If we leave California... where to?

[shawthorne44]

One thing I have never understood about water restrictions is that water sent to the sewers is counted the same as water sent to the ground.  Water sent to the sewers isn't gone.  It is cleaned up and sent right back to you.    Water for your lawn/plants is a much different story.      

[Carol in Cal.]

9 minutes ago, shawthorne44 said:

One thing I have never understood about water restrictions is that water sent to the sewers is counted the same as water sent to the ground.  Water sent to the sewers isn't gone.  It is cleaned up and sent right back to you.    Water for your lawn/plants is a much different story.      

That's not actually the case where I live.  Our sewage is cleaned up and then the clean water is channeled into the San Francisco Bay.  That is why the south lobe of the bay is so much less salty than typical brackish water.

[ktgrok]

13 minutes ago, shawthorne44 said:

One thing I have never understood about water restrictions is that water sent to the sewers is counted the same as water sent to the ground.  Water sent to the sewers isn't gone.  It is cleaned up and sent right back to you.    Water for your lawn/plants is a much different story.      

Not here it isn't. It is cleaned and then released into waterways, at least in much of Florida. It is not used for drinking or whatever. Not sure if it is anywhere, actually. Our drinking water comes from the Florida Aquifer. 

[shinyhappypeople]

2 hours ago, Plum Crazy said:

Missing my point. When a family does everything possible to conserve and still goes over and it's a mystery as to why, they are totally screwed. It's at that point that every activity that requires water becomes a point of tension in the household and a huge budget breaker for the poor and middle class  

I grew up in SoCal and if it's brown flush it down. I understand drought and also believe everyone should do their best to conserve. I have a problem with the amount they are restricting to and the way they are going about doing it. 

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? In a land where 30% of renters pay over half of their income towards rent, it's just not right to squeeze more out of them through fines and threats. Incentivizing and allowing for appeals would be much better for the community as a whole. House prices are among the highest in the country and they are going to require all new homes to have solar panels?! Again, I'm all for solar; especially in CA where rolling blackouts are common because they can't get their power grid figured out. But to require it, only passes the cost onto the buyer who is already stretching their paycheck to own a home. Incentivize them, provide a significant energy rebate or tax credit. But forcing conservation ends up penalizing the lower and middle class by pricing them out. 

I'm pretty sure the 100 gallons a day includes outdoor usage and the statistic cannot account for household size or other variables (lot size, time spent at home, etc.) that would skew the average up or down.  So, if that's what the state based the new recommendations on I am, if possible, even less impressed.

Regarding the second paragraph: 1,000 times YES.  

I think out-of-state people struggle to understand the context within which these restrictions are being imposed.  In general, Californians already make efforts to conserve.  Most of us already deal with outdoor watering restrictions, even in non-drought years.  We've already watched for decades as our government has added taxes, fees, and restrictions to everyday people while not putting forth adequate efforts to improve infrastructure.  Think of the new water law as the straw that broke that camel's back. 

And it's not like the state doesn't have the money to build water storage or make repairs, etc.  They're running a budget surplus.  They're doing they because they can.  How messed up is that?!

[shawthorne44]

5 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

That's not actually the case where I live.  Our sewage is cleaned up and then the clean water is channeled into the San Francisco Bay.  That is why the south lobe of the bay is so much less salty than typical brackish water.

 

Well, there is the problem, that is insane!    

[shinyhappypeople]

13 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

That's not actually the case where I live.  Our sewage is cleaned up and then the clean water is channeled into the San Francisco Bay.  That is why the south lobe of the bay is so much less salty than typical brackish water.

Wouldn't changing the salinity of that part of the bay negatively effect the lives of the sea creatures that normally call that area home?  Regardless, that's nuts.  They need to store that water and use it for agriculture.

[Carol in Cal.]

4 minutes ago, shinyhappypeople said:

Wouldn't changing the salinity of that part of the bay negatively effect the lives of the sea creatures that normally call that area home?  Regardless, that's nuts.  They need to store that water and use it for agriculture.

The bay is really, really big, and they have been doing this for a long time.  I think that there is ample room for slight migration into areas closer to the ocean.  There have always been salinity gradients due to fresh water river sources vs. the ocean, so this has just exaggerated them.

Transport would be an issue if wanting to channel the local reclaimed water to agriculture.

