If we leave California... where to?

[Caroline]

1 hour ago, Lanny said:

 

I read  somewhere, probably yesterday or today, that some organization, possibly in the U.N., says that 100 gallons per day is more probable, with regard to daily use of water by a household member. It takes a huge amount of gallons of water, for example, to fill up a bathtub.  All of the consumption adds up.  This new tax in CA doesn't seem to include people who might want to wash their car or water their lawn.  It will be interesting to see how this works out when it is implemented.

The UN says 50-100 liters per day. 100 liters is 26.4 gallons. 

[Corraleno]

I'm kind of gobsmacked that people consider 50 gallons/person/day to be inadequate for household use — we average about 35 gallons/person/day, and that's with two teenagers (who like their showers), regular shower heads, and a non-HE toploader. We do have low-flush toilets. The only time we have ever exceeded 50 gallons/person/day was the first summer we were here when we watered the lawn a lot. Since we stopped watering the lawn, we rarely get even close to 50 gallons/person/day, and have not exceeded that (at least on a monthly average basis) even once in the last 3 years. And we are not especially water conscious — we do wash the car sometimes, my kids take long showers, my son washes his sports uniform every night as a small load on its own, etc. Even if we decided to put in a veggie garden, I'm sure we could still keep our usage under 50 gallons/person/day by using a drip system and conserving in other areas.

The idea that people who are limited to 50 gallons/person/day can't even flush toilets or take showers or run the dishwasher is absolutely absurd. ?

[Pawz4me]

And I'm gobsmacked that anyone in a drought region would defend wasting water on a lawn,  or that anyone in a drought prone region would plant anything that isn't native to the area/drought tolerant. I mean . . . why?? We don't live in a drought prone area, but we still opt for plants and grasses that naturally do well in the conditions we generally have. Why make stuff harder than it has to be? I don't understand that at all.

[ktgrok]

6 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

And I'm gobsmacked that anyone in a drought region would defend wasting water on a lawn,  or that anyone in a drought prone region would plant anything that isn't native to the area/drought tolerant. I mean . . . why?? We don't live in a drought prone area, but we still opt for plants and grasses that naturally do well in the conditions we generally have. Why make stuff harder than it has to be? I don't understand that at all.

Here in Florida a lot of HOA's require a lawn ?

[Lanny]

Follow on: It was not a U.N. agency.   It was the U.S. Dept. of Interior.  Apparently the average person in the USA uses 80 to 100 gallons of water each day.  As others have mentioned in this thread, part of the issue with the water in CA is the crumbling infrastructure, which causes them to lose huge quantities of water..  This new law will fine the water companies $1000 USD, per day, if their customers go over what the State of California believes they should collectively use. So, the water companies will then pass that cost along to their customers.

[Pawz4me]

11 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Here in Florida a lot of HOA's require a lawn ?

But you're not in a drought prone area, are you? And it probably would--or certainly should--be a simple matter for California to pass a law that prohibits HOAs from imposing watering or non-native grass/shrub/tree requirements.

[Corraleno]

33 minutes ago, Lanny said:

Follow on: It was not a U.N. agency.   It was the U.S. Dept. of Interior.  Apparently the average person in the USA uses 80 to 100 gallons of water each day.  As others have mentioned in this thread, part of the issue with the water in CA is the crumbling infrastructure, which causes them to lose huge quantities of water..  This new law will fine the water companies $1000 USD, per day, if their customers go over what the State of California believes they should collectively use. So, the water companies will then pass that cost along to their customers.

The fact that the average person in the US uses that much doesn't mean that the average person needs that much — or even close to that much. It just means that Americans are used to wasting huge amounts of water without thinking about it. The idea that people water their lawns with expensively-processed drinking water seems crazy to me, especially in light of the fact that there are roughly 2 billion people in the world who do not have safe drinking water at home, of which 850 million have no access to safe water at all, not even to drink. And yet we bitch about not being able to dump unlimited amounts of clean, processed drinking water in our yards — during a drought no less. 

 

[ktgrok]

58 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

But you're not in a drought prone area, are you? And it probably would--or certainly should--be a simple matter for California to pass a law that prohibits HOAs from imposing watering or non-native grass/shrub/tree requirements.

Yes, I have been. Where I am at now seems to be better than where I grew up, but water restrictions were a way of life there. Most years there were restrictions on watering grass, not being allowed to wash cars, etc. 

