State Water Board Approves Emergency Regulation to Ensure Residents Increase Water Conservation – Water Users Could be Fined $500

July 15, 2014 22:43 pm · 76 comments

water

In response to the ongoing severe drought, the State Water Resources Control Board on Tuesday approved an emergency regulation to ensure water agencies, their customers and state residents increase water conservation in urban settings or face possible fines or other enforcement.

The following information is from the State Water Resource Control Board:

The new conservation regulation is intended to reduce outdoor urban water use. The regulation, adopted by the State Water Board, mandates minimum actions to conserve water supplies both for this year and into 2015. Most Californians use more water outdoors than indoors. In some areas, 50 percent or more of daily water use is for lawns and outdoor landscaping.

Many communities and water suppliers have taken bold steps over the years and in this year to reduce water use; however, many have not and much more can and should be done statewide to extend diminishing water supplies.

With this regulation, all Californians will be expected to stop: washing down driveways and sidewalks; watering of outdoor landscapes that cause excess runoff; using a hose to wash a motor vehicle, unless the hose is fitted with a shut-off nozzle, and using potable water in a fountain or decorative water feature, unless the water is recirculated. The regulation makes an exception for health and safety circumstances.

Larger water suppliers will be required to activate their Water Shortage Contingency Plan to a level where outdoor irrigation restrictions are mandatory. In communities where no water shortage contingency plan exists, the regulation requires that water suppliers either limit outdoor irrigation to twice a week or implement other comparable conservation actions. Finally, large water suppliers must report water use on a monthly basis to track progress.

Local agencies could ask courts to fine water users up to $500 a day for failure to implement conservation requirements in addition to their existing authorities and processes. The State Water Board could initiate enforcement actions against water agencies that don’t comply with the new regulations. Failure to comply with a State Water Board enforcement order by water agencies is subject to up to a $10,000 a day penalty.

“We are facing the worst drought impact that we or our grandparents have ever seen,” said State Water Board Chair Felicia Marcus. “And, more important, we have no idea when it will end. This drought’s impacts are being felt by communities all over California. Fields are fallowed; communities are running out of water, fish and wildlife will be devastated. The least that urban Californians can do is to not waste water on outdoor uses. It is in their self-interest to conserve more, now, to avoid far more harsh restrictions, if the drought lasts into the future. These regulations are meant to spark awareness of the seriousness of the situation, and could be expanded if the drought wears on and people do not act.”

In addition to approving the emergency conservation regulation today, the State Water Board made a plea for water suppliers, communities and businesses to do even more. For example, water agencies are being asked to step up their programs to fix leaks and other sources of water loss, use more recycled water or captured stormwater, and find additional ways to incentivize demand reduction among their customers.

The new regulation was developed following two drought emergency declarations by Governor Brown. On January 17, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued a drought emergency proclamation following three dry or critically dry years in California.

The April 25 Executive Order issued by the Governor directs the State Water Board to adopt an emergency regulation as it deems necessary, pursuant to Water Code section 1058.5, to ensure that urban water suppliers implement conservation measures.

As drought conditions continue, the State Water Board may revisit this regulation and consider other measures to enhance conservation efforts throughout the state.

Following Board adoption, the regulation will likely go into effect on or about August 1, following submittal to the Office of Administrative Law. The emergency regulation remains in effect for 270 days, unless extended by the State Water Board due to ongoing drought conditions.

For more information on the proposals leading to this Board action, please visit the Emergency Water Conservation website.

Governor Brown has called on all Californians to reduce their water use by 20 percent and prevent water waste – visit SaveOurH2O.org to find out how everyone can do their part, and visit Drought.CA.Gov to learn more about how California is dealing with the effects of the drought.

1 Gloria July 15, 2014 at 11:02 PM

That’s not to much to ask

2 Antler July 16, 2014 at 12:08 AM

And develop more plants to desalinate water.

No building tunnels to funnel water down south….no high speed rail, no huge housing developments etc.,, until BASIC needs of existing population in any given area have been met.

3 Antler July 16, 2014 at 12:12 AM

…… Sorry for ambiguity… “No high speed rail” was included because I think those funds should be used to build desalinization plants.