[ktgrok]

42 minutes ago, shinyhappypeople said:

 

I think out-of-state people struggle to understand the context within which these restrictions are being imposed.  In general, Californians already make efforts to conserve.  Most of us already deal with outdoor watering restrictions, even in non-drought years. 

Then this would be a non-issue, as they won't be hit by the penalties. I'd think you'd be glad that the people that are not conserving will finally be paying the increased price of that. 

[shinyhappypeople]

18 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Then this would be a non-issue, as they won't be hit by the penalties. I'd think you'd be glad that the people that are not conserving will finally be paying the increased price of that. 

You've managed to entirely miss the point.  And, even with conserving water, yes, it's possible to go over.  Stuff happens. Teens make mistakes and take 20 minute showers while you're out running errands. Human beings aren't perfect.  I'm not sure how else to explain it, so I give up.  

[Carol in Cal.]

25 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Then this would be a non-issue, as they won't be hit by the penalties. I'd think you'd be glad that the people that are not conserving will finally be paying the increased price of that. 

No, this is far beyond that point.  That is why you're hearing us complain about it, for the first time.  We have undergone previous moves along these lines without bringing it up here, but this one has crossed the line to the point of essentially being unreasonable seizure.  

[shinyhappypeople]

One more thing: even if I currently use water within the proposed limits and I am able to continuously use water flawlessly, the base rate for my water bill is still going to increase, probably by a lot.  That's so, so, so very messed up.

[ktgrok]

16 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

No, this is far beyond that point.  That is why you're hearing us complain about it, for the first time.  We have undergone previous moves along these lines without bringing it up here, but this one has crossed the line to the point of essentially being unreasonable seizure.  

Unreasonable siezure??? For having a surcharge on water use that goes above and beyond reasonable usage, in a  drought prone area? 

My husband runs the water while he brushes his teethe nd runs the  shower every single time he poops, and he takes forever to poop. (dear lord, let him never run for public office now that that tidbit is on the inter webs, lol), and takes long showers too. Sometimes twice a day. My teen takes longer showers too. I take shorter ones, true, and the littles it just varies. The baby is bathed in the sink, so that's not much water, but often twice a day AND I wash her cloth diapers at least 3 days a week, doing first a short wash and then a long wash with an extra rinse. So I'd say that makes up for her small baths, lol. We don't use that much water. And we are not even trying to conserve. So these are not hardship levels of water restrictions, unless you are watering a lawn too. (and there was some talk that outside watering didn't even count? Or had a different amount allowed?)

So no, I don't think higher water charges on the amount of water that you use over and above reasonable use is an "unreasonable seizure". 

If you think your water bills are too high, at base, that's another issue. Although rather than seeing them as too high I'd be wanting them to use that money to fund the improvement projects people are calling for. Are there local people running for office to address those things?

[Carol in Cal.]

2 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Unreasonable siezure??? For having a surcharge on water use that goes above and beyond reasonable usage, in a  drought prone area? 

 

You just don't want to believe how much they will charge.  That's fine.  We're here, and we are the ones who have to deal with it.  2 years ago when the extreme measures went in I knew people who usually paid about $90 getting bills for $1000 due to penalty payments.  And water meters are not measured continuously, so it was not even clear that they had exceeded the monthly limits, because the water company used an assumed reading and an actual one in alternating months.  You bet I call that unreasonable seizure.   That kind of capricious and inaccurate BS, as well as our proven track record of working hard to save water, as well as the state government's general incompetency WRT infrastructure maintenance and just plain good sense. is what has gotten our hackles up.   

[prairiewindmomma]

I just did the math....we average using 40 gallons of water a day, per person....with no outside irrigation.  We've had our meter checked (all water turned off, making sure the dial isn't spinning).  We have dual flush toilets, 1.25gpm shower heads, aerators on all faucets, and energy star appliances.  We are just literally home all day long, make all of our meals at home, have kids who generate a fair amount of laundry because they play outside, etc......and that is a huge difference between people who are only home to sleep and who eat many of their meals out. 

Watering in the summer season puts us over that.  We have already xeriscaped and converted 2/3 of our lawn to non-grass....but mulch + plants keeps the house a lot cooler than gravel (which retains heat during the day and lets it off at night) and provides a home for the local birds and bees.  We hand water (no sprinklers) about 600sq ft of lawn plus some plants.   Retrofitting to a grey water system is not possible with the current setback requirements and teeny tiny lawns.

