If we leave California... where to?

[maize]

Do you know your current monthly usage?

13 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

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.  

 

 

[KrissiK]

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.

I’ve read it is a daily limit. And it would make sense that you don’t use as much water when you are gone. But you’ve used somebody’s water. People who are home all day, and use their own bathrooms all day (and some low-flow toilets don’t work so well, so sometimes you have to flush more than once and plunge) and cook 3 meals at home, and run their dishwashers twice a day use more water.

[....]

OP, if you're looking at TX, here's some pros/cons.  We're in north TX.  There are TONS of people from CA moving here.  It is driving up the house values and changing the culture around here.  Our neighbors had to move last year, because they could no longer afford their house, because of the taxes based on their inflated house value.  We paid $165,000 for our house and it's now supposedly worth $280,000...so our taxes/insurance have really gone up over the years, too.  Also, our traffic has quadrupled, there is shopping popping up everywhere, people are ruder when driving, etc.

Anyway, pros:

Everybody homeschools or their cousins homeschool or their neighbors homeschool (Lol)...  You get the idea.  There isn't a weird homeschool stigma here.  Everyone likes homeschoolers and there is a huge support system here: co-ops, we have our own sports leagues (and actual competitive ones that compete against private schools), homeschool stores, enrichment centers where you can take classes a la carte, some of the churches have homeschool groups...there are actual private schools here that are like a mixture of school and homeschool, where they go to school 2-3 days and then homeschool the other days.  Also, the colleges are not scared of homeschoolers.

There is no state income tax.  This really saved us when we first moved here about a decade ago.  We were basically homeless (long story) and when dh started working again, we needed every penny to get back on our feet.  

Food, gas and housing is cheaper here.  

There is a big artsy/theater underworld here that most people don't mention when they bring up TX stereotypes.  Lots of little community theaters...there's actually kids' theaters and homeschool theaters here...little art schools/art galleries.  We have a friend who turned down moving to LA (she does acting) and just stays here and takes acting/theater jobs.  Two of my girls are taking theater in the fall and they also do Russian ballet.  You see lots of little art shows and people who do these specialized artisan works/crafts in their spare time as a hobby.  I'm always seeing ads for glass-blowing workshops or pottery classes, etc.

They have a huge sense of community and volunteering here.  I have never seen so many people with these regular "volunteer jobs" as I've seen here.  My kids even have volunteer jobs that they go to each week.  I've never met so many selfless people as I've run into at these volunteer events.  People driving half an hour in one direction to comfort some shelter dogs...or people organizing their own charities and hosting 5Ks and then standing out in the heat all day handing out registration, etc.  Just sayin' - another thing I noticed about this area.

Cons:

Anything to do with the government is weird...but the government here is pretty small, so I guess that's good.  If you go to the DMV, expect to spend the entire morning there.  The police are actually pretty good here (we've had to deal with them a few times).  Supposedly, our police are some of the best in the country.  Our old police chief was huge on teaching de-escalation, because his son had been killed by police.  They were saying that police departments from other parts of the country traveled here to learn from this past police chief.  I guess that part would be a "pro".    

Traffic is getting to be pretty bad where we live.  The highways are bizarre!  Speed limits way too fast, lanes suddenly end without warning, construction everywhere, merging lanes that are just WAY too short, merging lanes at turns on the expressway (so you can barely see if anyone is coming), people driving too fast...  I hate the driving here.

Churches here can be different (compared to what we were used to).  A lot of non-denominational churches and some of them are enormous.  Difficult here if you're Lutheran or Catholic.  In our area, there is one Catholic church.  We're Lutheran and there are only 3 to choose from.  ?    Most of the churches in our area are contemporary churches.  We are members of a very large, contemporary Lutheran church...which is something I never thought we would go to (I guess I am eating my words - lol).

