be helpful, because Snopes' institutional writing style is rather clear and declaratory. We should be able to be quite clear about any corrections.
Like James Taranto, I have a deep suspicion of large national newspapers that run "fact check" columns. As if those columns were any better than other newspaper columns. A column is a column. And so it is with Snopes. Snopes is just another source. I am not giving Snopes any more or any less credit than anybody else. But if somebody wants to bitch about Snopes, they need to be as specific as Snopes was. (As you probably know, Althouse, Taranto has done some brilliant takedowns of "fact check" and "politifact" features.
I always hated the saying, "Truth has a liberal bias." To me, that saying is itself as untrue as anything I know. But your commentariat did its best today, to give it some credence.
I am reminded of Obama era CAFE standards which simply declared, more in hope than expectation, that by 2025 cars and trucks would all magically get 54.5 mpg.
I am reminded of the Michigan law that says all electricity must be 22% 'clean' energy by 2025.
No way to get there unless you cut fossil fuel generated electricity. Electricity will have to be rationed.
Embrace the suck.
Madison man gets it, teach your children well, to wear shorts.
Robert Cook said: "Actually, this is probably not an "either/or" situation: we'll all probably face water shortages and the water resources we will have will become poisoned with lead and other toxic by-products of our industrial activities."
In East Tennessee, where I live most of the time, neither of these is a problem. We have an abundance of water and use only a fraction of what is available to us, both for public and manufacturing use. We could support a significant multiple of the population here and still have water left over. We used to have significant pollution in the Holston River, but over the past 50 years that has been pretty much resolved, through state and federal regulation and resulting significant investments by our manufacturers in massive waste treatment facilities. You obviously have never had dealings with EPA or TDEC. Whereas 50 years ago there were only 3 species of fish in the river, today there are 33, all of which have returned naturally. Bald eagles and ospreys have returned to nests along the river to feed on the abundant supply of fish. This is just a few miles below one of the largest chemical plants in the US.
The only river within the region that is closed to fishing and recreation is the North Fork of the Holston, in SW VA, but that results from mercury contamination from the old salt mines in Saltville, VA, that long pre-date the Civil War, and there is nothing that can be done about it.
Tennessee is not California nor is my community like Flint - thank God. Here, our public officials and manufacturers made good decisions and spent lots of money over decades about waste treatment and pollution control to ensure clean water. California created its own water problem by not making good decisions over the last 40 years. They should have dealt with their problem as we dealt with ours.
The "Fake news" claims here remind me of all the heads exploding over Sarah Palin's use of the term "death panels." Or the outrage back when opponents of the ERA claimed that it would require unisex bathrooms (how has that worked out?).
Was the story about not being able to shower and do laundry in the same day *literally* true? No. But the fact is the state has required local communities to police water usage, and empowered them to impose requirements on households that could result in exactly such limitations. That's without even considering such "luxuries" as watering a lawn. It's a slippery slope. Stories like this should be taken seriously, but not literally. Trying to "fact check" by figuring out how much water is used in a shower or load of laundry misses the forest for the trees.
So flush your stupid high-speed train and build another major water system. The problem with California is that they "care" so much about so many different things that they can't actually do anything. That would require choices and trade-offs.
Snopes response to the liberal spin of "Did the U.S. Government Lose Track of 1,475 Migrant Children?":
TRUE!!!
It almost seems like Althouse was trolling the conservatives. I wonder if the nod to Snopes was designed to raise the hackles and lower the IQ as commenters have the predictable knee-jerk reaction.
Letting the democratic process take place is a neat dodge, though. People rightly don't put much faith in the democratic process because people don't get to vote on an issue-by-issue basis like a political buffet. You can't go to the ballot box and vote for this candidate's position on issue A and that candidate's position on issue B. You have to vote for the whole candidate, and with hundreds of issues at stake, only certain issues really swing the vote. Democrats have successfully won the mind-share on social issues and convinced the electorate that love and compassion will magically solve fiscal and resource issues.
The water problem in California is likely to get worse and as government uses a top-down all stick, no carrot approach to force people into cutting hair and not wearing clean clothes in an effort to solve a problem that can be more effectively solved other ways. If the restrictions become onerous enough, then the water issue might bubble up high enough on the priority list to affect people at the ballot box. Until then any "solutions" people throw out now are pointless in California's 1-party system.
