California's new water rules WTH?

originally posted by: dragonridr
You guys are allowing comservative media to lie to you. The bill requires cities, water districts and large agricultural water districts to set annual water budgets. In other words tell the state how much water they will use. Failure to meet these budgets is a fine if 1000.00 per day to whowver provides your water service. The rule is set at 55 gal per person in there water district. To be fined everyone in there water district would have ro exceed 55 gallons.

Now suppose your a family of four you have 120 gallons per day and doesn't seem to difficult. But if you go over as long as others on your water district dont the water district wont be fined.

Except you will get the rich using most that water budget up leaving the water company's to take draconian measures and it will like always fall on the poor and middle classes.

well.. nobody that's been paying attention can say they didn't see this coming. It's going to be a struggle for almost everyone I imagine.

Just..please..don't come to Texas. We are overrun already and have our own water issues. Probably be the same as Cali in so,e areas in about 20 years. I had a great professor a few years ago tell me that he believed water wars would be the issue of the future. He didn't think it would be in his lifetime though.

On the bright side-- if you're one of those types who can design a system that uses laundry water to flush the toilets or something and make it affordable, you could become quite wealthy overnight! Maybe just a couple different cisterns and some pipe would do the job..have the used laundry water diverted to a tank hooked up to the sewage system?

Now yoir just being silly ok even if your water district is fined if they spread it out among users. It would add less then a penny to most water bills. If by chance your in a wayer district with a low number of people you might have ti go as high as 50 cents. Dont think this is going to break the bank. However those same fines can be used to expand facilities so its a win win.

a reply to: angeldoll

" Water is a resource most of us take for granted, and we need to accept that we need to value it more."



Move to New Jersey , the Entire State is a Desalination Plant . The Largest Source of Fresh Water in the U.S. . Sip......

And last year, when they had a "surplus" of precip, billions and BILLIONS of gallons of water flowed right downhill and into the Pacific.

When you put a hippie and progressives in charge, you get Caifornia: The Next Venezuela. Watch it happen, folks.

Desalination plants would be the perfect solution but for the fact that it would impede the views of the multimillion dollar two bedroom one bathroom bungalows.

originally posted by: Gargoyle91
a reply to: angeldoll

You do live here right? It's only a Beautiful Wonderful place to live if you make $250,000 a year .

Big state, really not smart to act like it is the same across the whole. My acre and home cost me 100,000 and I live very well on less than most of you would feel you need for extra crud a year,.

Dumb ignorant masses of earth, resources are finite they are not going to grow with the population.
Water resources are becoming scarce
www.worldwatercouncil.org...

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Gargoyle91

How the hell they going to enforce this? Fines for "over limit amount"?

Yes.

This is not new.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Desalination plants would be the perfect solution but for the fact that it would impede the views of the multimillion dollar two bedroom one bathroom bungalows.

Desalination is actually very expensive. They are trying to get approved one now. Problem is rhe cost for consumer's. At $2,200 an acre foot, it’s twice the cost of imported water and more than five times the cost of the limited amounts available from Orange County’s groundwater aquifer. Just so you know an acre foot is 326,000 gallons – enough for two small families for a year. So i dont know about you but i dont thi bn k alot of families want to pay 1,100.00 + addituonal expenses for pumps electeical usage distribution and monitoring. These families would get $400.00 water bills easily.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Desalination plants would be the perfect solution but for the fact that it would impede the views of the multimillion dollar two bedroom one bathroom bungalows.

have you looked at the plants they do have like Carlsbad?

Desalination takes quite a lot of energy, so it is expensive. Also, the residue is very saline brine, which must be disposed of without causing too many environmental problems. So desalination isn't cheap and easy. Here in the GCC, for example Qatar, effectively all domestic use water comes from desalination plants.

www.quora.com...

In the end, we will destroy what is left of the sea life.

a reply to: SeaWorthy

Then I'd get used to not putting ice in your bourbon.




This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. You place a large population in an area with limited water resources, you're going to have water shortages.

Either get more water or less people.


The math is pretty simple.

originally posted by: dragonridr
Now yoir just being silly ok even if your water district is fined if they spread it out among users. It would add less then a penny to most water bills. If by chance your in a wayer district with a low number of people you might have ti go as high as 50 cents. Dont think this is going to break the bank. However those same fines can be used to expand facilities so its a win win.

