California adopts $500 criminal penalty for water waste

[alp227]

Source: Sacramento Bee

It will now be considered a criminal act to waste water in California.

On Tuesday, amid evidence that existing conservation measures are not working, the State Water Resources Control Board took the unprecedented step to declare certain types of water waste a criminal infraction similar to a speeding violation. The move means that certain types of water waste – allowing landscape watering to spill into streets, hosing off sidewalks and driveways – can be subject to fines of $500 per day.

Californians as a whole have failed to conserve water during the worst drought in a generation, according to data reviewed by the board at its meeting in Sacramento.

The state as a whole consumed 1 percent more water in May compared to a three-year average of the same month from 2011 to 2013, according to a recent survey of 276 water agencies representing about two-thirds of all California residents.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/15/6558982/california-used-more-water-in.html

[Louisiana1976]

1. Good idea.

[Curmudgeoness]

2. Sometimes I wonder if these people have a clue.

I do know that, even though LA is a very dry area, they were never taught water conservation. I remember my niece, who was born and raised in LA, was doing dishes at my house during a visit. She filled the sink, then left the water running the whole time to rinse the dishes. She was shocked when I told her how wasteful that was.

I am amazed that they are using MORE water than usual, knowing that they are under severe drought.

[onecaliberal]

5. You can't believe everything you read.

Yes, we do have a clue. We also grow most of the food for this country. Do you think that happens without water?

[Curmudgeoness]

6. You may have a clue,

and you may know others who have a clue, but I guarantee you that my nieces did not have a clue. And obviously, there are many more who don't realize how critical the situation is.

Are you saying that the water usage is not higher than it has been for the same time period in prior years?

[onecaliberal]

7. Yes, in Fresno county

Where I live it is lower, despite the fact it produced more Ag than anywhere else in the US. We adopted restrictions more than a year ago. We already can't water lawn or wash cars, among other things.
I don't doubt what you're saying but we're not all idiots. Some places are trying desperately to conserve. It's not enough.

[Curmudgeoness]

10. Without rain and snow, and a lot of it,

you are right that conservation will not be enough......but what can help??? I don't even know the answer. And I sympathize...I am in an area where we almost always have enough rain, but I have lived through serious droughts in Texas. And those were nothing like what you are facing.

[onecaliberal]

12. There are a lot of

Very complicated issues involved aside from the fact it hasn't rained much here. They are protecting the delta smelt, they are trying to restore the San Joaquin river flow. We have all above ground storage that wastes a lot from what I understand. I'm not going to pretend I understand all the issues, there are many. My point was just that conservation isn't going to cut it. It definitely can't hurt but we need rain.

[hobbit709]

9. and there's lots less wasteful ways of irrigation than those California rainmakers.

Those giant sprinklers waste 90% of the water.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

11. Also our population is booming.

http://www.scpr.org/news/2013/12/12/40917/california-population-growth-rate-highest-in-years/

Where we live, we cut back so much, they raised the rates to cover basic operating expenses. Lower water use, lower revenue.
Not everyone wastes here.

[ColesCountyDem]

21. CA grows about half of the fruits and veggies in the US, but at a horrendous environmental cost.

You do not 'grow most of the food for this country'. Those of us who live in 'flyover country' between the Rockies and the Appalachians grow a far greater percentage of our nation's food supply than does CA. Wheat, corn, soybeans, milk, meat, eggs, etc., and most of the other half of the fruits and veggies the US consumes.

CA has the following advantages: good soils and good climate. Disadvantages: a semi-arid environment and a resident population that is hugely wasteful with its relatively scarce water supplies.

I'm not anti-California, but I am a realist. CA, as well as much of the desert southwest, cannot sustain massive (and growing) populations with the water resources that are naturally available there.

[reddread]

22. So Cal for you, they would suck Mono Lake dry without a qualm

San Diego had a mayor who maintained a second lot next to her home as an oversized lawn, watering the shit out of it during a
previous drought, and acted like an ass about it.

The Central Valley, on the other hand has many facets to it, the local farmers in these parts started out pumping ground water and eventually canals and the aqueduct delivered acre feet so they could continue massive farming on arid soil, eventually concentrating selenium and harming water fowl in Kesterson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kesterson_National_Wildlife_Refuge

http://www.northtrinitylake.com/water/SeleniumCaseStudy.pdf

Because money and influence are what they are, farmers had little to worry about other than the upstart farmworker labor organizing
of Cesar Chavez, one of the most hated names of the 1970's. A civil rights and labor figure who stands as tall as any other icon,
although it might be a cold July in Fresno when he receives similar recognition.