And yeah, we should pass a law about it, but guess who really likes having nice pretty lawns? Rich people that donate to politicians. 

[SeaConquest]

3 hours ago, Plum Crazy said:

Different regions water companies applied different conservation goals and fines. I seem to recall some counties were harsher than others. 

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Water-Conservation-Goals-and-Penalties-Vary-Depending-on-Where-You-Are-305782361.html

 

Right, but I grew up in LA and Ventura counties, went to college in the Inland Empire, went to law school in Silicon Valley, have lived/owned homes in OC, LA, and SD at various points in my life, and have a sister that has lived/owned homes in SF, Marin, and Sonoma county in the last 15+ years. Neither of us have experienced the kind of draconian water restrictions that are being discussed in this thread. It is complete hyperbole, IME. 

[Targhee]

6 hours ago, regentrude said:

You quote the website of an organization whose sole purpose is the promotion of turfgrass ?

Landscaping with native plants and shrubs that are adapted to an arid climate has a cooling effect as well.

Not as significant a one. Transpiration from grass will be mich higher than say yucca or rabbit brush.

I am for xerascaping though.  And smart solar design in planning and siting a house.  But so much if this needs to be done at the beginning to be affordable for people.

I am for water conservation as well. LA and the inland empire have too many people consuming water at too high levels, but let’s get real.  What about industrial water? Agricultural water? And of course landscaping water (fountains, pools and water parks, etc).  I haven’t read the bill but I certainly hope it gets to restricting those users as well. Are we really going to continue to farm CITRUS in the desert? It broke my heart to drive through the Central Valley 4 years ago and see entire almond orchards dead on the west side of the highway and the giant canal on the east side moving water further south.

[shinyhappypeople]

11 hours ago, regentrude said:

You quote the website of an organization whose sole purpose is the promotion of turfgrass ?

Landscaping with native plants and shrubs that are adapted to an arid climate has a cooling effect as well.

? Fair point.  I know this information, and looked to google to find someone to explain it better than I could.   My POINT is that a yard isn't inherently "wasteful." It does have a good use.

[shinyhappypeople]

Now to figure out how to find a job in Idaho or Arizona.  I think those are our two top picks.  Possibly Texas. I'm open to job hunting suggestions. I've never done (or helped with) an out-of-state job search.  Heck, I've never even sold a house.  We've lived in this house for 18 - almost our entire marriage.  Thinking through the practicalities of our escape is daunting.  Stuff's getting real.

[DawnM]

25 minutes ago, shinyhappypeople said:

Now to figure out how to find a job in Idaho or Arizona.  I think those are our two top picks.  Possibly Texas. I'm open to job hunting suggestions. I've never done (or helped with) an out-of-state job search.  Heck, I've never even sold a house.  We've lived in this house for 18 - almost our entire marriage.  Thinking through the practicalities of our escape is daunting.  Stuff's getting real.

 

Time for a road trip?  Maybe that will help as well.  Check out some places.

As for job hunts out of state, what kind of work does your husband do?  My husband just hits the "apply" button on the websites and uploads his resume.  It annoys me to no end because I feel that there should be a cover letter and a personal email to send a resume to, but his corporate job doesn't work that way.  And then they fly him out for an interview if they are interested.  For my job, I have to get individual cover letters, send them directly to my future employer and possibly spend my own money to go out for a job interview (although I have had phone interviews as well.)

Oh, and when we moved from CA to NC, Dh took a huge paycut.  We weren't even entirely sure we could make it on his salary.  We did, but the numbers were scary to us.

[shawthorne44]

 

Yesterday, shortly after reading this thread I took DD to meet some friends at the splash-pad.   There I met a homeschooling parent who is a good friend of a good friend - who moved here from California.  They'd moved a few years ago.   In their case the CA problem seems to be mainly Affluenza in the area they lived.  They have two early college and two early elementary kids.   When their olders were late teenagers, they were horrified by the other teenage kids in the area.   They counted themselves blessed that their two older kids kept their heads screwed on straight, and then fled the state.  

 

[KrissiK]

9 hours ago, Targhee said:

Not as significant a one. Transpiration from grass will be mich higher than say yucca or rabbit brush.

I am for xerascaping though.  And smart solar design in planning and siting a house.  But so much if this needs to be done at the beginning to be affordable for people.

