California's new water restrictions send residents fleeing to saner states

[Umka36 781]

I knew a facilities director at a previous employer who wanted everyone to conserve water, and reminded us with the following signs in all the restrooms "If it's yellow, let it mellow. If it's brown flush it down." Quite catchy, but umm I don't need to look at someone's pee when going to the restroom.

 

She even tried experimenting with those waterless McUrinal. Lets just say it didn't last long due to the lingering urine smell.

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/6/californias-new-water-restrictions-send-residents-/

[OriZ 3,157]

lol...one really should not be forced to breathe ammonia. Capping how much water someone can use is so third world it's not even funny. You can charge them more per gallon above a certain threshold(that's what they did in Israel when there was a serious water issue), but not entirely prevent them from access to the water, imo. 

 

Oh, wait, SJW will never accept the fact that the rich will be able to afford to use more water than the poor, so lets make everyone stink. Kinda like they wanna make everyone poor. Great.

Edited June 6, 2018 by OriZ

[bcking 3,157]

The article doesn't explain what happens when you go over. I doubt the utility companies will set up an automatic "stop"  or something once you reach your limit. It's my understanding that your water usage isn't collected on a daily basis, it's every month. 

 

Looking it up I found two "fact-checks" on the subject - 

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/california-laundry-and-shower/

https://www.weeklystandard.com/holmes-lybrand/fact-check-is-it-now-against-the-law-in-california-to-shower-and-do-laundry-on-the-same-day

Interestingly it seems that the Bill is actually focused on water suppliers. The "55 gallons per day" limit is the suggested per person water requirement. The water suppliers will face fines if they go over a certain amount of water usage, which of course they likely would pass onto consumers. Some websites have actually suggested that the "1,000 dollars per day" is for an individual, when it is in fact to the supplier. The suppliers will, ahead of time, think of ways to curb use. The easiest solution would be increased cost for water use when you go over the limit (sort of like a cell phone plan).

 

As for the actual "suggested limit" -

1. 8 minutes is an unnecessary length of time for a shower. I am leisurely and I use at most 5 minutes, probably closer to 3 minutes. That is without thinking about water conservation. I'd be bored in the shower for 8 minutes. 

2. Most modern washing machines use less than the 40 gallons they suggested. Many use down to 15 gallons for an equivalent load. Also remember the 55 gallons is per person, so a family of four would be 120 gallons.

 

I'm all for encouraging water conservation. Not necessarily from a "climate change" standpoint, but just from a basic drought preparedness standpoint. Better to conserve small amounts over time so that when you are in a serious drought situation you aren't cutting down to ~15 gallons per day (like South Africa).

[Boiler 43,381]

Fortunately I have a well.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Dear lord if it be your will. Please let all the MDL wignuts that have ruined that state, stay in that state 

[OriZ 3,157]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

The article doesn't explain what happens when you go over. I doubt the utility companies will set up an automatic "stop"  or something once you reach your limit. It's my understanding that your water usage isn't collected on a daily basis, it's every month. 

 

Looking it up I found two "fact-checks" on the subject - 

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/california-laundry-and-shower/

https://www.weeklystandard.com/holmes-lybrand/fact-check-is-it-now-against-the-law-in-california-to-shower-and-do-laundry-on-the-same-day

Interestingly it seems that the Bill is actually focused on water suppliers. The "55 gallons per day" limit is the suggested per person water requirement. The water suppliers will face fines if they go over a certain amount of water usage, which of course they likely would pass onto consumers. Some websites have actually suggested that the "1,000 dollars per day" is for an individual, when it is in fact to the supplier. The suppliers will, ahead of time, think of ways to curb use. The easiest solution would be increased cost for water use when you go over the limit (sort of like a cell phone plan).

 

As for the actual "suggested limit" -

1. 8 minutes is an unnecessary length of time for a shower. I am leisurely and I use at most 5 minutes, probably closer to 3 minutes. That is without thinking about water conservation. I'd be bored in the shower for 8 minutes. 

2. Most modern washing machines use less than the 40 gallons they suggested. Many use down to 15 gallons for an equivalent load. Also remember the 55 gallons is per person, so a family of four would be 120 gallons.

 

I'm all for encouraging water conservation. Not necessarily from a "climate change" standpoint, but just from a basic drought preparedness standpoint. Better to conserve small amounts over time so that when you are in a serious drought situation you aren't cutting down to ~15 gallons per day (like South Africa).