The worst con of all: I think the schools here are awful.  Probably why so many people homeschool.  Their average ACTs are really low.  The schools seem to care more about sports and their multi-million dollar stadiums than they do actual schoolwork.  They rely way too much on technology, iPads, etc.  Our school district in particular has a big drug and bullying problem.  Some of the schools I've been into look like they're 60 years old with the original tilework, etc.  It's a shame.  The private schools are unaffordable to average people.        

Good luck with your decision.

[maize]

30 minutes ago, KrissiK said:

I’ve read it is a daily limit. And it would make sense that you don’t use as much water when you are gone. But you’ve used somebody’s water. People who are home all day, and use their own bathrooms all day (and some low-flow toilets don’t work so well, so sometimes you have to flush more than once and plunge) and cook 3 meals at home, and run their dishwashers twice a day use more water.

Meters are not read daily. It's a daily average.

Presumably people don't run their dishwasher twice a day for only one person. If you've got enough people eating meals at home that the dishwasher needs to be run twice a day you also get water allowances for each of those people.

Again, family of nine here, most of us home all day. We average less than 25 gallons per person per day with our normal usage.

[Pawz4me]

 

52 minutes ago, KrissiK said:

I’ve read it is a daily limit. And it would make sense that you don’t use as much water when you are gone. But you’ve used somebody’s water. People who are home all day, and use their own bathrooms all day (and some low-flow toilets don’t work so well, so sometimes you have to flush more than once and plunge) and cook 3 meals at home, and run their dishwashers twice a day use more water.

Source?  (ETA:I'm not asking to be snarky. I'd really like to see one. I simply don't see how a water company could, or could reasonably be expected to, generate a daily report on the water consumption of each of its customers.)

And no, on Friday DH and I didn't use anybody's water. We were out hiking in the woods, drinking water we'd brought from home. Using the bathroom wasn't an issue. We were sweating most of it out. And there was an outhouse at the trail head. No flushing. ? 

I would assume anyone who needed to run their dishwasher twice a day has a larger family and thus would have a bigger water allowance. Or else they're very unskilled at loading it or are simply very wasteful.

[Joker]

This thread had me interested so I looked at our consumption. We're a family of four. I stay home and dh works from home so we are always here. We have two teenagers and one of them takes long showers every day. We also have two dogs and lots of flowers in our yard to take care of. We still have never averaged over 40 gallons per person per day. 40 is the high end as its usually around 30. 

[maize]

You know, I keep looking at my 55 gallon water storage barrels that we keep around in case of emergency. I cannot see how anyone thinks that more than that amount in clean, processed water per day per person is anything less than a luxury.

I do understand how something like a hot bath can be medically therapeutic for some people. If you have a large tub and fill the tub that is indeed a lot of water. Maybe for some people that will be worth paying a surcharge and chalking it up to medical expense--I doubt it will be more than many other folks pay out of pocket for medical needs daily!

Alternatively a family may find that just one person taking a hot bath daily does not put the family over the limit. Or there's always the Japanese method of washing off before getting in the tub and everyone using the same bath water.

What is luxury and what is deprivation is all a matter of perspective. Fortunately perspective can change.

I do understand frustration if the state is significantly neglecting infrastructure.

[KrissiK]

37 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

 

Source?  (ETA:I'm not asking to be snarky. I'd really like to see one. I simply don't see how a water company could, or could reasonably be expected to, generate a daily report on the water consumption of each of its customers.)

And no, on Friday DH and I didn't use anybody's water. We were out hiking in the woods, drinking water we'd brought from home. Using the bathroom wasn't an issue. We were sweating most of it out. And there was an outhouse at the trail head. No flushing. ? 

I would assume anyone who needed to run their dishwasher twice a day has a larger family and thus would have a bigger water allowance. Or else they're very unskilled at loading it or are simply very wasteful.

It was a news article out of Sac, although it read “50 gallons/day” I suppose that could also be a monthly average, though they didn’t specify it.