This is true. And they are doing much more with regulations and new building. When our house was built, because of air pollution regulations, they couldn’t put in a working fireplace. I don’t know the exact laws now, but I think now you can only have gas fireplaces. It’s one thing to go into a situation, knowing what you’re getting into, (we knew having a new house we would not have a wood fireplace and we decided we were ok with that) but what makes it far more irritating is having the govt. impose regulations and decreasing our standard of living and increasing taxes all the time and we get nothing for it. And they still refuse to build more storage. It’s kind of like the difference between moving into a house by an airport and then thinking you have a right to complain about the noise, as opposed to moving into a house and then 5 years later they decide to build an airport next door. 

[Liz CA]

4 hours ago, shinyhappypeople said:

Now to figure out how to find a job in Idaho or Arizona.  I think those are our two top picks.  Possibly Texas. I'm open to job hunting suggestions. I've never done (or helped with) an out-of-state job search.  Heck, I've never even sold a house.  We've lived in this house for 18 - almost our entire marriage.  Thinking through the practicalities of our escape is daunting.  Stuff's getting real.

 

Depending on the type of work, have you considered signing up with a head hunter? It can be a pain in some respects but also a foot in the door in a completely new area.

Online applications have made job hunting easier in some respects but more impersonal in others. Resumes are filtered by computer frequently (not in all companies) and unless there are some key words in the resume / cover letter, the application never makes it onto someone's desk.

Also, how about networking? Do you know someone (a friend of a friend even) who has connections in the area? Can professional associations like licensing agencies / membership organizations be of help? For example, nurses can list their names on registries in various areas or something similar?

[maize]

21 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

Depending on the type of work, have you considered signing up with a head hunter? It can be a pain in some respects but also a foot in the door in a completely new area.

Online applications have made job hunting easier in some respects but more impersonal in others. Resumes are filtered by computer frequently (not in all companies) and unless there are some key words in the resume / cover letter, the application never makes it onto someone's desk.

Also, how about networking? Do you know someone (a friend of a friend even) who has connections in the area? Can professional associations like licensing agencies / membership organizations be of help? For example, nurses can list their names on registries in various areas or something similar?

How would a person go about finding a head hunter to sign up with?

I've wondered about this before.

[Liz CA]

8 minutes ago, maize said:

How would a person go about finding a head hunter to sign up with?

I've wondered about this before.

 

Here is one: https://www.roberthalf.com/?&mkwid=ifo2ZLzd-dc_pcrid_273490647024_pkw_%2Bheadhunting_pmt_b_pdv_c&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI75yJ9_bV2wIVFIZ-Ch0uxAi4EAAYASAAEgIxgfD_BwE

Just google "head hunters" or "staffing" or "employment agencies" in the state your are interested in. Sometimes, in a specific field like medicine or engineering, specialized head hunters will work in this sector only.

[Katy]

If you post a good updated resume on a job board like monster (there are dozens), and it's in an in-demand field, you'll have headhunters contact you.  DH is an engineer and he gets calls and emails at least once a month.  He works for his dream company and is unlikely to leave, so he hasn't even updated his online resume in more than 5 years. He still gets contacted constantly.

[Liz CA]

32 minutes ago, Katy said:

If you post a good updated resume on a job board like monster (there are dozens), and it's in an in-demand field, you'll have headhunters contact you.  DH is an engineer and he gets calls and emails at least once a month.  He works for his dream company and is unlikely to leave, so he hasn't even updated his online resume in more than 5 years. He still gets contacted constantly.

 

28 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Yeah, it just depends on the field.  We get regular calls and emails too.  Indeed was the most useful service we used this last go around.

 

This is true for us as well. Years ago (2009 - I think) dh was looking and he has been with the current company for 8 years now but we still get emails. He found it more helpful to find specialized recruiters for his field than just contacting general head hunters.

Again, depending on type of work I'd also go to a county's website and scan what openings they have in addition to Monster, Indeed, Glassdoor and recruiters.

[Alicia64]

Hi Shiny Happy!

I haven't read the thread -- only your original post. We moved out of Sac in 2010 -- a move we consider super smart and successful. If you want info. PM me.

We went to one state that I loved for five years, and then DH's job took him to another state (which is perfectly fine, but we made wonderful friends in the first state we were in after CA).

Also, look closely at which states have no state income tax. Wish we were in one.