One other thing that I am disappointed in from the comments, is the lack of sufficient rigor in the maths. It is 55 gallons per day on average, not in one day. This was dealt with around the edges, but effectively, you can take showers every day and wash laundry 1-2 times a week and never exceed the average. I doubt that these two activities are the real reason restrictions are needed.
I did a quick search to see if anyone had useful facts on real water usage and was disappointed in the results. So as not to waste my precious day on deep research I will just focus on a few key points. Some estimates are that a person really needs about 13.5 gallons of water, some estimates are that people use 100-175 gallons per day (what a huge range!), and one estimate I saw that tried to calculate household water usage per person based on real activities (drinking, cooking washing, flushing, etc) came up with 66 gallons per day. I am inclined to accept the third estimate. I think the first is an Ed Begley, Jr wet dream, pardon the pun, and the second is taking into consideration the amount of water used to make clothes and food so is a person's total water impact. The 66 gallon estimate makes no accounting of gardening, and does not account for pools or other luxuries.
All this suggests that 55 gallons is a tight number and will cause consternation as water agencies struggle to find ways to prevent consumers for using too much water. The state fines the deliverer for a consumer that they have little control over. (If I understand this right.) That seems like a poor solution.
As per our former governor Lee Sherman Dreyfus, we in Wisconsin stand ready to ship our water to California; in 12 oz cans.
Blogger Unknown said...
Heard about this the other day, couldn't be bothered to research its truthfulness. Thanks for doing that. I live in MA and don't care what Californians do about stuff that happens or is happening in their state. So long as they don't try to tell me what to do I won't have an opinion about their choices.
You had better be bothered, unknown. Massachusetts has the identical problem. You are running out of electricity, mostly for stupid reasons, imposed by California thinking. (No new generating plants)
So there is a plan to bring power to the state from Quebec Hydro/James Bay in Canada. The problem is that to do that, you need to string wires and people in MA hate wires so are blocking the project.
That's part of the problem. The other part is that Quebec Hydro is drowning a lot of virgin forest with dams and reservoirs and that is a HORRIBLE!!! thing. Must be stopped.
And DEAPs (Descendants of Early American Peoples or Indians) live on those lands and that brings up a lot of objections about destroying the "Noble Savage's" traditional way of life. Nobody cares that they would mostly like to be brought into the 21st century. Or even the 20th.
SO as Massachusetts sits in the dark, I won't care about you either. (I'm in Puerto Rico. We have our own, different, problems)
I'd be willing to bet that the same people who are objecting to the wires and hydro power (non-fossil, clean, renewable energy) would be the first ones to say they want clean, renewable, non-fossil energy. Just not this project.
John Henry
It should also be pointed out that "water usage" includes the wastage from leaking municipal water transmission lines and "accidental" water spills, etc.
Anyone remember the acid rain hoax from back in the 70's and 80's?
Yeah, we have Quebec Hydro and their James Bay hydropower project to thank for that.
John Henry
Althouse said...”Those of you arguing for a free market solution here sound crazy to me. You're advertising you dogmatic rigidity.”
Blogger James K said...“Yeah, imagine using markets to allocate scarce resources. What a "dogmatic" idea.
But yes, turning water (or anything else) into a common property resource, as opposed to one that individuals pay for, is precisely the opposite of what should be done. Unbelievable that this case still has to be made decades after the failure of Communism.”
James K +1
"the average household wastes 180 gallons of water a week on water leaks."
All this is crap. YOu take a shower, or a bath, or wash your clothes...hell, flush your toilet. Where do you think that water goes? DO you think it is consumed? Destroyed?
Water is the ultimate recycled product.
"Let the democratic processes within California determine what to do about a California problem."
Deal.
But 1. don't let democratic processes within California determine what to do about national problems--immigration, CAFE standards, etc. and 2. make sure democratic processes within California determine what to do about, and how to pay for, all California problems, without assistance from non-Californians--specifically, earthquake prep.
”The state fines the deliverer for a consumer that they have little control over. (If I understand this right.) That seems like a poor solution.”
The deliverer will fine the consumer. It’s their only source of money.
I will merely note in passing that former governor Schwarzenegger had proposed a $11 billion plan to alleviate water shortages by building new and refurbishing existing dams. The Dumbocrats laughed it out of town, preferring to spend several times as much money on a high speed train connecting nowhere to noplace. So I have no sympathy fo California and Californians.