For all of the breadbasket of the world, we grow your food so shut up about it boasting, there are a couple of things that go hand in hand with that- the highest unemployment figures in the state stick closely to these central valley bread basket counties.
Now, is that because of seasonal agricultural work, or is it because imported labor managed by "contractors" keeps local residents looking for the sort of work they are willing to do? (insert sarcasm thing here)

Meanwhile over the last few decades many of these large family farming operations on Fresno County's "westside" have been mismanaged by successive generations, and swallowed up by major Big Ag companies that have taken over a percentage so large that I dont even want to know what it is. It is damaging to our food security to have ever increasing monocultural non-regionally sensitive farming taking place, as well as the selling of water rights to southern california, which is at the root of much screaming for water and thrashing over the lone endangered species issue of the Delta Smelt. The outrage of greed knows no bounds, and to hear people tell it the little fish caused the drought, and if only we wiped them out, everything would be great, jobs, water, all would improve.

Now on the smaller, more personal scale, locally water conservation has been in effect, for residential people, while commercial landscaping and municipal greens have exhibited little sign of cutting back. As always, business is sacrosanct, and their consumption of water and energy is not going to be subject to the sort of reprisals and shortages the residents face.
We have a bunch of crooked political nutcases throwing expenses at a dead broke population over water use, measures implemented with promises that appear to be broken as quickly as possible. Resources being squandered, quality of life being tossed aside for the insane desires of a few connected developers and investors, and those stories are too ridiculous to enumerate right now.

Just think a little more deeply about what local people face, and dont simplify things to reactionary hatred.
the details are available, but its complicated.

[onecaliberal]

32. It is because people vote for republican here.

It is also because aside from agriculture there is very little to support families. We also have a lot of Migrant people. There are lots of reasons for it.

[reddread]

35. construction and ag, used to be plenty of both

they eventually brought in laborers to do skilled tasks, like electrical work. Ever dealt with electricians who cant speak english?

[onecaliberal]

37. Yes. They were employed by the company

Who wired my house.

[reddread]

38. make you feel safer?

seriously, what was your reaction?
I dont know if certification tests are offered in spanish.

[onecaliberal]

39. Well, it passed inspection by the city

We also paid for an independent inspection before we moved in but that was because it was recommended.
It was unsettling, not going to lie.

[reddread]

40. was this a small builder, I presume?

Having worked as an electrician and around them in construction for years, its no stretch to say there are plenty of people willing to do those jobs, even at cut rates. Finding myself the sole white guy in a small "gated" tract, and dealing with a certain amount of unsolicited hostility and rudeness, I cant say I have a high opinion of the corner cutters who bring in clearly undocumented laborers to cut local workers out of the picture.
There really isnt that much involved in wiring a house, but crews of imported workers sure cant be held responsible when the shit hits the fan, and builders of that character dont deserve the first penny let alone the last nickel they saved doing this stuff.
Hope your house is solid and trouble free. I know plenty of white guys who never should have been employed in construction,
and a few highly overpaid druggies who never did a lick of work.

[onecaliberal]

43. No, in fact one of the largest builders in the county.

The father was caught up in operation rezone about 20 years ago.
We were shocked the electric sub hired those workers but, we made sure the work was okay.
We actually haven't had any problems. The independent inspector did find a boat load of other things that were shoddy, all the door frames had to be removed and fixed.
I had infant twins at the time I damn sure didn't need my house to catch fire.

[reddread]

44. McCaffrey?

or what name is Bonnadelle trading under.?
Believe me, I have been around all of them,
and in most of their homes. their own.
yeah, thats not surprising.
And that is why we have the highest unemployment figures around.

How do you like Assemi's almond orchard in a drought scam?
Rezone was a joke. these crooks need something worse than jail.

[onecaliberal]

46. Yes

Bonnadelle. John Bonnadelle is a criminal, I don't know who they pay off to get away with half of what they do. They have since gone through several class action suits. We didn't partake in any of that mess. We fought them for three years to fix the list of things that were shoddy.

You are right on about why unemployment is so high here.

The Almond growers in this state are sucking up ten percent of the total water used. Not sure how we're going to sustain that. It's all a damn scam. Assemi should be prosecuted!