Alley

[ktgrok]

23 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

 

This is true for us as well. Years ago (2009 - I think) dh was looking and he has been with the current company for 8 years now but we still get emails. He found it more helpful to find specialized recruiters for his field than just contacting general head hunters.

Again, depending on type of work I'd also go to a county's website and scan what openings they have in addition to Monster, Indeed, Glassdoor and recruiters.

Same. The head jointers find him on Linked In. I’d get on there ASAP.

[Lanny]

LinkedIn and Indeed are the 2 I would suggest concentrating on.  According to their TV and radio commercials, Indeed places far more people than Monster or the other job sites.  Also, if there is a job board for the profession one is in, for example on IEEE.ORG for those who are IEEE members. There's another site for people with Security Clearances.  There are all kinds of sites, but if I was only on 2 of them, it would be LinkedIn and Indeed. 

[Faith-manor]

I cannot recommend Michigan. We have a mess economically, Detroit and Flint water is a life threatening disaster, Battle Creek has now been identified as another potential water crisis, we have 67 superfund sites most of which are NOT being cleaned up at all,  Lansing doesn't know what the heck it is doing - says the state can't afford to do anything about the water, but gave the owner of the Detroit Pistons 34 million towards a new stadium - infrastructure is crumbling, winter heat is getting really expensive, schools are in the bottom five now in the nation, college costs keep going up and up, community college is unregulated so some of them are good but many of them are bad and the credits earned are not transferable, and....

This is a gorgeous, gorgeous state to visit and anyone who can, should. From Sleeping Bear Dunes, to Mackinaw Island, to Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore and the Keeweenaw Peninsula, and the miles and miles of beaches that look like ocean water front but are more pleasant, we have that part down. It's everything else that is in the crapper. And frankly, the only places with jobs are Grand Rapids, Ann Arbor, and the burbs of Detroit which is NOT low COL. Those are the places with good healthcare as well. If you live in Traverse City or Marquette you have barely okay healthcare. Everywhere else has exactly total crap. And while Midland "looks" like a great place, the reality is that DOW is killing everyone with environmental contaminants. Children can't go barefoot in their own yards for the chemicals they absorb through their feet. Lansing.does.not.care. Literally, not a single politician on that "hill" truly gives even a smidgeon of care about human life. Debby Stabenow, our senior federal senator, is absolutely awesome, and she tries so very, very hard for the people here. But she's a lone fish trying to swim up Niagara Falls.

Ohio would be a much better bet. The schools, economy, and infrastructure are better. Cleveland Clinic and Cincinnati U provide top notch healthcare, the COL isn't too bad even Columbus is affordable for many middle income folks, the northeast on Lake Erie is gorgeous, Cayahoga Falls National Park is wonderful, and the southeast portion of the state is in the Appalachian Valley which means all four seasons of change, but he winter is much more manageable and the growing season is nice and long. You are then striking distance to some fantastic visiting in the Mid-Atlantic States, of course Michigan, and some of the gorgeous southern areas like the Smoky Mountains in Tennessee. 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

18 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

And while Midland "looks" like a great place, the reality is that DOW is killing everyone with environmental contaminants. Children can't go barefoot in their own yards for the chemicals they absorb through their feet. 

 

I'm googling but I can't find anything about this. Do you have a link?

[SamanthaCarter]

Headhunters can be really helpful. The one that contacted DH this last go round for the job he eventually ended up taking was fantastic. The good ones are like good real estate agents (if there is such a thing) in that they will really advocate for you and give you an idea about what to ask for, what not to ask for and just getting to know you in a way that they can better match you to a strong prospect. Some are just approaching it as just a numbers game, but not all.

[Lady Florida.]

2 hours ago, Liz CA said:

 

 

This is true for us as well. Years ago (2009 - I think)

OT but does anyone else find it mildly scary to see 2009 referred to as "years ago"? And yet, it's true. It was almost 10 years ago.

[Lanny]

The title of this thread includes the words "where to?" and that will take a lot of research on the part of the OP.  

 For those in San Francisco, I read this article this morning and it made me so sad. I remember going to San Francisco and when the weather there is nice, it is really a beautiful city. But now, they are collecting 275K Needles and Syringes each month on the streets?  I've also read about and seen things on TV about this in L.A. and in Orange County and in San Diego.  Very sad.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/16/tourists-visiting-san-francisco-question-if-theyre-in-bad-side-town.html

[shawthorne44]

 

I noticed the same thing on the news feed this morning.  I remember thinking I was glad I went a few times many years ago before SF went downhill.  