Let the democratic processes within California determine what to do about a California problem.
The basic definition of democracy is mob rule and, anyway, the US Constitution defines a republic, not a democracy.
One year in Seattle, late 70's IIRC, there was a drought and the water company asked us to conserve water. We did! So the company then slapped a surcharge on our bills to make up the shortfall.
Ann Althouse said...
"Those of you arguing for a free market solution here sound crazy to me. You're advertising your dogmatic rigidity."
Could you maybe explain the undogmatic and fluid method you employ for deciding which products should be priced by the government, and which by the market?
Robert Cook said...
"If the marketplace takes over, we'll all be paying full freight plus for all the water we use. (The "plus" is for the markup.)"
God, I love it. Robert Cook imagines that someone else is paying for all the water he uses. Who would that be, Cookie? The Rich? Sock it to 'em, big guy!
Well, me and Starchild live in a planned community and in eco box 122 we compost and only use 50 gallons per week. We do our OWN reporting on our neighbors when they overuse.
All the community planners live upriver in larger houses but we’re happy to sacrifice for the greater pnaetary and universal human good.
You can use less too.
Everything’s FINE. Join us.
DO IT!
"God, I love it. Robert Cook imagines that someone else is paying for all the water he uses. Who would that be, Cookie?"
I am paying for it, of course. But let "the marketplace" get involved, and the corporate middlemen will tack on excessive additional fees that will be pure gravy for them, (to mix metaphors).
"Today 46 percent of captured and stored water goes to environmental purposes, such as rebuilding wetlands. Meanwhile 43 percent goes to farming and 11 percent to municipal uses."
— The Economist, October 2009
Thank a liberal because the state of California has dumped over a trillion gallons of water into the ocean to save the delta smelt without success.
Althouse takes the 55 as a given. But it isn’t. Water isn’t just used for homes. It is used in large amounts for agriculture, business, recreation, etc. Rationing home and municipal use works as a subsidy for these other consumers. It contributes to inefficient use even of the rationed water, be it 55 or 5 or 555. It raises transaction costs, and disincents improvements. It creates opportunity for graft.
Original Mike said...
As per our former governor Lee Sherman Dreyfus, we in Wisconsin stand ready to ship our water to California; in 12 oz cans.
Wisconsin's record on "our" water is a bit, uh, spotty.
https://www.wiscontext.org/water-battles-straddle-great-lakes-basin
I don’t care either way about California’s water problems...."
You should, as all of us will be facing those problems in the future.
Nope pipe lines from Canada.
I am paying for it, of course. But let "the marketplace" get involved, and the corporate middlemen will tack on excessive additional fees that will be pure gravy for them, (to mix metaphors).
Like the City of Chicago?
The new "law" is to restrict your use of water indoors AND outdoors to 55 gallons a day per person. Depending on the type of household you have this may or may not be onerous. For example small children needing more laundry and baths could be a problem. For an 'elderly' household with lesser needs it may not be a problem.
What IS the PROBLEM is the cost it is going to place upon the water districts to monitor and police this. There are also hefty fines for non compliance that the districts are expected to pay. More monitoring. More layers of government. More COSTS..
Perhaps a large water district can absorb those costs. I know for a FACT that a small district will not be able to absorb the costs. [I used to be for 12 years on the Board of Directors of our small district]. The result will be a precipitous rise in water fees in those smaller and rural districts.
The other insane part of this law is that it takes in no consideration for the geographic and water availability of each district or area. Places like the deserts of Southern California should probably institute water conservation measures. Other place where it is a more rainy climate and areas that are awash in water are still being held to the same draconian standards.
Of course, there are going to be exceptions to the water use rule. For the elite naturally. Are they going to restrict the water to Golf Courses. Mc Mansions in Beverly Hills. The Governor's mansion.
Of course NOT. The little people will be punished and restricted. Gardens dying. Clothing not washed. While the rulers will be exempted.
Something I haven't seen discussed in this thread yet.
California has plenty of water. The water shortages in California are all government created.
there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck.
Sometimes I see voters argue to let other voters "learn their lesson"
They never learn. California and Venezuela are just instances of bad luck.
Madison Man wins the thread for pointing out it takes less water to launder shorts.