[Curmudgeoness]

36. I have been to Mono Lake.

It was after so much of it had already been lost, and it is a strange sight. It didn't look as if there is much more to drain.

Is the price of water very high in southern Cal? Is there mandatory water usage reduction? I remember when I lived in Houston during a drought there, and they had a forced 20% reduction in water usage for all homes, or there was a huge surcharge on the water above that limit. Almost killed me since I have always been very conservative with my water....cutting back further was not easy.

[silverweb]

3. Excellent!

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]A good stiff fine is very appropriate!

Here in Sacramento, we've been asked to conserve and yard watering has been restricted to every other day, which is at least something, but not everyone complies.

Some of us save shower and dishpan water for plants and to flush the toilet. Every bit helps!

[olddad56]

25. I live in Sacramento. People are allowed to water two days a week...

Odd house numbers can water Tuesdays and Saturdays, even house numbers can water on Wednesday and Sunday. But if any of your water reaches the gutter, allegedly beginning soon, that will cost you $500 a day.

I'm surprised that the Mayor and the city council of Sacramento even knows that there is a drought in Sacramento. They are so focused on building a new arena for a losing basketball franchise and allowing their developer friends to build more houses that I doubt they have even noticed.

[silverweb]

33. Thanks for the correction.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Nicetameetcha, neighbor!

My information is at least a month old, and all I remembered was even and odd. Because I live in an apartment, watering rules don't affect me directly and I only half pay attention sometimes, but I do use a bucket of gray water for my tiny "garden."

There are many more things we can do to conserve, but it will take some work and a lot of cooperation. We need to save rainwater, use more gray water, develop more/better drip irrigation systems, use greenhouses and hydroponics more for farming (look at Japan!)

I intend to buy a Perforene water filter, too, as soon as personal and household-sized ones become available, so any water can be made drinkable. It could well be a necessity within the next few years.

[onecaliberal]

4. Conservation is not enough.

Sacramento bee should stop acting like the national enquirer.

[silverweb]

8. California needs water for agriculture, BUT...

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]a huge amount of it is wasted.

What we need is more of this kind of thing, which uses a miniscule amount of water compared to traditional irrigation, as well as more targeted drip irrigation.

In addition, we should be making gray-water installations a standard part of all new buildings: residential, industrial, and commercial.

[onecaliberal]

13. There is a lot more drip irrigation

Farmers that have survived are paying a substantial amount of money for that water. They aren't using it willy nilly. They got 0% of their delivery so they have to pay for the water they use.

[SunSeeker]

14. Not enough. Water is wasted horribly on rice and alfalfa fields.

Rice farmers just flood their fields; they can't use drip irrigation. It is insane to grow rice in a dry state like CA. It should only be grown in places like Louisiana and Florida. Worse, much of CA's water is distributed based on archaic water rights laws, some going back to the old "First in Time, First in Right" common law that applied when CA was first settled. All those farmers did was post a piece of paper on a tree saying that they are going to divert that creek's water. That is how many of the rice farmers started out. Those original water rights holders have mostly now been subsumed by agriibusinesses, who pay pennies on the dollar for their water compared to what folks in cities pay for their tap water. The crazy patchwork of laws governing water rights in CA needs to be completely reworked.

[onecaliberal]

15. Do you live here? Do you have any clue how many farmers have gone under

Because they can't afford water. I strongly disagree with your assertions. Farmers are paying for the water out if the money they would get for the crop. There are no fields being flooded. I live here.

[SunSeeker]

24. Yes, I have a clue. Rice fields are flooded. Here’s a link on how rice is grown in CA.

http://calrice.org/industry/how-rice-grows

I'd love a link on how rice can be grown with drip irrigation.

[BronxBoy]

30. It can't... N/T

[onecaliberal]

31. It's a lot better than it was. And you can show me where I said rice can be grown by drip.

I was talking about fruit and veggies which is what I said.


http://www.norcalwater.org/2012/08/10/rice-practices-enhance-efficient-water-management-in-the-sacramento-valley/

[SunSeeker]

42. You imply it in post #8. But glad to see we're in agreement that rice can't be grown that way.

"Efficient" is hardly what anyone should call rice farming. Please expound on how rice farming today is "a lot better than it was." The link you cite reads like rice industry propaganda; it sheds little light on the subject. Instead, it claims flooding rice fields is good for the environment.

[olddad56]

26. not to mention shipping the water from the north to the south to grow cotton. We all eat cotton.