I don't know if this is true, I heard one of the problems is the lack of plastic bags.   The homeless used to ... deposit bodily waste in them.  But the bags were banned.  

Did you hear about that video gaming convention (or was it a competition?) in SF?   A huge percentage voted to never return.   Including one of the top players in some game, who is literally a sheep shepherd by professional, lives remote without running water.   He said, "There is sh^^ everywhere!"
 

[shinyhappypeople]

2 hours ago, Lanny said:

The title of this thread includes the words "where to?" and that will take a lot of research on the part of the OP.  

 For those in San Francisco, I read this article this morning and it made me so sad. I remember going to San Francisco and when the weather there is nice, it is really a beautiful city. But now, they are collecting 275K Needles and Syringes each month on the streets?  I've also read about and seen things on TV about this in L.A. and in Orange County and in San Diego.  Very sad.

 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/16/tourists-visiting-san-francisco-question-if-theyre-in-bad-side-town.html

Yup.  It's sad, really.  The cost of rent is astronomical and there is so much homelessness, drug addition, mental illness.  So many hurting people.  Some areas of town literally smell like s---t.   And... I'm going to stop now before I go deep into politics.  Yes, San Francisco is beautiful and broken.  We'll stick to our routine of going straight to the ballpark and leaving.  

[KrissiK]

5 hours ago, shawthorne44 said:

 

I noticed the same thing on the news feed this morning.  I remember thinking I was glad I went a few times many years ago before SF went downhill.  

I don't know if this is true, I heard one of the problems is the lack of plastic bags.   The homeless used to ... deposit bodily waste in them.  But the bags were banned.  

Did you hear about that video gaming convention (or was it a competition?) in SF?   A huge percentage voted to never return.   Including one of the top players in some game, who is literally a sheep shepherd by professional, lives remote without running water.   He said, "There is sh^^ everywhere!"
 

Yep, everyone I hear talk about going to SF talks about human waste on the sidewalks and junkies in the doorways. I haven’t been to that city in years. It just does not sound like someplace I want to go. And it used to be my favorite city to visit.

[katilac]

On 6/12/2018 at 1:28 PM, DawnM said:

 

When I lived in CA there was no transportation to DE classes.  Maybe things have changed.

And in NC there is no transportation.  And although we don't pay tuition, we still pay for all fees and books, at least as homeschoolers.  If you are in the PS system there are more options for DE.  

 

Transportation for DE is not something that would have even occurred to me, we definitely don't have it here. Some of the universities offer special tuition, but that is up to each school and has nothing to do with the state department of education or the local school district. Basically, the schools that think it will pay off for them in the long run offer discounted DE. The school district does not pay for anything. 

On 6/14/2018 at 4:11 PM, Lanny said:

 

I read  somewhere, probably yesterday or today, that some organization, possibly in the U.N., says that 100 gallons per day is more probable, with regard to daily use of water by a household member. It takes a huge amount of gallons of water, for example, to fill up a bathtub.  All of the consumption adds up.  This new tax in CA doesn't seem to include people who might want to wash their car or water their lawn.  It will be interesting to see how this works out when it is implemented.

3

 

You certainly don't have to take a bath, though. A bath will easily use four times or more the water that a shower would. And remember that this includes outdoor use such as watering the lawn and filling swimming pools - and there are many swimming pools in the states.  A 10'x30" is what many people get for a couple of small kids to splash around and practice in, and it takes 1,000 gallons to fill. A built-in swimming pool will take 20,000 and up, and there are a substantial number of them in the southern states. Heck, my relatives in Michigan have one! 

We fell just under 50 gallons per person, per day on our last water bill, which is unusually high for us. That was with no effort to conserve, watering the garden, and a hot tub that had to be filled twice. I don't think it's an onerous standard to meet. 

[Carol in Cal.]

17 minutes ago, katilac said:

 

 

You certainly don't have to take a bath, though. A bath will easily use four times or more the water that a shower would. And remember that this includes outdoor use such as watering the lawn and filling swimming pools - and there are many swimming pools in the states.  A 10'x30" is what many people get for a couple of small kids to splash around and practice in, and it takes 1,000 gallons to fill. A built-in swimming pool will take 20,000 and up, and there are a substantial number of them in the southern states. Heck, my relatives in Michigan have one! 

