Image 01 Image 03

California will ration water in the name of “conservation”!

California will ration water in the name of “conservation”!

Jerry Brown may given the state GOP a gift that could sink the Democrats this November.

Despite the fact the drought is officially over in the Golden State, California Governor Jerry Brown has signed two bills that will force water districts and municipalities to permanently adopt aggressive water rationing levels.

The two bills will set water-efficiency goals for water suppliers throughout the state. The governor said the measures will help California be better prepared for future droughts and the effects of climate change.

The legislation establishes an indoor, per person water-use goal of 55 gallons per day starting in 2022, an amount that will gradually be dialed down to 50 gallons per day starting by 2030. Targets for outdoor water use will be set differently for each area taking into account factors like the local precipitation and climate zone.

The legislation will require both urban and agricultural water suppliers to develop annual water budgets and have plans in place for dealing with drought.

Once again, California legislators create rules that are not based in realities. The levels set in the legislation will be difficult to achieve on a practical level.

“With a child and every day having to wash clothes, that’s, just my opinion, not feasible. But I get it and I understand that we’re trying to preserve…but 55 gallons a day?” said Tanya Allen, who has a 4-year-old daughter.

Just how many gallons do household chores take?

An 8-minute shower uses about 17 gallons of water, a load of laundry up to 40, and a bathtub can hold 80 to 100 gallons of water.

“She likes to bathe three times a day and she does laundry all day,” said Rocka Mitchell from Texas.

He and his wife Ginger are living in Sacramento for work and say it would be hard to conserve.

“I couldn’t do it. My family is way too large,” she said.

The fines to water districts that don’t meet the standards are draconian. The amount non-complaint agencies may face of $1,000 per day if they don’t meet them, and $10,000 a day during drought emergencies.

Some of the state’s major water agencies also opposed it, many on the general argument that Sacramento shouldn’t be telling local government what to do. Among the opponents were the Alameda County Water District, Kern County Water Agency, San Diego County Water Authority, and the Zone 7 Water Agency in Livermore.

“Every local water agency supports conservation and has a responsibility to make sure its water users use water efficiently,” said Tim Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies, which opposed the bill. “This was never about whether we should be pursuing conservation. It was about how.”

Of course, those fines won’t be paid by the “districts”…it will be the citizens of those districts.

Legal Insurrection readers will recall that California had recently been struggling with a Hepatitis A outbreak, which is spread via fecal matter. This rationing could theoretically reduce hygiene options for those citizens who can’t afford “efficiency” upgrades or high water rates.

The only upside is that Jerry Brown has gift-wrapped a great issue for Republican John Cox, who survived the “jungle primary” and will be running a populist campaign against Democrat Gavin Newsom in the gubernatorial election this November. Cox is clearly targeting the Sacramento Swamp and wants to “Make California Golden Again”.

So, perhaps the water rationing is the issue that will finally sink the California Democrats


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


How much water are the rice farmers using?

Rationing essential goods and services is a very powerful weapon of mass control.
It was done by practically every communist regime. Cuba and Venezuela are 2 perfect examples.

    TX-rifraph in reply to Exiliado. | June 7, 2018 at 11:54 am

    And just imagine how worse off they would be today if the enlightened leaders had not enacted such controls! (I think that is how their talking points go.)

John Cox should talk about building water infrastructure for the first time in almost 50 years. And scuttling the so-called “bullet train“ to Bakersfield.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to Sally MJ. | June 8, 2018 at 12:39 am

    Cox will not talk like that, because the GOP really, really does not want to beat the Democrats. And I am not sure Cox would want to win and have to deal with a Leninist Legislature and all local governments. Not to mention the illegal invaders.

Totalitarians ensure that the ruling class and the donors do not participate in the impact of laws such as this.

buckeyeminuteman | June 7, 2018 at 11:53 am

Maybe I’m just talking out of my butt, but doesn’t California have 840 miles of coastline? I know desalination plants aren’t cheap, but then what in California is?

    alaskabob in reply to buckeyeminuteman. | June 7, 2018 at 12:07 pm

    Decades ago, Jerry Brown’s dad and a whole bunch of people planned extensive water storage projects to keep California in water. But why spend money on long term projects when one can spend spend spend on a socialist utopia and worry later where the water comes from? The original plans would have avoided this present drought issue. One can “conserve” just so much. At least fishing bait fingerlings in the Delta will be wet and wonderful. All we need is for Jerry to say, “let them drink Arrowhead” to start the revolution.

      pilgrim1949 in reply to alaskabob. | June 7, 2018 at 1:23 pm


      Who needs dull ol’ stuff like water reservoirs when there are more sexy — and personally profitable — things like giving out goodies and buying votes!

      If the planned reservoirs were built, and the delta smelt was left on the delta where it eventually smelt, there wouldn’t be nearly the shortage.

      Another shining example of Liberal/Prog/Dem Utopia-in-the-sky fantasies, fueled by pixie-dust-fed unicorn farts.

      After all, in Utopia, the ruling class never ever suffers the fate of the worker class.

    Eddie Baby in reply to buckeyeminuteman. | June 7, 2018 at 12:52 pm

    That would require new power plants to be built, which is a nonstarter.

    Arminius in reply to buckeyeminuteman. | June 7, 2018 at 2:57 pm

    What’s cheap in Kali? Sex with a meth addict in a dumpster behind a liqueur store.

    Same as in D.C.

filiusdextris | June 7, 2018 at 12:05 pm

“I couldn’t do it. My family is way too large” … Did the author of this article leave out a fact or just include a misleading quote? The legislative summary quoted in the article says that the water limit is per person.