4 JG27 AD July 16, 2014 at 12:34 AM

The price we pay for electing dunderheads who see the state population hugely expand and fail to allow the construction of reserviors to supply sufficient water and power.
AD

5 anon July 16, 2014 at 12:40 AM

“That’s not to much to ask”

For some of the scum that lives in this area– YES it is

6 Dennis July 16, 2014 at 12:58 AM

The 36 Million people in CA will have to save 2,000 gallons EACH to make up for what the state has dumped so far this year.

Why?
———————

California Drains Reservoirs in the Middle of a Drought

The state desperately needs water, yet federal policy sends huge ‘pulse flows’ into the Pacific to benefit fish.

One of the worst droughts in California’s history has devastated more than a half-million acres of the most fertile farmland in America. In communities like Sacramento, “water police” go from door to door to enforce conservation measures. There’s even a mobile “app” to report neighbors to city authorities so they can be fined for wasting water.

With the Sierra snowpack at 4% of normal as of May 20, Californians will desperately need what little water remains behind its dams this summer. Authorities have warned some towns like Folsom—home of Folsom Lake—to expect daily rationing of 50 gallons per person, a 60% cut from average household usage.

Yet last month the Bureau of Reclamation drained Folsom and other reservoirs on the American and Stanislaus rivers of more than 70,000 acre feet of water—enough to meet the annual needs of a city of half a million people—for the comfort and convenience of fish.

Government officials who are entrusted with the careful management of our water squandered it in less than three weeks to nudge baby salmon toward the Pacific Ocean (to which they swim anyway) and to keep the river at just the right temperature for the fish by flushing the colder water stored in the reservoirs.

These water releases are so enormous they are called “pulse flows.” They generate such swift currents that local officials issue safety advisories to exercise extreme caution when on or near the rivers. While some of the water can be recaptured downstream, most is lost to the ocean.

In January pictures of a near-empty Folsom Lake on the American River made national news. Yet on April 21 the Bureau of Reclamation more than tripled water releases from the dams on that river from 500 cubic feet per second to more than 1,500 cubic feet per second for three days—sending more than 7,000 acre feet of water toward the ocean. Elevated releases have continued for “temperature control.” On April 14 a 16-day pulse flow drained nearly 63,000 acre feet of water from dams on the Stanislaus River.

Unrealistic laws like the Endangered Species Act administered by ideologically driven officials have now crossed from good intentions to dangerous policy, and the folly cries out for fundamental reforms.

The House twice has passed such reforms, most recently in February. HR 3964 would pave the way for hundreds of thousands of acre feet of new water storage across California and promote fish hatcheries and predator control as simple and inexpensive alternatives to protect endangered species. Sadly, it remains bottled up in the Senate.

An administration that has never been shy about asserting executive powers has the authority to stop these releases through provisions in the Endangered Species Act that allow a committee of officials to suspend them. It has failed to do so.

While homeowners parch their gardens and clog their showerheads with flow restrictors to save a few extra gallons of water, their government thought nothing of wasting 23 billion gallons to lower river water temperatures by a few degrees.

The frivolous and extravagant water releases from our dams last month mock the sacrifices that our citizens make every day to stretch supplies in this crisis. In turn, they undermine the government’s credibility and moral authority to call for stringent conservation and hardship by the people.

California’s chronic water shortages won’t be solved without additional storage. Despite an abundance of suitable and affordable sites, opposition from environmentalists and the laws they have wrought have delayed these projects indefinitely and made them prohibitively costly.

Until unrealistic laws like the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act are balanced to accommodate a new era of dam construction, our state and federal governments have a responsibility to manage our increasingly scarce water supply as carefully as we ask our citizens to do.

Perhaps, at least, the public can draw from this tragic waste a lesson in how unreasonable our environmental regulations have become, and how out of touch are the policy makers responsible for them.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304547704579565622649474370

7 Dennis July 16, 2014 at 1:01 AM
8 dan July 16, 2014 at 1:09 AM

Here’s an idea! How about we stop building on every square foot of undeveloped land? Seriously, when is the state going to realize that we do not have the resources to keep expanding cities and moving people here indefinitely.