Speak for yourself - my average shower is about 20 minutes long. Not kidding. I'm sorry but there's nothing leisurely about 3 minutes. And have you ever known any females with long hair? Let me tell you they need at least 10 minutes. 

 

I think there are better ways than this. I mentioned before the Israeli approach as far as price is concerned, but there were other means used too of course. For one, there is desalination. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israel-proves-the-desalination-era-is-here/

https://thenextweb.com/syndication/2017/07/05/desalination-nation-israel-helping-world-fight-water-shortage/

 

Then there was also a device that was distributed for free - you attach to the end of your tap, or a pipe, and it conserves water. It saves about 30% of the water usage without really affecting the flow of it...you can see a pic and read about it(if you translate the page) here https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/חסכם I can find nothing in english about it.

 

here are a couple more articles about the different solutions and one of them even mentions it helping California

 

https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/how-israel-can-help-a-thirsty-world-1.5392651

https://www.timesofisrael.com/white-house-taps-israeli-tech-to-help-solve-california-water-problems/

 

I think what CA is doing instead of actually investing in solutions is jumping the gun. I actually think over the long term, the water situation could get better, not worse. Not naturally of course - but due to solutions stemming from human ingenuity. Hell, desalination could actually prove to be a win-win, if it helps have more drinking water, while at the same time(obviously when there's enough of them) somewhat combating rising sea levels? who knows.

[bcking 3,157]

6 minutes ago, OriZ said:

Speak for yourself - my average shower is about 20 minutes long. Not kidding. I'm sorry but there's nothing leisurely about 3 minutes. And have you ever known any females with long hair? Let me tell you they need at least 10 minutes. 

 

I think there are better ways than this. I mentioned before the Israeli approach as far as price is concerned, but there were other means used too of course. For one, there is desalination. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israel-proves-the-desalination-era-is-here/

https://thenextweb.com/syndication/2017/07/05/desalination-nation-israel-helping-world-fight-water-shortage/

 

Then there was also a device that was distributed for free - you attach to the end of your tap, or a pipe, and it conserves water. It saves about 30% of the water usage without really affecting the flow of it...you can see a pic and read about it(if you translate the page) here https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/חסכם I can find nothing in english about it.

 

here are a couple more articles about the different solutions and one of them even mentions it helping California

 

https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/how-israel-can-help-a-thirsty-world-1.5392651

https://www.timesofisrael.com/white-house-taps-israeli-tech-to-help-solve-california-water-problems/

 

I think what CA is doing instead of actually investing in solutions is jumping the gun. I actually think over the long term, the water situation could get better, not worse. Not naturally of course - but due to solutions stemming from human ingenuity. Hell, desalination could actually prove to be a win-win, if it helps have more drinking water, while at the same time(obviously when there's enough of them) somewhat combating rising sea levels? who knows.

This law doesn't dictate to the water companies how to encourage restricting water usage. They very well may use the Israel approach. The law isn't cutting off homes. It is directly at the urban water supply companies. The fines are directed at them. They have to decide what to do with their clients.

 

Desalination is of course important, I know South Africa has been pushing to get more places up and running to help them. The device you list could of course be used by homes, and encouraged by the companies.

 

California is not doing anything direct to home owners. They are setting restrictions on water suppliers, and water supplies have to figure out how to make that work. They could go with the Israel approach, or they could use other approachs (provide kickbacks for homes that have water-conserving elements such as an efficient washing machine etc...). The recommended per capita limit can always be changed in the future if there are improvements in access to water and shortages aren't as much of a concern. 

 

EDIT: Oh and I don't mean to sound harsh but a 20 minute shower is wasteful, and in many places I would consider it irresponsible. Depends on where you live though. If the system saw you paying more for that extra water, then go ahead and enjoy

Edited June 6, 2018 by bcking

[Sonea 138]

During the drought period 2013-2016, most water supplies were charging around a 50% surcharge on water. It  went away in 2016. I suspect something like that may happen again.

 

 

[X Factor 1,110]

1 hour ago, OriZ said:

Speak for yourself - my average shower is about 20 minutes long. Not kidding. I'm sorry but there's nothing leisurely about 3 minutes. And have you ever known any females with long hair? Let me tell you they need at least 10 minutes. 

 

My wife has loooong hair and showes for at least 15 minutes per day

[Neonred 3,444]

3 hours ago, Boiler said:

Fortunately I have a well.

Same here, and septic system.  Can't believe what some of my friends locally have to pay each month for water and sewer, and the quality of their water is not very good.  Tastes like it came out of the swimming pool.