10% of water use in California is urban. http://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/  I reiterate my earlier post....they are picking at the low-hanging fruit because the politicians aren't willing to undertake systemic change. 

[ktgrok]

8 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

You just don't want to believe how much they will charge.  That's fine.  We're here, and we are the ones who have to deal with it.  2 years ago when the extreme measures went in I knew people who usually paid about $90 getting bills for $1000 due to penalty payments.  And water meters are not measured continuously, so it was not even clear that they had exceeded the monthly limits, because the water company used an assumed reading and an actual one in alternating months.  You bet I call that unreasonable seizure.   That kind of capricious and inaccurate BS, as well as our proven track record of working hard to save water, as well as the state government's general incompetency WRT infrastructure maintenance and just plain good sense. is what has gotten our hackles up.   

That part yes, I would object to. We've had some similar issues here, but with electricity, and crud hit the fan. That, and yes, if penalties were 10 times as high, I'd call unreasonable. 

[SeaConquest]

These posts are cracking me up. $1000 water fines, sh*t and needles all over the streets, crumbling infrastructure, and rolling blackouts all the time. Are we even talking about the same state?

Yes, we have a homeless problem in San Diego, San Francisco, and LA. Not unlike any other large city in the United States. And rolling blackouts? Haven't really seen those since Enron stopped screwing us over. What I see is a state with a thriving economy, very low unemployment, real estate prices through the roof, infrastructure expansion everywhere I look in So Cal, solar being installed on every rooftop, cranes dotting every skyline from all the new construction going up, nursing ratios that are the best (read: safest) in the nation, and a safety net that is better than most other states. Sure, there are problems, but you guys make it sound like California is a hellhole, and that is just flat out untrue.

I see a political divide that is getting greater and an exodus from CA primarily caused by two things: 1) housing costs (people cashing out or unable to buy moving to cheaper states) and 2) politics (my conservative friends are unhappy being in the minority and are moving to red states). I wasn't a fan of Jerry Brown, and I didn't vote him either time, but I actually think he has done a bang up job as Gov. He inherited an insolvent state in the midst of a terrible financial recession (from a Republican, that I did vote for, no less) and is leaving with a large budget surplus. I've been won over by his tough love and prudent planning. If he ran again, I would vote for him this time. I will be thrilled if Newsom does half the job that Brown did.   

 

[Laurel-in-CA]

I'm sort of glad Villaraigosa didn't make it onto the general election ballot. Here's a story about how well he respected water rationing back in 2009. I've lived in CA all my life and have been thru several rounds of drought. Our city offered a lovely incentive a few years ago -- replaced all our regular flush toilettes with low-water suction-driven flushers. That was nice! They also offer a (not as enticing) program for replacing lawns with drought-sensitive xeriscape or other minimal water solutions. Incentives rather than punishments are a LOT more effective!

http://laist.com/2009/08/26/gotcha_nbc_catches_villaraigosa_ill.php

 

[shawthorne44]

2 hours ago, SeaConquest said:

...

Yes, we have a homeless problem in San Diego, San Francisco, and LA. Not unlike any other large city in the United States. ....

 

I haven't been there recently so I can't say from personal experience.   But, are there any other cities in a first-world country with an online Sh#t map like San Francisco has?    

 

[Selkie]

16 minutes ago, shawthorne44 said:

 

I haven't been there recently so I can't say from personal experience.   But, are there any other cities in a first-world country with an online Sh#t map like San Francisco has?    

 

I haven't been to San Francisco myself, but was talking to someone who recently spent a day there. He said he and his wife have traveled all over the world and have never encountered the disgusting conditions they experienced in San Francisco. They had to throw away their shoes because despite trying to dodge all the human waste, they still got it on their shoes. So gross!

[Carol in Cal.]

3 minutes ago, Selkie said:

I haven't been to San Francisco myself, but was talking to someone who recently spent a day there. He said he and his wife have traveled all over the world and have never encountered the disgusting conditions they experienced in San Francisco. They had to throw away their shoes because despite trying to dodge all the human waste, they still got it on their shoes. So gross!