 

I have to take a bath or I don't really get clean, and also I would miss out on seriously therapeutic soaking, steaming, and stretching that is physically very helpful to me.  I don't think I'm alone in that.

The new standards will mean I won't be able to clean myself and I can wash my clothes on the same day.  That's unreasonable for someone who has always conserved, who has taken out their lawns, who has no pool and no hot tub, and who has a low flow newish dishwasher, whose only outdoor water use is sparingly watering fruit trees which provide shade (energy savings!) and fresh, organic food (energy and money savings for us and our neighbors).

If the state were in parallel cleaning up the massive water transport inefficiencies in our socalled system, fixing our existing dams so that they are reliable and not so wasteful, and repairing and shading our dangerous levees, as well as putting regs in place to discourage continued new housing starts and massively inefficient water use by businesses, I would have a lot more sympathy for the need for the new regs.  As it is, I resent them tremendously.

And, ironically, I'm now seriously considering putting a hot tub in the back yard, because at least that water can be systematically reused a bunch of times.  But that means inefficient energy use to keep it hot all the time; something I have always tried to avoid.

[ktgrok]

10 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I have to take a bath or I don't really get clean, and also I would miss out on seriously therapeutic soaking, steaming, and stretching that is physically very helpful to me.  I don't think I'm alone in that.

The new standards will mean I won't be able to clean myself and I can wash my clothes on the same day.

How many are in your household? If it's an average, surely some of your family can take showers, perhaps shorter ones? I imagine me washing cloth diapers every other day or so isn't more water than you use to bathe, and we still fall under those standards. And the kids play in the hose sometimes even. 

[Roadrunner]

I don’t know. I don’t think we live in the same state or talk about the same city. I feel very defensive, I know, but I will take SF over any city any day. It’s a marvelous place, so those of you who feel sorry for us, just don’t. ?

 

[shinyhappypeople]

5 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

I don’t know. I don’t think we live in the same state or talk about the same city. I feel very defensive, I know, but I will take SF over any city any day. It’s a marvelous place, so those of you who feel sorry for us, just don’t. ?

  

Well, y'all do have the Giants and one of the loveliest ballparks in the MLB, so there's that ?

[Corraleno]

Since so many people have referred to "not being able to do X and Y on the same day," I've been trying to find information on how the state could possibly monitor daily household use, and I can't find anything anywhere that indicates that will happen. If it's enforced at all then presumably it will be based on monthly use, so there's no reason someone can't take a bath and wash clothes on the same day. The 55 gallon limit doesn't even go into effect until 2022, and the 50 gallon limit doesn't apply until 2030 — 12 years is plenty of time to transition to low-flow, high-efficiency plumbing and appliances, work towards more drought-friendly landscaping, and modify personal habits.

Even when the 55 gallon limit goes into effect four years from now, a family of four would have an average of 220 gallons/day or 6600 gallons/month.  Last month my family of three (adult & two teens) used just under 3000 gallons, which is normal for us. The most we have used in one month in the last year was about 3700 gallons, which is still way under 50 gallons/person/day. I don't believe it's an unreasonable hardship for a family of four to "limit" themselves to roughly twice what my family of three uses in a month. 

[katilac]

1 hour ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I have to take a bath or I don't really get clean, and also I would miss out on seriously therapeutic soaking, steaming, and stretching that is physically very helpful to me.  I don't think I'm alone in that.

The new standards will mean I won't be able to clean myself and I can wash my clothes on the same day.  That's unreasonable for someone who has always conserved, who has taken out their lawns, who has no pool and no hot tub, and who has a low flow newish dishwasher, whose only outdoor water use is sparingly watering fruit trees which provide shade (energy savings!) and fresh, organic food (energy and money savings for us and our neighbors).

If the state were in parallel cleaning up the massive water transport inefficiencies in our socalled system, fixing our existing dams so that they are reliable and not so wasteful, and repairing and shading our dangerous levees, as well as putting regs in place to discourage continued new housing starts and massively inefficient water use by businesses, I would have a lot more sympathy for the need for the new regs.  As it is, I resent them tremendously.

And, ironically, I'm now seriously considering putting a hot tub in the back yard, because at least that water can be systematically reused a bunch of times.  But that means inefficient energy use to keep it hot all the time; something I have always tried to avoid.