9 Duck July 16, 2014 at 4:21 AM

How in the hell do they know who is using water indoors or outdoors ? That is such a pure B.S. statement !
It’s a no brainer Conserve Water both inside and outside.
Why do places like car washes and construction sites and auto dealers have an endless supply of water to wash cars and keep their landscaping looking nice and pretty ?
Yet I have to ask for a glass of water with my meal when I go out to eat ?
And my lawn looks like CRAP and my cars look like they just crossed the finishline at the Baja 1000 !
If they are going to enforce these restrictions ,no one should be exempt……….PERIOD !!!

10 Anne Moss July 16, 2014 at 5:25 AM

Maybe they should do something about those golf courses, and do something about that pipe that has been leaking some obscene amount of gallons-per-minute into the bay for 2 years.

11 Putt putt putt July 16, 2014 at 5:46 AM

I guess this means there will be no more Green Fees on the links now? The golf courses will follow these new rules won’t they?

12 the party line July 16, 2014 at 5:47 AM

We need more immigrants. We are a nation of immigrants. Immigrants equal innovation. My great great grandparents were immigrants, therefore, we need more immigrants now. There isn’t a problem we can’t immigrant our way out of. The solution to our water woes is more immigration.

13 Mee July 16, 2014 at 5:56 AM

There has been ( imo ) gross mismanagement of our water resources in CA for the last 20 years. What we need is a new State Water Resources Control Board, and rethink everything.. They release so much damn water during the winter and early spring it leave our reservoirs low when we need it most.. Year after year they do this. So when we actually do have a couple dry years, we are in a state of emergency. No pun intended on the dam/damn, both would work..

14 Russ July 16, 2014 at 5:57 AM

I will do my part and only empty and fill my pool every 3 days now instead of every other day

15 Fourty million plus... July 16, 2014 at 6:36 AM

in California in just a couple more years.This
State has never had enough water to support
this large a population. And it never will.
By 2020 there could be 45 to 50 million
people here, by 2025 for sure, how you going
to fix that, you can’t . Oh yah, 3 days and counting!

16 Fred P. July 16, 2014 at 6:47 AM

@Antler – agree 100%!

The only problem is identifying those “basic needs.” Given the politicians we have in office, they’ll continue claiming that EVERYTHING is a basic need.

17 JET July 16, 2014 at 6:57 AM

So will this apply to all of the non-metered water wasters who live in Sacramento as well? I can’t believe all of these years there are still so many residences without water meters…..

18 MrDioji July 16, 2014 at 7:00 AM

A very small price to pay, JG27 AD

19 Dwight Schrute July 16, 2014 at 7:40 AM

So when we see strip malls watering the pavement, or gutters full of runoff water we are supposed to call the gestapo now?

20 Janet July 16, 2014 at 7:51 AM

No more building apartment houses, homes, and office buildings that add to the water consumption! Put your money where your mouth is!

21 Toni July 16, 2014 at 7:57 AM

$500 a day??! I weary of unelected “officials” having this kind of power.

22 Silva July 16, 2014 at 8:24 AM

Yes Antler. Once again we’re up against it. California is dry. Always has been, always will be. Then come the droughts. Now this Governor will finish the job he was not allowed to start in 1982 known as the Peripheral Canal. This time without voter approval he’s determined to send our water south, and on an unimaginable monumental scale, and we get the bill to the tune of undetermined bullions of dollars. Our bay will be saltier than ever and that much closer do death.

23 Connie Dobbs July 16, 2014 at 8:27 AM

You know what would be super-effective? If the fine were split between the state and the person who reported the violation.

24 Horse n around July 16, 2014 at 8:32 AM

Does anyone know about watering if you have a well? We have one. Does that mean I can water more often then if I was using City water?

25 Boneguy1 July 16, 2014 at 8:33 AM

Note first of all this Resources Board is not a legislative body elected by the people – these are political-hack payback appointees. Technically they have no legal means to enforce except the fact that we now have fascists for politicians in Sacramento and most certainly coming to a neighborhood near you.