For me, the point is not 50 gallons/ day or however many gallons per day. I have a problem with the fact that this is California climate, and now we are all of the sudden getting restrictions. And there’s nothing we can do about it. And they refuse to build more storage. And it is likely to cost us a lot more $ for us to pay for our own modifications and the modifications for those who can’t pay for it. If I were to purposely move to a place that had water restrictions and I knew that, from the outset.... fine. My choice. But I feel like as a Californian, so many things have been coming down the pike that cost me or will cost me a heck of a lot of $ and I don’t have a lot of say in it. Another example is a $50 increase in our vehicle licensing fee this year. 

[shinyhappypeople]

55 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

 

Source?  (ETA:I'm not asking to be snarky. I'd really like to see one. I simply don't see how a water company could, or could reasonably be expected to, generate a daily report on the water consumption of each of its customers.)

And no, on Friday DH and I didn't use anybody's water. We were out hiking in the woods, drinking water we'd brought from home. Using the bathroom wasn't an issue. We were sweating most of it out. And there was an outhouse at the trail head. No flushing. ? 

I would assume anyone who needed to run their dishwasher twice a day has a larger family and thus would have a bigger water allowance. Or else they're very unskilled at loading it or are simply very wasteful.

I doubt the intention is to monitor daily use (although you never know...), but there is a way to track it.  We have smart meters for our water.  Just a few days ago I discovered a a water app for my phone that shows me daily, weekly, and monthly usage info., so the powers that be could definitely monitor it if they wanted to. The trick will be differentiating between indoor use (55 gallons a day) and outdoor use (TBD).  I don't know how they could differentiate between indoor / outdoor water use, so they'll probably just tack on x number of gallons to the 55/day and folks can actually use that amount however they want.

The really nerve-wracking part for me is that it sounds like each water district will determine how much to charge residents.  Last time we had a rate increase to cover the costs of improving infrastructure, our water rates doubled.  I predict they'll double again (so that would be roughly $100/mo just for water) with penalties applied to households who use to much.  These rate increases (just like the gas tax, just like the increased car registration fees, just like almost everything else) will hurt poor and lower-middle income families the most.  

p.s. we run the dishwasher twice a day for our family of 4.  We are home for almost all meals, and my teens usually cook themselves hot breakfasts and lunches, so... yeah.  Two loads a day.  Breakfast/luch and dinner.  We're not unskilled or wasteful.  It's unkind to make that assumption.

[shinyhappypeople]

50 minutes ago, maize said:

You know, I keep looking at my 55 gallon water storage barrels that we keep around in case of emergency. I cannot see how anyone thinks that more than that amount in clean, processed water per day per person is anything less than a luxury.

I do understand how something like a hot bath can be medically therapeutic for some people. If you have a large tub and fill the tub that is indeed a lot of water. Maybe for some people that will be worth paying a surcharge and chalking it up to medical expense--I doubt it will be more than many other folks pay out of pocket for medical needs daily!

Alternatively a family may find that just one person taking a hot bath daily does not put the family over the limit. Or there's always the Japanese method of washing off before getting in the tub and everyone using the same bath water.

What is luxury and what is deprivation is all a matter of perspective. Fortunately perspective can change.

I do understand frustration if the state is significantly neglecting infrastructure.

Yes, it is a luxury, and why not?  Why should Californians be expected to abide by extreme drought standards in wet years when the reduction in use will have virtually no impact on the overall situation?  Build more water storage.  Build desalination plants for San Francisco and LA.  Improve infrastructure.  Do things that will actually help. Me reducing my flushes and showers (and then charging me $$$ for the privilege) isn't going to fix things.

The water diet is just a money grab disguised as environmental virtue signalling.

[Roadrunner]

I agree that we absolutely need to be improving infrastructure and building desalination plants. Conservation alone won’t help.

[Pawz4me]

1 hour ago, shinyhappypeople said:

I doubt the intention is to monitor daily use (although you never know...), but there is a way to track it.  We have smart meters for our water.  Just a few days ago I discovered a a water app for my phone that shows me daily, weekly, and monthly usage info., so the powers that be could definitely monitor it if they wanted to. The trick will be differentiating between indoor use (55 gallons a day) and outdoor use (TBD).  I don't know how they could differentiate between indoor / outdoor water use, so they'll probably just tack on x number of gallons to the 55/day and folks can actually use that amount however they want.

