California
Related: About this forumGov. Brown just ordered a 25% mandatory reduction in water usage
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/04/01/governor-jerry-brown-issues-executive-order-calls-for-mandatory-25-percent-water-reduction/.dgibby
(9,474 posts)Until he does that, he's not serious about the water shortage.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)And he is serious.
He points out that all together, fracking operations across the state used 105 million gallons of water last year. Thats the same amount of water that 650 homes use in a year.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,741 posts)Western States Petroleum Association is surely pro-fracking.
I loathe what these people are doing to our State and our precious water supply.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)...is just a distraction and makes little sense.
I'm a big Brown supporter. Saving water is important but to insist that the governor can unilaterally bring fracking to a halt is just not brilliant and it's not how government works.
I'm glad that, at least, we have pretty progressive requirements related to reporting what substances are in fracking fluid, thanks in part to Jerry Brown.
http://www.ogj.com/articles/uogr/print/volume-1/issue-4/monterey/california-sets-new-rules-for-hydraulic-fracturing.html
Better, of course, if we didn't extract fossil fuels at all.
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dog/general_information/Pages/HydraulicFracturing.aspx
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)I don't know how they will determine whether or not a user is cutting the required 25%.
pinto
(106,886 posts)Most community water districts track customer usage.
Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)We are long past due for this type of action; however, I am a little freaked because my wife and I have been practicing conservative water use for the past couple of years. I wonder if there will be a lower threshold at which users aren't required to reduce?
pinto
(106,886 posts)Don't know if that's addressed unless a "comparative standard" of similar residences is included in the assessment. If so, yours ought to be noted as below the norm already.
mrdmk
(2,943 posts)Now there is a mandatory 25% cut for all, 'cities and towns!'
Here is an article about industry and agricultural:
<snip>
The executive order imposes mandatory water reductions across California to reduce water usage by 25 percent. Brown announced the new restrictions on a mountain near Lake Tahoe, where state officials gathered to conduct an annual snowfall measure. The field where the measurement took place has averaged 66 inches of snow on April 1 since records began in 1950; today, there is no snow on the ground.
Today we are standing on dry grass where there should be five feet of snow, Brown said Wednesday.
While the eastern United States weathered a colder-than-usual winter, a warm and dry winter west of the Rocky Mountains has state officials concerned that the years-long drought will worsen this summer. The drought has diminished urban water supplies, taxed state budgets and created an environment ripe for a disastrous fire season.
<end of snip>
<snip>
The order also imposes new enforcement mechanisms on big agricultural water users, who will be required to report usage to state regulators. New residential communities will be required to install water-efficient irrigation systems; those communities will be barred from watering ornamental grass on public street medians.
<end of snip>
link to article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/04/01/amid-record-low-snowpack-california-orders-mandatory-curbs-on-water-use/
marlakay
(11,521 posts)I have friends and family that have let their lawns die and have been conserving for years while others have not.
This seems like punishment for the good guys if they make them go lower yet.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Far exceeding the impact of individual consumers, if I'm not mistaken?
Auggie
(31,213 posts)And because their crops fetch high prices, farmers have been planting a lot of trees.
antiquie
(4,299 posts)In addition, Brown's executive order will:
-- Impose significant cuts in water use on campuses, golf courses, cemeteries and other large landscapes.
-- Replace 50 million square feet of lawns throughout the state with "drought tolerant landscaping."
-- Create a temporary, statewide consumer rebate program to replace old appliances with water efficient models.
-- Prohibit new homes and developments from irrigating with potable water unless water-efficient drip irrigation systems are used.
-- Ban watering of ornamental grass on public street medians.
-- Require agricultural water users to report more water use information to state regulators, increasing the state's ability to enforce against illegal diversions and waste.
"It's a different world," Brown said Wednesday. "We have to act differently."
A staggering 11 trillion gallons are needed for California to recover from the emergency.
The estimate is based on NASA satellite data analysis of how much water the state's reserves lack. That's more than 14,000 times the amount of water it would take to fill the Dallas Cowboys stadium, according to CNN calculations. It's the amount of water that flows over Niagara Falls in about 170 days' time.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)New data shows residents of some wealthy Southern California cities use more than 10 times as much water per day as their northern counterparts.
*snip*
Who are the biggest water consumers? From September to October, residents of Rancho Santa Fe, a San Diego County enclave often listed as one of the nations richest zip codes, used 584.4 gallons of water per person. Per day.
San Franciscans, on the other hand, consumed a scant 45.7 gallons of water per techie daily, the lowest rate in the state, according to the data.
That means although the Rancho Santa Fe area water district only has 2.3 percent of the population of San Francisco, its customers use the equivalent of 22 percent of the water delivered to the Bay Area metropolis.
Los Angeles residents consumed 92.8 gallons per person a day, for those of you keeping score in the perpetual L.A.San Francisco rivalry.
http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/11/04/meet-californias-biggest-water-hogs
I'd be more inclined to believe Gov. Brown's seriousness regarding California's drought if he would include in his order that the California elite drop their water usage as a rule, and not tie that into "higher rates" - which they can easily afford while the vast majority of Californians cannot.
antiquie
(4,299 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)working Californians still hold the votes.
California politicians still need our votes to stay in power, and if Californians are told that the true reason why we suddenly have to pay higher water rates and conserve water - when it's clear that California has more than enough water to go around for all - while the elite are wasting water to the tune of hundreds of gallons per person, per day, you can BET that they'd send a loud and clear message to Sacramento to either govern fairly or face losing their seats.
Now is the time for the Green Party to step up and educate Californians (since the Democratic Party is dropping the ball on this one) that we are being subjected to higher water rates and rationing while the wealthy elite (most are Republicans, by the way) slip silently by. They are the real water hogs in this State, and they won't feel the sting of a higher rate and any "fines" they might get while not being required to use less water.
The unfairness of this new order is pissing me off.