[Xithras]

34. You're wrong in regards to the rice.

Nearly all rice farming in California is done on former marshlands, where water is (and always has been) readily available. Contrary to common belief, the Central Valley WAS NOT an arid desert or dry grassland before the advent of modern agriculture. While some portions were drier than others, Fresno county once held the largest freshwater lake west of the Mississippi, the San Joaquin/Sacramento rivers used to flow down the centers of a 300 mile long swamp (Sacramento was once regarded as a western New Orleans...a city surrounded by barely passable marshes and swamps), paddlewheelers used to run from San Francisco to cities as far inland as Modesto, and in wet years the entire valley could turn into a single 450 mile long lake. You should read the early descriptions of the Valley written by explorers like Jim Bridger or naturalists like John Muir, or writers like Mark Twain (who visited the Valley on an extended western tour). They all describe lush grasslands with vast herds of wild animals, extensive forests, heavily braided rivers, and huge wetlands and lakes. Even military guys like John C Fremont (credited with seizing California for the U.S.) described it as "Paradise". Salt Lake City actually exists today because the Valley was TOO nice. The Mormons originally set out toward California with an intent to settle in the Central Valley. They chose to settle in Utah instead because their scouts came back with reports of a land that was so lush that it was only a matter of time before it was overrun by American settlers, and the Mormons wanted to settle somewhere where neighbors wouldn't be a problem.

The Valley is dry today because we have cut the riparian forests down, and drained the marshes, and leveed the rivers, and dammed their flow so that only a trickle of the water that once reached it can do so today. Those rice fields exist in lower areas of the Valley where water once flowed naturally, and only use a fraction of the water that originally existed there. Cutting off that water will just annihilate the little wildlife that remains in the valley, and will complete the environmental destruction that the white men started so long ago.

[SunSeeker]

41. We must deal with today's reality; farming comprises 2% of CA's economy but uses 80% of its water.

You are right, people made the valleys dry, and salty. Much of the water that made these areas marsh has been diverted, as you note. Houses have been built on what were once marshes after the marshes dried out. There is nothing "natural" about the rice fields. Maybe they used to grow rice in marshes, but not now. Now, 95% of CA's rice is grown within 100 miles of the State Capital. http://www.calrice.org/Industry+Info/About+California+Rice/California+Rice+Growing+Region.htm

This area around Sacramento is an arid area. The fields would be bone dry without irrigation. Flooding them to grow sushi rice is a waste of water. The point is, what do we do now? Is growing rice the best use of this water? Environmentalists don't think so. The NRDC does not think so. Rice fields are hardly riparian habitats. They dump nitrates and pesticides into the environment and consume huge amounts of water.

We don't have to cut off all the water. We just need to use it more wisely. Shaving irrigation water by 10 percent would save more than is used by all other water consumers put together.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/facing-the-freshwater-crisis/

Another example of an ill-advised farming practice is growing alfalfa in the desert. Many think of alfalfa mainly in terms of the sprouts that end up on sandwiches, but the vast majority of the nation's alfalfa output feeds livestock. The relatively low-value crop uses up about a quarter of California's irrigation water but contributes only 4 percent to the state's total farm revenue, according to the NRDC. It's not that alfalfa itself consumes more water than other farm plants, as noted by Mark Grismer, a professor of agricultural engineering at the University of California, Davis; farmers grow alfalfa year-round in what is essentially a desert climate in the southwestern U.S.

And to add insult to injury, corporate farms get massive water subsidies in California. http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/water013105.cfm

We should be restoring estuaries and the delta, not wasting huge amounts of precious water growing sushi rice and alfalfa in an arid climate.

But don't worry, your rice fields are safe. The agribusinesses that own them have senior rights to the rest of us. http://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-delta-flows-20140323-story.html#page=1

[Xithras]

45. And?

Now, 95% of CA's rice is grown within 100 miles of the State Capital...This area around Sacramento is an arid area.
Completely wrong. Sacramento was built on a high spot in the middle of a swamp. Before human beings fucked everything up, there was a year round marsh running from Chico to Stockton, with Sacramento right in the middle. That's where the rice fields are. The area doesn't get much direct rain in the summer, but the ample runoff from the surrounding mountains meant that the region was never "arid". We did that. The dry parts of the Valley were much further south, along the western edge of the Valley south of the Delta.

farming comprises 2% of CA's economy but uses 80% of its water.
And? I really hope that you're not advocating a water allocation system based on economic benefit. Water should always be allocated to nature first, human activities that minimize destruction second, and anti-nature human activities third. The area was a natural grassland and marshland dotted in forests. I'd much rather see the water go to green farms than to suburban pools, industrial polluters and urban concrete wastelands. In what world can any environmentalist argue that it's better to strip these lands of water? If the area was a natural marsh, which is better? Converting the marsh to a green farm, or converting it to a desiccated, environmentally annihilated desert? I'd rather it be marsh, but given the option, I'll take farms over industry and desiccation.