The really nerve-wracking part for me is that it sounds like each water district will determine how much to charge residents.  Last time we had a rate increase to cover the costs of improving infrastructure, our water rates doubled.  I predict they'll double again (so that would be roughly $100/mo just for water) with penalties applied to households who use to much.  These rate increases (just like the gas tax, just like the increased car registration fees, just like almost everything else) will hurt poor and lower-middle income families the most.  

p.s. we run the dishwasher twice a day for our family of 4.  We are home for almost all meals, and my teens usually cook themselves hot breakfasts and lunches, so... yeah.  Two loads a day.  Breakfast/luch and dinner.  We're not unskilled or wasteful.  It's unkind to make that assumption.

Yes, I know it can be tracked. My DH is an IT guy. He's responsible for running all sorts of reports for his company. Some are nightly, some weekly and some monthly. There's a a LOT more to getting a report to run smoothly every time it's supposed to than many people realize. And for a large water company to run that kind of report every single day--I'm really having a hard time believing that's realistic.

And sorry, but I still stand by my assertion about the dishwasher. It's not an assumption, it's experience. We're a family of four, all adults, all currently at home. We typically run the dishwasher once every day to day and a half, even when eating all meals at home and the boys often doing their own cooking. Our current dishwasher has a bit of a weird arrangement, so sometimes it is a wee bit of a challenge. Our previous dishwasher was easier. 

[Carol in Cal.]

2 hours ago, maize said:

 

I do understand how something like a hot bath can be medically therapeutic for some people. If you have a large tub and fill the tub that is indeed a lot of water. Maybe for some people that will be worth paying a surcharge and chalking it up to medical expense--I doubt it will be more than many other folks pay out of pocket for medical needs daily!

Alternatively a family may find that just one person taking a hot bath daily does not put the family over the limit. Or there's always the Japanese method of washing off before getting in the tub and everyone using the same bath water.

 

Well, great!  My husband is 10 years older than I am, and statistically women live longer than men.

So I'll just use his water until he dies, and then when I'm all alone, and our household social security income drops by 1/3 to 1/2, and I jump into the 'single' tax bracket rather than the lower 'married' one, I'll be happy to also absorb a $1000/month increase in expenses so I can take a bath and wash my clothes.  Riiiiight.

 

[brehon]

3 hours ago, Evanthe said:

OP, if you're looking at TX, here's some pros/cons.  We're in north TX.  There are TONS of people from CA moving here. 

<snip>

Good luck with your decision.

Evanthe, your while post was good; I just snipped for brevity. Austin — Central Texas, in fact — is much the same as how you described north TX. There are an unbelievable number of Californians who have moved here and the population keeps exploding. And, yes, to the culture changing here as well. 

There are pros and cons to Central TX, just like north TX or anywhere else. 

[maize]

1 hour ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Well, great!  My husband is 10 years older than I am, and statistically women live longer than men.

So I'll just use his water until he dies, and then when I'm all alone, and our household social security income drops by 1/3 to 1/2, and I jump into the 'single' tax bracket rather than the lower 'married' one, I'll be happy to also absorb a $1000/month increase in expenses so I can take a bath and wash my clothes.  Riiiiight.

 

 

Wherever are you getting the idea of a $1000 per month increase?

Maybe your bathtub is swimming pool sized?

[SanDiegoMom]

19 hours ago, Tibbie Dunbar said:

 

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. 

The article that gave that statistic was slanted and a little disingenuous.  The entire article was about San Francisco, but the homeless stats were for the entire state -- 130,000 in all of California.  San Francisco is around 7500 according to their latest point in time count. Boston shows around 6500 for comparison. 

[chiguirre]

2 hours ago, shinyhappypeople said:

Yes, it is a luxury, and why not?  Why should Californians be expected to abide by extreme drought standards in wet years when the reduction in use will have virtually no impact on the overall situation?  Build more water storage.  Build desalination plants for San Francisco and LA.  Improve infrastructure.  Do things that will actually help. Me reducing my flushes and showers (and then charging me $$$ for the privilege) isn't going to fix things.