That said its about priorities. CA has not improved significantly water storage in over 40 years. This despite the opportunities from what they won’t tell you, but is a fact, that the last century in Ca. has been wettest over the last 7,000 years (source Ca Sate – East Bay). Instead we have these priorites:
* A High Speed Rail project, mired in lawsuits and of uncertain costs – at least $68 billion but perhaps double that amount, and
* A 2004 $3 billion stem cell bond program ($6 billion with interest) that has produced no approved therapies but has, according to the AP, resulted in “the opening of sleek buildings and gleaming labs at a dozen private and public universities built with matching funds” without any cures in the pipeline.

Of course now the politicians will want more money for these and other ridiculous boondoggle and wasteful programs. Even now the California legislators continue to spend and waste millions more on nonessential items – for example – $2.7 million for a new swimming pool in Calexico near the Mexican border – during a drought! (again source Cal State/Forbes – 7/15/14)

Wake up folks this is about control and digging further and further into your pockets and not about solving problems! We should be FINING all the politicians and BUYING the water for our States agriculture resources with their lifetime pension and benefit funds which they lavish on themselves at our expense. Instead of screwing us lets screw them for a change.

26 Connie Dobbs July 16, 2014 at 8:40 AM

#13 “No region of California met Brown’s request for a 20 percent reduction, but some came closer than others. Communities that draw from the Sacramento River reduced consumption the most, by 13 percent, while those along the North Coast reduced consumption by 12 percent.”

San Francisco Bay Area and Southern California cities that draw from the Colorado River decreased water use by 5 percent.”

Keep hating, though.

27 Anonymous July 16, 2014 at 8:43 AM

Is Concord planning to build on the Naval Weapons Station? Where will the water come from to support this? Did the people ever get a chance to vote on just leaving this open space?

Well not exactly. Seeno made the decision to build there and the City Council fell in line.

28 @ 24 July 16, 2014 at 9:01 AM

No. That just means the state will pass a law that will require all wells to have meters.

29 Incognito July 16, 2014 at 9:16 AM

Why are permits being granted for more housing developments? There’s one being built right now by KB Homes down the road from where I work in Antioch.

30 Silva July 16, 2014 at 9:18 AM

@Horse n around, uh.. yeah.

31 Michelle July 16, 2014 at 9:21 AM

Anonymous, usually recycled water is used for massive projects like that.

32 Michelle July 16, 2014 at 9:25 AM

@horse n around
Well water has no impact on the city supplies, if you have one you are luckier than most.

33 Always Right July 16, 2014 at 9:36 AM

Thank you Dennis for your truth-telling posts. The root cause of the drought is the democrat super- majority’s failure to allow the building of new reservoirs and desal plants. They flush billions of gallons of fresh water out to the sea to stimulate the populations of a small number of fish DURING A DROUGHT.

Lunatic leftists running the state.

34 @always right July 16, 2014 at 9:56 AM

What rivers would you dam? All the good ones are damed in several places. Where would the water come from. The Sierra run off is promised 8 times more than there is availabke. THERE IS NO MORE WATER!

35 BagsFlyFree July 16, 2014 at 10:40 AM

@ Dennis… While your generation might not feel the effects of ravaged fish populations and extreme climate change, the ecosystem can’t be modified at will when a populous state has the nerve to allow farming that is not sustainable without obscene amounts of water to support their profits.

The actions the state took are real, and should not be tossed aside so we can keep our suburbia mini mansions green for our neighbors envy. Water at night, cutback on grass, and wash the car at the quarter wash where water is usually recycled.

Grow whatever is water efficient, and learn to recycle/filter whatever possible to maximize use.

BFF Out!

36 Marianne July 16, 2014 at 10:43 AM

@34 EBMUD has the pipeline from the sierras, CCWD uses filtered water from the delta and the local reservoirs.

37 Unmarried Man July 16, 2014 at 10:54 AM

$500 fine per day is a joke….how about 30 days in jail for any additional offense?

And people can do without watering their precious lawns for a few months.Fertilize your lawns, and cut back on watering….until the winter when the rainy season starts again. Sorry, water conservation is more important than your lawn.

