California's new water rules WTH?

Jim Metropulos, legislative director for California State Assemblywoman Laura Friedman (D-Glendale) who authored 1668, told us the legislation sets water efficiency goals for water districts and municipalities on the territorial level, but it does not regulate what individual Californians or businesses can and can’t do: “There is nothing in this bill to target households or companies. Water use objectives are on territory-level of a water agency. There is nothing regulating the time a person may shower or when they may or may not do laundry.”

The legislation instead will prompt water agencies to set methods and goals for reducing per capita water use over time, starting in 2022. In a statement released by Brown’s office, the governor said the legislation is meant to brace the state for the next water shortage:

(emphasis mine)

SNOPES OMG FAKE NEWS LOL

i know there's little point in fact-checking y'all when you're on a GRR CALIFORNIA BAD session but... y'all been duped by the ol' fake news again. sorry bout it.

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: rickymouse
They are all messed up in California, look at this info. www.motherjones.com...

They are complaining about their people using water around the house yet blow lots of water growing foods that are nothing more than sales scams to bring money into California. The businesses and agriculture will not have limitations on them, just citizens. For every avacado the person eats that day, knock off thirty gallons of water they are allowed to use.

I do not know what kind of nuts they got in charge over there in California, but maybe their people should start to examine what is really going on there.

Everyone knows about how the farmers waste water. They've been doing this for decades. Every farm gets a water allocation as part of their water rights. If they use less water than they did the previous year, then their allocation gets reduced and allocated to someone else the next year. That totally screws them if they need extra water the next year. So they make sure they use their entire allocation. They of course could use polytunnels or hydroponic gardens but that would upset the environmentalists.

I could see households moving to water recycling/purification systems. Instead of letting water from showers, washing machines and dish washers go to waste, it could be recycled untreated for toilets, but could also be filtered and disinfected for reuse.

I am guessing that a golf course uses way more water than a hundred households do in a day there. The rich also water their yards and flower gardens and I suppose they will just get a penalty which they could easily afford to pay. Now the person just barely making it, who need to take a shower every day for work and have to prepare their own meals and wash their own clothes will be the ones who suffer.

a reply to: fiverx313

Yup. But.... You realize that cement ditch that runs through los Angeles was actually a real river once? And you,can look at satellite imagery now and see that the Colorado does not make it to the sea now. Too many people in a spot that is naturally not able to support that many.

a reply to: fiverx313

Will look at this, but really. . .

Having Snopes invalidate leftist insanity is like having MSNBC verify CNN.

a reply to: fiverx313

Problem: Fines and additional regulatory fees are passed on to the customer. This means that yes, in fact consumers will be the ones paying for overages and not just their own personal ones... it will raise everyone's bill (except for the subsidized users who are paid for by higher costs to non-subsidized users, they'll not personally see any additional hardship tacked on to their present liability of, uhm, nothing)

Now I realize some of y'all ridicule the economically sound principle that higher wage controls will always equal higher point of sale costs, and I also know y'all take that position purely by saying "well, the companies need to be made to take lower profits." But we are talking about public-private partnerships with utilities, meaning their costs passed to the customer have a fixed escalation factor which gives them modest, at best, profits. In other words, there won't be any option but to pass the costs on to the customer and with the per user cap set ridiculously low, they're guaranteed to have overages system-wide.

Again... California, land of the #heads running the #show.

originally posted by: Wrapscalllion
a reply to: fiverx313

Yup. But.... You realize that cement ditch that runs through los Angeles was actually a real river once? And you,can look at satellite imagery now and see that the Colorado does not make it to the sea now. Too many people in a spot that is naturally not able to support that many.

yes, it's not really sustainable to have so many people living in a desert area. this is known.

it's also a completely different premise from the slop the OP served up.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: fiverx313

Will look at this, but really. . .

Having Snopes invalidate leftist insanity is like having MSNBC verify CNN.

facts are facts. your sentence doesn't even follow tbh. learn to analogize.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: fiverx313

Problem: Fines and additional regulatory fees are passed on to the customer. This means that yes, in fact consumers will be the ones paying for overages and not just their own personal ones... it will raise everyone's bill (except for the subsidized users who are paid for by higher costs to non-subsidized users, they'll not personally see any additional hardship tacked on to their present liability of, uhm, nothing)

Now I realize some of y'all ridicule the economically sound principle that higher wage controls will always equal higher point of sale costs, and I also know y'all take that position purely by saying "well, the companies need to be made to take lower profits." But we are talking about public-private partnerships with utilities, meaning their costs passed to the customer have a fixed escalation factor which gives them modest, at best, profits. In other words, there won't be any option but to pass the costs on to the customer and with the per user cap set ridiculously low, they're guaranteed to have overages system-wide.