The water diet is just a money grab disguised as environmental virtue signalling.

If you want them to build desalination plants, they've got to find financing. That means higher water rates, water diet or straight up rate hike, your choice. At least the water diet means you can avoid paying more if you can conserve.

[shawthorne44]

4 hours ago, Evanthe said:

....

Anything to do with the government is weird...but the government here is pretty small, so I guess that's good.  If you go to the DMV, expect to spend the entire morning there.  ...

...

The worst con of all: I think the schools here are awful.  Probably why so many people homeschool.  Their average ACTs are really low.  The schools seem to care more about sports and their multi-million dollar stadiums than they do actual schoolwork.  ...

 

Comments on these:   In Texas, go to the DMV about half hour before they close, and avoid late-May and June.   On the Texas DMV, the workers were agitating about overtime pay.   So they made a rule that no one gets overtime unless everyone gets overtime.   That means that all those workers in the back office come out to process people near closing because they want to go home.  So, they become very efficient.  (Says the person that spent 10+ hours in the DMV in June getting her name changed after marriage).   

I was in elementary school in Texas in the late-70's.  I remember the teachers being genuinely gleeful at the state rankings.   They were chanting to each other, "We are not last.  We are not last."   Can you imagine being a kid a hearing that?  

 

 

[shinyhappypeople]

5 minutes ago, chiguirre said:

If you want them to build desalination plants, they've got to find financing. That means higher water rates, water diet or straight up rate hike, your choice. At least the water diet means you can avoid paying more if you can conserve.

In all likelihood there will be a rate hike, regardless of what we do.  Currently we pay a base rate for 30,000? gallons per month.  The likeliest scenario is that the base water rate will increase for everyone and districts will tack on additional penalties for those who go over their allotment.  This is all stick, no carrot.  Less water.  Increased expense.  More potential penalties.  And still no desalination plants or improved infrastructure. 

 

[ktgrok]

5 hours 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

Again, I do laundry for six people including cloth diapers. We do shower rather than bathe. But we also use water for washing the Pets, and other uses. And we don’t go over that amount. Not even close.

Edited June 17, 2018 by Ktgrok
Voice to text hates me

[Pawz4me]

6 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Again, I do laundry for six people including clock diapers. We do shallow rather than babe. But we also use water for watching the Pats, and other uses. And we don’t go over that moment. Not even close.

An epic auto correct post! LOL!!

[ktgrok]

3 hours ago, shinyhappypeople said:

Yes, it is a luxury, and why not?  Why should Californians be expected to abide by extreme drought standards in wet years when the reduction in use will have virtually no impact on the overall situation?  Build more water storage.  Build desalination plants for San Francisco and LA.  Improve infrastructure.  Do things that will actually help. Me reducing my flushes and showers (and then charging me $$$ for the privilege) isn't going to fix things.

The water diet is just a money grab disguised as environmental virtue signalling.

55 gallons per per day is not extreme. It’s sensible . And you absolutely don’t have to not flush or not shower. That is ridiculous. Everyone here is saying that they flushed and shower and wash their clothes and wash the dishes and I still keep under that limit.

[ktgrok]

3 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

55 gallons per per day is not extreme. It’s sensible . And you absolutely don’t have to not flush or not shower. That is ridiculous. Everyone here is saying that they flushed and shower and wash their clothes and wash the dishes and I still keep under that limit.

 

4 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

An epic auto correct post! LOL!!

Seriously!!!! Tried voice to text while nursing the baby. Didn’t work.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

59 minutes ago, SanDiegoMom in VA said:

The article that gave that statistic was slanted and a little disingenuous.  The entire article was about San Francisco, but the homeless stats were for the entire state -- 130,000 in all of California.  San Francisco is around 7500 according to their latest point in time count. Boston shows around 6500 for comparison. 

