posted
It appears that two California municipalities, Apple Valley and Bel Air found their way into a New York Times article regarding unfairness in the water use controls imposed throughout California:
APPLE VALLEY, Calif. — Outside her two-story tract home in this working-class town, Debbie Alberts, a part-time food service worker, has torn out most of the lawn. She has given up daily showers and cut her family’s water use nearly in half, to just 178 gallons per person each day.
A little more than 100 miles west, a resident of the fashionable Los Angeles hills has been labeled “the Wet Prince of Bel Air” after drinking up more than 30,000 gallons of water each day — the equivalent of 400 toilet flushes each hour with two showers running constantly, with enough water left over to keep the lawn perfectly green.
Only one of them has been fined for excessive water use: Ms. Alberts.
Four years into the worst drought in California’s recorded history, the contrast between the strict enforcement on Californians struggling to conserve and the unchecked profligacy in places like Bel Air has unleashed anger and indignation — among both the recipients of the fines, who feel helpless to avoid them, and other Californians who see the biggest water hogs getting off scot-free.
Let's all hope that The Child (El Nino) will bring relief this Winter.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting. Each water district sets its own water use rules: we're not on Rancheros (which is currently subject to a large radio campaign against their practices) but the "other" water company here, so the rules are probably different. Sprinklers only twice a week, and not within 24 hours of rain. compared to two years ago. No fines yet as we're still in "stage 1" which is just the sprinklers. I think Stage 2 is "Consumption down 25% compared to 2013". Tough as there was only one person in this house then; now there are four, but we can appeal if we get to Stage 2. However, I understand we only use about 1/2 as much as the previous occupant per person. Stages 3 and 4 involve fines and water restricting devices placed on the water meter.
As for the City (sorry, "Town"), the only green areas water frequently were parks and playing fields. Mostly drought-resistant plants in gravel rather than grassy sidewalks, so they weren't particularly extravagant with water anyway. Nevertheless, my son's school playing fields are brown, alive but only just.
We have had several bouts of rain recently. Hopefully this will improve things. And the mountains in the distance (the Southwest Chief passes through Cajon Pass) have already had a few dustings of snow. (Checks webcam) I see Big Bear are skiing already, and this year on natural snow.
I thought I heard that California, as a whole, had achieved the 25% reduction aim in all but two water districts.
As for Bel Air, yes, unfair, but money talks.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Mayo, possibly you do not recall, but I can remember visiting my Sister during 1976 in London and there was a drought that year - something with which you Brits really have had little or no experience.
There were signs everywhere; "Save Water".
While I was over, there was a massive rainstorm, and that turned out to be the turning point. By 1977, my Brother in Law simply said "that was last year's issue".
Of course here in Chicago, water supply is a non-issue, however there are State laws limiting lawn watering to every other day.
In short, "it costs, but it's there".
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I was only born in 1976 it's a fair bet I don't remember! However, in more recent times, hosepipe bans are common. And for those that think it always rains in the UK: there is roughly 50% more precipitation in each of Seattle and Chicago. Maybe the rain is lighter but more frequent in London. Apple Valley gets one-fifth of London's annual total, usually in very infrequent torrents.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was a saying I heard once: "Water runs downhill, but it will run uphill to money." That certainly appears to be true in California. I find it extremely silly when I hear moans about the agricultural areas getting water ahead of lawn sprinklers. Where do they think food comes from? Maybe it is manufactured in the back of the grocery store?
quote:She has given up daily showers and cut her family’s water use nearly in half, to just 178 gallons per person each day.
That is economy in usage? Do what!!! When I was a student in the course titled Water Supply and Sewerage (Yes that is Sewerage as in meaning the system of collection and treatment) the normal for usage was considered 60 gpcpd, that is gallons per capita per day, but that was 1967. What were these people doing? Turning on the faucet and leaving it running? I do realize the daily shower was not a habit in the 1960's and there were still a lot of people who grew up with the concept that running water was when it was cold outside so that you ran from the well back to the house with the bucket, so that just from the habit that you did not want to make unnecessary trips to the well and cranking of the bucket down and up so that you did not use water profligately, consequently turning on the faucet and leaving it running unless you were actively using the water flowing was simply not done.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