Ann Althouse said...
"Those of you arguing for a free market solution here sound crazy to me. You're advertising your dogmatic rigidity."
Nope just basic supply and demand. If you want people to use less of it, charge or tax more.
Everyone gets X. If you go over you pay more.
That was part of Cali’s power problem back in the early 2000s.
If you want to argue why the rich, who have big houses, pools, and use lots more electricity and water should pay the same, go right ahead.
Consider it a like progressive income tax. That should get your heart a’flutter.
Here's a suggestion for a conservative answer: Let the democratic processes within California determine what to do about a California problem.
The "democratic process" within California has been corrupted by the Democratic party's use of illegal immigrants and Mexican nationalism to seize power.
Maybe you don't like this law or rankle at too much government regulation, but what do you propose for a heavily populous state with chronic water shortage problems?
There are not chronic water shortages throughout the entire state. Only some areas have this problem.
Some of the chronic water shortages are because the densely populated areas like LA and Southern California have been built in literal deserts. There is not enough water. There has never been enough water to sustain so many people and to water all the lovely lawns and golf courses.
Other areas of the state have NO water shortages, never have had shortages and never will have shortages.
Even so, the law treats all areas the same. Punishing some people for living in not desert areas.
If water shortage was considered a REAL problem by the Progressives, we would have built water storage to bank the water to supplement the areas that have shortages when there are real issues. Since they don't want to build dams, reservoirs and stop flushing water into the ocean to save some useless stupid fish....screw em.
Factor in open borders.
Puts a strain on our grid which we don’t or can’t upgrade partially because of NIMBYS and environazis. All that icky stuff. Factor in the political unrest in Mexico, Venezuela and Nicaragua.
They’re going to the place that still works in their eyes.
We aren’t ready.
Don’t get me wrong. We CAN do it. We aren’t ready to do it.
If California deported all of its illegal aliens, there would be no water shortage, and the freeways much less crowded.
But let "the marketplace" get involved, and the corporate middlemen will tack on excessive additional fees that will be pure gravy for them, (to mix metaphors).
Ah, so we're back to Obama's "profit as overhead" theory, probably found somewhere in Das Kapital. This is the cockamamie idea that government can supply goods and services for less than the private sector because they don't have to make a profit. Of course it overlooks the small issue that as a monopoly with little accountability it has no incentive to operate efficiently and minimize costs.
I'm with you DBQ because even when we do save...
California city has to dump 500,000 gallons due to conservation efforts
it’s a good thing we’re in global cooling. It might bring more snow. Which means more water. Unless you don’t build storage facilities.
“ ‘Most HE top-loaders tested score very good in water efficiency....’ ”
Except that they don’t actually get your clothes clean. They don’t even get your clothes wet.
We got rid of our Whirlpool HE agitator-less washer and got a Chinese GE washer with an agitator.
Whose idea was it to get rid of agitators, anyway, and why do most HE washers not have one?
Is if 55 gal/person, or 55 gal/household?
The part I like the most is the exemptions for pools and other things that the rich of California need to maintain their lifestyles.
As always, Socialism hurts the poor in favor of the well-connected rich.
There is a reason Governor Brown is known as Moonbeam. That was true forty years ago when he richly deserved the sobriquet and even truer today. The people of California have earned and deserve every bit of pain they have inflicted on themselves. Think of it as a slow but sure form of suicide. Electing Newsom governor will be further evidence of their death wish.
Now the governor and legislature of California could do something sensible such as allocating spending to desalination plants and water reclamation projects ( bringing waste water to drinking water purity standards) and reservoirs. Sane people would be doing this. But we are dealing with Democrats and Leftists here so that isn't an option.
Or California could ban swimming pools, commercial car washing, non desert landscaping and gold courses and and ask the feds to stop subsidizing water for California's desert area agriculture. So we all will have to make the sacrifice of paying more for almond milk. Perhaps Wisconsin dairy farmers will benefit. If California were to ban these items and the feds were to stop the water subsidies then what would happen to the people that largely do all of the work in those areas? Go elsewhere presumably and thus further alleviate the need for water. That also isn't going to happen.
California has the same built in Leftist level of stupid ( albeit with a lot more money) as the government of the Cape Province ( Cape Town), knowing its a desert, knowing its population is growing but refusing to do the expensive and unglamorous ( for politicians) and not immediately beneficial for politicians spending. Like I said, slow suicide by political stupidity.