3

 

It's a total of so many gallons per person, per day. It's averaged over the month, it doesn't mean literally per day. 

You could take a 30-gallon bath and still have 25 gallons left for the day. If you want to take a bath every single day, then yes, you might be paying the fine. There are geographical costs associated with every locale. I pay a small fortune every year for hurricane insurance, flood insurance, and evacuations. It goes along with where I live. 

I get that government needs to do their part, and them not doing so can certainly lead to resentment, but I think that is something that occurs in many, if not most, places, it's not unique to California. Certainly everyone in my area has resentment that the levees and water pump stations were not maintained as they should have been, and the people in Michigan resent that they don't have safe water. So I sympathize with that for sure, but, leaving that aside, I don't think the proposed restrictions are terrible. 

[Roadrunner]

We reuse all our laundry water for the yard. It’s simple.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

2 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

I don’t know. I don’t think we live in the same state or talk about the same city. I feel very defensive, I know, but I will take SF over any city any day. It’s a marvelous place, so those of you who feel sorry for us, just don’t. ?

 

 

I don't feel sorry for the people who are fine in San Franciso, but I will admit to feeling sorry for the disproportionate percentage of your population who are suffering. I don't have any idea why the situation exists and I don't know who should be doing what, about it, but a lot of folks would worry about 130k homeless people in one city. 

[chiguirre]

8 hours ago, shinyhappypeople said:

Yup.  It's sad, really.  The cost of rent is astronomical and there is so much homelessness, drug addition, mental illness.  So many hurting people.  Some areas of town literally smell like s---t.   And... I'm going to stop now before I go deep into politics.  Yes, San Francisco is beautiful and broken.  We'll stick to our routine of going straight to the ballpark and leaving.  

 

1 hour ago, Roadrunner said:

I don’t know. I don’t think we live in the same state or talk about the same city. I feel very defensive, I know, but I will take SF over any city any day. It’s a marvelous place, so those of you who feel sorry for us, just don’t. ?

 

 

These are problems every city has. Ironically, many of Houston's homeless sleep between our baseball and soccer stadium because there are large open parking lots under the highway overpass and it's near the Salvation Army shelter and several soup kitchens. It's not SF, it's any large city, although each of them has their own issues. OP, you couldn't move here anyway, we have serious ozone issues and our official climate designation is "humid subtropical", but I can imagine other transplants going to their first Astros game and being profoundly shocked at the homeless problem in Houston. It's not really worse than other cities, it's just that our geography makes that area the most attractive spot. I wouldn't trade it in for a place that didn't have this problem because it doesn't have a MLB team.

[prairiewindmomma]

3 hours ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I have to take a bath or I don't really get clean, and also I would miss out on seriously therapeutic soaking, steaming, and stretching that is physically very helpful to me.  I don't think I'm alone in that.

The new standards will mean I won't be able to clean myself and I can wash my clothes on the same day.  That's unreasonable for someone who has always conserved, who has taken out their lawns, who has no pool and no hot tub, and who has a low flow newish dishwasher, whose only outdoor water use is sparingly watering fruit trees which provide shade (energy savings!) and fresh, organic food (energy and money savings for us and our neighbors).

If the state were in parallel cleaning up the massive water transport inefficiencies in our socalled system, fixing our existing dams so that they are reliable and not so wasteful, and repairing and shading our dangerous levees, as well as putting regs in place to discourage continued new housing starts and massively inefficient water use by businesses, I would have a lot more sympathy for the need for the new regs.  As it is, I resent them tremendously.

And, ironically, I'm now seriously considering putting a hot tub in the back yard, because at least that water can be systematically reused a bunch of times.  But that means inefficient energy use to keep it hot all the time; something I have always tried to avoid.

We did this... I have arthritis and hot baths help.  Our hot tub is 400 gallons which we change out every 3 months. Our bath tub uses 75 gallons to fill per use. 

The electricity to heat the tub is not that bad if you have a good cover. You can also crank it down to 80F in the summer for a mini swimming pool if you don’t need the therapeutic heat.

Plan on $20-30/month for upkeep—chemicals for daily/weekly maintenance + for quarterly purges. 

[prairiewindmomma]

Statistically, the vast amount of water used is for agricultural purposes. Until we are really for systemic shifts, it’s easier, politically, to tackle the low hanging fruit of personal consumption.