Another example of an ill-advised farming practice is growing alfalfa in the desert.
We can generally agree on that. Growing alfalfa in the Mojave and high deserts is idiotic. Turning a desert into a green grassland is just as environmentally destructive as turning a green grassland into a desert, and it's a horrible way to allocate scarce resources.

And to add insult to injury, corporate farms get massive water subsidies in California.
Studies like this are generally bullshit because they arbitrarily label below-"market-rate" water sales as a "subsidy". Water is not something that should ever be considered a "market" product. That is the kind of thinking that drives the corporatists and privatizers like Nestle, who want all water supplies to be a commercially managed resource. Water is not property. Everyone should pay their fair share, and make sure they're carrying their weight as far as the costs of capture and delivery go. Farmers DO pay enough for their water to cover the delivery and administration costs of the water they use. If you're paying more than them, if you're paying "market rate" prices for your water, it's because urban water users are allowing the capitalists to rip them off.

[SunSeeker]

48. And the fact is the area around Sacramento is arid now. We have to deal with reality.

Yes, humans dried up the marshes and built houses there. Unless you're willing to evict people from their homes, those areas are not going back to being marshes.

And no, I am not saying we should switch from farming to "industry and desiccation." I'm saying we should switch to farming that is more appropriate for our climate and water resources. I am glad we agree about alfalfa.

Water may not be something that should be considered a market product, but it is. You and I have to pay for that product, and because of archaic water rights laws, we pay many times more that the "first in time" users.

We don't just "allow" ourselves to get ripped off by "capitalists"--unless by capitalists you are referring to agribusiness and "first in time" users. It is the crazy patchwork of water rights laws that creates this unfair situation. Many farmers (particularly large agribusiness) do not pay enough for their water. Getting water at a fraction of what we urban dwellers pay for it is a subsidy.

We both agree that everyone should pay their fair share, and make sure they're carrying their weight as far as the costs of capture and delivery go, so I don't understand why you think it is fair for farmers to pay a fraction of the cost of what urban dwellers pay for water.

[cosmicone]

16. they should force HOAs to allow artificial turf

many HOAs still forbid use of artificial turf and insist on real lawns.

[silverweb]

17. Agree...

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Although I'd much rather see many more yards creatively xeriscaped with drought-resistant native plants, and beautiful/edible gardens judiciously irrigated with gray water.

Empty stretches of grass are soooo 20th Century!

[silverweb]

18. Some stats from the State of California.

[font face="Arial"]Irrigation of Agricultural Crops in California

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]We can make much better use of our fresh water and gray water, and systematically collect more rain water for agricultural use.

[Chan790]

19. It's a good start, but...

it seems like it would be more effective to bar corporations like Nestle from bottling tap-water in a drought and selling it for profit.

[pothos]

20. the elephant in the room is meat

the production of meat uses far and away more water than anything else. but asking people to cut back or eliminate meat from their diets is the most damn unamurikan thing one can do.

[reddread]

23. Id say it was Dairy

the impact of massive dairy increases has just about destroyed the water supply.
all for an overabundance of milk, loaded with BGH and antibiotics and god knows what else.
then after all that urine and waste seeps into the ground water, a cheese processor pumps their
disgusting by products down there.

these are issues so large and horrid they are not discussed. People simply suffer the real costs and
the owners pocket the profits.

[olddad56]

27. A crinimal offense?

So I guess if you don't pay the fine, you go to jail, or maybe prison.

"What are you in for?"

"Me, murder, wadda you in for"

"My sprinkler accidentally hit the sidewalk because the wind was blowing."

[bluestateguy]

28. Really rich people will just pay the fines and go about their business

If the waste is egregious, shut the water off.

[Tetris_Iguana]

29. Yup, gotta love the regressive penalties.

But I bet these politicians think poor people belong in jail anyways...

Hurray for plutocracy!

[closeupready]

47. lol, lame