I am paying for it, of course. But let "the marketplace" get involved, and the corporate middlemen will tack on excessive additional fees that will be pure gravy for them, (to mix metaphors).
Wow. That's just stupid.
The state fines the deliverer for a consumer that they have little control over. (If I understand this right.) That seems like a poor solution.
The service providers have multi tiered billing. You get particular amount at standard rate. Going over costs more, and more.
I pay extra every month and I am fairly conservative in water usage. Also, we are charged for sewer usage, based on water consumption.
When water consumption is down across the board, service provider raises rates in order to stay profitable.
As stated above, it is mismanagement by Dem. progressives. We have rivers here that are diverted to protect bait fish. No new reservoirs or dams in decades
During the last severe 4-year drought, our private community water company easily cut back to less than 200-GPD per connection. Because my wife and I were the volunteers who ran the conservation and monitoring program, we kept our use to 50-GPD.
Democrats and environmentalists have caused the water shortage in California. It has nothing to do with climate change. No significant water projects have been authorized since Moonbeams' Dad was Gov in the early '60's. Environmentalists believe that restricting basic infrastructure will save the environment by limiting growth. They stopped all the Central Valley groundwater recharge projects we were working on in the the 1980's.
85% of water use in California is subsidized water project water used by republican farmers who complain about socialism while they cry foul when their subsidies vanish. Because of this, they drill more and deeper wells beneath the Corcoran Clay to mine groundwater to the point that the aquifers collapse and cannot be replenished because the water holds up the sediments and once gone, ground levels subside by the compaction of the pore spaces.
Chuck said...”Wisconsin's record on "our" water is a bit, uh, spotty.
https://www.wiscontext.org/water-battles-straddle-great-lakes-basin”
Did you read your article, Chuck?
All this is crap. YOu take a shower, or a bath, or wash your clothes...hell, flush your toilet. Where do you think that water goes? DO you think it is consumed? Destroyed?
It's at a non consumable point in the hydrologic cycle but since you don't seem to care to differentiate I'm sure we can get rhhardin to send you some of his bottled pee for you to consume.
"Whose idea was it to get rid of agitators, anyway, and why do most HE washers not have one?"
Energy efficiency mandates.
Then there is this...
For the past year the city has used general fund reserves to ease the impact on ratepayers of rates raised last year, when conservation-inspired decreases in water use resulted in significantly lower revenues. The so-called “temporary drought recovery surcharge” amounted to a $16.50 bi-monthly savings to customers, but cost the city about $900,000 to loan the water fund, the council was told. The surcharge is scheduled to expire at the end of next month. While two council members – Jim Cunningham and Dave Grosch – suggested the surcharge be extended by at least six months, the remaining three members did not go along with the idea.
From
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/pomerado-news/news/local-news/poway/sd-poway-water-rate-increases-20161116-story.html
The idea that this amount of water 55 gallons per day/ per person is inadequate is real.
I just looked at our water bill. They calculate it by 100 cubic feet increments. Averaged either up or down depending on how close you are to the break point. For example 480 cubic feet and we are billed for 500. Which isn't very precise. This means that many districts will need NEW meters and better software billing to be able to bill accurately by the day and month and how many days are in each month.
However....To use our billing 500 cubic feet = 3740 gallons. Divided by 30 days. (average month0 = 124.66 gallons per day. With two people in this household we are allowed 110 gallons per day. So....we are already over.
And our water bill is exclusively for indoor usage as we have another source for watering our yard and orchard. This is JUST for indoor use. The average daily water usage for indoors is calculated to be 60 to 70 gallons and Governor Moonbeam wants it to be 55 gallons.
Now. We are a two person, older people household. Our daily water usage is showers in the morning, toilets, brush teeth, dishwasher at night. Drink a few glasses of water, wipe up a spill or two in the kitchen. We do a load or two of laundry a couple of times a week. Mop the floors weekly and clean the bathrooms as needed. Already MINIMAL usage. We aren't luxuriating in big bubble baths, flooding a hot tub.
We have low flow showers and toilets. New water efficient dishwasher. We don't have any water leaks. My husband The Dumbplumber takes care of that issue!
So. Two old people who aren't even watering a plant or two outside are already in the position of being fined.