I have my 1.25/gpm shower heads, dual flush toilets, etc. My greatest ecological sin is likely that I eat meat. 

[Roadrunner]

Every city or area has its issues. The beloved wholesome Midwest with good conservative values has a massive drug problem, a bigger one than here I believe. Nobody is immune, left or right, rich or poor. 

Housing costs a lot because building is limited somewhat due to water. So supply and demand economics keep the housing prices insane. Plus SF has geographic boundaries that make it difficult to expand. And let’s not forget the foreign buyers. So many homes are being snapped up with cash by investors or families from Asia especially. Hence demand again. 

Silicon Valley is full of high paying jobs. A friend earns $200k at Google and his wife even more. Now there are also plenty of people who don’t, but enough of high earners in the area push up prices. 

Not all of CA is that expensive. We have cities with affordable housing as well. It’s the coastal area that’s insane. 

[Roadrunner]

Yep, almond groves consume an insane amount of water along with the rest of agriculture. Yet we feed this country. Let’s not forget that.

[KrissiK]

1 hour ago, Roadrunner said:

Yep, almond groves consume an insane amount of water along with the rest of agriculture. Yet we feed this country. Let’s not forget that.

That is a fact. People want to blame the farmers for air pollution, water consumption and every other societal ill, yet they still insist upon eating.

[Pawz4me]

15 hours ago, Carol in Cal. said:

 

The new standards will mean I won't be able to clean myself and I can wash my clothes on the same day. 

 

I don't get this obsession with daily limits. My understanding is that it's a monthly limit. That's a huge difference. Yesterday we probably used quite a lot of water, maybe even more than 50 gallons per person (which really would be a LOT for us). But all four of us were gone from the house most or all of the day Friday. We used very little water. So I'm positive it didn't average out to 400 gallons over both days.

[Carol in Cal.]

2 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

 

I don't get this obsession with daily limits. My understanding is that it's a monthly limit. That's a huge difference. Yesterday we probably used quite a lot of water, maybe even more than 50 gallons per person (which really would be a LOT for us). But all four of us were gone from the house most or all of the day Friday. We used very little water. So I'm positive it didn't average out to 400 gallons over both days.

Really, it's not an obsession.  It's an observation to illustrate a point.

50 gallons is not very much more than normal daily low flow toilet flushing, cooking use, low water dishwasher use, and a bath.  Doing laundry, even though it's not daily, would push a lot of people over the limit for the month.  That means big charges, and it's a draconian change to an existing population that is already conserving, while doing nothing to prevent the massive number of new housing starts that are popping up all over the place, or the incredibly wasteful water transportation systems that have as much leakage and evaporation as they do successful transport, or to fix the poorly maintained, poorly designed dams and levees that we already depend on.  That's quite oppressive.

[Pawz4me]

4 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Really, it's not an obsession.  It's an observation to illustrate a point.

50 gallons is not very much more than normal daily low flow toilet flushing, cooking use, low water dishwasher use, and a bath.  Doing laundry, even though it's not daily, would push a lot of people over the limit for the month.  That means big charges, and it's a draconian change to an existing population that is already conserving, while doing nothing to prevent the massive number of new housing starts that are popping up all over the place, or the incredibly wasteful water transportation systems that have as much leakage and evaporation as they do successful transport, or to fix the poorly maintained, poorly designed dams and levees that we already depend on.  That's quite oppressive.

But numerous people on this thread have pointed out that our very real life usage statistics indicate that's not true. Over and over and over that has been pointed out. And ignored.

[Carol in Cal.]

5 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

But numerous people on this thread have pointed out that our very real life usage statistics indicate that's not true. Over and over and over that has been pointed out. And ignored.

It's not ignored.  It's DISPUTED.  There is a big difference between the two.

This source says that the average bath uses 35-50 gallons of water:  https://www.watercalculator.org/save-water/shower-bath/

People like me that are dependent on a daily bath for various health reasons are going to be hit very hard by the new law, a point that has been made by several folks on this thread.  Low flow toilet standards are currently 1.6 gallons per flush.  10 per day is 16 gallons total.  Energy star dishwashers use about 4 gallons per cycle.  Even assuming no landscaping use, 50 gallons per day is pretty hard to stay under with these figures, and they don't include any cooking or clothes washing use.