Edited June 6, 2018 by Neonred

[OriZ 3,157]

3 hours ago, Boiler said:

Fortunately I have a well.

We have a well too, it's almost right under us.

 

2 hours ago, bcking said:

This law doesn't dictate to the water companies how to encourage restricting water usage. They very well may use the Israel approach. The law isn't cutting off homes. It is directly at the urban water supply companies. The fines are directed at them. They have to decide what to do with their clients.

 

Desalination is of course important, I know South Africa has been pushing to get more places up and running to help them. The device you list could of course be used by homes, and encouraged by the companies.

 

California is not doing anything direct to home owners. They are setting restrictions on water suppliers, and water supplies have to figure out how to make that work. They could go with the Israel approach, or they could use other approachs (provide kickbacks for homes that have water-conserving elements such as an efficient washing machine etc...). The recommended per capita limit can always be changed in the future if there are improvements in access to water and shortages aren't as much of a concern. 

 

EDIT: Oh and I don't mean to sound harsh but a 20 minute shower is wasteful, and in many places I would consider it irresponsible. Depends on where you live though. If the system saw you paying more for that extra water, then go ahead and enjoy

Well considering I'm in VT, there's no shortage of water here, though even in Israel I would take long showers, I would just pay for them. A shower to me is more than just about cleaning off, it's a place to think - some of my clearest thoughts come while I'm in the shower, it's a place to wash your day off in, hell even when I have a headache sometimes, 20 minutes in the shower take care of it. It also helps warm up if you just came in from sub zero weather, and I take real hot ones(it's not uncommon for me to actually run out of hot water in that 20 minute span). Showers are magical.

 

1 hour ago, X Factor said:

My wife has loooong hair and showes for at least 15 minutes per day

Exactly. Mine has extremely long hair(almost down to her butt) and she needs at least 10-12 minutes usually, and I consider her quick. I just like mine longer than that.

[bcking 3,157]

I'm a morning shower person. For me it's just to wake up. 3 minutes is plenty.

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

5 hours ago, bcking said:

This law doesn't dictate to the water companies how to encourage restricting water usage. They very well may use the Israel approach. The law isn't cutting off homes. It is directly at the urban water supply companies. The fines are directed at them. They have to decide what to do with their clients.

 

Desalination is of course important, I know South Africa has been pushing to get more places up and running to help them. The device you list could of course be used by homes, and encouraged by the companies.

 

California is not doing anything direct to home owners. They are setting restrictions on water suppliers, and water supplies have to figure out how to make that work. They could go with the Israel approach, or they could use other approachs (provide kickbacks for homes that have water-conserving elements such as an efficient washing machine etc...). The recommended per capita limit can always be changed in the future if there are improvements in access to water and shortages aren't as much of a concern. 

 

EDIT: Oh and I don't mean to sound harsh but a 20 minute shower is wasteful, and in many places I would consider it irresponsible. Depends on where you live though. If the system saw you paying more for that extra water, then go ahead and enjoy

The only way the water districts know how to encourage water usage is by raising the price of the water and encouraging people to rat out neighbors on how they use their water. 

 

Desalination is important and the San Diego area is building a desalination plant right now. They had one up in Santa Barbara as well that was de-commissioned but they started putting it back together back in 2016 to get more fresh water out of it. The problem with that is the environmentalists hate the plants and claim that it raises the salinity of the surrounding water because it sucks out the water and leaves the salt in the water. They also claim that animals are sucked up into the water pipes as well. 

 

The state is going to the water districts and saying basically that you have X amount of houses in the water with X amount of people, so the water district should only being X amount of water per day. So if the water district is fined at least $1k a day of being over so then it has to send that charge off to the customers. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

4 hours ago, Sonea said:

During the drought period 2013-2016, most water supplies were charging around a 50% surcharge on water. It  went away in 2016. I suspect something like that may happen again.

What was even funnier was that there were some water districts that encouraged/promoted their people to save on water. So the people saved on water and the district was under the water estimate which was good. Then the water district goes and raises the rates because they aren't making alot of money due to people's water conservation efforts. 

[TBoneTX 43,001]

9 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Dear lord if it be your will. Please let all the MDL wignuts that have ruined that state, stay in that state 

Maybe if all the rest of us lined up on the San Andreas Fault and jumped up & down for long enough, Cali would break off from the continental U.S. and float west in the Pacific Ocean.  We know that Guam will tip over into the ocean if enough people stand on it, so this will work with Cali.