Think how people with children are going to fare. People who need to do more laundry. With pets. Have gardens or plants to keep alive outdoors. Forget having any guests visit you at your home or company for dinner. They would use the WATER. Flush the toilets and cause you to be even more over in your government mandated usage.
The California Crazy just never ends.
Althouse @7:34
Why do you say that? A free market is an efficient way to allocate scarce resources. As the prices rises consumers use less of the product. But something else also happens. New sources are sought. Californis has a huge amount of water off its coast. All it has to do is remove the salt
”So....we are already over.”
No problem. Althouse has you covered. Just cut your hair.
85% of water use in California is subsidized water project water used by republican farmers who complain about socialism while they cry foul when their subsidies vanish.
This ignores the fact that the land farmers purchased often came with water rights, which turn out to not be a real “right” at all when the State decides to cut your allocation by 80%. No refunds on thus “taking” of course. And no redress. Just, “deal with it” which the fascist left likes and appreciates. And even though the science proves diverting that water to “help” the Delta smelt hasn’t worked at all, “we” keep doing it. It is insane and the supermajority Democrats has until this Tuesday (when one lane tax and spender was recalled for his vote on the gas tax) insulated Sacramento from any corrective the conservative 47% of the State could effect.
The coastals don’t want their views marred by nasty man made structures. No oil rigs....
Has / had
Ack.
Last I looked most of Southern California's water comes from The Colorado. The Water Master, allocator of entitlements among the states through which it flows, is Ryan Zinke, Secretary of Interior. California has frequently used more than its share. Haven't water rights historically been contentious? Didn't reallocation in California itself a few years ago spur almond orchards. One gallon of water yields one almond. Is today's magic food worth it? No, I don't think it's just the California citizen's concern.
And years ago Mexico had issues with that because they’re weren’t getting their share under the contract/treaty whatever they signed.
I’m going to do my part to help Cali and stay away. I always laugh at those tourism commercials.
Cook and Althouse should move to Venezuela and have some personal experience with the results of socialism.
A market solution would increase supply and decrease demand resulting in an equilibrium price and quantity of water. Then you subsidize the bottom with a net "below which no one should fall" to make you feel good about the distribution of water.
Original Mike said...
Chuck said...”Wisconsin's record on "our" water is a bit, uh, spotty.
https://www.wiscontext.org/water-battles-straddle-great-lakes-basin”
Did you read your article, Chuck?
Yeah. Are you talking about the general questions about Michigan's allowing Nestle to bottle and sell Michigan water? Yeah, I saw that. I could've picked a different article on the Waukesha access, but since you had brought up the "12 oz. bottle" concept, I thought it was kind of funny. I think that Gov.Dreyfyus wasn't thinking about Nestle selling Wisconsin water. I think he was thinking about Wisconsin selling Wisconsin water.
In any event, how would Waukesha, Wisconsin be any different from Sacremento, California in terms of using Great Lakes water?
It's at a non consumable point in the hydrologic cycle but since you don't seem to care to differentiate I'm sure we can get rhhardin to send you some of his bottled pee for you to consume.
So a member of the self-fancying “reality-based community” informs us that really recycling a vital molecular resource (which in properly recycled state is basically identical to its original, pre-“dirtied” form) is nonetheless completely beyond the aesthetic pale — therefore, water must be effectively thown away and allowed to run untouched through the remaining riverine system and out to sea, until it's once again (eventually) evaporated away into clouds and rained down onto the land — once the water's already been “used” in some fashion once. Therefore, everyone must be burdened with onerous water-use restrictions that would more or less compel everything from few showers/no bubble baths to crew/pixie cuts and shorts on women and men — according to our hostess anyway. (Well, maybe not the very last… that too would be beyond the pale! Who cares if we're out of water — right?)
And, supposedly, all this stems from “reality-based” progressive reasoning! (Like hell. Lol.)
”but since you had brought up the "12 oz. bottle" concept, I thought it was kind of funny. I think that Gov.Dreyfyus wasn't thinking about Nestle selling Wisconsin water. I think he was thinking about Wisconsin selling Wisconsin water.”
It was a joke about Wisconsin’s brewing tradition. Christ...
Obama: You didn’t build that.
Me: bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Conveniently filtered/cleaned pee is...water.