It's my home city, and I'm not all that far away, and I would like to say--I have heard of this but not seen it.  I believe it, but want everyone to know that t's not everywhere in the city.  I've spent quite a bit of time in the Glen Park, Diamond Heights, Mission, and Noe Valley districts this year and have not run across it.

[KungFuPanda]

On 6/16/2018 at 4:31 PM, katilac said:

 

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. 

 

Yes, geographical costs. If you live in California, wouldn’t you pay much less for heating, winter clothing, snow removal costs (including road damage that comes from harsh winter weather), and even produce? I’ve got friends paying for flood damage and they haven’t recovered from the last flood. Everything costs. 

On 6/16/2018 at 8:07 PM, 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.

It seems it would be in everyone’s best interest to scale back on that and ramp up local production more. CA needs their water and the east coast doesn’t really NEED  non-local apples. CA produce tastes amazing when your IN CA.

On 6/16/2018 at 9:47 PM, KrissiK said:

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.

 

We NEED farmers. So many of them fell to big agriculture. If water prices raise the cost of food shipped cross country then people may change the way they eat and eat more locally again. It’s not THAT long ago that we did this. I remember it and I’m not old. (I’m not!) Hopefully there’s some farmland left when we wake up. 

On 6/17/2018 at 8:59 AM, 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.  

 

 

35-50 gallons in the average bath seems really high. It sounds more like the capacity of the average tub if filled to the brim; which you’d never do. An adult displaced enough water that they’d only fill it 1/2 way for a soak and 1/4-1/3 for a quick daily bath. 

I have a Japanese style soaking tub. It holds 45 gallons. If I fill it half way it gets water to my shoulders. 

Does anyone REALLY taking the time to FILL a big corner tub EVERY day? Does there exist an entire FAMILY who needs to do this for health reasons? I get it, my disabled son needs a bath to soak and for comfort, but he doesn’t need it daily and the other 3 people in the family sure don’t. 

[KungFuPanda]

3 hours ago, prairiewindmomma said:

I just did the math....we average using 40 gallons of water a day, per person....with no outside irrigation.  We've had our meter checked (all water turned off, making sure the dial isn't spinning).  We have dual flush toilets, 1.25gpm shower heads, aerators on all faucets, and energy star appliances.  We are just literally home all day long, make all of our meals at home, have kids who generate a fair amount of laundry because they play outside, etc......and that is a huge difference between people who are only home to sleep and who eat many of their meals out. 

Watering in the summer season puts us over that.  We have already xeriscaped and converted 2/3 of our lawn to non-grass....but mulch + plants keeps the house a lot cooler than gravel (which retains heat during the day and lets it off at night) and provides a home for the local birds and bees.  We hand water (no sprinklers) about 600sq ft of lawn plus some plants.   Retrofitting to a grey water system is not possible with the current setback requirements and teeny tiny lawns.

10% of water use in California is urban. http://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/  I reiterate my earlier post....they are picking at the low-hanging fruit because the politicians aren't willing to undertake systemic change. 

What water does a gray water system reclaim? If your laundry water discharged into a utility sink, you may be able to rig it without an expensive system. 

[Roadrunner]

I do think not growing almonds and instead growing produce that isn’t as water intensive is a good idea. But the part that gets me is if/when we decide to make changes to our agricultural sector in terms of not growing certain crops, these changes will be felt throughout the county. It isn’t just CA apples off season as somebody above mentioned, but a massive amount of food the country eats comes from here. So this isn’t just a CA problem, but the problem of the entire country really. I would like to see help given to farmers maybe to switch crops, but as somebody who knows nothing about agriculture, I don’t know what it takes to uproot almond plantations and regrow different trees. Trees don’t grow in one year. I do think something longer term will have to change, and again the rest of the country will do well to recognize what CA provides to them both in terms of food and money. Should I remind people how much federal dollars get transferred from CA to many red states? 

 

And yes, I am also cracking up about all the crazy stuff I am reading is apparently happening to us. Who knew. 

 

[Liz CA]

On the agricultural topic...it would throw a lot of farms / orchards into debt or cause them to go out of business completely because as roadrunner said, new trees don't grow overnight. There is also the question of climate. Certain crops need summer heat yet a certain low point during winter but not too low, etc. Various regions in CA have favorable climate for a variety of crops. So if farmers are growing the right crop for the climate, we should be able to put some heads together to solve the water issue. Desalination has been suggested. I think this is one possible issue that needs to be put back on the table for consideration. There may be other solutions or part-solutions that would move CA a step closer to having the water its agriculture and the country has come to rely on. 