 

Oh, good grief. I'm sorry, I didn't fact check that properly. I checked the stats for other cities, which are proportionate overall, but I didn't check that original article very well. Thank you for the correction! (no snark, I'm very sincere) 

[Roadrunner]

People in northern climates spend a ton on heating and those in hot climate a ton on air conditioning. We use a teacher probably 30 days out of the year and don’t even have an air conditioning. Even if they imposed fees on water to finance desalination, it will not come close to those expenses.

[Lanny]

1 hour ago, SanDiegoMom in VA said:

The article that gave that statistic was slanted and a little disingenuous.  The entire article was about San Francisco, but the homeless stats were for the entire state -- 130,000 in all of California.  San Francisco is around 7500 according to their latest point in time count. Boston shows around 6500 for comparison. 

 

If your number of approximately 7500 Homeless people in San Francisco is correct, are they  using all of the approximately 275000 Needles and Syringes that are found each month?  I don't know anything about using illegal drugs, so I wonder how many times a day they inject Heroin?      My guess is not all of the Users who discard their needles and syringes in San Francisco are homeless people?

[Lanny]

I read or saw in TV news, probably several years ago, when there was a severe drought in California, that part of the problem goes back to the 1970s, when they refused to build more storage reservoirs for the water than comes from the snowfall in the mountains.  Add to that the problematic infrastructure, growth in population, etc, etc, and you have a lack of water for the people in their houses and apartments. 

[shinyhappypeople]

1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

55 gallons per per day is not extreme. It’s sensible . And you absolutely don’t have to not flush or not shower. That is ridiculous. Everyone here is saying that they flushed and shower and wash their clothes and wash the dishes and I still keep under that limit.

I was using hyperbole to make a point.  

[maize]

1 hour ago, Roadrunner said:

People in northern climates spend a ton on heating and those in hot climate a ton on air conditioning. We use a teacher probably 30 days out of the year and don’t even have an air conditioning. Even if they imposed fees on water to finance desalination, it will not come close to those expenses.

This is a good point.

Hm, desalination plants powered by renewable energy...could be a long term solution. 

[chiguirre]

3 hours ago, Lanny said:

 

   My guess is not all of the Users who discard their needles and syringes in San Francisco are homeless people?

Of course not. Most heroin users are fairly functional people who got hooked on prescription pain killers. If you'd like to learn more about the opioid epidemic in the US, I'd highly recommend Dream Land by Sam Quinones. It focuses on Portsmouth, OH in the heart of opioid country and traces how people get addicted and how the Mexican heroin cartels evolved to supply that market. It's not pushers on street corners in urban slums at all.

 

https://smile.amazon.com/Dreamland-True-Americas-Opiate-Epidemic-ebook/dp/B00U19DTS0/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1529277111&sr=8-3&keywords=opioid+epidemic

[ktgrok]

2 hours ago, shinyhappypeople said:

I was using hyperbole to make a point.  

Then I missed your point. Charging extra for excessive water usage in a drought prone state seems pretty reasonable to me, and moreover something to have been expected at some point. Yes, improvements in infrastructure need to be made, and hopefully the extra fees collected on those using the most water will go towards doing that. 

[regentrude]

4 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

People in northern climates spend a ton on heating and those in hot climate a ton on air conditioning. We use a teacher probably 30 days out of the year and don’t even have an air conditioning. 

LOL. Yeah, because you're homeschooling ?

Autocorrect?

[Roadrunner]

4 minutes ago, regentrude said:

LOL. Yeah, because you're homeschooling ?

Autocorrect?

I meant a heater ???

I hate typing on this phone. It changes the strangest words.  ?