Maybe Cali should subsidize home filtering systems. A NEW program a socialist should love. Or bring you bottled pee to the local sanitation plant for filtering and take it home. Win-win! They could raise taxes, add more workers and help the environment!
I just remembered that Hill Street Blues scene with Veronica Hamel talking about surviving in the desert.
I’m going to do my part to help Cali and stay away. I always laugh at those tourism commercials.
Me, too. Out loud. They should save their money.
"but what do you propose for a heavily populous state with chronic water shortage problems?"
Secession?
but what do you propose for a heavily populous state with chronic water shortage problems?
An 8.7?
"but what do you propose for a heavily populous state with chronic water shortage problems?"
Prayers to San Andreas.
Just so you know....
We up in The State of Jefferson are also praying to San Andreas. Set us free!
It's a "need" that no one really needs. - Cook
I get so, so tired of totalitarians like you trying to determine what I do and do not need.
How much money is enough. What type of gun I should have. Whether or not I 'need' a fucking dishwasher.
Go to hell.
I live in Santa Cruz County — on the central California coast south of San Francisco. We had a (far advanced) proposal a few years back to (help) solve the county's water supply shortfalls via a desalination plant. The project ultimately got shot down by unflagging environmentalist opposition.
Original Mike said...
”but since you had brought up the "12 oz. bottle" concept, I thought it was kind of funny. I think that Gov.Dreyfyus wasn't thinking about Nestle selling Wisconsin water. I think he was thinking about Wisconsin selling Wisconsin water.”
It was a joke about Wisconsin’s brewing tradition. Christ...
Oh! No; honestly, I did not get that. Now that you mention it, in that time period, I should have gotten it.
My bad on this one. Definitely, my bad.
I was thinking of current Great Lakes real-world water politics.
Before you read VDH, though he's good, read Cadillac Desert by Marc Reisner. A thorough, documented, and entertaining history of water in the western US.
https://www.amazon.com/Engineering-Transportation-Books/b?ie=UTF8&node=173507
If you use cloth diapers for your kids (I do) you need to run quite a few HE loads.
These limits *are* going to affect shower+laundry practice. That's exactly their intent.
Calling 'fake news' without researching how constraining 55 gallons per day per person really is (easy check: how much water did *you* use last month?). Sad.
Luckily swimming pools will get exemptions. Under icky prices people with pools might have to cut down, or pay more than apartment dwellers. With lovely rations and exemptions though, Burt can still still swim home.
What I propose for areas with periodic water shortage problems, is that they conserve waste, not water
Because if you cut back all you can in normal times, what are you going to do in a drought??
But if people use more than they absolutely need to, capacity will adjust. They'll build more reservoirs, or fewer homes, for instyance, and pay less attention to the fish.
Th fake news would be that it's not really per day, but per month.
"I get so, so tired of totalitarians like you trying to determine what I do and do not need.
"How much money is enough. What type of gun I should have. Whether or not I 'need' a fucking dishwasher."
No one needs a diswasher. You may want one, as is your right, but no one needs one.
”Oh! No; honestly, I did not get that. Now that you mention it, in that time period, I should have gotten it.”
At the time, there was a proposal to ship Great Lakes water to the West. Dreyfus was saying “hell, no”.
Speaking of dishwashers, the busybodies were at it again. They want to make them useless or environmentally correct.
There’s a link somewhere to a US I think EPA questionnaire. They want public feedback.
"There is nothing regulating the time a person may shower or when they may or may not do laundry."
This is correct. The law does not regulate activities that use water, it regulates the total amount of water used. Snopes largely ignores the latter and uses the former to generate its "mostly false" conclusion. By narrowing its assessment to the activities claim Snopes produces a misleading result.
"There is nothing in this bill to target households or companies."
I may be reading it incorrectly but the bill allows water supply agencies to assess extreme civil penalties on private persons for violations of regulations and ordinances once they are issued and implemented pursuant to the new law. Thus the bill itself does not target households but it allows the water suppliers to do so - including imprisonment for up to six months.
Brown's statement is dishonesty on stilts.
>> No one needs a dishwasher. You may want one, as is your right, but no one needs one.
How many types of deodorant should there be?
>>Speaking of dishwashers, the busybodies were at it again. They want to make them useless or environmentally correct.
A spoonful of TSP makes them work much better. Puts back the phosphates.