Of course, water rationing may be a stupid idea, but I can also imagine scenarios where it could be prudent. Do we have any actual data one way or another?

Californians can now embrace French bathing styles, used migrant workers clothing wardrobes and keep cars looking earthy as if just driven out of a volcano eruption zone. Who needs cleanliness in a godliness-less world?

Bucky Barkingham | June 7, 2018 at 12:23 pm

Any one wanna bet that Bel Air mansions won’t continue to have lush green lawns even with this so called draconian regulation of water use?

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Bucky Barkingham. | June 7, 2018 at 12:58 pm

    No bets at all. In one of the droughts I recall, some of the better-than-thou crowd in places like Rancho Cucamonga continued watering at pre-drought levels. They faced tremendous fines and were eventually threatened with nastier stuff than that.

    They ended up complying.

    Water restrictions are for the little people.

    Patricia in reply to Bucky Barkingham. | June 8, 2018 at 3:44 pm

    Correct. There are exemptions and adjustments for people who have pools and other “water features.”

California put itself in this mess with piss-poor planning and Jackass priorities.

It’s totally insane to tell Northern Californian that they have to act like they live in the Sahara desert. If the coastal elites are trying to break up the state, this is one way to do it.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Eddie Baby. | June 7, 2018 at 1:01 pm

    One of the national insanities is the Federal government requirements on low-flow water appliances. No, I am not going to bring up low-flow toilets. Properly installed, they work just fine.

    The insane one is for kitchen faucets. Kitchens are where cooking is done. If I need to fill an 8 quart pot to cook pasta, I need to stand and wait at the kitchen tap several times longer, but am using the same amount of water. Great Washington thinking.

      I have the same problem with Energy “Efficient” Dryers. I have to run a load THREE times to avoid smelling like mildew wet dog.

      An environmentalist friend tried to argue that might still use less energy than a normal dryer. I responded that every time he says that I will go out and burn a tire.

      Same with the new light bulbs. The lights are on but there’s barely enough illumination to read can labels.

      I bet the Inner Party doesn’t have to give these annoyance a second thought.

      “Julia uttered a tiny sound, a sort of squeak of surprise. Even in the midst of his panic, Winston was too much taken aback to be able to hold his tongue. ‘Yes,’ said O’Brien, ‘we can turn it off.”

      OR you can just remove the flow limiter.

      What are they going to do, arrest you?

“‘With a child and every day having to wash clothes, that’s, just my opinion, not feasible. But I get it and I understand that we’re trying to preserve…but 55 gallons a day?’ said Tanya Allen, who has a 4-year-old daughter.”

The state promised single mom Tanya Allen it would love her forever and promised her the world. All single mom Tanya had to do was keep voting for her lover. And she fell in love with her new lover so of course she voted correctly. And remains in love with her lover. Even now, when he threatens to cut off her water.

I recall visiting family some years back when gas prices really spiked. There are two refineries that brew the special “environmental” blend of gas that by law can only be sold at gas stations in Kali. One had ceased production due to a fire. And then oil prices rose. Anyhoo, the dramatic rise in gas prices was a story which the local media was covering in its usual lazy fashion. So they sent a camera crew to a gas station and at one point they had audio and video of woman attempting to fill up the tank of her car. As she watched the $7/gallon price roll and it dawned on her there was no f***ing way she could afford to fill up, she exclaimed, “What are they doing to us?!?”

I chuckled. I sez to myself, “Honey, what do you mean they?”

The fixed costs for providing water will mean the price of water will go up as Californians reduce their water use.

VaGentleman | June 7, 2018 at 3:25 pm

If I’m on welfare (no job, no income) living in public housing and I exceed my water ration, who pays the fine?

Sammy Finkelman | June 7, 2018 at 3:40 pm

What areas with periodic water shortage problems should do is conserve waste, not water

Because if you cut back all you can in normal times, what are you going to do in a drought??

But if people use more than they absolutely need to, capacity will adjust. They’ll build more reservoirs, or fewer homes, for instance, and pay less attention to the fish.

    Patricia in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | June 8, 2018 at 3:41 pm

    In CA they do not build reservoirs. They want no human footprint. All 12 proposals to build reservoirs with the new taxes from the Water Bill were denied.

Psst! Comrade Leslie. Psst! Over here.

I’ve got TWO 20 oz bottles of re-filtered water. Will trade for 3 razor blades, a half ounce of chocolate and uhm… 1 pair stockings. Interested?

Building high speed rail to nowhere when you should instead be investing in aquifiers. Could you be any more stupid?

“Amid Epic Drought, High-Speed Rail a Water Hog of Unknown Proportions”

Damnit. That was a hypothetical. (facedesk facedesk facedesk)

There needs to be some provision added to the law that prohibits politicians and their families from showering, doing laundry, etc. anywhere but at home.

When I lived in CA, my electric usage was minimal. I didn’t use the AC or the heat. I don’t watch TV or video games. I rarely cooked at home. Instead of rewarding me for saving power, LADWP simply set my allowances (Tier levels) lower, so that I would be penalized if I exceeded my minimal usages, even though I would still be using much less than my neighbors used. All I did by conserving was to prove how little I really needed.

kenoshamarge | June 8, 2018 at 11:04 am

While this may seem like a good “issue” for the right I doubt it means much. With all the other idiocies of the California government why would this make a difference. And if a Republican does get elected here and there they are so outnumbered they can’t make a difference.

Pulling head out of azz by the left is what’s needed and I don’t see that happening any time soon – if at all.

Welp, let’s hope the GOP uses such a gift. But after the primary is usually when they give up and go back to sleep.

*Note that CA now has plenty of water. But they are “training” the sheeple to obey.