[Carol in Cal.]

Personally I think they should build short, simple structures (like the ones you sometimes see shading parking lots) over the big canals that flow through the Central Valley heat.  Shading would reduce evaporative losses, and also they could put solar panels on top and generate more electricity.  It's a win win win!  

[chiguirre]

10 hours ago, Plum Crazy said:

 

 

 

Ok I'm on my phone so this is going to be ugly and out of order. 

https://www.sdcwa.org/water-use

SD site linked above had their past numbers at 200/day. But like I said, it's mixed ag and res for a large part of the population. 

http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3611

The first one is a combined figure of municipal and industrial. From the web page:

It shows that total potable water use for the Water Authority service area for the 12 months ended July 2017 was up 2.5 percent compared to the year-earlier period. Urban (Municipal and Industrial) potable use for the same period was up 3.5 percent. For July 2017, total potable water use was up 0.6 percent over the same month a year earlier.

The second one seems to combine indoor and outdoor use because it rises from a 64 gallon avg in Jan-Mar to 109 Jun-Sep. That's pretty extreme and must be from outside irrigation, not extra runs of the dish washer or longer showers.

 

[Frances]

47 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

On the agricultural topic...it would throw a lot of farms / orchards into debt or cause them to go out of business completely because as roadrunner said, new trees don't grow overnight. There is also the question of climate. Certain crops need summer heat yet a certain low point during winter but not too low, etc. Various regions in CA have favorable climate for a variety of crops. So if farmers are growing the right crop for the climate, we should be able to put some heads together to solve the water issue. Desalination has been suggested. I think this is one possible issue that needs to be put back on the table for consideration. There may be other solutions or part-solutions that would move CA a step closer to having the water its agriculture and the country has come to rely on. 

With the climate change happening, crop changes are going to ultimately be needed regardless of what happens with water issues. The OR wine industry is already benefiting from increased temperatures in CA.

[SanDiegoMom]

9 hours ago, kdsuomi said:

 

 By the way, if you want to see good roads and freeways, take trips to other states. We always love leaving CA because you can tell as soon as you cross the border due to the difference in roads (just like you can tell when leaving Orange County and entering LA or Riverside County or vice versa). 

 

 

This is definitely state or region dependent. We moved from the six lane highways of So Cal to live off of I 95 in Va, which has the worst congestion in the nation. They keep sloooowly trying to expand more but they just can't keep up.   

[prairiewindmomma]

On 6/18/2018 at 6:34 PM, KungFuPanda said:

What water does a gray water system reclaim? If your laundry water discharged into a utility sink, you may be able to rig it without an expensive system. 

My tiny laundry has no room for a utility sink. I would be delighted if we could recover our laundry and bath water. 

Unfortunately, in a climate with a wet and a dry season, rain barrels aren’t really feasible either. 

[KungFuPanda]

6 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

My tiny laundry has no room for a utility sink. I would be delighted if we could recover our laundry and bath water. 

Unfortunately, in a climate with a wet and a dry season, rain barrels aren’t really feasible either. 

For less than $100 you can get a pond pump. That, with a hose, will redirect any water you can catch. It would work for bath water, and even washing machine water if you drain into a tub, trash can, or anything that will hold the water. It’s a five minute commitment, but might be worth it to reuse that water. 

 

[rebbyribs]

On 6/17/2018 at 6:48 AM, maize said:

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.

I'm not sure this is true.  My PG&E bill always comes with a comparison of our gas and electric use compared to "efficient" homes.  The "efficient" homes are the lowest 10% of occupied houses of similar square footage.  Surprise, surprise, we are not an "efficient" home despite having the LED lightbulbs, HE washer, line-drying clothing etc.  We're 8 people who are home almost all day and cook most meals at home, and I doubt many of the comparable houses have so many people.  I asked PG&E about why the comparison doesn't account for the number of people in the home, and they said that they don't have that data to compare.  I'm not sure that our water utility would have it either, and I'm a little nervous that these water use rules will be based on average household size.  Regardless, we're at about 140 gal / day for our household and I could probably conserve a bit more (seeing as we managed to during the 2017 drought).