It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Jim Metropulos, legislative director for California State Assemblywoman Laura Friedman (D-Glendale) who authored 1668, told us the legislation sets water efficiency goals for water districts and municipalities on the territorial level, but it does not regulate what individual Californians or businesses can and can’t do: “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.”
The legislation instead will prompt water agencies to set methods and goals for reducing per capita water use over time, starting in 2022. In a statement released by Brown’s office, the governor said the legislation is meant to brace the state for the next water shortage:
originally posted by: stormcell
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.
originally posted by: Wrapscalllion
a reply to: fiverx313
Yup. But.... You realize that cement ditch that runs through los Angeles was actually a real river once? And you,can look at satellite imagery now and see that the Colorado does not make it to the sea now. Too many people in a spot that is naturally not able to support that many.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: fiverx313
Will look at this, but really. . .
Having Snopes invalidate leftist insanity is like having MSNBC verify CNN.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: fiverx313
Problem: Fines and additional regulatory fees are passed on to the customer. This means that yes, in fact consumers will be the ones paying for overages and not just their own personal ones... it will raise everyone's bill (except for the subsidized users who are paid for by higher costs to non-subsidized users, they'll not personally see any additional hardship tacked on to their present liability of, uhm, nothing)
Now I realize some of y'all ridicule the economically sound principle that higher wage controls will always equal higher point of sale costs, and I also know y'all take that position purely by saying "well, the companies need to be made to take lower profits." But we are talking about public-private partnerships with utilities, meaning their costs passed to the customer have a fixed escalation factor which gives them modest, at best, profits. In other words, there won't be any option but to pass the costs on to the customer and with the per user cap set ridiculously low, they're guaranteed to have overages system-wide.
Again... California, land of the #heads running the #show.
originally posted by: Grimmley
a reply to: TonyS
Smartmeters and to think they always said it would not be used to spy on you ..lol whoever believed that was an idiot.