38 tired of taxes July 16, 2014 at 11:01 AM

Second what Duck says.
“If they are going to enforce these restrictions ,no one should be exempt……….PERIOD !!!”

39 Antler July 16, 2014 at 11:01 AM

#24…… Those of us who are fortunate to have wells for lawn irrigation are using ground water. Our water district’s supply does not use ground water. So it is fine for well owners to continue a normal sprinkler-system protocol.

That said, we do everything we can to conserve our well water. It’s not only the principle of the conservation effort, but also so that our electrically-powered pump will not spike our PG&E bill.

40 ClayDen July 16, 2014 at 11:04 AM

This is a problem for all of us, but I am afraid that “the authorities” will manage to screw it up. Some people have already done a lot to conserve, and some have been wasting a lot, so they can easily save without any real impact on them. Then there is the case of how much landscaping you have to take care of. If you have a small lawn, if you have to lose it, the economic impact to replace it is small. However if you end up losing a large lawn, the economic impact is substantial. Some of us have worked hard for a home with a large lot and have invested a lot in landscaping; we will be significantly impacted. I guess it’s time to try to make sure “the authorities” do the right thing. A rain dance might not be a bad thing too.

BTW, we drove past Lake Shasta on Sunday, and it is incredibly low.

41 The Aquifer under Claycord July 16, 2014 at 11:29 AM

is supported mostly by the water from Suisun Bay. While it may be great for plants, its not water anyone would want to drink or even bath in…

Reckless water usage should never be condoned.

For people with water wells there are no usage restrictions in this area.

42 Dwight Schrute July 16, 2014 at 12:07 PM

At the end of the day the way our water utilities are calculating these for households are not on a per person basis…for example I live with my wife and 2 kids. We conserve water and make sure that we are not wasting any. ie taking buckets of water left in the bath and watering plants in our backyard.

We have a neighbor down the street that lives in the same size house that keeps his laws(3) very green and waters to point of runoff. He is not penalized because he is living in a similar size home, even though he consumes 4x what we do.

So before we start handing out fines etc…lets take a real look at how we are tracking water consumption, not to mention all of the CA residents that still do not have a water meter so we cannot tell how much water they are using.

the end

43 Led July 16, 2014 at 1:03 PM

Let’s go for the golf courses first.

44 PH dad July 16, 2014 at 1:37 PM

The problem is not water usage per person, it’s unchecked growth in population with an infrastructure built for half the current population of the state.
Conservation can help, but the real problem is storage of water to feed the growing population. It would be nice to tell everyone who moved here in the last 40 years to go home, but that’s not going to happen.

45 Owl Lady July 16, 2014 at 1:50 PM

I agree with the statements about not building more new homes until the folks in existing homes have their basic needs met. I have been shocked at how much water is used in a construction project – wetting down the dirt areas several times per day to mitigate dust, washing equipment, mixing cement, etc. Not sure where that water comes from.

An aside about the Naval Weapons Station – recently the City Council voted on the top 4 list of who will be the managing company to oversee all of the development, interface with the military, toxic waste abatement, etc. Seeno was not on the list of top 4 – he was on the top 8 list and got cut. I guess the City Council got it right (this time!).

And, there is a plan in place to deed some of the land to the EBRP.

46 Robert Ross July 16, 2014 at 2:00 PM

how about the City of Concord, I consistently see run off from the medians early in the morning, the streets are soaked, and why are they watering all day long at BoatWright Fields!, everyday the water is running there!

47 Vandy July 16, 2014 at 4:12 PM

I oppose the plan to build Delta tunnels to divert more water south. Conservation should be the plan, not enabling further use through artificial means.

My property is irrigated by a well, but I let the front lawn go brown anyway to conserve ground water. It sets a good example to the neighbors on city water.

Protecting fish habitat through water management is important, even if it requires periodic flushing.

I can’t fathom the amount of water that will be used in the CNWS project. Its another reason to stop the project as planned, and leave it all managed open space instead

48 Duck July 16, 2014 at 4:38 PM

For those of you with Wells, it would be super easy to run a temporary water line to the toilet in your home………….just a thought to think about.
I know if I had a Well that would be the first thing I would do too save city water. !