Again... California, land of the #heads running the #show.

again... a different premise from the slop in the OP. can i ask what kind of training you do to work up to moving goalposts? i imagine probably some core stuff but you probably can't skip leg day.

The over-use fine is actually just a tax.

Phase II will be "cap and trade" water credits.


Homeless ppl won't use their whole 55 gallons per day, so they'll get a coupon they can sell via an online brokerage to rich people. The poor ppl get an income, rich people can wash their luxury SUVs, and overall water usage declines. A liberal solution that works.

a reply to: fiverx313

Goal posts don't seem to have moved from my 1st post in this thread back on page 1.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
So take the nonsequiter nonsense elsewhere.

a reply to: Gargoyle91

What the people need to demand is that Cali builds desalination plants up and down the coast and shut down companies like nestled bottling vast amounts of water out of aquifers for next to nothing at tremendous profit.

originally posted by: Grimmley
a reply to: TonyS

Smartmeters and to think they always said it would not be used to spy on you ..lol whoever believed that was an idiot.

People that think smart meters are spy devices and mind control are idiots? I agree.

The thing you used to post your reply is surely one as well.


Oh California. Its a lovely state, aside from the fact that the devil resides in its forests.

Nature will take it's course just like it did with the Anasazi ....

a reply to: CreationBro

I thought the devil was only in the jersey pine barrens

the people of California really need to stop voting morons into positions of power. long before things like water rationing should be done, they need to deal with the biggest wasters of water.

where are the laws demanding waterless urinals be used in all public washrooms? each one can save millions of liters of water a year. yet such things are not used. i did not see a single one in California when i was there a couple years ago, and that includes in theme parks. that right there would stop one of the biggest wastages of water. in fact why stop there? have them put into homes and such as well. that one thing would save a humongous amount of water. so why have they not done that?

next would be to stop using water on things like golf courses. a complete waste of water that only benefits a few, and the rich. wonder how much water that would save that everyday citizens could use? not limiting how much water can be used for such useless purposes. but a complete banning of watering all that grass at all.

if there is a water shortage, one of the first things that should be banned is things like useless water fountains. they don't even really benefit anyone. also swimming pools and hot tubs should be banned. even more wastage of water that only serves a few. want to swim? you have a freaking ocean to swim in. the same is true of water parks and water rides. a complete waste of water.

next should be industries and business that use water. let them operate in places that actually are not desperate for water. and that includes farming. it's not as if there are not huge parts of the country that have the needed water for farming. so why waste water on water intensive crops?

but no instead they will ration water to those who actually need water. a completely backwards system. humans should come first, and be the last to face water restrictions. using water rationing for people only as a last resort when all other frivolous uses of water are cut off, and there is still a water shortage.

Stop golfing/caring for a golf course. Trump won't come visiting Cali anyway.

a reply to: Isurrender73

The 6th largest economy in the world can't figure out how to desalinate water.

But there is 77 billion to spend on trains?

California's $77 billion 'bullet train to nowhere' faces a murky future as political opposition ramps up
www.cnbc.com...

This has been a dream of Nestle for many years. The ceo of nestle does not hink its a human right to have watwr snd has to be controlled. NESTLE are buying out water companies to be able to privatise it. There is even a video of him on you tube saying this.

Buxton water in the uk has Nestle waters printed on it and im sure there are many more. The rich will continue with their water supllies as normal i guess.

We dont have a water problem, we have a salt problem.

Sad times ahead and im sure this is just the begining

As for climate change. Poppycock

C;mon people ... They need the water you can't have to spray the excrement off the streets from the homeless. (sarcasm intended)

a reply to: lSkrewloosel

Speaking of Nestle - They are currently trying to take michigan water - people fighting against but politicians roll over

articles.mlive.com...

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Gargoyle91

The 6th largest economy in the world can't figure out how to desalinate water.

Hey now we can't be spending money on that, we gotta build Gov Moonbeam's bullet train first!

I'm sure having 5-10 million illegal aliens living in state has no effect.
Where are those who said they weren't bringing 3rd world conditions with them now?