This just makes me want to leave. What's next?
Isn’t California the fifth largest economy in the world? I have to wonder, if it is so terrible to its citizens, why so many people want to live there.
How much will rationing actually affect your life on a day-to-day basis? Does it mean you can only take one shower a day or does it mean you can only take one shower a week?
People do waste water in an unsustainable way along with almost everything else in civilization. At some point someone will need to do something. It has been pointed out that trying to reason with people about some important things never convinces them to change. Change only comes by using force. Now there is a conversation starter!!
There is lot of other place with better quality of life. My city is growing and I am working on moving somewhere cheaper. I have never been to california but I believe in not fighting for scarce resources. When something get popular, I like to move on to some thing better. I believe, there is always something better out there, and it have always work for me.
What's next one asks? Our betters advancing bureaucracy on our behalf never rest. Regulation begets avoidance. Avoidance begets increased regulation in a never ending process of devolving self-digestion.
Eventually life itself becomes rationed for the many by the few.
I love California and rationing makes sense in light of fact that water is our most precious resource. If folks don't want to live in a highly regulated state, Texas has a lot of space.
Actually, the reservoirs are controlled by the California State Water Resources Control Board. Los Angeles, is where I live, is owned by the people, and the government entity who manages it is the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. I don't know of any private water companies that serve the public, as even the most tiniest city, which buys electricity from private corporations, have their own water department.
Also, this is the Washington Times, the owner is the Rev. Dr. Sun Myung Moo. Nanny state? I think not, as the people voted the representatives in to enforce the rules and regulations, and if it's truly a nanny state, as the religious kooks are talking about, then they would address the mega-farms who use water to moisten the lands and the frackers who use tons of water to remove oil from the ground.
Read the Bee article which I also linked to. It's more balanced and fact-based.
Yikes! High cost of living means a lot of multi families living in homes that technically are meant for one. I assume that if a house has one water bill it still gets treated the same no matter how many occupants. California is in a crisis for sure.
I think the limitation is per-person, not per household.
@IAMGROOT I saw that in the title but it almost seemed like per family in the article. Maybe I skimmed it too fast. I still wonder if there's a limit. So again with multi family living in single family dwellings. Wonder if there's a cap to how many people per one water bill
With regard to laying all the responsibility on the state/governor to build dams, I misspoke. It was mentioned that the Fed is involved, however, according to this FEMA chart (https://www.fema.gov/dam-ownership-united-states), the majority of dams in the US are privately owned, so I think private dam construction should also be undertaken. Also, I'm no expert on rainfall/drought, but as I said in a reply to a comment here, in my area, at least, existing water coffers were completely filled by seasonal rain. So much so, in fact, that water was released (wasted).
Citizens in this state DO practice water conservation as a matter of course. Are there abusers, absolutely, but I'm sure they represent a tiny fraction of the population and certainly not enough to justify this.
I sincerely believe a large part of the solution, in concert with practicing water conservation and repairing old and leaky delivery systems (as was suggested in the Bee article) is to increase our storage capacity. Squeezing citizens through legislation is not the answer.
I'm still confused. If the water-carrying capacity is insufficient and it's in private ownership then the shortage is the fault of the market, not the state. If the state has capped consumption it's because there's a shortage. If it did nothing and used up reserves so that homes lost pressure or crops wilted in the fields I'm sure there would be an even greater outcry (and companies would probably gouge desperate consumers). I don't know the specifics that pertain to CA but I wonder if you're being naive in thinking that everything would be fine without regulation and with people exercising self-restraint. Everything I know about human nature does not support that idea.
@Gareth There doesn't seem to be any state/national "business oversight" of water infrastructure. that FEMA pie chart shows dam ownership on a national scale. I don't know how things break down in Cali. Even if those percentages apply here, due to the highly regulated nature of everything in CA, I believe government would do more to screw things up than anything productive. Again, just look at the HSR debacle.
My guess is that the existing national dam infrastructure grew with the nation. In CA, we have a large population (but hardly "overpopulated" as has been mentioned), extremely high taxes and cost of living. With that being the case, despite my preference that private sector business tackle this problem, there isn't much choice but to work within the system as it exists here. I imagine that would be a collaboration between the Fed and state government to initiate a project and bid it out for contract. No one seems to be even considering capacity as a solution.
My Libertarianism is plainly posted on my profile so you can call me naive or whatever you want, but my comments here are consistent with that, and I will always be in favor of less government regulation and less government interference in individuals' lives and greater individual liberty. Thanks for your comments.
If you hate the nanny state so much, it's simple; just collect your own rainwater and live off that and what you can bucket back from your local stream. And don't forget to flush your toilet straight onto the garden because sewage pipes are only for socialists - your lawn will love you.
Pretty sure collecting rainwater is prohibited in a lot of places.
@Blindbird California
Rainwater harvesting systems are legal in California, as long as they comply with the California State Water Resources Board requirements. Assembly Bill 1750 (2012) enacted the Rainwater Capture Act of 2012. The bill authorizes residential, commercial and governmental landowners to install, maintain, and operate rain barrel systems and rainwater capture systems for specified purposes, provided that the systems comply with specified requirements. A landscape contractor working within the classification of his or her license would be authorized entry into a prime contract for the construction of a rainwater capture system if the system is used exclusively for landscape irrigation.
@Blindbird you're right I don't know why. I do it anyway here in North Carolina with my rain barrels.
@Kojaksmom I know. I was flabbergasted when I found out about it. We had a law against rainwater collection here but I think it was repealed.
Is this not a more fair way of doing it? I’m being honest here, I’m pretty ignorant on the subject as I have plenty of water where I live.
I have lived in California since 1985... the drought here in SoCal is really bad... we have to do something...
Good for California. If it has to be a "nanny state" it's because some of its residents are too selfish to restrain themselves. Good for California for also opening its multicultural doors to immigrants. You are all free to head to Louisiana and Alabama, where poor schools, Republicans, and the Klan are fixtures.
@TheInterlooper that is because most haters are smart enough to not join them but
But support them all the same my family which I gladly left in texas are Christian bigots
Who say there not bigots they just hate black Brown and of course all Muslim Peaple
So, that applies to business and corporate citizens too? or once again, the suburban bunnies
If I understand the articles, it is residential and these numbers are supposedly targets that municipal water districts are supposed to shoot for, but they will be under pressure and citizens will feel it.
No ,but if you propose that people stop eating beef one day a week they'll go off like a f** Roman Candle. I'm not a vegetarian, but I do understand that the meat industry goes through thousands upon thousands of gallons of water a day to produce very little meat in return.
Ok, that is a rather alarmist article and apparently has some bullshit contained within it. Here's a more balanced Sacramento Bee article: [sacbee.com]
I still disagree with the idea of mandated rationing on this scale when our governor is wasting BILLIONS AND BILLIONS on his pet project, High-Speed Rail.
@IAMGROOT Your logic or lack thereof boggles the mind - money won't increase the water supply and so regardless of how much money is spent on the High-Speed Rail - people still need to drink. I've never known anyone to throw a billion dollars in the air and make it rain. California is short on water - money can't create more water and so the common sense thing to do in the middle of a drought is to conserve - it's a duh kind of thing.
So you dislike trying to not run out of water because money is being spent on high speed rail. In what way are they related?
Water and rail are two different concepts.