49 Horse n around July 16, 2014 at 4:44 PM

Thank you everyone for the advice about my well. My next question is, since I have a well, and if I water, should I post a sign like my neighbor that says “I am using well water”. I don’t want to get a ticket.

50 bernie mack July 16, 2014 at 5:11 PM

Did eveyone notice concord nissan took their years old dirt patch and picked now to put sod in.some days the water ran more than 3 hours, when the sod was new.

51 Just Sayin' July 16, 2014 at 5:37 PM

Lawns are pretty green in Clayton. No water shortage there.

52 Just Sayin' July 16, 2014 at 5:40 PM

According to the Republicans there is no “climate change”. What, me worry?

53 Scarface July 16, 2014 at 5:50 PM

Just another reason to send home All Illegals. This should free up some of the water usage.

54 Atticus Thraxx July 16, 2014 at 5:58 PM

Things get interesting when a precious resource becomes scarce. How people react is a pretty good indication of who they really are. Fascinating really.
$500 seems excessive. $100 would get the point across and still be reasonable.

55 Puddintain July 16, 2014 at 7:16 PM

Horse n around, We get it. YOU HAVE A WELL!! ;)

56 Horse n around July 16, 2014 at 8:01 PM

Oh Puddintain….. I know you and I don’t always see eye to eye. Don’t hate me because I HAVE A WELL. I’m asking a serious question ;) Some people are very quick to call the authorities on things that they know nothing about.

57 Democrat Politicians Don't Give A Dam July 16, 2014 at 9:19 PM

Vote Democrat and this is what you get:

No new Reservoirs or dams built in spite of a growing population in a state renown for alternating years of flooding and droughts.

A governor named Brown who wants to be green. Decides to force us to turn our green lawns brown.

I see red.

58 Puddintain July 16, 2014 at 9:30 PM

Horse n around, as long as you stop: washing down driveways and sidewalks; watering of outdoor landscapes that cause excess runoff; using a hose to wash a motor vehicle, unless the hose is fitted with a shut-off nozzle, and using potable water in a fountain or decorative water feature, unless the water is recirculated, you should be able to do with your well whatever you like, but if you’d like to put a sign up, have at it!

59 Dr. Jellyfinger® July 16, 2014 at 11:12 PM

Drought be damned…… I’m never giving up my Slip n’ Slide!

60 Antler July 17, 2014 at 12:00 AM

Horse n around, did you ever tell us whether you use well water for ALL household water needs? I.e. Are you completely off the grid? Or do you use district water for household needs….. and then well water only for irrigation, and animal care?

I personally never have thought very highly of the “I gots me some well water rite-cheer” signs, and after all….ANYONE could put up a sign claiming he has a well…..doesn’t mean he really does!

Re someone’s idea about running a special line from well system to toilets, let’s just say that depending on how much concrete there is between the nearest off-timer sprinkler faucet and all the toilets in ones home and also factoring in how much electricity the well pump would require to enable each flush, it surely would be more cost effective to conserve the district water the best you can.

In our household, the most water is wasted when we are letting the water run until it turns warm. We have small plastic paint buckets beside each sink to catch the first cold water, and I carry that water out to each of many container plants not reached by the sprinkler system. In the kitchen, we mix water from the teakettle into the handwash-only dishes’ basin of cold water. There again, less water but more electricity.

BTW, it takes more water to wash dishes by hand than to save them up in the dishwasher. And those of us who prefer to grow or to buy unwashed leafy vegetables have a problem because carefully cleaning such produce does use a great deal of water. Probably my husband and I will be starting to purchase pre-washed veggies, but I surely would rather not.