Ah, reminiscent of Nancy Pelosi saying $1,000 bonuses to workers and tax cut yields to them were "crumbs" and totally negligible in their personal finances. It's a right proper riot when you consider you're supporting a system by which a set-in-stone threshold has been established, the crossing over of which will immediately lead to fines, by arguing that the additional expenses to customers (many of whom are on essentially a fixed income) won't be a big deal. Screw that green fascist horsecrap! One of these days lawmakers in Calfiornia are going to run out of other people's money (more like other people and their money are going to run right out of California) and the people presently placated by the pandering and handouts will go to their dog bowls and find them barren... oh the long knives, pitchforks, and torches will be a beautiful sight on that day, my friend.

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
Also, the residue is very saline brine, which must be disposed of without causing too many environmental problems.

This is the easiest part of this, really. Between a combination of selling the brine to seasalt companies and livestock nutritional supplement manufacturers and mixing it with the effluent off the coastal water treatment plants prior to that treated water being dumped into the Pacific, the brine shouldn't be a factor here.

a reply to: burdman30ott6



Either California is runs by a bunch of mouth breathing morons, or the idea of low water is really a new concept to California's government.

They wait and wait until they "have" to create taxes on water use.

They basically either created this shortage by not monitoring it or are feckless ####'s.

(I say feckless ####'s because lefty's think it's cool now)

a reply to: SeaWorthy

Water resources would be less scarce if fewer people felt like they needed to live in the desert because it has the "perfect" climate.

Sure, the coastal areas in Cali are remarkably stable and seldom see inclement weather, but that contributes to the lack of water. They are historically a desert, arid ... as in not much water. There is that trade-off.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

They could even mix that brine with gray water coming out of wastewater treatment plants. That stuff can't be put into drinking water supplies, but in many places, they do put it into circulation.

Why not mix it back into seawater proportion and put it back into the system?

The water can't be lost, but it has to be made reclaimable and diluting the brine with gray water would work.

a reply to: ketsuko


Speaking of grey water, check your PMs.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: snowspirit
Cisterns.

www.latimes.com...

More people could follow in Adler's steps under a bill in the California Legislature. The proposal, which would encourage homeowners to collect rainwater, could make its way onto the 2018 statewide ballot.
New construction, renovation, new ownership and some purchases for a home require a property tax reassessment, which typically increases a tax bill. A proposal from state Sen. Steve Glazer (D-Orinda), SCA 9, would exclude rainwater capture systems from property tax reassessments starting in 2019.

Legal now, apparently, to collect water. Everyone who is easily able to, should.

Southern California is a desert. Rainwater collection will make little difference for most people. Maybe a couple of extra gallons in the winter months, at best.

Southern California isn't a desert. I live in a Desert. Las Vegas. Southern California is a cool, wonderful, oasis compared to an actual desert. Everying is so green there. It's amazing. Politics aside.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Jesus Christ California is a #hole.

No it's not. It is one of the most beautiful and productive states on the mainland, and it's good points far outweigh it's bad ones.
They may be one of the first to need to conserve water, but as time rolls on, most other states will need to follow.
Water is a resource most of us take for granted, and we need to accept that we need to value it more.

You do realize desalination is a viable option that requires no conservation on the part of the consumer?

California is a craphole with ignorant unproductive leadership. Silicone Valley is where California's wealth comes from, the leadership is where that money is flushed down the toilet. Of course the same could be said about much of the world's leadership.

Desalination is extremely limited in places where it can be used. It's only economically viable in areas with cheap energy. It's only environmentally viable in areas with a very long coastline. California is pretty much the only state in the US aside from maybe Florida that meets both of those criteria and even then they're having trouble getting it to work.

originally posted by: rickymouse
They are all messed up in California, look at this info. www.motherjones.com...

They are complaining about their people using water around the house yet blow lots of water growing foods that are nothing more than sales scams to bring money into California. The businesses and agriculture will not have limitations on them, just citizens. For every avacado the person eats that day, knock off thirty gallons of water they are allowed to use.

I do not know what kind of nuts they got in charge over there in California, but maybe their people should start to examine what is really going on there.

Everyone knows about how the farmers waste water. They've been doing this for decades. Every farm gets a water allocation as part of their water rights. If they use less water than they did the previous year, then their allocation gets reduced and allocated to someone else the next year. That totally screws them if they need extra water the next year. So they make sure they use their entire allocation. They of course could use polytunnels or hydroponic gardens but that would upset the environmentalists.

I could see households moving to water recycling/purification systems. Instead of letting water from showers, washing machines and dish washers go to waste, it could be recycled untreated for toilets, but could also be filtered and disinfected for reuse.