[Katy]

Smart meters already generate daily use reports.  When we lived in Oklahoma we lived in a town notorious for making up for budget shortages by routinely charging people who paid their bills on time extra. So when we went out of town for a funeral for 3 days we suddenly had a water bill for QUADRUPLE our normal bill.  I called and said it wasn't possible, they claimed to trace the usage to the three days we were out of town, and we must have left a sprinkler system on or a toilet running.  DH is an engineer who tutored math in college, he literally did the math and proved it was impossible- every faucet and shower in the house would have to have been left on in order to go through that much water.  It was more than we use in a month in 3 days.  Shortly thereafter we heard from multiple friends that it had happened to them.  One person we know was in the process of building a new building for her business.  They connected the interior plumbing for the workers to use the bathrooms but hadn't installed the sprinkler system yet.  She got a $4000 water bill and the city claimed her sprinkler system must have a leak.  She said it hadn't been hooked up but she'd be calling her attorney to sue the city for fraud.  The "mistake" was corrected by the city attorney sending a letter apologizing for the error with a corrected bill.

[brehon]

1 hour ago, chiguirre said:

Of course not. Most heroin users are fairly functional people who got hooked on prescription pain killers. If you'd like to learn more about the opioid epidemic in the US, I'd highly recommend Dream Land by Sam Quinones. It focuses on Portsmouth, OH in the heart of opioid country and traces how people get addicted and how the Mexican heroin cartels evolved to supply that market. It's not pushers on street corners in urban slums at all.

 

https://smile.amazon.com/Dreamland-True-Americas-Opiate-Epidemic-ebook/dp/B00U19DTS0/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1529277111&sr=8-3&keywords=opioid+epidemic

Not just Mexican cartels. The opioid epidemic an also be traced to Russian and Chinese cartels supplying carfentanyl to various areas. These cartels have a solid business plan and are following it. Although the carfentanyl is cheap, it is much more powerful than fentanyl or heroin. And most people who buy carfentanyl originally became medically addicted to legally prescribed narcotics.  

Edited June 18, 2018 by brehon
Verbs - they’re a thing...

[brehon]

27 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

 

A huge part of the problem is that we Californians know that no money will be spent on improving the infrastructure and water supply. The CA government loves to take, take, take and fix nothing. 

That very well may be the case and is a fair point. Texas certainly has its issues of government not wanting to spend money on infrastructure or rehabilitation post-hurricanes and flooding. I mean, the state has a rainy day fund — literally called the State Rainy Day Fund — that the Lege won't tap to help those areas recently hit by historic flooding. Pancake breakfast fundraisers to the “rescue”. <eyes roll so hard they roll right out of head>

But government ineptitude with regards to infrastructure spending is quite different than whether or not 50-55 gallons/person/day is a reasonable standard for people to adhere to. 

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, kdsuomi said:

 

A huge part of the problem is that we Californians know that no money will be spent on improving the infrastructure and water supply. The CA government loves to take, take, take and fix nothing. 

Take as in taxes? What do those get spent on?

 

[shinyhappypeople]

3 hours ago, kdsuomi said:

 

A huge part of the problem is that we Californians know that no money will be spent on improving the infrastructure and water supply. The CA government loves to take, take, take and fix nothing. 

*standing ovation*

This.  Exactly.  Thank you.

[shawthorne44]

13 hours ago, chiguirre said:

Of course not. Most heroin users are fairly functional people who got hooked on prescription pain killers. If you'd like to learn more about the opioid epidemic in the US, I'd highly recommend Dream Land by Sam Quinones. It focuses on Portsmouth, OH in the heart of opioid country and traces how people get addicted and how the Mexican heroin cartels evolved to supply that market. It's not pushers on street corners in urban slums at all.

...

 

But, wouldn't the functional drug users throw away their needles in the trash can?   That many needles to be cleaned up is a problem and a sign of a much bigger problem.  

 

[ktgrok]

9 hours ago, Plum Crazy said:

The real problem is that sometimes it can be difficult to figure out exactly why it is impossible to get below 50 gallons per person. Sprinklers spring small leaks underground, one dripper head pop off, you have teens in the house,  you start trying to grow your own food, you start baking which means hand washing dishes. There are so many minor daily life things that can cause you to go over your household quota. Some may be in your control, for example you really like baking and don't want to give it up. So then yes, you would be forced to make a choice as to whether or not you want to bake or take a shower every day. It's not like the water dept is going to cut you off if you go over. Much like data usage, they'll just fine you into bankruptcy. Those that can pay the fine, will go over and pay without a second thought. Meanwhile the rest will be forced to choose between showering daily or baking therapy. It's just another way to drive out the middle class. 

