Have you experienced water faucets that spray tiny jets of water onto your hands? You know, those eight tiny jets of water that makes rinsing the soap off nearly impossible? You can find these water faucets in airports and other public places, where they constitute a minor annoyance. But wait. Thanks to California’s state legislature, they’re on their way into your home.
California’s ruling coalition of government employee unions, extreme environmentalists, and high-tech billionaires are at it again, this time with a water conservation bill, AB 1668, that is going to impose a mandatory limit of 55 gallons per person per day on indoor water consumption. The cost to retrofit homes to reduce water consumption will cost an estimated $7,500 per household.
Implementing AB 1668 will cost $47 billion. Ways to create water abundance in California include: Desalinate 1.0 million acre feet of seawater – $15 billion. Reclaim and reuse 2.0 million acre feet of sewage – $10 billion.
Read the complete article for free at CA Political Review.com
These Agenda 21 regulations may soon be required nationwide. Please note, I am all for conserving water and other resources. That’s why I live a minimalist lifestyle. But I do it voluntarily and in a way that’s easy and very inexpensive. There are no computer chips or complex technologies in my systems. Here’s one low cost option: Allow households to meet water use targets any way they want to. In my opinion, California bill AB 1668 sounds like an oppressive tax. What will happen to households who can’t afford an extra $7,500 for the upgrades? Would love to hear input from those in California.
4 thoughts on “Permanent Water Rationing is Coming to California”
I have built and remodeled many, many homes. Kimi objected to the $500 cost figure for 4 low flow faucets ($125 per faucet). Yes, you can buy cheap (often plastic) faucets (from China) that will last a couple of years but a quality, metal, low flow faucet will set you back a lot more than $125. Yes, you can buy a low flow toilet for less but they are from China as well. They crack and leak, and don’t flush well. They often require multiple flushes to do their job. Water savers? Hardly. (Been there done that. Two of mine are in the landfill. So much for saving the environment.) A quality toilet is expensive and one that actually flushes well on the first try, and lasts for years, can actually cost more than the $ amount stated in the article.
I object to the aforementioned CA legislation on so many levels, I would have to write a book to explain them all. The Agenda 21, Agenda 2030 goals will have us all living under so many rules and regulations, it will feel like we are under continuous oppression. It’s a “feel good” agenda and I understand the appeal but it will never work. Regarding the agenda as it applies to this article…Those who can’t afford all the fancy retrofits will not have to purchase them. They will get a “pass” or the taxpayers will purchase them. Those who go over their 55 gallon per day limit will simply have to pay a higher rate. The rich will still use their rain showers or their 6 head showers. Those shower heads are everywhere in CA. The wealthy will use whatever water they wish, when they wish and will be willing to pay the higher rate, because they can. The poor won’t be penalized for water overuse. Their bills will be supplemented, again by the taxpayers. This is happening in nearly every circumstance in CA from healthcare to electricity, to phone bills, car insurance, food and more. The middle class tax payers are the ones who are being squeezed.
I AGREE WITH YOU 100% Owen: people should be able to make their own choices about conservation. We lived in travel trailers for 8 years: four years one time and 4 years another. We lived without running water and had to haul our water from my workplace everyday: we had 20 gallons of water per day for our entire family. We didn’t have water saving toilets or faucets or any of the other fancy gadgets the CA legislation will usher in. I washed my family’s clothes in the bath tub. You are correct: it’s not about water saving appliances. People can learn to budget on their own. If CA implements this crazy legislation, people should be able to “bank” their unused water for later use. That would be the only fair way to implement controls.
There are so many solutions to CA’s water problems, which mostly relate to building in areas where there is no water. (Think most of S. CA which is too late to remedy.) Storage is also a problem. CA has plenty of water running down its river beds and into the ocean. Lack of proper planning, and inappropriate storage and distribution have contributed to the problems CA is experiencing. There are also issues with old, leaking delivery systems which I would venture to say cause the loss of a great percentage of CA water. That problem is going to get worse before it gets better. There are many other things going on as well: very complex political and environmental topics/agendas which can’t be discussed here.
Most people are uninformed or very under informed about many, many things. They simply don’t take the time to thoroughly study topics. Thus, they simply “parrot” what they are told. That is why I enjoy your blog. You are offering solutions to problems based on what people are actually doing. You show people developing and using life skills and that illustrate there are alternatives which don’t involve government legislation/intervention. In fact, government often gets in the way of progress. In example, it is almost impossible to build and live in an off grid home in CA. Permits aren’t available. You must have back up heating and power. In many jurisdictions, it is also impossible to live in an RV or a tiny home. These oppressive regulations can not be bent: “rules are rules,” regardless of the situation. This kind of “thinking” does not benefit progress. It discourages it.
I have lived in many different situations, and was blessed with employment which allowed me to develop skills and a solid knowledge base which I am very thankful for. I love to learn and have learned a lot from your blog. Thanks for keeping us informed Owen. I read your blog before I read anything else. This post was spot on…
Thank you very much for your kind words, and thank you for your opinion on what’s going on in CA. It’s very hard to know for sure what’s going on sometimes. The Internet is being messed with (big time) — skewed rankings and search results, demonetization of sites, outright repression/censorship of free speech, and even banning on social media platforms. I heard the FTC is working on a new bill of rights for the Internet. This may seem off topic but it affects everything we see and read online.
I love your blog (the only blog I follow daily), and I like the common-sense points that you make for more reasonable solutions in this entry, but I do not like the extremist article that you linked — the data he uses is ridiculously skewed. $500 for four low-flow faucets? $1,000 for two efficient toilets? There are 1.6 gallon toilets for ~$100, etc.
And the water use is as badly skewed, saying that even with efficient appliances people can’t get down to 55 gal. per person per day — because he assumes you will run a load through the dishwasher once a day for every person in the household, plus use 8 gallons per person for hand washing dishes, plus flush the toilet 10 times per day per person, and do 2 washer loads per week per person. If that’s how Californians use water, then I sure hope they are using the most efficient appliances.
Also, probably most people reading this blog would be considered “extreme environmentalists” by the authors of the linked article. And I don’t see how teachers or police officers or firefighters or other “government employee unions” are the driving force behind this…
But yeah, there are other good solutions, like recycling wastewater. I think California is implementing that as well, no?
As always, thanks for your great work on so many fronts, and for sharing your knowledge widely!
Thank you very much. This is the first I’ve heard of water rationing in California and I used the first article I found. Your more balanced view may very well be more accurate, so thanks again for sharing.