But, it being a post 1984 world, you can buy "Phosphate-free" TSP (tri sodium phosphate).
377. (a) From and after the publication or posting of any ordinance or resolution pursuant to Section 376, a violation of a requirement of a water conservation program adopted pursuant to Section 376 is a misdemeanor. A person convicted under this subdivision shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 30 days, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both.
(b) A court or public entity may hold a person civilly liable in an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for a violation of any of the following:
(1) An ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to Section 376.
(2) A regulation adopted by the board under Section 1058.5 or Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 10609) of Part 2.55 of Division 6, unless the board regulation provides that it cannot be enforced under this section or provides for a lesser applicable maximum penalty.
(c) Commencing on the 31st day after the public entity notified a person of a violation described in subdivision (b), the person additionally may be civilly liable in an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) plus five hundred dollars ($500) for each additional day on which the violation continues.
Rabel,
Ann says: Please stop spreading fake news.
Who are you going to believe? Her, or your own lying eyes?
No one needs a diswasher. You may want one, as is your right, but no one needs one.
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"
If my math is correct (and it very well may not be, I spent all of 1 minute on it), the Great Lakes holds 150,000 times the annual consumption of California.
neener neener
My small house lacks a dishwasher and my vehicle [RV] doesn't have one, either. Since it's only me [or, if you prefer, 'it's only I'], it's easy to do without and I don't miss the noise. My laundry shed has a washer but no dryer so I hang everything on the clothesline. Here in southern AZ things actually dry faster than they do in a dryer.
Restaurants need dishwashers in order to sanitize dishes and flatware at the proper temperature.
No one needs a dishwasher. You may want one, as is your right, but no one needs one.
In Manhattan, a dishwasher is a Dominican woman who also cooks, grocery shops, does some light cleaning, and looks after the kids. Everybody who's anybody needs one.
"Maybe you don't like this law or rankle at too much government regulation, but what do you propose for a heavily populous state with chronic water shortage problems?"
Better management -- of the managers.
A 100 million gallon per day desalination plant costs $658 million and would supply 1.8 million people in California with an additional 55 gallons per day. The estimated $62 billion cost of the "California train to nowhere" would permit around 94 such plants to be built. So, were the train funds invested in desalination instead, California could build enough desalination plants to supply an 169 million people with an additional 55 gallons per day, or California could supply each of it's 40 million residents with an additional 232 gallos per day, which when added to the 55 god current allotment would supply more than three times the per person average daily water usage in the US. Of course, California's environmental whacks would never allow that. Nevertheless, California could be floating in excess water if it's politics weren't so insane and it's budget priorities so incredibly stupid. Maybe this post is suppose to elicit sympathy for Californians, but they will find that sympathy lies somewhere between "shit" and "syphilis" in the dictionary and they deserve both of those before sympathy. So, I say fuck 'em.
When you think of arguing with Cookie always remember:
"progressive" and "fascist" are synonyms.
Act accordingly
John Henry
That's why he is comfortable telling us that we don't "need" dishwashers and would be perfectly comfortable using as much force as if might take to keep us from having one.
John Henry
California could be floating in excess water ......
And sell it for that nasty profit to Nevada AZ or Mexico
@jaydub - And they could power it all with a nice clean nuclear power plant. But then what would they do with all their hair-shirts?
Blogger Michael McNeil said...
I live in Santa Cruz County — on the central California coast south of San Francisco. We had a (far advanced) proposal a few years back to (help) solve the county's water supply shortfalls via a desalination plant. The project ultimately got shot down by unflagging environmentalist opposition.
Hello neighbor. The City of Santa Cruz-Soquel Creek Water District joint desalination project was derailed in part due to the success of the Santa Cruz conservation program.
”The City of Santa Cruz-Soquel Creek Water District joint desalination project was derailed in part due to the success of the Santa Cruz conservation program.”
So California doesn’t have a water shortage after all. Cool.
We had electrical blackouts due to incompetence. Result was recall of governor Gray Davis and election of Arnold.
A day oe two every week of un-announced water shut -off would change things in a hurry.
Despite several severe droughts here, I have never heard of any city or neighborhood being without water.
California could be floating in excess water ......
They could come to Vegas and gamble for it. What could go wrong ?
But what would they do with all that salt ?
Post a Comment