Baking pies is not going to put someone over the water limit to the point they can't shower. Now, a leaking sprinkler, sure and that needs to be corrected. 

As someone who grew up with water restrictions, drought notifications, etc, the idea that people think they shouldn't conserve water is incredibly foriegn to me. But conserving water doesn't mean not showering or not cooking or washing dishes. 

[Katy]

40 minutes ago, shawthorne44 said:

 

But, wouldn't the functional drug users throw away their needles in the trash can?   That many needles to be cleaned up is a problem and a sign of a much bigger problem.  

 

 

I don't think there's any such thing as a functional heroin addict.  At least not for long.

[KrissiK]

13 hours ago, kdsuomi said:

 

A huge part of the problem is that we Californians know that no money will be spent on improving the infrastructure and water supply. The CA government loves to take, take, take and fix nothing. 

Yep. That’s basically it in a nutshell.

[KrissiK]

12 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

Take as in taxes? What do those get spent on?

 

We’re not quite sure. That’s the problem. Probably social programs. 

[ktgrok]

Just now, KrissiK said:

We’re not quite sure. That’s the problem. Probably social programs. 

Isn't the budget a matter of public record?

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, Plum Crazy said:

If the average Californian uses 90-100 gallons of water per day (which I agree is obscene) then the state is asking them to cut that in half or face serious fines. If they can't pay those fines then what? The water get turned off?

How about they just stop using obscene amounts of water in a drought prone state? Otherwise, you, who is conserving water, is subsidizing the ones who are using obscene amounts. 

 

[SanDiegoMom]

21 hours ago, Lanny said:

 

If your number of approximately 7500 Homeless people in San Francisco is correct, are they  using all of the approximately 275000 Needles and Syringes that are found each month?  I don't know anything about using illegal drugs, so I wonder how many times a day they inject Heroin?      My guess is not all of the Users who discard their needles and syringes in San Francisco are homeless people?

 

I'm not sure where they are getting that number either. It sounds like they are conflating needles they are cleaning up off the streets (which poses a large problem and clocks in around 11-13,000 needles)  https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/SF-installing-syringe-kiosks-as-disposal-of-dirty-11174400.php

and ones that are returned to safe site disposals.  http://www.sfweekly.com/news/s-f-pins-down-its-needle-problem/.   Still a lot left over -- if they are distributing 400,000 and getting back 275,000 through disposal kiosks and public works employees, there's a lot left unaccounted for. But it's not 276,000 needles that are literally picked up off the street. 

[chiguirre]

1 hour ago, Plum Crazy said:

 

If the average Californian uses 90-100 gallons of water per day (which I agree is obscene) then the state is asking them to cut that in half or face serious fines.

Are you sure they're not just taking the amount of water used and dividing by population? That would include agriculture and industrial uses which most people don't have in the per capita usage

[Carol in Cal.]

3 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

 

As someone who grew up with water restrictions, drought notifications, etc, the idea that people think they shouldn't conserve water is incredibly foriegn to me. 

Straw man.

[chiguirre]

1 minute ago, Plum Crazy said:

I've seen it quoted as high as 114 gallons per residential a few years ago. There has been significant improvements on the part of the residents. And yes, there's plenty of room to improve. 

Where it gets tricky is situations like my dad's and others from that area are in. SoCal grows a lot of avocados and palms in people's backyards. They are perfect for the hills and passive income on large rural lots. In that case, I'm not sure how they are categorized. I linked San Diego's water district's stats on usage earlier in the thread, maybe that will be clearer. 

Could you link to where you're getting these numbers?

[ktgrok]

And is the average amount averaging in the enormous estates of the California elite, with the watering of their massive lawns, etc? Versus what an average suburban home uses?