61 Antler July 17, 2014 at 12:03 AM

Oh yeah….and eventually RUNNNG the dishwasher! :-)

62 Population Growth July 17, 2014 at 1:53 AM

20+ years ago a college professor told me that if you wanted to control growth, do not conserve water. The idea behind that statement was that developers were required to provide environmental impact reports. As part of this they would have to show that resources were available to support their proposed projects. So basically, all of the conservation efforts over the past 20+ years to reduce water usage, low flow toilets, more efficient dishwasher/washers, etc. didn’t actually save water, it just allowed a larger population use the same amount of water. Continue to conserve and population will just continue to grow. So what do you do? Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

63 Anon July 17, 2014 at 6:21 AM

Well it looks like interest has pasted in this story but if water is so important we are cities being allowed to build more homes? THEY should pay the penalty for excess usage not the exiting homes owners. After all home much would we save if they weren’t so greedy as to be building during a drought?

64 Silva July 17, 2014 at 7:13 AM

Antler, it’s pretty easy to wash the veggies in a plastic tub in the sink and when you’re done that water can also go to a thirsty plant, shrub, small tree, etc. At our home we have always use that warming up water. Some lessons learned never leave you. If this goes on for another season or two and we have gardens we’d like to save we’ll all be using as much grey water as we have. It worked last time around. Some folks reused water from washing machines and dishwashers too. It worked well. Plants didn’t all look happy, but they lived to thrive again.

#62, So true.

65 Silva July 17, 2014 at 7:21 AM

I don’t trust pre washed veggies. I don’t think they are as fresh (they cut off the bad parts) and you still get dirt clumps. :(

66 Question July 17, 2014 at 8:11 AM

Is it possible and affordable to redirect bathtub water (grey) to and outside holding tank fir watering plants?

Also, if you really need a green lawn, remember the “lawn paint” the
Folks used during the housing crash? My back lawn is brown. Saving the plants & trees.

67 Connie Dobbs July 17, 2014 at 8:11 AM

Water your outdoor plants with pasta water or veggie rinse water. Buy sulfite-free soaps and detergents and you can put the grey water directly onto the lawn. If it’s too much work, it could be that you have too much house.

68 Silva July 17, 2014 at 9:43 AM

#66, If we do have to get real serious about this, we’ll be taking short showers in a big bucket. Don’t worry about lawns. They come back to life with the return of the rain. Prioritize the rest of the landscaping you want to preserve. I don’t care to spread doom and gloom, it’s just the reality of California. We don’t have enough water here.

69 Fed up! July 17, 2014 at 11:46 AM

“Local agencies could ask courts to fine water users up to $500 a day for failure to implement conservation requirements in addition to their existing authorities and processes.” Really? Just another excuse to gouge the good citizens who work hard and pay taxes to support The Controllers of our resources! “’We are facing the worst drought impact that we or our grandparents have ever seen,’ said State Water Board Chair Felicia Marcus.” Really? Based on what facts? Show me!

70 Horse n around July 17, 2014 at 12:22 PM

@ Antler. Just well for both front and back yards. I have seen other neighbors post a sign that say’s they use well water. I don’t know how the City checks this. I just don’t want the City sending me a bill that say’s I owe $500 because I’m watering my lawn. Sorry if Puddintain is jealous because we have a well. We try as a family of 4 to use a bucket in the shower trick, etc. We just know that when other people feel jealous of others, the bad always seems to come out.

71 Puddintain July 17, 2014 at 2:41 PM

I HAVE A WELL TOO silly!

72 ..... July 17, 2014 at 4:31 PM

And then the water districts will whine and complain about too much conservation resulting in their not making enough to cover their costs,,….so then they raise the rates.

Screwed both ways. CCWD did that a number off years ago.

73 Shelly July 17, 2014 at 5:41 PM

#72; Bank on it.

74 Horse n around July 17, 2014 at 6:17 PM

Awesome Puddintain :)

75 concord July 17, 2014 at 10:20 PM

Most of the offenders I see are the City and County letting their water run all over the middle of the street and their sprinkler systems are in disrepair. I’ve seen this in Concord, Pittsburg, Antioch and Walnut Creek. Hope the water company intends of fining them too.

76 Anon July 19, 2014 at 6:34 AM

If this state is in a drought then why are they allowing new construction? Why do they not suspend ridiculous regulations that require water to wasted during construction to keep dust down? The answer is simply, this is not an attempt by government or concerned parties to address a problem. It is just another way for greedy companies to charge more and fine people, as a way to generate more revenue.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: